‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Hundreds of people have demonstrated against Washingtonâ„¢s policies in the German capital Berlin on the eve of a visit by US President Barack Obama to the European country.

On Monday, around 400 demonstrators rallied in Berlin in protest against Washington’s use of its assassination drones, which have killed thousands of people in Afghanistan and around the world.

The protest was organized by the German Movement for Peace.

Demonstrators also protested the US governmentâ„¢s National Security Agency (NSA), days after released classified documents exposed electronic surveillance programs collecting internet and phone data on millions of American people.

The US president is scheduled to speak before 4,000 people at the Brandenburg Gate, on Wednesday. The visit also marks the 50th anniversary of former US President John F. Kennedyâ„¢s famous Å“Ich bin ein Berliner” speech.

In a guest editorial for Spiegel Online on June 11, German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said reports that the United States could access and track virtually all forms of Internet communication were “deeply disconcerting” and potentially dangerous.

Reports say German Chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to raise the NSA spying issue with Obama on Wednesday.

The protesters in the German capital also demanded the immediate shutdown of the notorious US-run Guantanamo prison in Cuba and the release of prisoners held there.

The closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison was one of the first vows of the US president when he took office five years ago. Prisoners have complained of abuse and torture, and rights activists and international observers have censured the US government’s use of the detention center.

Most of the prison’s 166 detainees have been on a hunger strike for more than 100 days in protest against their long confinement without charge or trial, as well as the horrible and degrading conditions at the jail.

MN/SZH/

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Yemenis protest against the detention of Yemeni nationals at Guantanamo Bay prison outside the US embassy in Sanaâ„¢a on June 17, 2013.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

American technical contractor and former CIA employee Edward Snowden (file photo)

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia and the United States have decided to encourage all parties involved in the Syria conflict to hold peace talks in Geneva.

Putin made the remarks on Monday after bilateral talks with US President Barack Obama at the G8 summit in County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland. He said, “Of course our opinions do not converge, but all of us have the intention to stop the violence in Syria.”

“We agreed to push the parties to the negotiating table,” he added.

Obama said that the US and Russia have “different perspectives” with regard to Syria.

“But we share an interest in reducing the violence, securing chemical weapons, and ensuring that they are neither used nor are they subject to proliferation, and that we want to try to resolve the issue through political means if possible,” he added.

“So we will instruct our teams to continue to work on the potential of a Geneva follow-up,” he said.

Obama and Putin also issued a joint statement saying that they will hold talks in Moscow on September 3 and 4, ahead of the September 5-6 G20 summit in St. Petersburg.

On May 7, Russia and the United States agreed to convene an international conference on Syria, which would serve as a follow-up to an earlier Geneva meeting held in June 2012.

UN-Arab League Special Representative for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi said on June 7 that the meeting might be held in July. The talks had originally been scheduled to be held in June.

The Syria crisis began in March 2011, and many people, including large numbers of government forces, have been killed.

Damascus says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals.

The Syrian government says the West and its regional allies — especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey — are supporting the militants.

In addition, several international human rights organizations say the militants operating in Syria have committed war crimes.

IA/HG

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been summoned to appear before a criminal court in regard to a complaint lodged by Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani and others.

On Monday, Branch 76 of the Criminal Court of Tehran Province issued the summons, stating that Ahmadinejad would face the unnamed charges in November.

Ahmadinejad is scheduled to hand over the presidency to Hassan Rohani in early August, when the latter is sworn in.

Nearly 50.5 million Iranians, including more than 1.6 million first-time voters, were eligible to participate in the presidential election. The Interior Ministry put voter turnout at 72.7 percent.

Rohani won 18,613,329 votes or 50.7 percent to secure an outright victory. In the Iranian system, if no presidential candidate receives 50 percent of the vote, the two top candidates must face off in a run-off election.

Rohani currently represents Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Khamenei in the Supreme National Security Council and is a member of the Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts. He is also director of the Expediency Council’s Center for Strategic Research.

MP Mohammad Ali Pour-Mokhtar, the chairman of the Majlis Article 90 Committee, and Yaghoub Khalilnejad have joined Larijani in the legal action against the outgoing Iranian president.

Iran’s official news agency IRNA says there have been several other subpoenas issued previously to Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad engaged in a dispute with Larijani during the impeachment session for Cooperatives, Labor, and Social Welfare Minister Abdolreza Sheikholeslami in early February.

In his speech in defense of Sheikholeslami, the Iranian president leveled certain allegations against Larijaniâ„¢s brother Fazel, who is the president of the Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University in the northern city of Amol.

The Majlis speaker strongly criticized Ahmadinejad for raising an issue irrelevant to the impeachment.

MP/HGL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

File photo shows a cargo ship belonging to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL).

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Tajik President Emomali Rahmon has congratulated Hassan Rohani over his victory in Iran’s June 14 presidential election.

In his message, which was issued on Monday, Rahmon wished the president-elect success.

He praised the relations between Dushanbe and Tehran and expressed hope that the two countries with cultural, historical, and linguistic affinities would expand their ties in various areas during the new Iranian presidentâ„¢s term in office.

Italian President Giorgio Napolitano also congratulated Rohani over his election victory on Monday and said efforts should be made to strengthen Iran-Italy relations.

In addition, on Monday, Organization of Islamic Cooperation Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu congratulated Rohani on his victory in the June 14 presidential poll and wished him success.

He expressed optimism that ties between the 57-member organization and Iran would improve under President-elect Hassan Rohani and that Tehran would begin to play a more active and influential role in the OIC.

Å“Iran is one of the OICâ„¢s founding members and an active member of the organization,” Ihsanoglu stated.

Leaders of Persian Gulf Arab countries have also issued separate messages congratulating Rohani on his victory in the election.

Nearly 50.5 million Iranians, including more than 1.6 million first-time voters, were eligible to participate in the June 14 presidential election. The Interior Ministry put the voter turnout at 72.7 percent.

Rohani won 50.7 percent of the vote to secure an outright victory. In the Iranian system, if no presidential candidate receives 50 percent of the vote, the two top candidates must face off in a run-off election.

Rohani currently represents Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in the Supreme National Security Council and is also a member of the Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts. He is also the director of the Expediency Council’s Center for Strategic Research.

MP/HGL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moonâ„¢s Special Representative for Iraq Martin Kobler

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Insecurity in the copper-rich Katanga province of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a “serious concern,” the outgoing head of the UN peacekeeping mission has said.

“It’s a quite significant problem, and I think it has all the prospects of becoming worse,” Reuters quoted Roger Meece as saying on Monday.

Meece, who is the head of the UN’s peacekeeping mission in Congo, known as MONUSCO, called for a political solution for the problem.

“One can do what is possible militarily and or with a police force but … the real solutions have to be found in these political factors,” he said.

On June 10, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed former German diplomat Martin Kobler to succeed Meece as his special envoy to DRC.

Meece completes his assignment in the African country in July.

Katanga province, in the southeast of the vast DRC, sits on some of the world’s largest copper reserves. The province exported 600,000 tons of copper last year.

Katanga is the native province of President Joseph Kabila and has long had a fractious relationship with the central government in Kinshasa. It tried to secede directly after DRC’s independence from Belgium in 1960.

In March, the Mai Mai Bakata-Katanga rebels attacked Katangese capital of Lubumbashi, marching through city streets and then fighting with the army close to the governor’s offices. The official casualty toll was 23 dead.

Congo has faced numerous problems over the past few decades, such as grinding poverty, crumbling infrastructure, and a war in the east of the country that has dragged on since 1998 and left over 5.5 million people dead.

MN/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Suspected members of the Nigerian militant group Boko Haram have launched attacks on a school and a military checkpoint in the northeast of the country that have left 11 people dead.

The militants stormed a school in the town of Damaturu, the capital of the state of Yobe, on Sunday, killing seven students and two teachers, Reuters reported.

Two militants were also killed, according to the military.

“Two teachers and two insurgents were killed when Boko Haram terrorists attacked the Government Secondary School… Also seven innocent students lost their lives,” Yobe state military spokesman Eli Lazarus said in a statement issued on Monday.

The militants also attacked a military checkpoint in Damaturu and wounded three soldiers, Lazarus said, adding that three militants had been captured in that attack.

The sequence of events was unclear, including whether the shootout occurred around the school or at the checkpoint.

On May 15, the Nigerian army launched an offensive against Boko Haram, a day after President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in the three northeastern states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa.

Boko Haram — whose name means Å“Western education is forbidden” — says its goal is to overthrow the Nigerian government.

The group has claimed responsibility for a number of deadly gun and bomb attacks in various parts of Nigeria since 2009.

Over the past four years, violence in the north of Africaâ„¢s most populous country has claimed the lives of 3,600 people, including killings by the security forces.

MN/HGL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

The picture shows Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) seen under an electron microscope.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Former Republican Congressman Rom Paul says the administration of President Barack Obama has launched Å“a deception campaign” by claiming that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the militant and crossed the US red lines.

Å“The process was identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq war,” Paul wrote in his weekly column in The Washington Times on Monday.

Referring to the reports by the UK and US intelligence agencies about Iraqâ„¢s then-ruler Saddam Husseinâ„¢s purported possession of weapons of mass destruction and setting that as an excuse for waging the war, Paul said, Å“That is exactly what the Obama Administration is doing with Syria: fixing the intelligence and facts around the already determined policy.”

Paul accused Obama of failing to have a consistent policy regarding the fight against terrorism, saying it is ironic that the White House plans to send weapons to the militants, many of whom have pledged loyalty to the al-Qaeda.

President Obama on Friday ordered the CIA to supply weapons to the militants, days after the US intelligence community claimed the Syrian government had used chemical arms against the militants.

This is while a recent poll has found that broad majorities in the US are opposed to America and its allies sending weapons and military equipment to militants in Syria

The survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center from June 12 to 16 among 1,512 adults, indicated that 70 percent of the respondents opposed arming the Syria militants.

MA/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Syrian militants outside a church in the town of Ras al-Ain near the border with Turkey on November 16, 2012

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

This article originally appeared on: SHTF Plan

Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

9/11 Commission was a slap in the face to the families who lost someone that day, and to the people of the world.

Watch the video here: Infowars

foxnews.com
June 17, 2013

The top Republican crafting the Senate’s sweeping immigration-reform legislation acknowledged Sunday the bill still has flaws, while a fellow GOP senator said their party blocking its passage will only add to their “demographic death spiral.”

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants and potential 2016 presidential candidate, said roughly 95 percent of the bill is in “perfect shape” and that the full chamber debates are off to a good start.

However, he expressed concerns about whether the legislation ensures adequate border security and said Americans have “valid issues” about the matter.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 4:17 pm

Tags: domestic news

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

The US government is a criminal syndicate, openly committing atrocities on a global scale. The rule of law is a memory, buried in the rubble left by the false flag terror attack of 9/11, the manufactured “war on terrorism”, and the monstrosity of the Patriot Act.

 The legacy of the 9/11 crime–the greatest intelligence success in history (not an intelligence “failure”)–is a permanent state of emergency, a criminal military-intelligence-war apparatus (exemplified by the CIA, the NSA) of unimaginable scope and unlimited power, and endless war.

This genuine evil is aided and abetted by the illiterate, willfully ignorant and acquiescent American majority.

The average American is uninformed, uninvolved, and well-conditioned to support wars abroad, and enthusiastically welcome their own oppression. They applaud the security forces that commit atrocities, asking no questions but begging these same forces to be “make them safe”. 

A majority of Americans believe the original 9/11 lie, and enthusiastically approve of police state mobilizations within US borders. The unprecedented lockdown of Boston in the wake of the highly questionable Boston Marathon bombing incident was a dress rehearsal.

A majority of Americans approve of being under surveillance, monitored and tracked, their privacy willingly surrendered.“Big Brother” now openly proudly and promotes a police state. Washington’s leaders bray about the greatness of militant fascism, and win votes for it.

A majority of Americans, their brains addled with us-versus-them science fiction/monster movies and pro-CIA entertainment propaganda,still cling to the fantasy that they are “the good guys”, who are endlessly “under attack”.

So brazen, so certain that the passive US populace does not care, USofficials and the CIA are not even bothering to tell halfway believable lies. They know, based on its success with 9/11, that questions in the wake of any “terror” incident will not be asked by the majority, no matter how many suspicious facts are left hanging.

Today, they can even openly admit their criminality and feel confident that there will be no consequences.

The US government now openly supports and arms Al-Qaeda all over the world. As written by Michel Chossudovsky, “those who lead the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ in the same of ‘Democracy’ are those who are supporting and financing terrorist organization, which they themselves created.

Yet Americans do not care, and scarcely notice, that the official fairy tale has been routinely flipped this way and that, that way and this. The original 9/11 myth is so embedded into the brain synapses that subsequent distortions of the Big Lie, no matter how outrageous or obvious, do not even register.

Washington’s war machine, foaming at the mouth to topple Syria, shipping yet more chemical weapons to Al-Qaeda–is accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons, while it rains chemical weapons on Syrian government forces defending their nation from toppling. And Obama and Netanyahu accuse Syria of “crossing red lines”. This would be a comedy, if not for the apocalyptic realities.

War criminal and former president Bill Clinton is calling Obama a “wuss” and a “total fool”if he does not take “decisive action” in Syria to assist the “rebels”–the Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda terrorists. The fact that Clinton is calling for the massacre to escalate does not register in the American psyche. The American public loves Bill Clinton, and know little if anything about the large scale war crimes he committed as president.

 Adding to the spectacle, witness those who are running interference for the war/security apparatus, and laying waste to the illusion that there is no bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill.

 Senator Dianne Feinstein, in the most loathsome and truculent fashion, defends the NSA’s domestic spying, pounding the podium and proclaiming “It’s called protecting America”. She is a liar, and a war monger, and she damned well knows it. Her loyal liberal supporters do not.

Robert Mueller, who was intimately involved with 9/11,has declared that 9/11 itself would have been prevented, had domestic spying been pervasive prior to 9/11/01.

Perhaps the key mastermind of 9/11, Dick Cheney himself,  has repeated the same talking point lies as Mueller: that 9/11 would have been prevented, had the US been a total surveillance state on his watch.

 Mueller and the malignant Cheney damned well know that the only way 9/11 “would have been prevented” is if they, George W. Bush, and their intelligence cut-outs had not planned and executed the operation.

 They know damned well that America was already a total surveillance state well before 9/11, and that today, the spying power of the intelligence apparatus is even greater.

As fully detailed in numerous books authored by James Bamford, the NSA has had overwhelming surveillance power for decades.As Michael C. Ruppert detailed in Crossing the Rubicon, the US government has used its otherworldly technological advantages (PROMIS software, for example) to commit untold crimes. 9/11 simply opened the pandora’s box for even greater applications.

 The Edward Snowden affair (whether it is genuine whistle blowing, ora set-up designed tofurther manipulate the American populace) is but the tip of this horrifying iceberg.

Surveillance, like war crimes and “terror”, will simply become even more pervasive and all-encompassing. To most Americans, it is like having new Facebook friends listening in.

American ignorance is the intelligence-war machine’s ultimate fuel.

Obama is the ultimate political monster. America continues to approve of him. Under his direct orders, the Bush/Cheney agenda has been expanded exponentially. Now in his second term, even less concerned about re-election or public image, Obama’s barbarity is out of the closet. He is confident that his cult of personality–those in his huge delusional fan base–cannot see past his dark skin and slick public persona. They will support his every act, no matter how callous or lawless.

And here is the most telling sign of American times: George W. Bush is now a popular figure. A majority of Americans view him favorably.

His crimes and enduring legacy of destruction and terror, has already been forgotten.Similarly, his father, George H.W. Bush, the CIA godfather and venom-spitting mass murderer, is now viewed by most Americans as a kindly old harmless grandpa. And it will certainly not be long before the Bush crime family takes back (or is handed back) the reins of world criminal power again. Jeb Bush is angling for the presidency. The next generation, George P. Bush,is moving up the ranks in Congress, a nightmarish Bush scion of politically useful Latin descent.

The post-9/11 Bush/Cheney/Obama dystopiais worsening.

These are the fruits of 9/11.

The military-intelligence-security machine marches on. With hearty American approval.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Iranian President-elect Hassan Rohani during a press conference in Tehran on June 17, 2013

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Saudi Arabia has been purchasing missiles from suppliers in France and Belgium since two months ago and has sent them to militants in Syria, a report says.

France has paid for the transport of the shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, which were intended for the leader of the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA) Salim Idriss, Riyadhâ„¢s Å“point man” in anti-Syria armed groups, Reuters reported on Monday.

A day earlier, German news weekly Der Spiegel said the German foreign intelligence service had received a report which showed Riyadh was trying to obtain European-made mistral-class man-portable air-defense systems for the militants in Syria.

Idriss called on the West on Friday to provide the militants with anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, saying the armed groups could defeat the Syrian army within six months if they received enough and proper weapons.

The FSAâ„¢s political coordinator Louay Meqdad has also said the group will ask for tanks, warplanes, and other heavy weapons during an upcoming meeting with US and Western officials in Turkey.

The European Union recently ended its arms embargo on Syria to pave the way for sending weapons to the militants.

On June 14, US President Barack Obama ordered his administration to provide the militants in Syria with weapons, which include assault rifles, shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenades, and anti-tank missiles.

Western powers and their Middle Eastern allies are also seeking to impose a no-fly zone over parts of Syria, a plan that has drawn strong criticism from Russia.

Å“I think that we will not permit in principle such a scenario,” Russiaâ„¢s Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said on Monday.

“We saw with the example of Libya how such a zone is introduced and how such decisions are implemented. We do not want a repeat of this in respect to the Syria conflict,” he added.

The Syrian army, supported by Hezbollah forces, has managed to push back the militants from the strategic town of Qusayr and the Syrian troopsâ„¢ massive assault on the militants in the northern city of Aleppo.

MA/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Chinese pro-life activist Chen Guangcheng, who was released by Beijing’s communist government a year ago and allowed to re-locate to the United States, is leaving New York University, and Chen claims the school is being pressured by China’s regime to boot him out. Chen escaped to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing last year after suffering years of abuse and imprisonment at the hands of the Chinese government over his efforts to expose the government’s repressive one-child policy that includes forced late-term abortions for women and forced sterilization for couples who challenge the system. He was later granted political amnesty in the United States and was invited to relocate to NYU and continue his law studies.

According to the BBC, NYU announced that Chen would leave this summer and that his tenure at the school was never meant to be open-ended. “We were pleased to offer Mr Chen and his family a place to come and study and support his transition to the U.S. when he first left China,” NYU spokesman John Beckman was quoted by BBC as saying. He added that “NYU and Mr Chen had discussions beginning last fall that NYU could not support him indefinitely.”

But the New York Times reported Sunday, June 16, that Chen accused NYU of bowing to pressure from the Chinese government to force him to leave. “In a statement released Sunday, Mr. Chen said university officials were worried that his outspoken criticism of the Chinese government might threaten academic cooperation,” reported the Times. “NYU recently opened a campus in Shanghai, and a number of professors are involved in programs and research projects here that could be harmed if they were denied Chinese visas.”

In his statement Chen said that the “work of the Chinese Communists within academic circles in the United States is far greater than what people imagine, and some scholars have no option but to hold themselves back. Academic independence and academic freedom in the United States are being greatly threatened by a totalitarian regime.”

Beckman said that NYU officials were “very discouraged to learn of Mr. Chen’s statement, which contains a number of speculations about the role of the Chinese government in NYU’s decision-making that are both false and contradicted by the well-established facts.” He added that the university was “puzzled and saddened” by Chen’s charges, but would continue to help him and his family transition to a new location and school.

Dr. Jerome Cohen, a NYU law professor who had helped secure Chen’s fellowship at the school, told BBC that NYU officials had always considered the arrangement a temporary one designed to help Chen and his family “get their feet on the ground and transition to a more permanent position.” Cohen insisted that “no political refugee, even Albert Einstein, has received better treatment by an American academic institution than that received by Mr. Chen from NYU.”

The New York Post, which first broke the story June 13 of Chen’s impending expulsion from NYU, reported that, according to an anonymous source, “Chen’s presence at the school didn’t sit well with the Chinese bureaucrats who signed off on the permits for NYU’s expansion there. ‘The big problem is that NYU is very compromised by the fact they are working very closely with the Chinese to establish a university [in China],’ according to one New York-based professor familiar with Chen’s situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ‘That’s their liability,’ the source said. ‘Otherwise, they would be much less constrained on issues like freedom of speech.’”

But NYU spokesman Beckman countered, insisting to the Post that “if there were outside pressure, why would we have taken him in the first place when his plight was on every front page in the world?” Beckman claimed that the university got approval from the communist Chinese government for a NYU branch in Shanghai several months after Chen arrived in the U.S.

According to the Post, however, “insiders said NYU has felt itself increasingly vulnerable to pressure from China as the Shanghai campus project moves forward. ‘Apart from the initial press hoopla, [Chen] really hasn’t had any kind of profile at NYU this year,’ said Andrew Ross, an NYU professor of social and cultural studies. Ordinarily, he noted, Chen ‘would have done seminars, he would have done panel discussions.’” But over the past year, noted the Post, the pro-life dissident “has had little communication with NYU President John Sexton, who has been spearheading the school’s expansion into Shanghai and Abu Dhabi, a source said.”

If what Chen alleges is true, he may have trouble transferring to a major U.S. university to continue his law studies. According to the New York Times, “many colleges have grown increasingly reliant on the tuition from the 194,000 Chinese students who enrolled at American universities last year, a 23 percent increase over the previous year. A number of universities, including Johns Hopkins, Yale, and Duke, have programs or satellite campuses in China or are planning them.”

Universities that have such partnerships with the communist regime may be reluctant to invite Chen, whose research into China’s forced abortion and one-child policies reaped revelations that have led to sullen, angry responses from a clearly embarrassed Chinese government.

Bob Fu of the Texas-based ChinaAid, a Christian groups which has supported Chen and helped to increase exposure of his charges concerning the regime’s repressive abortion policies, “recounted a conversation in which Mr. Chen lamented what he perceived to be the Chinese government’s growing influence in the United States,” reported the Times. “’He felt a tremendous sadness knowing how academia was kowtowing to the Chinese government,’ Mr. Fu said.”

In a statement Fu said that “U.S. universities are out chasing the China dollar and are very reluctant to work with dissidents who have a strong voice in China. It does not always have to be direct pressure from Beijing. There is also self-censorship, particularly if a college president believes their China campus or the future enrollment of Chinese students will be sabotaged.”

Among the research that Chen has done over the past several years is a particularly damning report which documents at least 7,000 forced abortions by the Chinese regime, complete with the names and addresses of the women who were victimized under the government’s horrific one-child policy. Reggie Littlejohn, president of the organization Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, has released an English translation of Chen’s field notes documenting the horrors, which, noted LifeNews.com, “are shocking, even for those familiar with the forced abortion abuses that take place as a result of China’s one-child policy.”

Fox News reported that that since his relocation to the United States, Chen “has complained that Chinese authorities have reneged on assurances made to U.S. diplomats that his relatives would be treated according to the law. His nephew, Chen Kegui, was sentenced to 39 months in jail after he clashed with local officials who stormed into his parents’ house in the wake of the activist’s escape. Chen family supporters say the prosecution and sentence were retribution for the embarrassment the case has caused Chinese officials.”

And in May, continued the Fox report, Chen’s oldest brother “complained that he and his family were subject to constant harassment by local thugs who beat him, distributed flyers with insulting language, and tossed dead animals into the family yard.”

^{Photo of Chen Guangcheng: AP Images}

This article originally appeared on: The New American

The civil war in Syria is a growing source of tension between the United States and Russia, a subject President Obama is expect to broach with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, during this week’s Group of Eight summit in Northern Ireland. As the United States prepares to send arms and ammunition to the rebel forces, Russia has disputed the claims of Western nations that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, and Moscow appears unlikely to yield to U.S. urging that it cease its support of the Assad regime in Damascus.

“It’s in Russia’s interest to join us in applying pressure on Bashar al-Assad to come to the table in a way that relinquishes his power and his standing in Syria, because we don’t see any scenario where he restores his legitimacy to lead the country,” Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told reporters at the White House.

The insistence that the Syrian president abdicate his office does not leave Assad much room for negotiation, however, and he is not likely to surrender at the conference table what he has not lost on the battlefield. The Russians clearly do not see it as in their interest to abandon a strategic ally in the Middle East. And while Moscow has not gone as far as the Syrian foreign ministry has in accusing Washington of issuing “a statement full of lies regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria,” Putin’s foreign policy advisor, Yuri Ushakov, was quite blunt in calling the evidence unconvincing.

“I will say frankly that what was presented to us by the Americans does not look convincing,” Ushakov said.”It would be hard even to call them facts.”

The Obama administration announced last Thursday that evidence, including victims’ symptoms and intelligence reports, has confirmed the use of the poison gas sarin by the Syrian government. That crossing of the “red line” that Obama said last August would bring “enormous consequences” to the Assad regime is what triggered the decision to send arms to the rebels, according to the statement issued by Rhodes. It did not say what kind of weapons would be sent, but a number of reports, quoting anonymous White House and Defense Department sources, have said it would be small arms and ammunition. Military officials say no consideration is being given to sending U.S. ground forces into Syria, though some American troops are now in Jordan for a multinational military exercise in Jordan, and are likely to remain there to provide Syrian rebel units with combat training. That’s not enough, said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has long advocated the creation and enforcement of a “no-fly” zone against the Syrian air force and a “safe zone” for the rebels.

“I know that we have the military capability to impose a ‘no-fly’ zone, to crater their runways and their fixed installations where fuel and parts are, and establish a ‘no-fly’ zone with Patriot missiles,” McCain said. “And if we can’t do that, then the question ought to be asked to the American taxpayer – to the Pentagon, ‘What in the world are we wasting tens of billions of dollars for defense for if we can’t even take care of this situation?'” South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham joined his Arizona colleague in the call for a “no-fly” zone.

“The goal is to end the war. And the only way this war is going to end quickly and on our terms is to neutralize the air assets that Assad enjoys,” Graham said on the Senate floor last week. “There are four air bases he uses. We can stop the planes from flying. We can shoot planes down without having one boot on the ground.”

That would be more difficult than it might seem. According to Joseph Holliday, a fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, Syria has “one of the densest air defense systems in the world,” including 200 combat-capable aircraft and 650 surface-to-air missiles. At the end of May, Assad announced the arrival of S-300 anti-aircaft rockets from Russia, each with a range of 125 miles and the ability to track and target multiple objects simultaneously. Putin recently endorsed a Russian navy plan to maintain a fleet of 16 ships in the Mediterranean that will visit ports in Syria. The fleet will be the first permanent Russian military presence in the Mediterranean since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Bloomberg reported, and it will be modeled after the Soviet fleet stationed in the region during the Cold War, according to the Russian defense ministry. Syria is also host to the only Russian military base outside the old Soviet Union.

McCain, Graham, and other critics of Obama’s decision to arm the Syrian rebels say it’s a case of doing too little, too late, though they have failed to explain how intervening in Syria’s civil war at all enhances or protects the national security interests of the United States. Given the affiliation of many of the rebel units with al-Qaeda and other militant, anti-Western organizations, it seems possible, even likely, that the Obama administration will be supplying weapons used in future attacks on American people and institutions. It is also unclear how the United States, and possibly its NATO allies, would maintain a “safe zone” for rebels without the use of troops to defend it.

McCain and Graham apparently expect the Russians to sit passively on the sidelines while we bomb air fields, “crater their runways” and shoot down the planes of their ally in a country with whom we are not at war, absent a declaration of the same from Congress as the Constitution requires. A shooting war with Russia in the Mediterranean is a risk they seem willing to take. But even if their bold actions were to succeed, what would be the “up” side of replacing Assad’s dictatorship with one run by the kind of militant extremists who attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi last September 11 or the twin towers and the Pentagon in 2001?

This article originally appeared on: The New American

If you’re planning on buying health insurance on an ObamaCare exchange next year, be forewarned: Your personal health information (PHI) will be made available to a variety of government agencies, quite possibly including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

According to the Washington Examiner, a proposed Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation “requires state, federal and local agencies as well as health insurers to swap the protected personal health information of anybody seeking” insurance on an exchange. “PHI includes an individual’s medical history, test and laboratory results, insurance information and other data,” the paper explains.

Beginning in January, Americans not obtaining coverage via their employers will be required to purchase it on the individual market or pay a tax penalty. The exchanges – some run by the states, others by the federal government – are supposed to provide marketplaces for individuals to shop for the ObamaCare-compliant insurance that best suits their needs. Depending on their household income, individuals buying insurance on an exchange may be eligible for premium-assistance subsidies. They will also, under the new rule, find their medical history subject to bureaucrats’ – and possibly others’ – prying eyes.

If an individual applies for insurance on an exchange, says the rule, “the exchange would submit specific identifying information to HHS and HHS would verify applicant information with information from the federal and state agencies or programs that provide eligibility and enrollment information regarding minimum essential coverage.”

“HHS will work with the appropriate federal and state agencies to complete the appropriate computer matching agreements, data use agreements, and information exchange agreements which will comply with all appropriate federal privacy and security laws and regulations,” the rule adds. “The information obtained from federal and state agencies will be used and re-disclosed by HHS as part of the eligibility determination and information verification process.”

In other words, in order to obtain insurance on an exchange, an individual must surrender his PHI to the exchange, which will forward that information to HHS, which will then share it with other state and federal agencies. (The Examiner notes that the rule “does not mention any requirement that applicants first OK the release of their PHI.”) Since income is the main criterion for subsidy eligibility, this information will almost certainly be shared with the IRS, which is also tasked with enforcing the individual mandate.

The IRS’ enforcement role is cause for grave concern even for those not buying insurance on an exchange. Americans for Tax Reform has warned that every taxpayer will have to submit a new form with his annual income-tax return to prove that he is complying with the individual mandate. “This new tax information document,” the group argues, “must, at a minimum, contain: the name and health insurance identification number of the taxpayer; the name and tax identification number of the health insurance company; the number of months the taxpayer was covered by this insurance plan; and whether or not the plan was purchased in one of Obamacare’s ‘exchanges.’” From there, it would be child’s play for an IRS agent – perhaps at the behest of the party in control of the executive branch – to obtain anyone’s medical history and use it against him.

With Americans’ PHI traveling around computer networks, it would also be relatively simple for hackers to get hold of it and employ it for their own nefarious purposes, others have cautioned.

“Hackers stole millions of medical records from the Veterans Administration, and patients were at risk for identity theft,” observed Elizabeth Lee Vliet of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “David Blumenthal, M.D., the President’s former ‘health information czar,’ admitted that ‘no infrastructure exists in most areas of the country for secure health information exchange among providers and between providers and consumers.’”

“Free” healthcare, it appears, comes at a price: the confidentiality of one’s medical records. How many Americans will be willing to make that trade?

This article originally appeared on: The New American

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

read more

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

President Bashar al-Assad gave the following interview to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper:

Interviewer: Mr President, how do you view the situation in your country? The Syrian Army has lost control over large parts of Syria, in other words those areas are outside the control of central government. What’s your take on the situation?

President Assad: Your question requires us to put things into their proper context: this is not a conventional war with two armies fighting to control or liberate particular areas or parts of land. What we are in fact dealing with is a form of guerrilla warfare.

As for the Syrian Army, there has not been any instance where our Armed Forces have planned to enter a particular location and have not succeeded. Having said this, the Army is not present — and should not be present — in every corner of Syria. What is more significant than controlling areas of land, is striking terrorists. We are confident that we can successfully fight terrorism in Syria, but the bigger issue is the ensuing damage and its cost. The crisis has already had a heavy toll but our biggest challenges will come once the crisis is over.

Foreign element seeks politically and militarily to prolong crisis

Interviewer: In your recent interview with Al-Manar it appeared as though you were preparing the Syrian public for a protracted struggle. Was that your intention?

President Assad: No, this was not specific to Al-Manar. From the early days of the crisis, whenever I was asked, I have stated that this crisis is likely to be prolonged due to foreign interference. Any internal crisis can go in one of two ways: either it is resolved or it escalates into a civil war. Neither has been the case for Syria because of the foreign component, which seeks to extend the duration of the crisis both politically and militarily; I think its fair to say that my predictions were right.

Genuine re-construction is reconstructing mentalities, ideologies and conceptions

Interviewer: Mr President, how do you expect to overcome the large-scale destruction that has been inflicted in Syria?

President Assad: In the same way you, in Germany, overcame the devastation after World War II, and in the same way many other nations have progressed and been rebuilt after their wars. I am confident Syria will follow the same path. As long as we have resilient people, we can rebuild the country. We have done this before and we can do it again, learning from all we have been through.

 In terms of funding, we have been a self-sufficient country for a very long time. Of course we will need to be more productive than before as a result of the situation. Friendly countries have helped us in the past and continue to offer their support, maybe in the form of loans in the future. It may take a long time, but with our determination, our strength and our solidarity, we can rebuild the country.

 However, the more arduous challenge lies in rebuilding, socially and psychologically, those who have been affected by the crisis. It will not be easy to eliminate the social effects of the crisis, especially extremist ideologies. Real reconstruction is about developing minds, ideologies and values. Infrastructure is valuable, but not as valuable as human beings; reconstruction is about perpetuating both.

 Re-drawing map of region will be map of wars in the Middle East

Interviewer: Mr President, during the crisis some areas of the country have become either more self-reliant or more reliant on external support. Do you think this could potentially lead to the re-drawing of borders?

President Assad: Do you mean within Syria or the region in general?

Interviewer: The region — one hundred years after the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

President Assad: One hundred years after Sykes-Picot, when we talk about re-drawing the borders in our region, we can use an analogy from architecture. Syria is like the keystone in the old architectural arches; by removing or tampering with the keystone, the arch will collapse. If we apply this to the region, to the world, — any tampering with the borders of this region will result in re-drawing the maps of distant regions because this will have a domino effect which nobody can control. One of the superpowers may be able to initiate the process, but nobody — including that superpower, will be able to stop it; particularly since there are new social borders in the Middle East today that didn’t exist during Sykes-Picot. These new sectarian, ethnic and political borders make the situation much more complicated. Nobody can know what the Middle East will look like should there be an attempt to re-draw the map of the region. However, most likely that map will be one of multiple wars, which would transcend the Middle East spanning the Atlantic to the Pacific, which nobody can stop.

Interviewer: Mr President, in your opinion what will the region look like in the future?

President Assad: If we rule out the destructive scenario of division in your last question, I can envisage a completely different and more positive future, but it will depend on how we act as nations and societies. This scenario involves a number of challenges, first of which is restoring security and stability; our second challenge is the rebuilding process. However, our biggest and most important challenge lies in facing extremism.

It has become extremely clear that there has been a shift in the societies of our region away from moderation, especially religious moderation. The question is: can we restore these societies to their natural order? Can our diverse societies still coexist together as one natural whole? On this point allow me to clarify certain terms. The words tolerance and coexistence are often used to define our societies. However, the more precise and appropriate definition, of how our societies used to be — and how they should be, is harmonious. Contrary to perception, the issue is neither about tolerance — since there will come a day when you are not tolerant, nor is the issue about coexistence — since you co-exist with your adversaries, but rather it is about harmony. What used to characterize us in the region was our harmony. You cannot say that your hand will coexist with or tolerate your foot because one compliments the other and both are a part of a harmonious whole.

 Another challenge is political reform and the question of which political system would keep our society coherent: be it presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary, as well as deciding the most appropriate legislation to govern political parties. In Germany, for example, you have the Christian Democratic Party. In Syria we could not have religious parties, neither Christian nor Muslim, because for us religion is for preaching and not for political practice. There are many other details, but the essence is in accepting others. If we cannot accept each other we cannot be democratic, even with the best constitution or the best legislations.

we are a secular state that essentially treats its citizens equally

Interviewer: Mr President, where do you see secularism in the midst of the rising Islamic current in the region?

President Assad: This is a very important question; many in the region do not understand this relationship. The Middle East is a hub of different ideologies. Arab society is primarily based on two pillars: Pan-Arabism and Islam. Other ideologies do exist, such as communism, liberalism, Syrian nationalism, but these are not nearly as popular. Many people understand secularism as synonymous with communism in the past, in that it is against religion. In fact it is the complete opposite; for us in Syria secularism is about the freedom of confession including Christianity, Islam and Judaism, and the multiple diverse sects within these religions. Secularism is crucial to our national unity and sense of belonging. Therefore we have no choice but to strengthen secularism because religion is already strong in our region, and I stress here that this is very healthy. What is not healthy is extremism because it ultimately leads to terrorism; not every extremist is a terrorist, but every terrorist is definitely an extremist.

So in response to your question, we are a secular state that essentially treats its citizens equally, irrespective of religion, sect or ethnicity. All our citizens enjoy equal opportunities regardless of religious belief.

Syria is passing through most difficult circumstances, definitely not a spring

Interviewer: Mr President, how do you view the two-and-a-half years since the so-called ‘Arab Spring?’

This is a misconception. Spring does not include bloodshed, killing, extremism, destroying schools or preventing children from going to their schools, or preventing women from choosing what to wear and what is appropriate for them. Spring is the most beautiful season whilst we are going through the direst circumstances; it is definitely not Spring. Is Spring compatible with what is happening in Syria — the killing, the slaughtering, the beheading, the cannibalism, I leave it to you to decide.

Interviewer: What are the issues that the so-called “Arab Spring” is supposed to resolve?

President Assad: The solution doesn’t lie in the ‘Spring’ or in anything else, the solution lies in us. We are the ones who should provide the solutions, by being proactive instead of reactive. When we address our problems proactively we ensure that we get the right solutions. Solutions imposed reactively by the ‘Spring’ will only lead to deformed results.

Like many countries in the Middle East, we have numerous problems that we are aware of and view objectively. This is how these problems should be solved, in that the solutions are internally manufactured and not externally administered, as the latter would produce a distorted or stillborn solution. It is for this very reason that when we call for dialogue or solutions, they need to be home-grown in order to ensure that they lead to the Syria we aspire to.

what is happening in Iraq now, and in Lebanon previously, are repercussions of the situation in Syria

Interviewer: Mr President, you have rejected any form of foreign intervention and have warned that this would extend the battle to wider areas, have you reached this?

President Assad: Let’s be clear about this, there are two types of foreign intervention: indirect through proxies or agents, and direct intervention through a conventional war. We are experiencing the former. At the beginning of the crisis I warned that intervention in Syria — even indirectly, is similar to tampering with a fault line, it would lead to shockwaves throughout the region. At the time, many people — especially in the media, understood this as President Assad threatening to extend the crisis beyond Syria’s borders. Clearly they did not understand what I meant at the time, but this is exactly what is happening now.

If we look at the reality in front of us, we can see clearly that what is happening in Iraq now, and in Lebanon previously, are repercussions of the situation in Syria, and this will only extend further and further. We are seeing these ramifications and the intervention is still indirect, so imagine the consequences of military intervention? The situation will, of course, be much worse and then we will witness the domino effect of widespread extremism, chaos and fragmentation.

Relations with Russia and Iran are cooperation guaranteed by international law

Interviewer: You criticise countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Britain for their interference in the Syria crisis, isn’t it true that Russia and Iran are also involved?

President Assad: There is a significant difference between the co-cooperation of states as opposed to the destabilisation of a certain country and interference in its internal affairs. Cooperation between countries is conceived on the concept of mutual will, in a way that preserves their sovereignty, independence, stability and self-determination. Our relationship with Russia, Iran and other countries that support Syria are cooperative relations certified under international law.

The countries you mentioned, have adopted policies that meddle in Syria’s internal affairs, which is a flagrant violation of international law and our national sovereignty. The difference therefore, is that cooperation between countries is intended to preserve stability and perpetuate the prosperity of these nations, whilst foreign interference seeks to destabilise countries, spread chaos and perpetuate ignorance.

Interviewer: Sir, you have discussed the repercussions of the Syrian crisis on Iraq and Lebanon whose societies are based on what one might call a sectarian system. Do you think that such a system with Sunni and Shiite pillars could be established in Syria?

President Assad: Undoubtedly, sectarian systems in neighbouring countries, sectarian unrest or civil wars — as in Lebanon 30 years ago, will inevitably affect Syria. That is why Syria intervened in Lebanon in 1976 — to protect itself and to safeguard Lebanon. It is for this reason that we are observing carefully the unfolding events in Iraq — they will affect us directly. This was also for this reason that we adamantly opposed the war on Iraq, despite a mixture of American temptations and threats at the time. We rejected losing our stability in return for appeasing the Americans. Sectarian systems are dangerous and that is why we insist on the secular model where all citizens are equal regardless of religion.

Jabhat al-Nusra is a branch of al-Qaeda, they uphold the same ideology

Interviewer: Mr President, you are fighting “Jabhat Al-Nusra.” Can you tell us about it, what is this organization, who supports them, who supplies them with money and weapons?

 President Assad: Jabhat Al-Nusra is an Al-Qaeda affiliated group with an identical ideology whose members live in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan as well as other Arab and Muslim countries; they are very well financed and have plenty of arms. It is difficult to trace their sources due to the fact that their support resides in a covert manner through wealthy individuals and organisations that adopt the same ideology.

Their primary aim is to establish an Islamic State in accordance to their interpretation of Islam. Central to their political thought is the Wahhabi doctrine — comparable to Al-Qaeda’s in Afghanistan. This ideology is administered wherever they are present, especially on women. They claim to be applying Sharia Law and the Islamic Religion; however, in reality their actions are a complete distortion of the real religion of Islam. We have seen examples of their brutality on our satellite channels taken from footage they publish on purpose on YouTube in order to spread their ideology; a recent example was the beheading of an innocent man, which was aired on Belgian TV.

Interviewer: What is the motivation for Saudi Arabia and Qatar to assist and arm the terrorists against you, what do they seek to achieve?

President Assad: Firstly, I believe that this is a question they should be answering. I will respond by raising a few questions. Do they support the armed gangs because of their vehement belief in freedom and democracy as they claim in their media outlets? Do they harbour any form of democracy in their own countries, in order to properly support democracy in Syria. Do they have elected parliaments or constitutions voted on by their people? Have their populations decided at any time during the previous decades on what type of governing system they want — be it monarchy, presidency, principality or any other form? So, things are clear: they should first pay attention to their own nations and then answer your question.

France and Britain look for puppets to carry out their interests

Interviewer: In this quagmire, why do Britain and France delegate leadership to Saudi Arabia and Qatar? What do they hope to achieve?

President Assad: I also cannot answer on behalf of Britain or France, but I can give you the general impression here. I believe that France and Britain have an issue with the ‘annoying’ Syrian role in the region — as they see it. These countries, like the United States, are looking for puppets and dummies to do their bidding and serve their interests without question. We have consistently rejected this; we will always be independent and free. It seems as though France and Britain have not forgotten their colonial history and persist in attempting to manipulate the region albeit through proxies. Indeed, Britain and France can direct Saudi Arabia and Qatar on what they should do, but we must also not forget that the policies and economies of France and Britain are also dependent on petrodollars.

What happened in Syria was an opportunity for all these countries to get rid of Syria — this insubordinate state, and replace the president with a “yes man.” This will never happen neither now nor in the future.

Interviewer: The European Union has not renewed the arms embargo imposed on Syria and yet it has not approved arming the opposition. What is your assessment of this step?

President Assad: Clearly there is a split within the European Union on this issue. I cannot state that the EU is supportive of the Syrian government; there are countries, especially Britain and France, who are particularly hostile to Syria. On the other hand, there are countries — Germany in particular, which are raising logical questions about the future consequences of arming the terrorists. Well firstly, that would perpetuate the destruction in Syria, forcing the Syrian people to pay an even heavier price. Secondly, by supplying arms, they are effectively arming terrorists, and the Europeans are well informed that these are terrorists groups. Some are repeating the American rhetoric of “good fighters and bad fighters,” exactly as they did a few years ago with the “good Taliban and bad Taliban, good Al-Qaeda and bad Al-Qaeda.” Today there is a new term of “good terrorists and bad terrorists” being promoted. Is this logical?

When terrorism prevails, it will spread towards Europe

They are aware that weapons sent to the region will end up in the hands of terrorists, which will have two consequences. First, Europe’s back garden will become a hub for terrorism and chaos, which leads to deprivation and poverty; Europe will pay the price and forfeit an important market. Second, terrorism will not stop here — it will spread to your countries. It will export itself through illegal immigration or through the same terrorists who returned to their original countries after being indoctrinated and trained more potently. These pressing issues in my opinion are creating a considerable split or disagreement within the European Union; they may not like it, but they have no other choice than to cooperate with the Syrian government, even if they disagree with it.

 Interviewer: Your Excellency has stated that if European countries were to send weapons to Syria, they would effectively be arming terrorists. Do you consider all armed militants as terrorists?

 President Assad: As a European or German citizen I will pose the following question: does your country allow you to carry arms, intimidate or kill innocent people, vandalise and loot? Any individual or group excluding the army and police who carries arms, kills people, threatens and intimidates public safety are by definition terrorists, this is a norm in every country. Regardless of their background, be it extremists, criminals or convicted felons, those who are carrying weapons in Syria are essentially committing these acts. Therefore, they are terrorists. We differentiate between terrorists and conventional opposition groups, since the latter is a political entity and has a political agenda. Killing and slaughtering is terrorism and plunges the country back years into regression.

Interviewer: So Mr President, you see the future as being against terrorism?

President Assad: This is the logical conclusion; however in Europe you have many illogical, unrealistic and irresponsible politicians who are applying their negative sentiments instead of their reason. Politics should not be fuelled by love or hatred, but by interests. As a German citizen, you should ask yourself what do you stand to gain from what is happening in our region? Basically, what is happening now is against your national interests, your genuine interest lies in fighting terrorism.

Interviewer: Some view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization; we know that it has fought alongside Syrian troops in al-Quseir. We have also heard that there are fighters from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fighting with you. Do you really need these forces?

President Assad: The media is trying to portray Hezbollah as the main fighting force on the ground and the Syrian Army as weak and unable to achieve victory. In reality, over the last months we have achieved significant victories on the ground in different parts of Syria; in all of these victories, some of which were more important than al-Quseir, the Syrian army fought alone. None of this is highlighted in the media. One of the reasons for these victories is the National Defence Forces — local citizens fighting alongside the army to defend their communities and regions. Al-Quseir received more international attention because of statements by western officials projecting it as a strategic town, to the extent that even some United Nation’s officials claim to understand the situation in al-Quseir! There was a lot of exaggeration, but there were also a large number of arms and militants. These terrorists started attacking the bordering towns loyal to Hezbollah, which warranted their intervention alongside the Syrian army in order to restore stability.

The Syrian Army is a large army capable of accomplishing its missions across Syria, with the support of the local communities. If we were in need of such assistance, why not use these forces in the rural parts of Damascus, close to the capital? Damascus is certainly more important than al-Quseir, as is Aleppo and all the other major cities; it doesn’t make any sense. But as I said at the beginning, the aim of this frenzy is to reflect an image of Hezbollah as the main fighting force and to provoke Western and International public opinion against Hezbollah.

 Interviewer: How strong and large are the Hezbollah brigades currently in Syria?

President Assad: There are no brigades. They have sent fighters who have aided the Syrian army in cleaning areas on the Lebanese borders that were infiltrated by terrorists. They did not deploy forces into Syria. As you are aware, Hezbollah forces are positioned towards Israel and cannot depart Southern Lebanon. Additionally, if Hezbollah wanted to send fighters into Syria, how many could they send? A few hundred? The Syrian Army has deployed hundreds of thousands of troops across the country. Several hundred would make a difference in one area, but it would not conceivably constitute enough to tip the balance across all of Syria.

Interviewer: Mr President, Britain and France claim to have clear evidence that chemical weapons have been used. The White House has stated that it possess information to ascertain this claim, which consequently led to the death of 100 to 150 people in one year, in addition to that you have denied the UN investigators access to areas in Syria except for Aleppo. How do you explain the situation?

President Assad: Let’s begin with the statement from the White House regarding the 150 casualties. Militarily speaking, it is a well-understood notion that during wars, conventional weapons can cause these number of deaths, or even higher, in a single day, not in a year. Weapons of mass destruction generally kill thousands of people at one given time; this high death toll is a primary reason for its use. It is counterintuitive to use chemical weapons to create a death toll that you could potentially reach by using conventional weapons.

 America, France, Britain and some European officials claimed that we have used chemical weapons in a number of areas. Regardless of whether such weapons exist or not, we have never confirmed or denied the possession of these weapons.

Had they obtained a single strand of evidence that we had used chemical weapons, do you not think they would have made a song and dance about it to the whole world?, then where is the chain of custody that led them to a such result?

These allegations are ludicrous. The terrorist groups used chemical weapons in Aleppo; subsequently we sent an official letter to the United Nations requesting a formal investigation into the incident. Britain and France blocked this investigation because it would have proven the chemical attacks were carried out by terrorist groups and hence provided conclusive evidence that they (Britain and France) were lying. We invited them to investigate the incident, but instead they wanted the inspectors to have unconditional access to locations across Syria, parallel to what inspectors did in Iraq and delved into other unrelated issues. We are a sovereign state; we have an army and all matters considered classified will never be accessible neither to the UN, nor Britain, nor France. They will only be allowed access to investigate the incident that occurred in Aleppo.

Therefore, all the claims relating to the use of chemical weapons is an extension of the continuous American and Western fabrication of the actual situation in Syria. Its sole aim is to justify their policies to their public opinion and use the claim as a pretext for more military intervention and bloodshed in Syria.

 Interviewer: The protests started in Syria peacefully before they turned into an armed struggle. Your critics claim that you could have dealt with the protests through political reforms, which makes you partly responsible for the destruction in Syria. What is your take on this?

President Assad: We started the reforms from the first days of the crisis and, perhaps even to your surprise, they were initiated years before the crisis. We issued a number of new legislations, lifted the emergency law and even changed the constitution through a referendum. This is a well-known fact to the West; yet what the West refuses to see is that from the first weeks of the protests we had policemen killed, so how could such protests have been peaceful? How could those who claim that the protests were peaceful explain the death of these policemen in the first week? Could the chants of protesters actually kill a policeman?

From the beginning of the crisis, we have always reiterated that there were armed militants infiltrating protesters and shooting at the police. On other occasions, these armed militants were in areas close to the protests and shot at both protesters and police forces to lead each side into-believing that they were shot at by the other. This was proven through investigations and confessions, which were publicised on a large scale in the media.

 Interviewer: Mr President, it is reported that the Syrian Army has bombarded certain areas. Was there no other option?

President Assad: We are pursuing terrorists who repeatedly infiltrate populated areas. If we take Al-Qseir as an example, there was a western media frenzy claiming that there were 50,000 civilians, which is more than the town’s original population. In fact, when the terrorists entered the area, the inhabitants consequently fled; when we entered we did not find civilians. Usually wherever the terrorists infiltrate, civilians flee and battles occur afterwards. The evidence clearly shows that most of the casualties in Syria are from the armed forces. Civilians mostly die in suicide bombings. They also die when terrorists enter an area, proceed to carry out executions and use them as human shields. The rest of the causalities are either foreign or Syrian terrorists.

 Interviewer: After the momentum you have achieved in Al-Qseir, do you feel it is now time to extend a hand to the opposition and consider reconciliation?

President Assad: From day one we have extended a hand to all those who believe in dialogue; this position has not changed. At the start of the crisis, we held a national dialogue conference whilst simultaneously fighting terrorists. But when we talk about the opposition, we should not put them all into one basket; it is imperative to differentiate between terrorists and politicians. In Germany, you have an opposition but they are not armed. Opposition is a political act, and so when we refer to the opposition, we mean the politicians to whom we are always committed to dialogue, regardless of what happened in Al-Qseir.

As to national reconciliation, I do not think that it can be accurately applied to Syria. It implies a scenario of civil war, as was the case in Lebanon, or the conflict between black and white in South Africa. In our case it is about a national dialogue to determine a way out of the crisis and for the terrorists to put down their weapons. In any case, we are awaiting the Geneva conference, which essentially aims at the same political solution. However there are external impediments; Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France and Britain, continue to exert all their efforts at sabotaging dialogue in order to prolong the Syrian crisis and prevent a political resolution.

Interviewer: How would you define the legitimate political opposition?

President Assad: Essentially, any opposition party that does not support terrorism, does not carry weapons, and has a clear political agenda. But opposition groups are also linked to elections; their clout will depend on how well they fare in local administration elections and more importantly, in parliamentary elections. We are dealing with many groups who call themselves opposition, their success will be determined by two important questions: what is their popular base? And what is their political manifesto? We will then act accordingly.

 Interviewer: Segments of the opposition claim that you have not taken steps to form a united front with them against foreign intervention. Is this true Mr President?

 President Assad: On the contrary, in the national dialogue conference in 2011, there was an open invitation to all those who considered themselves in the opposition to come forward. Some chose to participate whilst others chose to boycott and blame us for not taking steps towards a solution. But we must ask ourselves, what do they mean by making advances towards them? What should we be offering? Ministerial positions in the government? The opposition in the current government has won hard-fought seats in parliament. When an opposition, made up of hundreds, does not have any seats in parliament how does one ascertain who deserves to be part of the government? We need clear criteria; it should not be haphazard.

 To put it another way, the government is not owned by the President for him to bestow gifts upon others in the form of ministries. It requires national dialogue and a political process through which the electorate can choose among other things their government and the constitution.

Interviewer: What are your set criteria for dialogue between you and the opposition, could this include foreign-based opposition?

President Assad: We have no issues with autonomous opposition groups who serve a national agenda. With regards to the foreign-based opposition, we need to be very clear; its members live abroad and report to western foreign ministries and intelligence agencies. They are based outside their country and are in essence manipulated by the states that provide their flow of finance. They are best described as a “proxy opposition.” As far was we are concerned, genuine Syrian opposition means representing the Syrian people — not foreign countries, it means being based in Syria and sharing the burdens and concerns of the Syrian people. Such an opposition would inevitably be part of any political process.

Interviewer: Fighting terrorism has become the priority now. In reference to your recent interview most probably on Al-Manar television, you stated that if you were to engage in a dialogue, you would rather do so with the master than the slave. To what extent are you prepared for dialogue with these entities in the future once you have effectively fought terrorism?

 President Assad: It is for this precise reason that we will attend the Geneva conference. I used the notion of the master and the slave to explain what we know will happen in reality. Negotiating with those who have no autonomy over their own decisions essentially means that you are in fact negotiating with the decision makers who dictate to them how to act, what to accept and what to reject. You will have seen on television recently footage of the French Ambassador to Syria giving the external opposition orders and insulting them, or the American Ambassador to Syria shouting and insulting them. Therefore in reality, we are negotiating with the United States, Britain, France and their regional instruments, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Those groups who call themselves external opposition are mere employees; hence the masters and the slaves.

We hope that the Geneva conference will push forward the dialogue process in Syria

Interviewer: What are your expectations from the conference? Will it be followed by progress or a continued stalemate?

President Assad: We hope that the Geneva conference will push forward the dialogue process in Syria especially since, earlier this year we presented a vision for a political solution based on the Geneva I communiqué. However, even though we will attend the conference with this understanding, we should be clear on the facts. First, the same countries I mentioned earlier that are supporting the terrorists in Syria have a vested interest in the talks failing. The logical question is: what is the relationship between the Geneva conference and terrorism on the ground? Simply, if the Geneva conference is successful — as is our hope, in preventing the smuggling of weapons and terrorists — there are over 29 different nationalities documented to be in Syria, then this would be a catalyst for resolving the Syrian crisis.

 However if the smuggling of weapons and terrorists continues, there is no value for any political solution. We hope that the Geneva conference will make this its starting point; it is the single most important element in the Geneva talks, which would ultimately determine its success or failure.

 Interviewer: If Geneva II fails, what are the consequences?

President Assad: The countries I mentioned previously would continue to support the terrorists. Failing to solve the Syrian crisis will make it spread to other countries and things will only get worse. Logically speaking therefore, all parties have a vested interest in its success. As to the external opposition, if Geneva succeeds they will lose their funding; if you don’t have money and you don’t have popular support, you end up with nothing.

Interviewer: Could Geneva II propose a government from different political entities?

President Assad: This is what we have suggested in our political initiative. We proposed the formation of an extended government from diverse political entities that would prepare for parliamentary elections; the winners of these elections would have a role in the future. This is an approach that we have been open to from the beginning.

Interviewer: Mr President, some of your critics claim that much blood has been shed in Syria; they blame the leadership and see it as an obstacle standing in the way of Syria’s future. Would you consider stepping down in order to bring about a new Syria?

President Assad: The president has a mandate in accordance with the constitution; my current term ends in 2014. When the country is in a crisis, the president is expected to shoulder the burden of responsibility and resolve the situation, not abandon his duties and leave. I often use the analogy of a captain navigating a ship hit by a storm; just imagine the captain jumping ship and escaping in the lifeboat! If I decide to leave now, I would be committing treason. If on the other hand, the public decided I should step down, that would be another issue. And this can only be determined through elections or a referendum. As an example, in the previous referendum on the constitution, there was a 58% turnout — which is pretty good in the circumstances, and the constitution was approved by 89.4%.

The issue was never about the president, however they tried to project it as such in order to force the president to sell out to those countries backing the opposition, in order to install a puppet president.

Interviewer: Mr President, you live with your family in Damascus. How much public support do you and your family enjoy?

 President Assad: When numerous neighbouring and regional countries as well as the West are all opposing you, you couldn’t possibly continue without popular public support. The Syrian people are highly aware of what is happening and have understood the dynamics of the crisis early on; hence their support for their government and their army.

 Interviewer: Next year there will be presidential elections, how do you see these elections playing out?

 President Assad: They will follow the new constitution, in other words multi-candidate elections. It will be a new experience, which we cannot predict at this point.

 Interviewer: Mr President, what is your vision for Syria in the next five years?

President Assad: I reiterate that our biggest challenge is extremism. If we can fight it, with better education, new ideas and culture, then we can move towards a healthy democratic state. Democracy, as we see it in Syria, is not an objective in itself, but rather a means to an end — to stability and to prosperity. Legislations and constitutions are also only tools, necessary tools to develop and advance societies. However, for democracy to thrive, it needs to become a way of life — a part of our culture, and this cannot happen when so many social taboos are imposed by extremist ideologies.

 In addition to this, there is of course the reconstruction process, reinvigorating our national industries and restoring and opening up our economy. We will continue to be open in Syria, continue to learn and benefit from the lessons of this crisis. One of these lessons is that ignorance is the worst enemy of societies and forms the basis for extremism; we hope that Europe has also learned from these lessons.

Interviewer: Mr President, thank you very much. I have been greatly influenced by your personality and your vision; I hope Europe and the West will benefit from this interview and look at you and your country differently.

President Assad: Thank you very much and welcome again to Syria.

Link to the original interview in German:

Syriens Machthaber Assad im F.A.Z.-Gespräch „Europa wird den Preis für Waffenlieferungen zahlen“

Von Rainer Hermann, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 17 Juni 2013

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Jane Chung and Roberta Rampton
Reuters
June 17, 2013

North Korea on Sunday offered high-level talks with the United States to ease tensions on the Korean peninsula, but the White House said that any talks must involve Pyongyang taking action to show it is moving toward scrapping its nuclear weapons.

The offer came only days after North Korea abruptly canceled planned official talks with South Korea, the first planned talks in more two years. The North blamed the South for scuttling discussions that sought to mend estranged ties between the rival Koreas.

The North Korea National Defence Commission in a statement carried by KCNA news agency on Sunday said Washington can pick a date and place for talks and the two sides can discuss a range of issues, but no preconditions should be attached.

Read full article

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 2:53 pm

Tags: foreign affairs

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Donna Anderson
Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

They’ll tell you that those speed cameras help make the roadways safer but states and counties across the nation are reporting an increase in accident rates, instead. The only thing those speed cameras are really good for is raising revenue — and they’re not even very good at that.

In her June 6 report for InfoWars.com, GiGi Erneta said, “Judge Robert R. Ruehlman of Hamilton, Ohio said that the Elmwood Place speed cameras were ‘just a case of three-card Monte, or a sham,’ and in Baltimore “one of these dependable speed cameras gave a speeding ticket to a motionless car.”

Speed cameras are generally installed at dangerous high-traffic intersections. As a way to pass the legislation and fund the project, lawmakers claim they’ll help reduce accidents because knowing there’s a camera in the intersection will cause people to stop, instead of speeding through the intersection before the light changes.

However, a study conducted by the New Jersey Department of Transportation shows that accident rates actually increase in intersections with cameras. Drivers are forced to make a split-second decision: speed up and hope the light doesn’t change before they make it through the intersection, or slam on the brakes and risk being rear-ended. Either way, there’s an accident just waiting to happen.

“Red light cameras are just another way for counties and cities to steal millions from citizens while denying due process of law,” says Erneta. But, according to reports, the cities aren’t even doing that well.

Due to poor-quality photos and fake tickets, counties and cities using speed cameras aren’t bringing in as much money as you might think. In 2009, Pinal County, Arizona reported that its two cameras were activated 11,416 times from September 2007 to 2009, resulting in 7,290 citations. Only 3,711 were paid, totaling $124,199.42 in fines collected. After administrative fees it left the county a net profit of only $12,391.58 which lawmakers considered a “paltry” sum.

Just this month, speed cameras in Sugar Land, Texas, brought in $175,996 in revenue during the first quarter of 2012-13. After $13,694 in expenditures, the remaining revenue was $162,302, representing less than 1 percent of the city’s budget.

So it sounds like the only ones who really profit from the speed cameras are the insurance companies who get to raise your rates when you’re rear-ended at the traffic light, and the speed camera company itself, Redflex, who is currently being investigated for allegedly bribing City Hall officials in Chicago and issuing fake tickets to increase their revenue.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 2:55 pm

Tags: domestic news, police state, technology

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

June 17, 2013
 |

Conservatives keep claiming liberals want a “cradle-to-grave nanny state.” That rhetoric has distracted us from the real social re-engineering taking place all around us. The right, along with its “centrist” collaborators, is transforming our nation into a bloodless and soulless Randian State.

Their decades-long assault on our core social values is on the verge of consuming its first complete generation of Americans. Born at the dawn of the Reagan era, Millennials were the first to be fully subjected to this all-out attack on the idea that we take care of each other in this country, and they’ll pay for it from the cradle to the grave.

Some of us are the parents of Millennials. Who’ll fight with them, and for them?

The Psychosis

The Simpsons made a running joke out of Springfield’s “ Ayn Rand School for Tots,” where toddlers fend for themselves in playrooms whose signs say things like “Helping is Futile.” That’s very funny. What is happening to our country isn’t.

A successful social contract has bound us together since the FDR era. The Randian State is an effort to dismantle it, replacing our nation’s web of mutual trust and support with a lifelong helplessness and dependence on the whims and generosity of corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals.

The Randian State is built in the morally depraved mold of right-wing Ã¼ber-heroine Rand, who reviled the less fortunate — and even those who tried to help them — as “ parasites,” while at the same time idolizing sociopathic killers.

That last statement isn’t rhetoric. It’s reporting. “He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman,” Rand wrote admiringly of child murderer and dismemberer William Edward Hickman. “He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”

As Mark Ames points out, this echoes Rand’s description of her hero in The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”

Hickman’s actions were certainly not those of a “nanny.” But, while most conservatives undoubtedly disapprove of his deeds, the glorification of sociopathic selfishness represents the mentality with which the Administration is perpetually seeking “compromise.” It has infected everything from the Beltway’s “bipartisan” consensus to the content of our national media.

Where’s Julia?

Conservatives went into rhetorical overdrive last year after the Obama campaign released an “infographic” ad called “The Life of Julia,” depicting ways Obama’s policies help women throughout their lives.

A typical reaction came from self-declared moralizer, former Reagan official, and chronic excessive gambler William Bennett. Bennett intoned that “Julia’s entire life is defined by her interactions with the state … Notably absent in her story is any relationship with a husband, family, church or community … Instead, the state has taken their place and is her primary relationship.”

That’s deceptive, of course. The presentation focused on government because it wasabout government. The Obama campaign wasn’t proposing to marry her or drive her to church. But reason rarely intrudes on such arguments. The Romney campaign quickly prepared a counter-slide show and the “socialist” debate was on.

Obama won.

Curiously, “Julia’s” story seems to have disappeared from the BarackObama.Com and Organizing For Action websites now that victory’s been achieved. Old links to it are dead, and attempts to click on this introduction only lead back to the site’s main page.

Anti-Social.

Bennett’s phrasing was drawn from conservative avatar Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher represented a radically un-American vision of life which lacks either our sense of community or our bonds of mutual trust, and which denies even the existence of society itself.

“Who is society?” demanded Thatcher. “There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families …”

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

June 17, 2013
 |

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (CN) – Texas jailers ran a “rape camp” where they “repeatedly raped and humiliated female inmates,” and forced them to masturbate and sodomize male guards, and one another, two women claim in court.

J.A.S. and J.M.N. sued Live Oak County and its former jailers Vincent Aguilar, Israel Charles Jr. and Jaime E. Smith, in Federal Court.

All three guards were arrested in August 2010 and charged with sexual assault, the Beeville Bee-Picayune reported at the time. The newspaper did not identify the victims.

Smith and Aguilar are in Texas state prisons today, according to the complaint, which says defendant Charles is living in Bee County.

Live Oak is a sparsely settled county in south central Texas. Its seat is George West.

“Beginning sometime in 2007 to at least August of 2010 the Live Oak County Sheriff’s office ran a ‘rape camp’ known as the Live Oak County Jail,” the complaint states. “In this facility, numerous jailers, all employed by the Live Oak County Sheriff’s Office, repeatedly raped and humiliated female inmates over an extended period of time. These forced acts of lasciviousness included, but are not limited to, forcing female inmates to repeatedly perform oral sex on male guards, forcing female inmates to repeatedly masturbate the male guards, the male guards masturbating in view of the female inmates, male guards forcing digital penetrative sex acts in the female inmates’, forcing female inmates to engage in sexual sex acts with other female inmates, including but not limited to forcing female inmates to have oral sex with each other, among other things.

“In addition to the repeated sexual assaults, numerous female inmates were sexually harassed. Certain male guards would strip the female inmates of their clothing and provide only shaving cream to conceal their genitalia. Certain male guards would sometimes force the female inmates to shower in front of them while instructing them to shave their vaginas. In other instances, while detailing their degenerate sexual fantasies, the jailers would pin the girls against a wall, grope their persons, verbally berate them, digitally rape their vagina and/or anus, then force them to perform oral sex.

“In order to facilitate their carnal impulses, these guards would withhold food and water, engage in physical abuse, restrict privileges and verbally and emotionally abuse the women – even threaten to kill them in order to compel their compliance.”

J.A.S. says she was arrested on marijuana possession charges in July 2010, and transferred to the Live Oak County Jail after a brief stay at the Jim Wells County Jail.

“Not long after she was transferred, she was approached by a jailer known to her only as ‘Jesse,'” the complaint states. “He warned plaintiff to stay away from defendants Aguilar and Smith. Naively, she asked why and he emphasized, ‘trust me, stay away from them. I can’t tell you why, I’d lose my job.’

“Sometime later, while waiting at the facility nurses’ station, defendant Aguilar approached plaintiff and touched her on her shoulder and back. The nurse on duty observed this happening and told defendant Aguilar to stop. In fact, the abuse was so widespread and pervasive that defendant Aguilar felt comfortable enough to ask Ms. Smith if he could touch her vagina, right in front of the jail nurse.

“Another incident occurred later involving both defendant Smith and defendant

Aguilar. Both men forcibly and inappropriately touched plaintiff. During the incident, defendant Aguilar kissed plaintiff and attempted to penetrate her. Only when plaintiff defended herself by slapping defendant Aguilar’s face did he relent.”

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

‘;
jQuery(‘div.media-image’).each( function(index){
src = String(jQuery(this).children(‘img.media-image’).attr(‘src’));
if( src != ” && src != ‘undefined’ ){
parts = src.split(‘/’);
if( parts[parts.length-2] == ‘slideshow’ ){ new_src = ‘/files/slideshow/’+parts[parts.length-1]; }
else if( parts[parts.length-2] == ‘AFP’ ){ new_src = ‘/files/images/AFP/’+parts[parts.length-1]; }
else if( parts[parts.length-2] == ‘public’ ){ new_src = ‘/files/’+parts[parts.length-1]; }
else if( parts[parts.length-3] == ‘public’ ){ new_src = ‘/files/’+parts[parts.length-2]+’/’+parts[parts.length-1]; }
else { new_src = false; }
if( new_src ){ jQuery(this).html(‘‘+jQuery(this).html()+enlarge_html+’‘); }
}
});

var slideshowdiv; var new_html; var img_obj; var sourcediv; var titlediv; var captiondiv; var title; var caption;

jQuery(‘div.slideshow-body div.slideshow div.field-item’).each( function(index){

slideshowdiv = jQuery(this).find(‘div.altslideshow-embedded-gallery’);
img_obj = slideshowdiv.find(‘img’);
src = img_obj.attr(‘src’);

title = slideshowdiv.children(‘div.altslideshow-title’).html();
if( title == null ){ title = ”; }

caption = slideshowdiv.children(‘div.altslideshow-caption’).html();
if( caption == null ){ caption = ”; }

if( src != ” && src != ‘undefined’ ){
// alert( ‘SRC: ‘+src );
parts = src.split(‘/’);
if( parts[parts.length-2] == ‘slideshow’ ){ new_src = ‘/files/slideshow/’+parts[parts.length-1]; }
else if( parts[parts.length-2] == ‘AFP’ ){ new_src = ‘/files/images/AFP/’+parts[parts.length-1]; }
else if( parts[parts.length-2] == ‘public’ ){ new_src = ‘/files/’+parts[parts.length-1]; }
else if( parts[parts.length-3] == ‘public’ ){ new_src = ‘/files/’+parts[parts.length-2]+’/’+parts[parts.length-1]; }
else { new_src = false; }
// alert( ‘New SRC: ‘+new_src );
if( new_src ){
img_obj.parent().attr(‘href’,new_src).attr(‘rel’,’lightbox[slides]’).attr(‘title’,title+’
‘+caption).append(‘

Click to enlarge.

‘);
}
}

//sourcediv = jQuery(this).find(‘div.altslideshow-source’);
//titlediv = jQuery(this).find(‘div.altslideshow-title’);
//captiondiv = jQuery(this).find(‘div.altslideshow-caption’);
//sourcediv.after( titlediv ).after( captiondiv );

});

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has denounced the European Union as Å“anti-democratic” over the blocâ„¢s criticism of the Turkish government about the policeâ„¢s heavy-handed response to the protests in the country.

Erdogan made the remarks on Monday, several days after the European Parliament issued a resolution condemning Ankaraâ„¢s excessive use of force against the Å“peaceful” protesters.

Å“Do you have the right to take such a decision [on Turkey]? You stay silent about whatâ„¢s happening in France, in England and elsewhere in Europe, and you dare to take a decision on our security forces, who are exercising their duty of law enforcement against those demonstrators. You are anti-democratic,” Erdogan said at a meeting in Ankara.

The Turkish premier said he would no longer recognize the European Parliament. In his previous broadside against the bloc, he accused some Å“world powers” of complicity with Å“internal plotters” to undermine his government.

Earlier in the day, German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized the Turkish government for its handling of the demonstrations. “There were horrible images in which one could see that the approach was much too harsh in my view,” Merkel told German broadcaster RTL.

Calls on Turkey to put an end to the crackdown have fallen on deaf ears. Erdoganâ„¢s deputy Bulent Arinc said in a televised interview on Monday that police “will use all their powers” to end the protests, adding “If this is not enough, we can even utilize the Turkish armed forces in cities.”

MA/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

In the 21st century the two hundred year-old propaganda that the American people control their government has been completely shattered. Both the Bush and Obama regimes have made it unmistakenly clear that the American people don’t even influence, much less control, the government. As far as Washington is concerned, the people are nothing but chaff in the wind.

Polls demonstrate that 65% of the US population opposes US intervention in Syria. Despite this clear indication of the people’s will, the Obama regime is ramping up a propaganda case for more arming of Washington’s mercenaries sent to overthrow the secular Syrian government and for a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which, if Libya is the example, means US or NATO aircraft attacking the Syrian army on the ground, thus serving as the air force of Washington’s imported mercenaries, euphemistically called “the Syrian rebels.”

Washington declared some time ago that the “red line” that would bring Syria under Washington’s military attack was the Assad government’s use of chemical weapons of mass destruction against Washington’s mercenaries. Once this announcement was made, everyone with a brain immediately knew that Washington would fabricate false intelligence that Assad had used chemical weapons, just as Washington presented to the United Nations the intentional lie via Secretary of State Colin Powell that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

Remember National Security Advisor Condi Rice’s image of a “mushroom cloud over American cities?” Propagandistic lies were Washington’s orders of the day.

And they still are. Now Washington has fabricated the false intelligence, and president obama has announced it with a straight face, that Syria’s Assad has used sarin gas on several occasions and that between 100 and 150 “of his own people,” a euphemism for the US supplied foreign mercenaries, have been killed by the weapon of mass destruction.

Think about that for a minute. As unfortunate as is any death from war, is 100-150 deaths “mass destruction?” According to low-ball estimates, the US-sponsored foreign mercenary invasion of Syria has cost 93,000 lives, of which 150 deaths amounts to0.0016%. If we round up, Washington’s 150 deaths comes to two-thousands of one percent.

In other words, 99.998% of the deaths did not cross the “red line.” But the 0.002 (rounded up) percent did.

Yes, I know. Washington’s position makes no sense. But when has it ever made any sense?

Let’s stretch our minds just a tiny bit farther. Assad knows about Washington’s “red line.” It has been repeated over and over in order to create in the minds of the distracted American public that there is a real, valid reason for attacking Syria. Why would Assad use the proscribed weapons of mass destruction in order to kill a measly 100-150 mercenaries when his army is mopping up the US mercenaries without the use of gas and when Assad knows that the use of gas brings in the US military against him?

As the Russian government made clear, Washington’s accusation is not believable. No informed person could possibly believe it. No doubt, many Americans wearing patriotism on their sleeves will fall for Washington’s latest lie, but no one else in the world will. Even Washington’s NATO puppets calling for attacking Syria know that the justification for the attack is a lie. For the NATO puppets, Washington’s money overwhelms integrity, for which the rewards are low.

The Russians certainly know that Washington is lying. The Russian Foreign Minister Larov said:

“The [Assad] government, as the opposition is saying openly, is enjoying military success on the ground. The [Assad] regime isn’t driven to the wall. What sense is there for the regime to use chemical arms—especially in such small amounts.” 

Larov is a relatively civilized person in the role of Russia’s main diplomat. However, other Russian officials can be more pointed in their dismissal of Washington’s latest blatant lies. Yury Ushakov, an aide to Russian President Putin said: “The Americans tried to present us with information on the use of chemical weapons by the [Assad] regime, but frankly we thought that it was not convincing. We wouldn’t like to invoke references to [the infamous lies o] Secretary of State Powell [at the UN alleging Iraqi WMD], but the facts don’t look convincing in our eyes.” Aleksey Pushkov, the chairman of the Russian Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee, cut to the chase.

“The data about Assad’s use of chemical weapons is fabricated by the same facility that made up the lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Obama is walking George W. Bush’s path.”

Here in America no one will ever hear straight talk like this from the US presstitutes.

Orwellian double-speak is now the language of the United States government. Secretary of State john kerry condemned Assad for harming “peace talks” while the US arms its Syrian mercenaries.  

Washington’s double-speak is now obvious to the world. Not only Assad, but also the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and every US puppet state which includes all of NATO and Japan, are fully aware that Washington is again lying through its teeth. The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are trying to avoid confrontation with Washington, as war with the modern nuclear weapons would destroy all life on planet earth. What is striking is that despite 24/7 brainwashing by the presstitutes, a large majority of the American population opposes obama’s war on Syria.

This is good news. It means more Americans are developing the ability to think independently of the lies Washington feeds to them.

What the neocon nazis, the bush/obama regime, and the presstitute media have made clear is that Washington is going to push its agenda of world hegemony to the point of starting World War III, which, of course, means the end of life on earth.

Russia and China, either one of which can destroy the United States, have learned that the US government is a liar and cannot be trusted. The Libyan “no-fly” policy

to which Russia and China agreed turned out to be a NATO air attack on the Libyan army so that the CIA-sponsored mercenaries could prevail.  

Russia and China, having learned their lesson, are protesting Washington’s assault on Syria that Washington pretends is a “civil war.” If Syria falls, Russia and China know that Iran is next.

Iran is Russia’s underbelly, and for China Iran is 20% of its energy imports. Both Russian and Chinese governments know that after Iran falls, they are next. There is no other explanation for Washington surrounding Russia with missile bases and surrounding China with naval and air bases.  

Both Russia and China are now preparing for the war that they see as inevitable. Washington’s crazed, demented drive for world hegemony is bringing unsuspecting Americans up against two countries with hydrogen bombs whose combined population is five times the US population. In such a conflict everyone dies. 

Considering the utterly insane government ruling in Washington, if human life exists in 2020, it will be a miracle. All the worry about future Medicare and Social Security deficits is meaningless. There will be no one here to collect the benefits.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

At the conclusion of Friday’s two-hour meeting of more than 180 of Detroit’s creditors, unions, and pension trustees, Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr’s plan to rescue the city from bankruptcy was met with predictable responses: lawsuits and strikes.

It was an altar call to accept reality, but denial, anger, and threats were the response of many. One unnamed bond holder said, “It’s just too much. It is an unprecedented amount to ask.” Mike Mulholland, secretary of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local #207, was equally blunt: “When you’re backed into a corner, the only thing you can do is fight and the only way we can fight is to strike.”

Orr was ready for them. In his 134-page proposal, he blamed “financial mismanagement, a shrinking population, [and] a dwindling tax base … over the past 45 years [which] have brought Detroit to the brink of financial and operational ruin.” Indeed, his proposal spelled out the denial of reality that Mayor Dave Bing and his city council had been enjoying for years when it showed that Bing’s people thought that the annual deficit for the city for Fiscal Year 2013 was just $47 million when the actual deficit is more than twice that, and for FY 2014 is estimated to approach $200 million. It’s no wonder that Michigan Governor Rick Snyder declared a financial emergency and appointed bankruptcy attorney Kevyn Orr to take over from the city council in March.

The task facing Orr is horrifying. Faced with more than $18 billion in debts and just $68 million in the bank, Orr started off the meeting by announcing that the city would not make a $40 million payment due that day on a $2.5 billion certificate of participation (COP). He announced further that the city wouldn’t be making $104 million in pension contributions that are currently due either. In addition, retirees hoping that the city would be providing them with healthcare and full payouts of their pension benefits also received the bad news: They too would be forced to rely on the state’s insurance exchanges to obtain health coverage under ObamaCare or Medicare, and could expect significant reductions in their retirement checks as well, approaching $800 a month in many cases. 

Orr’s report was equally blunt for those hoping for a miracle: “The City is Insolvent” (Page 7): “the city is not paying its bills,” the city’s infrastructure is deteriorating, “costs associated with unoccupied property” continue to mount, the city’s credit ratings were borderline “bankrupt” by all three agencies, and “Priority One” police response times had increased in just one year from 30 minutes in 2012 to 58 minutes in 2013. In 2012 Detroit “had the highest rate of violent crime of any U.S. city having a population over 200,000 [Detroit’s population is just over 700,000, 40 percent of what it was 1950], five times the national average.”

There are “approximately 78,000 abandoned and blighted structures in the City, nearly half of which are considered ‘dangerous’ [while there are] 66,000 blighted and vacant lots within the City limits.” There are between 11,000 and 12,000 fires in Detroit every year, most of them occurring in those blighted and abandoned buildings.

Orr’s plan, on the surface, is simple: If the creditors – pension trustees, unions, bond holders, and retirees – will sit still for these massive haircuts, then the city can, under a newly created facility, borrow $2 billion to pay off the $11 billion in unsecured creditors. Orr said that translates, after other demands on that new money, to about 10 cents on every dollar owed. Secured creditors will be slightly better off but they will be asked to take a haircut as well. If the proposal is accepted, lawsuits and strikes notwithstanding, then Orr can take this to court as a pre-packaged bankruptcy, giving him the power to enforce the agreement.

On the other hand, if his proposal can’t get sufficient agreement in the next 30 days from all interested (and now properly chastened) creditors, then he’ll ask the court to grant Detroit bankruptcy protection with himself as trustee. In essence, Orr is dealing from strength: Go along with me now and get the best deal possible, or push me and you’ll get less, it’ll cost more, and it’ll take longer. Said Orr: “I have a very powerful statute. I have an even more powerful Chapter 9. I don’t want to use it, but I am going to accomplish this job. That will happen.”

There’s a constitutional issue here as well. Under the Tenth Amendment, “powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution … are reserved to the states,” which means that guarantees in Michigan’s state constitution that protect pension and retirement benefits from federal bankruptcy rulings could be put at risk in a court battle. If a high court rules that federal bankruptcy laws override state protections, then every pension plan in the country thinking it has state protection will be affected negatively, with national and perhaps even international ramifications. The municipal bond market is nearly $4 trillion in size, and such a ruling could, at the very least, unnerve that market, raising the cost of borrowing significantly, forcing other cities bordering on bankruptcy over the edge.

Michael Sweet, an attorney at law firm Fox Rothschild who helped the city of Redmond, California, restructure its finances in order to avoid bankruptcy, noted: “The last thing [union pension funds] may want is for a judge to rule on that … because if the judge ruled on that against them, it would open the floodgates” for similar cases. 

^{Photo of Detroit skyline: AP Images}

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voters is illegal. According to the court’s decision, states cannot require voters to prove they are American citizens because it violates a 1993 federal law that allows people to register to vote through a single form accepted by all states in which voter’s “swear” they are citizens of the United States.

By a 7-2 vote, the justices determined that Arizona’s voter requirement that prospective voters document their United States citizenship in order to use the registration form under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law is illegal.

Fox News explains the issue at the heart of the case:

The federal “motor voter” law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver’s license or certain benefits. Another provision of that law – the one at issue before the court – requires states to allow would-be voters to fill out mail-in registration cards and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof. Under Proposition 200, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver’s license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form.

The court determined that while Arizona may ask the federal government to include extra documents as a state-specific requirement, the state cannot make such changes to voter laws on their own.

Federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court’s majority.

Arizona had appealed to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 trumps Arizona’s 2004 Proposition 200, which required voters to document their citizenship.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were the only two dissenters.

In his dissent, Thomas wrote that the Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.”

But those opposed to the law assert it is an assault on minority groups.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund vice president Nina Perales issued a celebratory declaration.

“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” said Perales, who served as the lead counsel in the challenge against Proposition 200. “The Supreme Court has affirmed that all U.S. citizens have the right to register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the state in which they live.”

Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director of the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, contends, “The court has reaffirmed the essential American right to register to vote for federal election without the burdens of state voter suppression measures.”

But Arizona officials assert that states should be permitted to pass laws that would stop illegal immigrants from appearing on voting rolls.

Thomas Horne, a lawyer for Arizona, told the justices that the state has a right to ask for more information beyond the federal form, which Horne calls “extremely inadequate” because it virtually operates on an “honor system.”

As noted by Fox News, the ruling has implications for several other states – Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, and Tennessee – all of which have similar requirements. And twelve other states are in the process of considering similar legislation.

But Arizona retains the option of asking the federal government to include extra document as a state-specific requirement, as was recently seen in Louisiana, where the Election Assistance Commission approved that Louisiana may require applicants who do not have a Louisiana driver’s license, ID card, or social security number to attach additional documentation.

In the majority opinion, Scalia agreed that the federal form wherein voters “swear” that they are in fact legal citizens does not properly serve as proof, but instead is a mere statement. He encouraged Arizona to pursue a state-specific requirement in order to assess voter eligibility.

^{Photo of U.S. Supreme Court}

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Press TV
June 17, 2013

The data released by EU statistics office Eurostat on Friday indicated that the eurozone inflation rose to 1.4 percent in May from 1.2 percent in April.

Estonia and the Netherlands had the highest inflation rates of 3.6 percent and 3.1 percent respectively, the report said.

The figure is, however, far below the 2.4-percent inflation rate for the same period last year.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 2:26 pm

Tags: economics, foreign affairs, money

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

In the 1950s and 60s, the NSA spied on all telegrams entering and exiting the country. The egregious actions were only uncovered after Congress set up an independent investgation called the Church Committee in the 1970s after Watergate. When the American public learned about NSA’s actions, they demanded change. And the Church Committee delivered it by providing more information about the programs and by curtailing the spying.

Protesters rally against the NSA’s recently detailed surveillance programs outside the U.S. Capitol on June 13 (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) Just like the American public in the 1970s, Americans in the 2010s know that when the government amasses dossiers on citizens, it’s neither good for security nor for privacy. And a wide range of polls this week show widespread concern among the American people over the new revelations about NSA domestic spying.

Yesterday, the Guardian released a comprehensive poll showing widespread concern about NSA spying. Two-thirds of Americans think the NSA’s role should be reviewed. The poll also showed Americans demanding accountability and more information from public officials–two key points of our recently launched stopwatching.us campaign.

But there’s more. So far, Gallup has one of the better-worded questions, finding that 53% of Americans disapprove of the NSA spying. A CBS poll also showed that a majority–at 58%–of Americans disapprove of the government “collecting phone records of ordinary Americans.” And Rasmussen–though sometimes known for push polling–also recently conducted a poll showing that 59% of Americans are opposed to the current NSA spying.

The only poll showing less than a majority on the side of government overreach was Pew Research Center, which asked Americans whether it was acceptable that the NSA obtained “secret court orders to track the calls of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism.” Pew reported that 56% of Americans said it was “acceptable.” But the question is poorly worded. It doesn’t mention the widespread, dragnet nature of the spying. It also neglects to describe the “information” being given–metadata, which is far more sensitive and can provide far more information than just the ability to “track the calls” of Americans. And it was conducted early on in the scandal, before it was revealed that the NSA doesn’t even have to obtain court orders to search already collected information.

Despite the aggregate numbers, many of the polls took place at the same time Americans were finding out new facts about the program. More questions must be asked. And if history is any indication, the American people will be finding out much more. Indeed, just today the Guardian reported that its working on a whole new series with even more NSA revelations about spying.

One thing is definitely clear: the American public is demanding answers and needs more information. That’s why Congress must create a special investigatory committee to reveal the full extent of the programs. Democracy demands it. Go here to take action.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

New revelations exposed Sunday show that British government hosts of the 2009 G20 summit spied on the internet and phone communications of foreign delegates and politicians and went so far as luring officials to fake internet cafes where their email and computer use was monitored.

(Photo: NSA Whistle Blower Edward Snowden/ABC News) The latest developments, exposed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported by The Guardian, comes as the G8 summit launches its first day of meetings, again hosted by the British government.

Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)–a close ally of the NSA–is coming under widespread criticism as the NSA spying scandal goes global.

The Guardian reveals broad and extensive spying on the 2009 G20 delegates, focusing on those from Turkey and South Africa, including:

- Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates’ use of computers;

- Penetrating the security on delegates’ BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls;

- Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit;

- Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party;

–  Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.

President Obama has vowed to fiercely defend NSA spying to global superpowers at the upcoming summit. While the Obama Administration has received some blowback from European Union politicians, including last week’s note of concern about the NSA Prism spying program, the latest revelation shows the the spying scandal beyond the U.S. government extends.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

The NSA leaker, Edward Snowden, pictured in a Hong Kong hotel. (Photo: The Guardian)

At 11 AM EST today, The Guardian hosted a live question and answer session with the Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old former National Security Administrator contractor.

The transcript follows:

Glenn Greenwald
11:07am ET

Let’s begin with these:

1) Why did you choose Hong Kong to go to and then tell them about US hacking on their research facilities and universities?

2) How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?

Snowden’s Answer:

1) First, the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That’s not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it.

Second, let’s be clear: I did not reveal any US operations against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn’t declared war on the countries – the majority of them are our allies – but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we’re not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the “consent of the governed” is meaningless.

2) All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.

* * *

Ewen Macaskill
11:13am ET

I should have asked you this when I saw you but never got round to it……..Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?

Snowden’s Answer:

Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.

* * *

ActivistGal
11:17am ET

You have said HERE that you admire both Ellsberg and Manning, but have argued that there is one important distinction between yourself and the army private…

“I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest,” he said. “There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over, because harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.”

Are you suggesting that Manning indiscriminately dumped secrets into the hands of Wikileaks and that he intended to harm people?

Snowden’s Answer:

No, I’m not. Wikileaks is a legitimate journalistic outlet and they carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of public interest. The unredacted release of cables was due to the failure of a partner journalist to control a passphrase. However, I understand that many media outlets used the argument that “documents were dumped” to smear Manning, and want to make it clear that it is not a valid assertion here.

* * *

D. Aram Mushegian II
11:20am

Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)

Snowden’s Answer:

I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my “career high” salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I’ve been paid.

* * *

Gabrielaweb
11:23am ET

Why did you wait to release the documents if you said you wanted to tell the world about the NSA programs since before Obama became president?

Snowden’s Answer:

Obama’s campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.

* * *

Anthony De Rosa
11:27am ET

1.) Define in as much detail as you can what “direct access” means.

2.) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

Snowden’s Answer:

1.) More detail on how direct NSA’s accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on – it’s all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

2.) NSA likes to use “domestic” as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as “incidental” collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of “warranted” intercept, it’s important to understand the intelligence community doesn’t always deal with what you would consider a “real” warrant like a Police department would have to, the “warrant” is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

* * *

Glenn Greenwald follow-up:

When you say “someone at NSA still has the content of your communications” – what do you mean? Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?

Snowden’s Answer:

Both. If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time – and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.

* * *

HaraldK
11:41am ET

What are your thoughts on Google’s and Facebook’s denials? Do you think that they’re honestly in the dark about PRISM, or do you think they’re compelled to lie?

Perhaps this is a better question to a lawyer like Greenwald, but: If you’re presented with a secret order that you’re forbidding to reveal the existence of, what will they actually do if you simply refuse to comply (without revealing the order)?

Snowden’s Answer:

Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we’re finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception.

They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?

* * *

MonaHol
11:55am ET

Ed Snowden, I thank you for your brave service to our country.

Some skepticism exists about certain of your claims, including this:

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.

Do you stand by that, and if so, could you elaborate?

Snowden’s Answer:

Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it’s important to understand that policy protection is no protection – policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection – a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the “widest allowable aperture,” and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn’t stop being protected communications just because of the IP they’re tagged with.

More fundamentally, the “US Persons” protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicion-less surveillance does not become okay simply because it’s only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal.”

* * *

Spencer Ackerman
12:04pm ET

Edward, there is rampant speculation, outpacing facts, that you have or will provide classified US information to the Chinese or other governments in exchange for asylum. Have/will you?

Snowden’s Answer:

This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public, as the US media has a knee-jerk “RED CHINA!” reaction to anything involving HK or the PRC, and is intended to distract from the issue of US government misconduct. Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn’t I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.

* * *

12:10pm ET

Snowden’s Answer:

US officials say this every time there’s a public discussion that could limit their authority. US officials also provide misleading or directly false assertions about the value of these programs, as they did just recently with the Zazi case, which court documents clearly show was not unveiled by PRISM.

Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to achieve that, and ask yourself if it was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we’ve been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.

* * *

Mathius1
12:12pm ET

Is encrypting my email any good at defeating the NSA surveillance? Id my data protected by standard encryption?

Snowden’s Answer:

Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.

* * *

12:24PM ET

Snowden’s Answer:

Binney, Drake, Kiriakou, and Manning are all examples of how overly-harsh responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope, and skill involved in future disclosures. Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they’ll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build better whistleblowers. If the Obama administration responds with an even harsher hand against me, they can be assured that they’ll soon find themselves facing an equally harsh public response.

This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the President who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than leaping forward into it. I would advise he personally call for a special committee to review these interception programs, repudiate the dangerous “State Secrets” privilege, and, upon preparing to leave office, begin a tradition for all Presidents forthwith to demonstrate their respect for the law by appointing a special investigator to review the policies of their years in office for any wrongdoing. There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny – they should be setting the example of transparency.

* * *

Ryan Latvaitis
12:28pm ET

What would you say to others who are in a position to leak classified information that could improve public understanding of the intelligence apparatus of the USA and its effect on civil liberties?

What evidence do you have that refutes the assertion that the NSA is unable to listen to the content of telephone calls without an explicit and defined court order from FISC?

Snowden’s Answer:

This country is worth dying for.

* * *

AhBrightWings
12:34pm ET

My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.

Snowden’s Answer:

I imagine everyone’s experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress – and therefore the American people – and the realization that that Congress, specifically the Gang of Eight, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper – the Director of National Intelligence – baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.

* * *

Follow-up from the Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman:
12:37pm ET

Regarding whether you have secretly given classified information to the Chinese government, some are saying you didn’t answer clearly – can you give a flat no?

Snowden’s Answer:

No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists.

* * *

Question:
12:41pm ET

So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate? — tikkamasala

Snowden’s Answer:

Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history.

* * *

Final question from Glenn Greenwald:
12:43pm ET

Anything else you’d like to add?

Snowden’s Answer:

Thanks to everyone for their support, and remember that just because you are not the target of a surveillance program does not make it okay. The US Person / foreigner distinction is not a reasonable substitute for individualized suspicion, and is only applied to improve support for the program. This is the precise reason that NSA provides Congress with a special immunity to its surveillance.

# # #

“It is the interview the world’s media organizations have been chasing,” writes the Guardian, “but instead Edward Snowden is giving Guardian readers the exclusive.”

Beginning at 11 AM EST, the news outlet is hosting a live question and answer session with the 29-year-old former National Security Administrator contractor, giving readers the opportunity to “ask him anything,” including why he revealed the NSA’s top-secret surveillance of US citizens, the international storm that has ensued, and the uncertain future he now faces.

An important caveat, they note:

[T]he live chat is subject to Snowden’s security concerns and also his access to a secure internet connection. It is possible that he will appear and disappear intermittently, so if it takes him a while to get through the questions, please be patient.

To participate, post your question in the Guardian’s live blog comments section and recommend your favorites. As he makes his way through the thread, they will embed his replies as posts. You can also follow along on Twitter using the hashtag #AskSnowden.

_____________________

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

(Photo: via Think Progress)The Supreme Court has struck down a controversial Voter ID law in Arizona, an action the ACLU has declared as a “victory.”

The law, known as Proposition 200, extended beyond federal policies by requiring applicants to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas have similar laws.

NBC News reports that civil rights groups see the proposition as an effort to deter legal immigrants from voting. Groups also note that the law would require people to register in person instead of by mail, limiting people’s access. Those in favor of the law maintain that it reduces voter fraud.

Brennan Center for Justice Democracy Program Director Wendy Weiser commented in a press release:

Voters scored a huge victory today. We applaud the Supreme Court for confirming Congress’s power to protect the right to vote in federal elections. Congress recognized that voter registration must be made more accessible when it passed the National Voter Registration Act, and the Court also affirmed that today.

Weiser concluded her statement by emphasizing all the work that remains to be done to eliminate voting barriers, expressing concern about a potential challenge by the Supreme Court to the Voting Rights Act.

The decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council is one of many highly anticipated rulings to be issued this week.

Lucia Brown is a summer editorial intern at Common Dreams.

_____________________

‬

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

The fracking industry is putting the squeeze on water-strapped farmers in the central United States according to a new analysis released Monday by the Associated Press.

Through an examination of industry-compiled fracking data and the US Department of Agriculture’s official drought designations, AP reveals that by driving up the price of water and burdening already depleted aquifers and rivers, the high-polluting and water-intensive shale oil and gas removal process is placing an increasing threat on states currently suffering from ongoing drought.

“There is a new player for water, which is oil and gas. And certainly they are in a position to pay a whole lot more than we are,” said fourth-generation farmer Kent Pepper of Mead, Colo., who has been forced to leave a number of his corn fields fallow this year because he cannot afford irrigation.

This news follows a recent study which found that nearly half of the country’s fracking wells are located in water-stressed regions and 92 percent of wells located in extremely high-water-stress regions, leading to the inevitable escalation of what Grist refers to as “the West’s water wars.”

The states highlighted in the study–including Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wyoming–fall within regions labeled by the most recent US Drought Monitor as suffering from “extreme” and “exceptional” drought conditions.

“The oil industry is doing the big fracks and pumping a substantial amount of water around here,” said Ed Walker, general manager of the Wintergarden Groundwater Conservation District, which manages an aquifer that serves as the main water source for farmers and about 29,000 people in three counties.

“When you have a big problem like the drought and you add other […] problems to it like all the fracking, then it only makes things worse,” he continued.

AP continues:

In a normal year, Peppler said he would pay anywhere from $9 to $100 for an acre-foot of water in auctions held by cities with excess supplies. But these days, energy companies are paying some cities $1,200 to $2,900 per acre-foot. The Denver suburb of Aurora made a $9.5 million, five-year deal last summer to provide the oil company Anadarko 2.4 billion gallons of excess treated sewer water.

In South Texas, where drought has forced cotton farmers to scale back, local water officials said drillers are contributing to a drop in the water table in several areas.

For example, as much as 15,000 acre-feet of water are drawn each year from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer to frack wells in the southern half of the Eagle Ford Shale, one of the nation’s most profitable oil and gas fields.

That’s equal to about half of the water recharged annually into the southern portion of the aquifer, which spans five counties that are home to about 330,000 people, said Ron Green, a scientist with the nonprofit Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio.

According to estimates by government and trade associations, the amount of water needed to “frack” a well varies greatly by region. In Texas, for instance, the average well requires up to 6 million gallons of water, while in California each well requires 80,000 to 300,000 gallons.

And depending on state and local water laws, this water is either drawn for free from underground aquifers or rivers, or is bought or leased from water districts, cities and farmers.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

A majority of Australia’s remaining fossil fuels ‘must be left in the ground and cannot be burned’ if society is to have any hope of curbing the existential threat posed by climate change, Australian scientists declare in a chilling government report released today.

(Photo: Hourann Bosci/Creative Commons/Oil Refinery in Victoria, Australia) “Unless effective action is taken, the global climate may be so irreversibly altered we will struggle to maintain our present way of life,” report authors assert. “The choices we make this decade will shape the long-term climate future for our children and grandchildren.”

The report finds that most of Australia’s vast fossil fuel reserves must remain untouched in a country that ranks as the world’s second largest exporter of coal, with shipments continuing to rise.

From today until 2050 we can emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to have a good chance of staying within the 2°C limit,” deliver the authors in a sobering assessment.

This would require reversing the rise in Australian emissions within the next two years if there is to be any hope of stemming the crisis.

Put simply, time is running out.

The Climate Commission that drafted the report was formed by the Australian government in 2011 to provide scientific information about climate change.

Their non-binding findings put them at loggerheads with Australia’s powerful oil and coal industries, as well as the rising conservative opposition, expected to win elections in September. Opposition leader Tony Abbott, who declared climate change is ‘absolute crap’, has vowed to do away with the climate commission if elected.

Report authors warn, in what could be their final report given Australia’s political climate, that the situation is dire: people across the world are already seeing the effects of climate change:

It is clear that the climate system has already shifted, changing conditions for all weather. While extreme weather events have always occurred naturally, the global climate system is hotter and wetter than it was 50 years ago. This has loaded the dice toward more frequent and forceful extreme weather events.

Severe weather events are a hot topic in the United States as firefighters continue to battle the largest fire in Colorado history.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Tens of thousands will march in Sao Paulo later Monday as protests against rising bus fares, soaring poverty, and scant public services in Brazil reach fever pitch.

(Photo: BBC) This marks the latest crescendo in weeks of escalating protests, touched off by a March spike in Porto Alegre bus fares that sent protesters into the streets. The demonstrations have spread to over 100 towns and cities facing nationwide fare increases, and mass police crackdowns with tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets, have led to scores of injuries.

The Huffington Post reports on opinions on-the-ground:

“It’s about much more than those 10 cents. It’s about a society that is sick of corrupt politicians not making good on their promises to make improvements,” said Bruno Bisaglia, 24, who was gathering video testimony about the protests. “We want decent education, health care and transportation. That’s what this fight is all about.”

Protests at Rio de Janeiro’s Confederations Cup football tournament continue into their second day as protesters assail high government spending on sports infrastructure while public services vanquish. The demonstrators were met by riot police who repeatedly fired tear gas into the crowd, Reuters reports.

Sao Paulo protests last week grew to tens of thousands strong, and violent police repression that left over 100 protesters injured and 230 detained captured global headlines.

The Free Fare Movement, one of the forces behind the uprisings, calls for “free public transport and quality without turnstiles and without charge,” according to the group’s Facebook page.

The issue of fares is a touchstone for broad discontent among the workers, students, and anti-poverty campaigners taking to Brazil’ streets, The Rio Times reports:

“O Rio pra quem?” (A Rio for whom?) protesters asked, expressing their frustration over the city’s repeated decisions to favor developing tourism, promoting the city’s international image and business, as opposed to serving the people and improving services provided to them.

The mobilizations have been termed the ‘salad uprisings’ after a Brazilian journalist was arrested for allegedly carrying vinegar, which is believed to be a partial protection against teargas.

While economic growth for Brazil’s wealthy has made this nation the darling of international lenders like the International Monetary Fund, reports suggest that growth under a trade liberalization framework and the gutting of social services have exacerbated social inequalities.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

One of China’s leading newspapers is asking NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden not to be returned to the US, calling his potential extradition a “betrayal” in a statement Monday which has garnered considerable attention, providing further evidence of the overwhelming global support of Snowden and his actions.

(Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images) Discussing the potential of Snowden being turned over to U.S. officials, The Global Times writes:

It would be a face-losing outcome for both the Hong Kong SAR government and the Chinese Central government if Snowden is extradited back to the US. Unlike a common criminal, Snowden did not hurt anybody. His “crime” is that he blew the whistle on the US government’s violation of civil rights. His action supported “human rights” as defined in the UN Charter, and has been applauded worldwide. 

Snowden believes in the democracy and freedom of Hong Kong. His whistle-blowing is in the global public interest. Therefore, extraditing Snowden back to the US would not only be a betrayal of Snowden’s trust, but a disappointment for expectations around the world. The image of Hong Kong would be forever tarnished.

As the AFP reports, Snowden “has exposed not only US cyber-espionage but also political fault lines in Hong Kong that are deepening as the territory, a proud bastion of free speech and protest, chafes under Chinese rule.”

“…extraditing Snowden back to the US would not only be a betrayal of Snowden’s trust, but a disappointment for expectations around the world.”- The Global Times

According to experts, the incident provides a significant test of civil liberties, saying that it will “set a landmark on whether the city can govern itself without interference from Beijing.”

Chief Executive of Hong Kong Leung Chun-ying has said that the government will handle the case “in accordance with the laws and established procedures of Hong Kong.”

In the op-ed, The Global Times references a poll by the South China Morning Post that reveals that the majority of Hong Kong residents oppose extraditing Snowden to the US.

As for a potential obligation for China to aid the US, the unspecified author concludes, “the Chinese government has no responsibility to help the US quench the fire.”

Lucia Brown is a summer editorial intern at Common Dreams.

_____________________

‬

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Over 20 anti-Keystone protesters were arrested Monday morning for blockading the doors to a Chicago federal building as part of newly launched call to action that declares “if you don’t act, I will.”

22 protesters were arrested Monday morning in Chicago for blockading the city’s Metcalfe Federal Building. It was the first demonstration in a series of civil disobedience actions organized by the group NoKXL.org. (Photo: @whitjones via Twitter) The demonstration was the first action organized by the group No KXL who are launching a civil disobedience campaign aimed directly at President Obama and his pending decision to permit construction of TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline–a deal that former NASA scientist James Hansen declared would spell ‘game over’ for the planet.

A total of 22 protesters were arrested Monday in front of Chicago’s Metcalfe Federal Building including political director for political action group CREDO mobile, Becky Bond, as well as a number of former Obama For America campaign staff. 

The demonstrators sat cross-legged in front of the building entrance holding signs that read, “President Obama, I oppose the KXL pipeline because Game Over is not the change I hoped for,” and “President Obama, I oppose the KXL pipeline because I voted for change.”

According to the NOKXL website, over 60,000 activists have pledged to participate in similar actions intended to pressure Obama into blocking the pipeline.

“If tens of thousands of people stand up as President Obama mulls his final decision, and commit to participate in civil disobedience if necessary, we can convince the White House that it will be politically unfeasible to go forward,” says the pledge, which was written by representatives from a spectrum of anti-Keystone groups including Bold Nebraska, CREDO Action, The Other 98%, the Hip Hop Caucus, the Rainforest Action Network, 350.org and Oil Change International.

The pledge continues:

Here’s exactly what we have in mind: The State Department is now considering the more than one million comments on its sham assessment opposing Keystone XL – including a very critical comment from the EPA. While we wait for the Administration to finalize its environmental assessment we will petition, rally, make phone calls, and comment through official channels. But that may not be enough.

The release of the final SEIS will start a 90 day National Interest Determination, which we expect to finish sometime in the fall. That is the moment of truth. If the Obama administration issues a Draft National Interest Determination finding that Keystone XL is in our national interest, that will trigger action on our pledge to resist.

“The people who knocked on doors, donated to his campaign and helped put him in the White House are watching to see if President Obama will side with a foreign oil company or keep his promise and take real action to fight climate change, starting with rejecting Keystone XL,” said Bond in a conference call last week.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

After the massive crash that rocked global markets in 2008, as Congress, central bankers and major financial institutions met in secret to mitigate the crisis, billionaires like Warren Buffet were buying up shares of some of the hardest hit companies.

At the time, the world was literally on the brink of an unprecedented economic collapse. It was so serious, in fact, that members of Congress were told that should they fail to come to an agreement the fallout would leave the United States in such a state of disarray that martial law would be declared and tanks would be deployed to major American cities.

In the midst of it all, as if they had a private pipeline into the bailout meetings, the big boys were positioning themselves to profit. And profit they did, as the stock market rose from 6500 points in late 2008 to record highs as recently as last month. They made billions of dollars on the backs of bailouts funded by taxpayers who were themselves struggling to pay their mortgages and put food on the table.

They knew then what their friends at the Federal Reserve, Treasury and investment banks were planning to do. And they took the opportunity to make a killing.

Now, with the stock market indicating to the masses that the promised recovery has taken hold, and with mainstream analysts arguing that happy days are here again, those same moguls of finance who were undoubtedly tipped off in 2008, are making some very big moves yet again.

But these particular moves are  exactly the opposite of what you might expect given that we’re at the beginning of a supposed recovery:

Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.

Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?

From Money News via StanDeyo.com

The simple answer is… they know.

They know that this market has been propped up by trillion dollar infusions from the Federal Reserve.

They know that Americans have lost 55% of their wealth since this crisis started.

They know nearly 25% of Americans are out of work (as opposed to the official 7.5% figures from the BLS) and that no meaningful jobs are being created.

They know that half of American households require government assistance, 100 million people are on welfare and nearly a quarter of them need nutritional assistance to put food on the table..

They know that the economic growth rates being disseminated to the people are completely bogus because they fail to account for the inflationary impact of the Fed’s monetary expansion.

They know this is wholly unsustainable, and they are getting out of Dodge before the next phase of this crisis takes hold and hammers the world yet again.

Ben Bernanke’s magic show will soon come to an end, and all of his tricks will be exposed for the statistical illusions they really are.

Billionaires know this and they are preparing for the inevitable. The government, likewise, is preparing for financial collapse and the potential for widespread violence that will follow.

You should be doing the same.

This article originally appeared on: SHTF Plan

One of the pillars of my trip to Gaza with the Palestine Literature Festival turned out to be an ongoing discussion regarding the essential blackness of the Palestinian struggle and the need to form greater ties with our “natural allies” from Africa and South America in particular.

At one event, a man in the audience questioned the usefulness of seeking alliances or help from Africa, where, he said, people are “hungry and poor and in need of help themselves.”

I pointed out that the image he holds of African peoples was planted in his mind by those who also plant the same image of us around the world. We, too, are viewed as helpless, hungry and needy. We, too, are seen as less human somehow, as savages, terrorists. The various layers and tempers of our and their intellectual, cultural, social and historical lives are ignored, or worse, intentionally obscured. Instead, the challenges of our societies are highlighted as all-encompassing truths.

But a better answer came from Ayman, a gentle soul who is trying to start up a film program in Gaza to help children cope with the violent realities of their lives. He said, simply, “So what? What does hunger and poverty have to do with dignity, anyway?”

Sameeha, a brilliant Palestinian writer in Gaza, noted that such reductive stereotypes are precisely the things that hinder badly-needed alliances among oppressed peoples. She, along with Rana, the indefatigable, ever-smiling and warm organizer of PalFest in Gaza, also pointed out that too often, when we speak of engaging “the world,” what we mean is Europe and the US, because someone convinced us somewhere along the line that these were the only places that mattered. That somehow our freedom can only come from the same nations that facilitated and cheered on the destruction of our society.

That, of course, is far from the truth. But understanding this requires that we reorient the Palestinian struggle to align with indigenous struggles – struggles of the marginalized and voiceless – which I consider to be spiritually and politically black because there is no equivalent to the savagery inflicted on the black body over centuries by white supremacy.

To me, blackness is what has been and is the recipient of colonialism and supremacy, with all that this entails in clashing forces of internalization of inferiority, resistance, black power and black empowerment.

Natural allies

In Black Skin, White Masks, Frantz Fanon describes the narcissism of inferiority that results from white colonization and enslavement of blacks. He said: “Black men want to prove to white men, at all costs, the richness of their thought, the equal value of their intellect.” This single sentence describes the Anglocentric nature of Palestinian discourse with “the world.”

The conversation we have with Europe and white America is one in which we are always trying to prove our humanity. One in which we beg for acceptance and solidarity, and one from which we accept the various sympathies of a white man’s burden as if it were true solidarity, or something of a slice of bread that comes with an admonition that we have not behaved well.

This is not to say that true solidarity has not come from white individuals. I would not deny the love and sacrifices of men and women like Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall,Vittorio Arrigoni and many more. I do not deny the kind of solidarity that transcends ethnicity. But there is an undeniable difference in the way peoples of different ethnicities relate to us.

With Africans, including American descendants of those who were enslaved, there is no need to preface our words. There is never a sense that we need to prove our worth or the righteousness of our struggle for liberation. This is what I mean by “natural allies.” They are people who know, viscerally, what it means to be regarded as vermin by most of the world. Those who know what it is to be the “wretched of the earth.”

There are still some Jews who remember that, perhaps. They too are our natural allies. But to continue to knock on European and white American doors, including Israeli doors, begging, “Please help me, please look at me, I am human as you,” is not helpful. It is not helpful to continue to accept conditional handouts that are turning our once proud people into a nation of beggars, willing to dance for butter. It is humiliating, weakening and, more importantly, unnecessary.

That any Palestinian should entertain the notion of “negotiations” with Israel for the basic dignity of freedom and home is a screaming example of the narcissism of learned inferiority. This is the essential blackness of our fight. In this way, our struggle for liberation is spiritually and politically black in nature.

One of the features of this negative narcissism is the aspiration to all that the oppressor entails, while simultaneously hating him. Fanon describes this aspiration to whiteness more eloquently than I ever could. In the Palestinian case, I will add that there is another layer to our condition, which can be described as the narcissism of victimhood.

I remember the first time I heard Edward Said speak in person. It was at an Al-AwdaRight to Return rally, I think the first one we held, in 2000. He said that “we [Palestinians] should remember the solidarity shown to us here and everywhere.”

I think of those words often because I don’t think we do enough to honor the spirit of what he said. We don’t recognize the origin of the solidarity shown to us. We are so immersed in our own pain and suffering – however understandably so – that we regard our victimhood to the exclusion of other suffering, much as (although not quite with the same worship) our oppressors have done.

Black solidarity with Palestine

The fact is that there is a tremendous amount of unsolicited solidarity coming from peoples who are themselves victims of colonization, exploitation, rapacious capitalism and institutional racism.

A few years ago, I had the privilege of being invited to the Federación Democrática Internacional de Mujeres (Women’s International Democratic Federation) in Caracas,Venezuela. This was a gathering of women from all over Latin America, from Mexico to Chile and Argentina and everywhere in between. It was a forum to address the ills facing their societies: sexism, capitalism, ageism, homophobia, racism, land theft, exploitation, environmental destruction, indigenous rights, patriarchy, classism and so on.

They invited only two delegations outside of Latin America. One was a delegation of Palestinian women from Palestine and the other was a delegation of North American women, mostly women of color, including myself, a Palestinian.

Two weeks ago, the Organization of Women Writers of Africa held their a conference in Ghana. With all the ills that Africa – this continent that still reels from the legacies of centuries of white supremacy, exploitation, enslavement and so much more – faces, the conference still thought it important to feature discussions of Palestine.

In South Africa, at Time of the Writer, a literature festival sponsored by the University ofKwazulu-Natal, the only invited non-African writer was Palestinian. It was a profound expression of solidarity with Palestine, born of an inherent comprehension that we and they are of the same fabric. The same pain and the same struggle.

Our most vocal and vociferous champions have been Africans and African Americans, from Desmond Tutu to Angela Davis, Alice Walker and Cynthia McKinney. No one would blame Tutu if he focused his fight for justice solely on the economic apartheid that still festers in his country. No one could blame Davis or Walker if they spent their energies combating the great social and economic injustices that are the enduring and bitter legacy of centuries of enslavement in the US.

I could fill pages with examples of solidarity coming to us from communities and individuals who could so easily ignore us and immerse themselves in their own difficult struggles. Rarely will any of these examples be from our Arab brethren, particularly those in oil-rich nations, who have within their power the ability to affect real and significant change.

I know that we, too, do emerge from the yoke of Israeli oppression and ethnic cleansing to show solidarity, whether with tsunami victims, the Rohingyas in Burma, or exploited factory workers in Bangladesh. But I think we can and should do more to give solidarity where it is needed, even if we have nothing to offer but heartfelt words written and broadcast from the ghettos of Bantustans and refugee camps. Because such is an essential beauty of being human.

Because there is a kind of liberation that can only come from being a part of the liberation of others. And because fostering reciprocal human solidarity, is how we break an oppressors imposed isolation, such as the siege of Gaza.

Because the United States and the European Union are not our friends. They have never been our friends.

Susan Abulhawa is the author of the international bestseller Mornings in Jenin and founder of Playgrounds for Palestine.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Eric Sommer
Pravda.ru
June 17, 2013

The Western media is currently full of articles reporting Google’s denial that it cooperated in a government program to massively spy on American and foreign citizens by accessing data from Google’s servers and those of other U.S. software companies.

The mainstream media has, however, almost completely failed to report that Google’s denial, and its surface concern over ‘human rights’, is historically belied by their deep involvement with some of the worst human rights abuses on the planet:

Google is, in fact, a key participant in U.S. military and CIA intelligence operations involving torture; subversion of foreign governments; illegal wars of aggression; and military occupations of countries which have never attacked the U.S. and which have cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

To begin with, as reported previously in the Washington Post and elsewhere, Google is the supplier of the customized core search technology for ‘Intellipedia, a highly-secured online system where 37,000 U.S. spies and related personnel share information and collaborate on their devious errands.

Agencies such as the so-called ‘National Security Agency’, or NSA, which is implicated in the current ‘spying on Americans’ scandal, have also purchased servers using Google-supplied search technology which processes information gathered by U.S. spies operating all over the planet.

In addition, Google is linked to the U.S. spy and military systems through its Google Earth software venture. The technology behind this software was originally developed by Keyhole Inc., a company funded by Q-Tel http://www.iqt.org/, a venture capital firm which is in turn openly funded and operated on behalf of the CIA.

Google acquired Keyhole Inc. in 2004. The same base technology is currently employed by U.S. military and intelligence systems in their quest, in their own words, for “full-spectrum dominance” of the planet.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Moreover, Google’s connection with the CIA and its venture capital firm extends to sharing at least one key member of personnel. In 2004, the Director of Technology Assessment at In-Q-Tel, Rob Painter, moved from his old job directly serving the CIA to become ‘Senior Federal Manager’ at Google.

As Robert Steele, a former CIA case officer has put it: Google is “in bed with” the CIA.

Google’s Friends spy on millions of Internet Users

Given Google’s supposed concern with ‘human rights’ and with user-privacy, it’s worth noting that Wired magazine reported some time ago that Google’s friends at In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA, invested in Visible Technologies, a software firm specialized in ‘monitoring social media’.

The ‘Visible’ technology can automatically examine more than a million discussions and posts on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, Amazon, and so forth each day. The technology also ‘scores’ each online item, assigning it a positive, negative or mixed or neutral status, based on parameters and terms set by the technology operators. The information, thus boiled down, can then be more effectively scanned and read by human operators.

The CIA venture capitalists at In-Q-Tel previously said they will use the technology to monitor social media operating in other countries and give U.S. spies early-warning detection on how issues are playing internationally, according to spokesperson Donald Tighe. There is every possibility that the technology can also be used by the U.S. intelligence operatives to spy on domestic social movements and individuals inside the U.S.

Finally, Obama during his recent meeting with Chinese president Xi, again more-or-less accused China of cyber intrusions into U.S. government computers. There has, however, been a curious absence from the statements emanating from Google, from U.S. government sources, and from U.S. media reports of truly substantive evidence linking the Chinese government with the alleged break-in attempts. Words like ‘sophisticated’ and ‘suspicion’ have appeared in the media to suggest that the Chinese government is responsible for the break-ins. That may be so. But it is striking that the media has seemingly asked no tough questions as to what the evidence behind the ‘suspicions’ might be.

It should be noted that the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies have a long history of rogue operations intended to discredit governments or social movements with whom they happen to disagree. To see how far this can go, one need only recall the sordid history of disinformation, lies, and deceit used to frighten people into supporting the Iraq war.

Whether the past attacks on U.S. government systems, Google email, et al originated from the Chinese government, from the U.S. intelligence operatives, or from elsewhere, one thing is clear: A company that supplies the CIA with key intelligence technology; supplies mapping software which can be used for barbarous wars of aggression and drone attacks which kill huge numbers of innocent civilians; and which in general is deeply intertwined with the CIA and the U.S. military machines, which spy on millions, the company cannot be motivated by real concern for the human rights and lives of the people in the U.S. and on the planet.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 2:22 pm

Tags: internet, technology

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Craig Timberg & Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post
June 17, 2013

The faces of more than 120 million people are in searchable photo databases that state officials assembled to prevent driver’s-license fraud but that increasingly are used by police to identify suspects, accomplices and even innocent bystanders in a wide range of criminal investigations.

The facial databases have grown rapidly in recent years and generally operate with few legal safeguards beyond the requirement that searches are conducted for “law enforcement purposes.” Amid rising concern about the National Security Agency’s high-tech surveillance aimed at foreigners, it is these state-level facial-recognition programs that more typically involve American citizens.

The most widely used systems were honed on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq as soldiers sought to identify insurgents. The increasingly widespread deployment of the technology in the United States has helped police find murderers, bank robbers and drug dealers, many of whom leave behind images on surveillance videos or social-media sites that can be compared against official photo databases.

Read more

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

San Francisco’s bins for mandatory recycling. Photo: Kenneth Lu

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced a plan to penalize New Yorkers who do not compost food waste.

Nanny Mike, who has outlawed consumption of large soft drinks and smoking outdoors, has an ambitious plan to handle 100,000 tons of food scraps a year and convert residential food waste into biogas for electricity generation, according to the New York Times.

Biogas is a trendy alternative to conventional fuel used to generate electricity. In addition to the inefficiency of biogas, it is more expensive than other biofuels.

Moreover, sanitation officials in America’s largest city consider New York too dense and vertically structured for such a policy to succeed.

For now, Bloomberg’s program will be voluntary. New York, however, eventually plans to make it mandatory. Cities around the country, including San Francisco and Seattle, are currently mandating citizen participation in food recycling programs.

San Francisco’s Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance fines building owners if they do not provide blue, green, and black bins and information on their proper use, according to the SFEnviroment web page.

Michael Bloomberg’s nanny state initiative has increased momentum recently. In addition to soft drinks and smoking, New York City’s bureaucrats are attempting to restrict pain medication, purportedly in response to a national epidemic of prescription drug abuse.

“Michael Bloomberg believes the government and its sprawling and ineffectual bureaucracy is far better suited to make patient decisions than doctors and medical professionals,” we reported in January. “Bloomberg’s soda ban and his vendetta against law-abiding firearms owners once again reveals the insatiable drive of government to micromanage and control all aspects of human behavior and further extend its reach into the private affairs of citizen-subjects.”

In May, Bloomberg moved to restrict consumption decisions of citizens.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 1:52 pm

Tags: big brother, domestic news

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Bob Kinzel
Vermont Public Radio
June 17, 2013

Recently, it was revealed that the National Security Agency has compiled phone records of tens of millions of Americans as part of the effort to find links to terrorist operations. The surveillance activities are legal under the renewal of the Patriot Act that was passed in 2011.

Senator Bernie Sanders says the Act gives the government too much authority and he wants the federal government to prove that the records of a specific individual deserve to be examined:

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Tags: 9/11, big brother, domestic news, domestic spying, legislation, terrorism

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Lawrence Davidson
Consortium News
June 17, 2013

Context One: It is 1971 and the United States is mired in a losing war in Vietnam. Thousands of young American soldiers are coming back to the U.S. in coffins or physically and psychologically maimed. Scenes of war can be witnessed nightly on the evening news.

In the midst of this mayhem the American military analyst Daniel Ellsberg gives the New York Times a copy of a classified analysis of the war entitled, “United States — Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967” aka the “Pentagon Papers.” The Nixon administration then sought to prevent the publication of this report through a court injunction. Ultimately the Supreme Court overturned the injunction in a 6-3 ruling that favored the public’s right to know.

The government also attempted to prosecute Ellsberg under the 1917 Espionage Act for releasing classified information to the public. That was thrown out of court because in making their case, government agents had gathered information through an illegal wiretap.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 1:24 pm

Tags: domestic news, drones, terrorism, war

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

Legendary Hollywood film star and voice actor Ed Asner called in to the Alex Jones Show near the end of Sunday’s broadcast, publicly voicing his support for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

“Why do I get a call from you?!” a pleasantly surprised Jones asked Asner.

“It’s been a long time,” Asner stated. “I’m still an admirer of all you do and I guess you’re one of the last voices left standing in this so-called democracy.”

Members of the Infowars crew in California were able to locate and interview the staunch supporter of the 9/11 truth movement, convincing him to call in to Alex’s Sunday show.

“What do you make of the NSA spying coming out and funding Al Qaeda to attack Syria, sir?” Alex quizzed the 83-year-old television, film and stage actor.

“I think they’re looking to stir up things and perhaps create the genesis for World War III,” Asner replied, correctly accusing the military industrial complex of perpetuating endless wars to justify its existence and funding. “It furthers the control of the corporate business over the people of our country. It further makes us all sheep.”

Asner also weighed in on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s plight after leaking sensitive data the U.S. government says could have undermined national security.

“Isn’t it good news the NSA stuff is coming out?” Jones postulated. “Or is it too little too late?”

“Well, I think what we’ll have to find out is: What are they going to do with him?” responded Asner. “If they leave him alone, then there is still democratic principles at work in this country. If they try to crucify him like they did Manning — or still are attempting to crucify Manning — then…”

“That’s right, I think Snowden’s a hero. What do you say?” Alex inquired.

“I do, too… and [if] press, media doesn’t rise up and try to defend him as openly as possible, then the government will truly be labeled, ‘fascist,’” Asner said.

Alex also asked Asner to divulge his favorite acting role. “Well I can’t deny the extent I identified with the character in Rich Man, Poor Man,” the former president of the Screen Actors Guild said of his representation of father Axel Jordache in the 1976 American television miniseries.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 1:24 pm

Tags: big brother, domestic spying, entertainment

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Over 20 anti-Keystone protesters were arrested Monday morning for blockading the doors to a Chicago federal building as part of newly launched call to action that declares “if you don’t act, I will.”

22 protesters were arrested Monday morning in Chicago for blockading the city’s Metcalfe Federal Building. It was the first demonstration in a series of civil disobedience actions organized by the group NoKXL.org. (Photo: @whitjones via Twitter) The demonstration was the first action organized by the group No KXL who are launching a civil disobedience campaign aimed directly at President Obama and his pending decision to permit construction of TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline–a deal that former NASA scientist James Hansen declared would spell ‘game over’ for the planet.

A total of 22 protesters were arrested Monday in front of Chicago’s Metcalfe Federal Building including political director for political action group CREDO mobile, Becky Bond, as well as a number of former Obama For America campaign staff. 

The demonstrators sat cross-legged in front of the building entrance holding signs that read, “President Obama, I oppose the KXL pipeline because Game Over is not the change I hoped for,” and “President Obama, I oppose the KXL pipeline because I voted for change.”

According to the NOKXL website, over 60,000 activists have pledged to participate in similar actions intended to pressure Obama into blocking the pipeline.

“If tens of thousands of people stand up as President Obama mulls his final decision, and commit to participate in civil disobedience if necessary, we can convince the White House that it will be politically unfeasible to go forward,” says the pledge, which was written by representatives from a spectrum of anti-Keystone groups including Bold Nebraska, CREDO Action, The Other 98%, the Hip Hop Caucus, the Rainforest Action Network, 350.org and Oil Change International.

The pledge continues:

Here’s exactly what we have in mind: The State Department is now considering the more than one million comments on its sham assessment opposing Keystone XL – including a very critical comment from the EPA. While we wait for the Administration to finalize its environmental assessment we will petition, rally, make phone calls, and comment through official channels. But that may not be enough.

The release of the final SEIS will start a 90 day National Interest Determination, which we expect to finish sometime in the fall. That is the moment of truth. If the Obama administration issues a Draft National Interest Determination finding that Keystone XL is in our national interest, that will trigger action on our pledge to resist.

“The people who knocked on doors, donated to his campaign and helped put him in the White House are watching to see if President Obama will side with a foreign oil company or keep his promise and take real action to fight climate change, starting with rejecting Keystone XL,” said Bond in a conference call last week.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

British Foreign Secretary William Hague is plotting to deceive a skeptical British public over plans to arms foreign-backed terrorists in Syria, moaning that it can be done in a containable way.

Trying to sell the idea, William Hague reiterated that arming the Syrian rebels could be done in a containable way that prevented military equipment falling into the hands of extremist elements.

Both Hague and Prime Minister David Cameron are fighting a three-way battle to win over skeptics in their own party, the coalition government and G8 leaders and persuade them that further steps are necessary to help the terrorists in Syria.

“We are currently sending equipment that saves lives and who are we sending that to? Well, we are sending it to those more moderate, more sensible elements of the opposition. Obviously, we’re not sending it to extremist groups, to groups that we’re very concerned about, that could become a terrorist threat”, Hague claimed.

The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, dismissed the claims, warning in an article that Britain will have no means of preventing UK weapons ending up in the hands of “al-Qaeda-affiliated thugs” if it supplies arms to the Syrian rebels.

Boris Johnson described elements of the Syrian opposition as maniacs. He said some fighting the Syrian government were “odious, twisted, hate-filled thugs; arrogant and inadequate creeps, intoxicated by the pathetic illusion of power that comes with guns”.

“They are fighting not for freedom but for a terrifying state in which they would have the whip hand – and yet there is no dodging or fudging the matter: these are among the Syrian rebels who are hoping now to benefit from the flow of western arms.

“We can’t use Syria as an arena for geopolitical point-scoring or muscle-flexing, and we won’t get a ceasefire by pressing weapons into the hands of maniacs”, added Johnson.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

British Foreign Secretary William Hague is plotting to deceive a skeptical British public over plans to arms foreign-backed terrorists in Syria, moaning that it can be done in a containable way.

Trying to sell the idea, William Hague reiterated that arming the Syrian rebels could be done in a containable way that prevented military equipment falling into the hands of extremist elements.

Both Hague and Prime Minister David Cameron are fighting a three-way battle to win over skeptics in their own party, the coalition government and G8 leaders and persuade them that further steps are necessary to help the terrorists in Syria.

“We are currently sending equipment that saves lives and who are we sending that to? Well, we are sending it to those more moderate, more sensible elements of the opposition. Obviously, we’re not sending it to extremist groups, to groups that we’re very concerned about, that could become a terrorist threat”, Hague claimed.

The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, dismissed the claims, warning in an article that Britain will have no means of preventing UK weapons ending up in the hands of “al-Qaeda-affiliated thugs” if it supplies arms to the Syrian rebels.

Boris Johnson described elements of the Syrian opposition as maniacs. He said some fighting the Syrian government were “odious, twisted, hate-filled thugs; arrogant and inadequate creeps, intoxicated by the pathetic illusion of power that comes with guns”.

“They are fighting not for freedom but for a terrifying state in which they would have the whip hand – and yet there is no dodging or fudging the matter: these are among the Syrian rebels who are hoping now to benefit from the flow of western arms.

“We can’t use Syria as an arena for geopolitical point-scoring or muscle-flexing, and we won’t get a ceasefire by pressing weapons into the hands of maniacs”, added Johnson.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

W. James Antle III
The American Conservative
June 17, 2013

The Obama administration appears to be moving toward arming rebels in Syria, though the White House has only publicly confirmed an increase in the “scope and scale” of its military support.

By one estimate, seven of nine key rebel combatant groups are Islamist. “As the civil war has dragged on, the rebels have become more Islamist and extreme,” the Economist reports. Thus the administration’s decision to arm only the non-Islamist rebels may soon resemble O.J. Simpson’s search for the “real killers.”

Arms shipments approved by the Obama administration have already ended up in the hands of jihadists in Libya. “The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya,” reported the New York Times, “allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.”

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 1:07 pm

Tags: domestic news, foreign affairs, terrorism, war

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Washington Free Beacon
June 17, 2013

Former GE CEO Jack Welch said a big government bias among federal employees who have to make “subjective decisions” influences the actions and data output at federal agencies Tuesday on “Squawk Box.”

Welch noted the latest unemployment figures from the Bureau of Labor & Statistics seemed to be perfectly adjusted to reflect a recovering economy in spite of underlying weaknesses he still sees.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 12:50 pm

Tags: economics, government corruption

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

cpapracticeadvisor.com
June 17, 2013

She spent her days serving up Happy Meals, but when it came time to get paid, Natalie Gunshannon says a local McDonald’s franchisee gave her an unhappy deal.

The Shavertown, Pennsylvania, McDonald’s forces workers to be paid only one way: with a payroll debit card that burdens workers with hefty fees to obtain their hard-earned cash, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday on behalf of Gunshannon and other McDonald’s workers.

Gunshannon and an untold number of current and former employees had no option to receive a traditional paycheck or get paid by direct deposit, she and her attorneys said in the class-action against franchise owners Albert and Carol Mueller of Clarks Summit.

Summit.

“I’m looking for the pay I am owed and for them to understand there has to be an option,” Gunshannon, 27, said Thursday outside her Dallas Township residence.

Gunshannon, who worked at the Shavertown McDonald’s for a month after being hired April 24, refused to activate the payroll card after reviewing the fee structure, quit the job and reached out to an attorney to see if the practice was legal.

Attorney Michael J. Cefalo of West Pittston and his law firm then drafted a class-action lawsuit against the Muellers, who own 15 other McDonald’s locations throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania.

Filed in Luzerne County Court, the suit accused the Muellers and their limited partnership of violating the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Act and unlawfully boosting profits with the payroll card “scheme.”

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of employees and asks a judge to award punitive damages against the company for its “ill-gotten gains contrary to justice, equity, good conscience and Pennsylvania law.”

Beth Dal Santo, a spokeswoman for an association of McDonald’s franchisees in the region, said the Muellers had not been served with the lawsuit Thursday and would not comment.

The couple, who immigrated to the U.S. from Germany separately in the 1950s, were honored by the Salvation Army in 2011 for their support of that organization and the Ronald McDonald House in Scranton. Their business practices, Gunshannon said, were much less charitable.

Gunshannon said the manager of the Muellers’ Shavertown location refused to issue her a paper paycheck or pay via direct deposit, saying, “We only pay on the card.” An executive working for the Muellers, she said, gave her an ultimatum: “If you don’t activate the card, there is no way for us to pay you. You can activate the card or we can’t pay you.”

The J.P. Morgan Chase payroll card carries fees for nearly every type of transaction, according to the lawsuit, including a $1.50 charge for ATM withdrawals, $5 for over-the-counter cash withdrawals, $1 to check the balance, 75 cents per online bill payment and $10 per month if the card is left inactive for more than three months.

A spokeswoman for the McDonald’s Corp., which is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, did not respond to a telephone message and emailed questions Thursday about the company’s guidelines for how its franchisees should pay employees.

Cefalo said they filed the lawsuit on behalf of all current and former employees who were paid with payroll cards without being given the option of receiving their wages in cash or via a check. State law, he said, requires wages be paid in “lawful money” or with a check.

Read more

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

read more

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Protesters march to the American consulate during a protest in support of whistleblower Edward Snowden. (Photo: Philippe Lopez/ AFP)One of China’s leading newspapers is asking NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden not to be returned to the US, calling his potential extradition a “betrayal” in a statement Monday which has garnered considerable attention, providing further evidence of the overwhelming global support of Snowden and his actions.

“…extraditing Snowden back to the US would not only be a betrayal of Snowden’s trust, but a disappointment for expectations around the world.”- The Global Times

Discussing the potential of Snowden being turned over to U.S. officials, The Global Times writes:

It would be a face-losing outcome for both the Hong Kong SAR government and the Chinese Central government if Snowden is extradited back to the US. Unlike a common criminal, Snowden did not hurt anybody. His “crime” is that he blew the whistle on the US government’s violation of civil rights. His action supported “human rights” as defined in the UN Charter, and has been applauded worldwide. 

Snowden believes in the democracy and freedom of Hong Kong. His whistle-blowing is in the global public interest. Therefore, extraditing Snowden back to the US would not only be a betrayal of Snowden’s trust, but a disappointment for expectations around the world. The image of Hong Kong would be forever tarnished.

As the AFP reports, Snowden “has exposed not only US cyber-espionage but also political fault lines in Hong Kong that are deepening as the territory, a proud bastion of free speech and protest, chafes under Chinese rule.”

According to experts, the incident provides a significant test of civil liberties, saying that it will “set a landmark on whether the city can govern itself without interference from Beijing.”

Chief Executive of Hong Kong Leung Chun-ying has said that the government will handle the case “in accordance with the laws and established procedures of Hong Kong.”

In the op-ed, The Global Times references a poll by the South China Morning Post that reveals that the majority of Hong Kong residents oppose extraditing Snowden to the US.

As for a potential obligation for China to aid the US, the unspecified author concludes, “the Chinese government has no responsibility to help the US quench the fire.”

Lucia Brown is a summer editorial intern at Common Dreams.

_____________________

‬

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Turkey has described as Å“scandal” reports that the UK government spied on foreign governments participating in G20 meetings in London in 2009.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry called for explanations from Britain over reports Turkish delegates were among those who had their computers monitored and phones intercepted.

“The claims published in today’s edition of the Guardian that phone conversations of our Minister of Finance Mehmet Simsek and his delegation were tapped during their visit to the United Kingdom in 2009, on the occasion of the G20 meeting, are alarming”, it said in a statement.

“If there is even the slightest truth to any of these claims contained in this news report, this will evidently constitute a scandal, primarily for the country concerned”, the statement said.

“In an environment where mutual trust, respect and transparency should be essential for international co-operation, such act by an allied country would clearly be deemed unacceptable, should the news report turn out to be true”, it added.

“The British authorities are expected to present an official and satisfactory explanation on this issue. As a matter of fact, necessary diplomatic initiatives have been taken in this regard.”

The UK Foreign Office (FCO) said Turkey had raised the claims with Britain’s ambassador to the country, Sir David Reddaway.

The claims, reported by the Guardian newspaper, are that GCHQ – Britain’s electronic eavesdropping agency – spied on foreign politicians and officials attending two G20 summit meetings in April and September 2009.

UK intelligence agencies were said to have set up internet cafes specifically to enable them to read the emails of those taking part in the summit, the paper quoted the leaked documents as saying.

It alleged that the operation was sanctioned at a senior level in the government of then prime minister Gordon Brown and the intelligence obtained was passed to ministers.

The Turkish, South African and Russian delegates are said to have been among those targeted.

The reports are based on documents obtained by American whistleblower Edward Snowden.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Turkey has described as Å“scandal” reports that the UK government spied on foreign governments participating in G20 meetings in London in 2009.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry called for explanations from Britain over reports Turkish delegates were among those who had their computers monitored and phones intercepted.

“The claims published in today’s edition of the Guardian that phone conversations of our Minister of Finance Mehmet Simsek and his delegation were tapped during their visit to the United Kingdom in 2009, on the occasion of the G20 meeting, are alarming”, it said in a statement.

“If there is even the slightest truth to any of these claims contained in this news report, this will evidently constitute a scandal, primarily for the country concerned”, the statement said.

“In an environment where mutual trust, respect and transparency should be essential for international co-operation, such act by an allied country would clearly be deemed unacceptable, should the news report turn out to be true”, it added.

“The British authorities are expected to present an official and satisfactory explanation on this issue. As a matter of fact, necessary diplomatic initiatives have been taken in this regard.”

The UK Foreign Office (FCO) said Turkey had raised the claims with Britain’s ambassador to the country, Sir David Reddaway.

The claims, reported by the Guardian newspaper, are that GCHQ – Britain’s electronic eavesdropping agency – spied on foreign politicians and officials attending two G20 summit meetings in April and September 2009.

UK intelligence agencies were said to have set up internet cafes specifically to enable them to read the emails of those taking part in the summit, the paper quoted the leaked documents as saying.

It alleged that the operation was sanctioned at a senior level in the government of then prime minister Gordon Brown and the intelligence obtained was passed to ministers.

The Turkish, South African and Russian delegates are said to have been among those targeted.

The reports are based on documents obtained by American whistleblower Edward Snowden.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

A new series of videos created by the folks on Sesame Street is a propaganda program designed to help children accept the fact that daddy is in jail. It’s OK kiddies, it’s almost inevitable given that 3 percent of the American population is currently under some type of correctional supervision. Just write him a letter and you’ll feel fine.

In the first video, “What is Incarceration,” young Alex, whose father has been incarcerated, is told that laws are “grown-up rules” and if someone breaks the rules they have to go to prison or jail.

In the second video, “Alex’s Big Feelings,” Alex explains that sometimes he’s OK, but other times he gets angry. “I get really upset but I just miss him so much. I just hurts inside. Sometimes I feel like I just want to pound on a pillow and scream as loud as I can.”

Sophia, the adult human who’s schooling Alex on the acceptability of having a father who’s broken the ‘grown-up’ rules and been incarcerated, explains to Alex that it’s OK to feel angry or confused because that’s exactly how she felt when her father was incarcerated.

“When my dad was incarcerated I was really confused about all the different feelings I was having. So I talked to my mom about it. She let me know that it was OK to have lots of big feelings, and that I could always talk to her and talking made me feel better.”

According to Sophia, all you have to do is talk about your feelings, draw a few pictures, write letters to your dad, and toddle off to visit him in jail every now and then and everything will be all rainbows and lollipops.

“I like to draw so sometimes I drew pictures of the way I was feeling. That helped, too. It also helped to keep in touch with my dad. My mom would help me write letters to him. We’d send him photos and we’d visit him whenever we could. And sometimes we even got a letter back from my dad. It made me feel good to know that he was OK and that he was thinking of me, and even though we had to be apart I knew mom was here for me to help me feel better.”

In October 2012, Mitt Romney made headlines during the first presidential debate when he said one of the things he’d do to bring down the deficit was cut funding for PBS. Millions of Americans took to Twitter and thrashed Romney for threatening to kill Big Bird, but they didn’t listen to the whole statement. What Romney really said was:

“I will eliminate all programs by this test: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to finance it? …I’m gonna stop the subsidy to PBS, I’m gonna stop the subsidy to other things. I Like PBS, I love Big Bird… but I’m not going to keep spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.”

After Romney’s “Death to Big Bird” speech, American Thinker asked why, Elmo, Bert & Ernie, and Big Bird should continue to receive more than $7 million annually in federal subsidies when, according to the tax forms, Sesame Street was paved in gold.

“[T]he President of Sesame Workshop, Gary Knell, received in 2008 a salary of $956,513. In that sense, Big Bird and Sen. Harry Reid embody the same mystifying phenomenon: they’ve been in “public service” their entire lives and have somehow wound up as multimillionaires.”

“[T]he 990 also revealed that Sesame Workshop received $44,984,003 in royalties last year, which includes sales of Sesame Street brand merchandise like “Tickle Me Elmo” dolls. That means Big Bird made five times in merchandise sales than what he received in government grants.”

So why the need for a government subsidy for a street full of already uber-rich puppets? Because the creators of Sesame Street are doing the government’s work so they deserve a piece of the government pie.

The Sesame Street incarceration videos are designed to desensitize Americans of all ages and help us to feel comfortable with the idea that prison is an inevitability for most. But the fact is, prison is Big Business these days and we need to keep the machine well-oiled.

The daily news is splattered with reports of serial killers, child molesters, and random atrocities but in reality most of the “criminals” locked up in our jails and prisons are poor people who’ve committed small, nonviolent crimes in order to put food on the table. According to Global Research, “Violence occurs in less than 14% of all reported crime, and injuries occur in just 3%.”

Using those big crimes to create an atmosphere of fear allows lawmakers to implement legislation for tougher penalties and to criminalize even more mundane acts, like the 14-year-old who’s facing jail time for wearing a pro-NRA t-shirt.

But what it really does is allow them to push through funding for more and more prisons so they can house more and more prisoners and use them as free labor.

According to Global Research:

For private business, prison labor is like a pot of gold. No strikes. No union organizing. No unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation to pay. No language problem, as in a foreign country. New leviathan prisons are being built with thousands of eerie acres of factories inside the walls. Prisoners do data entry for Chevron, make telephone reservations for TWA, raise hogs, shovel manure, make circuit boards, limousines, waterbeds, and lingerie for Victoria’s Secret. All at a fraction of the cost of “free labor.”

Prisoners can be forced to work for pennies because they have no rights. Even the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which abolished slavery, excludes prisoners from its protections.

And, more and more, prisons are charging inmates for basic necessities from medical care, to toilet paper, to use of the law library. Many states are now charging “room and board.” Berks County prison in Pennsylvania is charging inmates $10 per day to be there. California has similar legislation pending. So, while government cannot (yet) actually require inmates to work at private industry jobs for less than minimum wage, they are forced to by necessity.

Prison industries are often directly competing with private industry. Small furniture manufacturers around the country complain that they are being driven out of business by UNICOR which pays 23 cents/hour and has the inside track on government contracts. In another case, U.S. Technologies sold its electronics plant in Austin, Texas, leaving its 150 workers unemployed. Six week later, the electronics plant reopened in a nearby prison.

Use government handouts to keep Americans poor and down-trodden, then criminalize every minute behavior such as riding a bicycle on the sidewalk or wearing a hoodie and walking in the wrong neighborhood, and of course daddy’s going to inevitably end up in jail where he can “pay” for his crimes.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 12:45 pm

Tags: entertainment, police state

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Ron Paul
Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

President Obama announced late last week that the US intelligence community had just determined that the Syrian government had used poison gas on a small scale, killing some 100 people in a civil conflict that has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. Because of this use of gas, the president claimed, Syria had crossed his “red line” and the US must begin to arm the rebels fighting to overthrow the Syrian government.

War Cemetery Oosterbeek, photo by FaceMePLS

Setting aside the question of why 100 killed by gas is somehow more important than 99,900 killed by other means, the fact is his above explanation is full of holes. The Washington Post reported this week that the decision to overtly arm the Syrian rebels was made “weeks ago” — in other words, it was made at a time when the intelligence community did not believe “with high confidence” that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons.

Further, this plan to transfer weapons to the Syrian rebels had become policy much earlier than that, as the Washington Post reported that the CIA had expanded over the past year its secret bases in Jordan to prepare for the transfer of weapons to the rebels in Syria.

The process was identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq war. Remember the famous quote from the leaked “Downing Street Memo,” where representatives of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration discussed Washington’s push for war on Iraq?

Here the head of British intelligence was reporting back to his government after a trip to Washington in the summer of 2002:

“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

That is exactly what the Obama Administration is doing with Syria: fixing the intelligence and facts around the already determined policy. And Congress just goes along, just as they did the last time.

We found out shortly after the Iraq war started that the facts and intelligence being fixed around the policy were nothing but lies put forth by the neo-con warmongers and the paid informants, like the infamous and admitted liar known as “Curveball.” But we seem to have learned nothing from being fooled before.

So Obama now plans to send even more weapons to the Syrian rebels even though his administration is aware that the main rebel factions have pledged their loyalty to al-Qaeda. Does anyone else see the irony? After 12 years of the “war on terror” and the struggle against al-Qaeda, the US decided to provide weapons to the allies of al-Qaeda. Does anyone really think this is a good idea?

The Obama administration promises us that this is to be a very limited operation, providing small arms only, with no plans for a no-fly zone or American boots on the ground. That sounds an awful lot like how Vietnam started. Just a few advisors. When these few small arms do not achieve the pre-determined US policy of regime change in Syria what is the administration going to do? Admit failure and pull the troops out, or escalate? History suggests the answer and it now appears to be repeating itself once again.

The president has opened a can of worms that will destroy his presidency and possibly destroy this country. Another multi-billion dollar war has begun.

Former Congressman Paul’s article first appeared at the-free-foundation.org, the temporary home for his weekly column until his personal web page is up and running.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 12:28 pm

Tags: domestic news, foreign affairs, ron paul, war

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Pakistani police officers and volunteers gather at the wreckage of a bus destroyed in a bomb blast in Quetta on June 15, 2013.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

A new poll shows that US President Barack Obama’s job approval rating has plunged to 45 percent, amid a series of compounding controversies.

The poll results, released by CNN on Monday, also showed that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Obama has done his job, up from 45 percent over the past month.

Obamaâ„¢s disapproval rate regarding the state of the economy steadily increased from 51 percent in January to 54 percent in April to 57 percent in June, the survey found.

The results are in line with several other recent polls that show the presidentâ„¢s electoral honeymoon is all but over.

This is while the Obama administration is left battered by a series of controversies, including the NSA surveillance scandal, allegations of misconduct among Internal Revenue Service officials, and government spying on reporters.

The survey, conducted for CNN by ORC International on June 11 to 13, was based on nationwide telephone interviews with 1,014 American adults.

GMA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Pakistani police officers and volunteers gather at the wreckage of a bus destroyed in a bomb blast in Quetta on June 15, 2013.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Russiaâ„¢s Foreign Ministry spokesman has criticized the Egyptian government over its new decision to cut off diplomatic relations with Syria.

Å“This quite unexpected decision of the Egyptian leadership would unlikely demonstrate Egypt’s positive role in the regional efforts to settle the Syrian problem,” Alexander Lukashevich told reporters on Monday.

Lukashevich denounced Egyptâ„¢s decision as a strange move.

The Russian top diplomat noted that Moscow awaits clarifications from Cairo over the decision.

Addressing a public rally in Cairo on Saturday, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi announced, “We decided today to entirely break off relations with Syria and with the current Syrian” government.

He said that his government would close the Syrian Embassy in Cairo, adding that it would also recall the Egyptian charge d’affaires from Damascus.

Syria has condemned Egyptâ„¢s move, saying the Egyptian government has joined the Israeli-US club, which is conspiring against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Earlier on Sunday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned against any effort by the United States and its allies to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, saying the move would be a Ëœviolation of international law.â„¢

Western media have reported that US F-16 warplanes and Patriot anti-aircraft missiles in Jordan might be used in creating a no-fly zone over Syria.

The turmoil in Syria erupted in March 2011, and many people, including large numbers of Syrian soldiers and security personnel, have been killed so far.

In May, Assad said militants from as many as 29 different countries are fighting against the government in different parts of the country.

ASH/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Many questions remain unanswered about the Boston Marathon Bombings that took place on April 15, 2013. Three people were killed and two hundred and sixty-four others were injured during the tragedy. Originally, the mainstream media reported that an arrest had been made and that «a dark skinned man» (ignorantly assumed by many to be of Arab background) was the suspected perpetrator of the attacks in Boston. John King from the Cable News Network (CNN) would insist that he was personally told that «a dark skinned man» was the one. Then reports that a suspected had been caught and arrested began. Journalists and interested people would gather around Boston’s federal courthouse with the hopes of finding out more and getting a glimpse of the detained suspect. In a case of odd timing, after the media reports about an arrest began, a bomb threat was called into Boston’s federal courthouse and the journalists around the building, as well as most people, were forced to evacuate the area.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would then release photographs of the Tsarnaev brothers and publicly state that they were the suspects behind the bombings at the Boston Marathon. Soon after, the Tsarnaev brothers would allegedly kill a university policeman at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and then carjack a Mercedes sports utility vehicle (SUV). Reports that they robbed a 7-Eleven convenience store would also surface, but be denied by the 7-Eleven franchise as wrong. It would later be reported that a shootout between the two brothers and the pursuing police in the suburb of Watertown, which is part of Greater Boston, would take place.
It was reported that during the fighting a law enforcement officer from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Police would be injured and Tamerlan, the older of the Tsarnaev brothers, would be killed by police fire. Tamerlan’s aunt and family, however, say that this is not true because they identified seeing him «naked, cuffed, clearly alive and well detainee seen in video aired by CNN» to Dan Dicks of Press For Truth. The multiple bullet wounds on Tamerlan’s body have also led to many questions. Furthermore, it would later be reported that Tamerlan Tsarnaev actually died under police custody and not while fighting police.

The police reported that Dzhokhar, the younger of the two brothers, escaped with injuries during the shootout. Hours later, Dzhokhar was found hiding inside a boat without any weapons and taken to the hospital under armed guard. Because he was shot in the throat, he could not talk or disclose anything. It was surprising that the teenager could survive and function normally on his own for such a long length of time after he took a bullet to the throat. Others questioned how he became unconscious (for a period of days) only after police arrested him and how he seemed unaffected in police footage of him inside the boat. It was also later reported that Dzhokhar shot himself in the throat in a botched suicide attempt during his last stand with the police.

Domestic Firing Squads?

There are many strange twists and turns tied to the Boston Marathon Bombings that give rise to more questions. The strange features in the event include the suspect’s background and the odd chain of happenings after the arrest of the Tsarnaevs. What the parents of the Tsarnaev brothers in Russia, which adamantly say their two sons were framed, have disclosed has also added to suspicions.

Then there is the string of deaths after the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The FBI’s Special Agent Christopher Lorek and Special Agent Stephen Shaw, who arrested Dzhokhar, were mysteriously killed on May 17, 2013. In a case of strange timing, during what is presented as a freak accident, the two FBI agents where killed during a training mission when they were reported to have fallen out of their helicopter off the Atlantic coast of Virginia. Officially, bad weather was reported to be the cause of their deaths.

The death of the FBI special agents can be compared to the death of the team of US Navy SEALs who allegedly killed Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011. The story of Osama bin Laden’s death is another story full of inconsistencies. The Obama Administration was caught being deceitful about watching the killing live and then there is the case of Osama’s missing body that was supposedly and clumsily justified by the wrong claim that it was dumped into the ocean to respect Muslim customs. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) also released a short interview with a Pakistani resident living near the home saying that the man who was killed was not Osama bin Laden. Nor were any pictures of Osama bin Laden ever provided.

The irregularities did not end there. The group of US Navy SEALs involved with the operation would all end up dying on August 6, 2011 when their helicopter was shot down in NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan. SEAL Team VI, which was the unit’s name, actually had their identities and area of operations in Afghanistan revealed by the Obama Administration while they were serving, which is believed to have made them targets. SEAL Team VI was also oddly put into an old and vulnerable Chinook helicopter on the day that they were killed. As a result of this, the families of the dead Navy SEAL commandos have blamed the US federal government for their deaths, saying that the shooting of the helicopter was planned by the US government as part of a cover-up for its own lies.

Moving on, the death of the two FBI special agents adds to the suspicion around the death of a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev named Ibragim Todashev. Todashev was killed in his own apartment while under police supervision by the FBI in Orlando, Florida. He was killed by police fire after being interrogated for days about the Boston Marathon Bombings. He was also «unarmed» and killed by a shot to the centre of the head, or by a «kill shot.» His friend, Khusen Taramov, said that Todashev was planning on returning to Russia, but voluntarily stayed to cooperate with investigators because the FBI had asked him to stay in Florida.

It was originally claimed by the FBI that Todashev’s death happened when he «flipped out» and attacked the police with a knife during the interview. This, however, contradicts character statements about him and the fact that he was voluntarily cooperating with US authorities. His father, Abdulbaki Todashev, would hold a press conference in Moscow shortly after his shooting to tell the world that his son was shot six times in the torso and once in his head. Todashev’s father would accuse US authorities of executing his son.

The Plot Thickens in Canada and Western Europe

The Boston Marathon Bombings were followed by other peculiar events outside the United States. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in Canada would declare that it had stopped a terrorist attack from taking place on Canadian soil by arresting two men on April 22. The RCMP would keenly point out that the suspects were linked to a branch of Al-Qaeda oddly working inside of Iran of all places. The timing of the arrests, after the Boston Marathon Bombings, was announced in a high-profile RCMP press conference which virtually refused to comment on anything because it said that the investigation was inconclusive and ongoing.

In London, a British soldier from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers would be hit by a car and publicly lacerated and stabbed to death with knives on the street outside the Royal Artillery Barracks by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale on May 22. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron was in France, across the English Channel, during the savage murder. It just so happened that a French soldier was also stabbed at around the same time, but French authorities made statements saying that there seemed to be no connection between the two attacks.

Both the British and French cases have been linked to British and French militarism and foreign policy either directly or indirectly. In the case of Britain the attackers talked about Britain’s roles in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of France, the attack on the French soldier was speculated to be the result of France’s military intervention in Mali. The effects of these attacks, however, merit more attention than the actual causes.

Militarization of the So-Called Democracies?

Because of the Boston Marathon Bombing the city of Boston was placed under martial law and civil liberties were suspended as a manhunt was conducted. This is an important dimension of the dangerous ramifications that the event has had for decisive and unconstitutional domestic security measure being taken inside the United States. It comes at a time when the Department of Homeland Security has been assembling a massive weapons arsenal and all checks and balances on domestic spying have been destroyed.

The Associated Press has reported that Homeland Security has been stockpiling ammunition by buying more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. The same AP report has also said that Homeland Security has already bought a staggering 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition in 2012. This amount of ammunition amount to more bullets than the Pentagon has used collectively in all the wars that the US has been involved in the last decade.

Aside from martial law in Boston, the US federal government also considered taking the illegal step of charging Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant in front of a military tribunal. This quickly scared civil liberties organizations in the United States, because they understood what it could lead towards. Such a move would equate to the suspension of the rights of American citizens and putting them on trial in virtual secrecy. This would set a very dangerous precedent. It should be added that this is part of the same pattern of developments that has seen the US government use killer drones to kill its own citizens overseas illegally without any due process to determine their guilt legally.

After the ridiculousness of the assertions that Al-Qaeda was working inside Iran was pointed out in Canada, it was posited that it could have been the terrorist group Jundallah that was guiding the perpetrators against the Canadian province of Ontario’s V IA Rail train line going to New York in the United States. Jundallah has been linked to Al-Qaeda and this has been used to explain the inconsistency in the claims that put Iran into the picture. Very importantly, it should be pointed out that Jundallah is a US-supported terrorist organization that has been working to destabilize Iran from the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan with US assistance. In this context, the trail leads back to the US government itself. Moreover, the Canadian government has opportunistically used the event to harden its policing and surveillance programs, which allow it to violate the civil liberties of Canadians.

In the case of Britian, Michael Adebolajo it would turn out had a connection to the British secret services. Adebolajo had been approached turn six months earlier to work for MI5, but refused. A friend of his, Abu Nusaybah, wrote the following on his Twitter account: «Did u know­ Woolwich suspect Michael Adebolajo was approached by MI5 Just over 6months [sic.] ago to work as a Spy, He refused?» The BBC would interview Adebolajo’s friend on Newsnight where he would make the same comments about MI5. Abu Nusaybah would then be arrested for revealing that MI5 had been trying to recruit Michael Adebolajo afterwards and charged under the UK’s Terrorism Act. Moreover, the British government has used the event to expand its internal policing and surveillance programs like Canada.

There is a major political context tied to all these events. In both Boston and London we now see that charges of terrorism are being introduced in a way that sidelines civil rights in an Orwellian sense. The crude homemade bomb used in Boston was labeled a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) on par with chemical and nuclear weapons. A disgusting act of murder was labeled as an act of terrorism In the United Kingdom when in reality a charge of homicide should have been pressed. The label of terrorism is now being used to give the US government and its allies a licensee to act outside of their laws and dramatically expand their domestic and overseas screening programs.

Blaming Russia: America Intending to Start a New Fire in the Caucasus?

Indirectly Russia is being blamed for the Boston Marathon Bombings. The Tsarnaev brothers, who are half ethnic Chechen and half ethnic Avar, are being identified with Russia even though they spent a great deal of their lives outside the Russian Federation and are US citizens. Dzhokhar was born in Kyrgyzstan, where he spent his childhood years.

In some ways the string of events following the Boston Marathon Bombings are making Russia and Iran look like countries that cannot control their own borders. Russia has being presented as a breeding ground for terrorists and militants, while Iran has been portrayed as a new base for Al-Qaeda. Neither of these portrayals is accurate. Little is mentioned about the role of the US in destabilizing the border regions of either country.

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, the mother of the two Tsarnaev brothers, told the world that she believed that her sons were set up by the US government. She has challenged the official narrative about the terrorist attack in Boston. She has let it be known that her family knew that the FBI was always watching them and that her sons were under constant police surveillance. She even said that the police use to come to their home in the US all the time to talk to them and that her sons were under «police control».

What Zubeidat Tsarnaeva said about her sons being under police surveillance was true. Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been on a US federal government database of potential terrorism suspects. According to US officials, they were twice warned by Russia that he may have been tied toCaucasian militants. In 2011, Russians security officials requested that the US investigate Tamerlan’s activities. The FBI would make a brief investigation and then close the case leading to unsatisfied Russian security officials making the same request in four months later in September 2011. Tamerlan was actually being watched by the Russian secret services whenever he visited the Russian Federation.

The possibility exists that Tamerlan Tsarnaev may well have been working for US interests to destabilize Russia and the Caucasus. According to Russian sources he attended an anti-Russian workshop in the Caucasus called the Fund of the Caucasus that was supported by Georgia and the United States. All the small details that have come up about him show that he had been interacting with US authorities and that he was suspected of espionage in Russia.

The arrest of the CIA’s station head, Ryan C. Fogle, in Moscow adds an additional layer to the story. Fogle, the third secretary of the Political Section of the US Embassy in Moscow and a career diplomat, was arrested while he was trying to recruit an agent of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) who worked on the North Caucasus. Fogle’s espionage effort was portrayed in the US as an effort to learn more about the Boston Marathon Bombings. Benjamin Dillon, another third secretary at the US Embassy in Moscow, was expelled for trying to recruit Russian security officials prior to Fogle’s expulsion from Russia as a spy. According to Russia’s FSB, even earlier several other CIA agents were caught doing the same thing, but left voluntarily.

The murder of Russia’s Muslim leaders in the North Caucasus coincides with notions that the United States is planning to destabilize Russia’s North Caucasus. After Syria, in fact, there are strong fears that Russia’s North Caucasus, along with Lebanon and Iraq, will be the next targets of anti-government militants in Syria. Furthermore, there has been a steady campaign to demonize Russia in the US mainstream media as an undemocratic global supporter of authoritarianism and genocide. In the last few years there have been terrorist attacks that have targeted Muslim spiritual leaders in the Caucasus, particularly Dagestan. All these leaders have called for harmony and co-existence among Russia’s Muslim and Christian populations; they have opposed militarism and violence. While the Tsarnaev case may have direct ramifications for civil liberties inside the United States, it is also tied to longstanding US encroachment on the Caucasus that seeks to destabilize the Russian Federation.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a social scientist, award-winning writer, columnist, and researcher. His works have been carried internationally in a broad series of publications and have been translated into more than twenty languages including German, Arabic, Italian, Russian, Turkish, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Korean, Polish, Armenian, Persian, Dutch and Romanian. His work in geopolitical sciences and strategic studies has been used by various academic and defense establishments in their papers and defense colleges for military officers. He is also a frequent guest on international news networks as a geopolitical analyst and expert on the Middle East.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

A general view of an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian lands in al-Quds. (File photo)

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Japan has called on president-elect Hassan Rohani to engage in Å“serious dialogue” with the international community to resolve Iranâ„¢s nuclear energy issue.

“For its nuclear issue to be peacefully resolved, we hope that Iran, under president-elect Rohani, will hold serious dialogue with the international community,” Japanâ„¢s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said on Monday.

He said that his country would call on Iran to address the nuclear issue Å“in an appropriate manner” based on Å“amiable relations.”

The United States, Israel and some of their allies falsely claim that Iran is pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program, with the US and the European Union using the claim as a pretext to impose illegal sanctions against Iran.

Tehran rejects the allegation over its nuclear energy activities, maintaining that as a committed signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Suga further underscored Iranâ„¢s influence in the Middle East region, saying Tehran should Å“play an important role in peace and stability in the Middle East.”

Rohani won Iranâ„¢s June 14 presidential election with an outright victory, gaining 18,613,329 votes, or 50.7 percent of a total of 36,704,156 ballots.

Nearly 50.5 million Iranians, including more than 1.6 million first-time voters, were eligible to participate in the presidential election. The Interior Ministry put the voter turnout at 72.7 percent.

SF/HGH

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

The fracking industry is putting the squeeze on water-strapped farmers in the central United States according to a new analysis released Monday by the Associated Press.

Through an examination of industry-compiled fracking data and the US Department of Agriculture’s official drought designations, AP reveals that by driving up the price of water and burdening already depleted aquifers and rivers, the high-polluting and water-intensive shale oil and gas removal process is placing an increasing threat on states currently suffering from ongoing drought.

“There is a new player for water, which is oil and gas. And certainly they are in a position to pay a whole lot more than we are,” said fourth-generation farmer Kent Pepper of Mead, Colo., who has been forced to leave a number of his corn fields fallow this year because he cannot afford irrigation.

This news follows a recent study which found that nearly half of the country’s fracking wells are located in water-stressed regions and 92 percent of wells located in extremely high-water-stress regions, leading to the inevitable escalation of what Grist refers to as “the West’s water wars.”

The states highlighted in the study–including Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wyoming–fall within regions labeled by the most recent US Drought Monitor as suffering from “extreme” and “exceptional” drought conditions.

“The oil industry is doing the big fracks and pumping a substantial amount of water around here,” said Ed Walker, general manager of the Wintergarden Groundwater Conservation District, which manages an aquifer that serves as the main water source for farmers and about 29,000 people in three counties.

“When you have a big problem like the drought and you add other […] problems to it like all the fracking, then it only makes things worse,” he continued.

AP continues:

In a normal year, Peppler said he would pay anywhere from $9 to $100 for an acre-foot of water in auctions held by cities with excess supplies. But these days, energy companies are paying some cities $1,200 to $2,900 per acre-foot. The Denver suburb of Aurora made a $9.5 million, five-year deal last summer to provide the oil company Anadarko 2.4 billion gallons of excess treated sewer water.

In South Texas, where drought has forced cotton farmers to scale back, local water officials said drillers are contributing to a drop in the water table in several areas.

For example, as much as 15,000 acre-feet of water are drawn each year from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer to frack wells in the southern half of the Eagle Ford Shale, one of the nation’s most profitable oil and gas fields.

That’s equal to about half of the water recharged annually into the southern portion of the aquifer, which spans five counties that are home to about 330,000 people, said Ron Green, a scientist with the nonprofit Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio.

According to estimates by government and trade associations, the amount of water needed to “frack” a well varies greatly by region. In Texas, for instance, the average well requires up to 6 million gallons of water, while in California each well requires 80,000 to 300,000 gallons.

And depending on state and local water laws, this water is either drawn for free from underground aquifers or rivers, or is bought or leased from water districts, cities and farmers.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Over the past decade, at least 70 cities in the US have closed down public schools, averaging 11 per district, according to the National Education Association.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Iranâ„¢s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi says the Islamic Republic has been verbally invited to the Geneva conference on Syria aimed at discussing the crisis in the Arab country.

Å“Iran has received a verbal invitation to attend the Geneva 2 Conference,” Salehi said in an interview with the Lebanese channel al-Mayadeen on Monday.

Å“Whether Tehran participates in the conference or not, it will, nevertheless, continue efforts to help the peaceful settlement of the Syria crisis and we will not allow conditions to be forced on the Syrian nation,” he added.

The top Iranian diplomat said that based on the obtained information, the US is not opposed to Iranâ„¢s participation in the conference but certain regional countries seek to prevent Tehranâ„¢s attendance.

Salehi stressed that no practical solution to regional issues could be achieved without Iran as the Islamic Republic is the most powerful country in the region.

The unrest in Syria erupted over two years ago and many people, including large numbers of Syrian soldiers and security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

On May 7, Russia and the United States agreed in Moscow to convene an international conference on Syria, which will serve as a follow-up to an earlier Geneva meeting held in June 2012.

UN-Arab League Special Representative for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi said on June 7 that the event might be held in July. The talks had originally been planned to be held in June.

Iran has repeatedly expressed its opposition to any foreign intervention in Syria’s internal affairs, stressing that inclusive dialog and national reconciliation as well as free elections are the keys to resolving the unrest in the Arab country.

AR/HGH

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Turkey has summoned British charge d’affaires over a report that Britain spied on the Turkish finance minister’s emails and phone calls during a G20 meeting in 2009.

In the absence of the ambassador, the ministry summoned the charge d’affaires “to express our concerns over the allegations,” a Foreign Ministry diplomat said on condition of anonymity on Monday, adding that Ankara was expecting an “official and satisfying explanation” from British authorities.

The move came after revelation by the British newspaper the Guardian that UK spied on foreign delegates including Turkey’s Mehmet Simsek at G20 meetings in London four years ago

The paper said it has seen documents from Britain’s signal spying body, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), that shows British spies persuaded members of foreign delegates to use specially prepared Internet cafes to be able to monitor their communications including emails and phone calls.

The documents have been among those revealed by the US whistleblower and former CIA members Edward Snowden.

Earlier, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said if the report was true, “such an action by an ally country is unacceptable,” adding, “This will constitute a scandal in terms of relations between the two countries if any truth is found in the allegations.”

Snowden reportedly flew to Hong Kong last month from Hawaii, where he worked for an NSA facility, carrying a trove of documents about top-secret telephone and Internet surveillance programs.

He has further revealed that the United States had tapped into the computer systems of China and numerous other countries.

PG/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Protesters take cover from water cannon as they clash with police during an anti-government demonstration in Ankara on June 16, 2013.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Sean Carroll
ABC News
June 17th, 2013

A Wayne County man is now facing four charges for Endangering the Welfare of a Child after he interrupted an act of vandalism at a home he was renovating for his father-in-law.

The incident unfolded around 9 p.m. Saturday when Jesse Daniels said he told his wife to call 911 after he heard loud noises coming from the home next door and saw an individual striking a wall with a hammer.

Daniels tells 13WHAM News he ran next door and found four children, ages eight and ten, doing damage to the property. Daniels said he took a hammer from one of the kids and corralled them into a closet while he waited for police to arrive. Daniels estimated that the damage to his father-in-law’s property exceeds $40,000.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Tags: domestic news, government corruption, gun rights, police state

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

the US government has created a secret list of foreign targets called the Offensive Cyber Effects Operations.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

The role of a free press, it is often said, is to act as a watchdog over public officials and to sound the alarm over abuses of power. The recent news that government officials seized rec­ords of two months of phone calls from Associated Press lines raises serious questions about who is watching whom in a legal house of mirrors.

In what the news service’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into news-gathering activities, the AP learned on May 10 that Justice Department officials had seized the phone records of both office and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, and of general AP office numbers in New York; Washington; and Hartford, Conn.; in addition to the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery. Records for more than 20 different phone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists were seized for the months of April and May 2012. More than 100 journalists work in the offices where the phone lines were targeted, the news agency said.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt demanded the return of the phone records and the destruction of all copies.

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,” Pruitt wrote. “These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.”

Only days later Pruitt said there had already been evidence of the intimidating effect that news of the government inspection of AP’s phone records was having on news sources.

“Officials that would normally talk to us and people we talk to in the normal course of newsgathering are already saying to us that they’re a little reluctant to talk to us,” Pruitt said on CBS’s Face the Nation. “They fear that they will be monitored by the government.”

Endangering Security – or Spoiling a Press Conference?

The Associated Press learned about the action after the fact by a letter to the news agency from Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. The call records were obtained through Justice Department subpoenas, though it was not clear if a judge or grand jury authorized the subpoenas, the AP reported. The letter did not say why the search was made, but government officials had previously said publicly that the U.S. attorney in Washington was conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information for a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terrorist plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States. Five reporters and an editor who worked on that story were among those whose phone records were seized, the AP said.

John Brennan, then the president’s counterterrorism advisor and currently head of the CIA, said in written testimony to the Senate that an “irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made … when someone informed The Associated Press that the U.S. government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it.”

Yet the secrecy of the undercover operation may have been compromised most critically by Brennan himself, according to a Reuters news account of a private teleconference the president’s advisor held with former counterterrorism officials who are frequent commentators on TV new shows. According to “five people familiar with the call,” Reuters reported, Brennan stressed that plot was never a threat to the United States or to air safety because Washington had “inside control” over it.

Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official in the Clinton administration, said on ABC’s Nightline: “The U.S. government is saying it [the plot] never came close because they had insider information, insider control, which implies that they had somebody on the inside who wasn’t going to let it happen.” That “somebody on the inside” may have been a CIA agent posing as one of the plotters, a group known as the al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula. Reuters reported, based on its own counterterrorism sources, that the British domestic and foreign intelligence services MI-5 and MI-6 were working with the CIA in penetrating the al-Qaeda group and foiling the plot. What was supposed to be a continuing covert operation had to shut down because of the leaks, officials said.

Yet the original AP story said nothing about an undercover informant or the “control” of the operation from inside the ranks of the terrorists, saying only that the fate of the would-be suicide bomber was unknown. AP said it held back on publishing the story at the request of government officials who said it might put the agents involved in danger. Once officials said that danger was passed, AP published the story, despite a request from the Obama administration to withhold publication until the administration could make an official announcement.

There remain a number of unanswered questions about the government’s response to the AP story. How were the U.S. and British agents able to apprehend or otherwise stop the alleged bomber carrying out the plot without giving themselves away as double agents? What did the May 7 news story reveal that the administration would not itself have said in its planned official announcement? And was the AP’s offense revealing state secrets, or spoiling a planned press conference?

Pruitt’s contention that the secret taking of the phone records was “overbroad” raises a constitutional issue that has at least as much to do with the Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” as with the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of the press. A lawful search is supposed to be supported by a warrant “particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.” Obtaining all the phone records from four news outlets and 20 phones for a two-month period sounds more like the type of fishing expedition commonly carried out under King George’s Writs of Assistance – the type of search the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.

News of the search brought expected condemnations from various news organizations. The seizure of phone records is “a disturbing affront to a free press,” said Arnie Robbins, executive editor of the American Society of News Editors. “It’s also troubling because it is consistent with perhaps the most aggressive administration ever against reporters doing their jobs – providing information that citizens need to know about our government.” The Newspaper Association of America issued a statement saying the Justice Department actions “shock the American conscience and violate the critical freedom of the press protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

E-mails Under Surveillance

A few days after the AP learned of the seizure of its phone records, the Washington Post reported the FBI had been reading the e-mails and tracking the movements of Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen in connection with a criminal investigation into a 2009 news leak. Rosen had reported that intelligence officials expected North Korea to respond to a UN security council resolution condemning its nuclear and ballistic missile testing by launching another missile. The government has indicted the alleged source of the leak, government advisor Stephen Jin Woo Kim, for revealing classified national defense information, but has not charged Rosen with a crime. The FBI, however, in seeking a warrant to search Rosen’s e-mail account, described the reporter as “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”

Here again, it’s not clear what secrets Rosen’s story violated. Certainly it was no surprise to North Korea that they were planning to conduct a missile test. “In Rosen’s case,” wrote Fred Kaplan in Slate, “the alarm bells went off not because he reported that North Korea was about to conduct a nuclear-weapons test but because he reported that the CIA learned of this fact from a source inside North Korea.” That couldn’t have been much of a surprise, either. How else would the CIA have obtained that information? It’s not the kind of news that agents would likely stumble across in a press release from Pyongyang.

The government has often investigated reporters in an effort to identify the source of news leaks, but allegations of criminal conduct have in the past been limited to charges against the leaker rather than the journalist reporting the story. The FBI hardly bolstered its charge against Rosen by accusing the reporter of “employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim’s vanity and ego.” That’s standard practice for a journalist trying to elicit information from a potential source. Michael Clemente, executive vice president of Fox News, called it “downright chilling” that Rosen “was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter.” Bruce Brown, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said treating “routine news-gathering efforts as evidence of criminality is extremely troubling and corrodes time-honored understandings between the public and the government about the role of the free press.”

Ironically, it was only a year ago that the Obama administration itself was accused of leaking classified national security information in order to enhance the president’s election-year stature in prosecuting the war against terrorism. Last June, 31 Republican senators, led by Obama’s 2008 opponent John McCain, signed a letter calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leaks. “This administration cannot be trusted to investigate itself,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said at a news conference.

In August a group of former military and intelligence personnel, called the Special Operations OPSEC (for Operation Secrecy) Education Team, released a video accusing the president of leaking security secrets for the purpose of “politically capitalizing on U.S. national security operations and secrets.” The group claimed the administration turned the May 1, 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden into a “national security disaster” by releasing information that enabled Pakistani officials to find the doctor that helped U.S. troops, by briefing Hollywood filmmakers about the raid, and by using the raid as the subject of a campaign ad. The Obama campaign denied the charges and accused the OPSEC team of “swiftboating” the president, a reference to another group – Swiftboat Veterans of America – that attacked the military record of John Kerry when the Massachusetts Senator was the Democratic nominee for president in 2004.

Espionage Act Revisited

Yet the current administration might be the most aggressive ever in efforts to stop news leaks and silence whistleblowers. It has prosecuted six cases under the 1917 Espionage Act, twice as many as all previous administrations combined. Enacted just two months after the United States entered World War I, the Espionage Act made it a crime to turn over classified information to someone not authorized to receive it or to assist in that transaction. A year later Congress met President Woodrow Wilson’s request for censorship power by passing the Sedition Act, criminalizing, among other things, “abusive language” about the government.

Socialist newspapers were barred from the U.S. mails. A filmmaker went to prison for making a movie about the Revolutionary War that was deemed to be offensive to our British allies. The Wilson administration even prosecuted a minister for claiming Jesus was a pacifist. Libraries banned German-language books, and German language newspapers were forced out of business. Eugene Debs received nearly a million votes as the Socialist Party candidate for president in 1920, while sitting in a federal prison in Atlanta for a speech he had made opposing the war. Charles Schenk went to prison for helping to print leaflets urging young men to resist the draft, and newspaperman Jacob Frohwerk was behind bars for accusing the government of committing murder for sending American troops to France.

Like the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the 1918 version was written to shield the incumbent administration from criticism and was scheduled to expire in the year following the next election. A Republican Congress under President Warren Harding allowed the Sedition Act to expire in 1921, but the Espionage Act is still on the books. It was invoked by the Nixon administration in 1971 in an effort to prevent the New York Times from publishing documents about the Vietnam War that came to be known as the Pentagon Papers.

The United States was still fighting in Vietnam at the time, but the memos, classified “Top Secret,” that the Times received from an anonymous source (later revealed to be former Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsburg) did not involve current troop locations or battle plans. What they did reveal was a history of behind-the-scenes decisions to send thousands of American foot soldiers and hundreds of pilots into combat under the guise of advisors to the South Vietnamese Army, plans for escalating the war, and the fact that neither the Johnson nor the Nixon administration had any plan or hope of winning the war, despite all public statements to the contrary.

Restraining the Press

The Times began publishing the memos in serial form, on June 13, 1971. A second installment followed the next day. On the evening of June 14, publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger received a telegram from Attorney General John Mitchell advising the publisher of the top-secret classification of the material.

“As such, publication of this information is directly prohibited by the provisions of the Espionage Law, title 18, United State Code, Section 793,” Mitchell said in requesting that the Times stop publishing the documents. The section cited by the attorney general states that not only the transmitter of the classified document, but anyone who “willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it … shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

The Times responded with a statement saying it would “respectfully decline” the attorney general’s request and continue publishing the series. A third installment appeared the next day. The Justice Department responded with a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for a temporary restraining order and injunction against further publication. The court granted the restraining order and a preliminary injunction, pending further review. The Times complied with the order.

In arguing the case in District Court, attorney Alexander Bickel, representing the Times, noted that none of the documents in the newspaper’s possession was less than three years old and said there was no danger that their publication would result in a foreign government breaking a U.S. military code. “It is common knowledge that the security of codes is insured by their being changed with extreme rapidity in very short order,” he said. To the government’s argument that the publication violated the confidentiality of diplomatic exchanges and could further damage negotiations over the Vietnam War and other matters, Bickel argued there is no constitutional authority to prevent publication of information on the grounds that “the government may be discomfited” and “may be put in an unfavorable light with a foreign government as a result of internal political discussion.” That, he said, would be “a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, in our view.”

Judge Murray Gurfein left the case in limbo, refusing the government’s request for a permanent injunction, but also declining to lift the temporary restraining order on the Times. Meanwhile the Washington Post began publishing sections of the same documents the Times had been publishing and soon found itself under a restraining order from the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Soon other newspapers around the country were publishing excerpts from the documents, while the Times and the Post were appealing their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court consolidated the two appeals in New York Times v. United States.

“What the Founders Hoped … ”

Because of the urgency of the matter, the court met in a rare Saturday session to hear the oral arguments. Solicitor General Erwin Griswold said publication of the documents posed an immediate, grave danger to the security of the United States and further claimed it involved “the question of the integrity of the institution of the Presidency, whether that institution, one of the three great powers under the separation of powers, can function effectively.”

Attorney William Glendon, representing the Washington Post, noted that on some occasions the executive branch tries to defend the integrity of its classified information by preventing its disclosure. “On other occasions,” Glendon said, “the Government itself engages in leaks, because some official will feel that in the public interest it is well for the public to know, and that overrides any particular judgment of security or classification.”

The following Wednesday, June 30, 1971, the court announced its decision. By a vote of 6-3, the justices denied the government’s request for a permanent injunction and lifted the restraining orders on both newspapers. Chief Justice Warren Burger, along with Justices John Harlan and Harry Blackmun, dissented, deferring to the authority of the president to prevent the disclosure of confidential material affecting foreign policy. Justices Potter Stewart, William Brennan, and Byron White found nothing in the documents that posed a threat to the nation’s security or its armed forces. Justices Hugo Black, William Douglas, and Thurgood Marshall held that the First Amendment trumped the government’s security claims. Wrote Black:

Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to foreign lands to die of foreign fever and foreign shot and shell…. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did what the founders hoped and trusted they would do.

But the intention of the Founders appears less important to those in power than the ability to control the flow of information that reaches the American people. “From a civil-liberties perspective, Obama has carried forward nearly every one of the war-on-terror powers that led liberals to denounce George W. Bush as a goose-stepping fascist, and in fact has made many of them worse,” wrote A. Barton Hinkle on reason.com. Recalling that Obama once taught courses in constitutional law, Hinkle added: “When he retires from public life, perhaps he will return to teaching the Constitution. That should be much easier work – given how little of it there will be left.”

– Photo: AP Images

This article is an example of the exclusive content that’s only available by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Colin Todhunter
Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

Historians may look back and write about how willing we are to sacrifice our children and jeopardize future generations with a massive experiment that is based on false promises and flawed science just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.” So said Don Huber in referring to the use of glyphosate and genetically modified crops. Huber was speaking at Organic Connections conference in Regina, Canada, late 2012.

Huber is an emeritus professor in plant pathology at Purdue University in the US and has worked with the Department of Homeland Security to reduce the impact of plant disease outbreaks. His words are well worth bearing in mind given that a new study commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE) and GM Freeze has found that people in 18 countries across Europe have been found to have traces of glyphosate in their urine (1).

Friends of the Earth Europe commissioned laboratory tests on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countries across Europe and found that on average 44 percent of samples contained glyphosate. The proportion of positive samples varied between countries, with Malta, Germany, the UK and Poland having the most positive tests, and lower levels detected in Macedonia and Switzerland. All the volunteers who provided samples live in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run-up to the tests.

The Influence of the Biotech Sector on Safety and Regulation

Although ‘weedkiller in urine’ sounds alarming, Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, says the levels found are unlikely to be of any significance to health because they are 300 times lower than the level which might cause concern. Alison Haughton, head of the Pollination Ecology Group at Rothamsted Research, said that if FoE and GM Freeze want their work to have scientific credibility and provide a genuine contribution to the debate on pesticide residues, they should submit their work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Valid points, you might think. But FoE believes that there is sufficient evidence to suggest environmental and health impacts from glyphosate warrant concern. It wants to know how the glyphosate found in human urine samples has entered the body, what the impacts of persistent exposure to low levels of glyphosate might be and what happens to the glyphosate that remains in the body. New research published in the journal Entropy sheds disturbing light on such concerns (discussed later in this article).

In 2011, Earth Open Source said that official approval of glyphosate had been rash, problematic and deeply flawed. A comprehensive review of existing data released in June 2011 by Earth Open Source suggested that industry regulators in Europe had known for years that glyphosate causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals. Questions were raised about the role of the powerful agro-industry in rigging data pertaining to product safety and its undue influence on regulatory bodies (2).

In the same vein, FoE says there is currently very little testing for glyphosate by public authorities, despite its widespread use, and authorities in Europe do not test for glyphosate in humans and tests on food are infrequent. Glyphosate was approved for EU-wide use in 2002, but FoE argues that the European regulatory agencies did not carry out their own safety testing, relying instead on data provided by the manufacturers.

Of course there are certain scientists (usually with links to the agro-industry) who always seem to be strident in calling for peer-reviewed evidence when people are critical of the biotech sector, but then rubbish it and smear or intimidate the scientists involved when that occurs, as has been the case with Dr Arsad Pusztai in the UK or Professor Seralini in France. It is therefore quite revealing that most of the data pertaining to glyphosate safety came from industry studies, not from peer-reviewed science, and the original data are not available for independent scrutiny.

Increasing Use

With references to a raft of peer-reviewed studies, FoE also brings attention to the often disturbing health and environmental dangers and impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides throughout the world (1). The FoE study also highlights concerns around the increasing levels of exposure to glyphosate-based weed killers, particularly as the use of glyphosate is predicted to rise further if more genetically modified (GM) crops are grown. It is after all good for business. And the biggest producer of glyphosate is Monsanto, which sells it under the brand name ‘Roundup’.

“The figures don’t lie; GMOs drive glyphosate sales.” (3)

Despite its widespread use, there is currently little monitoring of glyphosate in food, water or the wider environment. The FoE commissioned study is the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the presence of the weed killer in human bodies. FoE Europe’s spokesperson Adrian Bebb argues that there is a serious lack of action by public authorities and indicates that this weed killer is being widely overused.

This certainly needs to be addressed not least because the prediction concerning increasing exposure to glyphosate is not without substance. The introduction of Roundup Ready crops has already resulted in an increase of glyphosate use. Using official US government data, Dr Charles Benbrook, research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, states that since 1996 the glysophate rate of application per crop year has tripled on cotton farms, doubled in the case of soybeans and risen 39 percent on corn (4). The average annual increase in the pounds of glyphosate applied to cotton, soybeans, and corn has been 18.2 percent, 9.8 percent, and 4.3 percent, respectively, since herbicide tolerant crops were introduced.

Glyphosate is used on many genetically modified crops. 14 new GM crops designed to be cultivated with glyphosate are currently waiting for approval to be grown in Europe. Approval of these crops would inevitably lead to a further increase of glysphosate spraying. In the US, biotech crops, including corn, soybeans, canola and sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres annually.

Increasing Dangers

Evidence suggests that Roundup could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new peer-reviewed report, published recently in the scientific journal Entropy (5). The study also concluded that residues of glyphosate have been found in food.

These residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a science consultant. The study says that negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.

In 2010, the provincial government of Chaco province in Argentina issued a report on health statistics from the town La Leonesa. The report showed that from 2000 to 2009, following the expansion of genetically-modified soy and rice crops in the region (and the use of glyphosate), the childhood cancer rate tripled in La Leonesa and the rate of birth defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire province (6).

Professor Huber also notes the health risks associated with the (increasing) use of glyphosate. He says a number of plant pathogens are emerging, which when consumed could impact human health. Based on research that he alludes to (he refuses to make his research public or identify his fellow researchers, who he claims could suffer substantial professional backlash from academic employers who received research funding from the biotechnology industry), Huber notes that the use of glyphosate changes the soil ecology, killing many bacteria, while giving other bacteria a competitive advantage. This makes plants highly susceptible to soil borne diseases. At the same time, glyphosate has a negative effect on a number of beneficial soil organisms (7).

Huber’s concerns about the impact of long term use of glyphosate on soil sterility are similar to concerns expressed by Elaine Ingham, a soil ecologist with the Rodale Institute, and also research carried out in by Navdanya in India (8).

As for GM crops, Huber says they have lower water use efficiency, tend to be nutrient deficient, have increased bud and fruit abortion and are predisposed to infectious diseases and insect damage. He suggests that Roundup Ready crops, treated with glyphosate, have higher levels of mycotoxins and lower nutrient levels than conventional crops.

“… you could say that what you’re doing with glyphosate is you’re giving the plant a bad case of AIDS. You’ve shut down the immune system or the defense system.” Professor Ron Huber (7)

He concludes that, when consumed, the GM crops were more likely to cause disease, infertility, birth defects, cancer and allergic reactions than conventional crops.

Huber claims that consumption of food or feed that was genetically modified could bring the altered genes in contact with the microbes in the guts of the livestock or people who eat them. He feels this increases diseases, such as celiac disease, allergies, asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, gluten intolerance, irritable bowel disease, miscarriage, obesity and sudden infant death syndrome.

While none of these findings conclusively prove that plant (or animal) diseases are caused by the glyphosate, Huber feels safety evaluations have been inadequate, suggesting that previous (GM sector) research was substandard and extremely misleading in its interpretation of results — or worse.

With some hugely powerful players involved here, many of whom have successfully infiltrated important government and official bodies (9), much of the science and the ensuing debate surrounding glyphosate is being manipulated and hijacked by vested interests for commercial gain.

“… publishing in this area can also be difficult. I know from the International Symposium on Glyphosate that they had to find a journal publisher outside this country (the US) to publish the research data and symposium proceedings. It’s pretty hard to get it published in the States. There are also some hazards to publishing if you’re a young researcher doing research that runs counter to the current popular concepts. A lot of research on safety of genetic engineering is done outside of this country because it’s difficult to gain access to the materials, or the statements you have to sign to have access to those materials stating that you won’t publish without permission of the supplier. I think the 26 entomologists who sent their letter to EPA in 2009 stated it aptly when they said that objective data wasn’t available to the EPA because the materials haven’t been available to them or that they’re denied the opportunity to publish their data.” Professor Ron Huber (7)

Notes

1) http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_media_briefing_glyphosate.pdf
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html
3) http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetic-engineering-and-corporate-agribusiness-gmos-and-the-impacts-of-glyphosate-herbicide/5337096
4) http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf
5) http://www.nationofchange.org/study-links-monsanto-s-roundup-autism-parkinson-s-and-alzheimer-s-1367764115
6) http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-147561-2010-06-14.html
7) http://farmandranchfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/don-huber-may2011-acres.pdf
8) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BtCottonKillsSoilandFarmers.php
9) http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

This original originally appeared at GlobalResearch.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 11:42 am

Tags: domestic news, food, health, natural health, water

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

June 17, 2013
 |

The daughter of the founder of the website Boing Boing was “shamed” and “humiliated” by a Transportation Security Agency (TSA) officer who told her to “cover” herself up. Now, the TSA is investigating the incident.

Mark Frauenfelder detailed the story of his daughter’s experience with the TSA yesterday evening. The account comes from his 15-year-old daughter’s text messages.

He wrote that while she was at the Los Angeles airport with other high school students going on a college tour, an officer glared at her. Then, after his daughter saw that he was mumbling, she said: “Excuse me?” The officer replied harshly: “You’re only 15, COVER YOURSELF!” (The daughter was not wearing anything that would warrant the outburst, though Frauenfelder notes: “It doesn’t matter what she was wearing, though, because it’s none of his business to tell girls what they should or should not wear. His creepy thoughts are his own problem, and he shouldn’t use his position of authority as an excuse to humiliate a girl and blame her for his sick attitude.”)

Maureen Herman, one of Frauenfelder’s friends and a women’s rights activist, wrote a blog post lambasting the TSA’s behavior. “Things like this need to matter, because they inject shame (or try to) in a young woman who is just living her life, going to check out colleges, and throws on the first of what will unfortunately be many layers of sexism she will encounter in her life,” she wrote on the website of A Is For…, an organization that works to protect reproductive rights.

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Several prominent Afghan political figures in the western province of Herat have welcomed a planned partial withdrawal of US-led foreign forces from their war-ravaged country next year.

Dozens of regional leaders and tribal elders told a political gathering in Shindand town that the Afghan national forces were ready to provide the security and defend their country.

The summit comes after the US-led NATO countries announced that they will partially withdraw their troops from Afghanistan in 2014. British Prime Minister David Cameron has also recently announced that London will withdraw almost half of the country’s 9,000 troops from Afghanistan in 2014.

However, the partial pullout contradicts agreement that calls for the full departure of foreign forces from Afghanistan by the end of next year.

According to the latest figures released by the website icasualties.org, 3,335 foreign soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since the US-led war began in October 2001.

The increasing number of military casualties in Afghanistan has caused widespread anger in the US and other NATO member states, undermining public support for the Afghan war.

The US-led war in Afghanistan removed the Taliban from power, but insecurity continues to rise across the country, despite the presence of thousands of US-led troops.

JR/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Max Keiser
Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

We’re in a post-capitalist, post-socialism world. I have just come back from the G8 protests in Belfast and it occurred to me — at this point; we’re post both capitalism and socialism — and this point needs to be made clear, but we also see some vestiges of both systems in a new, emerging economy that has yet to be named.

Photo by Guillaume Paumier, via Flickr

I agree with the G8 protesters in Belfast that capitalism — as it’s been iterated in the West in the post WWII era has run its course. The main cause for its demise, as I see it, is that during the 1980’s; thanks to deregulation, futures and options speculation and leverage migrated over to the burgeoning field of ‘financial futures’ and the price discovery mechanism associated with supply and demand and the ‘invisible hand’ — over the ensuing few decades — completely broke down. Money itself lost any anchor to value as futures traders speculated with virtually no risk on contracts worth many billions that had been willed into existence by financial engineers not by dint of any underlying economic activity.

And there’s no going back now. You see, financial futures are trading on prices that are based — not on any underlying economic reality — but rather a series of assumptions based on academically-concatenated theories and theorems which in turn generate a new set of prices. The result is that capital flows into destabilizing ‘malinvestments’ all hidden by the outsized returns of intermediaries like hedge funds who make billions mining what has become essentially a broken system of monetizing fraud.

Since the rising unemployment and social unrest these financially engineered malinvestments produce is ignored, because hedge funds have been making lots of money, nobody is willing to step forward and suggest that making money at the expense of a sound market might be a bad thing. The fake prices are never questioned and the fraudulently garnered riches are always celebrated.

Prices for all commodities and securities have permanently lost their connection to a functioning economy. Once a pickle, never a cucumber. Financialized capitalism is now in its death throes.

What about socialism?

As that term is generally understood — it has also burnt out. Central planning, hierarchical governments, and doctrines guaranteeing ‘fairness’ simply don’t work; primarily because all centrally planned systems of markets and governments fail the ‘naturalness’ test. Nothing in nature works for long that is so rigid and unadaptable as man made experiments in central planning except for a few parasites and cancer.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Today we have hybrid models that contain bits from the previous schools that are racing ahead to fill the vacuum left by collapse of both capitalism and socialism.

Crowdfunding is an emergent idea. It owes a debt of gratitude to socialism. It’s part of ‘social networking,’ a phenomenon of leveraging the ‘the whole is greater than the sum of the parts’ idea. Keep in mind that Google’s multi-billion dollar valuation is driven by billions of individuals donating their time and creativity to the collective. So too for ‘open-source’ software and p2p file swapping. But there is also a necessary component of competition associated with free market capitalism in crowdfunding. A platform like Kickstarter allows for ideas to compete in a free market — where the funds flow where the market goes; not where a central planner wants funds to go.

Bitcoin is also a post capitalism/socialism hybrid. It’s growth is driven by a hard coded, centrally imagined algorithm while it’s adoption is possible via the free market activities of users who are rejecting centrally planned, bogus fiat currencies like Pounds, Dollars, and Yen and using Bitcoin instead.

The collapse of the current bankster regime is upon us. This means a whole new set of winners and losers. The point is that it’s not all grim. The future is being imagined and implemented as we speak.

Special for Infowars from Max Keiser, host of Russia Today’s Keiser Report, a no holds barred look at the shocking scandals behind the global financial headlines. See his latest report discussing the price holograms in a simulated economy.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 11:26 am

Tags: activism, economics, financial, money

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Strike on advanced weapons shipment threatens huge escalation of conflict

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

The IDF is refusing to comment on reports that Israel attacked the Al-Miza military airbase near Damascus last night, which if true could lead to a Syrian response and a massive escalation of the 27 month conflict.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

A Syrian television station sympathetic to anti-Assad rebels reported that Israel was responsible for the strike on a facility west of Damascus, which targeted advanced weapons and radar systems.

“Eyewitnesses said that the explosions were large and that neither the Assad regime nor the rebels had the capability to create explosions of such a magnitude,” reports the Jerusalem Post.

Israel’s policy after it carried out previous attacks on Syria is to neither confirm or deny involvement.

If Israel’s complicity in the attack is confirmed, it could prompt a Syrian response that would serve to pour fuel on the fire of a conflict already rocked by news last week that the United States will formally seek to arm opposition rebels despite their close ties with Al-Qaeda.

Following attacks on several facilities in Syria last month, President Bashar Al-Assad vowed to “respond in kind” to any future acts of Israeli aggression, after criticism that his reaction had been muted.

Days prior to this threat, Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon warned that the Israeli military was prepared to strike shipments of advanced Russian weapons sent to Damascus, commenting, “If God forbid they do reach Syria, we will know what to do.”

Analysts have warned that an escalation of the conflict could ignite World War 3.

Israel has offered tacit support to opposition militants despite their jihadist creed, setting up field hospitals to aid injured rebels while also sending military vehicles into Syria to pick up wounded fighters before patching them up and sending them back into battle.

A huge Israeli air strike on the Jamraya military facility on May 5 was coordinated with opposition rebels, according to Egyptian and Jordanian intelligence sources.

With the Syrian Army scoring key battlefield victories in recent weeks, Israel and the United States’ efforts to destabilize the Assad regime are expected to accelerate.

Last week, the Obama administration announced that it would seek to arm the Syrian rebels after claiming President Assad’s forces had used chemical weapons, crossing a so-called “red line”.

In pledging to increase military support for Syrian rebels while also preparing a no fly zone, the Obama administration is openly aiding terrorists who have sworn allegiance to Al-Qaeda.

By launching attacks that weaken and distract Damascus from its focus on defeating western-backed insurgents, Israel is aiding the very same rebels who have burned Israeli flags in public and vowed to crush the Zionist regime once they are finished toppling Assad.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 11:27 am

Tags: terrorism, war

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich says Moscow hopes to continue cooperation with Iran after Hassan Rohani becomes president to ensure international security.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Lukashevich added that the Iranian nationâ„¢s voting in the June 14 election was Å“very active” as nearly 73 percent of eligible Iranians participated in the polls.

Rohani won a Å“convincing victory” by a wide margin, he stated.

Å“We respect the choice of the Iranian people, we proceed from the principles of time-tested relations of friendship and cooperation”, the Russian spokesperson said.

He further noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his congratulations to the newly-elected Iranian president.

On Sunday, the Russian president congratulated Rohani on his victory in the country’s 11th presidential election, announcing readiness to expand bilateral relations with Tehran.

“Putin expressed confidence that Hassan Rohani’s work on this high post will promote the flourishing of (Russiaâ„¢s) friend Iran and further strengthen Russian-Iranian relations,” a Kremlin message to Iranâ„¢s president-elect said.

Nearly 50.5 million Iranians, including more than 1.6 million first-time voters, were eligible to participate in the June 14 presidential, and city and village council elections. The Interior Ministry put the voter turnout at 72.7 percent.

Rohani won Iranâ„¢s 11th presidential election by securing 18,613,329 votes, or 50.70 percent, of a total of 36,704,156 ballots counted.

Rohani currently represents Ayatollah Khamenei in the Supreme National Security Council, and is a member of the Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts. He is also the president of the Expediency Council’s Center for Strategic Research.

SF/HGH

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Iraqi Iraqi Vice President Khazir al-Khazai have congratulated president-elect Hassan Rohani on his victory in Iranâ„¢s 11th presidential election.

In his message released on Monday, Sharif extended his most sincere congratulations to Rohani and Iranians.

Sharif said Iran-Pakistan relations are rooted in their shared history, stressing that close, friendly and brotherly ties were based on mutual respect and trust.

The premier said that the two neighboring countries had the same goals for the realization of peace and stability in the region as well as progress and welfare for the two nations. He also called for the expansion of ties with the Islamic Republic.

In his congratulatory message, al-Khazai, too, felicitated Rohani on his victory and expressed hope that Iran-Iraq ties would further develop to help provide the interests of the two countries.

We strongly call for the reinforcement of historical commonalities between Iran and Iraq and we hope that the ties between the two countries will ensure an outstanding rise in all fields, the Iraqi official added.

Rohani won Iranâ„¢s June 14 presidential election with an outright victory, gaining 18,613,329 votes, or 50.7 percent of a total of 36,704,156 ballots.

Nearly 50.5 million Iranians, including more than 1.6 million first-time voters, were eligible to participate in the presidential election. The Interior Ministry put the voter turnout at 72.7 percent.

AR/HGH

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Doug Stanglin
USA Today
June 17, 2013

NSA leaker Edward Snowden, answering questions in a live blog on his revelations about the top-secret agency, said Monday that he will release more details on the NSA’s “direct access” to the servers of tech companies.

“Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped,” Snowden wrote, according to The Guardian, which held the live blog on its website.

He said the U.S. government “is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me.”

Snowden, who took immediate refuge in Hong Kong, also denied any plans to give information to China in exchange for asylum.

Snowden, a former NSA contractor who fled the U.S. after revealing top-secret details on the government’s collection of Americans’ phone and Internet records, has said he “does not expect to see home again.”

He did not elaborate on when he would reveal more information, but said, “the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on — it’s all the same.”

SIGINT refers to “Signals Intelligence,” or the collected communciations data.

He said the restrictions to getting such data is “policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time.”

In response to a question as to why he fled to Hong Kong enclave, Snowden said, the U.S. government “immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home…”

He said the U.S. government openly declared him guilty of treason and claimed his actions were “an unforgivable crime.”

“That’s not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it,” he wrote.

He also suggested that it was easier to go to Hong Kong rather than risk being interdicted on the way to Iceland, which also appeared to be a likely haven.

Snowden was dismissive of charges that he has or will exchange U.S. information to China in exchange for asylum.

He called the charge a “predictable smear” from a U.S. media with a “knee-jerk’RED CHINA!’ reaction” to anything involving Hong Kong or or China.

” Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn’t I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now,” he said.

Snowden also insisted that he did not reveal any U.S.operations against military targets.

“I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous,” he wrote. “These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target.”

3 NSA veterans: ‘We told you so’

Snowden said he did not release the documents during the prior administration because Barack Obama’s campaign promises and election “gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes.”

“Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.” Snowden wrote.

Snowden also said that Google, Facebook and other tech companies had been “misleading” in their denials of a giant government surveillance program called PRISM.

“They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation,” he said. “If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?”

The British newspaper had asked readers to post their questions to Snowden and recommend their favorites.

The blog was monitored by reporter Glenn Greenwald, who broke the NSA story two weeks ago based on Snowden leaks.

Underscoring Snowden’s delicate situation in taking on the NSA, the newspaper included what it called “an important caveat”:

“(The) live chat is subject to Snowden’s security concerns and also his access to a secure internet connection. It is possible that he will appear and disappear intermittently, so if it takes him a while to get through the questions, please be patient.”

Syria is close to following Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as the target of a major Western military intervention. It certainly looks that way after the American decision last week to send weapons to the rebels in a move that can only deepen the conflict.

The supposed aim of the United States arms supply is to “tip the balance” in favour of the insurgents and force Bashar al-Assad’s government to negotiate its departure from power. But Assad holds all but one of Syria’s cities and large towns, so, to transform the military situation on the ground the US, Britain and France would have to become the main fighting force of the rebels and engage in a full-scale war.

Such a war would be similar to what happened in Afghanistan in 2001 when the cutting edge of the anti-Taliban offensive was strategic and tactical American air support. The anti-Taliban militiamen led by the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara warlords of the Northern Alliance were few in number — I kept running into the same small units on the road from Kabul to Kandahar — and acted essentially as a mopping-up force that did little real fighting.

In northern Iraq in 2003 the Kurdish Peshmerga were careful not to advance anywhere until the Iraqi army facing them had been pummelled by US bombers. One Kurdish commander told me that his men could not advance an inch without US permission because “we have to co-operate with American air support”. Much the same happened in Libya in 2011 when, for all the laudatory media coverage of the rebels, they would not have survived for more than a few days without Nato Special Forces on the ground and air power overhead.

Of course, the Western intervention in Libya started off with the declared humanitarian purpose of preventing Gaddafi capturing Benghazi and massacring its people. The reality was that Nato leaders were determined to overthrow the regime. The main role of Libyan militiamen on the road south of Benghazi was to appear on foreign television. One of the more amusing sights at the time was to watch cameramen asking other members of the media to stand to one side so viewers would not see that journalists were more numerous than Libyan fighters in the front line.

The message of these three wars is that if the US and its Western allies do intervene in Syria it is they who will be the main players while the rebels will have only bit-parts or be there to give a Syrian gloss to foreign intervention. There are already signs of this happening. Brigadier Salim Idris, the chief of staff of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), appears to spend more of his time giving interviews to foreign journalists than commanding his troops. Not that these are numerous since even his own aides admit privately that he can give orders to a maximum of 10 per cent of the insurgent brigades in Syria.

There is a disconnect between the rebels as they really are and as presented by Western politicians such as David Cameron. Suddenly there is international concern about what will happen in Aleppo if the Assad forces launch a counter-attack to drive the rebels out of the parts of the city they hold. The rhetoric is similar to that used by then president Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron over the need to save the people of Benghazi from massacre in 2011. It is a measure of British and French cynicism that they hardly seemed to notice when, 10 days ago, militiamen in Benghazi, whom they formerly supported, shot dead 31 Libyans protesting against militia rule.

Britain and France speak as if the struggle was between an overwhelmingly popular insurgency and a hated dictatorship. But it was a rebel commander, Abu Ahmed, in the al-Tawheed Brigade that is part of the FSA in Aleppo, who volunteered to a reporter earlier this year that 70 per cent of people in Aleppo support Assad. “They don’t have a revolutionary mindset,” the rebel officer lamented, blaming this on the FSA’s oppression, and corruption caused by “parasites” who had infiltrated its ranks. Inured to horrors though Syrians have become, they were appalled last week to see pictures on Twitter of the mangled head of a 14-year-old boy selling coffee in the street in Aleppo. He had been shot twice in the face by rebels after they accused him of speaking ill of the Prophet. Also last week, rebels massacred 60 people in a Shia village in Deir Ezzor province in the east of the country.

The volume of propaganda justifying Western military intervention in Syria is so high because leaders advocating it know that polls show that such intervention is highly unpopular at home. Hence the White House’s claim that it decided to arm the rebels when it finally became convinced that the Assad regime had crossed a red line by using chemical weapons including sarin gas. Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Washington, while arguing for full-scale US intervention in Syria, says “the ‘discovery’ that Syria used chemical weapons may well be a political ploy. It seems very likely that the administration has had virtually all the evidence for weeks, if not months.”

In fact, the evidence smells very like that for Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in 2003. It begs the question of why Assad should use small quantities of sarin gas knowing it would be used to justify Western military intervention when his forces are not short of artillery and every other weapon if they want to kill people. One curious aspect of the sarin gas story is that, at the end of May, the Turkish security forces said they had arrested in Turkey militants of the Syrian rebel al-Nusra Front, affiliated to al-Qa’ida, who had in their possession a 2kg cylinder filled with sarin. This is far more substantial evidence for the possession of poison gas than anything alleged against Assad’s forces, but the US, Britain and France showed no interest.

At the G8 meeting in Enniskillen tomorrow it may become clearer how far the US and its allies distinguish between propaganda and reality in relation to Syria. Do Britain and France really imagine that a mix of bluff, threats and a limited supply of infantry weapons will have a decisive impact on the battlefield? Cordesman argues for a no-fly zone that should be rapidly transformed into “a de facto no-move zone”. This is the most effective way to allow the rebels to defeat Assad if they can. In other words, only an all-out war by the West will work against Assad; anything else will be like being “half-pregnant”.

Cordesman is probably right in his military assessment but surely wrong, as we have seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, that this will end the fighting. Better by far for the G8 leaders to compel all parties in Syria to go to Geneva, agree a ceasefire, establish a UN mission in Syria to monitor it, and then seek to negotiate long-term solutions.

PATRICK COCKBURN is the author of “Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

South Sudanese soldiers stand on April 23, 2012 at a base near Bentiu.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras awaits the arrival of his Luxembourg counterpart in Athens on June 11, 2013.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

[unable to retrieve full-text content]Turkey has summoned British charge d’affaires over reports that Britain spied on the Turkish finance minister’s emails and phone calls during a G20 meeting in 2009.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Jess Bravin
Wall Street Journal
June 17, 2013

Arizona violated the federal “Motor Voter” law when it added a proof-of-citizenship requirement to standard voter-registration forms intended for use nationwide, the Supreme Court held Monday.

The ruling comes a year after the Supreme Court struck down most of another Arizona law designed to punish illegal immigrants seeking work.

Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that federal law required states to “accept and use” the streamlined form provided by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, as the Motor Voter law is formally named.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 10:43 am

Tags: domestic news, judicial

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Claims agent Told 15-year-old girl to “cover up”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

Source: BoingBoing.net

The co-founder of the popular news blog Boing Boing has claimed that a TSA officer humiliated his fifteen year old daughter by aggressively telling her “COVER YOURSELF!”, after glaring at her t-shirt.

Mark Frauenfelder, also editor in chief of Make magazine, notes that the incident took place Sunday, writing “…a TSA officer at LAX humiliated and shamed my 15-year-old daughter.”

“She is traveling with a group of high school students on a college tour and we were not with her when he verbally abused her.” Frauenfelder adds, saying that he received details from his daughter by text message.

“…she was at the station where the TSA checks IDs. She said the officer was “glaring” at her and mumbling. She said, “Excuse me?” and he said, “You’re only 15, COVER YOURSELF!” in a hostile tone. She said she was shaken up by his abusive manner.” Frauenfelder explains, including the photo of his daughter’s rather normal looking outfit, consisting of a pair of long black leggings and a tank top with a flannel shirt over it.

” It doesn’t matter what she was wearing, though, because it’s none of his business to tell girls what they should or should not wear.” the blogger added.

“His creepy thoughts are his own problem, and he shouldn’t use his position of authority as an excuse to humiliate a girl and blame her for his sick attitude.”

Boing Boing routinely posts stories relating to TSA abuses and has extensively promoted opt out events and other protests against both the TSA enhance pat-down policy, and the agency’s use of revealing and irradiating body scanners.

Frauenfelder claims that that TSA are investigating the incident, which they are ‘taking seriously’.

This latest account comes just weeks after an incident in which activist Ashley Jessica was filmed being inappropriately touched by a TSA agent.

Jessica, who led the Infowars Opt Out & Film the TSA campaign last Thanksgiving, was shown in the clip undergoing an invasive pat down having exercised her right to refuse to go through a body scanner machine.

Jessica recoiled when the agent touched both her breasts and her vagina. The video went viral on the internet and received international news coverage.

Earlier this month, upon attempting to enter the UK to cover the Bilderberg meeting for Infowars, Jessica was detained for 24 hours and sent back to the US.

The latest incident is hardly surprising, given that it is no exaggeration to say that the TSA is manned by an army of perverts and sexual deviants. The agency has been found to consistently hire sexual deviants and even pedophiles. The amount of stories that have emerged documenting this phenomenon is staggering.

–––––––––––––––––––––-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

A task force of 300 U.S. Marines and a Patriot anti-aircraft missile system have been deployed along Syria’s border with Jordan as the United States prepares to ship weapons to rebel forces in the two-year-old civil war in Syria that has so far taken an estimated 93,000 lives. The missile system and as many as eight F-16 fighter jets will likely remain in Jordan following the multi-national military exercise now underway in Jordan, military officials told NBC News. Meanwhile, speculation continues over the possible establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria to thwart aerial attacks on the rebels by the Bashar al-Assad regime. U.S. officials appeared to be downplaying that possibility, while at the same time not ruling it out.

“We have been clear that we are not excluding options, but at this stage no decision has been taken,” Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and President Obama’s incoming national security adviser, told the Reuters news service.

The United States and Great Britain imposed a no-fly zone against the air force of Saddam Hussein during the 12 years between the two Iraq wars, and a U.S. and NATO air defense of rebel factions in Libya helped topple the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. But Deputy National Security Adviser Benjamin Rhodes said Thursday that a similar effort in Syria would face greater obstacles, including “open-ended costs for the United States and the international community.” “It’s far more complex to undertake the type of effort, for instance, in Syria than it was in Libya,” Rhodes said. U.S. planes over Syria would be up against sophisticated anti-aircraft systems from Russia, a major supplier of weapons to the Damascus government.

Russia condemned the decision to provide weapons to the rebels, along with the military exercise, called Eager Lion, taking place within 75 miles of the Syrian border in northern Jordan. About 5,000 U.S. troops are among the 8,000 military personnel from Western and Arab nations taking part in the three-week exercise that began June 9. It will end with “a massive display of sea-land capabilities, June 18-20,” the U.S. Army News Service announced. 

“This is happening very close to Syria, where for more than two years the flames of a devastating conflict are burning that Russia and its American partners are trying to stop by proposing to hold an international peace conference as soon as possible,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich protested.

Obama administration officials said the decision to ship light arms and ammunitions to the Syrian rebels is the result of a White House determination that Syrian government forces have been using chemical weapons, including the poison gas sarin, that have killed an estimated 100 to 150 people. Obama said last August that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would cross a “red line” and result in significant consequences. Both sides have accused the other of using the weapons and in April, White House legal adviser Michael Rodriguez said the U.S. intelligence community had assessed “with varying degrees of confidence” that the Syrian government had recently used sarin against the insurgents. In a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, Rodriguez said the “chain of custody” of the weapons was not clear, “so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred or under what conditions.” In what appears to have been a reference to erroneous intelligence assessments about chemical and nuclear weapons that led to a nine-year war with Iraq, Rodriguez said:

Given the stakes involved, and what we have learned from our previous experience, intelligence estimates alone are not sufficient – only credible and corroborated facts that will provide us with some degree of certainty will guide our decision-making and strengthen our leadership of the international community.

In early May, Carla Del Ponte, a member of a United Nations commission of inquiry into the chemical weapons allegations, said in an interview on Swiss-Italian television that while there was no “incontrovertible truth” that sarin had been used in the fighting, evidence from interviewing victims and doctors at field hospitals pointed toward its use.

“This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,” said Del Ponte, a former attorney general of Switzerland who served as prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal judging war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.

In his statement announcing President Obama’s decision Thursday, Rhodes did not directly address the “chain of custody” question raised in the Rodriguez letter, but said: “We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons.” The refusal by the Damascus government to allow a UN fact-finding mission “immediate and unfettered access” to chemical weapons sites “has prevented a comprehensive investigation as called for by the international community,” Rhodes said. Laboratory analysis of blood samples taken from victims and intelligence reports of plans by the Syrian government to use chemical weapons led to the “high confidence” assessment that it is the government and not the rebel units that has been using the sarin, Rhodes said.

Obama administration policy had been to supply “non-lethal aid,” starting with food and medicine, to the rebels. By February of this year, the U.S. had spent $117 million in that effort, but in April, Secretary of State John Kerry announced another $123 million in aid, saying it might include armored vehicles, night-vision goggles, and advanced communications equipment. Meanwhile, the CIA, starting in early 2012, was assisting the rebels in arranging purchases of weapons from Turkey, Croatia, and Arab governments, delivered to rebel strongholds in Syria on military cargo flights from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

The question of arming the rebels has become a contentious issue, with Obama’s domestic opponents arguing the move will draw us deeper into Middle East military conflicts, while critics both here and abroad point to growing reports of al-Qaeda affiliates becoming a dominant force among the rebel groups fighting the Assad regime. The al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda ally that fought American and coalition forces in Iraq, is playing a leading role in the fighting and has become the “group of choice for foreign groups pouring into Syria,” the New York Times reported. While the units are reportedly “vetted” by the CIA to assure the weapons do not end up in “the wrong hands,” there remain grounds for concern that the arms supplied to rebels in Syria today may be turned on Americans tomorrow.

“There are fake Free Syrian Army brigades claiming to be revolutionaries,” rebel commander Hassan Aboud told the Times, “and when they get the weapons they sell them in trade.”

^{Photo of U.S. Marine training in Middle East}

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a bill June 13 that will protect the rights of individuals to offer greetings and display religious symbols on school property during Christmas and other holiday seasons. The new law is designed to protect individuals and groups from legal challenges to what the bill’s author, State Rep. Wayne Bohac, says is a First Amendment protected right to religious expression. Bohac introduced H.B. 308, dubbed the “Merry Christmas Bill,” after his son’s school displayed a “holiday tree” rather than a Christmas tree because school officials feared a lawsuit from one of the secular grievance groups known for attacking communities and school districts over contrived First Amendment concerns.

“I am proud to have authored the ‘Merry Christmas Bill’ which allows students, parents, teachers, and administrators the freedom to acknowledge traditional winter holidays like Christmas and Hanukkah in Texas public schools without fear of litigation or punishment,” Bohac said in a statement. “Teachers and [school districts] have enough on their plate, and worrying about openly celebrating a Federal holiday and getting sued or reprimanded should not be one of them.”

Bohac recalled that “when I picked up my six-year-old first grader from school and found out school districts and teachers felt pressured by political correctness to change the way they referred to ‘Christmas trees’ and Santa and holiday music, I had enough. H.B. 308 protects schools and teachers from ridiculous litigation and restores common sense by placing Supreme Court precedent into Texas Law.”

Gov. Perry, who signed the bill in a high-profile ceremony that included sleigh bell-ringing Santas and other Christmas motifs, told those assembled for the event that “I realize it’s only June, but it’s a good June and the holidays are coming early this year. It’s a shame a bill like this one I’m signing today is even required, but I’m glad that we’re standing up for religious freedom in this state.”

In a prepared statement Perry said that “freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion, and people of faith often feel like they can’t express that faith publicly. H.B. 308 works to address that by ensuring that people of all faiths are free to use traditional holiday greetings, and display religious scenes and symbols, even on school property. It ensures freedom of expression where – for many students, teachers, and administrators – it’s most important.”

Among those in attendance at the bill signing were cheerleaders from Kountze High School in East Texas, who in 2012 were barred by their school district from displaying banners with Bible verses at football games. In May of this year a state district judge officially overturned the school district’s policy, ruling that no law “prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed banners at school sporting events.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the secular groups known for assaulting schools and communities over religious expression cases, indicated that it would be watching Texas to see if there might be an opportunity to challenge the law. “We will be monitoring this very closely,” Tom Hargins, director of communications for the ACLU of Texas, told the New York Daily News. “We hope that school administrators will remain mindful that it is up to parents to introduce and teach their kids about religion, not the public schools.”

Bohac noted that since passage of the bill he has been inundated with phone calls, e-mails, and letters from teachers, school officials, and parents thanking him for authoring the measure. He added that he has also been contacted by individuals in other states who hope their legislators will consider sponsoring such a bill in their states. “Thanks to overwhelming support from my colleagues in the Texas Legislature, Governor Perry, and the people of Texas, the Merry Christmas Bill is now the law of the land in the Lone Star State,” Bohac said in a statement. “I encourage our friends in our neighboring 49 states to take a look at what we’ve done with the Merry Christmas Bill here in Texas, and challenge them to join us in passing similar legislation to protect our freedom and sacred American traditions.”

This article originally appeared on: The New American

A majority of Australia’s remaining fossil fuels ‘must be left in the ground and cannot be burned’ if society is to have any hope of curbing the existential threat posed by climate change, Australian scientists declare in a chilling government report released today.

(Photo: Hourann Bosci/Creative Commons/Oil Refinery in Victoria, Australia) “Unless effective action is taken, the global climate may be so irreversibly altered we will struggle to maintain our present way of life,” report authors assert. “The choices we make this decade will shape the long-term climate future for our children and grandchildren.”

The report finds that most of Australia’s vast fossil fuel reserves must remain untouched in a country that ranks as the world’s second largest exporter of coal, with shipments continuing to rise.

From today until 2050 we can emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to have a good chance of staying within the 2°C limit,” deliver the authors in a sobering assessment.

This would require reversing the rise in Australian emissions within the next two years if there is to be any hope of stemming the crisis.

Put simply, time is running out.

The Climate Commission that drafted the report was formed by the Australian government in 2011 to provide scientific information about climate change.

Their non-binding findings put them at loggerheads with Australia’s powerful oil and coal industries, as well as the rising conservative opposition, expected to win elections in September. Opposition leader Tony Abbott, who declared climate change is ‘absolute crap’, has vowed to do away with the climate commission if elected.

Report authors warn, in what could be their final report given Australia’s political climate, that the situation is dire: people across the world are already seeing the effects of climate change:

It is clear that the climate system has already shifted, changing conditions for all weather. While extreme weather events have always occurred naturally, the global climate system is hotter and wetter than it was 50 years ago. This has loaded the dice toward more frequent and forceful extreme weather events.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

The word trust is linked to belief. It is almost impossible to trust a person if you do not believe him. The negation of trust is a lie that evokes a sense of betrayal.  In personal relationships, you can love a person, but if you do not believe him, you don’t trust him, so there is no basis for a relationship.

The erosion of trust takes time; it does not happen overnight. Many historical upheavals have come about from the erosion of trust.

For example, the Black Death Plague of the 14th century caused the death of an estimated 30 to 60 percent of Europe’s population. As with most crises, society found scapegoats. In this case, it was the Jews who the rioters massacred by the thousands.

Often the rioters were agitated by the Church Fathers. You can get the sense of this fear by watching the docudrama CANOA (1975) about the 1968 lynching of students in San Miguel Canoa in Puebla.

In the end, the Plague undermined the authority of the Catholic Church. Losing almost their entire families many lost trust in the Church’s ability to intercede with God; their prayers and their faith were of no help; and they felt betrayed. Once the trust eroded the working class was not blinded by faith, and they saw that Church supported the aristocrats in keeping their wages down even at a time when there was a scarcity of labor.

In my last essay I raised the question of foreclosures, and how government was in collusion with the bankers and the hedge fund managers to capitalize on the misfortune caused by the real estate bubbles that brought on the Depression of 2008. Instead of blaming the bankers, many blamed homeowners for accepting the usurious loans.

We believe we live in a democracy, and that we can correct imperfections. However, in order to do this we have to put aside myths such as that our government is the best of all governments.

We cannot ignore Gore v. Bush (2000) where the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore. We cannot ignore Citizens United (2010) that once again made corporations people, and increased the likelihood of the superrich buying electoral races.  Whether we want to believe it or not, Congress is in the pay of the one percent of the population.

The system is destroying itself. Washington was come to a standstill. Yet there are still those who believe they are equal to the one percent. Maybe they still believe in Santa Claus. I wonder if they are as trusting as of their partners.  But that is why we have the word pendejo in our vocabulary.

It is disturbing to listen or to read the news. Barack Obama is trying to cater to McCain’s vision of this nation, and is preparing to lead the country into yet another war. Similar to Bush and Cheney, President Obama is using the redline argument of the Weapons of Mass Destruction —his proof is his word.

How far can we trust President Obama? I am sorry but I am concerned about the erosion of our constitutional rights via the tapping of telephone records and the internet.  It is not okay just because it supposedly makes us feel more secure. For me, Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old whistleblower who leaked the history of the NSA (National Security Agency) and its spying operation is a hero. If and when they catch him, Snowden is going to do hard time for protecting us against ourselves.

I feel betrayed by the government on the issue of GMOs. I rely on the government to make certain that my family’s food is safe.

Western Europe has banned GMO foods produced by corporate giants like Monsanto. I am concerned that Congress just passed a law that was signed by President Obama. The Monsanto Protection Act or HR 993 forces the USDA to approve any new GMO seeds, and shields Monsanto and other GMO/biotech companies from liability if the seeds turn out to be harmful.

Was I paranoid when President Barack Obama appointed former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor as Deputy Commissioner to head the FDA? The board regulates Monsanto.

And, I am concerned about the growing inequality and lack of opportunity for Latinos and other Americans. We fought hard to gain access to the colleges and universities. Today this access has been severely limited by the rising cost of tuition, housing and books —to the point that it threatens the gains of past 40 years.

The Arizona betrayal killed any trust that I had that government could or would correct the inequalities there. The Tucson schools have been under a desegregation order for 40 years. Mexican Americans have fought courageously to end segregation. However, even if we win, those years will never be returned to the students who have suffered the effects of racism and unequal schools.

The State of Arizona with the complicity of the Tucson Unified School District destroyed a Mexican American Studies program that had produced proven results. After three years the federal courts finally intervened, and has ordered that culturally relevant classes be implemented. However, we who have been involved in constructing MAS programs —know that MAS is more than a collection of courses —it is a pedagogy. This makes us doubt whether Humpty Dumpty will ever be put back together again.

It is another instance of money wasted, time lost, and lives destroyed. Can this be fixed? Can the playing field be leveled? I don’t want to sound cynical, but “I don’t think so!”

Arizona has been taken over by special interests, and is ahead of the nation in the privatization of the public sector, ranging from the prisons to the schools. Like the nation as a whole, Arizona is run by feudal lords.

The United States has entered a twilight zone. While courts in the past sometimes supervised the gerrymandering of congressional districts to equalize voting rights, today they are getting rid of voting rights enforcement, and replacing it with districts designed to protect Republican Party rule. Congressional Districts are being redrawn to make certain that incumbents are elected.

Even in California, Latinos have allied themselves with Republicans to preserve their districts. But, the truth be told, the abuse has been most glaring in Red states. The result is that a small sectarian group is in control of Congress whose members are in the pay of lobbyists.

Compounding this inequality the red states hold the larger states hostage; no matter that the blue states pay for the cost government and fight the nation’s wars. It would take a constitutional amendment to restructure government, and correct this flaw. But, as many have frequently pointed out, the Supremes are products of the ivy leagues and hardly independent.  Judges Scalia, Thomas and their gaggle of right wing judges thrive on honorariums and favors from Wall Street.

The only hope is a Black Plague scenario that will force the masses to revolt. We must remember that the Berlin Wall did not come down because President Ronald Reagan in 1987 yelled ” Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The Wall came down and the Soviet Union imploded because of a universal loss of trust. The people felt betrayed by their government.

There is intelligent capitalism and just plain stupid capitalism. Henry Ford made the decision to pay his workers $5 a day in wages. Ford realized that if he wanted to sell his products that he should pay the workers so they could afford to buy cars. In other words, Ford had to create a middle-class–the same middle class that Wall Street is wiping out

Today’s capitalists are stupid because they do not history, and as we speak are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

My only hope is that the proverb, “No hay mal que dure cien anos, ni cuerpo que lo aguante, (there is no harm that lasts a hundred years, nor a human body that will resist them) proves prophetic.

RODOLFO ACUÑA, a professor emeritus at California State University Northridge, has published 20 books and over 200 public and scholarly articles. He is the founding chair of the first Chicano Studies Dept which today offers 166 sections per semester in Chicano Studies. His history book Occupied America has been banned in Arizona. In solidarity with Mexican Americans in Tucson, he has organized fundraisers and support groups to ground zero and written over two dozen articles exposing efforts there to nullify the U.S. Constitution.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Veteran BBC presenter, Stuart Hall is jailed for indecent assault on teenage girls.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Daniel Halper
Weekly Standard
June 17, 2013

A new CNN poll finds that 66 percent of American adults believe that it’s “right” for the Obama administration to analyze and collect Internet data. Only 33 percent believe the action is “wrong,” and 1 percent have “No opinion.”

“[F]or the past few years the Obama administration has reportedly been gathering and analyzing information from major internet companies about audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails and documents involving people in other countries in an attempt to locate suspected terrorists. The government reportedly does not target internet usage by U.S. citizens and if such data is collected, it is kept under strict controls,” reads the poll question. “Do you think the Obama administration was right or wrong in gathering and analyzing that internet data?”

On phone call information, the public is a little less enthusiastic, but still supportive. Fifty-one percent believe the Obama administration is “right,” 48 percent believe the administration is “wrong,” and 1 percent have “No opinion.”

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 10:18 am

Tags: constitution, domestic news, domestic spying, internet, technology

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Moshe Gammer, a history professor at Tel Aviv University died a day after the 15 April bombing of the Boston marathon. He had been an early scholar of the history of the North Caucasus, its societies and culture, which academics usually passed by. He had written books and journalism on the North Caucasus, especially Chechnya. His last book, The Lone Wolf and the Bear: Three Centuries of Chechen Defiance (1), is a history of the Chechens’ struggle against the advance of their powerful neighbour, Russia. Gammer discussed the transformation of the Chechen independence movement, which had started after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Chechnya moved from secular nationalism to more religious ideologies. The book had been on Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Amazon wish list: Tamerlan (who died in a Boston police shoot-out on 18 April) and his brother Dzhokhar were the only suspects in the bombing, and both were Chechen by birth: the country suddenly became a hot topic.

Though Boston led the US media to write about Islamisation in the North Caucasus, the Tsarnaevs seem to have acted as lone wolves, although not in the sense of the Chechen wolf (borz), which is a national symbol of those who seek independence, and the emblem on their flag. In terrorism studies a lone wolf pursues terrorist goals solo (or with just a few close comrades), “either driven by personal reasons or their belief that they are part of an ideological group” (2). In Norway, the far-right Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in 2011, was a clear example of this sort of terrorist. In a recent book (3) Jeffrey Simon highlights attacks by lone wolves back to the early 20th century in US history.

There are many lone wolves inspired by Salafi jihadism or Al-Qaida ideology, especially in western countries. Some jihadist leaders urge young Muslims to such attacks in the name of al-jihad al-fardi (individual jihad), following the words of Osama bin Laden: “Do not consult anybody about killing Americans.”

According to US officials, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has told FBI agents that he and Tamerlan were influenced by the online sermons of Anwar al-Awlaki, the US preacher killed in Yemen in 2011 by a CIA drone (4). This suggests that both were lone wolves, though not Chechen ones. Despite unconfirmed reports that Tamerlan met insurgents in the North Caucasus on visits in 2012, it seems he was not radicalised in the context of Caucasian jihadism.

Jihadis flock to Chechnya

There was an influx of jihadis into Chechnya at the beginning of the first Chechen war against the Russians in 1994, when Arab fighters began to move there from Afghanistan, looking for a new battlefield after the defeat of the Soviets. Some, including the Saudi Khattab (Samir Saleh Abdullah al-Suwailem), had been in Tajikistan helping Islamists in the 1992-94 civil war.

However, during Chechnya’s first war, the jihadis did not create a separate movement, but agreed to rally under the nationalist banner of President Dzhokar Dudayev, the first independent leader of Chechnya after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After the Russian army was defeated in that first war, a peace treaty was signed in 1997 that Boris Yeltsin, then Russian president, described as a “deal of historic dimensions, ending 400 years of history [of conflict between Russia and Chechnya].” In 1996 Dudayev had been assassinated by a laser-guided missile while he used a satellite phone to speak to King Hassan of Morocco, an intermediary between the parties.

After an internationally endorsed democratic election, Aslan Maskhadov was elected as Chechnya’s new president. But Russia did not honour its commitments to fund Chechnya’s rebuilding. Maskhadov, who like Dudayev was a military man and a secular nationalist, had always believed in a political solution for the Chechen conflict. Russia’s policies pressured him and created the opportunity for jihadis inside Chechnya.

Well-funded jihadis helped local Islamists expand their presence in Chechnya by attracting young from Chechnya and the neighbouring republics, building sharia courts, Islamising society and opening training camps for new Arab fighters. Between 1997 and 1999 the number of jihadis from Arab countries increased: 45% of Arab fighters went to Chechnya during this period (against 30% during the previous war). The alliance between jihadis and the Chechen hardline nationalists led by warlord Shamil Basayev was based on a mutually beneficial exchange, but became the catalyst for the reinvasion of Chechnya in 1999 after this alliance tried to help Islamists in the neighbouring republic of Dagestan when Russian forces attempted to block the establishment of an Islamic state.

The second Chechen war began a new phase of clandestine jihadi activity in the North Caucasus. Even though the jihadis’ Islamising policies were not popular among the Chechen population, the 9/11 attacks allowed the Russian authorities to justify a brutal military campaign as part of the “war on terror”. The smokescreen meant that widescale human rights violations, under former KGB officer Vladimir Putin, escaped the gaze of the international media.

A quarter of the Chechen population was killed or displaced during the two wars and, after 2003, Arab fighters started to leave Chechnya, some to go to the new jihadi battlefield of Iraq. The Russians consecrated their victory by assassinating the moderate president Maskhadov on 8 March 2005 and installing a pro-Russian government, which greatly weakened the nationalist movement.

Local grievances

However, the Chechen insurgency spilled into neighbouring republics. And in 2007 the establishment of the Islamic Emirate of the Caucasus (IEC) marked a more explicit Islamic ideology for the North Caucasian armed groups operating in Dagestan, Ingushetia and Kabardino-Balkaria. Local grievances, including Russian policies, were the major motivation for a new generation of Caucasus insurgents: they were not involved in global jihad, only attacks against Russia. The IEC claimed responsibility for the Domodedovo Airport suicide bombing in January 2010 and the suicide attacks in the Moscow metro in March 2010. It denied any involvement in the Boston bombings.

While North Caucasus jihadis previously relied on ideologues from abroad, the region also generated its own local ideologues, such as Said Buryatsky, Anzor Astemirov and Abu Dujanah. On the other hand global jihadis became increasingly interested in the North Caucasus, and translated much of their literature into Russian, the main language of many locals. Jihadi web forums have endless material on the IEC. Yet up till now the North Caucasian jihadis failed to give Russia much trouble.

The Tsarnaev brothers were clearly fonder of their maternal homeland, Dagestan, than the country that welcomed their father, the US. Dagestan has recently become pivotal to North Caucasus jihadism, with 300 terrorist incidents in 2010. Yet the Tsarnaevs never tried to link the Boston bombs to any cause in the region. Chechen historian Mairbek Vatchagaev asks: “Why did Tamerlan Tsarnaev … not demand an end to the bloodshed in Dagestan, but was interested in what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq?” (5). The answer may be that his radicalisation was in no way linked to the North Caucasus.

The North Caucasus jihadis are mainly motivated by the local grievances of poverty, unemployment, corruption, violations of human rights and the hegemony of the Russian authorities. The enemy is Russia. The Tsarnaev brothers were lone wolves, but certainly not Chechen wolves.

Murad Batal al-Shishani is a London-based political analyst specialising in Islamic groups, the Middle East and the North Caucasus.

Notes.

(1) Moshe Gammer, The Lone Wolf and the Bear: Three Centuries of Chechen Defiance — A History, C Hurst & Co Publishers, 2005.

(2) Raffaello Pantucci, “A Typology of Lone Wolves: Preliminary Analysis of Lone Islamist Terrorists”, the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR), King’s College (London), March 2011.

(3) Jeffrey D Simon, Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the Growing Threat, Prometheus Books, Amherst, 2013.

(4) See Daniel Klaidman, “Exclusive: The Awlaki/Tsarnaev Connection”, The Daily Beast, 26 April 2013. Awlaki’s fluent English speeches, widely posted on jihadist websites, attracted many lone wolf jihadists in the West.

(5) Mairbek Vatchagaev, “Why Tamerlan Tsarnaev Is Outside of Chechen Mentality”, Eurasia Daily Monitor, The Jamestown Foundation, vol 10, issue 83, 2 May 2013.

This article appears in the excellent Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch features two or three articles from LMD every month.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

June 17, 2013
 |

Conservatives keep claiming liberals want a “cradle-to-grave nanny state.” That rhetoric has distracted us from the real social re-engineering taking place all around us. The right, along with its “centrist” collaborators, is transforming our nation into a bloodless and soulless Randian State.

Their decades-long assault on our core social values is on the verge of consuming its first complete generation of Americans. Born at the dawn of the Reagan era, Millennials were the first to be fully subjected to this all-out attack on the idea that we take care of each other in this country, and they’ll pay for it from the cradle to the grave.

Some of us are the parents of Millennials. Who’ll fight with them, and for them?

The Psychosis

The Simpsons made a running joke out of Springfield’s “ Ayn Rand School for Tots,” where toddlers fend for themselves in playrooms whose signs say things like “Helping is Futile.” That’s very funny. What is happening to our country isn’t.

A successful social contract has bound us together since the FDR era. The Randian State is an effort to dismantle it, replacing our nation’s web of mutual trust and support with a lifelong helplessness and dependence on the whims and generosity of corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals.

The Randian State is built in the morally depraved mold of right-wing Ã¼ber-heroine Rand, who reviled the less fortunate — and even those who tried to help them — as “ parasites,” while at the same time idolizing sociopathic killers.

That last statement isn’t rhetoric. It’s reporting. “He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman,” Rand wrote admiringly of child murderer and dismemberer William Edward Hickman. “He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”

As Mark Ames points out, this echoes Rand’s description of her hero in The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”

Hickman’s actions were certainly not those of a “nanny.” But, while most conservatives undoubtedly disapprove of his deeds, the glorification of sociopathic selfishness represents the mentality with which the Administration is perpetually seeking “compromise.” It has infected everything from the Beltway’s “bipartisan” consensus to the content of our national media.

Where’s Julia?

Conservatives went into rhetorical overdrive last year after the Obama campaign released an “infographic” ad called “The Life of Julia,” depicting ways Obama’s policies help women throughout their lives.

A typical reaction came from self-declared moralizer, former Reagan official, and chronic excessive gambler William Bennett. Bennett intoned that “Julia’s entire life is defined by her interactions with the state … Notably absent in her story is any relationship with a husband, family, church or community … Instead, the state has taken their place and is her primary relationship.”

That’s deceptive, of course. The presentation focused on government because it wasabout government. The Obama campaign wasn’t proposing to marry her or drive her to church. But reason rarely intrudes on such arguments. The Romney campaign quickly prepared a counter-slide show and the “socialist” debate was on.

Obama won.

Curiously, “Julia’s” story seems to have disappeared from the BarackObama.Com and Organizing For Action websites now that victory’s been achieved. Old links to it are dead, and attempts to click on this introduction only lead back to the site’s main page.

Anti-Social.

Bennett’s phrasing was drawn from conservative avatar Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher represented a radically un-American vision of life which lacks either our sense of community or our bonds of mutual trust, and which denies even the existence of society itself.

“Who is society?” demanded Thatcher. “There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families …”

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

In the run-up to today’s G8 summit in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, which is expected to focus on the Syrian war, US and European officials are calling for an escalation of the imperialist drive for regime-change. With US-backed Sunni Islamist opposition forces facing defeat within the country, Washington is seeking to inflame Sunni-Shiite tensions throughout the region.

British Prime Minister David Cameron met yesterday in London with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the main international backer, together with Iran, of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He made clear that Washington and its allies would move to attack Syria with or without Russian support–doing an end run around the United Nations to launch a war in open violation of international law.

Cameron admitted that the Syrian opposition included elements “that are deeply unsavory, that are very dangerous, very extremist,” but said Moscow did not have a “veto” against moves to further arm them.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough pledged yesterday that the “scope and scale” of US involvement would expand. US lawmakers also called for intensified military action, including the imposition of a no-fly-zone, which would entail a massive bombing campaign aimed at destroying Syria’s air defenses.

“We need to create a no-fly-zone. We cannot take air power out of the equation,” said Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican of South Carolina). He also called for arming opposition fighters in Syria with heavy weapons. “The whole region is about to blow up,” he said. “If we don’t do more than add AK-47s into the mix, [Assad] will continue to win. And the King of Jordan will be toast.”

The rapid move towards a full-scale war in Syria is shattering the pretenses that the war is a humanitarian exercise to install a democratic government. Instead, Washington is moving to stoke up a sectarian civil war throughout the Middle East.

It aims to rally right-wing Sunni Islamist regimes throughout the region for a war aimed firstly at the Alawite-led Syrian regime, but aimed ultimately at the destruction of all of Assad’s allies in the region–including the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and the Shiite regime in Iran.

The US-backed Islamist regime in Egypt announced that it would break off all diplomatic relations with Syria on Saturday. Addressing a “Support for Syria” meeting called by Sunni Islamist clerics in Cairo, Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi also stated that he would back a no-fly zone against Syria. Denouncing Hezbollah, he said Egypt would “materially and morally” support the Syrian opposition, adding that “the Egyptian nation, its leadership and its army will not abandon the Syrian people until it achieves its rights and dignity.”

This week, Mursi’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) echoed calls from Sunni Islamist organizations to join “jihad” in Syria. A Mursi aide stated that the Egyptian government would not stop Egyptians who seek to join the fighting in Syria.

An official Syrian source replied that “Mohammad Morsi, by cutting off all ties with Syria yesterday, had joined the Israel-US-led band of conspirators. It called Egypt’s decisions “irresponsible,” accusing Mursi of fueling sectarian conflict in Syria and throughout the region.

Since Mursi became Egypt’s new president last summer, he has served as a reliable US stooge, working in close consultation with Washington. After supporting the Israeli onslaught against Gaza last autumn, Mursi now seeks to strengthen his ties to Washington by supporting another imperialist war in the Middle East.

On Thursday, a conference of 70 Sunni religious organizations in Cairo issued a statement calling for “jihad with mind, money, weapons–all forms of jihad.” Muslim Brotherhood-linked preacher Youssef al-Qaradawi had already issued appeals for Sunni fighters to travel to fight in Syria.

Over the weekend, US troops were engaged in Eager Lion military exercises in Jordan, near the Syrian border, and left behind F-16 jets and Patriot missiles that will be permanently stationed in Jordan. That country has already been proposed as a base from which Washington could launch ground attacks into Syria. (See: US deploys troops to Jordan, prepares to invade Syria ). Besides the US and its NATO allies, Sunni Islamist regimes including Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon and Egypt participated in the exercises.

Yesterday, Germany’s Der Spiegel reported that France is helping Saudi Arabia provide portable “Mistral” anti-aircraft missiles to Syrian opposition fighters.

In a recent piece entitled “Syria: The Need for Decisive US Action,” Anthony Cordesman, the leading strategist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank, laid out the imperialist interests driving Washington’s policy of stoking up sectarian conflict in the Middle East.

He began by noting that “the ‘discovery’ that Syria used chemical weapons may well be a political ploy.” He thereby all but acknowledged that US allegations of Syrian chemical weapons use, which are being used as a pretext to escalate the war, are fabrications.

Cordesman nonetheless defended the war as critical to Washington’s strategic interests and necessary to prevent a dramatic erosion of US influence in the Middle East. He wrote: “Our friends in the Arab world–and many in Israel and outside the Middle East–see the United States as having been defeated in Iraq and having to ‘retrograde’ from Afghanistan.”

He continued: “The grim reality is that the Syrian civil war is part of a far broader power struggle that now ties the Levant and the [Persian] Gulf together, can greatly aid Iran, can further divide Islam between Sunnis and minorities like Shiites and Alawites, and affects every US friend and ally in the region. This does not in any way eliminate the risks in supporting and arming the Syrian rebels or guarantee that Assad’s fall will end every aspect of the broader humanitarian crisis in Syria. But this set of worst cases is now far more acceptable than an Assad victory.”

This comment reflects the ruthlessness and consummate cynicism with which US strategists pursue Washington’s imperialist interests in the region. Among themselves, they place no importance on allegations of Syrian chemical weapons use, or the risk of causing hundreds of thousands of Syrian casualties–which they see as a perfectly acceptable method to pursue their policies.

They are also well aware of the bloody consequences of supporting Al Qaeda-linked groups that dominate the Syrian opposition’s armed forces, including the fact that Syria would likely dissolve into sectarian civil war if these forces toppled Assad. Such bloodshed is “far more acceptable” to US imperialism than the blow to its prestige which the Assad regime’s survival would entail.

Elements of the European bourgeoisie are also pressing for an aggressive US policy. On Saturday, Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote that Obama’s current policy “leaves a dramatic impression of weakness. Governments around the world, America’s friends as well as its enemies, will register these weaknesses–with either joy or horror.”

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Representatives of the national security apparatus, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, appeared on the Sunday morning news programs to denounce Edward Snowden as a traitor and a Chinese spy.

The programs appeared highly scripted. The ruling class is relying heavily on a barrage of lies in its attempt to cover up the historic nature of the Obama administrations vast domestic surveillance programs, the extent of which grows daily as new details emerge.

“I think he’s a traitor,” Dick Cheney said on Fox News Sunday. “I think he has committed crimes, in fact, by violating agreements given the position he had… I think it’s one of the worst occasions in my memory of somebody with access to classified information doing enormous damage to the national security interests of the United States.”

The program host, Chris Wallace, then asked Cheney: “Do you think he was a spy all along for the Chinese? Do you think he’s using this information to try to buy asylum from the Chinese?”

Cheney replied, “I’m deeply suspicious, obviously, because he went to China… So this raises questions whether or not he had that kind of connection before he did this. The other concern I have is whether or not he had help from inside the [National Security] Agency, that is to say, was there somebody else in NSA who had access to a lot of this stuff and passed it to him?”

The liberal wing of the corporate media repeated these baseless claims. On NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, host David Gregory asked Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, “Is [Snowden] a traitor? Should he be tried as a traitor?”

Chambliss replied, “If he is not a traitor, then he’s pretty darn close to it… He needs to look an American jury in the eye and explain why he has disclosed sources and methods that are going to put American lives in danger. We know now that because of his disclosures, that the terrorists, the bad guys around the world are taking some different tactics. They know a little bit more about how we are gathering the information on them, and I think it’s important that we bring him to justice.”

Earlier in the show, Gregory had posed a similar question to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. “Edward Snowden, is he a traitor in your mind, and what would you like to see the administration do at this point to get him back to face justice?”

Graham replied: “Bring him to justice, and let a prosecutor make that decision, not a politician. But I think what he did compromised our national security. And I’ve got a very simple view of the world, and you can blame me for being simple in complex times… We need this program, and he’s compromised it, and he should be held accountable.”

The statements of Chambliss, the ranking minority member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Graham, a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, are part of a bipartisan campaign to denounce Snowden for “treason,” in his efforts to provide information to the American people about the extent of the antidemocratic and illegal actions of the US government.

The Obama administration is preparing criminal charges against Snowden, and leading Democrats have denounced him for “treason.”

On the same program, “Meet the Press,” co-host Andrea Mitchell took up the task of character assassination of the young whistleblower.

“He had a lot of very provocative, sarcastic, sardonic comments about the PATRIOT Act,” she said disparagingly. “Hard to tell when you’re reading [online] message boards, but you could tell that this was a very edgy guy.”

Former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden appeared apoplectic. When asked by Gregory if it was problematic that private contractors had access to the surveillance programs, Hayden responded with visible anger: “No. No. That’s not the issue. It’s people of this personality type having access to this issue. So let me point out facts: Snowden is wrong.”

The obsequious role of David Gregory is especially notable. Throughout the show, he made certain that the conversation did not stray from the talking points that were likely provided by the White House.

At one point, the host said, “You know, but it’s very interesting, because as some commentators this week have pointed out, those who are concerned with civil liberties, imagine their reaction if there was another 9/11 style attack. And what the American public would support in quashing civil liberties.”

In an attempt to justify the blatantly unconstitutional surveillance programs, Gregory gave a word-for-word reading of a document that the administration is using to justify laying the foundations of the police state. The document, “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After 9/11,” is from December 2002.

“Prior to September 11th,” Gregory read as the text appeared in a full-screen graphic, “the Intelligence Community’s ability to produce significant and timely signals intelligence on counterterrorism was limited by NSA’s failure to address modern communications technology aggressively, continuing conflict between Intelligence Community agencies, NSA’s cautious approach to any collection of intelligence relating to activities in the United States, and insufficient collaboration between the NSA and FBI regarding the potential terrorist attacks within the United States.”

“So,” Gregory said, “the NSA after 9/11 was criticized for being too cautious, which is why we got these programs in the first place, isn’t that true, Senator Chambliss?”

Later, during a roundtable discussion, Gregory broke apart a discussion to state categorically, “We are a country where we shouldn’t be comfortable with a 29-year-old disaffected contractor who is personally offended by a program, and takes it upon himself to leak government secrets and compromise what the government in three branches thinks is important.”

There is little doubt that hosts like Gregory, Wallace and their ilk are reading questions and documents from memos provided by the White House and the national security apparatus.

But attempts by these “journalists” and their military and government guests to sway international public opinion against Edward Snowden are falling short.

Despite ubiquitous condemnations from the media and the entire political establishment, a Time Magazine poll found that 54 percent of Americans believe that Snowden did a “good thing” by releasing information about the government surveillance plans, opposed to a mere 30 percent who said the information leak was a “bad thing.”

A poll conducted by British pollster Opinium/Observer found even wider support amongst the population of Great Britain. Forty-three percent of Britons believed that Snowden is “brave and should be heard, not prosecuted.” Only 23 percent disagreed.

Support for Snowden is strongest in Hong Kong. Nearly 50 percent of respondents to a South China Morning Post poll said they oppose or strongly oppose Snowden’s extradition to the United States, with approximately one in six saying they support extradition.

Of additional significance were comments made Sunday morning by author and New York Times columnist James Risen on “Meet the Press.” His comments denote the true purpose behind the Obama administration’s domestic surveillance programs.

“You’ve created something that never existed in American history before, and that is a surveillance state,” Risen said. “The infrastructure, basically using software technology and data mining and eavesdropping, very sophisticated technology, to create an infrastructure that a police state would love, and that is what really should concern Americans, because we haven’t had a full national debate about the creation of a massive surveillance state and surveillance infrastructure, that if we had some radical change in our politics, could lead to a police state ” (emphasis added).

The comment was passed over by program host Gregory and the other roundtable guests, but its meaning is clear: the ruling class is preparing the foundations of the police state in anticipation of widespread opposition to the attack on the living conditions of the working class.

The target of the PRISM, metadata, and other unknown surveillance programs is not Al Qaeda, which will soon begin receiving weapons from the CIA in Syria. Rather, the principal objects of surveillance are workers and youth whose hostility to imperialist wars and social counterrevolution makes them a threat to the maintenance of the privileges of the ruling class.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

CBS DC
June 17, 2013

An Internal Revenue Service supervisor in Washington says she was personally involved in scrutinizing some of the earliest applications from Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status, including some requests that languished for more than a year without action.

Holly Paz, who until recently was a top deputy in the division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, told congressional investigators she reviewed 20 to 30 applications. Her assertion contradicts initial claims by the agency that a small group of agents working in an office in Cincinnati were solely responsible for mishandling the applications.

Paz, however, provided no evidence that senior IRS officials ordered agents to target conservative groups or that anyone in the Obama administration outside the IRS was involved.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 10:04 am

Tags: domestic news, government corruption

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

In the eyes of many Westerners, Gaza is a dangerous and war torn place. Even activists, including myself, often imagine Gaza primarily as a place of suffering, and one that has unfairly come to eclipse the affliction of all of Palestine. But while Israel’s wars of aggression against the people of Gaza, as well as its brutal siege, have cost many lives and inflicted countless casualties, Gaza today is a remarkably calm, protected and beautiful place where everyday lives go on, despite the continued suffering of its people. Indeed, Gaza is a place where the heart and soul flourish even if the body is ailing; where people and community are so alive and resilient that it rekindles one’s hope in humanity.

I only know this now because I traveled to Gaza earlier this month to participate in the second annual Global March to Jerusalem (GMJ) on Friday, 7th June 2013, when thousands of Palestinians and international activists mobilized in peaceful demonstrations around the world to draw attention to Israel’s continued violations against Jerusalem and its people. Although Israeli police violently suppressed GMJ demonstrations in Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank, peaceful mass demonstrations did successfully take place in Gaza and the neighboring countries of Jordan and Egypt, as well as in Tunisia, Mauritania, Morocco, Yemen, Malaysia, and Turkey. In addition, there were demonstrations in solidarity with the GMJ all around the world, including several major cities across Europe and North America.

On Friday, 7th June I was fortunate enough to join Palestinians and a group of international activists in a peaceful mass rally in Beit Hanoun, the nearest point possible to Jerusalem in Gaza. Many thousands attended the rally, and during my address I promised to carry their voices back home with me to the US in order to communicate their struggle to live under the footprint of a racist occupying power that my government funds and arms. Of course, the few days I spent in Gaza are hardly enough to fulfill this promise. There are too many voices that I was not able to hear, both because there was not enough time and because of my identity as an American woman. But I am hoping that what I can offer begins to communicate the complex life stories of a people resisting against horrific injustices, while at the same time encouraging other Westerners to travel to Gaza in order to do the same.

My entry into Gaza was made possible by the Miles of Smiles convoy organized by the International Committee for Breaking the Siege on Gaza (ICBSG). While there have been many international convoys entering Gaza in recent years, all of which bring much needed aid to the besieged people of Gaza, the Miles of Smiles convoy offers something unique by focusing on development aid. The first Miles of Smiles convoy reached Gaza in November 2009, and since then the ICBSG has successfully organized twenty additional convoys into Gaza. Our convoy included activists from Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Malaysia, South Africa, the UK, and the USA.

Miles of Smiles works closely with Partners for Peace and Development for Palestinians (PPDP) to sponsor projects that empower Palestinians to develop the means to live dignified lives on their own terms. The PPDP is a UK-based organization that works with a dedicated team of Palestinian employees and volunteers in Gaza to offer interest-free loans and small grants to Palestinians, helping them to establish family businesses and development projects. One example of this is a small bakery that we visited during the first night we spent in Gaza, which thanks to a PPDP loan generates employment for an entire family.

PPDP’s Palestinian employees and volunteers in Gaza coordinated our program, which included many different activities that allowed us access to a diverse array of Palestinian voices and experiences. For example, our second day in Gaza we met with the children and spouses of Palestinians who are currently imprisoned by the occupation authorities, often without any formal charges ever being brought against them. And even when Palestinians are tried, it is in military courts — an apartheid system of justice that separates Palestinian children from their fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters.

Earlier that day we also visited a government hospital that specializes in caring for children. We asked one of the doctors there what the needs of the hospital are, and his answer was a lack of resources — a problem that more international activists could easily help alleviate if the US and Europe did not impose such draconian penalties for working with Hamas, the ruling party of the government in Gaza that Israel and its Western allies label as a terrorist organization because of its resistance activities against the occupation. The doctor explained to us that they have many doctors, in fact too many to employ. Even during Israel’s recent war against Gaza in November of last year they had a sea of volunteers to help. However the hospital still needed equipment and medication to meet the needs of their patients. Indeed according to the human rights organization B’Tselem, Israeli forces killed 167 Palestinians during last November’s military operation, at least 87 of them civilians and more than one third under the age of 18. As we visited some of the sick children I felt so helpless and angry because as an American I am unable to contribute anything to the important work of this hospital, which saves innocent children’s lives. Fortunately, those in Arab countries are able to donate without fear of prosecution, and their contributions help keep the hospital running.

On our fourth day we visited Islamic University, the best university in Gaza (there are seven in total) and ranked among the top 250 universities around the world. Founded in 1978, the university’s campus is modern and beautiful, servicing around 20,000 students each year. The university offers many degrees across the arts and sciences, with Islamic values guiding the behavior of the students as well as the curriculum, which is in line with international scientific standards. But even this university has suffered unjustly under the occupation. During Israel’s December 2008 war against Gaza, occupation forces destroyed 74 of the university’s laboratories, as well as a library, a collective punishment against the entire population. Lest anybody think that this was collateral damage, Israel deliberately bombed the university in six separate air strikes. When I think of violent acts that would terrorize me as a teacher and a scholar, this ranks among the worst. And yet this terrorism is exactly what my government is uncritically supporting.

During our time in Gaza, we also met with Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh, and distributed aid to orphans as well as to needy families thanks to the generosity of our Libyan delegation (as well as my own friends and colleagues who kindly donated money so that I could distribute toys to children). But most of us will never really know what it is like to live under a violent occupation. What it is like to be cruelly besieged by your neighbor and demonized by Western countries for fighting back. We spoke to some graduates of Islamic University who are involved in the Gaza student community, to try and learn more about their own experiences.

One member of the convoy, an American filmmaker of Pakistani origin, remarked how surprising it was that the Palestinians working with us were not more angry. One young man responded that, in fact, they are very angry, but that they still have to live. He explained that he holds his pain and suffering deep inside himself, as do other Palestinians in Gaza. It has to be contained for fear that if expressed it could destroy their lives. And even though he spoke these words calmly and quietly, the inner anguish distorted his face and the grief filled his wide eyes. He told us that he lost seven friends in the last war against his people. On his way to sit his university exams he also saw bombs destroy the buildings around him. His exams were postponed. But what really made the suffering intolerable was getting through the cold nights during that war.

I can only conclude that this coldness is symbolic of a world where an occupying power can terrorize and ethnically cleanse a native population with impunity. Because if there were any warmth left in our hearts, then we would all be doing everything that we possibly could do to stop Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people. Convoys like Miles for Smiles help, as do solidarity activities like the GMJ, but considering the extent of their suffering, the Palestinians deserve more from all of us.

Sarah Marusek earned her PhD in social science from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University and is currently a traveling faculty member with SIT Study Abroad. She is also a member of the International Executive Committee of the Global March to Jerusalem.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

June 17, 2013
 |

Immigration reform sure has Republicans in a bind. After all, Sen. Lindsey Graham was not wrong when he said, on Sunday’s Meet the Press, that:

“… if we don’t pass immigration reform, if we don’t get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn’t matter who you run in 2016. We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community in my view is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who we run in my view.”

He’s sure not wrong that the GOP can’t continue to be the party of white men, to hell with brown people, and succeed. So you’d think it would be an obvious choice to any Republican who could read polls and demographic data. Yet Sen. Marco Rubio demonstrates the other side of the Republican bind on immigration as he continues doing the will-he-or-won’t-he danceon the immigration reform bill he helped write.

“I think 95, 96 percent of the bill is in perfect shape and ready to go. But there are elements that need to be improved,” said Rubio, refusing to say if he’ll vote for the measure he helped write unless changes are made.

Who knows, maybe Rubio is holding out for the 98 percent of what he wanted that John Boehner got on the debt limit deal that created sequestration. But either way, his very public ambivalence highlights the fact that it’s only going to get harder for Republicans to win elections in a lot of key swing states if they can’t appeal to Latino and Asian voters–but for now, Republicans with personal, short-term ambition know that their party’s primary-voting base will punish them for not scapegoating brown people enough.

And this dilemma couldn’t happen to a more deserving party or set of politicians.

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

[unable to retrieve full-text content]International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says international sanctions imposed on Iran have failed to affect the country’s nuclear energy program, Reuters reports.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

UPI
June 17, 2013

Fewer than a fourth of Americans have confidence in newspapers, the lowest level in five years, a Gallup poll has indicated.

The poll found only 23 percent of those surveyed had a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence about what they read in newspapers, Gallup reported Monday.

That’s a drop from 25 percent in 2012 and 28 percent in 2011.

The poll, which began in 1974, recorded its lowest level of confidence, 22 percent, in 2008.

The highest level of confidence, 51 percent, was reached in 1979.

Out of 16 “societal institutions,” only big business, organized labor, health maintenance organizations and Congress rated lower in the poll, which was conducted June 1-4.

Conservatives, at 15 percent, had the least confidence in newspapers. Trust by moderates continued its slide, to 25 percent. About 31 percent of liberals had confidence in newspapers.

Democrats were the most confident (33 percent) while only 19 percent of independents and 16 percent of conservatives expressed confidence.

The poll noted the rise of the Internet and social media sites and the increasingly partisan nature of cable news as factors in the declining confidence.

The survey was conducted with 1,529 adults and had a margin of error of 3 percent.

CBS DC
June 17, 2013

An Internal Revenue Service supervisor in Washington says she was personally involved in scrutinizing some of the earliest applications from Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status, including some requests that languished for more than a year without action.

Holly Paz, who until recently was a top deputy in the division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, told congressional investigators she reviewed 20 to 30 applications. Her assertion contradicts initial claims by the agency that a small group of agents working in an office in Cincinnati were solely responsible for mishandling the applications.

Paz, however, provided no evidence that senior IRS officials ordered agents to target conservative groups or that anyone in the Obama administration outside the IRS was involved.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 10:04 am

Tags: domestic news, government corruption

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

In the eyes of many Westerners, Gaza is a dangerous and war torn place. Even activists, including myself, often imagine Gaza primarily as a place of suffering, and one that has unfairly come to eclipse the affliction of all of Palestine. But while Israel’s wars of aggression against the people of Gaza, as well as its brutal siege, have cost many lives and inflicted countless casualties, Gaza today is a remarkably calm, protected and beautiful place where everyday lives go on, despite the continued suffering of its people. Indeed, Gaza is a place where the heart and soul flourish even if the body is ailing; where people and community are so alive and resilient that it rekindles one’s hope in humanity.

I only know this now because I traveled to Gaza earlier this month to participate in the second annual Global March to Jerusalem (GMJ) on Friday, 7th June 2013, when thousands of Palestinians and international activists mobilized in peaceful demonstrations around the world to draw attention to Israel’s continued violations against Jerusalem and its people. Although Israeli police violently suppressed GMJ demonstrations in Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank, peaceful mass demonstrations did successfully take place in Gaza and the neighboring countries of Jordan and Egypt, as well as in Tunisia, Mauritania, Morocco, Yemen, Malaysia, and Turkey. In addition, there were demonstrations in solidarity with the GMJ all around the world, including several major cities across Europe and North America.

On Friday, 7th June I was fortunate enough to join Palestinians and a group of international activists in a peaceful mass rally in Beit Hanoun, the nearest point possible to Jerusalem in Gaza. Many thousands attended the rally, and during my address I promised to carry their voices back home with me to the US in order to communicate their struggle to live under the footprint of a racist occupying power that my government funds and arms. Of course, the few days I spent in Gaza are hardly enough to fulfill this promise. There are too many voices that I was not able to hear, both because there was not enough time and because of my identity as an American woman. But I am hoping that what I can offer begins to communicate the complex life stories of a people resisting against horrific injustices, while at the same time encouraging other Westerners to travel to Gaza in order to do the same.

My entry into Gaza was made possible by the Miles of Smiles convoy organized by the International Committee for Breaking the Siege on Gaza (ICBSG). While there have been many international convoys entering Gaza in recent years, all of which bring much needed aid to the besieged people of Gaza, the Miles of Smiles convoy offers something unique by focusing on development aid. The first Miles of Smiles convoy reached Gaza in November 2009, and since then the ICBSG has successfully organized twenty additional convoys into Gaza. Our convoy included activists from Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Malaysia, South Africa, the UK, and the USA.

Miles of Smiles works closely with Partners for Peace and Development for Palestinians (PPDP) to sponsor projects that empower Palestinians to develop the means to live dignified lives on their own terms. The PPDP is a UK-based organization that works with a dedicated team of Palestinian employees and volunteers in Gaza to offer interest-free loans and small grants to Palestinians, helping them to establish family businesses and development projects. One example of this is a small bakery that we visited during the first night we spent in Gaza, which thanks to a PPDP loan generates employment for an entire family.

PPDP’s Palestinian employees and volunteers in Gaza coordinated our program, which included many different activities that allowed us access to a diverse array of Palestinian voices and experiences. For example, our second day in Gaza we met with the children and spouses of Palestinians who are currently imprisoned by the occupation authorities, often without any formal charges ever being brought against them. And even when Palestinians are tried, it is in military courts — an apartheid system of justice that separates Palestinian children from their fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters.

Earlier that day we also visited a government hospital that specializes in caring for children. We asked one of the doctors there what the needs of the hospital are, and his answer was a lack of resources — a problem that more international activists could easily help alleviate if the US and Europe did not impose such draconian penalties for working with Hamas, the ruling party of the government in Gaza that Israel and its Western allies label as a terrorist organization because of its resistance activities against the occupation. The doctor explained to us that they have many doctors, in fact too many to employ. Even during Israel’s recent war against Gaza in November of last year they had a sea of volunteers to help. However the hospital still needed equipment and medication to meet the needs of their patients. Indeed according to the human rights organization B’Tselem, Israeli forces killed 167 Palestinians during last November’s military operation, at least 87 of them civilians and more than one third under the age of 18. As we visited some of the sick children I felt so helpless and angry because as an American I am unable to contribute anything to the important work of this hospital, which saves innocent children’s lives. Fortunately, those in Arab countries are able to donate without fear of prosecution, and their contributions help keep the hospital running.

On our fourth day we visited Islamic University, the best university in Gaza (there are seven in total) and ranked among the top 250 universities around the world. Founded in 1978, the university’s campus is modern and beautiful, servicing around 20,000 students each year. The university offers many degrees across the arts and sciences, with Islamic values guiding the behavior of the students as well as the curriculum, which is in line with international scientific standards. But even this university has suffered unjustly under the occupation. During Israel’s December 2008 war against Gaza, occupation forces destroyed 74 of the university’s laboratories, as well as a library, a collective punishment against the entire population. Lest anybody think that this was collateral damage, Israel deliberately bombed the university in six separate air strikes. When I think of violent acts that would terrorize me as a teacher and a scholar, this ranks among the worst. And yet this terrorism is exactly what my government is uncritically supporting.

During our time in Gaza, we also met with Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh, and distributed aid to orphans as well as to needy families thanks to the generosity of our Libyan delegation (as well as my own friends and colleagues who kindly donated money so that I could distribute toys to children). But most of us will never really know what it is like to live under a violent occupation. What it is like to be cruelly besieged by your neighbor and demonized by Western countries for fighting back. We spoke to some graduates of Islamic University who are involved in the Gaza student community, to try and learn more about their own experiences.

One member of the convoy, an American filmmaker of Pakistani origin, remarked how surprising it was that the Palestinians working with us were not more angry. One young man responded that, in fact, they are very angry, but that they still have to live. He explained that he holds his pain and suffering deep inside himself, as do other Palestinians in Gaza. It has to be contained for fear that if expressed it could destroy their lives. And even though he spoke these words calmly and quietly, the inner anguish distorted his face and the grief filled his wide eyes. He told us that he lost seven friends in the last war against his people. On his way to sit his university exams he also saw bombs destroy the buildings around him. His exams were postponed. But what really made the suffering intolerable was getting through the cold nights during that war.

I can only conclude that this coldness is symbolic of a world where an occupying power can terrorize and ethnically cleanse a native population with impunity. Because if there were any warmth left in our hearts, then we would all be doing everything that we possibly could do to stop Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people. Convoys like Miles for Smiles help, as do solidarity activities like the GMJ, but considering the extent of their suffering, the Palestinians deserve more from all of us.

Sarah Marusek earned her PhD in social science from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University and is currently a traveling faculty member with SIT Study Abroad. She is also a member of the International Executive Committee of the Global March to Jerusalem.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Powell now says she was expelled because of the same-sex relationship. But that’s not all: she was also sent a $6,000 bill the school said she owed in federal loans and grants because she didn’t finish the semester, the Associated Press reports, and copies of her transcript weren’t given when initially requested.  She is being asked to pay even after she went through counseling and mentoring over to the lesbian relationship she was in. The school says the payment is required by federal law, but the U.S. Department of Education contradicted that claim.

The school had initially re-admitted Powell after she was suspended because Powell went through the required counseling. But the school quickly went back on that, and she was kicked out permanently.

Powell is now battling Grace over the bill. She says her school costs were covered by a scholarship.

Powell’s wife has started a Change.org petition in protest of the tuition bill.

“I shouldn’t have this debt hanging over me from a school that clearly didn’t want me,” Powell told the AP.

A staffer at the gay rights organization Lamba Legal told the AP that Powell’s case was unique because the school wanted money back. Usually, Christian universities are just glad to be rid of students like Powell.

The U.S. Department of Education told the news outlet that the money issue is between Powell and her school, but not because of federal law. Some Christian schools like Grace are not required to adhere to all federal guidelines if it conflicts with their faith.

“Grace and other private colleges that accept federal student aid – sometimes called Title IV funding – must abide by the Civil Rights Act that forbids discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age or physical handicap. But sexual orientation is not included in that list,” the Associated Press notes.

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

read more

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Edward Snowden’s disclosures, the New York Times reported on Sunday, “have renewed a longstanding concern: that young Internet aficionados whose skills the agencies need for counterterrorism and cyberdefense sometimes bring an anti-authority spirit that does not fit the security bureaucracy.”

Agencies like the NSA and CIA – and private contractors like Booz Allen – can’t be sure that all employees will obey the rules without interference from their own idealism. This is a basic dilemma for the warfare/surveillance state, which must hire and retain a huge pool of young talent to service the digital innards of a growing Big Brother.

With private firms scrambling to recruit workers for top-secret government contracts, the current situation was foreshadowed by novelist John Hersey in his 1960 book The Child Buyer. When the vice president of a contractor named United Lymphomilloid, “in charge of materials procurement,” goes shopping for a very bright ten-year-old, he explains that “my duties have an extremely high national-defense rating.” And he adds: “When a commodity that you need falls in short supply, you have to get out and hustle. I buy brains.”

That’s what Booz Allen and similar outfits do. They buy brains. And obedience.

But despite the best efforts of those contractors and government agencies, the brains still belong to people. And, as the Times put it, an “anti-authority spirit” might not fit “the security bureaucracy.”

In the long run, Edward Snowden didn’t fit. Neither did Bradley Manning. They both had brains that seemed useful to authority. But they also had principles and decided to act on them.

Like the NSA and its contractors, the U.S. military is in constant need of personnel. “According to his superiors . . . Manning was not working out as a soldier, and they discussed keeping him back when his unit was deployed to Iraq,” biographer Chase Madar writes in The Passion of Bradley Manning. “However, in the fall of 2009, the occupation was desperate for intelligence analysts with computer skills, and Private Bradley Manning, his superiors hurriedly concluded, showed signs of improvement as a workable soldier. This is how, on October 10, 2009, Private First Class Bradley Manning was deployed . . . to Iraq as an intelligence analyst.”

In their own ways, with very different backgrounds and circumstances, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden have confounded the best-laid plans of the warfare/surveillance state. They worked for “the security bureaucracy,” but as time went on they found a higher calling than just following orders. They leaked information that we all have a right to know.

This month, not only with words but also with actions, Edward Snowden is transcending the moral limits of authority and insisting that we can fully defend the Bill of Rights, emphatically including the Fourth Amendment.

What a contrast with New York Times columnists David Brooks, Thomas Friedman and Bill Keller, who have responded to Snowden’s revelations by siding with the violators of civil liberties at the top of the U.S. government.

Brooks denounced Snowden as “a traitor” during a June 14 appearance on the PBS NewsHour, saying indignantly: “He betrayed his oath, which was given to him and which he took implicitly and explicitly. He betrayed his company, the people who gave him a job, the people who trusted him. . . . He betrayed the democratic process. It’s not up to a lone 29-year-old to decide what’s private and public. We have – actually have procedures for that set down in the Constitution and established by tradition.”

Enthralled with lockstep compliance, Brooks preached the conformist gospel: “When you work for an institution, any institution, a company, a faculty, you don’t get to violate the rules of that institution and decide for your own self what you’re going to do in a unilateral way that no one else can reverse. And that’s exactly what he did. So he betrayed the trust of the institution. He betrayed what creates a government, which is being a civil servant, being a servant to a larger cause, and not going off on some unilateral thing because it makes you feel grandiose.”

In sync with such bombast, Tom Friedman and former Times executive editor Bill Keller have promoted a notably gutless argument for embracing the NSA’s newly revealed surveillance programs. Friedman wrote (on June 12) and Keller agreed (June 17) that our government is correct to curtail privacy rights against surveillance – because if we fully retained those rights and then a big terrorist attack happened, the damage to civil liberties would be worse.

What a contrast between big-name journalists craven enough to toss the Fourth Amendment overboard and whistleblowers courageous enough to risk their lives for civil liberties.

Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.”

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Libyans stand next to the scene of a blast after a bomb exploded outside police station in Benghazi May 10, 2013.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

If the months of April-May, with a great deal of media hype, seem to agree with the US-UK-Japanese method of monetary easing (to put it mildly) against the Euroland method of reasoned austerity, for several weeks now the champions of all-finance have had a little more difficulty in claiming victory. The IMF, terrified by the global impact of the economic slowdown in Europe, doesn’t know what else to come up with to force Europeans to continue spending and make deficits explode again: even empty boutique World must continue to give the impression that it’s still in business, and Europe isn’t playing the game.But the toxic effects of central bank operations in Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom now demolish the argument (or rather propaganda) touting the success of the “other method”, supposed to allow recovery in Japan, the US and the United Kingdom (incidentally, the latter has never even been mentioned).

The currently developing second crisis could have been avoided if the world had taken note that the United States, structurally incapable of reforming itself, was unable to implement other methods than those which had led to the 2008 crisis. Like the irresponsible “too big to fail” banks, the “systemically” irresponsible countries should have been placed under supervision from 2009 as suggested from the GEAB n° 28 (October 2008). Unfortunately the institutions of global governance have proved to be completely ineffective and powerless in managing the crisis. Only regional good sense has been able to put it in place; the international arena producing nothing, everyone began to settle their problems in their part of the world.

The other crucial reform advocated (11) since 2009 by the LEAP/E2020 team focused on taking a completely new look at the international monetary system. In 40 years of US trade imbalances and the volatility of its currency, the dollar as the pillar of the international monetary system has been the carrier of all the United States’ colds to the rest of the world, and this destabilising pillar is now at the heart of the global problem because the United States is no longer suffering from a cold but bubonic plague.

Absent having reformed the international monetary system in 2009, a second crisis is coming. With it comes a new window of opportunity to reform the international monetary system at the G20 in September (12) and one almost hopes that the shock happens by then to force an agreement on this subject, otherwise the summit risks taking place too soon to gain everyone’s support.

Notes:

(1) Source: The New York Times, 08/06/2013.

(2) Source: The Sydney Morning Herald, 05/06/2013. Read also Mish’s Global Economic, 10/06/2013.

(3) Source: CNBC, 12/06/2013.

(4) Source: The Guardian, 12/06/2013.

(5) Read Sweden’s riots, a blazing surprise, The Economist, 01/06/2013.

(6) Source: BBC News, 06/06/2013.

(7) Read Economic dominos falling one by one, MarketWatch, 12/06/2013.

(8) A bubble in current market conditions; normally this would be considered a thrill. Market Oracle, 10/06/2013.

(9) On the consequences of worldwide QE in India: Reuters, 13/06/2013.

(10) The return of financial products at the origin of the 2008 crisis is not insignificant. Source : Le Monde, 11/06/2013.

(11) Cf. GEAB n°29, November 2008.

(12) Source: Ria Novosti, 14/06/2013.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Edward Snowden is not a constitutional lawyer. But his public statement explaining his decision to blow the whistle on what he and Congress both know to be only the “tip of the iceberg” of state snooping secrets expresses his belief that, in a democracy, the people — not his defense contractor employers or the government that hires them — should ultimately determine whether mass surveillance interfering with everyone’s privacy is reasonable.

Some have tried to minimize the snooping exposed by Snowden on the grounds that the government is just storing the information, and has not yet searched it. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Seizure — the taking of private information — is what the government has now been forced to admit. Whether or not the state ever chooses to “search” the seized information, the universal, non-consensual seizure itself of what used to be called “pen register” data grossly invades individual privacy and vastly empowers government, all in violation of the Constitution if “unreasonable.”

The Supreme Court reads the Fourth Amendment’s “unreasonable” test to mean not ”objectively reasonable,” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). This would mean “reasonable” as viewed by ordinary citizens — like Snowden. By definition, the people cannot deem reasonable what they do not know about. Snowden uniquely did know. So like a digital era Paul Revere he decided to share his knowledge with his fellow citizens to test his hypothesis that they would not consider dragnet surveillance of their private electronic communications any more reasonable than he did, and like him, as citizens, they might choose to act upon that knowledge.

A strong case can be made that Snowden is right. According to the Supreme Court, “[i]t remains a cardinal principle that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) (quoting Katz v. US,). The scope and duration of the seizures make them inherently non-judicial, as discussed below. Any exception to the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses. papers, and effects” in the absence of showing individualized probable cause — or even reasonable suspicion — that a crime is being committed places it outside the judicial process and imposes a heavy burden on the state to prove that its search was otherwise “reasonable.”

This burden is more difficult to carry in that the Constitution was designed to prohibit in every conceivable way known to its framers just the kind of authoritarian intrusion represented by the Obama administration’s power-grabbing, privacy-invading snooping on innocent citizens. Constitutional provisions in addition to the Fourth Amendment should also restrain such encroachments.

Since the “war” against terrorism is not a war in any traditional meaning of the term, but rather law enforcement by military means, and the NSA is a military spy agency, the Third Amendment command that “No solider shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house” may be dusted off for modern application to this extreme case of state intrusion. This is a time of peace because Congress has not declared war in any traditional notion of the term. Electronic communications capacity is an inherent feature of any modern dwelling house. Yet every electronic communication originated and sent from private houses is being seized by the military. Such permanent residence by Big Brother military spies within one’s private stream of communications could be seen as an updated form of unconstitutional “quartering,” the same kind of abuse of power by the state that the founders detested.

In Federalist #47, Madison explained the separation of powers principle: “The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The dual sovereignty of the federal system was intended to further divide those separated powers between what is truly of national concern and what is of local concern.

With respect to federalism, the general police power to enforce criminal law resides in the states, not in the federal government. Most of what the federal government targets as part of its domestic “war on terrorism” in fact constitutes the local common law crimes traditionally described as “riot” or “mayhem.” The federal government has no generalized power to enforce state criminal law. It therefore has an initial burden to prove that its invasion of the privacy of every target of its dragnet surveillance program was “necessary and proper” to carry out some specific federal power enumerated in the Constitution.  This proof has been alleged but, if it exists at all, it remains hidden under a blanket assertion of state secrecy. What the people can see before their eyes is the most expensive security state in the history of the world incompetent to prevent several atrocious crimes having varying degrees of international provenance, other than those attempts resulting primarily from its own entrapments.

The question as to separation of powers is: which branch of the state, if any, can be trusted to make the judgment as to the reasonableness of a permanent and universal regime of search and seizure of private communications? Since the subject restrained by the Fourth Amendment is the state acting in its executive capacity, the contours of the restraint on its powers cannot be left to the state itself to determine subjectively. Allowing the executive branch to decide the issue of “reasonableness” of its own actions would defeat the clear purpose of the Fourth Amendment to restrain state power.

The judicial power under Article III of the Constitution extends only to the application of law in individual cases. Like stories, cases have a beginning, a middle and an end; they are not permanent. The state does not have the power to initiate and courts do not have the power to hear an ongoing case without end against the whole population of the United States, or even against the subset of all the customers of Verizon. Only a police state takes such an adversarial posture against its own people. Where the government diffusely suspects and secretly snoops on the whole people, in a democracy, it is the government itself that proves itself illegitimately unrepresentative and in violation of its oath to support the Constitution.

The power to make rules that affect everyone into the indefinite future is a legislative power. A court that violates the separation of powers by exercising legislative powers in order to make rules empowering the executive defines tyranny, in Madison’s terms. No judge or magistrate or secret FISA court exercising judicial power has authority to authorize such a universal and unending search or seizure of private communications. Any such “search and seizure” takes place inherently “outside the judicial process,” as stated in Acevedo and Katz quoted above. It is therefore presumed “per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

A legislature authentically representative of the people might determine that such a generalized search is a reasonable and necessary exception to this per se rule under some “specifically established and well-delineated” circumstance “that society is prepared to recognize as `reasonable,’” Katz at 361. That has obviously not been done when few in Congress were even aware of the scope of the snooping being conducted by the Obama administration under the authority of advisory opinions from a nominal court in fact acting as a secret unelected legislature.

What makes a Paul Revere like Snowden necessary is that even Congress itself cannot be trusted to represent the will of the people in these corrupt times. Polls consistently show confidence in Congress declining to around 10%, while about 80% of voters consider the government to be illegitimate, lacking the “consent of the governed.” Of likely voters, 69% think Congress will “break the rules” for their contributors. Other polls express the country’s universal understanding that big money invests in politics for the large financial returns it earns by controlling government.

Such polls indicate a widespread understanding that Congress does not represent the people in any real sense. Its members and leadership are instead beholden to money. No politician wins office without that money, certainly not a governing majority. Even aside from the lucrative government surveillance contracts that money secures from Congress in “America’s last growth industry,” the plutocrats who buy politicians and policy feel more secure when the people are stripped of their liberties. Without civil liberties, the people of the United States cannot sustain a democracy dependent upon that “consent of the governed” engraved on its foundation stone, when laid in 1776, as essential for any government’s legitimacy. Without civil liberty, money can continue to rule, and profit from policy. What the overwhelming majority of people may consider reasonable is now irrelevant to Congress, whether the subject is weapon background checks or anything else opposed by the plutocrat class. See Martin Gilens, Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (2012).

A Washington Post poll (question #8) taken after the Boston Marathon bombing suggests that most Americans with an opinion would worry that mass surveillance in the name of fighting terrorism would be unreasonable (i.e. “go too far”):

“Which worries you more: that the government (will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights), or that it (will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism)?

Will not go  Will go  Neither    No

far enough   too far   (vol.)  opinion

41          48       5        6

A Pew poll taken after the Snowden revelations confirmed that a similar majority finds mass surveillance unreasonable. They answered “no” by 52-45% to the question: “Should the gov’t be able to monitor everyone’s email to prevent possible terrorism?”

When such a majority, or even a substantial minority, opposes government snooping in everyone’s electronic communications, that should be conclusive as to whether such a search and seizure is unreasonable.  If reasonable people can differ on the question, then such a search and seizure cannot be held to be reasonable. Since, as one scholar recently observed, “the actual course that Internet surveillance law will take remains extremely difficult to predict,” it is important for the public to step in now by formulating and expressing views on reasonableness in order to determine this course. The judicial appraisal of reasonableness that has taken place largely outside of public view is only a single data-point for the public to consider in reaching its own assessment of reasonableness.

The term “reasonable” appears nowhere in the Constitution but the Fourth Amendment, although it is a concept well-known to law. For example, legal negligence is a breach of what a jury determines a “reasonable man” would do in the same circumstances. A similar standard has been imported into Fourth Amendment determinations. The Supreme Court long ago said that “probable cause for a search exists when the facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge provide a reasonably trustworthy basis for a man of reasonable caution to believe that a criminal offense has been committed or is about to take place.” Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). According to the Snowden revelations the Obama administration has violated this rule. A valid warrant could not have been issued under this rule when no reasonable person could believe that universal crime is or is about to take place, no matter how much irrational fear the state and its propagandists are able to drum up.

Those who would rely upon Smith v. Maryland (1979) for a rule that pen registers are exempt from the Fourth Amendment, due to the court-determined lack of public “expectation” of privacy with regard to dialed telephone numbers, ignore the Court’s important proviso that swallows this rule. The five-judge majority held that such attributed “expectations” would not govern, and “a normative inquiry would be proper … [f]or example, if the Government were suddenly to announce on nationwide television that all homes henceforth would be subject to warrantless entry.”  442 U.S. 740-741, n. 5.  In other words, it is not actually what the public cynically “expects” from a tyrannical and intrusive government, but what the public “normatively” considers reasonable which governs application of the Fourth Amendment. The people are entitle to “expect” what they thinks is reasonable conduct from their government eve if that is not what they get, and they know it. Otherwise, as Justice Marshall wrote, reliance solely on expectations “would allow the government to define the scope of Fourth Amendment protections.”

The Smith dissenters Marshall and Brennan, expressly, and Stewart, implicitly, thought the “normative” exception should have governed the Smith case itself. Smith was a case where the pen register targeted the phone of a specific suspect of a crime involving use of the telephone. Thus Smith provides no support for the idea that the public would either expect or consider “normatively” reasonable the indiscriminate maintenance of pen registers for all the electronic communications of persons who are not suspected of any crime involving those communications. Justice Marshall also cogently attacked the foundations of Smith by pointing out that because persons may release private information to a third party for one purpose “it does not follow that they expect this information to be made available to the public in general or the government in particular. Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all.“  The public would likely find far more reasonable Justice Marshall’s view that “[t]hose who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes.“ Whether in holding the contrary the Smith majority was unreasonable is for the public to decide.

The standard remedy against the state for making an unreasonable search or seizure is a damages claim against the officials involved where a jury would determine reasonableness. At the time of the Constitution this was the practice for protection of citizens from state intrusion. “An officer who searched or seized without a warrant did so at his own risk; he would be liable for trespass, including exemplary [punitive] damages, unless the jury found that his action was “reasonable.” … [T]he Framers endeavored to preserve the jury’s role in regulating searches and seizures.”  500 U. S. 581-2 (Scalia. J., concurring). A jury is fairly representative of, and a legitimate disinterested proxy for, informed public opinion — what society at large considers reasonable.

The problem is that courts have invented official immunities to protect government officials from juries. E.g. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009). This tends to remove the question of reasonableness from the jury where the Constitution placed it, and delegate that decision right back to those very officials who cannot be trusted to guard the chicken-coop, and to the judges who invent defenses subversive of the Constitution to protect them. Aside from judge-made official immunities, new judge-made “standing to sue” rules prevent victims of unconstitutional secret surveillance from seeking any remedy in court anymore. E.g. ACLU v. NSA

The justices on the Supreme Court appointed through an increasingly corrupt and unrepresentative political process (three justices of the Smith majority were Nixon appointees) cannot be trusted to reflect the public’s objective view of what may be a reasonable sacrifice of privacy in exchange for comparable enhancements to legitimate law enforcement capacity. The current five Judge majority’s sense of rationality cannot be trusted whenever the infrastructure of plutocracy is involved. An infamous example is their irrational holding in Citizens United that the unlimited money which five judges allow to support or oppose politicians’ election campaigns in the form of “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” As mentioned above, this defies the views of 95% of Americans that corporations and others invest in politics for the very purpose of buying profitable policies which would not otherwise be adopted. In such defining cases as Citizens United these five justices, the Roberts 5, are at least as unrepresentative of public opinion and beholden to plutocratic opinion as is Congress itself.

If the state has the power to decide Fourth Amendment reasonableness in the current environment of its independence from the will of the people, it will inevitably use that power to cancel the people’s civil liberties, as it has already done in secret. The remaining forum where the public may express its judgment about the reasonableness of mass surveillance is a criminal jury trial. Bradley Manning was denied his constitutional right to such a trial because of the paradoxical notion that the US Military, which is uniformly sworn “to support this Constitution,” as required by its Article VI (cl. 3), instead operates a Constitution-free zone in its prosecution of soldiers like Manning.

The Supreme Court has held that “the constitutional grant of power to Congress to regulate the armed forces … itself does not empower Congress to deprive people of trials under Bill of Rights safeguards, and we are not willing to hold that power to circumvent those safeguards should be inferred through the Necessary and Proper Clause.” So far that broad principle has been applied only to honorably discharged soldiers, Toth v Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 21-22 (1955), as well as, fortunately for Snowden, any civilian, even if tried abroad, Kinsella v. U.S. ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960), including the military’s civilian employees like Snowden. Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278 (1960); McElroy v. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960). It remains for a soldier like Manning to expose the military’s violation of its oath to support the Constitution by winning application of the Bill of Rights to at least those cases involving other than uniquely military crimes like desertion, see Dynes v. Hoover, 61 U.S. 20 How. 65 65 (1857), or cases which are not conducted under the exigencies of the battlefield.

Snowden, if he chooses to return to the United States to face trial or is forced to do so — notwithstanding that he has a compelling claim to political refugee status — will present a difficult target for the mass media to demonize, though they are trying. Unlike in the case of Manning the government would have to give Snowden a public constitutional trial by jury. From the evidence of his well-articulated public statement, Snowden would seem to have the makings of a good witness and a capable match for tyrants on a level playing field.

In any criminal trial of Snowden, a profoundly important — even defining — issue will be weighed in the balance. If Snowden caught the state massively violating its Fourth Amendment obligations in the view of even a significant minority of the public, then the interests in maintaining the secrecy of police-state surveillance methods cannot constitutionally receive any legal support whatsoever from a justice system operating under the Constitution.  A number even smaller than the majority that polls now show generally agree with Snowden would be sufficient to predictably prevent a representative jury of 12 peers from unanimously finding the state’s search reasonable, Obama’s aspiring police-state’s whole project would then fall as unconstitutional. The indiscriminate snooping, the secrecy of the snooping, and the effort to punish one blowing the whistle on this unconstitutional project would all be profoundly illegal. Other whistle blowers might be encouraged to similarly inform the public about its government’s violations.

A criminal jury’s handling of this question of reasonableness would seem definitive of whether the US is a police state or still possesses sufficient civil liberties to peacefully reclaim its democracy. Surely every citizen who has information about a crime is obliged to provide that information in accordance with legal processes. But neither pervasive government secrecy nor enduring mass surveillance is consistent with democracy. In any Snowden trial the preservation of the original constitutional protection against creation of a police state will require that a fairly impaneled and informed jury decide this question of reasonableness without interference from the state apparatus of secret courts and secret laws that belie any notion of due process.

Since the US justice system under the current leadership of the Roberts 5 cannot be trusted as a matter of course to provide constitutional due process, Snowden would need to negotiate the rules of the game before consenting to face a US jury. He has some strong cards to play in such negotiations, if he can stay alive. If he plays those cards to draw a judge not blackmailed by or otherwise secretly dependent upon the national security state, to get a fair jury impaneled, and then to fairly place before that jury the question whether the government’s snooping was unreasonable and hence a violation of the Fourth Amendment, he need not remain a fugitive from US injustice. Such a trial would constitute a fair test, and a useful one, of whether he was guilty of anything other than defending the Constitution in the noble spirit of ’76, whether Obama is guilty of impeachable wholesale violation of the Constitution, and whether the US has retained sufficient liberty that it can still be counted as a democracy.

Given the highly politicized US judiciary, Snowden is wisely playing for time and a stronger hand by first seeking justice in a political asylum process or extradition hearing in Hong Kong. British standards of justice there have not been entirely eradicated under its current Chinese rulers and, unlike the US, the Chinese government has no apparent ax of its own to grind in the Snowden affair.

By international standards, the US and its judiciary rank below Hong Kong on a 2012-13 rule of law index.  Hong Kong ranks #8 and #9 respectively on absence of corruption and quality of its criminal justice system, well ahead of the US’s #18 and #26 rankings. The World Economic Forum ranks Hong Kong #12 in its 2012-13 index on judicial independence. That is substantially higher than the appallingly low US ranking of #38, which is proportionately not that far ahead of China’s #66 ranking. Snowden is clearly no fool in choosing sanctuary in Hong Kong, though he is fully aware of the coercive and corrupting power that the US can and does bring to bear on virtually any country. China may be better situated than most to resist such pressure.

If Snowden is ultimately forced to return to the US by such coercion, his trial will determine how much of the 1791 Constitution remains in force in one of the great civil liberties contests in American history. The jury — and the American people — would then choose between Snowden’s Constitution which empowers an informed people to protect themselves against tyrannical state intrusions on their liberty, or Obama’s Constitution, which insulates the state — and those who buy its politicians in order to exploit state powers for profit— from the consent of the governed. Such a trial would be comparable to the celebrated John Peter ZengerTrial in colonial times. Though, as then, the judiciary presides over what amounts to a colony of an illegitimate ruling class that the judiciary serves, a fairly selected and instructed jury, supported by the people, could nevertheless stand on behalf of the people against that class.

Rob Hager is a public interest litigator who filed an amicus brief in the Montana sequel to Citizens United for Essential Information, an organization founded by Ralph Nader

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

“It is the interview the world’s media organizations have been chasing,” writes the Guardian, “but instead Edward Snowden is giving Guardian readers the exclusive.”

Beginning at 11 AM EST, the news outlet is hosting a live question and answer session with the 29-year-old former National Security Administrator contractor, giving readers the opportunity to “ask him anything,” including why he revealed the NSA’s top-secret surveillance of US citizens, the international storm that has ensued, and the uncertain future he now faces.

An important caveat, they note:

[T]he live chat is subject to Snowden’s security concerns and also his access to a secure internet connection. It is possible that he will appear and disappear intermittently, so if it takes him a while to get through the questions, please be patient.

To participate, post your question in the Guardian’s live blog comments section and recommend your favorites. As he makes his way through the thread, they will embed his replies as posts. You can also follow along on Twitter using the hashtag #AskSnowden.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Russia will not permit the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Syria, Foreign Ministry spokesman says following reports that US and its allies are planning such a move.

Å“I think that we will not permit in principle such a scenario,” Alexander Lukashevich said at a news briefing on Monday.

“We saw with the example of Libya how such a zone is introduced and how such decisions are implemented. We do not want a repeat of this in respect to the Syria conflict,” he added.

Reports that the US government was preparing to impose a no-fly zone over Syria were fuelled after Pentagon confirmed on Saturday that the US will keep its F-16 warplanes and Patriot anti-aircraft missiles in Jordan after the end of the joint drill this month.

“All these maneuvers about no-fly zones and humanitarian corridors are a direct consequence of a lack of respect for international law,” Lukashevich added.

The remarks came ahead of planned talks between US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin about the Syria crisis on the sidelines of G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

On Saturday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned against any effort to impose a no-fly zone over Syria.

Å“You donâ„¢t have to be a great expert to understand that this will still violate international law, and we really hope that our American colleagues will align their actions in accordance with the approach of the Russian-American initiative in preparation for the conference (on Syria),” he said.

On June 14, Obama ordered his administration to provide the militants with weapons, a day after the US claimed that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the militants and thus crossed Washingtonâ„¢s Å“red line.” Damascus has rejected the allegation as Å“lies.”

The delivery of the weapons, which include assault rifles, shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenades and antitank missiles, would be carried out through the CIA, reports say.

Last week, a US defense official also stated that Washington would keep a unit of US Marines on amphibious ships off the Red Sea coast after consultations with Jordan.

The US-based Wall Street Journal had earlier reported that the no-fly zone could be implemented from Jordan.

SAB/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot and killed in the US.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Tal Kopan
Politico
June 17, 2013

President Barack Obama’s approval and trust numbers have dropped sharply in the last month, a new poll found on Monday.

The president’s approval was down 8 points from May, to 45 percent from 53 percent, according to a new CNN/ORC International poll. Fifty-four percent of those surveyed disapproved, up 9 points from CNN’s polling in May.

For the first time in his presidency, the poll also found less than half of respondents believed Obama was honest. Forty-nine percent of those surveyed said he was honest and trustworthy, a drop of 9 points from last month.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 9:20 am

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Dara Kerr
CNet
June 17, 2013

The search giant is creating a database of images depicting child exploitation – to be shared with tech companies, law enforcement, and charities – in order to scrub the images from the Internet.

Photos and videos of child pornography on the Web have multiplied at an alarming rate over the past few years. In 2011, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children said it received 17.3 million images and videos of suspected child abuse, which is four times more than 2007.

Google has announced that it wants to help curb this proliferation of child pornography. In fact, the Web giant plans to take it even a step further – it wants to completely eradicate child porn from the Internet.

Read full article

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 9:15 am

Tags: internet, technology

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Edward Snowden’s leak of top-secret information on the NSA was undoubtedly an act of extreme bravery, which has already brought more transparency to our government. For this we should all be thankful for his sacrifice. Unfortunately, Snowden has made mistakes that have damaged his ability to avoid extradition to the U.S., and future leakers would do well to learn from Snowden’s missteps.

Snowden’s mistakes are due to some fundamental misunderstandings. One of the things Snowden doesn’t understand is how government transparency fits into democracy.

It should be obvious that if people are going to be in control of their government, then people will have to know what it is their government is doing. Yet in Snowden’s interview with Glenn Greenwald he states the reason he revealed his name is because:

“I think the public is owed an explanation of the motivations [of ] the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you subvert the power of government that is a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy”

Snowden is right that leaking is outside of what’s called the “democratic model”, namely the government, but polls show that most Americans “see their leaders in Washington as overpaid agents of wealthy individuals and corporations who are largely disconnected from the concerns of average Americans.”

Snowden demonstrates that he believes that exposing a government’s lies and forcing its actions to be known to the public are dangerous to democracy, but this the opposite of true. The burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that something should be hidden from the public. Secrecy is not a right of government by assumption. Noam Chomsky makes another important point about government secrecy. He states:

“If you look at the record of declassified documents, they are mostly concerned with keeping what the government does secret from its own population. It’s mostly defense of the power system from its own population. Very little is authentic security.”

Snowden’s mistaken notion that leaks threaten democracy is part of the reason he felt the need to out himself to the world. I believe Snowden should have taken one of two options, which would have put him in a much better position.

His first option would be to leak to Wikileaks. Wikileaks requires that their organization doesn’t know the identity of their source, and they use Tor encryption that basically guarantees anonymity online. This would have protected Snowden’s safety, and made it unnecessary for him to become a martyr.

Snowden went to Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald rather than Wikileaks because he trusted them and trusted their judgment about what should remain private. Yet Greenwald made a number of mistakes throughout the leak and Poitras’ Washington Post contact, Barton Gellman, refused to guarantee to publish all PRISM slides. In fact, both The Guardian and The Washington Post published only 5 of 41 slides on the PRISM leak.

Wikileaks, on the other hand, would have been much more likely to publish all the slides. This is because the organization is not constrained by the same forces as the traditional media. Here Snowden’s choice of where to leak his information undercut his own goal of government transparency.

Snowden’s second option would be to go some place safe, leak the documents, and release his name if he feels he is ethically obligated to do so. Unfortunately, Hong Kong may not be a safe place for Snowden. Despite Chinese state-backed media voicing some support for Snowden, the case will likely be handled through the Hong Kong court system. In fact, sources as varied as Peter Bouckaert from Human Rights Watch, to Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor Law Yuk-kai, to Michele Martinez Campbell, a former U.S. federal prosecutor, to Kevin Egan, a lawyer who deals with extradition cases in Hong Kong, all state Snowden will probably not be safe in Hong Kong

Snowden states, “People who think I made a mistake in picking Hong Kong misunderstand my intentions. I’m not here [in Hong Kong] to hide from justice; I’m here to reveal criminality.”

Yet simply because something has been decided on by a court does not mean that justice has been done. There are innumerable unjust laws in countless countries, and it is profoundly unjust for someone who reveals criminal behavior to be declared a criminal as punishment. This is true regardless of whether or not this is done by a court or any other institution.

If Snowden believes he’s done nothing wrong as he has said, then he shouldn’t put himself at the mercy of a legal system that will likely extradite him. He should have gone to a place that would allow him to live life without punishment for his actions. There is no reason why Snowden couldn’t “reveal criminality” from some place safer.

There are a number of places that may have been better choices: Russia, France, Iceland, Venezuela, or Ecuador, which granted Julian Assange asylum. The Pink Tide governments of Latin America are somewhat antagonistic with the U.S. and would likely be Snowden’s best bet. In fact, even Syrian president Bashar Assad was considering trying to receive amnesty in Latin America should he be forced out of Syria.

I draw attention to the mistakes that Snowden has made not to try to convince people that he’s not a hero, or that he’s not smart, but to remind us that when he decided to leak this information he most likely did it totally alone. It would have been very dangerous to contact anyone for advice. This fact pared with his serious misunderstandings lead to severe mistakes.

We’re all indebted to leakers for putting their lives on the line to empower us with the ability to better understand centers of power. But leakers shouldn’t have to choose between accepting the criminal actions of their government, or leaking the information and having their lives destroyed. The safer it is to leak, then the more people will be willing to leak information. It’s the job of the left in the U.S. to try to build a movement that can protect leakers and sway public opinion in their favor.

I truly hope Snowden doesn’t end up like Bradley Manning, but because of how he leaked his information he is in serious danger. It’s important to remember there are ways that people can get away with leaking. Bradley Manning only got caught because he talked about his disclosures to a “friend” online who later sold him out. I hope a great deal more information is leaked soon and that the next leaker realizes Snowden’s mistakes and doesn’t repeat them.

Paul Gottinger is a writer from Madison, WI where he edits the left issues journal whiterosereader.org. He can be reached at paul.gottinger@gmail.com

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

[unable to retrieve full-text content]Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says European powers will “pay the price” if they send weapons to foreign-backed militants in the Arab country.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

It’s important, when listening to the official shapers of opinion in the media, to ask ourselves what they really mean by the words they use. As Orwell pointed out in “Politics and the English Language,” those in power use language to obscure meaning more often than to convey it.

A good example is the recurrence of phrases like “endangered our national security” and “aided the enemy,” from people like Eric Holder, Peter King and Lindsey Graham, in reference to leaks by people like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. Now, they certainly intend to evoke certain associations in the minds of listeners with their word choices. If you’re not careful, you may find yourself responding in just the way the users intend – allowing their words to conjure up in your mind homes, families, neighbors, churches, a whole way of life, threatened with invasion and destruction by a nameless, faceless enemy – in the words of Orwell’s Two-Minute Hate, “the dark armies … barbarians whose only honour is atrocity.”

But if you look behind the words, their actual meaning is something entirely different. To the kinds of people who throw around such words, “national security” is a corporate-state world order enforced by the United States, run by people like themselves, which enabling global corporations to extract resources and labor from the people of the world and live off unearned rents. “The enemy” is you. And the danger is that you might figure out what’s going on and disturb their cozy little setup.

Alex Carey, historian of propaganda, argues that the central pillar of elite rule in mass democracies is the engineering of consent. In the late 19th century two phenomena emerged simultaneously: First, the giant corporation and the power nexus between corporation and state; and second, the threat to that power nexus from universal literacy and universal suffrage. Hence the importance of propaganda, of managing public opinion, in formally representative political systems.

Samuel Huntington wrote in The Crisis of Democracy, in 1974, that the United States in the two decades after WWII had been the “hegemonic power in a system of world order” – a state of affairs possible only because of a domestic power structure in which the country “was governed by the president acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the Executive office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations, and media, which constitute the private establishment.” And this, in turn, was possible only because of the acquiescence, the passivity, of the American people, and their acceptance of it as a natural, inevitable, and perfectly legitimate state of affairs.

The Sixties, as you might expect, scared the crap out of these people. Until then the “New Deal social contract” had worked fairly well (at least for middle class whites): We’ll give you a suburban home, a TV, a new car every five years, and a secure union job with benefits and periodic pay raises. In return, you’ll show up for work in between contract renewal times and let us manage the factories as we see fit without bothering your pretty little heads about it. And you’ll let us manage the world in the interests of GE, GM and United Fruit Company, and look the other way when we install genocidal fascist regimes or fund death squads in Indonesia, Nigeria and Latin America.

The 1960s was the first time since WWII when it seemed to dawn on a significant portion of the public that “another world is possible.”

Since then, management of public opinion to engineer consent has been doubly important to them. That’s why the “national security” community engages in psychological operations to manage public perceptions, the same way they’d manage the perceptions of a wartime enemy – in both cases,  the goalbeing to manipulate the desired reaction out of us.

See, we really are the enemy. Every once in a while one of them slips up and reveals that all that stuff about government representing the sovereign will of the people is so much buncombe. For example, former Clinton Press Secretary Sandy Berger’s statement in 2004: “We have too much at stake in Iraq to lose the American people.”

That’s why they get so bent out of shape when people like Manning and Snowden tell the enemy – people like you and me – the ugly truth about how their sausage is made. Their power depends on keeping us – the enemy – in the dark.

Kevin Carson is a senior fellow of the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org) and holds the Center’s Karl Hess Chair in Social Theory.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Like Putin’s policy in Russia, Obama’s Syrian policy is being tugged strenuously in Washington, both by hawks and by doves. On June 13, Obama handed two limited but ominous victories to the hawks: a finding of fact that the troops of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad “have used chemical weapons [i.e. sarin] against rebel forces,” and a consequent decision “to begin supplying the rebels for the first time with small arms and ammunition.”¹

Both announcements sound very strange, if not dishonest, to anyone who has been following the Syrian crisis. Deputy National Security Adviser Benjamin Rhodes, one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, was quoted by the New York Times as saying that “there was no reason to think that the resistance has access to chemical weapons.” Thus, like most of the mainstream U.S. media, Rhodes simply ignored the reports last May in the British media that “U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin.”² Three weeks later there were additional disputed reports that a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas had been seized from Syrian rebel forces in Turkey.³ We thus see another U.S. case, as a decade ago in Iraq, of policy steering intelligence, rather than vice versa.

The second announcement, that the U.S. would “begin supplying the rebels,” is also hard to reconcile with reality. As the Times itself revealed three months ago, the CIA since early 2012 has helped facilitate an airlift of 3500 tons or more of arms to the rebels from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.⁴

The role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar as cutouts reprises a pattern seen in Bosnia in 2003 and especially Libya in 2011; and this history tells us that although Washington would prefer that the arms not reach Salafist jihadis, it will be difficult or impossible to stop this from happening.⁵ What is clear is that the new weapons will add to the slaughter without ending it — a slaughter that is ever more directed against civilians on all sides.⁶

With these small moves Obama has granted the hawks, like Republican Senator John McCain, far less than they wish. In the same announcement, Benjamin Rhodes “all but ruled out the option of a no-fly zone,” the no-boots-on-the-ground strategy that ousted Gaddafi in Iraq. By ruling out a no-fly zone, Obama may still hope to forestall a Russian move to supply Assad with advanced anti-aircraft missiles, a step almost certain to provoke Israeli involvement and perhaps a further expansion of the conflict into Lebanon and Iraq.

With the support of an Op-Ed in the New York Times,⁷ U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met in early May with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, and the two agreed to reconvene an international conference by late May to deal with the Syrian crisis (at a time when an EU arms embargo was due to expire). The conference was, however, postponed and is still in doubt, largely because the west’s preferred clients in the uprising, the Free Syrian Army, refuse to participate while they are currently losing.

Kerry and Lavrov met again in Paris in late May, and the outcome this time was more ominous. Russian media still reported, with guarded optimism, about a prospective but delayed conference.⁸ American media however ignored or downplayed the conference notion. Instead they quoted a State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell, who rebuked Moscow for announcing it would deliver an advanced guided S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria; and he added that America would now support the easing of the EU arms embargo.⁹

Two features of Obama’s Syrian policy, mutually offsetting, have been visible since he first took office. The first has been his extreme caution, and his refusal to rush into commitments like the one that has America currently bogged down in Afghanistan. The second has been a tendency to justify his delaying tactics by abstract policy statements fit only for headlines, as when in August 2011 he said categorically that Assad must “step aside.” He thus left himself with a policy position that Russia will not agree to, and no policy to make it happen.

Meanwhile, numerous informed American and international analyses of the Syrian crisis warn that the conflict, already a proxy war pitting Turkey and the Arabian peninsula countries against Iran, could become still larger and more dangerous.¹⁰ However, these reports tend to ignore the brute petroleum realities which are likely to determine Assad’s downfall, if they are not directly confronted and rebutted.

Syria’s petroleum reserves were estimated in 2010 at 2,500,000,000 barrels. More importantly, Syria is the most obvious land route for any pipelines to export oil and gas from the Persian Gulf, including Iran, to the energy-hungry nations of western Europe. But the Kirkuk—Baniyas crude oil pipeline, from the Kirkuk oil field in Iraq to the Mediterranean, was destroyed by U.S. air strikes in 2003 and never reopened.

In 2009 Qatar and Turkey began negotiating a new natural gas pipeline across Saudi Arabia and Syria to Turkey, to link up with the proposed Nabucco pipeline across Turkey from Azerbaijan.¹¹ A route through Iraq seemed increasingly problematic, however, with the increasing conflicts there. Meanwhile, according to Oilprice.com, Saudi Arabia denied Qatar the use of its territory, leaving a route through southern Iraq and Syria for Qatar to “secure a new source of income. Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way.”¹²

The Financial Times has since reported that

The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government…. its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.¹³

The informed website ZeroHedge.com has commented that this considerable investment is “as so often happens in the middle east,… once again all about the natural resources.”¹⁴

Qatar’s North Dome gas field, in the middle of the Persian Gulf, is one with Iran’s South Pars field, and together they constitute the largest gas field in the world. In 2011 Assad rejected an ultimatum from Qatar and instead agreed with Iran and Iraq to build a new Iran-Syria pipeline which would transfer natural gas to the Mediterranean from Iran’s South Pars natural gas field rather than Qatar’s North Dome.¹⁵ (We should recall that similar challenges to American petrodollar hegemony were made by Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, with fatal consequences to them and their regimes.)¹⁶

As Pepe Escobar has commented,

The key (unstated) reason for Qatar to be so obsessed by regime change in Syria is to kill the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria [natural gas] pipeline, which was agreed upon in July 2011. The same applies to Turkey, because this pipeline would bypass Ankara, which always bills itself as the key energy crossroads between East and West.

It’s crucial to remember that the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is … anathema to Washington…. The difference is that Washington in this case can count on its allies Qatar and Turkey to sabotage the whole deal.¹⁷

One of the great downsides of covert foreign policies is that crucial world-changing decisions are entrusted to gung-ho cowboys with little oversight and still less interest in the long-term consequences of their disruptive actions. We saw this two decades ago when the CIA, overriding the State Department, helped Pakistan’s ISI, in collusion with the Salafist jihadi Hekmatyar, overthrow the relatively moderate Najibullah government in Afghanistan that had been left behind when the Soviets withdrew.¹⁸

Former Ambassador Peter Tomsen has written an eloquent memoir, The Wars of Afghanistan, about this under-acknowledged tragedy, out of which grew both 9/11 and a war America is still fighting:

Under Secretary for Political Affairs Robert Kimmitt and I tried to close the gap between the State Department and the CIA’s Directorate of Operations on Afghan policy. I met twice with Deputy CIA Director Richard Kerr to resolve differences. But the agency persisted in backing the ISI’s military attacks on Kabul aimed at replacing Najib[ullah] with Hekmatyar…. Separately, the State Department and the CIA were operating at cross purposes. That was a certain recipe for paralysis and ultimate policy failure.¹⁹

Unless there is a significant change, we can anticipate the same tragedy again in Syria – with the CIA, in collusion with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, facilitating arms to similar Sunni jihadis, while the State Department officials seek, with their Russian counterparts, a peaceful resolution to this crisis.

The alternative would be a timely reconvening of an international Geneva Conference, with or without the various rebel factions, and certainly with the participation of Qatar and two other countries excluded from the last such conference: Iran and Saudi Arabia. All these nations are already part of the conflict, and all these nations, like the rest of the world, have legitimate interests that would be better served by peace.²⁰

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here.

Recommended citation: Peter Dale Scott, “Washington’s Battle Over Syrian Foreign Policy: Will Hawks Or Doves Prevail?” The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 11, Issue 24, No. 1, June 17, 2013.

Articles on related subjects

– Peter Dale Scott, Systemic Destabilization in Recent American History: 9/11, the JFK Assassination and the Oklahoma City Bombing as a Strategy of Tension

– Peter Dale Scott, Why Americans Must End America’s Self-Generating Wars

– Jeremy Kuzmarov, Police Training, “Nation Building” and Political Repression in Postcolonial South Korea

– Peter Dale Scott, The NATO Afghanistan War and US-Russian Relations: Drugs, Oil, and War

– Peter Dale Scott, The Doomsday Project and Deep Events: JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11

– Peter Dale Scott, Norway’s Terror as Systemic Destabilization: Breivik, the Arms-for-Drugs Milieu, and Global Shadow Elites

– Tim Shorrock, Reading the Egyptian Revolution Through the Lens of US Policy in South Korea Circa 1980: Revelations in US Declassified Documents

Notes

¹ “U.S. Is Said To Plan To Send Weapons to Syrian Rebels,” New York Times, June 14, 2013.

² “U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator,” Reuters, May 5, 2013. Cf. BBC, May 6, 2013,. At the time White House spokesman Jay Carney commented that, “We are highly sceptical of any suggestions that the opposition used chemical weapons,” (Guardian [London], May 6. 2013).

³ “Turkey finds sarin gas in homes of suspected Syrian Islamists — reports,” RT, May 30, 2013, http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/.

⁴ C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” New York Times, March 24, 2013.

⁵ Peter Dale Scott, “”Bosnia, Kosovo, and Now Libya: The Human Costs of Washington’s On-Going Collusion with Terrorists,” Asian-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, July 29, 2011. Cf. Jason M. Breslow, “Can the U.S. Keep Its Weapons From Extremists in Syria?” FRONTLINE, PBS, June 14, 2013: “As FRONTLINE reported in The Battle for Syria, rebels in the country have grown increasingly Islamist and extreme, prompting concern within the administration that U.S. weapons could fall into the wrong hands.The challenge ahead will be preventing such a scenario, a task most experts believe will be difficult if not impossible.”

⁶ Dana El Baltaji, “Syria Rebels Threaten to Wipe Out Shiite, Alawite Towns,” Bloomberg.com, May 21, 2013: “Communities inhabited by Shiite Muslims and President Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite minority will be ‘wiped off the map’ if the strategic city of Al-Qusair in central Syria falls to government troops, rebel forces said. ‘We don’t want this to happen, but it will be a reality imposed on everyone,’ Colonel Abdel-Hamid Zakaria, a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army in Turkey [the faction which Senator McCain met last month], told Al-Arabiya television yesterday. ‘It’s going to be an open, sectarian, bloody war to the end.’”

⁷ [Former Ambassador] Daniel C. Kurtzer, “Obama Can’t Go It Alone in Syria,” New York Times, May 2, 2013: “Constructing an international coalition of willing states – especially Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar – is the only strategically wise option for the United States. Without such a coalition, intervention won’t work. And without such a coalition, America must reject unilateral military intervention in Syria.”

⁸ “Take two: Lavrov, Kerry working to broker redo of Syria peace conference,”

RT, May 27, 2013.

⁹ US supports EU easing of Syria arms embargo,” AFP, May 28, 2013; UPI, May 29, 2013.

¹⁰ E.g. David Bromwich, “Stay Out of Syria!” New York Review of Books, June 20, 2013. M K Bhadrakumar poses the issue more starkly, with an eye toward U.S.-Russian conflict. “All in all, Obama’s momentous decision on military intervention in Syria, which could well launch a new Cold War, is a desperate diversionary move when his administration is caught up deep in the cesspool over the Snowden controversy.

The entire moral edifice on which Obama built up his presidency and the values he espoused at the core of his “audacity of hope” when he began his long march to the White House five years ago — transparency, accountability, legitimacy, multilateralism, consensus — lie exposed today as a pack of lies.”“Obama’s Monica Moment,” Asia Times June 14, 2013,

¹¹ “Qatar seeks gas pipeline to Turkey,” TheNational.ae, August 26, 2009 Cf. PipelinesInternational.com, March 2010: “Turkey is in negotiations to discuss the development of the Qatar — Turkey pipeline. The pipeline would run from Doha to Istanbul, a distance of approximately 2,500 km. The pipeline would carry Qatari gas to the Mediterranean Sea, crossing Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and may link to the proposed Nabucco gas pipeline.”

¹² Felix Imonti, “Qatar: Rich and Dangerous,” Oilprice.com, September 17, 2012.

¹³ Financial Times, May 16, 2013.

¹⁴ “Mystery Sponsor Of Weapons And Money To Syrian Mercenary “Rebels” Revealed,” ZeroHedge.com, May 16, 2013.

¹⁵ “Islamic Pipeline States Meet in Baghdad,” Tehran Times, June 14, 2013.

¹⁶ Peter Dale Scott, “The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System,” Asian-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, April 27, 2011.

¹⁷ Pepe Escobar, “Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Qatar: Pipelineistan at work,” RT, April 14, 2013.

¹⁸ A horror story: see Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, 173-214.

¹⁹ Peter Tomsen, The Wars of Afghanistan, 422.

²⁰ Zbigniew Brzezinski has sensibly proposed that other nations with energy interests in the Persian Gulf, notably China and Japan, should also be invited to participate in the conference (PBS News, June 14, 2013).

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

The UK government has been seeking to boost its weapons sales to oil-rich Arab states of the Persian Gulf region with Defence Secretary Philip Hammond talking military ties in Saudi Arabia, local media reported.

Philip Hammond discussed strengthening military and security ties with Saudi Arabia with top authorities in the kingdom last week, said a report by the Saudi state-run SPA news agency.

Hammond met Crown Prince and Defence Minister Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz in the port city of Jeddah, and they discussed ways to bolster cooperation as well as regional and international developments, SPA said.

No more details were provided on the talks, but Britain is trying to boost arms sales to Arab states in the Persian Gulf region, as it is plotting to ignite another war in Syria as part of the global arroganceâ„¢s expansionist policies.

In December, British weapons manufacturer group BAE Systems said discussions would continue on an agreement to sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.

BAE had warned that the lucrative deal was facing unresolved “issues” five years after the agreement was struck between the two sides.

Both sides signed a 4.5-billion-pound deal in 2007 to supply 72 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes to Riyadh.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

For much of the past two years Israel stood sphinx-like on the sidelines of Syria’s civil war. Did it want Bashar al-Assad’s regime toppled? Did it favour military intervention to help opposition forces? And what did it think of the increasing visibility of Islamist groups in Syria? It was difficult to guess.

In recent weeks, however, Israel has moved from relative inaction to a deepening involvement in Syrian affairs. It launched two air strikes on Syrian positions last month, and at the same time fomented claims that Damascus had used chemical weapons, in what looked suspiciously like an attempt to corner Washington into direct intervention.

Last week, based on renewed accusations of the use of the nerve agent sarin by Syria, the US said it would start giving military aid directly to the opposition.

With suspicions of Israeli meddling growing, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was finally forced last week to deny as ”nonsense” evidence that Israeli forces are operating secretly over the border.

Nonetheless, the aura of inscrutability has hardly lifted, stoked by a series of leaks from Israeli officials. Their statements have tacked wildly between threats to oust Assad one moment and denials that Israel has any interest in his departure the next.

Is Israel sending out contradictory signals to sow confusion, or is it simply confused itself?

The answer can be deduced in the unappealing outcomes before Israel whoever emerges triumphant. Israel stands to lose strategically if either Assad or the opposition wins decisively.

Assad, and before him his father, Hafez, ensured that for decades the so-called separation of forces line between Syria and Israel, after the latter occupied the Golan Heights in 1967, remained the quietest of all Israel’s borders.

A taste of what might happen should the Syrian regime fall was provided in 2011 when more than 1,000 Palestinians massed in the no man’s land next to the Golan, while Assad’s attention was directed to repressing popular demonstrations elsewhere. At least 100 Palestinians crossed into the Heights, with one even reaching Tel Aviv.

Last week, following intensified fighting between the rebels and the Syrian army over Quneitra, a town next to the only crossing between Israel and Syria, UN peacekeepers from Austria started pulling out because of the dangers.

Briefly the opposition forces captured Quneitra, offering a reminder that any void there would likely suck in Palestinian militants and jihadists keen to settle scores with Israel. That point was underlined by one Israeli official, who told the Times of London: “Better the devil we know than the demons we can only imagine if Syria falls into chaos, and the extremists from across the Arab world gain a foothold there.”

For that reason, the Israeli military is reported to considering two responses familiar from Lebanon: invading to establish a security zone on the other side of the demarcation line, or covertly training and arming Syrian proxies inside the same area.

Neither approach turned out well for Israel in Lebanon, but there are indications — despite Netanyahu’s denial — that Israel is already pursuing the second track.

According to the New York Times, Israel is working with Syrian villagers not allied to Assad or the opposition and offering “humanitarian aid” and “maintaining intense intelligence activity”. In an interview with the Argentinian media last month, Assad accused Israel of having gone further, “directly supporting” opposition groups inside Syria with “logistical support”, intelligence on potential targets and plans for attacking them.

If the future looks bleak for Israel with Assad gone, it looks no brighter if he entrenches his rule.

A strong Assad means Syria will continue to play a pivotal role in maintaining a military front opposed to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. That in turn means a strong Iran and a strong Hizbullah, the Shia militia in Lebanon.

Hizbullah’s formidable record in guerrilla warfare is the main reason Israel no longer occupies south Lebanon. Similarly, Hizbullah’s arsenal of rockets is a genuine restraint on greater Israeli aggression towards not only Lebanon but Syria and Iran too.

Israel’s air strikes in early May appear to have targeted shipments through Syria of more sophisticated weaponry for Hizbullah, probably supplied by Iran. Longer range missiles and anti-aircraft systems are seen as “game-changing” by Israel precisely because they would further limit its room for offensive manoeuvres.

Israel will be equally stymied if Assad stays in power and upgrades his anti-aircraft defences with the S-300 system promised by Russia.

Either way, Israel’s much vaunted ambition to engineer an attack on Iran to prevent what it claims is Tehran’s goal of developing a nuclear bomb — joining Israel in the club of Middle Eastern nuclear-armed states — would probably come at too high a price to be feasible.

So what does Israel consider in its interests if neither Assad’s survival nor his removal is appealing?

According to some well-placed Israeli commentators, the best Israel can hope for is that Assad holds on but only just. That would keep the regime in place, or boxed into its heartland, but sapped of the energy to concern itself with anything other than immediate matters of survival. It would be unable to offer help to Hizbullah, isolating the militia in Lebanon and cutting off its supply line to Iran.

In closed-door discussions, analyst Ben Caspit has noted, the Israeli army has put forward as its “optimal scenario” Syria breaking up into three separate states, with Assad confined to an Alawite canton in Damascus and along the coast.

A long war of attrition between Assad and the opposition has additional benefits for Israel following the decision by Hizbullah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to draft thousands of fighters to assist the Syrian army. Protacted losses could deplete Hizbullah’s ranks and morale, while fighting is likely to spill over from Syria into Lebanon, tying up the militia on multiple fronts.

But there is a risk here too. If Hizbullah performs well, as it did in defeating the rebels this month at the town of Qusayr, its position in Lebanon could be strengthened rather than weakened. And in that situation Assad’s debt to Hizbullah would only deepen.

Such calculations are doubtless exercising Israeli military minds.

The greatest danger of all is that yet more parties get drawn in, turning the conflict into a regional one. That would be the likely outcome if Israel chooses to increase its interference, or if the US comes good with its recent threats to increase military aid to the opposition or impose a no-fly zone over parts or all of Syria.

Either way, Israel might see the transformation of Syria in to a new mini-cold war theatre as advantageous.

However, the Israeli sphinx isn’t offering any answers quite yet.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

A version of this article first appeared in The National, Abu Dhabi

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Fox News
June 17, 2013

A series of behind-the-scenes mistakes by educators in a Florida school district led to children’s biometric information being culled without their parents’ permission, TheLedger.com reported.

In May, parents of students in the Polk County School District received a letter stating a pilot program would track bus riders using each child’s iris.

Parents could opt out, but by the time they learned about the program, the company charged with gathering the information had already captured images of about 750 children’s eyes.

Read full article

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 9:07 am

Tags: big brother, domestic spying, education, police state

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Paul Bedard
Washington Examiner
June 17, 2013

A new rule issued late Friday requires state, federal and local agencies as well as health insurers to swap the protected personal health information of anybody seeking to join the new health care program that will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.

Personal health information, or PHI, is highly protected under federal law, but the latest ruling from the Department of Health and Human Services allows agencies to trade the information to verify that Obamacare applicants are getting the minimum amount of health insurance coverage they need from the health “exchanges.”

The ruling, explained on pages 72-73 of the book-thick guidance, does not mention any requirement that applicants first OK the release of their PHI. HHS already allows some exchange of PHI without an individual’s pre-approval, especially when for a “government program providing public benefits.” Officials said the swapping of information is simply meant to help figure the best insurance coverage of Obamacare users.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 17, 2013 at 9:01 am

Tags: domestic news, healthcare

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

In the wake of having its illegal domestic surveillance dragnet exposed, laying bare (yet again) the utter duplicity and criminality of the U.S. ruling class, Washington is once again digging deep to conjure up a pretext for yet another war of aggression in the Middle East.

Using the tired menace of weapons of mass destruction, the White House Thursday claimed with “high confidence” that the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons, specifically the nerve agent sarin, against rebel fighters.

Washington’s announcement of “credible evidence” of chemical weapons use by Syrian forces, coming despite a dearth of actual hard evidence revealed, is now being used as the justification for providing direct U.S. military aid to the Syrian rebels.

The decision to wade further into the Syrian morass, however, came well before the supposed crossing of President Obama’s “red line.”

As the Washington Post reported, “the determination to send weapons had been made weeks ago.” Moreover, it has long been known that the CIA was overseeing the arming of opposition groups inside Syria. The debate in Washington over Syria has thus really been over the degree and overtness of U.S. military intervention. And while the typical Republican hawks (John McCain and Lindsey Graham) have used the latest chemical weapons scare to resume the calls for a “no-fly zone,” prominent Democrats continue to come around to supporting a “no-fly zone” as well. But then again, American politics has long stopped at water’s edge.

With such bipartisan war drums beating louder, it’s little surprise to learn that the Pentagon is working on plans for establishing a “limited no-fly zone” in order to carve out a buffer zone of up to 25 miles along the Jordan-Syria border.

This “no-fly zone,” the Wall Street Journal reports, would “be enforced using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom.” And on cue, the Pentagon has confirmed that it will indeed be keeping a contingent of F-16s and Patriot missiles in Jordan following scheduled war games there next week. (NATO already has Patriot missile batteries stationed along the Turkey-Syria border.)

The very notion of a “limited no-fly zone,” though, stands as but the latest addition to Washington’s growing newspeak. One may add it to the likes of “collateral damage,” “surgical strikes,” and “protecting civilians.” Indeed, as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates remarked prior to the NATO assault on Libya in 2011, “Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone.” Syria would be no different.

Of course, the latest impetus used for directly arming the Syrian rebels and reviving the talk of bombing the country–the supposed crossing of President Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons–is on its very face tenuous, at best.

According to Foreign Policy’s “The Cable” blog, despite their “high confidence,” American intelligence officials have still not been able to determine a chain of custody for the blood samples supplied by Syrian rebels that reportedly tested positive for sarin. That is, they have not been able to establish who exactly handled the principal piece of evidence establishing “proof” of chemical weapons use by the regime. A rather remarkable admission given that it took two full weeks for the blood samples to reach Western intelligence agencies from rebel hands.

Faced with such flimsy evidence from U.S. officials, Yuri Ushakov, senior foreign policy adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, commented that, “what was presented to us by the Americans does not look convincing.”

“It would be hard even to call them facts,” Ushakov added.

Indeed, as McClatchy reported, independent chemical weapons experts maintain that “they’ve yet to see the telltale signs of a sarin gas attack, despite months of scrutiny.”

“Ultimately, without more information, we are left with the need to trust the integrity of the U.S. intelligence community in arriving at its ‘high confidence’ judgment,” Greg Thielmann, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Arms Control Association told McClatchy.

And what a leap of faith to place one’s trust in the integrity of the U.S. intelligence community! After all, that would be the very same intelligence community which claimed it a “slam dunk” that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction; the very same intelligence apparatus now snooping on the communications of virtually every American.

Given such an abundant recent history of brazen illegality from Washington, it’s no wonder the American public simply isn’t buying another war in the Middle East. In fact, just 15 percent in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll favor U.S. military intervention into Syria. Only 11 percent favor arming the opposition.

Yet, in a revealing look into the anti-democratic impulse of the U.S. ruling elite who now cynically champion democracy in Syria, former President Bill Clinton publicly advised President Obama last week to disregard the firm public opposition to U.S. military intervention into Syria. As Clinton remarked, “any president risks looking like ‘a total fool’ if they listen too closely to opinion polls.”

And thus not wanting to look a fool, President Obama has set the American war machine on the grinding path toward deeper intervention into the Syrian conflict. The threat of a global confrontation ensnaring the likes of Iran and global powers Russia and China is evidently but the price of saving face. Or as former Obama State Department official Anne-Marie Slaughter more tactfully put it, it’s but the price of saving “U.S. credibility.”

The American working class, let alone working people globally, have nothing to gain from saving Washington’s credibility and satiating its imperial blood lust. In fact, those at real risk of looking like fools are those still listening to the deceitful claims of the war-hungry elite. For amid deepening internal economic and political crises, all the American ruling class has on offer is but further imperial aggression to be sold on little more than a pack of lies.

Ben Schreiner is a freelance writer living in Oregon. He may be reached via his website or at bnschreiner@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Context One: It is 1971 and the United States is mired in a losing war in Vietnam. Thousands of young American soldiers are coming back to the U.S. in coffins or physically and psychologically maimed. Scenes of war can be witnessed nightly on the evening news. In the midst of this mayhem the American military analyst Daniel Ellsberg gives the New York Times a copy of a classified analysis of the war entitled, “United States — Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967” aka the “Pentagon Papers.” The Nixon administration then sought to prevent the publication of this report through a court injunction. Ultimately the Supreme Court overturned the injunction in a 6-3 ruling that favored the public’s right to know. The government also attempted to prosecute Ellsberg under the 1917 Espionage Act for releasing classified information to the public. That was thrown out of court because in making their case, government agents had gathered information through an illegal wiretap. Subsequently, the media widely covered the Pentagon Papers and its demoralizing description of how the U.S. was fighting the war. It can be argued that this reporting helped turn the tide of public opinion against the slaughter in Vietnam.

Context Two: It is 2012-2013 and the United States is waging a “War on Terror.” This is the result of highly destructive terrorist attacks that occurred a dozen years earlier on September 11, 2001. Both these attacks, the lies and misplaced aggression of the Bush administration that followed, and the skewed media coverage over the intervening years, have sensitized the country to the issue of security. In this environment the government was able to put in place legislation such as the Patriot Act that allows it to, among other things, broadly increase its powers of surveillance both of American citizens and foreigners, and to develop (with the aid of Israeli companies) a secret, massive information gathering program, code named PRISM, and operated by the National Security Agency (NSA). It is also within this environment that a series of whistleblowers revealed to the public both the brutal nature of U.S. warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the widespread spying regime evolved by the American government. Many of these whistleblowers have been charged with felonies and labeled traitors.

The Whistleblowers Aim: Making the Citizens Aware

Between 1971 and 2012-2013 a lot has changed.  However, the seminal difference is that in 1971 a good number of American citizens were being traumatized by the death and maiming of their relatives in a losing war that was publicized in a relatively objective way. In 2012-2013 that factor is missing because the “War on Terror” does not entail a military draft, has resulted in relatively few U.S. casualties, and is brought to the American people by a managed media. This allows the public to assume what is, in truth, its “normal” default position:  an everyday indifference to national government behavior. The general citizenry is at once uninterested in what the federal government is doing as long as they feel no immediate negative impact (this is particularly true of foreign policy), and naively ready to accept the government’s protestations that it is acting in their best interests.

Thus, it is no doubt true that heroes (and indeed they are heroes) such as Pvt. Bradley Manning and NSA employee Edward Snowden, decided to release massive amounts of secret government data in order “to make their fellow citizens aware of what their government is doing in the dark.” However, what the historical record suggests is that, under most circumstances, only a minority of the general population will care. Thus, in the case of the United States, the effectiveness of whistleblowers may be more successfully tested in the law courts wherein meaningful judgment can be rendered on the behavior of the other branches of government, than in the court of public opinion. However, this judicial arena is also problematic because it depends on the changing mix of politics and ideology of those sitting in judgment rather than any consistent adherence to principles.  In 1971 judicial judgment went for Ellsberg. In 2013, men like Manning and Snowden probably do not have a snowball’s chance in hell.

The Government’s Aim: Maintain the Bureaucratic Rules

The existence of men like Manning, Snowden and a handful of others demonstrates that there are employees of the government who have a superior sense of morality as well as the courage to act on their principles. However, the numbers are very small and they are invariably considered as dangerous mistakes within the system. What of the rest of the government’s personnel?

It is important to understand that the vast majority of government employees do not act, except in the most abstract and idealistic way, as citizens of the United States. They are much more immediately, if you will, citizens of the bureaucracies within which they are embedded. This is not an unusual situation. People tend to identify with their local community and for some this may include a strong identification with their place of employment. Also, bureaucracies are notable for setting their own rules and enforcing them as if they were forms of law. Employees are regularly “oriented” to their bureaucracy’s institutional worldview. At one time the union movement provided a potential check to this process because class identity was a viable competitor to bureaucratic identity. But the union movement within the United States is very weak. Particularly within secretive organizations such as the CIA or the NSA, competitive points of view are carefully weeded out. Simultaneously, the value set on loyalty to the organization and its rules is very high. Such organizations come first, even before family and friends.

Even most elected politicians are fated to become “organization men or women” wherein their first loyalty lies not with the electorate or the Constitution, but to their political parties. If they are part of the “select” group of Senators and Congresspersons associated with the intelligence agencies they will absorb their secretive orientation as well. Take Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) who is head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.  She has insisted on the need and the worth of massive spying by the NSA whereby the “megadata” of almost everything that goes through the internet, and a lot that goes through the phone lines, is collected and stored, placing all content in a state of ready availability to the government if it chooses to look at it. She, and others like NSA Director James Clapper, claim that this enormous gathering up of personal data has helped “foil multiple terrorist plots” against Americans and others. Those who have made public this secret process are, according to Feinstein, “traitors.”

In a real sense, Feinstein has metamorphosed into the loyal citizen of a bureaucracy that has relegated to itself the right to define both security and the public’s need to know. It does not appear to concern Feinstein that this bureaucracy is determined to function in a way that will allow no viable accountability to anyone beyond its own community.

In contrast to Feinstein, William Binney, former head of the NSA’s global digital data program, claims that having such a huge data base has meant the information overwhelms the analysts, causing the secret PRISM program to become “dysfunctional.” Perhaps that is why a few in the Senate, like Mark Udall of Colorado, say that they are not “convinced that the collection of this vast trove of data has led to disruption of plots against the U.S.” Thus the “protecting the American people” justification is debatable.

Even if it turns out that this information orgy has assisted in foiling a limited number of plots, it is not a practicable approach to threat prevention. What is?  Changing the policies and behaviors that have caused much of the terrorist threats in the first place. Do that, and you won’t need to stockpile everyone’s communications from now to the end of time.

The President  

One of the best examples of the conversion of an American from a servant of the citizenry to a servant of the government bureaucracy is President Barak Obama.  As Glenn Greenwald points out, during President Obama’s 2008 campaign “openness and transparency” were central issues. Obama denounced President Bush’s regime as “one of the most secretive administrations in our nation’s history,” and added “it is no coincidence” that such a secrecy-obsessed presidency “has favored special interests and pursued policies that could not stand up to the sunlight.” He vowed: “as president, I’m going to change that.” To that end he pledged to protect whistleblowers and called them, “the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government,” saying that “such acts of courage and patriotism . . . should be encouraged rather than stifled.”

Then he won the 2008 election.  All of a sudden his constituents ceased to be the voters and became instead institutionalized aspects of the government system: the bureaucracy, the Democratic Party and a host of special interests. Thus, it did not take long for his tone to change.  Surrounded now by bureaucrats and party men whose devotion was to something other than the Constitution, the massive invasion of privacy represented by the vacuuming up of all information available on web became “necessary for national security and well within the bounds of the law.” That is, the Bush era laws that Obama once deplored. Now Obama is prosecuting the whistleblowers and protecting the George W. Bush era criminals.

This metamorphosis into participants in an amoral system seems to be the fate of most men and women elected to national office. They join an organization assumed wiser then the citizenry because it knows more than they do and, more often than not, it does its learning in secret, clandestine ways. Notions such as transparency and the behaviors of whistleblowers, which sounded so right on the campaign trail, now take on opposite connotations in the environment of bureaucracy. Principles that once were worthy of protection now must be “balanced” against procedures and policies too valuable to be exposed to daylight.

This is a standard scenario for the erosion of the rights, ideals and principles that make a democracy worthy of its name. As Thomas Drake, another whistleblower, recently put it “What does the NSA need with a 100 million phone records? We are losing the foundation of innocence until proven guilty. The assumption of innocence no longer exists in a surveillance state.” Neither does a Constitution with a Fourth Amendment. Neither does habeas corpus or due process. All of those are things of value in the world of democratic men and women. In the world of the National Security Agency, they are all conditional to the needs of a system with very different rules.

Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University in West Chester PA.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Upper House of Egypt Parliament has decided to resend a bill on political rights to the countryâ„¢s Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) after including a series of amendments in the bill.

Å“The Shura Council approved the remarks of the constitutional court and decided to send the bill back to the court to determine whether it conforms to them,” Shura Council Speaker Ahmed Fahmi said on Sunday.

The amendments were included in the bill in line with the SCCâ„¢s views.

On May 25, the SCC said nine articles of the bill were Å“unconstitutional.”

The provisions of the articles in question were mainly about the use of religious slogans in the course of election campaigns and the rights of Egyptian security personnel.

On December 25, 2012, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi signed into law the countryâ„¢s newly-approved constitution that is based on Islamic law.

Egyptians launched a revolution against the pro-Israeli regime in January 2011, which eventually brought an end to the 30-year dictatorship of former President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.

ASH/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

[unable to retrieve full-text content]The government of Turkey says it may bring in the army to end the nationwide anti-government protests as tension between the riot police and demonstrators escalates.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

An Afghan police stands near a destroyed NATO oil tanker on April 6, 2012.