TOKYO MASTER BANNER

MINISTRY OF TOKYO
US-ANGLO CAPITALISMEU-NATO IMPERIALISM
Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies
Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships
Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY
[LINK | Article]

*U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR*

Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
[info from Craig Murray video appearance, follows]  US-Anglo Alliance DELIBERATELY STOKING ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELING & RAMPING UP TENSION BETWEEN EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA.  British military/government feeding media PROPAGANDA.  Media choosing to PUBLISH government PROPAGANDA.  US naval aggression against Russia:  Baltic Sea — US naval aggression against China:  South China Sea.  Continued NATO pressure on Russia:  US missile systems moving into Eastern Europe.     [info from John Pilger interview follows]  War Hawk:  Hillary Clinton — embodiment of seamless aggressive American imperialist post-WWII system.  USA in frenzy of preparation for a conflict.  Greatest US-led build-up of forces since WWII gathered in Eastern Europe and in Baltic states.  US expansion & military preparation HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE WEST.  Since US paid for & controlled US coup, UKRAINE has become an American preserve and CIA Theme Park, on Russia's borderland, through which Germans invaded in the 1940s, costing 27 million Russian lives.  Imagine equivalent occurring on US borders in Canada or Mexico.  US military preparations against RUSSIA and against CHINA have NOT been reported by MEDIA.  US has sent guided missile ships to diputed zone in South China Sea.  DANGER OF US PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES.  China is on HIGH NUCLEAR ALERT.  US spy plane intercepted by Chinese fighter jets.  Public is primed to accept so-called 'aggressive' moves by China, when these are in fact defensive moves:  US 400 major bases encircling China; Okinawa has 32 American military installations; Japan has 130 American military bases in all.  WARNING PENTAGON MILITARY THINKING DOMINATES WASHINGTON. ⟴  
Showing posts with label Totalitarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Totalitarian. Show all posts

August 11, 2016

Australia: Terrorism or Totalitarianism?



CAPITALIST RULE

AUSSIES CONDEMNED

BY DECADES of FVEY coterie
CAPITALIST PROGRAM OF POPULATION TRANSFER
aimed at: 
DISMANTLING OF ANGO-AUSTRALIA
in step with agenda of ruling
US-ANGLO CAPITALIST EMPIRE

CONDEMNED TO ENDURE

1.  TERRORISM.

or

2.  TOTALITARIANISM.

 So ... which would you rather?  LOL

Don't know why I find that funny, but I do.  Even though I'm terrified sometimes.

It's hard to say what I'm more terrified of:  the potential of being random victim of politically motivated terrorism, or just your run of the mill everyday terrorism by hammer or machete wielding African gangs, committing violent dawn home invasions in packs, or committing carjackings, or committing tram hijackings, FFS.  

Well done, Australia.  Nothing like interracial gang home invasion to look forward to.  

Judging from the level of anger I'm feeling thinking about this right now, I'd say I'm more pissed about the gangs than I am about potential jihadis ... although I'm not real keen on the prospect of an encounter with the latter.

The actual existence of international treaties for assigning rights to alien invaders is about as ridiculous as having to chose between terrorism and totalitarianism.  

Where are the rights of the now stateless Europeans in all of this?   Yes, stateless.  Not a single European society has escaped from this criminal capitalist destruction.



Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Detained for Terror: Proposed Indefinite Detention Laws in Australia

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Global Research, August 08, 2016

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/detained-for-terror-proposed-indefinite-detention-laws-in-australia/5540179


The reactive dimension of global politics – at least at the level of many states – is a broader statement about how far things have rotted.  Nothing is more reactive than a State’s response to terrorism, actual or perceived.  The pure evidentiary dimension is neglected in favour of procedural fluff and unmeasurable contingencies. The box-ticking bureaucrat takes precedence over the judicial officer.

The Turnbull government has come down rather heavily in its response to a spate of attacks in France and Germany, deciding that it is time that something be done in the face of this supposed global madness.  The prime minister Malcolm Turnbull decided to press the issue in a letter to state leaders urging for the creation of a national regime to indefinitely detain terrorists even after the point of serving their sentence.

Civil liberties lawyer Greg Barnes has made the point that such assessments are fundamentally specious. They lack coherence, dimension and remain presumptuous.  The chances, therefore, of a person locked up for years on terrorist charges then engaging in acts of murderous mayhem on leaving, did not compute[comment:  I'd have to argue against Barnes on this.  Being locked up for years on terrorist charges may (or may not) be motive for acts of vengeance.  How likely that is, is impossible to say.  Most people would probably want to get on with what is left of their lives.  But you just don't know.  Who wants to take a chance?  On the other hand, who wants to incarcerate indefinitely and likely unjustly?  Again, this impossible choice is brought to you by INSANE POLICIES.  ]

The point is an ominous one for at least 13 prisoners convicted over what has been said to be Australia’s largest terrorism plot in New South Wales and Victoria.  After concluding their sentences, the individuals involved in the Pendennis network, led by Melbourne cleric Abdul Benbrika, would have little guarantee of release.  [comment:  wow, I didn't even know Australia had its own terrorist cell.  I tend not to follow much Australian news.   It annoys me more than other kind of news, so I sidestep it normally.  ]

Buttering in the face of such extralegal nonsense is always deemed necessary.  The Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis explained over the weekend that, “All of the attorneys, as the first law officers of our respective jurisdictions, understand the gravity of the threat that terrorism poses to Australia and its people.”[1]

What Brandis fails to mention is that such officers also owe it to the legal profession, its servants and the citizens of a country, to reassuringly ensure that liberties are not unduly tarnished, let alone entirely abandoned, as is being suggested by these measures.  The insolence of office, one so gleefully embraced, comes to mind.

With that merry insolence, the views of such officers are indifferent to habeas corpus, and the notion that a person who does time has (and here is a novelty), actually discharged the burdens placed upon him for such offences. Terrorism is simply being rendered, rather nonsensically, exceptional, an offence that demands special treatment.  [comment:  the problem is that politically motivated terrorism *is* exceptional.  Thanks again, politicians and liberal assh*les.  ]

If detention were to be infinite, the hierarchy of punishment would have to be abandoned in favour of an arbitrary notion of convict and permanently incarcerate if you can.  This would effectively eliminate the notion of sentencing as having any value bringing, instead, the fictional notion of a hypothetical terrorist attack to the fray[comment:  this is a hard one.  Nobody wants to be the cuck that leaves themselves open to terrorism.  Oh, wait.  The horse has already f*cking bolted because these Aussie cucks have done just that.  Now it's a choice of terrorism (or potential terrorism) or totalitarianism.   What's it gonna be?]

Instead of expressing outrage at the heavy-handed, not to mention clumsy approach of the Commonwealth government, the NSW Attorney-General Gabrielle Upton, congratulated Turnbull “on this initiative.  The stakes are high for NSW: make no mistake.  We have more people in our prisons than any other state that would be subject to these laws.”[2]  All the more reason, one would have thought, for not endorsing such regulations.  [comment:  OMG.  Sydney is Terrorist Central. ]

Upton’s shoddy reasoning pivots on mere words: “terrorism” qualifies for blanket imprisonment and detention.  Terrorism posed such a risk to the community it meant that no one could be “complacent”.

The situation becomes even more peculiar given the observations by such individuals a Greg Moriarty, national counter-terrorism coordinator and evidently self-proclaimed amateur penologist.  All agencies in the business of “national counter-terrorism” were “committed to preventing people from becoming terrorists; to disrupting and diverting people who are heading down a path towards violent extremism; and to rehabilitating people who are convicted for terrorism offences.”

But for all such noble ventures, there would always be those eggs that would stay rotten, where it was “not possible, or where there are significant areas of doubt”.  This mealy-mouthed assertion is a neat illustration about executive paranoia, enabling people to be detained at the pleasure of the sovereign.  [comment:  where can people go to escape this ugly bind?  There is nowhere among European civilisation that this has not been replicated by the assh*le nation destroying capitalists. ]

In Australia’s legal soil, noxious precedents flower that enable the Attorney-Generals at all levels of government to push for an agenda hostile to the detainee.  In mental health administration, there are those permanently kept away from trial (and hence a genuine testing of their cases) for reasons of psychic disturbance. [comment:  this gets worse and worse.  Again, what do you do?  Let disturbed ppl into the community or let potential terrorists into the community ... Oh, wait.  They have.  Assh*les. ]

The High Court has also done its bit to add to the regulatory framework of indefinite detention by arguing that stateless individuals can be indefinitely kept at the discretion of the State, a sort of administrative purgatory where risk from the detainee might manifest.   The case of Ahmed Al-Kateb remains something of a nightmare in that regard, an outcome premised on the shallow notion that non-judicial detention is entirely permissible provided it be for the purposes of removal.[3]  [comment:  thank f*ck the High Court is arguing in favour of something sensible.  What else are you supposed to do, in the circumstances?  Non-judicial purposes of removal sounds good to me.  ]

There was just one problem for Al-Kateb: his argument that any detention could not be lawful if it has ceased to have a valid basis for removal from Australia was dismissed with more than a bit of contempt.  [comment:  being convicted of terrorist plotting sounds like a good start to a 'valid basis' for removal to me.  I'd add rape, home invasion, carjacking and more to that list of everyday terrorism. ]

There are also those deemed genuine refugees under the United Nations Refugee Convention who are not permitted out of Australia’s brutal detention regime because they have been assessed, courtesy of the domestic espionage network ASIO, as a security risk.  All that, despite having no formal charges level.  The proposed change by Turnbull, to that end, remains dangerously, and lamentably consistent with enlarged and unaccountable executive power.   [comment:  thank f*ck for ASIO.   Who gives a sh*t about 'formal charges', invader rights and the status of those seeking to invade under illegitimate international treaty.  Only a suicidal liberal cuck would give a sh*t about technicalities of the fraud that is the nation destroying post WWII 'human rights' rort.   ]

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Notes

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4514207.htm?site=darwin
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4514207.htm?site=darwin
[3] http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/37.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=al-kateb



Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.
Copyright © Dr. Binoy Kampmark, Global Research, 2016


These were the initial feelings on the topic.

But embracing totalitarianism in exchange for safety is signing up to be subject to the same totalitarian controls (and potential abuses).

It's a no win.





Sam Gerrans: Democracy: A Heretic's View (2004)




Sam Gerrans

https://www.antiwar.com/orig/gerrans.php?articleid=2439

May 4, 2004
Democracy: A Heretic's View

by Sam Gerrans

I don't believe in democracy. In some liberal circles this makes me a heretic who should be shot.

Less reactive liberals smiled blankly at my consternation at our British government's collaboration with America in raining down hell on Yugoslavia – for "humanitarian," cuddly reasons, of course. Letting the people of Yugoslavia kill each other was just too barbaric. We had to do it for them.

Then, after a war we had diplomatically engineered, we had our long, quiet genocide via sanctions against Iraq, which nobody in polite society wanted to talk about. That for Madeline Albright the death of 500,000 children was worth it made no difference. We were still the good guys.

But developments in the U.S. style of delivery now mean nice people in cardigans who serve crêpes are losing the moral high ground. The reality of our bring-a-bottle wars is hitting home. And about time.

Liberals permit just two aspects of the democracy question to the table – neither of which I accept. The first has it that democracy is a good thing, but the problem is that we have an imperfect version of it. If only we could achieve proportional representation, full turnouts and decent politicians all would be well. The second says that democracy is a good thing, that we have it, and if only everyone else had it, too, all would be well. To me, both are strains of the same virus: wishful, woolly thinking.

The rhetoric of democracy is predicated on the idea that most people are responsible and able to think for themselves. If that were true there would be no need for government; no one to pay all those taxes to. It doesn't take a genius to realise why that idea isn't going to get off the ground.

The majority is a politically necessary abstraction within the framework of the Doublethink of Democracy precisely because it can't think for itself. It is a blind force, divorced from the facts and easily manipulated. It has to be. Its job is to buy things, pay taxes and distract itselfnot to clog up the mechanisms of power.

Rulers, by definition, form a minority. Under the feudal system that was all out in the open. Under democracy we have to pretend that we are all experts and that our opinion counts. We are not and it doesn't, as we are beginning, slowly, to realise.

The basic difference between feudalism and democracy is one of public relations. It's like childrearing. It's just more efficient for the child to believe that tidying up his room was his idea. It's less hassle. But the fact remains: the room will be tidied.

The population managers show their true colours when, once in a while, the spin goes askew. That Tony Blair ignored the largest-ever human gathering on British soil (to protest his plans to launch a new round of genocide against Iraq) demonstrates what he really thinks about people's opinions. His job, as he sees it, is to manage them, not implement them.

One refreshing feature of the country where I now live – Russia – is that nobody trusts the government. It's about the only question on which everyone agrees. It's accepted as axiomatic that rulers rule for their own benefit, and that everyone else just has to deal with the fallout of that reality. You don't get ejected from social situations for saying democracy is a nonsensical illusion masking a brutal demagogy. You're just asked if you'd like a refill. Conversations here lack the self-imposed myopia which controls what you can say at dinner parties in the West.

Now to my point. While, and this shouldn't need saying, my heart goes out to the Iraqi people (not to mention the divisions of American kids whose only legitimate occupation is defending their own land), I do perceive a refreshing onshore breeze of realism hitting the Club Med beaches of the liberal consciousness. We are beginning to wake up to the fact that the our rulers couldn't care less what we think. The irony of bombing nations into Freedom has begun to permeate the edges of the radar. The rhetoric has blown a gasket from overuse and the engine is losing power. At last, democracy is being outed.

Of course, these bases have been neatly covered. The iron fist under the kid-glove was never going to be shown to Joe Public without having all the necessary measures in place. Hence the Patriot Act, identity cards, "hate" laws, omniscient surveillance, and moves to outlaw firearms. For, you can be sure, the real war is against us – the people who are footing the bill.

These terrorists, these bogeymen we need to be protected from, are very helpful when it comes to providing the people who spend our money with reasons to imprison us. You can't help wondering who's funding them.

But this is not a time to get tearful about democracy. This is not democracy morphing into something else. This is democracy's coming of age, the revelation of its quintessence: that of a brutal oligarchy set on destroying the natural order. Its object: to disconnect us from land and tribe and replace us with a rootless conveyer-belt caste overseen by high-tech security services.

This scenario is not anti-democratic. It is precisely where the abdication of self-reliance inherent in mass democracy leads. So say hello to the facts: Totalitarianism is democracy's natural conclusion.

I suggest that – internal squabbles notwithstanding – the strong and powerful do more or less what they want, and the rest is just PR. This view is unflattering to the rabbits caught in the headlights of Democratic rhetoric, but I can't help that. Still, happily for me, as things get worse in the Middle East, the liberals will find it increasingly difficult to justify their worldview to themselves. It's small comfort in the circumstances, but it's something.

Democracy's key attraction for those who truly wield power is the fact that widespread belief that we are free is a cost-efficient means of control. But democracy is not and never has been Freedom; merely dictatorship-lite. And now the Totalitarian infrastructure is in place our rulers can opt to dispense with the spin.

Democracy will, of course, cling to its touchy-feely slogans for as long as it is expedient. But since the real U.S. game plan is to ratchet up the stakes in the Middle East to the level of war necessary to complete the project for Greater Israel – from the Nile to the Euphrates – and since the history of the last hundred years shows that no sacrifice to this end is too great, don't be surprised if our rulers drop the pretence that this is anything but a good old fashioned massacre and start levelling whole Iraqi cities.

My point here is not to draw moral conclusions. I have my opinion of course. But, for me, the bottom line is this: The strong and the sneaky do what they do and the rest of us need to decide what – if anything – we are going to do about it.

Just don't wave the democracy dogma in my face because I don't believe in it.


So shoot me.

© Sam Gerrans



COMMENT

This is one of the best things I've ever read.

See, I was right. Democracy is bullsh*t:  don't let the US-Anglo capitalists destroy European nations.

Stumbled on this guy while reading RT.  His recent piece is interesting and I'm glad he mentioned the Frankfurt school and media and education brainwashing, because the likes of the capitalist media and capitalist information repositories would have us believe that this is some 'conspiracy theory', like all else they prefer to deny.

The parts that spoke to me:

Political Correctness

nonsense created for by the Frankfurt School
fed into brains by the media and education system

Political correctness pretends there is
  • no such thing as tribe
  • no such thing as other
yet:
  • it celebrates it
  • enforces it
We are:
  • conditioned
  • controlled by archetypes & symbols
  • society is polarised


As I am not identified with anything but Europe, I diverge in a significant way from the rest of this writer's thinking in the recent RT article.

But I'm glad I found that 2004 article.  That is one of the most wonderful things I have ever read. 

That means what I suspected:  we are all prisoners of the US-Anglo Capitalist Empire. 

Our nations are being destroyed by these tyrannical capitalists.

What I don't understand is the point of a 'Greater Israel' that the writer mentioned.  Why is this important? 

I really need to stop messing around like I do, and do some proper reading for a change.



January 29, 2016

Totalitarian British State vs. Chris Spivey - Censorship & Social Media




Totalitarian British State
vs. Chris Spivey
Censorship & Social Media

British Justice says to Spivey – Shut The Fuck Up – or we’ll destroy you

Fri 5:07 pm UTC, 14 Aug 2015


 https://youtu.be/7ABAWtFd7oM

Article
http://tapnewswire.com/2015/08/british-justice-says-to-spivey-shut-the-fuck-up-or-well-destroy-you/


Other  - MSM:  Daily Mail


"Internet troll, 52, who posted 'sick' claims that Lee Rigby's murder was a conspiracy to provoke anti-Muslim hatred is spared jail for harassing soldier's family
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3212837/Internet-troll-52-posted-sick-claims-Lee-Rigby-s-murder-conspiracy-spared-jail-harassing-soldier-s-family.html




---------------------- ----------------------



COMMENT


Not entirely sure what's going on here and I'm not personally huge on conspiracy theories, but I think that the state and law enforcement harassment of those that hold differing opinions is absolutely disgusting and totalitarian.

Video interview with victim of state harassment, Chris Spivey, notes the police did not have relevant warrants, turned up 1:30am raid etc.   NUMEROUS IRREGULARITIESArrest illegal.  Local police 'investigating' itself.  Case based on x4 Witness Statements.  Allegedly, Witness Statements full of "easily provable lies" / "outrageous claims".  Prosecution prevented witnesses from appearing in court; right to face accusers denied:  breach of human rights - Article 6.

Material relied upon as evidence was from 15 MONTHS prior & no notice of objection ever given.  Irrelevant material reportedly introduced to court.

Spivey says:  convicted on hearsay and blatant lies.

Site attack conducted on Spivey site.

AND the British state appears to have alleged something that is denied, going by the first article, indicating that the address published is an address that was publicly available etc.

This is unbelievable.

And the Daily Mail headline referring to this bloke as 'internet troll' is also a disgusting abuse and attack on free speech and civil liberties.

Tabloid sensationalisation & tabloid smear or vilification adds to the media propaganda that leads to further loss of civil liberties and additional totalitarian censorship, as it misinforms, influences and shapes NEGATIVE public opinion, and eventually leads to a public that is more WILLING to accept these ludicrous infringements.

---

JESUS!

Plain clothes detectives -- on tape -- kicking down the door!!!!

Stitched up with images!!!  Crown dropped case.

Judge refuses to hand over forensic 'evidence' re Spivey computer!!







January 18, 2016

Western Justice System Backs US & Five Eyes' Totalitarianism Serving US Corporate Agenda: US Government Legal Theft - Kim Dotcom

Article
SOURCE
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150326/18041530458/how-us-government-legally-stole-millions-kim-dotcom.shtml

Western Justice System Backs US & Five Eyes' Totalitarianism / Serving US Corporate Agenda: US Government Legal Theft - Kim Dotcom 
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150326/18041530458/how-us-government-legally-stole-millions-kim-dotcom.shtml

How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom

by Mike Masnick  |  Fri, Mar 27th 2015 10:36am

from the the-fun-of-asset-forfeiture dept


About a month ago we covered the basics of the lawsuit by which the US government was seeking to keep pretty much all of Kim Dotcom's assets, despite the fact that Dotcom himself hasn't been tried -- and, in fact, it hasn't even been determined if he can be extradited to the United States (a country he's never visited). This week, that case took another step, with the judge, Liam O'Grady, who had already ruled that Kim Dotcom could be considered a "fugitive," more or less finalizing the theft of Dotcom's assets by declaring a default judgment in favor of the US. This isn't the end of the process (not by a longshot), but it highlights just how the US government can use some ridiculous procedures to steal millions in assets from someone who hasn't been shown to be guilty of anything.

As we discussed last time, the story of the raid on Kim Dotcom's rented home in New Zealand, the seizure of all of his cars, money, bank accounts, computers, servers, etc. is well known. That was part of a case for which Kim Dotcom was indicted (under what appears to be questionable legal reasoning -- but that's a separate issue). As has been widely reported, that case is still on hold while Dotcom fights extradition from New Zealand. The extradition fight will finally go to a New Zealand court later this summer. Once that's done, if Dotcom loses, he'll be sent to the US, where he'll face a criminal trial based on the indictment.

But this is actually separate from all of that. You see, when the US government grabbed or froze all of Dotcom's assets, they did so using an asset seizure procedure. Asset seizure is allowed in such cases, but the government then has to give that property back. What the government really wanted to do is keep all of Dotcom's tens of millions of dollars worth of assets -- and in order to do that it has to go through a separate process, known as civil asset forfeiture. It's technically a civil (not criminal) case, but (and here's the part that people find most confusing), it's not actually filed against Kim Dotcom at all, but rather against his stuff that the government already seized. Yes, it's technically an entirely separate lawsuit, that was only filed last summer (two and a half years after the government seized all of his stuff and shut down his company), entitled United States Of America v. All Assets Listed In Attachment A, And All Interest, Benefits, And Assets Traceable Thereto. And, as we noted last time, Attachment A is basically all of Kim Dotcom's stuff.

This whole process is known as an "in rem" proceeding -- meaning a lawsuit "against a thing" rather than against a person. And the "case" basically says all this stuff should be "forfeited" to the US government because it's the proceeds of some criminal activity. You would think that in order for such civil asset forfeiture to go forward, you'd then have to show something like a criminal conviction proving that the assets in question were, in fact, tied to criminal activity. You'd be wrong -- as is clear from what happened in this very case. Once the Justice Department effectively filed a lawsuit against "all of Kim Dotcom's money and stuff," Dotcom did what you're supposed to do in that situation and filed a challenge to such a ridiculous situation. And here the DOJ used the fact that Dotcom was fighting extradition to argue that he was a "fugitive." Judge O'Grady agreed with that last month, and that resulted in the decision earlier this week to then declare a "default judgment" in favor of the DOJ, and giving the US government all of Kim Dotcom's stuff.

A "default judgment?" As you know if you regularly read Techdirt, that's usually what happens when a defendant simply ignores a court case filed against him. As the court notes in this ruling, for that to happen in a civil asset forfeiture case, it means no one tried to block the claim:
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 permits the court to grant a motion for default judgment when the well-pled allegations of the complaint establish plaintiff's entitlement to relief, and where a defendant has failed to plead or defend as provided by the rules.... In the civil forfeiture context, default judgment is permitted where no potential claimant has filed a response to the complaint...

    A defendant in default, and a claimant who fails to assert a claim in rem, is deemed to have admitted all of the plaintiff's well-pled allegations of fact, which then form the basis for the judgment in the plaintiff's favor.
But, wait, you say: Kim Dotcom did file a complaint about the asset forfeiture, so how could a default judgment happen here? That's where the whole "fugitive" bit comes in. Because Dotcom won't come to the US, he's been deemed a fugitive, and thus the Judge simply hands over all of his stuff to the US government. And thus, without any sort of criminal conviction at all, the US gets to steal millions of dollars from Dotcom.
If that sounds insane, you're absolutely right. And, again, it is entirely possible that when all of this is over, Kim Dotcom will be found guilty of "criminal conspiracy." If that's the case, then at that point it's reasonable to discuss whether the government should get to keep all of his stuff. But it seems an absolute travesty of concepts like due process for the government to be able to take all of his money and stuff based on purely procedural reasons having to do with a separate criminal case that hasn't even been tried yet.

The process isn't over yet. Dotcom can still appeal this ruling, though the real problem is with the civil asset forfeiture process, rather than how it was applied in this particular case. Dotcom also has other options for the assets that are in New Zealand and Hong Kong, in using the local courts in those places to try to block the transfer of those assets to the US government. Not knowing enough about the law in either place, it's difficult to say what the chances of success of such a strategy would be. Either way, this seems like a classic case demonstrating how the civil asset forfeiture process appears to be little more than legalized theft by the US government.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150326/18041530458/how-us-government-legally-stole-millions-kim-dotcom.shtml

Kim Dotcom
RAID
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmObwguVmEI

---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

Kim Dotcom
Mr President



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MokNvbiRqCM





---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------


COMMENT

Seizing assets also:

1)  disrupts target's business activities; and

2)  impacts on (or blocks) a target's capacity to mount a legal defence.

This is legal and assets rape by US government & its Five Eyes allies.

US is otherwise well known for asset rape, because US interests control key financial institutions post WWII.
Capital Punishment 
almost $9 billion fine

BNP Paribas (France)
highest-ever fine imposed on a foreign bank by US regulators
for breaking American imposed sanctions
ie  doing business with Cuba, Iran & Sudan
"A second source of discontent—in Europe, at any rate—is that the case appears to be an example of America throwing its financial weight around, using the threat of withholding access to its market and currency to force compliance with its own priorities. The French central bank sent a clear message that, whatever the rights and wrongs of BNP’s behaviour, crippling so large a European bank could harm the world’s financial system, as well as a region struggling for growth."

LINK | more (Paribas) & read between the lines

To my way of thinking, the US is forcing private, foreign institutions to back US (plutocratic, corporate-bought & controlled, special interest lobby groups & US elites), driven punitive economic force / blackmail-style foreign policy, or suffer assets rape by USA controlled financial & other institutions.
That's crap.  Why don't all foreign institutions just bail and do their own thing, cutting out the US money-controlling middleman? 


October 05, 2015

Western Prisoners of Technotyranny of Shadow Governments in the Service of Corporate Elites

Article
SOURCE
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_nsas_technotyranny_one_nation_under_surveillance



The NSA’s Technotyranny: One Nation Under Surveillance

By John W. Whitehead
May 26, 2015

    “The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.”—William Binney, NSA whistleblower

We now have a fourth branch of government.

As I document in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this fourth branch came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum, and yet it possesses superpowers, above and beyond those of any other government agency save the military. It is all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful. It operates beyond the reach of the president, Congress and the courts, and it marches in lockstep with the corporate elite who really call the shots in Washington, DC.

You might know this branch of government as Surveillance, but I prefer “technotyranny,” a term coined by investigative journalist James Bamford to refer to an age of technological tyranny made possible by government secrets, government lies, government spies and their corporate ties.

Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it will all be recorded, stored and used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing. Privacy, as we have known it, is dead.

The police state is about to pass off the baton to the surveillance state.

Having already transformed local police into extensions of the military, the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the FBI are preparing to turn the nation’s soldier cops into techno-warriors, complete with iris scanners, body scanners, thermal imaging Doppler radar devices, facial recognition programs, license plate readers, cell phone Stingray devices and so much more.

This is about to be the new face of policing in America.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has been a perfect red herring, distracting us from the government’s broader, technology-driven campaign to render us helpless in the face of its prying eyes. In fact, long before the NSA became the agency we loved to hate, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration were carrying out their own secret mass surveillance on an unsuspecting populace.

Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. Then there are the fusion and counterterrorism centers that gather all of the data from the smaller government spies—the police, public health officials, transportation, etc.—and make it accessible for all those in power. And of course that doesn’t even begin to touch on the complicity of the corporate sector, which buys and sells us from cradle to grave, until we have no more data left to mine.

The raging debate over the fate of the NSA’s blatantly unconstitutional, illegal and ongoing domestic surveillance programs is just so much noise, what Shakespeare referred to as “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

It means nothing: the legislation, the revelations, the task forces, and the filibusters.

The government is not giving up, nor is it giving in. It has stopped listening to us. It has long since ceased to take orders from “we the people.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, none of it—the military drills, the surveillance, the militarized police, the strip searches, the random pat downs, the stop-and-frisks, even the police-worn body camerasis about fighting terrorism. It’s about controlling the populace.

Despite the fact that its data snooping has been shown to be ineffective at detecting, let alone stopping, any actual terror attacks, the NSA continues to operate largely in secret, carrying out warrantless mass surveillance on hundreds of millions of Americans’ phone calls, emails, text messages and the like, beyond the scrutiny of most of Congress and the taxpayers who are forced to fund its multi-billion dollar secret black ops budget.

Legislation such as the USA Patriot Act serves only to legitimize the actions of a secret agency run by a shadow government. Even the proposed and ultimately defeated USA Freedom Act, which purported to restrict the reach of the NSA’s phone surveillance program—at least on paper—by requiring the agency to secure a warrant before surveillance could be carried out on American citizens and prohibiting the agency from storing any data collected on Americans, amounted to little more than a paper tiger: threatening in appearance, but lacking any real bite.

The question of how to deal with the NSA—an agency that operates outside of the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution—is a divisive issue that polarizes even those who have opposed the NSA’s warrantless surveillance from the get-go, forcing all of us—cynics, idealists, politicians and realists alike—to grapple with a deeply unsatisfactory and dubious political “solution” to a problem that operates beyond the reach of voters and politicians: how do you trust a government that lies, cheats, steals, sidesteps the law, and then absolves itself of wrongdoing to actually obey the law?

Since its official start in 1952, when President Harry S. Truman issued a secret executive order establishing the NSA as the hub of the government’s foreign intelligence activities, the agency—nicknamed “No Such Agency”—has operated covertly, unaccountable to Congress all the while using taxpayer dollars to fund its secret operations. It was only when the agency ballooned to 90,000 employees in 1969, making it the largest intelligence agency in the world with a significant footprint outside Washington, DC, that it became more difficult to deny its existence.

In the aftermath of Watergate in 1975, the Senate held meetings under the Church Committee in order to determine exactly what sorts of illicit activities the American intelligence apparatus was engaged in under the direction of President Nixon, and how future violations of the law could be stopped. It was the first time the NSA was exposed to public scrutiny since its creation.

The investigation revealed a sophisticated operation whose surveillance programs paid little heed to such things as the Constitution. For instance, under Project SHAMROCK, the NSA spied on telegrams to and from the U.S., as well as the correspondence of American citizens. Moreover, as the Saturday Evening Post reports, “Under Project MINARET, the NSA monitored the communications of civil rights leaders and opponents of the Vietnam War, including targets such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohammed Ali, Jane Fonda, and two active U.S. Senators. The NSA had launched this program in 1967 to monitor suspected terrorists and drug traffickers, but successive presidents used it to track all manner of political dissidents.

Senator Frank Church (D-Ida.), who served as the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence that investigated the NSA, understood only too well the dangers inherent in allowing the government to overstep its authority in the name of national security. Church recognized that such surveillance powers “at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.”

Noting that the NSA could enable a dictator “to impose total tyranny” upon an utterly defenseless American public, Church declared that he did not “want to see this country ever go across the bridge” of constitutional protection, congressional oversight and popular demand for privacy. He avowed that “we,” implicating both Congress and its constituency in this duty, “must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

The result was the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the creation of the FISA Court, which was supposed to oversee and correct how intelligence information is collected and collated. The law requires that the NSA get clearance from the FISA Court, a secret surveillance court, before it can carry out surveillance on American citizens. Fast forward to the present day, and the so-called solution to the problem of government entities engaging in unjustified and illegal surveillance—the FISA Court—has unwittingly become the enabler of such activities, rubberstamping almost every warrant request submitted to it.

The 9/11 attacks served as a watershed moment in our nation’s history, ushering in an era in which immoral and/or illegal government activities such as surveillance, torture, strip searches, SWAT team raids are sanctioned as part of the quest to keep us “safe.”

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush secretly authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance on Americans’ phone calls and emails. That wireless wiretap program was reportedly ended in 2007 after the New York Times reported on it, to mass indignation.

Nothing changed under Barack Obama. In fact, the violations worsened, with the NSA authorized to secretly collect internet and telephone data on millions of Americans, as well as on foreign governments.

It was only after whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 that the American people fully understood the extent to which they had been betrayed once again.

What this brief history of the NSA makes clear is that you cannot reform the NSA.

As long as the government is allowed to make a mockery of the law—be it the Constitution, the FISA Act or any other law intended to limit its reach and curtail its activities—and is permitted to operate behind closed doors, [relying] on secret courts, secret budgets and secret interpretations of the laws of the land, there will be no reform.

Presidents, politicians, and court rulings have come and gone over the course of the NSA’s 60-year history, but none of them have done much to put an end to the NSA’s “technotyranny.

The beast has outgrown its chains. It will not be restrained.

The growing tension seen and felt throughout the country is a tension between those who wield power on behalf of the government—the president, Congress, the courts, the military, the militarized police, the technocrats, the faceless unelected bureaucrats who blindly obey and carry out government directives, no matter how immoral or unjust, and the corporations—and those among the populace who are finally waking up to the mounting injustices, seething corruption and endless tyrannies that are transforming our country into a technocrized police state.

At every turn, we have been handicapped in our quest for transparency, accountability and a representative democracy by an establishment culture of secrecy: secret agencies, secret experiments, secret military bases, secret surveillance, secret budgets, and secret court rulings, all of which exist beyond our reach, operate outside our knowledge, and do not answer to “we the people.”

What we have failed to truly comprehend is that the NSA is merely one small part of a shadowy permanent government comprised of unelected bureaucrats who march in lockstep with profit-driven corporations that actually runs Washington, DC, and works to keep us under surveillance and, thus, under control. For example, Google openly works with the NSA, Amazon has built a massive $600 million intelligence database for the CIA, and the telecommunications industry is making a fat profit by spying on us for the government.

In other words, Corporate America is making a hefty profit by aiding and abetting the government in its domestic surveillance efforts. Conveniently, as the Intercept recently revealed, many of the NSA’s loudest defenders have financial ties to NSA contractors.

Thus, if this secret regime not only exists but thrives, it is because we have allowed it through our ignorance, apathy and naïve trust in politicians who take their orders from Corporate America rather than the Constitution.

If this shadow government persists, it is because we have yet to get outraged enough to push back against its power grabs and put an end to its high-handed tactics.

And if this unelected bureaucracy succeeds in trampling underfoot our last vestiges of privacy and freedom, it will be because we let ourselves be fooled into believing that politics matters, that voting makes a difference, that politicians actually represent the citizenry, that the courts care about justice, and that everything that is being done is in our best interests.

Indeed, as political scientist Michael J. Glennon warns, you can vote all you want, but the people you elect aren’t actually the ones calling the shots. “The American people are deluded … that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy,” stated Glennon. “They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. But … policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter who occupies the White House: the secret government with its secret agencies, secret budgets and secret programs won’t change. It will simply continue to operate in secret until some whistleblower comes along to momentarily pull back the curtain and we dutifully—and fleetingly—play the part of the outraged public, demanding accountability and rattling our cages, all the while bringing about little real reform.

Thus, the lesson of the NSA and its vast network of domestic spy partners is simply this: once you allow the government to start breaking the law, no matter how seemingly justifiable the reason, you relinquish the contract between you and the government which establishes that the government works for and obeys you, the citizen—the employer—the master.

Once the government starts operating outside the law, answerable to no one but itself, there’s no way to rein it back in, short of revolution. And by revolution, I mean doing away with the entire structure, because the corruption and lawlessness have become that pervasive.
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_nsas_technotyranny_one_nation_under_surveillance


---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

COMMENT

I switched my attention to another topic because the mass non-European invasion in Europe was seriously freaking me out, while the events in Israel were also beginning to do my head in.  But reading this is just as depressing.
What applies in the US, applies elsewhere.  It's just different nations and different agencies, operating in much the same way and in cooperation with their US counterparts and allies (see Five Eyes & note the German BND cooperation with US spying, along with the Five Eyes partners).

It sounds like all ordinary people are doomed to being controlled by shadow unelected governments, that are operating in the service of the corporate elite's interests, and evidently a law unto themselves.

Can't see a revolution coming any time soon, so we're all prisoners and the entire Western democratic government edifice is a lie.





August 16, 2015

USA - LAPD & Chicago PD - Militarised Police - Dirtbox (Fake Cell Phone Tower) Decade-long Dragnet Surveillance - Challenged by Civil Liberties Groups


LAPD Has Had “Stingray on Steroids” Surveillance Equipment for a Decade
Back to News
submit to reddit
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
An older version of seldom-seen "dirtbox"

Secret Stingray cellphone surveillance technology, deployed by police departments without warrants across the country, gets all the publicity.

But the real deal is “Stingray on steroids” technology called “dirtbox” and The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) says cops in Los Angeles and Chicago have had it for a decade. Like Stingray, the device mimics cellphone towers to connect and monitor mobile devices. But dirtbox can monitor multiple signals at a time, breaking encryption as it goes, sweeping up data in a dragnet whose scale is unknown beyond its users.

Devices like dirtbox were first developed for the military and intelligence agencies. Digital Research Technology, Inc. (DRT), purchased by giant defense contractor Boeing in 2008, started as Utica Systems in 1980, manufacturing devices for the “communications surveillance community.”

Dirtboxes are popular among the U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. And documents obtained by Edward Snowden indicate they are used extensively by U.S. spy agencies.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) purchased the equipment in 2005 with a $260,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, according to CIR. Chicago purchased theirs with money gleaned from asset forfeiture cases. Both cities also deploy Stingrays.

The accelerated militarization of local police since 9/11 has contributed to the widespread use of cell-site stimulator technology by local cops. An estimated 40 or 50 agencies use Stingrays, but there is no way to get an accurate count.

Law enforcement agencies sign nondisclosure agreements with the manufacturer, Harris Corporation, which they are loathe to talk about, making court oversight problematic. It also doesn't help that the Obama administration has been advising local authorities to obscure use of the surveillance, which they have done. Prosecutors have dropped cases before releasing Stingray information.

Dirtboxes have flown even more under the radar than Stingrays. CIR said its report on Chicago and Los Angeles was the first to reveal use of the technology by domestic law enforcement. LAPD refused to produce documents requested in February through the California Public Records Act.

The Wall Street Journal wrote last December about the U.S. Marshals Service regularly flying dirtboxes around in Cessnas in at least five metropolitan areas. That kind of mass surveillance, with little discussion of warrants, raises Constitutional questions the courts are just beginning to address. The small boxes seem ideal for drone deployment.

The Journal could only guess at what the Marshals are looking for—they do track fugitives—but said they also take target requests from the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ).

Civil libertarians have been making noise in court over cell-site simulators. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed lawsuits seeking Stingray information in Anaheim and Sacramento, and the First Amendment Coalition filed a lawsuit in San Diego.
SOURCE
http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/top-stories/lapd-has-had-stingray-on-steroids-surveillance-equipment-for-a-decade-150812?news=857184

---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

COMMENT

I've come across this before.

Chicago Police sound really full-on from what little I've read.

How deceitful, hypocritical and totalitarian is this?

US claims to be the land of the 'free' and 'democratic', and look what's going on there. 

Never mind 'Stingray on Steroids'; this is state surveillance / state control on steroids.  Totalitarian USA.

No end to violations of civil liberties.

I don't know if 'dirtboxes' are the same as fake phone towers.

Looks like it's the same deal:
A dirtbox (or DRT box) is a cell site simulator; a phone device mimicking a cell phone tower. The device is designed to create a signal strong enough within a short range so as to force dormant mobile phones to automatically switch over to it. [wikipedia]
I've not read the rest of the Wikipedia entry; I've just captured that off the search summary.

At least the civil liberties people are trying to challenge the practices (which have gone on for a decade).

What's really shocking is the absence of disclosure and lack of court oversight, even though the US constitution is supposed to guarantee various civil liberties.







March 28, 2015

British Undercover Police Surveillance of Unions & Collusion in Blacklisting 1,000 Workers


MIRROR ARTICLE

Police 'spying' whistleblower admits to MPs that he infiltrated six trade unions

    18:41, 13 March 2015
    By Mark Ellis , Steve Doohan

The revelation by former Special Demonstration Squad officer Peter Francis has piled further pressure on Home Secretary Theresa May to widen inquiry into undercover policing

[ ... ]
Pressure: Unions want Home Secretary Theresa May's inquiry into undercover policing to cover a wider remit

An undercover cop turned whistleblower has admitted to MPs for the first time that he spied on six unions.

The revelation by Peter Francis, a former officer with the Metropolitan Police's controversial Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), has piled pressure on the government to widen the remit of a judge-led public inquiry.

Campaigners and union leaders claim the move is the only way to discover the extent of police involvement and collusion in the blacklisting of thousands of construction workers.

Home Secretary Theresa May this week ordered an investigation into undercover police work and the SDS over the last 40 years by Appeal Court judge, Lord Justice Pitchford,

Speaking at a House of Commons reception, Mr Francis admitted that he spied on the National Union of Students, Unison, the National Union of Teachers, the building workers’ union UCATT, the firefighter’s union FBU and the Communication Workers’ Union.

He said it was an opportunity to “unreservedly apologise” to all the union members he spied on and he said the Home Secretary’s investigation must look into blacklisting and police collusion.

Blacklisting came to light when in 2009 the Information Commissioner’s Office seized a database of names of 3,213 construction workers and environmental activists.

It was held by the now-closed down Consulting Association (TCA) and its files were used by 44 companies to vet new recruits and block trade union and health and safety activists from getting jobs.

Mr Francis added: ”Police spying on political activists has destroyed lives and that I, most unfortunately and regrettably, played a part in this.”

GMB national officer Justin Bowden said “The decision by Peter Francis to blow the whistle on undercover police spying on five further unions is to be congratulated.

“Until all the information about the undercover spying activities of the police is fully in the public domain, and the police held to account for their activities, trust cannot even begin to be restored.

“The latest revelations from Peter Francis highlight exactly why it is essential that Lord Justice Pitchford’s inquiry into undercover policing and the operation of the Metropolitan Police’s controversial Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), must also include blacklisting.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-spying-whistleblower-admits-mps-5329601



Thought this was a pretty cool article because it exposes police interference with groups exercising their political and other basic rights in Britain.

Government might play at (a) being distanced and (b) conducting an enquiry, but the police force is under the control of the government and I don't buy for one minute that this is the work of some rogue police unit that's not accountable to those above, all the way to politicians and intelligence personnel.

This is just more of the same; only they've got caught.

Interesting to see who has been targeted.  It looks like the British authorities go after just about any kind of target - ie the harassment is wide-sweeping.

Blacklisting is an added *ugly* factor.  Hope the people affected by this get a nice, big payout.
Regardless of the inquiry, don't expect anything to change.