Hollywood & CIA - Zero Dark Thirty; WikiLeaks - The Sony Archives; WikiLeaks - TPP - Investor Chapter

Exclusive: New Documents in Zero Dark Thirty Affair Raise Questions of White House-Sanctioned Intelligence Leak and Inspector General Coverup April 16, 2015 | By: Adam Zagorin By Adam Zagorin Critics have assailed the movie Zero Dark Thirty, charging that it fictionalized key elements of the ten-year hunt for Osama bin Laden and falsely credited the use of torture as being essential to locating the terrorist. But the factual liberties filmmakers took are only part of the story. Now, a document newly obtained by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) reveals more about the high-level government access Hollywood filmmakers had during their research—and what happened at the top of the CIA, including the Agency’s use of White House-approved talking points to brief the filmmakers specifically about intelligence used to locate the al Qaeda leader. That intelligence, according to the CIA and as portrayed in the film, was extracted using coercive techniques including waterboarding, an assertion that has emerged as a major point of contention between the CIA and Members of Congress from both parties. Indeed, leading U.S. Senators have blasted as false the movie’s depiction of torture as key to tracking down bin Laden. Many details are unknown, but the possibility that White House-approved talking points may have been a prime source for the portrayal of how he was located puts Zero Dark Thirty’s inaccuracies in a troubling light. ...there was “[r]emoval of CIA information” from the report on the same day that another document indicates she met with then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and discussed the report. A little-noticed email citing White House-approved talking points surfaced in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch in 2012, as did what is apparently another White House account of the raid. But it appears the document obtained by POGO references a different White House-approved narrative. The material uncovered by Judicial Watch does not refer specifically to intelligence that led to bin Laden’s location; the document obtained by POGO does. The additional information appears in a never-issued 15-page draft version of a report prepared by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD IG) and marked “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” The report was requested by then-Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Peter King (R-NY) shortly after bin Laden’s killing in May 2011 to determine whether filmmakers received “top-level access to the most classified mission in history.”  Trouble in a Timeline Especially disturbing are the lengths to which DoD’s then-Acting Inspector General Lynne Halbrooks went to suppress details of the collaboration between Hollywood and the CIA. POGO also obtained an official timeline of the investigation. It shows  Official Photo of Lynne Halbrooks there was “[r]emoval of CIA information” from the report on the same day that another document indicates she met with then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and discussed the report. Panetta was CIA Director during the bin Laden raid, and the highest-ranking subject of Halbrooks’ probe. Halbrooks ultimately issued a sanitized account of what happened and withheld the embarrassing material from Congress and the public. That material, uncovered during months of research, led to the conclusion that Leon Panetta, as CIA Director, and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers had conveyed ultra-sensitive, legally protected information to the makers of Zero Dark Thirty. After six years in the DoD IG’s Office, Halbrooks last week announced her resignation effective April 17. Shortly afterward, current IG Jon Rymer sent an email to DoD IG staff hailing her as his “closest advisor.” Rymer has appeared as disinterested as Halbrooks in telling the full story of what happened. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.pogo.org/our-work/articles/2015/new-documents-in-zero-dark-thirty-affair-raise-questions.html COMMENT This stood out as interesting, but I'm not sure why.  LOL The collaboration between Hollywood & the CIA, as well as the falsely credited torture (ie pro torture propaganda) and the cover-up (to hide information from the public) probably sums up the whole Hollywood and CIA / USG collaboration ... which is a propaganda instrument, like something out of Nazi Germany. In other news: WikiLeaks Publish The Sony Archives in searchable format ties to White House / TPP LINK https://wikileaks.org/sony/press/ WikiLeaks also recently published an additional chapter (Investor Chapter) of the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership  Agreement ('TPP'): TPP US free trade treaty: Latest WikiLeaks Release TPP - Investor Chapter https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/ I'm a bit slow to catch on.  Didn't realise until several days after the release how important the WikiLeaks TPP release really is, seeing politicians/governments are actively keeping their 'slave' populations ignorant of matters that impact on them hugely. Secret negotiations have spanned years, and the free trade agreement is earmarked for secrecy for several years (even after it is adopted).  At the same time, this agreement affects 40% of the world's economy, grants corporations sweeping rights, affects national sovereignty / policy making capacity of government at all levels, and impacts detrimentally on matters of public interest in numerous ways; but this has been kept secret while governments prepare to sign away rights to big business and adopt crippling obligations affecting taxpayers. The TPP free trade agreement only focuses 5 chapters of 29 on trade:  the rest of its focus is on corporate protectionism. Hollywood Swinging Hard for Trans-Pacific Partnership Hollywood moguls and the vast majority of leftist entertainers have joined forces in a last-ditch effort to bully wavering Democratic lawmakers into backing President Obama’s fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as the centerpiece of what he calls his “pro-trade agenda.” TPP is so controversial that the Administration has refused to show anyone the document. But what it does do is “trade” the right for U.S. entertainment interests to gain lucrative enhanced-copyright protections with 12 nations, in exchange for the elimination of all tariffs that punish unfair business practices. EXTRACT http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/04/09/hollywood-swinging-hard-for-trans-pacific-partnership/

LIB-LABOR Stasi State: Mandatory Mass Surveillance of Australians & TPP

Mandatory data retention passes Australian parliament Summary: The government and Labor have jointly ensured that the telecommunications data of all Australians will be retained for two years for warrantless access by law-enforcement agencies. By Josh Taylor | March 26, 2015 -- 07:40 GMT (18:40 AEDT) Follow @joshgnosis The Australian government has relied on the votes of the Labor opposition to pass legislation on Thursday that will force telecommunications companies to retain customer data for two years for warrantless access by law enforcement. The legislation -- which will see call records, assigned IP addresses, location information, billing information, and other customer data stored for two years -- passed the Senate on Thursday with the support of Labor senators. The government and Labor shot down over a dozen amendments from the Greens, and several amendments from crossbench senators including those from David Leyonhjelm, Dio Wang, and Nick Xenophon. The amendments would have forced the data to be held in Australia, would have required warrants for all accessing of the data, and would have limited the storage to three months -- bringing Australia closer into line with international standards. Instead, the government agreed to a number of amendments from Labor, including requiring a warrant for accessing the data of a journalist for the purpose of identifying a source. The government will appoint a "public interest advocate" to argue on behalf of journalists -- who won't be aware that their data has been sought by law enforcement. There was also intended to be an amendment limiting access to the data for the purposes of civil litigation, but Attorney-General George Brandis on Thursday admitted that through third-party access orders and subpoenas, data could be made available through the court for cases such as copyright infringement. In the end, the Bill was condemned by Leyonhjelm, and Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, but ultimately passed 43 to 16. The Bill will need to be returned to the House to agree to the amendments, but with a government majority this is a mere formality. The legislation passed without the Australian public knowing the cost of the scheme to telcos to build systems to store the data, nor how much the government intends to contribute to the set-up. Earlier in the week, Brandis revealed that the cost per customer per year for the operation of the scheme will be $4, but the cost of building the systems, contained in a confidential PricewaterhouseCoopers report, remains unknown. Brandis said the government's contribution will be detailed in the Budget in May. Telecommunications companies will be given 18 months after the legislation is passed into law to get systems in place in order to comply with the legislation. Armed with a degree in Computer Science and a Masters in Journalism, Josh keeps a close eye on the telecommunications industry, the National Broadband Network, and all the goings on in government IT. Follow @joshgnosis http://www.zdnet.com/article/mandatory-data-retention-passes-australian-parliament/ COMMENT This isn't what a democratic government is for; this is a totalitarian state in action. Note: (1) MASS surveillance; and (2) WARRANTLESS access to data.  The Liberals and the Labor party have sold out every single Australian with this data retention legislation. Data retention is not only a totalitarian violation of civil liberties; it also exposes all Australians to third-party legal action (based on evidence obtained from data retained by internet service provider Stasi deputies). Personal data of Australians will not even be retained on Australian soil and there is no provision for regulating the destruction of that data: WHAT HAPPENS TO DATA THAT IS STORED AFTER THE MANDATORY RETENTION PERIOD? The new laws do not prescribe any rules for the de-identification or destruction of the retained data after the expiry of the two-year retention period. [Lexology] Furthermore, Australian taxpayers will foot the bill twice over for the 'privilege' of having their civil liberties pissed trampled on by bent, corporate serving politicians, aiming to maintain an iron grip on the freedom of all Australians, as taxpayers shall pay for:  (a) the undisclosed federal government contribution to this totalitarian surveillance scheme; and (b) the service provider costs that shall pass onto consumers. The driving force imposing this totalitarian state in Australia, is the practical alliance between the Liberals and their Labor Party sidekicks. Imagine what politicians are hiding from the public when they're targeting journalists with surveillance and secret probes into forcibly collected data. This isn't about national security; this is about control:  control of the press and control of the people, by politicians who serve American and corporate interests, without regard for public welfare or standards of acceptable conduct - which is why whistleblowers, and whistleblower publishers such as WikiLeaks, are important.  Just look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership 'free trade' agreement ('TPP') that government has hidden from public view during several years of negotiations.  What a rort.  They're negotiating away Australia's rights and democracy, and on a course to assign national sovereignty to the very corporations that politicians serve. It's thanks to WikiLeaks - and NOT these corrupt government actors, who dodge transparency and accountability - that the public has even come to know the contents of the SECRET TPP document.  So what does that tell us about the political order in Western democracies, and what does that say about government witch-hunts, criticism and propaganda unleashed at the independent publisher, WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange? The Lib-Labor Stasi, corporate-serving practical political alliance, is about to sell out Australia by signing up ALL Australian as subjects of the TPP (unregulated trade) agreement, which is a vehicle for corporate management of federal, state and local policies.   Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Investment Chapter WikiLeaks Link - here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TPP a corporate-managed FTA Signs away democracy & sovereign rights [12:26]  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qaY46i0ECw8  VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT NEXT ELECTION )))   BILL SHORTEN   (((  2009 audition to US Consul General * Criticises Union Movement * #WikiLeaks - here. VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT NEXT ELECTION Hmmmm ... think I might get a bit melodramatic when I come across news that particularly annoys me. I've come back to edit 'pissed on' to 'trampled on'.  LOL

US - 'Partnerships' - NATO - Trade - US Imperialism - War - Death for Profit

"Monday, 28 July 2014 16:52 Another Way To Police the World Written by John F. McManus Another Way To Police the World On Sunday, July 27th, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared on the CBS “Face the Nation” program and said something the American people wanted to hear. She then promptly contradicted her own pronouncement. After agreeing that “the world is a mess,” and that its current travails are less important to most Americans, she registered her opinion that the people in our nation don’t want the U.S. “to be the world’s policemen.” Amen to that! But Albright, who probably would never have come even close to expressing that conclusion when she was holding her high office (during the final years of the Clinton presidency, 1997-2001), followed her sound assessment of the thinking of most Americans by completely reversing it. She said, “What has to happen is we need to really work harder on partnerships.” Partnerships? Wouldn’t partnerships with other nations involve us in whatever squabble any one of them might find themselves? George Washington urged that our nation “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Thomas Jefferson cautioned against “entangling alliances.” John Quincy Adams stated that America’s policy should not have us roaming the earth “seeking monsters to destroy.” But Madeleine Albright wants our nation to tighten relationships with other countries via “partnerships” which are the very opposite of the wise counsel given by America’s early leaders. In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson led the charge that persuaded Congress to approve the creation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Originally linking the United States and Canada with 14 European nations, the treaty has been expanded in recent years to include a total of 28 nations — with others clamoring to sign up. NATO’s 14 brief articles include this whopper: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” Not only that, the treaty makes note of the fact that the organization derives its authority to exist from the Charter of the United Nations that requires all of the alliance’s actions to be duly reported to the world body. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is a NATO project. Whatever happens or fails to happen there is NATO’s call, and the current leader of NATO is Denmark’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The alliance’s Military Commander is General Knud Bartles, also from Denmark. Talk about a “far cry” from the thinking of America’s early leaders. Albright pointed to the Ukraine crisis without noting that the United States is already involved through supplying weaponry to that nation’s government. And Ukraine’s officials have already expressed interest in joining NATO. They obviously want the United States committed to being their defender. What do treaties like NATO produce? It’s worth noting that the U.S. Constitution’s required congressional declaration of war before militarily entering a conflict got bypassed in the Vietnam struggle. The U.S. involvement there obtained its authorization from a NATO duplicate called SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). What our forces did or were prevented from doing in that costly struggle was determined by SEATO. The favored policy of America should be “non-intervention.” It’s not isolationism; it’s good sense. A final curious note must be mentioned here. Albright’s choice of the word “partnership” likely was deliberate. U.S. leaders are promoting passage of economic partnerships with the European Union (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; TTIP) and Asian/Pacific nations (Trans-Pacific Partnership; TPP). Just as NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] unnecessarily involved our nation in many ways with Canada and Mexico, these new “partnerships” would entangle the United States with many more nations economically and politically while diluting sovereignty even further. Passage of both should be blocked. But be forewarned: The word “partnership” is the current coverup for treaty, alliance, or free trade agreement. And Madeleine Albright, who really favors more entanglements, surely knows why she chose it. John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New American. This column appeared originally at the insideJBS blog and is reprinted here with permission." Source - The New American - here. More like 'another way to pillage the world'. No chance of US foregoing any of the joys of 'partnership', or abandoning NATO or any of the tools that serve corporate American interests. So if corporate America goes to war; heed the call and die for global corporate profits.