VIDEO - Pilger / Assange Interview

John Pilger in conversation with Julian Assange from John Pilger on Vimeo. 2015 - 'The Coming War' - Contribute to John Pilger's new documentary project here bit.ly/PilgerMovie Watching this at the moment ... Pilger just said "motherf*ckers".  Wasn't expecting that.  LOL Might have to rewind and watch properly because I've been distracted by editing this post. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PART SUMMARY Sweden & Belgium have specific [journalist] source protection laws. Sweden as part of its constitution (Press Freedom Act) & Belgium pursuant to specific law dealing with communications protections between a source and a journalist (using any means whatsoever, including electronic transmissions). Governments that have blocked access to WikiLeaks? China is the worst offender (with the most aggressive, sophisticated interception technology that places itself in between every reader inside of China and every information source outside of China.   WikiLeaks have been fighting a running battle to make sure that information can get through.  Variations on the site address -  'wikileaks.org' - are accessible from China, although main site access is blocked. Iran has previously blocked WikiLeaks as well.  However, that block has been lifted in Iran. The Australian government has added WikiLeaks to their secret list of internet sites that are to be blocked once a national filter system is put in place. Australia and Germany are the only Western governments that have sought to block internet access to WikiLeaks [as at date of interview - 2011].   Like most institutions in the West, CENSORSHIP HAS BEEN PRIVATISED, meaning that: Big corporations go through court system to get injunctions and use the COERCIVE POWER of the STATE and the ability to deploy ARMED POLICE to ENFORCE a court order — they use the court apparatus to do that.

SYRIA - "Humanitarians for War in Syria (Part 2) About Those Chlorine Gas Attacks in Syria" [RICK STERLING Article]

Weekend Edition April 3-5, 2015 Humanitarians for War in Syria (Part Two) About Those Chlorine Gas Attacks in Syria by RICK STERLING With allegations of chlorine gas attacks in Syria on March 16, some humanitarian groups have called for a “No Fly Zone” over part of Syria. I believe this is reckless and dangerous and will explain why. Part 1 of this article was published on March 31. It documented the campaign by Avaaz and others for a “No Fly Zone” in Syria and contrasted the promises with the consequences in Libya. Part 2 examines the allegations of chlorine gas attacks in Syria, what various organizations are doing and saying and where major violations of international law are occurring. Humanitarians Pushing for Intervention We have a strange situation where “human rights” groups are demanding foreign intervention in Syria via a “No Fly Zone” while military leaders are expressing caution saying “hold on…do you realize that’s an act of war?” The humanitarian interventionists may feel righteous in their cause, but they should be held accountable when it leads to disaster and tragedy as we saw in Libya. After decades of wars and occupation based on deception, exaggeration and outright lies, it’s past time to demand proof of accusations and to be skeptical regarding any call for military action. What is the Evidence from Syria? Syrian rebels and supporters have repeatedly accused the Syrian military of using chemical weapons, often with the accompanying demand for foreign intervention. The Syrian government has consistently denied the accusations. A major push for a foreign attack on Syria followed the highly publicized incidents in Ghouta in outer Damascus on August 21, 2013. Many humanitarian groups such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) joined or led in accusing the Syrian government of being responsible and calling for “action.” A military attack was averted by the Syrian government agreeing to remove its existing chemical weapons and manufacturing facilities. Opposition supporters like Kenan Rahmani predicted that the Syrian government would not comply with the agreement. But it did. On October 1, 2014, the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) announced that the elimination of prohibited chemical weapons and facilities in Syria had been successfully completed. It was a remarkable achievement and the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Syria received little credit. During 2014, as the Syrian government was working to successfully implement the agreement to dispose of banned chemical weapons, new unverified accusations emerged that the Syrian military was using barrel bombs containing poisonous chlorine gas. The accusations prompted renewed demands from governments actively supporting the armed opposition. The Syrian government removed all prohibited chemicals and facilities but now is accused of using a chemical which is not on the prohibited list. According to its report, in May 2014, an OPCW team tried to investigate at the site of alleged chlorine gas attacks. The Syrian government gave the OPCW team passage to the rebel controlled area but the convoy was attacked by a rebel faction. None of the team members was injured but that stopped their on-site investigation. Instead, the OPCW worked with the well-funded opposition-supporting Violations Documentation Center to arrange interviews with numerous people from three villages. The interviews were conducted outside Syria, probably in Turkey. They gathered photographs, videos and other evidence and expressed “high confidence that chlorine had been used as a weapon in Syria” in three villages. They did not ascribe responsibility. More recently there was an alleged chlorine gas attack on March 16, 2015 with six deaths including three children. The Avaaz petition and campaign sprung from this alleged incident. Along with these accusations, there has been a steady drumbeat from various organizations that the Syrian government is committing war crimes. For example, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) issued a press release on May 14 with the title “New Map Shows Government Forces Deliberately Attacking Syria’s Medical System.” Are the Accusations Objective or Biased? Following are some of the major organizations reporting or making accusations regarding the conflict in Syria: Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) – This is the official intergovernmental organization tasked with promoting adherence to the Chemical Weapons Convention. It has been responsible for removal of chemical weapons from Syria. It was then tasked with investigating allegations about use of chlorine gas as a weapon. While OPCW seeks to be highly professional and nonpartisan, there are questions of potential conflict of interest and bias as follows:     * The director general of OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, is the appointee of Turkey, a country which actively supports the Syrian opposition and has pushed for a No Fly Zone. Given that Uzumcu is a political appointee of a state directly involved in the conflict, he has a potential conflict of interest: he might advance his own career and please the Turkish government by making the Syrian government look bad.     * The interviews with villagers were done with OPCW “working closely” with the partisan “Violations Documentation Center.” How did OPCW verify the integrity of the witnesses?     * According to OPCW report, NATO’s CBRN Task Force (Chemical-Biological-Radioactive-Nuclear) collected data “in the field following reported attacks” and supplied this to OPCW. What exactly was the NATO task force doing in the rebel controlled territory?     * The official report of the OPCW notes that in the UN Security Council “Some doubts and questions were also raised in regard to the procedures and methods (of the Fact Finding Mission).” AVAAZ – Avaaz is clearly biased and was involved in the Syria conflict from early on. They were supplying satellite phones and otherwise aiding and promoting local activists from early on. Is that a good thing? Not necessarily; their claims and actions in Syria have been controversial and criticized. WHITE HELMETS / SYRIAN CIVIL DEFENCE - This is a new organization, highly publicized as civilian rescue workers in Syria. Their video and reports have influenced Avaaz and other humanitarian groups. Avaaz refers to the White Helmets as “Syria’s respected and non-partisan civil protection force.” In reality the White Helmets is a project created by the UK and USA. Training of civilians in Turkey has been overseen by former British military officer and current contractor, James Le Mesurier. Promotion of the program is done by “The Syria Campaign” supported by the foundation of billionaire Ayman Asfari. The White Helmets is clearly a public relations project which has received glowing publicity from HuffPo to Nicholas Kristof at the NYT. White Helmets have been heavily promoted by the U.S. Institute of Peace (U.S.IP) whose leader began the press conference by declaring “U.S.IP has been working for the Syrian Revolution from the beginning”. Apart from the PR work, White Helmets work in areas of Aleppo and Idlib controlled by Nusra (Al Queda). The video from a medical clinic on March 16 starts with a White Helmets logo. The next video of same date and place continues with the Nusra logo. US and UK tax dollars pay for a program which has an appealing rescue component and is then used to market and promote the USA and UK policy of regime change in Syria in de facto alliance with Nusra. The fake “independence and neutrality” of White Helmets is shown by their active promotion of a No Fly Zone. MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERS (MSF) and other humanitarian groups no longer have staff in Syria. They rely on witnesses and videos provided by rebels. In a war zone it is difficult to ascertain when someone is speaking out of fear or intimidation or for payment. Witnesses in rebel-controlled territory may claim that helicopters dropped bombs with chlorine. But what if the witnesses are lying? The possibility for manipulation and deceit is huge. PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (PHR) is also active reporting on the Syria conflict.. They make bold but sometimes inaccurate assertions. They recently claimed that ” people in Homs are facing serious health consequences as the medical system collapses, with only three doctors available “ This is inaccurate. I personally visited Homs one year ago and drove around the city for hours. Since the rebels departed the Old City last May it is being rebuilt and nearly all the city continues normally except for periodic terrorist car bombs. A recent PHR press release is headlined “New Map shows Government Forces Deliberately Attacking Syria’s Medical System.” It looks slick and impressive but is inaccurate. For example, one of the most dramatic attacks on a Syrian hospital was the suicide bombing of Al Kindi Hospital in Aleppo. Yet the PHR map shows the attack having been carried out by “government forces.” Readers are encouraged to look at the 3 minute rebel video of the suicide attack which leaves no doubt who was responsible. SUMMARY. Statements/documentation from the Syrian government and supporters tend to be dismissed or ignored; statements/video from opposition witnesses and activists tend to be accepted uncritically. That is bias. WHO BENEFITS? The starting point for many criminal investigations is who has a motive? Who benefits from an action or event? In order to prevail, the Syrian opposition needs foreign intervention.  In order to prevail, the Syrian government needs to prevent foreign intervention. Who benefited from from use of sarin gas that would cross Obama’s ‘red line’? The answer was always obvious. This received surprisingly little consideration as the US Government and humanitarian groups like Human Rights Watch argued that the Syrian Government was culpable without even considering who had motive. Since that time, in-depth analysis of the August 2013 chemical attack in Ghouta increasingly points to the use of sarin gas by the rebels not the Syrian government. The “vector analysis” advanced by HRW has been discounted. The US and other countries almost began an international attack on the basis of false claims and analysis. Similarly, who benefits from the use of chlorine gas that would violate the new UN Security Resolution? To ask the question is to answer it. Clearly it is the opposition rebels who benefit when the Syrian government is charged with using chlorine gas bombs. Clearly they are the ones who seek foreign intervention or imposition of a No Fly Zone. A War of Aggression Against Syria Supporters of intervention sometimes claim Syria has been “abandoned” by the international community. On the contrary, the Syrian conflict has continued primarily BECAUSE of foreign involvement. The unholy alliance of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, USA, France and Britain (with silent partner Israel) have supplied, trained, provided weapons and salaries for Syrian and international fighters seeking to topple the government. They openly called themselves, with Orwellian chutzpah, the “Friends of Syria” as they divide the tasks of supplying the rebels and consider who should be the “legitimate political representatives”. The crime has not been the absence of international effort; it has been the absence of enforcement of international law. The US and allies are doing to Syria what the US did to Nicaragua in the 1980’s. As the International Court at the Hague said in its decision on June 27, 1986:     Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the “contra” forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State. The Nicaraguan Foreign Minister at that time was Father Miguel D’Escoto. He served as president of the United Nations General Assembly in the year 2008-2009. When recently asked his opinion on what is happening in Syria he responded: "What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which, according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against another State.” The conflict in Syria continues primarily because foreign powers continue to “arm, equip, finance and supply” the equivalent of the Contras. Imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria would not make anyone safer; it would dramatically expand the war and lead to vastly more, not fewer deaths. Those who genuinely want peace in Syria need to press for ENDING foreign intervention in Syria via proxy armies and ENCOURAGING reconciliation and negotiations without preconditions. The humanitarians pushing for intervention in Syria are not R2P (responsible to protect). They are R4W (responsible for war). Rick Sterling is a founding member of Syria Solidarity Movement. He can be reached at rsterling1@gmail.com http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/about-those-chlorine-gas-attacks-in-syria/ Wow, this was a good article.

ASSANGE - WIKILEAKS - COLLATERAL MURDER

COLLATERAL MURDER https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Collateral_Murder,_5_Apr_2010 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Title: Julian Assange speech that was censored by the Oxford Union Source:  WikiLeaks YouTube Channel.  Direct link video - here. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Julian Assange | Oxford Union  "Notes: Assange participated via video link from the Ecuadorean embassy in London. Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 1:45am transcriber" FULL TRANSCRIPT LINK www.correntewire.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ INTERVIEW - 5 YEARS ON FROM RELEASE OF 'COLLATERAL MURDER' VIDEO LINK http://espresso.repubblica.it/internazionale/2015/04/02/news/julian-assange-i-still-enjoy-crushing-bastards-1.206855?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Someone had posted the Oxford Union video on twitter, so I thought I'd take a look. Decided to transcribe it for something educational to do.   Got into 4 minutes of transcription before it dawned on me to check online to see if anyone had transcribed it.   Yes, they have. Phew! It would have taken me forever switching audio on and off while flipping screens to type.   Link to the transcript above or here. WikiLeaks 'Collateral Murder' information link at top of page and 5 years on interview link above (or here). After I've finished editing some screen grabs of a hilarious social media block, I'll be back to check this out more thoroughly. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IRAN Had no idea there were so many military bases around Iran (a whopping 45 on every side!). According to Assange (Oxford Union talk video above), WikiLeaks cables show that Britain engaged in a conspiracy to killing off the Sky satellite feed from Press TV to Britain (ie Iran state broadcasting equivalent to the BBC), and this is described as a death penalty for a national broadcaster, as this means the Iran government cannot get across its views. So, I gather, this is a means of isolating Iran and of controlling public information (and therefore opinion), while beating the drums of war on Iran. Given Iran is completely surrounded by hostile territories, the 45 military bases and given the drums of war beating in the West, together with the West isolating Iran, Iran is, understandably, in a highly fearful state — fearful of war. According to Assange, Iran's fears mean that the human rights abuses the West is concerning itself about, have very little chance of resolution "because the leadership of that country is so terrified about being invaded." Also SEE:  Britain human rights abuses WWI & WWII — Britain imprisoned Bertrand Russell WWI & similar abuses WWII. Democracies - always lied into war Assange conveys that:  the internet has become the most important device for revealing the truth (since the beginning of the printing press), and has become the number one antidote to TV.  Says: democracies are always lied into war.  The Iraq war was the result of lies and the increased involvement of the US in Vietnam came as a result of another lie (see Tonkin Gulf incident). According to Assange, it is not just lies by intelligence agencies:  it is also lies by the big media machine, comprised of various [press/media] institutions that get too comfortable and too close to the table of power that they are meant to be reporting on and policing and getting information into the historic record. Note:  intelligence isn't the problem.  Corruption of intelligence, which comes about through secrecy is the problem: The problem is the corruption of those agencies, and that corruption comes about because of secrecy. When Tom spoke about, in somewhat glowing terms, the improved process that he put down, and I believe him that that is a significant improvement from what was there before, it all rests upon one thing. It rests upon the abilities of people in those agencies to get out information to the public when those processes are not followed. [1] We might have depoliticized analysts working in intelligence agencies who are to all intents and purposes mere robots, perfect machines with perfect accuracy. They are tasked, they engage in the task, they analyze, they pass up information higher up the food chain.  [1] And what if, in Tom’s case, for example, his National Intelligence Estimate, there was not a threat that it would be released, because our sources say that in fact the White House knew that if it did not release a version immediately, another version would be released, and the White House would have to get – would then come in second, and its opponents would have their spin on it, so the White House wanted to get their spin on it first. [1] It’s only through this pressure of producing analytical product to the public that these sorts of agencies are kept honest and don’t become simply robots that are, in effect, perhaps this is drawing the bow too far, but some kind of Hitler’s willing executioners, mere people who act as robots who are told to carry out a task and do it. That is not enough. It is not enough to agree to carry out a task for superiors. That is the Nuremberg defense. We must all look to ourselves and understand whether what we are doing is right and just not just according to the views of our superiors but according to the long view of history, according to human rights and to our feelings of compassion, if we have any. [1]  Tom Fingar look-up: Thomas (Tom) Fingar is a professor at Stanford University. [2] In 1986 Fingar left Stanford to join the State Department. In 2005, he moved to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis and concurrently served as the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council until December 2008. [2] In January 2009, he rejoined Stanford University as ... Lecturer in ... Institute for International Studies. [2] In December 2007, Fingar was one of the authors of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear programs. [2] The NIE asserted with "high confidence" that Tehran had "halted its nuclear weapons program" in the fall of 2003. [2] This contradicted an earlier 2005 NIE report that ballistic delivery systems and uranium enrichment was continuing. [2] The 2007 NIE was a political sensation, seized on by Democrats and Iraq war critics as another case in which the Bush Administration had ... politicized intelligence. [2] The above Fingar information came from a Wikipedia entry. Best to check further sources rather than to merely rely on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia entries are prepared by those with professional, political and other biases and affiliations.  Take the Wikipedia statement: "The 2007 NIE was a political sensation, seized on by Democrats and Iraq war critics as another case in which the Bush Administration had supposedly politicized intelligence." What is the word 'supposedly' doing in there?  As an information repository Wikipedia sucks:  it is enough to say that critics had accused the Bush administration of politicising intelligence. Wikipedia twists this simple fact around — with the gratuitous and biased 'supposedly' — to sneakily imply that such criticism is not warranted (showing a bias in favour of the Bush administration). Note to self:  watch for cultural bias {and find out what exactly this is ... lol}. Asssange indicates Iraq intelligence reports 2003 demonstrate that it is not enough to produce accurate intelligence reports (eg. sectarian crisis in Iraq accurate intelligence reporting prediction was subsequently completely denied by US leadership).  So accurate intelligence reporting  is not enough if leadership won't let reporting come out.  Analysts therefore must be responsible to the public and to the historical record, and not to political leadership. Mass propaganda attack against WikiLeaks as an organisation, the character of WikiLeaks staff and the activities of WikiLeaks, as well as an attack on Iran — fanning the flames to start a war with Iran:  Film, The Fifth Estate (2013). Film disregards facts:  Fingar National Intelligence Estimate found that Iran did not have a nuclear program & all 16 US intelligence agencies feeding into that report said that was the case, with high confidence, and it has been confirmed every year since that report. Assange refers to the big budget film lies upon lies and war drum propaganda. Assange points out that this is not merely a war of intelligence agencies but a war of corrupt media and corrupt culture. We need to "understand that where there's great powers at work" (not shadow conspiracies) but "enormous cultural powers, enormous industrial powers, the vast network of corporations, that interact with government agencies around the world selling products": The National Security Agency, for example, now has approximately 70% of its expenditure pass through Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, etcetera. This produces a lobby that pushes in particular directions. [1] How is it that such a lie got into a script about WikiLeaks? How is it that such a lie got into a script about WikiLeaks? How is it that in the light of that National Intelligence Estimate that anyone could think that it was tolerable, acceptable, to foist that lie upon the public, that it would make it all the way through the Hollywood system, that distributors would pick it up? Because they perceive that that is where the power lies in the United States. They perceive that it’s perfectly okay to slander an entire nation, that it’s perfectly okay to beat the drums of war like that, because people in that system want the war. They want it. We have to understand that everything that we see, read and hear is produced for a purpose. It’s produced as a result of incentives. And other material is not produced. There are disincentives to not produce it. We walk almost sleepwalking, almost blind, every time we open a newspaper and read an article.  [1] There is a war on for control of the Internet Now, working against that trend and against that current of corrupt powerful organizations producing a distorted perspective of the world has been the Internet. For the first time in history, that has allowed one person with some truth to speak to every single person who wants to hear that truth. It is the great antidote. There is a war on for control of the Internet. That war takes place on the one hand by producing incredible propaganda and hyping up threats about how the Internet is dangerous. On the other hand, it involves introducing mass surveillance systems to surveil all of the Internet. You know, different countries see the effects being brought by the Internet and the political liberations being brought by the Internet and powerful groups in those countries feel fearful and they feel destabilized, and as a result they want to find some way to control it and to know it. [1]  So ... War on Control of Internet a) producing propaganda & hyping up threats on how Internet is dangerous. b) mass surveillance systems to surveil all of the Internet. c) powerful groups are  fearful & feel destabilized by Internet as a force for information/political liberation (therefore seek to control Internet). Wow, this was a really good video.  Had to keep rewinding, listening and referring to the transcript because I'm not up on this information and a bit slow to take it in. Really worth watching and reading (thanks to whoever did that transcript; really helpful). On first impressions (for someone, like me, who doesn't know a lot about what's going on), it seems idealistic to expect intelligence personnel to answer to the public or to history.  But when you take the time to absorb what is being said in relation to what has actually happened in the recent past and in the more distant past (eg the costs of wars that could have been averted), that idea *does* make sense.

Don't Get Angry: Encrypt

AUSTRALIAN DIGITAL RAPE BY BRADIS & CO Why people ignore data retentions many perils >> http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-people-ignore-data-retentions-many-perils-20150330-1m9gtb.html REMEDY Gnu Privacy Guard  (GnuPG aka GPG)  Encryption   https://www.gnupg.org/  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard Werner Koch caught my eye the other day, so I thought GnuPG (aka GPG) might be potential go-to encryption software. German, Werner Koch has authored this software based on open source GNU operating system software (by an MIT guy, Richard Stallman).  Being open source software is supposed to be a positive because it allows outsiders to spot vulnerabilities in code (I think). Werner Koch previously received grants from the German government (but they expired some time ago).  Koch is still kicking on, single-handedly patching the GnuPG program, but short on funding. TOR Anonymising  https://www.torproject.org/ Tor - Explained  .......................................................................... Tor originated with the US Navy and has received US govt funding.   Gee, even as I'm keying this in, Russian software is looking more and more appealing because I'm wondering if there's German backdoors in the encryption software and anticipating some NSA trick when it comes to the Tor anonymising software (see Silk Road FBI busts). I don't know enough to assess the merits of GnuPG or Tor (and wouldn't have a clue where to find Russian software), so this is pretty much it for the options (I think) ... except that you can use PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) instead of the GnuPG. Nope.  It looks like Philip Zimmerman has sold up, so GnuPG it is ... unless you're prepared to trust a US company:  Symantec. ...........................................................................  Photo: Alex Ellinghausen COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Regarding the SMH article, 'rape by Bradis & Co' is my take rather than SMH's ... just so there's no confusion.  ;) That's pretty much what it is when everybody has been placed under state surveillance. State surveillance without cause or consent is an abuse of power.  To be the subject of such an abuse of power is to live in a prison state. The snail-mail version of this would have been going on back in the 50s and 60s, when the Australian govt was in full surveillance and political suppression and sabotage mode, to blot out the 'evil' of communism. But it isn't Russians and communists looking evil now; it's the totalitarian West. Instead of getting angry but then just accepting the inevitable prison population living conditions: a) use technology to secure privacy; & b) vote for non-mainstream politicians, rather than the corporate and US lackeys who have spent years spying on their own citizens (and nations abroad). Did a bit of a summary on encryption basics the other day ... but I think I've forgotten it already, so I'm going to have to start all over.  Intend to keep at it until I get some kind of feel and overview for privacy tech basics, from a consumer perspective.  Only I'm rather lazy ... The above links are just a starter and I don't really know what I'm on about, so it's best to do your own research. Discovered that free Russian e-mail services bypass the intrusions of freebie Western e-mail services.  English log-in is available. VIDEO GPG for Journalists - Windows edition | Encryption for Journalists | Anonymous 2013 from anon108 on Vimeo.

VIDEO - Merchants of Doubt - Naomi Oreskes - Climate Change

Merchants of Doubt Naomi Oreskes Source Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w-Nw8PCZuc&feature=youtu.be&t=2m39s LOOSE SUMMARY/TRANSCRIPTION Naomi Oreskes is a historian of science, an analyst of climate change literature, a mining geologist (who worked for four years in South Australia), she has a PhD from Stanford University, is professor of history science at University of San Diego, and has written a number of books, including:  'Merchants of Doubt'. 2005 Gov California Arnold Schwarzenegger announces intention to commit State of California to Kyoto level emissions controls of greenhouse gases: "I say the debate is over.  We know the science.  We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now." Mid 2000s, it seemed the American people had finally got the scientific message that global warming real and under-way. Yale Project on Climate Change - working with Gallup Poll Org - in 2007 showed 72% of Americans were completely or mostly convinced that global warming was happening.  Sixty-two percent believed life on Earth would continue undisrupted only if society takes immediate & drastic action to reduce global warming. Mid-2000s many former contrarians & skeptics had come around, incl. Republican strategist, Frank Luntz: " ... there is global warming taking place ... behavior of humans ... [is] affecting the climate." Public accepted climate change as a problem and wanted the government to take action, but Republicans were perceived as weaker on that issue than Democrats.  Luntz gave advice on how to address this Republican weakness: Use the phrase 'climate change' rather than 'global warming', as 'climate change' is a lot less frightening than 'global warming'.  Emphasise scientific uncertainty. Insist that there is no consensus. ie make 'lack' of scientific certainty a primary issue of the debate. NOTE:  use 'lack' of scientific certainty as a political strategy. Luntz's position about the scientific consensus was not factually correct.  The scientific debate was *not* still open. Two years before Luntz's memo/advice: Third Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001)("IPCC") - climate scientists had concluded: "human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy" and had put 50 years of observed global warming down to:  "the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". However, scientific evidence had coalesced even earlier than 2001.  In the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC (1995), scientists concluded: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human impact on global climate." Oreskes' own study of history of climate science (where she analysed public literature related to anthropogenic global change (ie change in environment as result of human activity), showed that scientists had a consensus on the human cause of climate change by the early 1990s.  Scientific consensus which was already in place by 1992-1993 was reflected in the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995). The 1995 IPCC report was reflecting a scientific consensus that was part of the reason why world leaders had gathered in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). USA is a signatory to the UNFCCC, which pledges to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system.  Signed by US President HW Bush 1992.  Bush called on world leaders to translate the written document into "concrete action to protect the planet." Gus Speth, who served on the Council on Environmental Quality in the Carter White House, was asked what happened 2007.  Response was he thought they were on track to make real changes. So what happened to the scientific consensus that emerged in the 1990s & what happened to the political response to that science that was encapsulated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change? Emergence of a political challenge to that science.  A story of selling uncertainty.  Using uncertainty as a political tool in order to stave off government action on climate change & to protect the free market (as some people understood it). History of Climate Began with John Tyndall (1820-1893) - established concept of 'greenhouse gas' in 1850s Established greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide (CO2) Tyndall showed that CO2 + water vapour have a distinctive and important property: * highly transparent to visible light. * opaque to infrared light. So light from the Sun comes into the atmosphere but tends to be trapped by the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere - that's the natural greenhouse effect - and Tyndall understood this to be an important fact about the planet, because without greenhouse gases the Earth would be as cold as the Moon or Mars and inhospitable for life. 1900s - Svante Arrhenius (Swedish) Realised that when you burn fossil fuels you release CO2 into the atmosphere & that if you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then you may expect the climate to warm up.  Arrhenius did the calculations on warming the Earth, which he thought positive (as he was from cold climate). First person to suggest global warming may be a bad thing & that it might also be under way is Guy Stewart Callendar, an English steam engineer and inventor. Callendar argued in the 1930s that available data indicated CO2 levels were already increasing and that temperature may be increasing as well. 1938 article in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Callendar suggested that these effects were perhaps already beginning and that scientists should study this in further detail. The following year war broke out in Europe and scientists became diverted by other issues. 1950s scientists returned to the subject of global warming, incl. Roger Revelle and Hans Seuss, professors University of California. Tellus Oceanography Journal (1957), Revelle & Seuss publish article in which they argue that mankind was performing a 'great geophysical experiment' by burning carbon (fossil fuels) stored in rocks for 100s of millions of years of geological time, rapidly returning an enormous amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, and that this could be expected to have an impact on the atmosphere and that scientists should begin to monitor the potential effect. -- Revelle obtained funding for systemic measurement of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Measurements undertaken by CLARLES DAVID KEELING (professor at University of California)  - see KEELING CURVE - commencing 2958, as part of  International Geophysical Year (IGY).  Keeling was later awarded National Medal of Science by GW Bush. Seasonal variation of CO2 associated with photo synthesis in northern hemisphere where most of the world's land masses are. By 1965 concluded that there is detectable, slow but sure, increase in CO2. 1965 - President's Science Advisory Committee Board on Environmental Pollution led by Revelle & Keeling. Reported:  by 2000 there will be 25% more CO2 in atmosphere, modifying the balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate could occur. 1965 - Lyndon B Johnson declared: This generation has altered the composition of atmosphere on a global scale through steady increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Computer Modelling With the rise of computer modelling arose consensus between scientific experts that:  given the rise of CO2 that Keeling had demonstrated, sooner or latter, global warming would occur. Conclusion drawn from basics of physics and chemistry of general circulation of atmosphere. 1979 - US National Academy of Science Plethora of studies indicates consensus that climate change will result from: 1) Man's combustion of fossil fuels. 2) Changes in land use. [ SUMMARY IN PROGRESS  ....   Watch the Video ... lol] ...................................................................... United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)  International environmental treaty  only international climate policy venue with broad legitimacy almost universal membership

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.

FOREIGN SERVICE UPDATES

Sweden Kuwait Qatar Saudi Arabia Bahrain Oman + UAE “emphatically” condemning statements by Sweden’s FM  Margot Wallström.  Sweden statements incompatible with international law / non-interference domestic affairs Sweden has been selling arms to Saudi Arabia for years. strained relationship with Saudi could affect business in Arab world. http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/kuwait/gcc-unites-against-sweden-minister-over-saudi-comments-1.1474096 -- Japan - Japan diplomat - Mitsuhiro Wada - recalled from China for wearing female clothes  http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150321000103&cid=1101 -- Philippines 50 containers of reeking Canada garbage, incl. used adult diapers, in port of Manila for almost 2 years / Angry protesters http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/5518229-canadian-waste-angers-filipinos-canada-says-it-s-private-commercial-matter-/ -- FBI Texas LA - armed & suicidal $25,000 reward - Fired Los Angeles ex-LAPD Officer Henry Solis, 27 ex-LAPD Officer Henry Solis =  former Marine, once stationed as guard at multiple US Embassies http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20150320/fbi-25k-reward-for-information-leading-to-capture-of-fired-lapd-officer -- Florida University of Florida mechanical engineering professor / John Schueller / detained in UAE http://www.wogx.com/story/28576675/uf-professors-detainment-in-uae-a-personal-matter-says-university-spokesperson -- Iran - Obama calling on release of US citizens  Amir Hekmati (alleged spy) - death sentence overturned:  10 years for allegedly cooperating with US Saeed Abedini Jason Rezaian & find: Robert Levinson http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/03/obama_calls_for_freedom_for_am.html -- Canada businessman Sarkis Yacoubian / accused spy Cuba interrogation 2011 {see Cy Tokmakjian } 9 years prison + $7m fine Cuba - Major Carlito squeezed his crotch in more ways than one. Denies spying & corruption. Investor interest not dampened.  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/latin-american-business/canadian-businessman-accused-of-spying-lost-everything-in-cuba/article23569652/  -- Lebanon concern re US Ambassador David Hale’s posting to Pakistan / Lebanon ranks lower in US priorities? http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2015/Mar-21/291661-foreign-ministry-to-allow-appointed-ambassadors.ashx --  Liberia @embassymonrovia encouraging journalist dissemination of info for democracy building  http://www.gnnliberia.com/articles/2015/03/20/liberia-us-embassy-official-challenges-liberian-journalists  {but USA persecuting WikiLeaks publisher ASSANGE} -- US diplomatic missions in Saudi Arabia will resume full consular services on Sunday, following a week-long closure http://www.arabnews.com/featured/news/721656 Pakistan Islamabad Foreign Office seeks SC time shifting of foreign embassies from residential sectors to Diplomatic Enclave Islamabad Diplomatic Enclave Sector G5 = 43 embassies & high commissions / blocked roads http://tribune.com.pk/story/857118/embassies-next-door-foreign-office-seeks-more-time-to-shift-missions/ Australia / Melbourne / India Australia embassy clean bowls World Cup contest winner  / financial grounds - http://www.mid-day.com/articles/australia-embassy-denies-visa-to-mumbai-fan-who-won-world-cup-final-seat/16081180 -- UK   /   Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Embassy London stormed / release Itai Dzamara (abducted by CIO (govt) agents)  >>  http://www.zimeye.com/uk-police-called-in-as-zimbabweans-storm-close-down-embassy-demand-itai-dzamara/ Activists demand release of Itai Dzamara Zimbawe embassy London 19/03/15 Direct Link:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uHvbuHUZTgA More on:  Itai Dzamara http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/2015/03/us-deeply-concerned-over-zimbabwe-activist-abduction/ TWITTER:  https://twitter.com/itaidzamara   / not used since 4 March. -- Nigeria Independent National Electoral Comm. accredits US, UK embassies, 105 others /  Mar 28 + Apr 11 elections http://thenationonlineng.net/new/polls-inec-accredits-us-uk-embassies-105-others/ -- Somalia Katherine Simonds Dhanani nominated next US ambassador / first since 1991 closure emb. / career Foreign Service If confirmed:   initially be stationed in Nairobi, Kenya, until a suitable secure facility is constructed in Somalia. http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/us-ambassador-to-somalia-who-is-katherine-dhanani-150321?news=856022 -- Tunisia Spanish, Italian, German + Polish tourists killed in terrorist attack on Wed at Bardo National Museum in Tunis [theyucatantimes] -- US evacuating remaining 100 special forces troops from Yemen / counterterrorism ops against al-Qaeda & affiliates http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/03/21/U-S-evacuating-remaining-100-special-forces-troops-from-Yemen-.htm -- LatAm Columbia wiretapping investigation of illegal spying by former Colombia intel agency DAS / Jorge Noguera LatAm Columbia USA = close ally & financial contributor to Colombia LatAm - illegal surveillance “Colombian Watergate” / implicated Columbia President / drew ties to US http://colombiareports.co/wiretapping-scandal-increasingly-reveals-political-persecution-under-uribe/ -- Really love going through this kind of news but one person can't do this kind of thing justice, or indefinitely indulge in such a time consuming fixation ...  (: Anyway, this is just a snippet of what's happening right now. The Columbia spy story is BIG (well, to Latin America and to me).  Haven't check how it's doing in mainstream western media right now.  But it ought to be HUGE.  A former journalist, activist Itai Dzamara, has likely been abducted by the Zimbabwe Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO), and there's been a big protest at the Zimbabwe embassy in London (video above).  That news ought to be huge, too.  Don't fancy his chances after a passage of two weeks, but I'm no expert.  That's probably just for standard crimes.  Maybe it doesn't apply to intelligence service abductions.