Kurds - PKK - Partiya Karkeren Kurdistane

KURDS - est. 30 million PKK (Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê) PKK (Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan) affiliates: YPG  - Syria + (all female militia:  YPJ) PJAK - Iran HPG - Iraq Kurdistan Workers' Party Turkey & Iraqi Kurdistan f. 1978 core group students:  led by Abdullah Öcalan ("Apo") in Ankara, Turkey far-left / sought: independent Kurdistan 30% of armed forces = women largely Russian arms NATO declared terrorist group Switzerland, China & Russia do not blacklist PKK Kurdish region / affiliates MAP source: http://aina.org/news/20150724184904.htm Former KGB-FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko {poisoned in 2006} claims: PKK's leader Abdullah Öcalan was trained by KGB-FSB. Danielle Mitterrand, wife of former President of France = had active connections 1990s with elements of PKK leadership. PKK has received various support from the following: >Greece >Iran >Iraq >Russia >Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party Alleged Activities car-bombed Turkish cities kidnapped hundreds killed Turkish & Kurdish state employees significant narcotics traffickers (according to US) ruthlessly dispatch Kurdish political rivals in Syria & elsewhere [SOURCE:  Wikipedia   &   WSJ article]  OTHER: Appear to be highly politically organised / quick to demonstrate. Presently dual demonstration:  London (anti Turkey biased BBC coverage) & in Berlin.  --------------------- ARTICLE America's Marxist Allies Against ISIS http://aina.org/news/20150724184904.htm

Extortion 17 - Aug 2011 Downing Kabul - Navy SEAL Team 6 - CIA, NSA, DOD in hot seat

SOURCE http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/contempt-citation-looming-for-dod-cia/ WND EXCLUSIVE Contempt citation looming for DoD, CIA? Attorney asks government to explain why it has refused to follow orders Published: 12 hours ago Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. A famed Washington watchdog attorney is asking the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency to explain why it should not be held in contempt for failing to follow court instructions in a case over the helicopter crash that killed 30 Americans, including members of the Navy SEALs unit that killed Osama bin Laden. WND reported in 2014 Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch is representing the parents of some of the servicemen who were killed in Afghanistan Aug. 6, 2011, when a Chinook helicopter with the call sign Extortion 17 was shot down near Kabul. The parents believe there’s evidence their sons were sold out by Afghan turncoats who set up a Taliban ambush, while the Pentagon insists they were victims of a lucky shot with a rocket-propelled grenade. The victims were 25 American special ops fighters and five Army National Guard and Reserve crew members, along with seven Afghan commandos and one Afghan interpreter. The attack happened only a short time after Vice President Joe Biden revealed to the world that it was SEAL Team 6 that killed bin Laden. The Extortion 17 attack is considered the worst single loss of U.S. military life in the Afghanistan campaign. Klayman’s current complaint seeks information from several federal agencies, including the National Security Agency. Told through the eyes of current and former Navy SEALs, “Eyes on Target” is an inside account of some of the most harrowing missions in American history – including the mission to kill Osama bin Laden and the mission that wasn’t, the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi. The lawsuit alleges the defendants “have failed to make bona fide, good faith determinations about whether they will comply with plaintiff’s requests.” In the newest filing before U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, Klayman points out that the defendants have failed to follow the court’s schedule for production of information, and now they are not even meeting the deadlines they set themselves. “As predicted, defendants having previously violated this court’s order of Feb. 15, 2015, have now violated their own unilaterally imposed deadline which arrogantly gave themselves until June 30, 2015 to product documents,” Klayman wrote to the court this week. “As this court must be aware, this is not an ordinary Freedom of Information Act case, it involves obtaining records concerning the deaths of Navy SEAL Team 6 and other special operations forces on a mission with the call sign ‘Extortion 17.’ The families of these deceased heroes have been stonewalled by the Obama Department of Defense and the Obama National Security Agency in disrespect over their sons’ unexplained tragic deaths. “Many of these family members are undergoing psychological care over what has become a double tragedy: the deaths of their sons and the cover-up for which these family members feel betrayed by their own government,” he wrote. Klayman’s submission to the court notes that the court issued an order in February regarding the production of information. The defendants in the case so far have released one document, in March, the federal government said in a report to the court two months ago. Klayman previously brought to the attention of the court the government’s decision not to follow the court’s orders regarding the production of records, when the government not only missed a deadline but didn’t even seek to have the order modified. The court’s original schedule was to have the DoD and CIA release the pertinent records in stages, on March 20, April 3 and April 20. The original request sought, among other things, details about the decision “to invite a Muslim cleric to pray at the ramp ceremony in Afghanistan for the … U.S. servicemen.” Also, there are questions about the “missing” black box, the seven Afghani military members who were scheduled to be on the flight, but weren’t, and the seven Afghanis who replaced them. Earlier, Klayman said it’s always been hard to get information from the government. “This is because the attitude of government agencies in the executive branch – typically Congress has exempted itself from FOIA as it does not consider itself accountable to anyone – has always been, in Hamiltonian fashion, that ‘the people are a great beast’ and either do not deserve to be informed or do not have a say in governance, as they are inherently less able or intelligent,” he said then. But he said Obama has taken the position to a new level. “As a result, various public interest groups, the media and the citizenry in general have been stymied from learning the full truth about the myriad of scandals rocking the Obama administration, everything from IRS-gate, to Benghazi-gate, to Fast and Furious-gate, and Extortion 17-gate, where 17 Navy SEALS (including some who went on the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden), five other special ops forces and eight other servicemen died at the hands of the Taliban in a raid that some observers, like myself who represents some of the families of our heroes, feel was possibly compromised not just by the corrupt Afghani government that is infiltrated with Muslim terrorists but perhaps within our own government, including military brass,” he wrote. “We filed another lawsuit seeking to have the NSA and CIA cough up the records concerning Extortion 17. Yet, the Pentagon claims not to have and will thus not produce,” he said then. “My colleagues and I at Freedom Watch will not rest and will use all legal means to learn the truth about the downing of Extortion 17, as we owe a duty not just to the surviving family members we represent, but to other servicemen who are sent into wars only to be compromised by our president and his lackeys in the Defense Department.” The wrongful death lawsuit seeks more than $600 million in damages from the Taliban, al-Qaida, Iran, Afghanistan and others for the deaths of members of the U.S. military’s SEAL Team 6. The case alleges racketeering, terrorism and murder. It charges the terror groups are liable under America’s Anti-Terrorism Act for harboring or concealing terrorists, providing material support to a terror organization, wrongful death and more. The case traces back to Feb. 23, 1998, when the “terrorist organization Defendant Taliban, in concert with the terrorist organization Defendant al-Qaida, led by master terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, issued a fatwah (religious decree), dictating to all Muslim people to kill Americans and their allies – civilians and military – declaring that the slaying of Americans is an individual duty for every Muslim.” Bin Laden declared: “We – with God’s help – call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.” The case ties the declaration to the deaths of Michael Strange, a National Security Agency cryptologist for SEAL Team 6; Patrick Hamburger, an Army National Guard member; and John Douangdara, a Petty Officer 1st Class, in support of SEAL Team 6. Family members and survivors Charles and Mary Strange, Douglas and Shaune Hamburger and Phouthasith Douangdara are suing. The defendants are accused of “violating plaintiffs’ and decedents’ rights, for engaging in racketeering and other prohibited activities, for engaging in international terrorism, for harboring and concealing terrorists, for providing material support to terrorists and terrorist groups, for directly and proximately causing the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents, and for directly and proximately causing mental anguish, severe emotional distress, emotional pain and suffering, and the loss of society, earnings, companionship, comfort, protecting, care, attention, advice, counsel or guidance.” The full list of defendants is the Islamic Republic of Iran, former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hoseyni Khamenei, the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai, the Afghan Operational Coordination Group, the Khasa Amalyati Qeta, Afghan National Security Forces, the Taliban and al-Qaida. It was a raid by Navy SEAL Team 6 that resulted in the killing of bin Laden on May 2, 2011, and made the service members and their families “a target for retaliatory attacks.” But the danger was relatively low because they hadn’t been identified. However, the lawsuit explains, Biden “intentionally released the name” of SEAL Team 6 to the world, prompting a horrified Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to explode: “Why doesn’t everybody just shut the —- up?” Only weeks later, the Taliban “shot down a U.S. Boeing CH-47D Chinook military helicopter, call sign Extortion 17 … killing 30 Americans.” SOURCE http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/contempt-citation-looming-for-dod-cia/ --------------------- COMMENT Very interesting article. Looks like the USG is covering up something.  Missing black box is very suspicious.  Either that, or they're maybe hard to retrieve from hostile territories?  This is why whistleblowers & whistleblower publishers like WikiLeaks are important. Maybe Joe Biden should have kept quiet?

Japan Hyping China Threat

SOURCE http://www.ecns.cn/2015/07-23/174137.shtml Chinese ambassdor to Japan warns against hyping China threat 2015-07-23 08:50   Global Times Editor: Li Yan Ambassador Cheng urges Japan to face history with right perspective The Chinese ambassador to Japan on Wednesday warned against Japan's attempt to hype up "China threat" while adjusting its security policy to a path away from its post-War pacifism. In an exclusive interview with the Global Times on Wednesday, Cheng Yonghua, Chinese ambassador to Japan, said China is alarmed by Japan's recent move to portray China as a "security threat" in its latest defense white paper while mustering support for a defense bill that seeks to expand Japan's military role overseas. "We resolutely oppose the Japanese government using China as an excuse for pushing its security policy. It is dangerous [for the Japanese government] to make up and exaggerate 'China threat,' as it would lead to escalation and confrontation, in particular because China and Japan are neighbors," Cheng told the Global Times. In the defense white paper released Tuesday, Japan's defense ministry said China has continued "attempts to alter the status quo by coercive measures" in the South China Sea. Cheng, however, pointed out that China has historically held sovereignty over the South China Sea. "We have to look back into history, as China since the Han and Tang dynasties become the first to discover, name and manage the islands and reefs," Cheng noted, "During World War II, Japan occupied the islands of Nansha and Xisha. But after the war, the Potsdam Declaration stipulated that these islands be returned to China." The neighboring countries in the region never declared sovereignty over these islands until the end of 1960s, Cheng said. Having worked in the Chinese Embassy in Japan for over 20 years, Cheng has observed a promising development in Sino-Japanese relations, from the four-point principled agreement reached between Japan and China in November 2014, to the increasing economic exchanges between the two countries. But he pointed out that the historical problems have for long cast shadow on the Sino-Japanese relations. This year, which marks the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII, offers Japan an opportunity to, based upon the reflection of the past, turn a new page in history and move forward. As the world commemorates the 70th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascism War this year, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe prepares to make a statement in August, Cheng urged the Japanese leader to face the history with a correct point of view. "Without a right view of history, the future path will be dangerous," said the ambassador. "Japan must demonstrate sincerity of a perpetrator to the victims, and guarantee through action that history won't repeat itself," he said. With a series of events planned in the country in September to mark the end of the war, China has invited the leaders of all the relevant countries to those events. Whether or not Abe will attend the events in Beijing has not been decided, according to the ambassador. SOURCE http://www.ecns.cn/2015/07-23/174137.shtml ---------------------  COMMENT Why isn't anyone concerned about the Japanese breaking the pacifist position? Is Japan proposing to attack China along with USA and its allies after provoking some kind of confrontation over the South China Sea dispute? --------------------- LOOK-UPS Potsdam Declaration Terms of Surrender of Japanese, WWII conflict - here. Japan didn't immediately act on surrender, so USA dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Bill Blunden - 'Mass surveillance is all about money and power'

SOURCE http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_10801/Mass-surveillance-is-all-about-money-and-power.html Mass surveillance is all about money and power By Bill Blunden | Wednesday, 07.22.2015, 01:37 PM “We are under pressure from the Treasury to justify our budget; and commercial espionage is one way of making a direct contribution to the nation’s balance of payments” -Sir Colin McColl, former MI6 Chief. For years, public figures have condemned cyber espionage committed against the United States by intruders launching their attacks out of China. These same officials then turn around and justify America’s far-reaching surveillance apparatus in terms of preventing terrorist attacks. Yet classified documents published by WikiLeaks reveal just how empty these talking points are. Specifically, top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the United States is pervasive, that not even allies are safe and that it’s wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests. At a recent campaign event in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton accused China of “trying to hack into everything that doesn’t move in America.” Clinton’s hyperbole is redolent of similar claims from the American Deep State. For example, who could forget the statement made by former NSA director Keith Alexander that Chinese cyber espionage represents the greatest transfer of wealth in history? Alexander has obviously never heard of quantitative easing (QE) or the self-perpetuating “global war on terror” which has likewise eaten through trillions of dollars. Losses due to cyber espionage are a rounding error compared to the tidal wave of money channeled through QE and the war on terror. When discussing the NSA’s surveillance programs Alexander boldly asserted that they played a vital role with regard to preventing dozens of terrorist attacks, an argument that fell apart rapidly under scrutiny. Likewise, in the days preceding the passage of the USA Freedom Act of 2015 President Obama advised that bulk phone metadata collection was essential “to keep the American people safe and secure.” Never mind that decision makers have failed to provide any evidence that bulk collection of telephone records has prevented terrorist attacks. If American political leaders insist on naming and shaming other countries with regard to cyber espionage perhaps it would help if they didn’t sponsor so much of it themselves. And make no mistake, thanks to WikiLeaks the entire world knows that U.S. spies are up to their eyeballs in economic espionage. Against NATO partners like France and Germany, no less. And also against developing countries like Brazil and news outlets like Der Spiegel. These disclosures confirm what Ed Snowden said in an open letter to Brazil: terrorism is primarily a mechanism to bolster public acquiescence for runaway data collection. The actual focus of intelligence programs center around “economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation.” Who benefits from this sort of activity? The same large multinational corporate interests that have spent billions of dollars to achieve state capture. Why is the threat posed by China inflated so heavily? The following excerpt from an intelligence briefing might offer some insight. In a conversation with a colleague during the summer of 2011 the EU’s chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Hiddo Houben, described the treaty as an attempt by the United State to antagonize China: “Houben insisted that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a U.S. initiative, appears to be designed to force future negotiations with China. Washington, he pointed out, is negotiating with every nation that borders China, asking for commitments that exceed those countries’ administrative capacities, so as to ‘confront’ Beijing. If, however, the TPP agreement takes 10 years to negotiate, the world–and China–will have changed so much that that country likely will have become disinterested in the process, according to Houben. When that happens, the U.S. will have no alternative but to return to the WTO.” American business interests are eager to “open markets in Asia” and “provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment.” At least, that’s how Hillary Clinton phrased it back when she was the Secretary of State. China represents a potential competitor and so American political leaders need an enemy that they can demonize so that they can justify massive intelligence budgets and the myriad clandestine operations that they approve. The American Deep State wishes to maintain economic dominance and U.S. spies have been working diligently to this end. Bill Blunden is a journalist whose current areas of inquiry include information security, anti-forensics and institutional analysis. This story originally appeared on CounterPunch.org SOURCE http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_10801/Mass-surveillance-is-all-about-money-and-power.html ---------------------- COMMENT Really enjoyed this article. How hypocritical is Hillary Clinton and the US? Interesting to see that intel agencies need to earn their keep. So, Snowden's comment re surveillance being pretty much about: “economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation.”  sounds about right. And it's all for the sake of 'powerful corporate interests' that control the state.

Give That Fascist A Nobel Peace Prize

SOURCE http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-pressures-nobel-committee-to-declare-ukraines-president-a-peace-prize-nominee-leaked-letter/5452448 U.S. Pressures Nobel Committee to Declare Ukraine’s President a Peace Prize Nominee, Leaked Letter By Eric Zuesse Global Research, May 29, 2015 Region: Russia and FSU, USA Theme: Politics and Religion, US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT A leaked letter dated May 19th and sent by the Chairman of Ukraine’s parliament, Vladimir Groysman, to the chargé d’affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Oslo Norway, thanks her for “the efforts you have made to have Petro Oleksiyovych Poroshenko nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize,” but continues: “Still we consider your assurances of support by the two members of the Nobel Committee as insufficient,” because there are five members of the Committee, and the support of 3 of them is necessary.  Thus,     “We expect further efforts aimed at shifting the position of Berit Reiss-Andersen, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and especially that of the Chair of the Nobel Committee Kaci Kullman Five. Regarding the latter, we recommend that you take advantage of the information you are going to receive from Germany. Your colleagues in Berlin have assured us that the dossier will soon be delivered to the U.S. Embassy in Oslo. It is of utmost importance for Mr. Poroshenko to have firm guarantees that he will be awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize, since it could highlight the unanimous support of Ukrainian integrity by the democratic community of the world. Assistant Secretary of State Viktoria Nuland has highly estimated your job during her visit to Kyiv.” The three mentioned Nobel Peace Prize Committee members are a politically varied group. Ms. Reiss-Andersen is from the social democratic or “Labour” party; Ms. Ytterhorn is from the libertarian or “Progress” party; and Ms. Five is from the Conservative Party. The two unidentified members are Thorbjørn Jagland from the Labour Party, and Henrik Syse from the Conservative Party. If this letter is correct, those are the two who are referred to by the letter’s phrase, “your assurances of support by the two members.” The letter also makes a vague reference to the poor reputation that the Committee has engendered on account of the Committee’s having granted the Prize to Barack Obama in 2009 (a decision that the Committee’s Chairperson, Ms. Five, concurred with and has been criticized for):     “We understand the difficulties you face when promoting the candidacy of the President of Ukraine, therefore we ask you to exert additional leverages by engaging those U.S. Senators who effectively cooperated with the Committee in 2009.” Presumably, this means that whomever “those U.S. Senators” were, the Chairman of Ukraine’s parliament thinks that they were “effective.” President Poroshenko entered office on 25 May 2014 after a U.S.-sponsored coup in Kiev that installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Ukraine’s Prime Minister on 26 February 2014, after the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Asian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, had instructed the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev on 4 February 2014 to get “Yats” appointed as the junta’s leader; she issued that instruction to him by phone on February 4th and the coup occurred on February 22nd; Yatsenyuk was then appointed on February 26th, and he remains in power today. One pro-Russian part of Ukraine, Crimea, then seceded and joined Russia, and another, Donbass, seceded and was not accepted by Russia; it thus was bombed by the Ukrainian Government during May through December 2014, since Donbass’s repeated requests to be allowed to join Russia were spurned by Vladimir Putin. (Yet, Ukraine accuses Russia of providing the fighters who are actually the men of Donbass, who refuse to be ruled by the U.S.-coup regime. Russia sends them guns, and volunteers have come from Russia and many other countries to help the Donbass defenders.) German intelligence estimates that “up to 50,000” people were killed in that bombing campaign, but U.S. and other official estimates are only around 5,000. Even before Poroshenko took office, the new Ukrainian government of “Yats” Yatsenyuk invaded Donbass, using bombers, tanks, rocket-launchers, and everything it had; and, when Poroshenko gave his victory speech in the ceremonial Presidential election on May 25th, he promised, and it was very clear from him, that: “The anti-terrorist operation [he called the residents there ’terrorists’] cannot and should not last two or three months. It should and will last hours.” (Another translation of it was “Antiterrorist operation can not and will not continue for 2-3 months. It must and will last hours.”) But it did last months — Poroshenko’s prediction was certainly false; and, moreover, he lost first one round of the war, and then another — his prediction of its outcome was likewise false. And recently, he said that the war must be resumed for yet a third round, in order that Ukraine win back both Crimea and Donbass. However, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned him on May 12th that he must not do that, and that if he did he’d be violating the Minsk II ceasefire accords which had been arranged by France’s Francois Hollande and Germany’s Angela Merkel. Then, three days later, his Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, who had arranged the February 2014 coup, told both Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko to ignore what Kerry had just said, and that, “We continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine and reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea, and all the other regions of Ukraine.” Perhaps a reason why the Chairman of Ukraine’s parliament is boldly demanding the U.S. State Department to arrange for Poroshenko to get at least a nomination for the Peace Prize (and even goes so far as to assert that, “It is of utmost importance for Mr. Poroshenko to have firm guarantees that he will be awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize”) is that otherwise they will follow through on Nuland’s statement of U.S. commitment, and re-invade Donbass. However, any invasion by Ukraine of Crimea would be exceedingly unlikely, because that would give Russia a virtual carte blanche to attack Ukraine, and neither the U.S. nor any other power will go to war against Russia in such an instance; Ukraine isn’'t yet a NATO member, and NATO would be exceedingly reluctant to go so far as a third world war, this time against Russia, in order to defend the Ukrainian Government from the consequences of that Government’s own then-blatant ceasefire violation — especially in the wake of what virtually everyone now recognizes to have been a U.S. coup that had installed the present Ukrainian regime (and even EU officials were shocked to find out that it had been a coup). And it was a very violent coup, which was followed shortly thereafter by the extremely violent ethnic-cleansing campaign to get rid of the residents in Donbass. SOURCE http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-pressures-nobel-committee-to-declare-ukraines-president-a-peace-prize-nominee-leaked-letter/5452448 --------------------- COMMENT Surely this is a joke.   Yeah, it's a joke that Obama got the Peace Prize.  But now Poroshenko, as well? Is Ukraine Pressuring US to Secure Nobel Peace Prize for Poroshenko? EXTRACT The letter is addressed to Julie Furuta-Toy, chargé d'affaires (head of the diplomatic mission) at the Embassy of the United States in Oslo and acting US Ambassador to Norway. It is apparently signed by the Chairman of Ukraine’s parliament, Volodymyr Groysman and is dated May 19, 2015, with a registered number 01-5/126(90542). SOURCE http://sputniknews.com/world/20150530/1022745342.html No nominees listed for 2015 - here. But keep your eye on the nominees.  Might be a few laughs in this. United States to nominate Ukrainian President Poroshenko for a Nobel Peace Prize

Vice News

ARTICLE  SOURCE http://www.thedrum.com/news/2015/07/22/vice-news-nominated-four-emmy-awards 22 July 2015 - 10:50pm | posted by Minda Smiley Vice News nominated for four Emmy Awards Vice News has been nominated for four Emmy Awards in the news and documentary category, which recognizes outstanding achievement in broadcast journalism and documentary filmmaking. Its series ‘Russian Roulette’ has been nominated for both its breaking news coverage and its video journalism. It covers the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. ‘The Architect,’ hosted by Vice News correspondent Kaj Larsen, has been nominated for ‘Outstanding Interview.’ It features the first on-camera interview with Dr. James Mitchell, the architect behind the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. Eight-part series ‘Last Chance High’ was nominated for its editing chops. It follows the lives of students at Moses Montefiore Academy, a school for some of Chicago’s most at-risk youth. Vice News editor-in-chief and executive producer Jason Mojica said: "It feels great to see the Vice News team recognized for all the hard work they do. I know the competition is stiff and the jury of our peers is quite discerning, so getting four nominations for work we did in our first year of existence is quite gratifying." Founded in early 2014, Vice News is Vice Media’s digital news branch. PBS received the most nominations for the 36th Annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards, with 57 nominations total. CBS is in second with 44 and ABC in third with 17. SOURCE http://www.thedrum.com/news/2015/07/22/vice-news-nominated-four-emmy-awards --------------------- COMMENT   Is Vice a CIA propaganda outlet?

Britain - Illegal MI5, MI6 & GCHQ Spying on Parliamentarians

SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/23/intelligence-agency-policies-fail-protect-mps-spying-mi5-mi6-gchq Intelligence agency policies 'failed to protect MPs' from spying In the last year MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have followed eight different policies governing the interception of parliamentarians communications, court told Caroline Lucas: MPs need to communicate in private with constituents and whistleblowers Caroline Lucas argues there is a strong likelihood her communications have been intercepted. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA Ian Cobain Thursday 23 July 2015 23.42 AEST Last modified on Thursday 23 July 2015 23.45 AEST The UK’s intelligence agencies have been operating unlawful surveillance policies that have failed to adequately protect the confidential communications of members of parliament, a court has heard. Officers of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have been operating under eight different policies in the last 12 months alone, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) heard on Thursday. Most of these policies have failed fully to comply with the law, or with the 50-year-old political convention known as the Wilson doctrine that was thought to prohibit the agencies from eavesdropping on MPs or members of the House of Lords, Ben Jaffey, counsel for the Green party parliamentarians Caroline Lucas and Lady Jones told the IPT. The Wilson doctrine is named after the former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, who told the Commons in November 1966 that parliamentarians would not be spied upon and that if this policy needed be changed for national security reasons, the PM would announce this in due course. Lucas, Jones and former Respect MP George Galloway argue there is a strong likelihood that their communications have been intercepted as a consequence of the surveillance programmes exposed by the CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The IPT – a secretive court that hears complaints about the UK’s intelligence agencies – is being asked to confirm that the Wilson doctrine has force in law. The parliamentarians also say that agencies have breached the European convention on human rights. Some elements of the government’s defence against the legal challenge are being kept secret and the court is likely to sit in camera, with the public and media excluded, if it comes to consider evidence of actual surveillance of MPs and peers. Jaffey told the IPT that MI5 operated one policy governing the interception of parliamentarians’ communications from April 2012 to September 2014, when it was rewritten after Lucas and Jones lodged their challenge. It was rewritten again last February after government lawyers drafted their “open response” – or non-secret defence – to the claim. David Miliband, when foreign secretary, authorised an MI6 policy which allowed the agency to intercept parliamentarians’ communications without the prime minister being notified, the IPT was told. This policy was rewritten last February, bringing it closer in wording to the MI5 policy. GCHQ’s policy was rewritten in March this year and again three months later. Jaffey said the various policies “fail fully to comply with the law and they fail to comply with public statements as to safeguards”. It was not the parliamentarians’ case that MPs and members of the Lords should never be intercepted, he said, and there may be exceptional national security grounds for doing so. However, MPs needed to be able to communicate in private with constituents and whistleblowers. He said: “Strict safeguards to protect parliamentary communications are an important bulwark for the protection of the public interest.” Although the Wilson doctrine requires the prime minister to make a statement if the policy were to be reversed, all three agencies were operating internal policies that did not require them to inform prime ministers that they were intercepting MPs’ communications, the IPT was told. These were changed only once Lucas and Jones embarked upon their challenge. When GCHQ rewrote its policy last month, it did so in a way that removed all protection for communications data and for members of the devolved parliament and assemblies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Lucas and Jones argue that intercepts which capture the communications of parliamentarians should require the authorisation of a judge. SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/23/intelligence-agency-policies-fail-protect-mps-spying-mi5-mi6-gchq Caroline Lucas Jenny Jones, Green Party (Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb)  George Galloway, fmr Respect Party  Is the government spying on politicians? ‘Blanket surveillance’ probed in court hearing  Prison staff have recorded 3,150 prisoner calls to MPs and downloaded 280 for playback since 2006. http://www.rt.com/uk/310579-government-spying-politicians-surveillance/ --------------------- COMMENT UK's a creepy surveillance state & the conduct of its spy agencies provides further justification for whistleblower publishers, I would think.