Sweden - ASSANGE: Sven-Erik Alhem former Chief Prosecutor Sweden critical of Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny failure to act

Neue Wirren im Fall Assange Weil der schwedischen Staatsanwältin die Zeit davonläuft, möchte sie den WikiLeaks-Gründer nun doch in der ecuadorianischen Botschaft in London verhören. TRANS: New turmoil in the Assange case Because time is running out, the Swedish prosecutor now wants to interrogate WikiLeaks founder at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/zeitungen/Neue-Wirren-im-Fall-Assange/story/27430427 MENTIONS LOOK-UP: Sven-Erik Alhem born April 5, 1942,  Malmö former chief prosecutor  social commentator in Malmö and on Visingsö Issues:  incl.  human rights,  hate crimes, environmental & health & safety violations, various issues relating to traffic, wildlife protection (esp. wolf). Ahead of the 2006 parliamentary election ran for Liberal Party Not elected Columnist in Jönköpings-Posten and Jusek magazine Weblog via newspaper Expressen  expert commentator on television around the law Published book:  with lawyer & wife Justitia (2008) Chair of the Association for Victim Support, from 2009 HQ Stockholm. source https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven-Erik_Alhem Sven-Erik Alhem Sven-Erik Alhem former Chief Prosecutor Sweden critical of Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny failure to act   Bing Trans: "Late justice is sometimes even no justice," legal expert Alhem says. Evidence loses power over time, victims want the thing behind. [tagesanzeiger.ch] Google Trans:   "This is all very strange, is Sven-Erik Alhem, head of the Swedish victims auxiliary Bunds and earlier prosecutor. Strange mainly because Assange talking yes avowedly wish. "I can not understand why it has not now long since taken place," says Alhem. He criticized Marianne Ny for the hesitation. A survey in London was as a basis still better than no survey." [tagesanzeiger.ch] Stefan Wahlberg Rechtsexperte Stefan Wahlberg sagt, es sei Assanges gutes Recht, zu bleiben, wo er ist. «Er ist nicht verpflichtet, die Ermittlungen gegen ihn zu unterstützen», so der Chefredaktor der schwedischen Fachzeitung «Dagens Juridik». [tagesanzeiger.ch] Trans: Legal expert Stefan Wahlberg says it is Assange's every right to stay where he is. "He is not obliged to cooperate with the investigation against him," says the chief editor of the Swedish trade journal "Dagens Juridik». [tagesanzeiger.ch] Niklas Richter Wågnert   [otherwise referred to as: Niklas Wågnert] Niklas Wågnert = Stockholm Court of Appeal (Judge) November 2014 Stockholm Court of Appeal Decision:  not to lift the arrest warrant for Assange Trans: [Supreme Court of Appeal] has asked the prosecutors to look for new solutions. With new situation Assange could challenge the warrant again, says Niklas Richter Wågnert, who was involved in the decision. [tagesanzeiger.ch] "A new situation may mean that something new has happened in this case, but also that nothing has happened." In the spring, the Supreme Court of Sweden has also confirmed the arrest of Assange. He has asked to comment on the conduct of investigations Marianne Ny. At that time, she decided to appear to travel to London. [tagesanzeiger.ch] Other source (translation): Niklas Wågnert, the Stockholm Court of Appeal judge who heard Assange case in November, said the guard of permanent failure interview with the Australian be in London "new circumstances" in the case that would enable it to launch Assange, a complaint about the Swedish [Courts]. If Assange found himself in front of an outstanding payment, he added, it could be a factor for judges to weigh, when the case came to trial. "The time has passed and nothing has happened - it would be up to the courts to decide whether [a diplomatic dispute between Sweden and Ecuador] would be a good explanation enough for the prosecutor's office does not make progress," he said. source http://osterreich.website/2015/07/24/julian-assange-ecuador-und-schweden-in-angespannten-toten-punkt-uber-interview/ Cecilia Riddselius Swedish Ministry of Justice is responsible for international legal cooperation Role:  Deputy Director at the Swedish Ministry of Justice Stockholm, Sweden ---------------------  COMMENT German language article caught my attention because Sven-Erik Alhem, former Chief Prosecutor, Sweden (& victims' support advocate, by look of things), is critical of Sweden Prosecutor Marianne Ny. Ny has stalled the curious case of the revived Swedish 'investigation' pertaining to what one might call 'alleged allegations' involving Assange, by failing to even question Assange for almost 5 years now. I say 'alleged' allegations because such 'allegations' were not recorded according to proper police procedure (nor were the alleged complainants interviewed in accordance with proper police procedure), the police database was tampered with, the alleged 'victims' have behaved and made social media statements in a manner which contradicts police claims [see:  Assange Affidavit] Wondering if Judge Niklas Wågnert (Stockholm Court of Appeal) might be trying to pass the buck by palming off Sweden's failure to act in a timely manner (for almost 5 years) as being the result of a 'diplomatic dispute' with Ecuador, or if it just reads that way because it's a poor translation of a comment as to the latest Sweden prosecution blunders regarding interview arrangements in London?  It also looks like Sweden could be subject to complaint by Assange should Sweden try the 'new circumstances' angle, which presumably means, should Sweden attempt some legal manoeuvre on the basis of 'new circumstances', after dragging this out for years.  But hard to say; translation's not that great.  Reading some mangled extract, I'm wondering why I bothered grabbing that.  LOL Anyway, they're some of the Swedish players and that's the latest, I guess. *Fingers crossed that I have all the links right.  LOL

SINGAPORE - SURVEILLANCE STATE

https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/singapore-is-using-spyware-and-its-citizens-cant-complain #WikiLeaks #HackingTeam #Singapore - #Surveillance state, NO: *privacy right *prior judicial auth. req. (leg'n) #Law #Privacy #Singapore regulatory structure re #surveillance = Executive branch controlled / little judicial oversight #Singapore #SURVEILLANCE incls: CCTV drones Internet / comm. / access SIM card reg. ID req. register websites big data analytics #Singapore #SURVEILLANCE 'PacketShape'  {Blue Coat Systems Inc, USA-based provider} monitoring various, incl: Facebook Twitter Google Mail Skype #Singapore * Has NOT ratified: International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR) https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/singapore-is-using-spyware-and-its-citizens-cant-complain --------------------- COMMENT Mass surveillance must be a given in a country like Singapore, with no constitutional or other legislative checks on monitoring of citizens (and no ratification of the human rights covenant, either). The degree of surveillance and the lack of civil rights goes back to colonial rule.   --------------------- Modern Singapore founded in 1819 as British colony (by Sir Stamford Raffles) wikipedia

WikiLeaks - Hacking Team Leak - Release Verified as Legitimate / Singapore Surveillance

Singapore is using spyware, and its citizens can’t complain By Gabey GohAug 03, 2015 Behind the surveillance curtain Meanwhile, Goh Su Gim (pic), the security advisor at cybersecurity firm F-Secure in Asia, has examined the Hacking Team documents that have been leaked online, and said he believes them to be legitimate. “Especially the source code and their Galileo product architecture – it is exactly how security researchers have expected it to be,” he told DNA. “Many have compiled the source code and replicated what products Hacking Team has been selling to the [Singapore] Government,” he added. The leaked Hacking Team information also includes email threads that point to other Singaporean agencies showing an interest in the Italian company’s spyware, according to Goh. These agencies include the Centre for Strategic Infocomm Technologies (CSIT), part of the Ministry of Defence; and the Infocomm Technology Division (ICTD) of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) back in 2013. Goh noted that an Israeli company, Nice Systems which specialises in telephone voice recording, data security and surveillance, serves as a partner working with Hacking Team to sell to CSIT and MHA. “Interestingly, the MHA was interested in its IPA device (Injection Proxy Appliance),” he said. “This is a networking device, typically installed alongside an Internet service provider’s servers, that can hijack targets’ Internet traffic without their knowing, and surreptitiously deliver malware to their device or computer. “Tricking a target into opening a file or going to a phishing site may be not be as easy, and this is the perfect appliance to intercept Internet activity on the fly – for example, if a target wants to watch a video or download a new app, the IPA could intercept and prompt the target to install a booby-trapped version of Adobe Flash with the spyware. “It is also interesting to note at the end of the [leaked] email, [there is the statement]: ‘(As always, but especially in this country, confidentiality is a must. Thanks.)’,” he added. Why the IDA? There were no further documents available to show whether discussions with the CSIT and MHA panned out and were converted to sales, Goh conceded. He said that the F-Secure team was also unable to independently confirm whether the IDA and other agencies in South-East Asia, besides the publicly published list of clients available on the Internet, were or are Hacking Team customers. However, Goh noted that given what Hacking Team offers, it may seem more relevant for CSIT and MHA to purchase such tools in the name of homeland security. “But the IDA is a statutory board of the Singapore Government, under the Ministry of Communications and Information, whose mission is to develop information technology and telecommunications within Singapore – with a view to servicing citizens of all ages and companies of all sizes. “With that said, since it is not an enforcement agency – there is no use for a surveillance tool, unless it is used for research purposes,” he said. The IDA did not respond to DNA’s repeated requests for comment. https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/singapore-is-using-spyware-and-its-citizens-cant-complain?page=0%2C1 -------- -------- -------- COMMENT Thought this a cool article, as the WikiLeaks publication of the Hacking Team data has been independently verified as legitimate. Israeli involvement is interesting. The rest (surveillance capabilities) just freaks me out.  LOL More re:  SINGAPORE SURVEILLANCE

VIDEO

Sigue Sigue Sputnik Hey, Jayne Mansfield Superstar  Remastered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQyU_jaAjAo

TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy

TRANSCRIPT [Text emphasis added] Professor Noam Chomsky:  You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy. I started by saying that one of the relations between capitalism and democracy is contradiction. You can't have capitalist democracy, and the people who really sort of believe in markets (or at least pretend to understand them) - so if you read Milton Friedman and other philosophers of so-called libertarianism - they don't call for democracy they call for what they call 'freedom.' There is a very constrictive concept of freedom. It's not the freedom of a working person to control their work, their lives, and so on; it's their freedom to submit themselves to control by a higher authority. That's called 'freedom', but not 'democracy'. They don't like democracy and they're right; capitalism and democracy really are inconsistent. Actually, what's called libertarianism in the United States, is about as an extreme example of anti-libertarianism that you can imagine. They're in favour of private tyranny – the worst kind of tyranny. Tyranny by private, unaccountable, concentrations of wealth. When they say, “Well, we don't want government interference in the market”, they mean that. They mean - maybe they don't understand it, but if you think it through, it's pretty obvious – the kind of interference in the market they want blocked is the kind that would permit unconstrained tyranny on the part of totally unaccountable private tyrannies, which is what corporations are. It's worth bearing in mind how radically opposed this is to classical liberalism. They like to invoke, say, Adam Smith. But if you read Adam Smith, he said the opposite. He's famous for not, you know, the claim is that he was opposed to regulation – government regulation – interference in markets. That's not true. He was in favour of regulation, as he put it, when it benefits the working man. He was against interference when it benefited the masters. That's traditional classical liberalism. This, what's called 'libertarian' in the United States, which likes to invoke the history that you’ve concocted, is radically opposed to basic classical libertarian principles and it's kind of astonishing to me that a lot of young people - say, college students - are attracted by this kind of thing. I mean, you can, after all, read the classical text. So take, say, Adam Smith. Adam Smith, at the time – he's the icon, you know. He was considered to be a dangerous radical at the time, because he was pretty anti-capitalist in this pre-capitalist era that he was opposed to, and he condemned what he called the 'vile maxim of the masters of mankind': all for ourselves and nothing for anyone else. That's an abomination. Take the phrase 'invisible hand' – everybody's learnt that in high school or college – Adam Smith actually did use the term, rarely. But take a look how he used it. In Wealth of Nations, his major work, it's used once. And if you look at the context, it's an argument against what is now call neo-liberal globalisation and what he argued is this (in terms of England, of course): he said, suppose in England that the merchants and manufacturers invested abroad & imported from abroad; he said, well that would be profitable for them, but it would be harmful to the people of England. However, they will have enough of a commitment to their own country, to England (it's called a 'home bias', in the literature); they'll have enough of a 'home bias' so that, as if by an invisible hand, they'll keep to the less profitable actions and England will be saved from the ravages of what we call neo-liberal globalisation. That's the one use of the term in Wealth of Nations. In his other major work, Moral Sentiments, the term is also used once, and the context is this - remember, England is basically an agricultural country then - he says: suppose a landlord accumulates an enormous amount of land everyone else has to work for.  He says:  well, it won't turn out too badly, and the reason is that the landlord will be motivated by his natural sympathy for other people.  So he will make sure that the necessities of life and the goods available will be distributed equitably to the people on his land, and it will end up with a relatively equal and just distribution of wealth, “as if by an invisible hand”. That's his other use of the term. Just compare that with what you're taught in school, or what you read in the newspapers. And it goes across the board. Like, everybody probably has read the first paragraphs of Wealth of Nations, which talks about how wonderful it is that the butcher pursues his interests, and the baker pursues his interests, and we're all happy, so we should be in favour of a division of labour. Everybody's read that. How many people have read a couple of hundred pages into Wealth of Nations, where he has a bitter attack on division of labour for interesting reasons, and reasons that were standard in the Enlightenment in which he lived (very different from ours)? He says if you pursue division of labour, people will be directed to actions in which they'll complete the same mechanical actions over and over. They'll be de-skilled and that's the goal of management for over over 100 years: de-skill the workforce. He says that's what will happen if you pursue division of labour. He goes on to say, this will turn people into creatures as stupid and as ignorant as a human being can possibly be and, therefore, in any civilised society, the government will have to intervene to prevent any development like this. That's Adam Smith's view of division of labour. Next step – now, here's a research project.  Take the standard edition (scholarly edition) of Wealth of Nations produced by the University of Chicago Press – naturally, on the bicentennial – with a scholarly apparatus (you know, footnotes and everything else) – and take a look at the Index.  There's a scholarly index. Look up 'division of labour'. This part of the book is not referenced. You can't find it, unless you decided to read 700 pages; then you can find it. But that's his concept of the division of labour, and it continues like this – and I'm not extolling, you know, a lot of things that you can harshly criticise, like his advice to the colonies – but, nevertheless, it's a very different picture from what's called 'libertarianism' or 'capitalism' today. Capitalist democracy would self destruct - capitalism would self destruct – and that's why it hasn't been instituted. The masters understand that they cannot survive a capitalist economy – a laissez fair economy. Take a look at the history; it's pretty interesting. So the United States, when it was independent – so it could reject the rules of sound economics and develop. There were other countries that were poised for an industrial revolution and were given the same advice. Like Egypt and India. In fact, India already was the commercial and industrial centre of the world, moreso than England . Egypt was poised for an industrial revolution and it's not impossible that it might have developed as a rich, agrarian society. It had cotton – produced cotton. As I said, that's the main product (like oil today), and it didn't need slaves. It had peasants. It had a developmental government aimed that the industrial development. It could have taken off – just as India could have taken off. But they were not free to reject sound economics because they were ruled by British force. So they were forced to accept sound economics, and Egypt became Egypt, and the United States became the United States. India went through a century of de-development before it finally got independent. That's what happens when you apply laissez fair principles. In fact, that's essentially how the Third World and the First World divided. Take a look at the countries that developed. They are the countries who violated the principles. England, the United States, Germany, France, Netherlands. One country of the south. One country developed: Japan. The one country that wasn't colonised and was able to pursue the same course that the rich countries developed. I mentioned that in mid Nineteenth Century – 1846 - Britain was so far ahead of the rest of the world in industrial development that they did decide that laissez faire would be possible, so that moved to what's called a 'free trade era'. First of all, they imposed sharp constraints on it. They've cut off the Empire. India. India was not allowed. Others could not invest in India, their main possession; and India was not allowed to develop. And there were other restrictions. Pretty soon, British capitalists called the game off because they couldn't compete. By the 1920s, they couldn't compete with Japanese production so they literally closed off the Empire to Japanese exports. It's part of the background for the Pacific War of the 1940s. The United States did the same with a smaller empire in the Philippines. The Dutch did the same with Indonesia. All the imperial systems decided: no more free trade, we can't compete. So they closed off the empire and Japan had no markets, no resources, and they went to war. That's a large part of the background. The United States, in 1945, did move towards laissez fair. In fact it was an important conference (the united states was basically running the world at that point, for obvious reasons) – there was a hemispheric conference called by Washington in February 1945 in Mexico, where the western hemisphere was compelled to adopt an economic charter for the Americas, which banned any interference with market principles. The goal was, in the State Department reports, to oppose the new nationalism in Latin America, which is based on the idea that the people of a country should benefit from the country's resources. That's 'evil', we can't allow that; it's Western and US investors who have to benefit from the resources. So that was the economic charter of the Americas imposed on the countries of the southern hemisphere, with one exception – here. The United States did not follow those policies. Quite the contrary. As I mentioned, there was a massive development of a state based economy with an industrial policy – the kind that created the modern high-tech economy. You can see it right across the river. Take look at MIT, one of the main centres of this **** If you had a look at MIT in the 1950s (when I got there) it was surrounded by electronics-based high-tech firms, like Raytheon and iTech, and huge IT firms. Take a look at MIT today, take a look at the buildings, it's Novartis, Pfizer and so on. The reason's completely obvious: during the 50s and 60s, the cutting edge of the economy was electronics based, so the way to get the public to pay for it was to scream 'Russians!' and to get them to pay higher taxes for the Pentagon, and then the Pentagon would fund the research and development – like my own salary, for example (I shouldn't complain too much) – and, of course, private industry was around there like vultures to pick up the products and the research and to market. Well, since the 70s, the cutting edge of the economy has been moving towards be biology based, so funding – government funding – has shifted. Pentagon funding is declining. Funding from the NIH and other so-called health related government institutions is increasing, and the private corporations understand that. So, now, Novartis, genetic engineering firms and so on, are hanging around trying to pick up the research that you're paying for, so that they can market it and make profits. It's just transparent. It's in front of our eyes, and it takes a very effective educational system to prevent people from seeing it. It's virtually transparent. That's the way this really exists in capitalist democracy, folks. A final word about democracy then, before I have to leave. There's a major attack on democracy all the way through. But by now it's reached the point which is pretty remarkable. Take a look at one of the main topics in the mainstream political science (and we're not talking about radicals). Mainstream political science is comparing public attitudes with public policy. It's a fairly straight-forward – it's hard work but a straight-forward effort. We have the public policy so you can see it. There's extensive polling. Quite reliable generally and consistent in its results. It gives you a good sense of what public attitudes are, and the results of this are published in the major books and articles - with references, if you like. The results are very straight-forward. About 70% of the population – the lowest 70% on the income scale – are literally disenfranchised. Their opinions have no affect on policy. Their elected representatives don't pay any attention to them. That's one of the reasons why many of them don't bother voting: they're not going to pay attention to them anyway. You know, I've read the technical literature to understand it in other ways. As you move up the income scale, you get a little more influence on policy. When you get to the top (and contrary to the Occupy Movement, it's not 1% - it's more like one-tenth of 1%) - when you get to the top where the massive concentration of wealth is, they basically set policies. That's not democracy; that's plutocracy. And that's what we have accepted. The good thing about it is that it's changeable. It's not controlled by force. We are very free in that respect, thanks to victories over the centuries. It's not possible now for a corporation to do what Andrew Carnegie, the great pacifist, did in 1890. That gives a lot of options and you have to make use of them. I'm afraid I've got to leave. [17:35] APPLAUSE VIDEO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98PSkGSk9kw&feature=youtu.be MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded 1861. --------------------- end --------------------- 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. --------------------- video credits --------------------- TITLE: A PROGRESSIVE VOICE VIDEO: Leigha Cohen AUDIO: Leigha Cohen & Cynthia Smith VIDO & SOUND EDITING: Leigha Cohen COPYRIGHT: LEIGHA COHEN PRODUCTION 2014 WEBSITE: www. leighacohen.com ---------------------  COMMENT Good talk.   Also relevant to the US free trade agreements that are going down now. Thought I'd transcribe what was said. Nearing the end, I realised someone else may have transcribed this somewhere already. Never mind.  It's a good learning tool, focusing on every word.  Or it can be.  I hope.  LOL Missing word(s) where marked.  It's something of a drama playing audio at any volume level in this place right now, so filling the gaps will have to wait.  Think it was only the one word.  This took ages, but it's heaps easier now that I've figured how to minimise, position & hold my Writer window on top of the running video window, so I don't have to flip screens. *Part re interference in market they want blocked & tyranny reads kind of funny to me.  It's the interference they want blocked so they can get away with tyranny is what he's getting at, I think.  But the sentence seems confusing (to me). *I disagree with the last part, about there not being rule by force.  We are ruled by force & there's nothing we can do.  Look what happens to protesters.  When they're not beaten, imprisoned etc, martial law is imposed and they're beaten and imprisoned if they dare break curfew, I guess.

National Endowment for Democracy ('NED') A CIA Trojan Horse / NED & WaPO Propaganda

SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/30/why-russia-shut-down-ned-fronts/ Why Russia Shut Down NED Fronts July 30, 2015 Exclusive: The neocon-flagship Washington Post fired a propaganda broadside at President Putin for shutting down the Russian activities of the National Endowment for Democracy, but left out key facts like NED’s U.S. government funding, its quasi-CIA role, and its plans for regime change in Moscow, writes Robert Parry. By Robert Parry The Washington Post’s descent into the depths of neoconservative propaganda – willfully misleading its readers on matters of grave importance – apparently knows no bounds as was demonstrated with two deceptive articles regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin and why his government is cracking down on “foreign agents.” If you read the Post’s editorial on Wednesday and a companion op-ed by National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, you would have been led to believe that Putin is delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations represents a threat to Russian sovereignty. Russian President Vladimir Putin laying a wreath at Russia's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on May 8, 2014, as part of the observance of the World War II Victory over Germany. The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians have enacted laws requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” – and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED. The Post’s editors wrote that Putin’s “latest move, announced Tuesday, is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’ “The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED’s grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin’s ramparts. … “The new law on ‘undesirables’ comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ‘foreign agents’ if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage.” But there are several salient facts that the Post’s editors surely know but don’t want you to know. The first is that NED is a U.S. government-funded organization created in 1983 to do what the Central Intelligence Agency previously had done in financing organizations inside target countries to advance U.S. policy interests and, if needed, help in “regime change.” The secret hand behind NED’s creation was CIA Director William J. Casey who worked with senior CIA covert operation specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to establish NED in 1983. Casey – from the CIA – and Raymond – from his assignment inside President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council – focused on creating a funding mechanism to support groups inside foreign countries that would engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. To partially replace that CIA role, the idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money. But Casey recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III – as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.” NED Is Born The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured. But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation. This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill. The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented, not fully recognizing the significance of the demand. The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration’s choice of Carl Gershman to head the National Endowment for Democracy, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy. Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED’s first (and, to this day, only) president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC. For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that “Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.” Currently, Gershman’s NED dispenses more than $100 million a year in U.S. government funds to various NGOs, media outlets and activists around the world. The NED also has found itself in the middle of political destabilization campaigns against governments that have gotten on the wrong side of U.S. foreign policy. For instance, prior to the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, NED was funding scores of projects. A second point left out of the Post’s editorial was the fact that Gershman took a personal hand in the Ukraine crisis and recognized it as an interim step toward regime change in Moscow. On Sept. 26, 2013, Gershman published an op-ed in the Washington Post that called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and explained how pulling it into the Western camp could contribute to the ultimate defeat of Russian President Putin. “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” Gershman wrote. “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” In other words, NED is a U.S. government-financed entity that has set its sights on ousting Russia’s current government. A third point that the Post ignored is that the Russian law requiring outside-funded political organizations to register as “foreign agents” was modeled on a US law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. In other words, the U.S. government also requires individuals and entities working for foreign interests and seeking to influence U.S. policies to disclose those relationships with the U.S. Justice Department or face prison. If the Post’s editors had included any or all of these three relevant factors, you would have come away with a more balanced understanding of why Russia is acting as it is. You might still object but at least you would be aware of the full story. By concealing all three points, the Post’s editors were tricking you and other readers into accepting a propagandistic viewpoint – that the Russian actions were crazy and that Putin was, according to the Post’s headline, “power mad.” Gershman’s Op-Ed But you might think that Gershman would at least acknowledge some of these points in his Post op-ed, surely admitting that NED is financed by the U.S. government. But Gershman didn’t. He simply portrayed Russia’s actions as despicable and desperate. “Russia’s newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy on Tuesday was declared an “undesirable organization” prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy,” Gershman wrote, adding: “This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the ‘foreign agents’ law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia.” The reference to how a “foreign agents” registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn’t good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the op-ed. So would an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. How many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power? Not surprisingly, Gershman couldn’t find the space to include any balance in his op-ed – and the Post’s editors didn’t insist on any. Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here. SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/30/why-russia-shut-down-ned-fronts/ --------------------- COMMENT So there you go:  expect most of what you read in mainstream media to be US foreign policy serving propaganda. Likewise for Western banking/corporate-controlled, US foreign policy aligned, governments. Here's a bit more on NED: 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.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy excerpted from the book Rogue State A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/TrojanHorse_RS.html ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NED (National Endowment Democracy) >> funded Ukraine’s first think tank, Centre for Independent Political Research  ('independent' LOL) #USA 'democracy promoting' organisations  - eg National Endowment for Democracy (NED) & USAID - a front for political interference abroad.  National Endowment for Democracy helped to overthrow democratically elected govts in: >> Bulgaria 1990 >> Albania 1991/92 >> Ukraine 2014  National Endowment for Democracy (NED) successfully manipulated elections in: >> Nicaragua in 1990 >> Mongolia in 1996 #France, #Portugal & #Spain unions (& lefties) are being undermined by US / CIA National Endowment for Democracy   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And here's China on Washington Post: Chinese embassy rebukes WASHINGTON POST  re unfair accusations - cyberattacks / megaphone diplomacy counterproductive http://www.ecns.cn/2015/08-01/175371.shtml  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Don't know that I'll remember much of this.  Got a shocking memory. All I know is NED's bad news; US govt & mainstream media are hypocrites; and all you'll generally get in MSM is propaganda.  LOL

TPP - Raw Deal - "ultra-neoliberal legal and economic bloc"

Public Media and Utilities Could be Crushed by TPP: Wikileaks Published 30 July 2015 Wikileaks has dropped another TPP bombshell with a leaked letter suggesting the deal could force mass privatizations of state-owned enterprises The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could force state enterprises such as public utilities to put profits before public welfare and lead to mass privatizations, according to documents published by Wikileaks Wednesday. Under the TPP, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) would be forced to act “on the basis of commercial considerations,” according to the leak. The document also suggests multinational corporations could be empowered to sue SOEs for supposedly uncompetitive actions like favoring local businesses. The bombshell leak centers around a classified letter from the TPP's December 2013 ministerial meeting. SOEs themselves are common in most TPP countries, and advocates say they perform crucial services aimed at supporting public needs rather than turn a profit. Some examples include Canada's main postal operator, Canada Post, and Australia's public broadcaster ABC. The latter is consistently rated by viewers as one of Australia's most trusted sources of news. “SOEs are almost always state owned because they have functions other than those that are merely commercial, such as guaranteed access to important services, or because social, cultural, development and commercial functions are inextricably intertwined,” said Professor Jane Kelsey, from New Zealand's University of Auckland. In an analysis of Wednesday's leak commissioned by Wikileaks, Kelsey concluded the TPP could carve out a “backdoor to privatization” of state enterprises. She argued seemingly proposed regulations outlined in the leaked document ignore “the reality that SOEs and private firms are driven by different imperatives and obligations.” Kelsey's main complaint was with the document's demand that SOEs prioritize “commercial considerations,” pointing out many state enterprises intentionally run at losses for the public good. “Even where SOEs are profit-oriented, a government may elect not to extract full commercial profits, and choose to reinvest in the enterprise to strengthen the asset base or the quality of the services in ways that private investors would rarely do,” she explained. For example, Australia Post is restricted to using its profits to reinvest in improving services, or handing dividends back to Australia's federal government. Australian Greens trade spokesperson Peter Whish-Wilson told The Saturday Paper that the TPP's chapter on SOEs “directly challenges a government's right to own and operate any enterprise such as Australia Post, the ABC or power utilities that compete with corporate entities, but ultimately also the provision of public good services including healthcare, education. “(It's) a direct assault by corporations trying to limit the role of government,” he said. In a statement, Wikileaks said the leaked document proved the TPP will force member states to swallow “a wide-ranging privatization and globalization strategy.” “In this leak we see the radical effects the TPP will have, not only on developing countries, but on states very close to the center of the Western system,” said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Under negotiation for more than seven years, supporters say the TPP will streamline global trade and promote economic growth. Once the TPP is completed, its provisions will override national laws of its 12 member states, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the United States. The deal is already being hailed as the largest trade agreement in world history, and will encompass over 40 percent of global GDP. However, the deal's provisions have been almost entirely withheld from the public, prompting critics to argue the agreement is subject to undue secrecy. The few glimpses the public has had into the closed door talks have been leaked drafts of the TPP published by Wikileaks. Independent analysts say the trade deal is a “bonanza” for big business, and a raw deal for consumers. U.S. trade officials have responded by urging the public not to read the leaks, arguing the draft documents may not accurately represent the final document. The controversial deal has already sparked international protests, with activists demanding negotiators open talks to public scrutiny. Warning that the TPP will erect a “'one size fits all' economic system,” Assange said public debate on the trade deal is urgently needed. “If we are to restructure our societies into an ultra-neoliberal legal and economic bloc that will last for the next 50 years then this should be said openly and debated,” he said. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Public-Media-and-Utilities-Could-be-Crushed-by-TPP-Wikileaks-20150730-0014.html --------------------- COMMENT This isn't democracy; this is corporate control of the state.   Western politicians and governments place corporate interests ahead of vital public interests and public well-being, as if this were already a corporate dictatorship it will definitely become under the TPP. Everything the public, workers, unions, and other activist have fought for over the decades is about to be denied the public, and government is even assigning national sovereignty to corporations, by virtue of placing corporate powers set out in the 'free trade' agreement ahead of national, state, and local authorities' ability to subsequently legislate in the interest of public well-being. In negotiating the TPP, elected government is working against public interest by even entertaining an agreement which lets corporations call the shots: with the threat of corporate lawsuits blocking future lawmaking; by letting corporations block the right to public ownership of vital public services; and by letting corporations dictate that the good of the corporation (profit) must come before the public good. It's criminal that this trade agreement has been kept from the public by politicians, who also hoped to keep the sell-out agreement under wraps for something like 5 years, even after signing. It's ironic that whilstleblower publisher WikiLeaks - whose editor is presently under siege, and under an unprecedented 5-year long attack by US authorities - is the source of information regarding this immense threat from corporate America and friends.  The hide of the politicians acting contrary to their mandate to serve the public, rather than to screw the public (as intended by the TPP), who have acted to keep this agreement from public scrutiny, is really something to behold. And the prospect of life under corporate rule, a la corporate controlled, less than minimum wage, downtrodden, union-less, exploited, underclass hell-hole USA, is positively frightening. So why are the unions silent? SEE ALSO: TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy