Canada - CSIS Illegal Spying on Enrironmental Activists - Lawsuit | Bill C-51 Gives CSIS Power to Break Law & Violate Constitution

CSIS spy exposé triggers federal hearings By Linda Solomon Wood & Jenny Uechi in News | August 12th 2015 A Vancouver Observer investigation has prompted hearings about whether the RCMP and CSIS broke the law by spying on environmental groups. The Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) began hearing arguments today in Vancouver by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) regarding the Harper government's extensive spying on groups critical of the tar sands. The spying was revealed in documents obtained by National Observer's sister publication, Vancouver Observer, in 2013. "We wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t been for the Vancouver Observer," said BCCLA executive director Josh Paterson. The Observer investigation showed the National Energy Board (NEB) coordinating with RCMP and CSIS to monitor groups opposing the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline: The federal government has been vigorously spying on anti-oil sands activists and organizations in BC and across Canada since last December, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show. Not only is the federal government subsidizing the energy industry in underwriting their costs, but deploying public-safety resources as a de facto "insurance policy" to ensure that federal strategies on proposed pipeline projects are achieved, these documents indicate. The federal government spying and monitoring of pipeline critics was illegal and had a "chilling" effect on Canadians' freedom of expression and freedom of association, BCCLA will argue, Paterson said. The hearings opened in a cloak of secrecy. The government barred reporters from photographing people going in or out of the court to prevent them from capturing the image of a secret agent. No media were allowed to observe or report on the hearings and the public is not allowed to attend. But Paterson spoke this morning about what he expected to happen behind closed doors. "Clearly, if there were issues of national security at stake — if there were information that would compromise the safety of agents in the field — you could see why a hearing might take place in secret," he said. "What we know from government documents makes clear that there was no threat to national security, that these groups were operating peacefully. So we don’t understand why at the very least CSIS can’t make more documents public about its activities," he added. "We’re arguing that CSIS broke the law by gathering intelligence about the democratic activities of Canadians in relation to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. We'll see through these hearings that spies and police though surveillance intimidate people until they feel like they don’t want to participate in the democratic process." CSIS spying exposed through FOIs In November 2013, Matt Millar, then a reporter for Vancouver Observer, obtained Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that showed the NEB coordinating with RCMP and CSIS to monitor several groups, including Idle No More, ForestEthics, Sierra Club, Leadnow, Dogwood Initiative and the Council of Canadians. The FOI material revealed that the NEB was arranging police protection for Enbridge and TransCanada staff, while keeping a close eye on their critics. Vancouver Observer subsequently reported that Canada's chief spy watchdog, Chuck Strahl, then head of SIRC, had registered as a lobbyist for Enbridge. Further investigations revealed that Strahl, a former Conservative cabinet minister, had been contracted by Enbridge since 2011. The stories prompted the BCCLA to file a complaint against RCMP and CSIS for 'illegal' monitoring of peaceful activists, Paterson said. They also led to Strahl's resignation due to perceived conflict of interest. "This stems from documents that were released to the Vancouver Observer that suggested that the RCMP and CSIS had gathered intelligence and shared intelligence on citizens group," said Paterson. "These were groups that were either assisting people to participate in the process, or organizing people to protest against the proposed pipeline. That is part of the life of a democracy and that should be welcomed." "Instead, we see that the government spied on these people and shared information about the activities of environmental groups with petroleum companies. This is highly problematic, and potentially a violation of people’s charter rights," Paterson said. national energy board, CSIS, spying on environmentalists, government spying, RCMP Screenshot of email in which Rick Garber, NEB's "Group Leader of Security," discussing monitoring of First Nations pipeline critics in Prince Rupert. Hearings taking place in atmosphere of secrecy CSIS has disclosed very little information heading into the three-day hearings, BCCLA lawyer Paul Champ told the Canadian Press. Paterson said he hopes for a fair ruling by SIRC, but is disturbed by aspects of secrecy that might thwart a just process. "There’s a whole extra-secret part of the hearings that we’re not allowed to attend. Just CSIS and their lawyers will be there, and they’ll make their case in secret. They won’t even tell us when it’s going to happen. We’ll receive a redacted transcript." Yves Fortier, a member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee who was revealed to be a former TransCanada board member who still held shares in the company, will be part of the committee reviewing this case, he said. "[Fortier] himself is by all accounts an upstanding individual of impeccable reputation," Paterson said. "However, he did used to be on a board of a pipeline company whose name is mentioned in these documents. We had asked for him to step aside based on the appearance of bias." In November of 2013, Vancouver Observer broke the news that Harper government officials and spies met with industry officials in Ottawa. In the shadow of Bill C-51 In February 2014 the BCCLA filed a complaint with the review committee after media reports suggested that CSIS and other government agencies considered opposition to the petroleum industry a threat to national security. The complaint cited reports the spy service had shared information with the National Energy Board about "radicalized environmentalist" groups seeking to participate in the board’s hearings on Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project, which would see Alberta crude flow westward to the B.C. coast. The passage of government security legislation that gives CSIS new powers to disrupt extremist activity has only heightened concerns about government monitoring of environmental and aboriginal protesters who oppose oil pipelines. Paterson is adamant that Bill C-51 has given CSIS far greater powers to break the law and even to violate the constitution. "They have to get a warrant from a judge but that gives us no comfort at all. It’s not the job of judges to break the law but to protect the constitution," he said. "This motivates CSIS to go to judges and say, 'Here’s what we’re planning,' but CSIS has a long history of breaching its duty of candor." "The only thing they’re not allowed to do is violate someone’s sexual integrity, to kill someone or to subvert justice," Paterson adderd. "Short of that, they’re being given the power to break the law and violate the constitution." CSIS did not immediately respond to questions about the process. SIRC has been reached for comment, but did not respond before publication time. — with files from the Canadian Press http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/08/12/news/csis-spy-expos%C3%A9-triggers-federal-hearings CSIS = Canadian Security Intelligence Service Main national security agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Security_Intelligence_Service SIRC = Security Intelligence Review Committee supposedly independent agency to oversee CSIS inefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Review_Committee MORE ELSEWHERE There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists ACTIVIST'S PERSPECTIVE Hey CSIS. If you're listening, we're going to hold your spying to account. By Kai Nagata     August 13, 2015 http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/dogwood-initiative/2015/08/hey-csis-if-youre-listening-were-going-to-hold-your-spying ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- --------------------- COMMENT Wealth of reasons not to give intelligence agencies greater powers. Canada's is shocking & the 'watchdog' (from other articles I've read), is completely toothless. More spying on those engaged in democratic activities  - ie those protesting environmental issues, in this case. Tons of information here.  And what applies in Canada, applies elsewhere.  As in, this is what happens when you give intelligence agencies unchecked power.  It's not used for the benefit of the community; it's used against the community, to further corporate interests (by look of this). Canada sounds bent. ꕤ

ANDREA VANCE - 'NZ spies want greater powers'

NZ spies want greater powers ANDREA VANCE Last updated 12:18, August 13 2015 Grapes grow in a vineyard around the GSCB monitoring station in the Waihopai Valley near Blenheim. STEPHEN RUSSELL/FAIRFAX MEDIA Grapes grow in a vineyard around the GSCB monitoring station in the Waihopai Valley near Blenheim. The release of a "hit list" by Islamic State with a Kiwi's name on it comes as New Zealand's spy agencies demand greater surveillance powers. Emergency anti-terror laws passed last year were promoted as measures to stop foreign fighters leaving for conflicts in Syria and Iraq. However, they also allowed the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) to monitor any terrorist suspects for 24 hours without a warrant. Additionally the reforms permitted the spy agency to conduct video surveillance on private property in cases of suspected terrorism. The new laws came on the back of expanded powers handed to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) in 2013. Caught out illegally spying on Kiwis, the foreign agency was now sanctioned to use its technology and agents to carry out surveillance on behalf of the police, SIS and Defence Force. Terrorism suppression legislation, passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, designated terrorist groups and created offences around financing and allowed for the freezing of assets. It also incorporated international obligations, establishing offences relating to recruiting, bombing and handling explosives. It also meant planning a terrorist act, or making a "credible" threat, was illegal even if it was not carried out. Five years later, the law was amended and now allowed for the Prime Minister to designate which groups were considered terrorists, where previously it was the role of the high court. A review of that legislation was abandoned by the Government in 2012. Interception warrants - for monitoring communications - could be done under a range of laws such as the SIS and GCSB Acts and the International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987. But security services were pushing for more, arguing current laws were outdated and did not keep pace with technology. Canada, Australia and the UK are in the process of pushing through tough anti-terror laws which they said were needed to counter jihadis. British Prime Minister David Cameron last month outlined a five-year plan to counter extremism, focused on how ideology was communicated - but critics fear it would curb freedom of speech. The GCSB legislation established a review of the security services, which was currently being carried out by former deputy prime minister Sir Michael Cullen and lawyer Dame Patsy Reddy. On Tuesday, SIS director Rebecca Kitteridge said the legislation governing her agency needed to change. SIS and GCSB minister Chris Finlayson refused to rule out expanded surveillance powers when questioned in Parliament this week. SOURCE http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/71090362/nz-spies-want-greater-powers ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------    Foreign intel - GCSB - here Internal intel - NZSIS - here Hon Christopher Finlayson, Attorney-General- here ---------------------- COMMENT Wow, that was some interesting NZ information in the look ups. Both agencies have a record of spectacularly overstepping their bounds and unlawfully violating civil liberties, yet more power is sought. Some confusion on my part as to who is responsible.  If I understand correctly, it's John 'Teflon' Key, according to convention (Wikipedia). But it looks like responsibility for intel has maybe been hand-balled. Assume from the article that the minister responsible for both agencies is the attorney-general, Christopher Finlayson.  Did Key handball it to the attorney-general, or is Key ultimately responsible and overseeing the attorney-general? Alternatively, is this really attorney-general territory in practice? It looks like Finlayson's minister in charge of SIS (Security Intelligence Services), going by his profile.  Don't see anything re the foreign intel agency, GCSB. Freedom of speech Civil liberties are definitely on the line, if this lot's going to have a crack at controlling how ideology is communicated' expanding their already considerable powers. Everybody's freedom of speech is civil liberties are at risk - not just a select group, because anybody can become be designated a 'threat' - eg.  NZSIS designated 20 apartheid protesters of the 1980s as 'subversives' and put them on what is presumably a secret surveillance list. Edit:  GCSB - also caught spying illegally / see Kitteridge Report. For government agencies known to spy on activists, animal activists and, by implication, NZ political parties (see Gillchrist 10 years paid NZ govt spy & the NZSIS), these organisations (and the govt that controls them) ought to be kept in check, rather than awarded further powers.   They've already have proven they don't abide by existing laws.  'More' power isn't what they need. NZSIS spying on students and university staff, under the pretext of protecting New Zealanders from 'weapons of mass destruction' is hilarious.  Don't know whether the humour's in the Wikipedia entry, or if they really did use that insane excuse.  Didn't look further than the Wikipedia entry. If it's left to John Key and his government to designate 'terrorist' targets for surveillance by these agencies, the danger is that Teflon will chose on the basis of political considerations - like preservation of power.  lol Note also:  anyone who is deemed a political or like threat (as in threat to maintenance of power, cover-ups etc), is likely labelled 'terrorist'. For example, Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) was labelled 'terrorist' by the Americans ... for exposing US war crimes!   People, this is comedy gold. Instead of writing that propaganda show for the BBC, mocking the serious danger Assange is in, had those entertainment writers given even a cursory look at intelligence agencies, they'd have found themselves comedy gold.    Never going to happen.  Just as mainstream journalism seldom challenges those in power in any meaningful way, entertainment writers apparently also dare not challenge the powerful.  Like hyenas, they despicably attack the target of the powerful. --- Hey, New Zealand This Is What Happens When Intel Agencies Have Unchecked Power spying and monitoring of pipeline critics was illegal and had a "chilling" effect on Canadians' freedom of expression and freedom of association complaint against RCMP and CSIS for 'illegal' monitoring of peaceful activists government spied on these people and shared information about the activities of environmental groups with petroleum companies. MORE - here + MORE ELSEWHERE There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists PS This post is a mess, but I'll let it stand as testimony to my stupidity.  lol Don't know what I was thinking.  Must have got confused by the mention of the UK implementations.   Same deal, whether it's speech or privacy issue, so it all stands. PPS If they're using the argument that "current laws were outdated and did not keep pace with technology," they're probably wanting to amp up digital surveillance in NZ, I'm guessing. ꕤ

Transcript: WikiLeaks - €100,000 reward for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

TRANSCRIPT [ For quotation purposes, confirm audio beforehand.] SOURCE - VIDEO [11:00] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&t=1m34s ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- WikiLeaks is raising €100,000 reward for the Trans-Atlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) Narrator WikiLeaks is raising a €100,000 reward for Europe's most wanted secret: the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP). John Pilger Investigative Journalist This is something enormous. It is about a final control, and it's the United States saying: there maybe another power in the world, but we will be the ultimate power. Julian Assange Editor in Chief Wikileaks The TTIP is the most important thing that is happening in Europe right now. It's a secretive deal, being negotiated between Europe and the United States. Narrator Once signed, it will cement a key part of the US government's plan to create a new global block that will ensure the dominance of its largest companies, and to understand why, we need to go back to the 1950s. [COMMERCIAL CLIP - CHEVROLET] After the second world war, the United States accounted for half of the world's economy. Its influence was unmatched by any country and it was able to write the early rules of international trade to its advantage. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in this context, and the US dicated rules that favoured American business. But as economies like China and India joined the WTO, it became a more democratised arena and the US found it harder to control its decision making. John Pilger Investigative Journalist At the WTO Doha rounds, India spoke up and Brazil spoke up, and the US lost control. Pascal Lamy WTO Chief I think it's no use beating around the bush. This meeting has collapsed. Narrator The US felt it needed a new strategy to maintain its global dominance, so in the classical American style, they went big. To bypass the WTO, they're creating the biggest international agreements that the world has ever seen. They're called the Three Big Ts: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ; the Trans-Atlantic Trade &  Investment Partnership (TTIP); the Trade In Services Agreement (TiSA); and they're all being negotiated in secret, right now. John Pilger Investigative Journalist We only found out when WikiLeaks was able to leak parts of them. John Hilary Executive Director War on Want What's interesting when you look across all of these deals, whether it be TTIP, TPP or TiSA, China is excluded. But also Brasil, Russia, India, South Africa. They're all excluded, because those are the emerging economies. Matt Kennard Centre for Investigative Journalism What is not often understood is that these agreements are part of a geopolitical war. This is a new war which is taking place between the United States and China. The United States is very scared of the rise of China, so it has moved to militarily encircle it through what is called 'the pivot to Asia'. And now it's moving onto doing that economically. Julian Assange Editor in Chief WikiLeaks The basic idea which comes across from reading US strategy papers, is the construction of a new grand enclosure, and to put inside this grand enclosure: the United States; 51 other countries; 1.6 billion people; and two-thirds of global GDP; to integrate Latin America away from Brazil and towards the United States;  to integrate South-East Asia away from China and towards the United States; and  to integrate Western Europe, pulling it away from Eurasia as a whole and towards the Atlantic. Narrator Of the Three Big Ts, WikiLeaks has revealed four (4) chapters of the TTP, which affects twelve (12) countries and the Americas and South-east Asia. We also obtained and released the core text of TiSA, which affects fifty-two (52) countries, including the EU. But nearly all of TiSA is still secret. When signed, TTIP will cover half of global GDP and will affect every European State, yet European parliamentarians have serious restrictions in accessing the proposed agreement Jean Lambert Member of the European Parliament Green Party Yeah, I found it incredible as well, but - for something that is a trade agreement, not a matter of life and death in terms of security where maybe you can understand some restrictions (and we don't even like those very much), but for a trade agreement? You know, that we can't actually make notes about what it is that we're reading; issues that we might want to take away to look into, which actually might reassure us, you know, if we really were able to sort of take this away and look at it in depth. John Hilary Executive Director War on Want We don't have access to the key documents, the most important ones. Because the devil is in the detail, when it comes to trade agreements, you kneed to know exactly what's in the text, so that you can assess what the impact's going to be. Julian Assange Editor in Chief WikiLeaks If EU parliamentarians want to see the TTIP, they have to call the US embassy and make an appointment. Appointments are only available two (2) days a week for two (2) hour time slots. Only two (2) parliamentarians are permitted at once. They go to the US embassy, they have to hand in every electronic device, so they cannot possibly make a copy. They must agree to keep everything confidential and they are led to a secure reading room where two (2) US embassy guards watch everything that they do. How can EU parliamentarians possibly understand what they're negotiating for Europe under these circumstances? Narrator The world's biggest corporations don't have the same problem. They have been receiving VIP access from day one, and have had abundant influence in the negotiations. John Pilger Investigative Journalist People - the likes of you and I - are excluded. Governments, to a great extent, are excluded. Those who are included are the multinational corporations. Matt Kennard Centre for Investigative Journalism These agreements are basically corporate ownership agreements. The funny thing about free trade agreements as we understand them is they often have nothing to do wiht trade, in the sense of the mutual lowering of tarrifs. What they are about is enshrining an investor rights regime in the respective countries, and ensuring that corporations can run wild in the respective economies, with very, very little regulation or impingement by government or authorities. Claire Provost Centre for Investigative Journalism These treaties will have huge, huge, implications, for literally almost every critical issue that individual citizens in our community would care about: health, education, the environment, privacy, and access to medicines, and the list could go on. Narrator One of the most criticised aspects of TTIP is a system called the Investor State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS. It's a secretive, international tribunal that allows companies to sue states over virtually anything that they can claim affects their investment. Claire Provost Centre for Investigative Journalism If a protest affects their profits, they can sue. If laws affect their profits, they can sue. If new regulations might impact where or what they want to do with their money, they can sue. John Hilary Executive Director War on Want This is a new power which will be handed over to the US corporations to sue the governments of Europe in a parallel judicial system which is available to them alone. So, people have no access to it. Domestic firms have no access to it. Governments have no access to it. It's just the foreign investors; in this case, US corporations. Narrator Based on ISDS history, critics argue that European state sovereignty and democracy are at serious risk. Previous law suits include Swedish company Vattenfall suing the German state for $3.7 billion for phasing out nuclear energy. British-American tobacco sued Australia for passing a law limiting cigarette advertising. The French company Veolia sued Egypt for raising the minimum wage. TTIP advocates say that in order for the EU and the US to become a single market, regulatory barriers need to be eliminated. This way, for example, a US seatbelt manufacturer already selling seatbelts to domestically wouldn't need to test for safety a second time as the EU would agree to recognise the US safety standards. They argue that this would save costs, create jobs and lower prices for consumers, but just how safe are US standards? John Hilary Executive Director War on Want So, in the US, seventy percent (70%) of all processed food sold in supermarkets contains genetically modified ingredients. Whereas in the European Union, we've said quite clearly we don't want GM ingredients in our food chain. Similarly, in the US 90% of all beef is produced using growth hormones which have been found to be carcinogenic in humans, so they're banned in the European Union, and what the US government is saying is that, under TTIP, under the free trade rules they want to bring in, European consumers don't get the right to choose. Narrator TTIP includes all of the most important public sectors in Europe, including education, water, railways, postal services, and, most controversially, it also includes public health services. Matt Kennard Centre for Investigative Journalism What is so scary about this is that corporations want to lock in their power. So they not only want increased power, they want to make impossible for sovereign governments to reverse the changes which are going to give them power. So, for example, with TTIP, if it passes with ISDS in it, the privatisation of the National Health Service (NHS) which is happening in the UK can never be reversed. John Pilger Investigative Journalist What is democratic about an enormous imposition of power on countries whose citizens have no way of knowing what's going on, of debating it, or influencing their government in its decision. That's anti-democratic. Julian Assange Editor in Chief WikiLeaks The history of these agreements shows that they're very difficult to change, unless people can see what's in them, and that's why they're kept secret. Because when the contents are revealed, it generates an opposition. Narrator: WikiLeaks has had considerable delaying the TPP and opening up the debate around it, and the TiSA, by releasing the draft texts. A publication of an earlier proposed US-EU agreement, the ACTA, killed it entirely. WikiLeaks is raising a €100,000 reward for Europe's most wanted secret: the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Help the world become a more transparent place. Do your part. Go to: www.wikileaks.org/ttip-reward SOURCE - VIDEO [11:00] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&t=1m34s ꕤ

Assange - One Law for Dictators & Another Law for Targets of Political Persecution

General Pinochet's detention Former Chilean president Augusto Pinochet was detained in London on 16 October 1998 ... [ ... ] Amnesty International had done a lot of work denouncing the atrocities carried out by Pinochet's regime, which was responsible for the disappearance of more than 3,000 people and the torture of thousands more in a 17-year reign. [ ... ] Garcés thought it may be possible to indict Pinochet using the principles of universal jurisdiction which, in theory, allowed any state to investigate and prosecute individuals for crimes committed in other countries. [ ... ] “The Spanish National Court had admitted in 1996 a lawsuit filed by victims of torture and enforced disappearances in Argentina after Parliament had ruled in 1985 that universal jurisdiction could be applied in cases of crimes against humanity, terrorism and genocide”. [ ... ] ... Pinochet was placed under arrest. He was held in custody at The Clinic, an expensive private hospital where he had just had an operation. It was the first time a former head of state had been arrested based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. [...] "... worked with Amnesty International to support the extradition request." UK magistrates ruled in 1999 that Pinochet should be extradited to Spain, but it never happened. The then UK Home Secretary Jack Straw ordered his release on health grounds in 2000, after a controversial medical test stated Pinochet was not fit to appear before a court and he returned to Chile a free man that same year. Garcés and Shoppeé believe that politics came into play.  ... “English magistrates took the process seriously and, finally, the prevalent position was the one we thought was in line with the international law. But at the end of the day the British government did not allow it to happen because of political pressure from the Chilean and Spanish governments and economic, diplomatic and other dark interests." “We should not forget that Pinochet died as a fugitive from justice. He was clear that international society saw him as a criminal." On the day of Pinochet's return to Chile, dozens of judicial requests against him began ... SOURCE https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/10/how-general-pinochets-detention-changed-meaning-justice/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Augusto Pinochet Pinochet assumed power in Chile following a United States-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973 that overthrew the elected socialist Unidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward. [Wikipedia] ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- TREATMENT of Pinochet vs Assange Dictator, Torturer, Murder  vs Detained Journalist Who Exposed War Crimes One Law for Dictators & Another Law for Targets of Political Persecution      CORRUPTION & POLITICAL PERSECUTION Images herein are *not* owned by this blog. Images used pursuant to 'fair use' purposes under s.107 of the Copyright Act 1976. 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. ꕤ Pinochet died 2006, at the ripe old age of 91. Looks like Pinochet lived another 6 years after the UK government intervention to sidestep the court decision, in order to release the US-puppet dictator. Six years doesn't sound like much, but when you're an 85 year old that's managed to kick on for another 6 years, that's ages. British authorities claimed he was too 'sick' to face trial for crimes against humanity, and relied on a dodgy medical (of course, lol). So much for the the 'values' that these crooked politicians keep using for leverage in their public propaganda broadcasts. And look where he spent his time detained.  At some luxury clinic-retreat of the wealthy. As I see it, this is corruption in action, at the highest level: "British government did not allow it to happen because of political pressure from the Chilean and Spanish governments and economic, diplomatic and other dark interests." As demonstrated by this example, the law means nothing to the British government.  But the British aren't alone in that regard. It's a joke that these Western governments vilify countries such as Russia, when they're so thoroughly corrupt and contemptuous of the law themselves. ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Members of the Swedish government have undoubtedly played an active role in the legal assault on Julian Assange.  They're as crooked as the Americans and the British (see CIA rendition), and they're all in it together.  There's strong diplomatic, military, and trade cooperation between the parties.  Sweden is so tight with the US that the Swedish embassy in North Korea acts as the US agent: #Sweden so close 2 US, its embassy has negotiated release of US nationals detained in North Korea - http://tinyurl.com/qfbmobd ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- And then there's their cooperation regarding CIA kidnap and torture of the men rendered to Egypt. Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture Offer No Protection From Abuse https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- So, a journalist that is responsible for disclosing US and allied war crimes is politically persecuted and detained for almost 5 years without charge. But a US-puppet dictator who was responsible for the death and torture of thousands (with US blessing), is released by the British. This is the ugly truth:  Assange is the victim of political persecution at the highest levels. The UK authorities have detained Julian Assange for almost 5 years without charge; and they've spent almost 12 million pounds (LINKED) holding him under siege at the Ecuador embassy (where he has been granted political asylum - clearly, for good reason). British authorities are determined in their violation of international law, blocking Assange's passage at any cost, because they're set on extraditing Julian Assange to the US for yet another round of trumped up charges of 'espionage' and a life sentence (if not worse). That same British government won't release freedom of information documents on communications regarding extradition of Assange to the US, because it "would affect diplomatic relations". The Sweden police allegations and 'charges' claims are a crock of sh*t, and politicians in the UK are as bent as those in Sweden. All those journalists, lawyers, politicians, political pundits, and other sundry lowlife detractors, who slag off Assange are targeting a journalist who's 'crime' is being stitched up by Sweden on behalf of US and its UK ally, for exposing their war crimes. ꕤ

VIDEO - Get Down Moses

Get Down Moses  Joe Strummer & The Mescaleros https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zty2WxVnklI

Mainstream Journalism - New Business Model - Lipstick on a Pig

Andrew Fowler: 'Why journalism is in decline' Opinion The Drum By Jessica Tapp Posted 3 Aug 2015, 11:30pm  Mon 3 Aug 2015, 11:30pm Author and journalist Andrew Fowler takes a look at a media industry in flux, and tells The Drum what factors are contributing to a decline in quality journalism. Journalist and author Andrew Fowler says a lack of trust and failed business models are contributing to a decline in journalism. Mr Fowler has outlined the problem in his new book, The War on Journalism - Media Moguls, Whistleblowers and The Price of Freedom. Speaking to The Drum, he said the declining confidence in the media was contributing to a disconnect between the mainstream media and their sources. "People with information very often don't trust the existing news media, they tend to go to people outside," he said. "For example, (Edward) Snowden went to Glenn Greenwald who was a freelancer who then got the story published in The Guardian, but there's a lot of pressure from Greenwald to get that story up before the story finally appeared." The Guardian published a series of Greenwald's articles revealing America's National Security Agency was collecting the phone records of millions of customers of one of the USA's largest telecommunications providers. The leaked documents also showed the NSA was permitted to use and retain information from US communications, including emails and internet usage. "Bradley, or Chelsea Manning as she is now, actually didn't go to the newspapers, she didn't go to The New York Times, she went to this outfit who nobody knew at the time, called Wikileaks," Mr Fowler said. "Wikileaks were the people that actually then did the deal with The Guardian." Mainstream media disconnect Mr Fowler said the way the NSA files were leaked shows the changing relationship in how the media gets its information. "It's an interesting area to look at to understand why those things occurred," he said. "What it shows you is that one of the reasons why the mainstream media is in such a crisis is that people have really lost confidence in it, not only because the money itself has dried up so they really can't fund the kind of investigations that they did in the past, but also because they think that they tend to go downmarket to compete with the internet. "You get clickbait stories ... which really are just trash, and flop." Losing money, losing power Mr Fowler said the drop in profits, particularly for print media, had made it difficult for journalists to fund good reporting. "I think governments and corporate interests have become more and more powerful and more and more controlling of journalists," he said. "As journalists we've become weaker as the rivers of gold, as (Rupert) Murdoch famously called them, have dried up. "Then the governments and the large corporations have really made a great play of that and have fed news organisations pretty easy to digest news that they can run." He said the public was aware of the changing power dynamic. "It's a very difficult situation because there's no money ... so the problem is how do you get out of that issue?" Failing business models Mr Fowler said he wanted to see a new business model to keep funding quality journalism. "Unless you do, the fourth estate which is the fourth pillar that stands against the other three pillars of the realm will fall. And for democracy - and it sounds awfully large call to make - but for democracy it's a really dangerous time," he said.  [Fascism followed by revolution?  lol] "As far as I can see there has been no major investigation of how this failure occurred because most newspapers were in denial until they finally got clobbered with the reality." Echo chambers Mr Fowler blamed pay walls for making it easier for people to seek out the stories that only match their views or interests. "What you want is a mix in the newspaper where you get people reading good, strong stuff like investigations done by The Herald Sun or done by The Age, mixed in with light stories that people will want to read," he said. "The (Financial Review) behind a pay wall is all very well, but I want the Fin Review read by other people than just those people who have blue chip stock. "I don't want this narrow casting because narrow casting means that people live in an echo chamber and that breeds all sorts of problems: extremism, people with prejudice only reading what they want to read, never being exposed to a big idea." But haven't people always read particular newspapers because it aligns with their views? Mr Fowler denied it and said there was value in a diversity of news and opinion. "Sometimes they get surprised." Jessica Tapp is a journalist with ABC's DrumTV http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-04/tapp-why-journalism-is-in-decline/6670076  --------------------- COMMENT New business model?  Lipstick on a pig, more like it. Goodbye fascism lite & hello full-on corporate fascism controlled media and society? Meh, what's the difference?  LOL Seriously, mainstream journalism is deception & has always been deception. The main reason I support journalism is because I want everyone *else* to have a voice (ie public and alternative press), and I don't think you can have that without having a free press.  Freedom of expression and freedom of speech is more important to me, but it's not like you can have those personal and political freedoms without also having a free press.  As for mainstream journalism, that's largely the corporate & government agenda and propaganda voice. No major investigation needed.  See enough mainstream media propaganda in action and read about CIA bribes, journalists obtaining government agency approval before printing, CIA controlled media of the Cold War era, willing newspaper editors obliging the government and so on, and mainstream media cancels itself out. And who seriously wants to know what Rupert Murdoch's or Gina Rinehardt's paper wants to proclaim ... you just read that stuff for bare details and the occasional laugh. Big idea?  Big idea, or big lie?  Think the press is just lamenting that it's harder to pull the wool over everyone's eyes these days.  Not sure how they propose to expose everybody to 'diversity' and 'opinion' when all mainstream output is from the position of the establishment (or a certain brand of smug, sanctimonious, preachy left), which is said to represent the limits of debate.  I'm guessing more and more people aren't interested in what they have to say because the internet gives people options they've never had. Fascists will probably shut down the internet and we'll be stuck with watching the evening news and reading one of a couple of daily newspapers. Don't know how money is made out of news.  News is like tissues.  It's throw-away:  as soon as you have the key facts and the buzz of the newness of it, it's dead news.  PS   I've figured out what I don't like about mainstream media.  Don't like the whole presenter thing and being presented with whatever is deemed 'suitable', being presented with somebody else's agenda, the propriety of it all, the political correctness, the seriousness, the 'we are authorities' play-acting, the entire canned for public consumption fakery of TV news ... as well the fact that you KNOW they and the printed press will never present news that goes against US-allied foreign policy (well, you eventually learn if you bother to look).  But you instinctively know because the story is always the same, the state 'enemies' are always the same etc.  It's all about upholding the establishment position, whatever that position may be. The biggest threat to journalism is government, which is afraid of whistleblowers and of the internet.  The government is cracking down on the media and on civil liberties, to prevent exposure from perhaps a media that now needs to work harder than it has ever done, as it is in competing with a whistleblower publisher (or maybe more), and needs to maybe start looking a little more real? And this talk of 'democracy' is nonsense.  It is, and always has been, a plutocracy. I'm starting to think that any threat to journalism (other than government) is probably hyped up nonsense.  The bulk of the population will always be mainstream media dependent, and I think very few people will ever stick their necks on the block as whistleblowers.   I'm still having serious trouble believing the Defence Dept 4Chan leak story. It's probably a fake, like those false flag ops, to provide a pretext for ever growing controls on the media and the public.  Ummm ... can you have fake court cases?  If you can have faked 'attacks' one must defend with military response, faked  weapons of mass destruction, and faked allegations etc, etc, why not also have yourself some fake court cases? lol  [I've not slept much and I've just bashed this rant out.  So if it doesn't make a lot of sense, that'd be why.  lol]

SAUDI ARABIA - OIL, GAS, PETROLEUM - GOOD OVERVIEW

Benefits, burdens of Saudi oil and gas First Posted: 3:15 am - August 9th, 2015 - 666 Views By Wolf D. Fuhrig Since 1938, the 30 million inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula have richly benefited from their second-largest underground petroleum deposits and their fourth-largest gas reserves in the world. At present, these holdings rank second only to the United States, which also is the most important buyer of Saudi oil. After six years of exploration, the Saudis began to produce and export their oil in 1944. When Saudi Aramco grew into the biggest private petroleum producer, the government promptly nationalized the company. By the year 2000, 12.3 percent of all oil produced worldwide came from Saudi Arabia, according to official data. At present, the country’s oil reserves are estimated to amount to 262.7 billion barrels. Available data give the Saudis eighth place worldwide in refining capacity. That enables them to produce heating oil, gasoline, kerosene and diesel, mostly for countries without refineries. The Saudis have been a reliable supplier of oil for the Western world, except during the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt in 1973 and the Islamic revolution in Iran. During the Second Gulf War in 1991, they exported all of their production to fill Iraq’s and Kuwait’s capacity and thus stabilize the market.  [Iran Revolution: 1979] Until 2006, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia produced 9 million barrels daily when worldwide the annual total was 3,942 billion tons. By 2007, however, the Soviet Union bypassed the Saudis’ daily output. Some experts theorize that they intentionally curtailed their production to increase the price of oil. Recently, dealers in the United States asked the Saudis to raise their production quotas. At a conference in 2008, Saudi King Abdullah urged oil producers and consumers to cooperate more in order to avoid what he called “damaging speculation.” His country remains the industry’s leader with 16 per cent of the world’s petroleum output and 49 known oil and 16 gas fields. Since 2002, over 90 percent of the Saudis’ production has come from only seven giant fields, of which six have pumped over 300,000 barrels daily. Recently it appeared that the productivity of those seven fields has been declining. In 2006 Aramco announced that all of the Saudis’ oil fields have reached a “phase of stagnation” and that the rate of production was going to decline by 8 percent annually. This estimate has since been confirmed by the American investment banker and oil expert Matthew Simmons. At present, oil and gold are going through a selling panic due to the strong dollar and China’s economic slowdown. The pending nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran may soon bring millions of more gallons of oil into world markets. In the meantime, new technologies, especially horizontal drilling, have created an oil glut in the United States. If President Obama succeeds with his proposal for severe restrictions on carbon emissions, that also could lower American coal and oil production. Saudi petroleum minister Ali al-Naimi explained his veto of increases in OPEC’s output last year that it was “crooked logic” for low cost producers to sacrifice market share in support of crude oil prices. Saudi commentators looking for motives beyond maintaining market share have given three strategic reasons: King Salman’s accession to the Saudi throne on Jan. 23; the growing geopolitical unrest surrounding Saudi Arabia; and the accelerating progress of North American shale operators. The Saudis claim that they can produce as much as 12 million barrels a day. The CIA lists the kingdom as the second largest source of proven crude oil reserves after Venezuela. Ironically, Saudi Arabia is currently a net importer of gasoline and diesel. It also continues to burn a large amount of crude oil to produce electricity. At present, Saudi Arabia still remains the largest exporter of petroleum based on its possession of 18 percent of the world’s proven reserves. Its oil and gas sector comprises about 50 percent of its gross domestic product and about 85 percent of its exports. Wolf D. Fuhrig of Jacksonville holds a doctorate in public law and government from Columbia University in New York City. http://myjournalcourier.com/news/84500/benefits-burdens-of-saudi-oil-and-gas --------------------- COMMENT How much they burn up producing electricity explains their desire to set up nuclear power stations. Iranian oil coming onto the market can't be too good for the Russians right now? I don't really understand the concept of 'maintaining market share' and its relationship with slowing production.   They're increasing the price by slowing the production?  Yes, a veto of increasing production.  Means the price is up because it's scarce ... but I've forgotten how this impacts on Russian oil.   Also, I thought prices were DOWN and that this wasn't good for the Russians, who are under sanctions pressure etc.  Don't know.  I've obviously missed something somewhere.  Might have to think about it some other time.  lol Just some trivia, I'll probably never remember. *Good Article