TOKYO MASTER BANNER

MINISTRY OF TOKYO
US-ANGLO CAPITALISMEU-NATO IMPERIALISM
Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies
Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships
Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY
[LINK | Article]

*U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR*

Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
[info from Craig Murray video appearance, follows]  US-Anglo Alliance DELIBERATELY STOKING ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELING & RAMPING UP TENSION BETWEEN EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA.  British military/government feeding media PROPAGANDA.  Media choosing to PUBLISH government PROPAGANDA.  US naval aggression against Russia:  Baltic Sea — US naval aggression against China:  South China Sea.  Continued NATO pressure on Russia:  US missile systems moving into Eastern Europe.     [info from John Pilger interview follows]  War Hawk:  Hillary Clinton — embodiment of seamless aggressive American imperialist post-WWII system.  USA in frenzy of preparation for a conflict.  Greatest US-led build-up of forces since WWII gathered in Eastern Europe and in Baltic states.  US expansion & military preparation HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE WEST.  Since US paid for & controlled US coup, UKRAINE has become an American preserve and CIA Theme Park, on Russia's borderland, through which Germans invaded in the 1940s, costing 27 million Russian lives.  Imagine equivalent occurring on US borders in Canada or Mexico.  US military preparations against RUSSIA and against CHINA have NOT been reported by MEDIA.  US has sent guided missile ships to diputed zone in South China Sea.  DANGER OF US PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES.  China is on HIGH NUCLEAR ALERT.  US spy plane intercepted by Chinese fighter jets.  Public is primed to accept so-called 'aggressive' moves by China, when these are in fact defensive moves:  US 400 major bases encircling China; Okinawa has 32 American military installations; Japan has 130 American military bases in all.  WARNING PENTAGON MILITARY THINKING DOMINATES WASHINGTON. ⟴  

August 16, 2015

USA - LAPD & Chicago PD - Militarised Police - Dirtbox (Fake Cell Phone Tower) Decade-long Dragnet Surveillance - Challenged by Civil Liberties Groups


LAPD Has Had “Stingray on Steroids” Surveillance Equipment for a Decade
Back to News
submit to reddit
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
An older version of seldom-seen "dirtbox"

Secret Stingray cellphone surveillance technology, deployed by police departments without warrants across the country, gets all the publicity.

But the real deal is “Stingray on steroids” technology called “dirtbox” and The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) says cops in Los Angeles and Chicago have had it for a decade. Like Stingray, the device mimics cellphone towers to connect and monitor mobile devices. But dirtbox can monitor multiple signals at a time, breaking encryption as it goes, sweeping up data in a dragnet whose scale is unknown beyond its users.

Devices like dirtbox were first developed for the military and intelligence agencies. Digital Research Technology, Inc. (DRT), purchased by giant defense contractor Boeing in 2008, started as Utica Systems in 1980, manufacturing devices for the “communications surveillance community.”

Dirtboxes are popular among the U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. And documents obtained by Edward Snowden indicate they are used extensively by U.S. spy agencies.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) purchased the equipment in 2005 with a $260,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, according to CIR. Chicago purchased theirs with money gleaned from asset forfeiture cases. Both cities also deploy Stingrays.

The accelerated militarization of local police since 9/11 has contributed to the widespread use of cell-site stimulator technology by local cops. An estimated 40 or 50 agencies use Stingrays, but there is no way to get an accurate count.

Law enforcement agencies sign nondisclosure agreements with the manufacturer, Harris Corporation, which they are loathe to talk about, making court oversight problematic. It also doesn't help that the Obama administration has been advising local authorities to obscure use of the surveillance, which they have done. Prosecutors have dropped cases before releasing Stingray information.

Dirtboxes have flown even more under the radar than Stingrays. CIR said its report on Chicago and Los Angeles was the first to reveal use of the technology by domestic law enforcement. LAPD refused to produce documents requested in February through the California Public Records Act.

The Wall Street Journal wrote last December about the U.S. Marshals Service regularly flying dirtboxes around in Cessnas in at least five metropolitan areas. That kind of mass surveillance, with little discussion of warrants, raises Constitutional questions the courts are just beginning to address. The small boxes seem ideal for drone deployment.

The Journal could only guess at what the Marshals are looking for—they do track fugitives—but said they also take target requests from the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ).

Civil libertarians have been making noise in court over cell-site simulators. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed lawsuits seeking Stingray information in Anaheim and Sacramento, and the First Amendment Coalition filed a lawsuit in San Diego.
SOURCE
http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/top-stories/lapd-has-had-stingray-on-steroids-surveillance-equipment-for-a-decade-150812?news=857184

---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

COMMENT

I've come across this before.

Chicago Police sound really full-on from what little I've read.

How deceitful, hypocritical and totalitarian is this?

US claims to be the land of the 'free' and 'democratic', and look what's going on there. 

Never mind 'Stingray on Steroids'; this is state surveillance / state control on steroids.  Totalitarian USA.

No end to violations of civil liberties.

I don't know if 'dirtboxes' are the same as fake phone towers.

Looks like it's the same deal:
A dirtbox (or DRT box) is a cell site simulator; a phone device mimicking a cell phone tower. The device is designed to create a signal strong enough within a short range so as to force dormant mobile phones to automatically switch over to it. [wikipedia]
I've not read the rest of the Wikipedia entry; I've just captured that off the search summary.

At least the civil liberties people are trying to challenge the practices (which have gone on for a decade).

What's really shocking is the absence of disclosure and lack of court oversight, even though the US constitution is supposed to guarantee various civil liberties.







August 15, 2015

First NSA Mass Surveillance Legal Challenge - Portland, USA


Mohamed Mohamud appeal is first to challenge NSA surveillance in terrorism conviction
1 / 42
Mohamed Mohamud, after being sentenced to 30 years in prison on Oct. 1, 2014. Courtroom sketch by Abigail Marble.
Mike Zacchino | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Print Email
Bryan Denson | The Oregonian/OregonLive By Bryan Denson | The Oregonian/OregonLive
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on August 12, 2015 at 5:00 AM, updated August 12, 2015 at 5:01 AM

The U.S. spy operations that once put Portland terrorist Mohamed Mohamud under FBI surveillance violated his constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure, two civil liberties groups contend in a federal appeals court filing.

Lawyers for the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Mohamud, who has appealed his 30-year-sentence for trying to detonate a bomb in downtown Portland four years ago.

They have joined Mohamud's legal team in denouncing a law that has allowed the National Security Agency to collect troves of overseas communications by Americans through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 provided the legal justification for the massive NSA surveillance programs exposed two years ago by Edward Snowden.

To identify foreign terrorists, the U.S. has secretly collected records of communications between untold numbers of Americans and tens of thousands of people overseas. While the targets of those queries are foreign agents, the civil liberties groups wrote that the government has sometimes performed "backdoor searches," poring through electronic repositories of phone calls, emails and texts for information about U.S. citizens such as Mohamud.

That violated Mohamud's Fourth Amendment rights, they argue.

His lawyers filed an opening brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this spring, opening the door for what is expected to be the nation's first appellate review of a criminal conviction resulting from the law.

Their brief totaled 256 pages, and the court's commissioner ordered them to produce a slimmer version – no more than 180 pages – by this Friday.

Government lawyers have until Dec. 7 to file their reply. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan D. Knight, lead prosecutor in Mohamud's criminal case, declined to comment on the appeal because it is pending.

Lawyers have been arguing about Mohamud's case since the last Monday in November 2010, three days after he tried to detonate what he thought was a massive fertilizer bomb supplied by al-Qaida terrorists. The explosive was packed in a van near Pioneer Courthouse Square, where thousands of people gathered for Portland's holiday tree-lighting ceremony.

The latest brief filed by Mohamud's lawyers describes his actions that night:
"He pushed the buttons of a cellphone, twice, believing they would cause the explosion of a massive, nail-filled bomb capable of eliminating at least two city blocks. ... The bomb was a fake, created by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as the culmination of a sting operation they had started over a year earlier.

"The defense at trial was entrapment: that the government had induced this teenager to attempt a crime he was not predisposed to commit."
Mohamud was 19 at the time.

On Jan. 31, 2013, a jury before Senior U.S. District Judge Garr M. King found Mohamud guilty of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, a charge that carried a potential life sentence. King sentenced him last October to 30 years in prison, and his lawyers filed a notice of appeal eight days later.

Ten months later, the Department of Justice filed a court notice saying that the government had obtained permission – under the FISA Amendments Act – to eavesdrop and collect evidence on Mohamud.

The 7-year-old law has allowed the NSA to vacuum up millions of ordinary Americans' telephone records. But it also has played a significant role in identifying and disrupting foreign spies and terrorists, national security experts say.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which signed orders that allowed the U.S. to eavesdrop on Mohamud, is the most secretive court in the land. Its written orders, unlike standard wiretap warrants, are classified and not disclosed to the defense. So Mohamud's lawyers never fully understood how the FBI came to investigate their client as a potential terrorist.

As Mohamud sits in a federal prison in Victorville, California, his lawyers hope to persuade the appeals court to reverse his conviction and send the case back to Portland for dismissal or a new trial. As an alternative, they are asking the appeals court to vacate their client's sentence and send it back to U.S. District Court for evidentiary hearings or resentencing.

Mohamud's lawyers raise 11 key issues in their appeal, pointing out that King had repeatedly turned down their requests for classified evidence. For instance, they wrote that the judge allowed the FBI's two key witnesses – undercover agents – to use their pseudonyms and wear light disguises as they testified before the jury.

But their main point, the one that will keep national security scholars buzzing until the 9th Circuit rules in the Mohamud case, is the assertion that the FISA Amendments Act is illegal.

One of those watching most closely is Tung Yin, a Lewis & Clark Law School professor who specializes in national security matters.

"We shouldn't be putting someone in prison for 30 years if that conviction resulted in significant part from evidence that the government should not have had, which is what this case would determine," said Yin.

Retired Federal Public Defender Steven T. Wax, who served on Mohamud's defense team and now works on his appellate team, said the government's use of the FISA Amendments Act should lead to reversal of his client's conviction. He remains troubled that the government might still possess classified evidence that could have helped Mohamud's case.

"The way our system should work, the government is obligated by law to provide notice," he said. "They did not. That's a fundamental failing that should lead to throwing out the conviction."

-- Bryan Denson

bdenson@oregonian.com
SOURCE
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/08/mohamed_mohamud_appeal_is_firs.html

---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
COMMENT

What I got out of this (if I understand correctly):

The following enabled the NSA to bulk collect data, in what amounts to the violation of the US  constitution:
  • FISA Amendments Act of 2008
  • Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
  • NSA conducted an illegal program that bulk collected the records of Americans, in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights enshrined in the US constitution.
  • NSA conducted an illegal program that bulk collected the records of "tens of thousands" of non US citizens abroad (more like entire countries).
  • FBI secures convictions on the basis of entrapment:  inducing targets to commit crime.
  • Following civil liberties groups are mounting a legal challenge in respect of this conviction:
  • ACLU
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation 
  • Law professor, Tung Yin:  "... if that conviction resulted in significant part from evidence that the government should not have had" - 30 year conviction a no go.
  • The brief in defence was knocked back, with instructions to compile something scant (WTF?  A defence is a defence.  It's as long as it takes.)
  • The secrecy surrounding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is troublesome, because it prevents the defendant mounting a proper defence:  
  • vital information is withheld, on basis of "classified" information justification, interfering with ability to defend.
  • secret, disguised, key FBI witnesses testify.
Under these circumstances, anybody could probably be convicted of anything.  No transparency and no accountability.  The accused is induced to commit crime and then denied information on 'classified' grounds and therefore denied the opportunity to properly defend.

I don't understand the principles associated with evidence one is not supposed to have.  But I guess it has something to do with fair trials.

As for FBI informants, they're not necessarily reliable.  Usually, these types are being blackmailed by the authorities into informing on others, so they're motivated by the opportunity to save their skin.









August 14, 2015

Interview With Assange Legal Team Attorney: Carey Shenkman | UK Wants To Arrest Assange No Matter What


TRANSCRIPT
[For quotation purposes, confirm audio]

VIDEO - RT News
SOURCE
 ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

ACCOMPANYING ARTICLE
Published time: 13 Aug, 2015 17:05
Edited time: 13 Aug, 2015 17:52

Assange can’t leave embassy as UK wants to arrest him, no matter what – attorney to RT

http://www.rt.com/news/312385-assange-attorney-uk-arrest/
 ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
Interview With Assange Legal Team Attorney:  Carey Shenkman

Reporter
For some insight now, the implications of one of our top stories here:  that of Julian Assange.
I'm now joined by a member of the Assange legal team, Carey Shenkman.

Thanks so much Carey for joining us here on RT International to discuss this.

So, first off, tell us how much of a relief for your client is this expiration of some of the allegations against him.

Carey Shenkman
Attorney: Assange Legal Team
The results of today are ambiguous because after five (5) years of doing nothing in Julian Assange's case, Swedish prosecutors decided today to drop most of the allegations against him.

But it's been almost five (5) years that Assange has been detained without charge, which has been absolutely unacceptable for his health, for his family, and for his reputation.

Reporter

Well,  the allegation of 'rape' will not expire until 2020, so does Assange believe he'll have to stay in the embassy until then?
Carey Shenkman
Attorney: Assange Legal Team
Assange won't be able to leave the embassy no matter what Sweden does, because the United Kingdom has said it would extradite - sorry, the United Kingdom will arrest Assange, no matter what - and the UK will make no promise that it won't extradite Assange to the United State. 

And, after all these years that Assange has been detained, you have to ask yourself:  what is this case really about?  And, well, it's about the United States where, for all this time, the United States has been building a national security case against WikiLeaks.

A federal court in the United States confirmed in March that there's an active and ongoing national security case against Assange and WikiLeaks and, in fact, over fifty (50) free speech organisations around the world have condemned the US Justice Department because of the effects this precedent could have on freedom of the press and the news gathering process.

In fact, just yesterday, alleged WikiLeaks source,
Chelsea Manning, was threatened with INDEFINITE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.

Now let's wait just a second.  Solitary confinement's a practice that's widely recognised by the United Nations, and the international community, as TORTURE.

And here the United States is threatening the alleged WikiLeaks source with this torture.

So Assange has every right to fear similar, or even worse treatment, if he ever risks extradition to the United States.

Reporter

Now, is it possible that the allegations which have expired today, be renewed?

Carey Shenkman
Attorney: Assange Legal Team
There would be no precedent in Swedish law for that and our view is that this case simply needs to be dropped.

For years now, the United Kingdom, Ecuador, the Swedish courts, our legal team, and Assange, have been asking the Swedish prosecutor to come to London.

In fact, nearly nine (9) months ago, a Swedish court said that the prosecutor wasn't doing her duty with the investigation.  That was nine months ago when there were four (4) allegations.  Well, today, there's just one, and he's still stuck in the embassy.

This is unacceptable.  And she has failed - the prosecutor - has failed to move this case forward.

So the case really needs to be dropped; it's about time.

Reporter

Well, Carey Shenkman, thanks so much for talking to us.

And that was attorney representing Julian Assange.
Carey Shenkman
Attorney: Assange Legal Team


Thank you.
 ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

Oops ... I need not have transcribed audio for this post.  It's in article. 

US | Assange
120-man Pentagon task force in operation

FAQ & Support
Justice4Assange
 

NSA Violates Court Rule re Mass Surveillance of Phone Records ... & Gets Replacement Snooping Program

POSITIVE SPIN TITLE

I'd have chosen:

NSA Violates Court Rule re Mass Surveillance of Phone Records
... & Gets Replacement Snooping Program
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
NSA Used Phone Records Program to Seek Iran Operatives

By CHARLIE SAVAGEAUG. 12, 2015
WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency has used its bulk domestic phone records program to search for operatives from the government of Iran and “associated terrorist organizations” — not just Al Qaeda and its allies — according to a document obtained by The New York Times.

The document also shows that a February 2010 order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for the program listed AT&T and Sprint as involved in it. A leaked 2013 court order for the program was addressed only to a Verizon subsidiary.

The inclusion of Iran and allied terrorist groups — presumably the Shiite group Hezbollah — and the confirmation of the names of other participating companies add new details to public understanding of the once-secret program. The Bush administration created the program to try to find hidden terrorist cells on domestic soil after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and government officials have justified it by using Al Qaeda as an example.
N.S.A. Inspector General’s Reports About Bulk Phone Records Program Are Released  AUG. 12, 2015
The disclosure of the new details comes at a time of debates over a proposed agreement to drop sanctions against Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program, and about N.S.A. surveillance and the role of American communications companies.

In June, Congress enacted a law that will ban the systematic collection of domestic phone records after November, and create a replacement program for analyzing links between callers in search of associates of terrorism suspects without the government’s keeping the bulk data.

The document disclosing new information about the program is an August 2010 letter from the Justice Department to Judge John Bates, then the presiding judge of the intelligence court. It was included in about 350 pages of N.S.A. inspector general reports about the program the government provided to The Times late on Tuesday in response to a Freedom of Information Act suit.

The letter, which alerted Judge Bates to an incident in which a court-imposed rule for the program had been violated, contained information the government usually redacts when declassifying such documents: the full name of the intelligence court order in place for the program at the time, which included the listing of Iran and the names of the companies. The release of the uncensored version of the letter was apparently a mistake.


The N.S.A. did not respond to a request for comment.

President George W. Bush originally directed the N.S.A. to begin systematically collecting Americans’ calling records in bulk based on a unilateral assertion of executive power. In 2006, the Justice Department persuaded the intelligence court to bless the program. It began issuing orders to phone companies to turn over their customers’ calling records.

Its orders were based on a secret interpretation of a provision of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, known as Section 215, which permits the F.B.I. to obtain business records deemed “relevant” to a national security investigation.

The theory, accepted by the intelligence court but rejected in a recent appeals court ruling, is that everyone’s records are relevant to investigations hunting for terrorists because analyzing indirect links between callers can, in theory, reveal hidden relationships and sleeper cells.

After praising the program as crucial to preventing terrorist attacks, intelligence agency officials now say that it has never thwarted one. But the program’s proponents argue that it is still a useful investigative tool.

The program became public in June 2013 after Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, disclosed a trove of the agency’s classified documents. The first of those published was the 2013 intelligence court order to a Verizon subsidiary requiring it to turn over all its customers’ calling records.

Although the Obama administration declassified the existence of the bulk phone records program, it has declined to confirm which other phone companies participated in it and which groups it could be used to search for.

The letter does not make clear how often the N.S.A. has used the program to search for Iran or Iranian-linked terrorist organizations. It also says nothing further about the companies listed in the case name.

There has been wide speculation that AT&T, which maintains a large database of calling records, was a participant in the program. And last year, when the government declassified documents about an aborted challenge to the program by a phone company in late 2009, it redacted the firm’s name, but officials said it was Sprint.

The Justice Department letter confirms that both of those companies have been participants.

But the document also contained a surprise. In addition to listing subsidiaries of Verizon Communications, the document lists Verizon Wireless, which was then a partnership with the British firm Vodafone.

The inclusion of Verizon Wireless was striking. In June 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile had not been part of the classified program because of their foreign ownership stakes. In 2014, The Journal, The Washington Post and The Times each reported, citing intelligence officials, that for technical reasons, the program consisted mostly of landline phone records.

However, it is not clear whether the inclusion of Verizon Wireless in the name of the court order means it was turning over customer records after all.

Ed McFadden, a Verizon spokesman, said he was not permitted to say whether that was the case. But he said that as a general matter, it has been the government’s practice to use broad language covering all of Verizon’s entities in headings of such court orders because it has a complex corporate structure, regardless of whether any specific part was required to provide information under that order.

Most of the inspector general reports, unlike the letter, contained redactions. They showed that the inspector general in 2006, shortly after the pre-existing program came under the intelligence court’s rules, called for greater procedural safeguards to make sure that the new rules were followed.

There were no reports included in the documents from 2007 to 2009, when it came to light internally that the N.S.A. had been accessing the call records in a way that systematically violated the court’s rules. In late 2009, the intelligence court stopped letting the N.S.A. access the bulk data for operational purposes while it built a new system and tested it. There were many reports from 2010 and 2011, when the court ordered the inspector general to conduct a series of audits.

One document also reveals a new nugget that fills in a timeline about surveillance: a key date for a companion N.S.A. program that collected records about Americans’ emails and other Internet communications in bulk. The N.S.A. ended that program in 2011 and declassified its existence after the Snowden disclosures.

In 2009, the N.S.A. realized that there were problems with the Internet records program as well and turned it off. It then later obtained Judge Bates’s permission to turn it back on and expand it.

When the government declassified his ruling permitting the program to resume, the date was redacted. The report says it happened in July 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us/nsa-used-phone-records-program-to-seek-iran-operatives.html?_r=0

---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------

Either I've gone completely brain dead, or this article is hard to follow.

Never mind what they used the mass surveillance of telephone records for:  the fact is they've violated intelligence court ordered terms.  Bulk telephone surveillance has also supposedly been shelved, as it's not constitutional.
Mass surveillance was a 2001 / 9-11 power grab, before being sanctioned by the US intelligence court in 2006.

Now there’s a post Snowden show of dropping the mass telephone surveillance (scheduled November), but the intelligence court gives NSA a 'snoophole':  analysis of 'associates' of 'terrorist' groups - which can be anyone, if one is creative in terms of definitions etc.
That sounds a lot better than bulk collection of phone data ... but it can readily be abused.  Also, does anyone really believe that a government which spies on entire overseas countries, corporations, world leaders and US allies, is going to give up bulk collection of its own citizen's phone records, just like that?  lol  No way.  It's business as usual.

The bulk collection of telephone data took place pre Snowden and was subsequently been scrapped for constitution reasons, as I understand. Bulk collection took place even though:
officials say that it has never thwarted a terrorist attack
However, the program’s:
proponents continue to argue that it is still a useful investigative tool
Nobody likes to give up that kind of power.  Only reason they are making out like they are dropping mass phone surveillance is they've been exposed by Snowden. 
The issue isn't if the tool is 'useful' as an investigative tool - such tools are.
The real issue is, violation of privacy on a mass scale and imposition of state power over civil liberties - as well as the issue of breaching the court limits imposed on this practice.
Looks like costs (to free society) outweigh the benefits.
Noticed Verizon 'not permitted to say' ... hmmm, I'd take that as a 'yes'. lol

The claim is that overseas customers are not affected by the program:
2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile had not been part of the classified program because of their foreign ownership stakes.
document lists Verizon Wireless, which was then a partnership with the British firm Vodafone.
Since when has the US been concerned about overseas customers?  NSA spies on entire countries.
Some key bits of info:
  • [2001?] George W. Bush originally directed the NSA to collect bulk telephone records on basis of a unilateral assertion of executive power
  • 2006 - DOJ - persuaded the intelligence court to bless the bulk telephone surveillance program

  • 2006 - DOJ - starts issuing orders to phone companies to turn over customers’ calling records. 
  • 2006 intelligence court orders were based on a secret interpretation of Section 215 USA Patriot Act (s.215

    • lets FBI obtain business records deemed “relevant” to a national security investigation
Give with one hand & take with the other:
  • 2015, June - intelligence court bans BULK collection of domestic phone records after November. 
  • intel court OKs replacement program for analysing links re callers  / purpose of tracking associates of terrorism suspects (which can be *anyone* government designates, I guess, lol)
So the Bush administration exercises presidential powers (state of emergency or something, probably) in response to the events of 9/11, in order to extend powers of intelligence agencies, enabling mass collection of telephone records (2001?).

And then the Justice Dept. gets the Intel Court to OK this mass collection of phone records in 2006 (which probably wasn't hard to swing).  The Intelligence Court does so, by SECRET INTERPRETATION. 
Secret?  Well, that's strange.  Or maybe not.  The 'need' for secrecy is always used as leverage to get things through that otherwise wouldn't be accepted by the community.
FBI got an extension of powers at the same time: FBI gets to pull business records.
NSA violates intelligence court imposed limits.
NSA - gets to run a replacement program.  lol
Not sure what to think, apart from:  there's a lot of power that rests in state hands.


---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------


 [ Pretty sure I won't remember much of this, despite the droning, repetitive summary.   More of brain dead than usual today.  lol  ]



Use of Feminist Goals and Principles to Attack WikiLeaks


The persecution of Julian Assange is not feminist, it’s political
Jun 22, 2015 1:02PM | EMAIL | PRINT

Julian Assange has revealed a lot that powerful governments do not want us to know. But what should be made of the rape allegations against him? PhD candidate and former UN adviser Felicity Ruby explains.

Julian Assange has now been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for three years. WikiLeaks has revealed a lot that powerful governments do not want us to know. But what should be made of the rape allegations against him?

WikiLeaks’ disclosures have been devastating. For the naked government and corporate emperors caught stealing and lying, theirs is the devastation of losing power or acute embarrassment. For citizens unable to seize back illusions, theirs is the devastation of knowing that governments suppress truths, routinely lie and manipulate even more than previously imagined.

The most cynical and conspiratorial among us have found devastating detail to justify further re-examination of our belief systems, trust in leaders, our governments, their pretexts and execution of wars with corporate partners.

Anyone who has watched the Collateral Murder video or searched through the Cablegate files knows what I mean.

WikiLeaks’ disclosures about the distortion and manipulation of UN process, including the theft of biometric data of UN personnel, have shown why diplomacy at the UN has so often failed; the institution has been corrupted, infiltrated and attacked.

I suspected this when I worked at the UN. Now I know.

But as a feminist and a rape survivor, it’s the debate about feminism, WikiLeaks and Assange that has continued to disturb me the most.

The use of feminist goals and principles to attack WikiLeaks has amplified my devastation not only because WikiLeaks has provided the peace and women’s movements with many gifts — troves of evidence, example after example of the crimes and culture of militarised masculinity on the battlefield, in the board room, in the embassy.

I would be less worried if the epidemic of violence against women were being addressed as athletically by governments, the media, courts and police as it is in Assange’s case, if arrest warrants and manhunts were occurring with quite the same fervour.

Because they are not, I don’t find this selective and concerted effort on one man to be a feminist victory. Rather than “something being better than nothing”, selectivity damages and delegitimises real efforts to address violence against women.

Instead of a feminist victory, I see the violations we named and the laws and standards we agitated for being cynically used by forces that are not feminist to try to shut down WikiLeaks, to punish the organisation for revealing the truth about war, corruption and the ineptitude of governments.

This is not an investigation of alleged sexual offences in isolation.

This case started one month before a Swedish election, and several Swedes involved in the case are prominent members of one party.

The case also started within the eight to nine weeks between the release of the Afghan and the Iraq War Logs when the US government was aware that Assange was walking around with access to 251,000 diplomatic cables with intent to publish.

This case started when there was a 120-man Pentagon task force in operation.

I’ve read everything to do with the allegations — the good, the bad and the ugly — and it seems to me that:

    Both women had consensual sex with Assange — quite a lot of it. Neither claims they said no or showed or demonstrated non-consent. That matters a lot, as it happens. Failing to see the difference between what happened and rape insults rape survivors and fails to recognise a continuum of violence that places consensual sex, failure to use a condom and rape in fundamentally different frames.
    The senior prosecutor, Eva Finne, took on the case but then dropped the investigation not because she didn’t believe the women — she did — but because she said from the alleged conduct there was no indication of criminality.
    One of the women has stated that she felt “railroaded” and has refused to have anything to do with the case. It appears the women have essentially lost any agency; they were not pressing charges; their inquiry to police was about STD testing. If the women were pressing charges and calling for feminist solidarity, it might make sense to offer it. In this case, it doesn’t, because they are not.
Isn’t justice delayed justice denied? Wouldn’t it have been in the interests of the women, justice and feminist aspirations in this area for the investigation to have involved swift questioning of Assange when he was in Sweden and making himself available for just this? Why have means routinely used under the mutual legal assistance procedures such as questioning in an embassy or by phone or video link still not been used?

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that any person in the UK can now be extradited to anywhere in Europe by any partisan prosecutor, without charge, without having to show any evidence and without proper judicial oversight. I find that as frightening as I do the potential of Assange finding himself temporarily surrendered to the US while his government looks the other way.

I hope that my feminist friends and colleagues think more about what is happening here — not only in terms of the cause but also how our movement is being used. If the world is not safe for an organisation like WikiLeaks to provide some of the most devastating revelations — including about militarised masculinity and its routine abuse of women and civilians in war — then it is not safe for any of us, least of all feminists.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/06/22/the-persecution-of-julian-assange-is-not-feminist-its-political/
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

COMMENT


It's not often that we see this kind of article in the press. 

Usually, the press regurgitates the official narrative of the state and says nothing about the massive elephant in the room (the gaping holes and irregularities in both the Sweden police handling and Sweden prosecutor handling of this case); say nothing about important issues such as the use of causes to further hidden political agenda (persecution of WikiLeaks publisher, Assange, in this case); and the press studiously avoids the mention of devastating contradiction of Sweden police allegations by the women themselves.

When the press is silent, and when the press distorts the presentation of facts, it enables the powerful to persecute political targets without exposure or challenge.
more at:
FAQ & Support
Justice4Assange



Collateral Murder
WikiLeaks
Iraq

Sunshine Press
Uploaded:  3 Apr 2010






August 13, 2015

Intelligence Services Hoax


The UK’s official secrets act, forgeries & facts Part 2
Posted By: Content EditorPosted date: Wednesday, August 12, 2015in: Commentary, OpinionNo Comments

By: Sher Khan

Seymour Hersh is a Chicago native, and a man who, some would say ‘taken very seriously’ by the White House since 1960’s, let alone the menials in the corridors of power.

Hersh’s 10,000-word article about the events surrounding Osama bin Laden’s killing on 1st May 2011 was published by the London Review of Books in May 2015. It has created a global stir amongst the powers that be, to put it mildly. Clearly, Hersh has touched a nerve that has triggered a tsunami of counter efforts by the US Government.

The summarized version of his article on the ‘staged’ killing of OBL is; “Almost everything that has been said or written about this massively documented event (9/11), including the White House’s version of the killing of OBL, isn’t true”!

Hersh was the courageous journalist, who first reported the U.S. military’s stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons used during the Vietnam War. His 1969 account of U.S. Army atrocities in the Vietnamese village of ‘Mai Lai’ was the show stopper for the Vietnam War.

He has the distinction of unearthing some of the most consequential US Government shenanigans of the past half-century. His investigative reporting exposed the Nixon administration’s efforts to destabilize Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973. His 1973 article about the Watergate burglary defendants, who were paid hush money with funds from Nixon’s re-election campaign, eventually lead to Nixon’s resignation.

Hersh exposed the illegal spying by the CIA in 1974 along with the Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program. Hersh also exposed the gun-running and drug-smuggling by Panamanian dictator and CIA man, Manuel Noriega in 1986. Hersh exposed Gen. Barry McCaffrey’s alleged war crimes during the Persian Gulf War. He also exposed the 2004 abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghuraib prison.

Robert Mirald, a critic of Seymour Hersh, wrote a book about him in 2013 and wrote;
“He explodes onto page one, his critics say ‘it ain’t so’, and yet in the end he’s proven to be correct. Over time, Hersh’s accounts stand up”.
On June 19th, 2015 Press TV Reported:

Senior members of the Bush administration are being sued by an international team of lawyers, led by former attorney general Ramsey Clark, over the illegal war in Iraq.”
The lawsuit was filed on May 27 2015, on behalf of a widowed Iraqi mother, Sundus Saleh, against former US President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

According to the complaint filed in the US Court of Appeals, Bush administration officials “broke the law in conspiring and committing the crime of aggression against the people of Iraq.”

“The invasion resulted in the total destruction of a beautiful, peaceful country,” said Sundas Saleh. “The invasion didn’t destroy only the country’s infrastructure, buildings and heritage; it destroyed millions of families and their dreams.”

On 17 June 2015, a top US Federal Court ruled, that the people held for months on end for immigration violations following Sept. 11, 2001, can now sue top government officials for racial profiling and other abuses.

The split decision from a three-judge panel on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals came after more than a decade of litigation and is likely to lead to increased scrutiny of the US Government’s behavior following the 2001 terror attack.

Judges Rosemary Pooler and Richard Wesley, who gave the landmark verdict, wrote in their 109-page decision:-

“We simply cannot conclude at this stage that concern for the safety of our nation justified the violation of the constitutional rights on which this nation was built”.

It is evident to those, sitting in the corridors of power that, what has been researched and written by Seymour Hersh in May 2015, about the ‘staged’ killing of OBL has a lot of merit.

Gauging by his previous track record of meticulous research, the history would eventually prove his narrations right. This Magnus Opus of Sy’s work has shaken the United States Government and its allies to the core. If the facts would surface, as it seems that they will now, then the US Government and its allies shall be risking a lot more than just the US$ 6 Trillion that has already been spent by the US Tax payers since the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The razor sharp article by Seymour Hersh and the law suit filed by the former US Attorney General perhaps encouraged the landmark decision against Bush and Co. for their deeds post 9/11.

All these happenings make a strong case for the moral stand taken by Edward Snowdon in unraveling of the hidden dark facts behind the so-called ‘war on terror’ and the mass surveillance on a global scale by the NSA and GCHQ.

UK Government’s Communications Headquarters or simply GCHQ started its work in the earlier part of 1940’s if not before and had more staff working for it then MI6 and MI5 combined, according to a book titled, ‘GCHQ’, written in 2011 by Richard Aldrich.

Its deep cover work and activities have shaped and continue to shape international events since 1940’s, leading to regime changes favouring British interests around the world. Needless to say, the UK Government never really acknowledged GCHQ, as the structured shadow intelligence organization, operating above the remit of governmental oversight, until 1976-77.

British investigative journalist par excellence, Duncan Campbell became famous in the UK as the ‘C’ in the infamous ABC Official Secrets Act case of 1977-78. The case was initiated because of the first public exposure of the deeds of GCHQ acting above the law.

The UK government prosecuted two journalists and an ex soldier, for discussing the existence of GCHQ and its shadow workings globally. The ABC case (named after the three defendants, Aubrey, Berry and Campbell) ended in November, 1978, causing grave embarrassment for the UK government.

Thus, Duncan Campbell was the journalist who revealed the existence of the global British electronic intelligence agency GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), in his 1976 article titled, ‘The Eavesdroppers’. His story led to the “ABC” trial in 1978, and the UK government’s failed attempt to jail him for up to 30 years under the Official Secrets Act laws.

Duncan Campbell exposed that the GCHQ, along with the United States National Security Agency (NSA) was operating a massive global electronic surveillance network from locations around Britain, without any parliamentary accountability or any public scrutiny.

Campbell’s co-author, Mark Hosenball was deported on the grounds of being a threat to the UK’s national security. After the story about the GCHQ, Campbell became a target for British intelligence, which started to illegally track his activities.

In 1980, Duncan Campbell published a series of articles about the British Intelligence overstepping their constitutional limits. The articles revealed the likely location of Britain’s communications tapping centers. Duncan Campbell also exposed the potential financial burden of the intelligence services on the British tax payers.

Campbell’s work for the BBC’s Panorama programme investigation the UK security services was blocked by the Downing Street according to the 2011, National Archives cache of Downing Street correspondence released on the issue. Several Private and Confidential Memos detailed the Prime Minister Lady Thatcher and her advisors attempting to block or ban the programme.

The memos also revealed the historic paranoia of the British Government about the impact of Campbell’s work, along with other investigative journalists like him, and their level of motivation to expose the hidden facts. His ground breaking research on GCHQ and the subsequent publishing of the stories about the British intelligence agencies caused grave concern at the highest levels of the British government.

In 1980 he exposed the role of the United States National Security Agency’s (NSA) Menwith Hill Station, Yorkshire and its role in illegal interception of worldwide communications with the complicit cooperation of the GCHQ.

Campbell was injured in a cycling accident in 1984 and it was revealed through secret memo’s that Special Branch officers were given his bicycle pannier and papers. At the precise moment his house was also raided on a search warrant.

In 1987, Campbell was invited by the BBC to write and present a six-part documentary series the Secret Society. Before running the programme, and reviewing its blunt and factual content, the BBC top management got nervous and approached the government for advice. The British Government’s reaction resulted in the raid at the BBC’s Scottish headquarters including Campbell’s home. The Special Branch seized the films that were recorded as, The Zircon Affair.

Zircon revealed the existence of a secret £500m British spy satellite programme of the same name. Campbell’s investigation detailed how the government policy was being decided by a group of unaccountable committees operating beyond the scrutiny of parliament and the public. Eventually, the Zircon films were returned, but the BBC chose not to release the episodes. The redacted and much altered version appeared on Channel 4 in 1991.

In 1988, Campbell revealed the existence of the GCHQ’s top secret ECHELON project. Due to Campbell’s work, finally in 1997, the ECHELON become controversial throughout the world.

In 1998, Campbell was asked by the European Parliament to report on the development of surveillance technology and the risk of abuse of economic information, especially in relation to the ECHELON system. His report, “Interception Capabilities 2000” was approved by the European Parliament in April 1999, and tabled at the EU Parliament in February 2000. In July 2000, the EU Parliament appointed a committee of 36 MEPs to further investigate the ECHELON system. The efforts to block ECHELON fell apart since 9/11 happened and the world got ‘exposed’ to a new ‘global terrorism’ threat.

In 1997 Campbell became one of the founding members of the Centre for Public Integrity in Washington D.C. The Center helped found the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). ICIJ is designed to be a cross border investigative outfit “focusing on issues that do not stop at national frontiers.”

In 2002, Campbell became part of an investigation into the role of private security firms and lobbyist groups in the wars being waged across the globe by the US and UK. The investigation titled, ‘Making a Killing: The Business of War’ exposed the increasing use of private security firms and mercenaries and the how the multi-billion dollar defense industry’s lobbying methods lack any accountability.

In 2006, the ICIJ started a project with a much wider scope. The investigation focused on how the global trade funds terrorism, organized crime and how the tax sheltering/loss of tax revenues hurt the developing economies from where the big business earn billions of dollars and avoids paying taxes by using shell companies.

Finally In 2013, ICIJ began publishing the results of its investigation linking tax havens to the global movement of money to avoid tax. The investigation called “Offshore Leaks,” is one of the largest journalism collaboration in the modern history.

The data from this collaboration forms the core of the material that has been published in series of stories by the Guardian, Sunday Times, and Sydney Morning Herald etc.

The citizens of the British Common Wealth, the Overseas Territories and in particular our direct reading audiences in the Cayman Islands are often dismissive of the sporadic evidence against the FCO with skepticism. The message and the writ of the British Governance through their UK appointed representatives in the OT’s such as Cayman is that; there can be no wrong on part of the Crown and its law enforcement entities, and anything said or brought against their abuse of power it is either malicious or ‘forged’.

The suppression of Operation Tempura report, the Aina Report, the recent review of the performance of the Office of the DPP and so many others in the past, by the successive Governors of the Cayman Islands, perfectly fit the pattern of ‘secrecy’ and suppression in the mother country, UK. The Crown appointed Auditor Generals are way too trigger happy to blast the locally elected members of the legislative assembly and their ‘mismanagement’ of the tax payers dollars, they would not dare raise their pen to ink any gross wastage of public money paid out for this fancy reports, by the very tax payers of the Cayman Islands, who have every right to read the findings of the reports that they fund. The Auditor General cannot also criticize the DPP or the Attorney General for prosecuting cases that fall flat on their face in the courts, resulting in wastage of public funds and at times paying huge settlement costs. The Auditor General can also not write or comment in the RCIP’s funding and spending nor can comment on the covert operations funding in the country. The spending by the Crown is simply off the charts.

The 2003 Iraq War’s Chilcot Inquiry, Lord Janners Child Abuse inquiry, Ex British PM Edward Heath’s child abuse inquiry and the UK Met Police sex abuse inquiry to name a few are all suppressed or not made public in the UK in the name of ‘public interest’.

The cherry on the top is the Scotts Report commissioned in 1992 to investigate the 1980’s large export of lethal weapons to Iraq including chemical and biological warfare equipment. The equipment was sold under the able guidance of the FCO. The inquiry never saw the light of the day. UK went to war with the very country it supplied weapons to, during the 1980’s. So much for facts Mr. Blair!

So here is the question, Do we really need to ‘forge’ any more evidence to prosecute those sitting in the corridors of power at the very top or are the rules of engagement different for the common man, who is at the receiving end of the law? It seems that those who enact and impose the laws are above it at all, every times, for as long as ‘we’ allow the sun to never set on the British Empire.


The first part of this commentary was published in Tuesday, 11 July’s edition of The Cayman Reporter. It is available online at www.caymanreporter.com

http://www.caymanreporter.com/2015/08/12/uks-official-secrets-act-forgeries-facts-part-2/
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------

COMMENT

So much info in this article.

Lots of interesting things I didn't know about.

Need to do some more reading, I think.  Not up to it now.  Really tired & having trouble just taking this in.

Duncan Campbell was sort of like Assange Mark I.

I'm just about falling asleep, and all I have to say for the time being is:

same crap, different decade

Nothing ever changes.

Those in power were always corrupt and continue to be corrupt.

The corruption and the abuse of power never ends.

And it is a different law for them.

So intelligence agencies are:
  • violators of law
  • violators of civil liberties
  • violators of democratic process
  • servants of corporate interests
  • footsoldiers of the powerful and corrupt
  • Robin Hood in reverse:
  • take from the poor (public) to lavishly fund their own existence
  • take from poor (public) & give to rich, funding the manifestation of corporate agendas
  • start wars, on behalf of corporate interests, leaving the poor (public) to foot the corporate bill - for generations
  • liars who deceive public: claiming 'national interests' & 'security' etc ... and get the public to underwrite that, too.
It's an intelligence services and democracy is a hoax.

---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------

 A good companion piece might be:

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

HERE








[No time for labels.  Will pass out if I don't lie down - now.  lol]

Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists



https://news.vice.com/article/theres-a-secret-hearing-into-allegations-canada-illegally-spied-on-environmental-activists

There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists

By Rachel Browne
August 12, 2015 | 8:35 pm

A federal watchdog committee is set to begin a round of secret hearings to probe complaints that Canada's spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, has been illegally snooping on environmental activists working against oil pipeline projects.

In 2014 the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed two complaints against CSIS and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) accusing both agencies of spying on environmental and First Nations groups who were organizing against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry crude west from Alberta to BC. The groups allegedly subjected to surveillance include the Sierra Club of BC, the Dogwood Initiative, and ForestEthics Advocacy.

"This kind of activity, what's being alleged, has no place in democracy. The government and its spy agencies should not be busy surveilling and gathering intelligences on citizenships who are simply living their lives and participating in their communities," Josh Paterson, BCCLA's executive director, told VICE News. "There are plenty of undemocratic countries where governments spy on people they don't agree with. And Canada should not be one of them."

The BCCLA's complaints, based on government documents obtained under access to information requests, further allege the spy agency also shared their intelligence about "radicalized environmentalist" groups with the National Energy Board.

CSIS has long denied the BCCLA's allegations. "CSIS investigates — and advises government on — threats to national security, and that does not include peaceful protest and dissent," a CSIS spokesperson told the CBC last year.

New federal anti-terror legislation, known as Bill C-51, that recently came into force gives CSIS more powers to probe and disrupt extremist activities and has raised further worries that environmental and aboriginal groups in Canada could be subjected to more surveillance than ever before.

This week, the Guardian reported on the great lengths the Conservative government has undertaken to protect two major pipeline projects Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan — from environmental and First Nations groups. According to documents obtained under access to information by Greenpeace, the government is spending $30 million over two years on domestic and international "outreach activities" to promote the oil sands industry in Alberta. That's on top of the $22 million the government spent in 2014 on a similar ad campaign in the US.

The three-day hearings held by the committee that oversees CSIS start today in Vancouver and are shrouded in secrecy — media and members of the public are barred from attending. This afternoon, Paterson will testify for the complainants. And tomorrow, witnesses from groups allegedly spied on will testify about their experiences.

But it's unclear when CSIS will argue its side. As part of its disclosure ahead of the hearings, Paterson says CSIS has provided only printouts from its website and has said that a senior spy service manager, known only as "Robert," will testify at some point.

CSIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from VICE News.

"It's so secretive that we likely won't know until after it has taken place and it makes this whole hearing super bizarre as an accountability mechanism. We have no ability to know what CSIS' argument is, what their evidence is, we can't respond to their arguments, our lawyers are not able to interact with what CSIS is saying," said Paterson.

He added that the BCCLA is not suggesting that a hearing about spying should never be held in secret, especially if there are legitimate concerns about national security or if it would put people in danger. "But here, the government's documents have made clear that there was no threat, that there was no question that these groups were engaged in anything other than peaceful activities. And so we really question why more information can't be disclosed by CSIS about what they were doing."

Last week, Alexandra Swann, a volunteer with the Dogwood Initiative, opened up about how the purported spying revelations have impacted her activism.

"Finding out had a chilling effect for me. Suddenly, I was very concerned how far it had extended," she wrote on the BCCLA's website.

"Was I personally named somewhere? Had they investigated my online activities? Read my emails? I realized the right to privacy was a myth in this country, and that being a decent person was no barrier to illegal scrutiny by people far more powerful than me."

Paterson said that witnesses will testify that the allegations about widespread CSIS surveillance has turned many people off from community activism.

"We're going to be hearing evidence from witnesses who say people are refusing to sign petitions because they don't want their names out there because they're worried about what security agencies might do," he said.

"We're also going to hear evidence from a new Canadian hoping to have Canadian citizenship who also didn't want to sign a petition because she was afraid of upsetting the government. And others who were fearful of volunteering with community organizations because it might draw unwanted attention from community organizations.

The BCCLA says it will consider asking the oversight committee to issue summonses to the CSIS employees listed on the documents.

The committee's probe is expected to take more than a year.

Follow Rachel Browne on Twitter: @rp_browne
https://news.vice.com/article/theres-a-secret-hearing-into-allegations-canadas-spy-agency-snooped-on-environmental-activists

---------------------- ꕤ ----------------
----------------------

COMMENT

This is huge.

Look at all the public funds that are being spent on *corporations*.

Capitalists are anti communism and anti welfare, but they're happy with 'corporate socialism' - ie receiving public funds, bail-outs etc & 'austerity' is never a problem for corporations:  they get rewarded for being crooks.

The Canadian government sounds like a corporate 'fascist' / totalitarian nightmare that's developing all over.

It's just more and more of the same that's going on everywhere.

Governments in bed with corporate interests, at the expense of the public, and governments / government agencies abusing their power.