Video - RT News - Transcript - Julian Assange - Iraq War Logs

TRANSCRIPT [For quotations, confirm audio] Final SOURCE - VIDEO Title YouTube Upload:  Julian Assange to RT:  WikiLeaks gives 'most accurate picture of war' Channel:  RTNews Duration:   [8:17] Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBsMK1eQ7A8 RT News Reporter So these documents come from the US military, so lot of them are obviously about US involvement.  What about implications for the UK? Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Well, it's 400,000 classified reports:  field reports by the US army, and some intelligence reports are by marines intelligence in there, as well. The US Army, of course, was the - was and *is* - the dominant military force in Iraq.  Its presence is everywhere.  So it intersects with the operations of the CIA; it intersects with the operations of US Special Forces; it intersects with the operations of the UK military and other coalition partners.  It intersects with Iraqi police and so on. But it is not reports by those other groups, they are reports through the eyes of the US army. RT News Reporter What have we learnt that's new from these documents, or is it just the sheer scale of that we're talking about? Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Well, you know, when you increase the scale of something, it does become new.  So we have learnt that the - we have counted now, 122,000 civilian casualties in the war.  This material has revealed 15,000 previously unreported, undocumented, civilian casualties. That's an extraordinary number of people to have never have been spoken about before. That's the equivalent to five (5) 9-11s.  That is something that is very important. We also see the cover-up of torture by coalition forces, well after  Abu Ghraib; a concrete policy - secret policy - to not intervene with torture conducted by the fledgeling Iraqi government, and thousands of cases relating to that.  Some of them, to give an example, of how bad the situation is; some of them resulted in detainees in the custody of the Iraqi government deliberately confessing to being terrorists, in order to get transferred into US custody where the conditions were better. So, if you think about it, this is - you're retained by the Iraqi police and you stand up and say "I am Osama bin Laden" equivalent, in order to be treated better.  That's how severe their conditions were. Flagrant violations of the rules of law, such as the deliberate slaying of people in the act of surrender. RT News Reporter I mean, you've talked yourself before about the everyday squalor of war.  I mean, a war scenario is something extraordinary. We've done quite a lot of work with soldiers who have PTSD and other sort of combat related conditions.  I mean, it's just a different environment that we can't possibly imagine. Should our sort of - our kind of ... moral ... moral opinions be applied to that scenario? Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Well, we should start imagining it or stop doing it.  Or stop supporting it. It's not good to support things that you do not understand, and this is the most accurate description of a war that has ever been released into the historic record.  There is nothing comparable. It is the details of the deaths of 109,000 people; the wounding of some 170,000 people; the detainment of nearly 200,000 people during a course of six (6) years. And, of course, that's only about half the military action that went on during that period, because it's only the US view on things.  But, even so, extraordinary. We see that there's nearly no street corner in Baghdad that didn't have a body found that had been killed through violence in one form or another.  This everyday squalor of war, of course, for the people in Baghdad and other cities in Iraq was *their* everyday life for years and years, and we need to understand what the reality of war is, if we're going to choose to engage in it. And it's clear that the reasons for getting into this war - the 'weapons of mass destruction' and so on - this is a clear lie.  There's no debate about this anymore. And the other - the second most stated reason that we would - 'we,' being the West - would clean up the government system of Iraq, introduce rule of law and prevent torture, has completely failed.  During that period of time lawlessness, absence of rule of law, and arbitrary killing, were much higher than they were under Saddam Hussein; and now we are left with an Iraqi government that commits torture. RT News Reporter Last question.  The Pentagon have put their PR machine into operation after you released the Afghan War Diaries.  What are you expecting from them this time around? Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Well, we expect a similar sort of counter-attack.  Every time you release something like this, we expect a counter-attack.  You're never quite sure what it is.  It tends to be a different thing, [that] each time is seized upon and then amplified [cough].  Last it time it was names appearing in the material, which the Pentagon managed to successfully fool the press into believing was going to be a great big assassination list for the Taliban.  But, in fact, nearly all of those names were right to appear:  they were the names of governors who were taking bribes by the US military, or the names of radio stations that were taking bribes to put on propaganda content.  Not at all something that can lead to a proper, democratic state and, as recently as last week, NATO officials in Kabul said that they could not find a single person that needed protecting or moving. The Pentagon says that not a single person has been wounded or killed, and a letter has come out that was originally written on August 16th by Defence Secretary Gates to a US Senator, stating that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods - no sensitive intelligence sources or methods - were revealed in that material.  But, of course, that wasn't the public line. The public line was that, in fact, many had been revealed.  So we  this was just some kind of propaganda. I don't think - they've tried that in the - that was the first card that they played in the release of this material about Iraq.  We expected that it would be the first card that they would play, which is why we went through extra steps to make sure it couldn't be distracted from in that way.  But I also think that they have overstepped their previous position and the  press and the public knows this now, so they can't keep on trying the same old trick. People should understand that - not the Pentagon as a whole, because there are good people in it, but at the top - the Pentagon issues statements which are simply not credible.  It has done so for years.  It has been exposed by various members of the press (including us), and, you know, from our point of view, looking at these attacks on us, the Pentagon's public statements are about as credible as that of North Korea. ..............  8:17 end   .............. COMMENT Best line was: "Pentagon's public statements are about as credible as that of North Korea". Find it had to believe that there's any nice people at the Pentagon. Text checked against audio.  Couple of corrections made. OTHER Link to related blog post - here ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Please support journalist, Julian Assange Under Siege Ecuador embassy, London (3 Years) Detained 5 Years No Charge FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ ꕤ

UK–US Extradition Treaty of 2003 - Laurie Love Extradition to US - Preliminary Hearing Oct 2015

2007 - Ambassador Tuttle and Baroness Scotland ratifing the bilateral extradition treaty between the U.S. and the UK [source:  here] 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.

Home › News › Lauri Love discusses why he fears US extradition Lauri Love discusses why he fears US extradition After being re-arrested by British authorities, Lauri Love has spoken to the BBC about why he wants to be tried in the UK rather than be extradited to the US: I would say my prospects of due process in America are essentially zero, and the prospect of extradition is tantamount to a punishment worse than any punishment from the UK justice system. The BBC includes a brief video of Love talking about the toll his case has taken thus far, “My parents and me are quite stressed. I have had time to acclimatise. My dad has had a heart condition and my mum is a natural worrier.” Love has not been charged with a crime in the UK, even though that’s where the alleged offences occurred. “The charges should be heard here… where 12 of my peers should be found to try me,” Love said. See our extradition page to see why “the UK-USA extradition treaty, ratified by the US Senate in 2006 and implemented in 2007, is fundamentally skewed towards misuse by the US Department of Justice. Love has a preliminary hearing in October before the proper extradition hearing in December. Support his legal defence fund here. See the BBC’s full story here. SOURCE https://freelauri.com/2015/08/16/lauri-love-discusses-why-he-fears-us-extradition/ Support Laurie Love The Courage Foundation https://freelauri.com/donate ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- FURTHER US Persecution of Whistleblowers, Activists, Journalists Persecuted US whistleblowers, activists and journalists Jeremy Hammond Barrett Brown Aaron Swartz Chelsea Manning USA:  Over-Prosecution / Extremely Harsh Sentences US government: aggressively over-prosecuted  threatening extremely long prison sentences (producing intense pressure for deals and pleas) ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- SOLITARY CONFINEMENT / TORTURE extensive use of solitary confinement as punishment prolonged use of solitary confinement: deemed torture by every major human rights group USA solitary confinement / torture = routine form of punishment for even the smallest infractions without concern for prisoners’ mental health ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- UK-USA extradition treaty ratified by US Senate 2006 (implemented in 2007) fundamentally skewed towards misuse by the US Dept of Justice. designed for terrorism suspects allows the US to extradite British citizens for breaking US laws, even if the offence committed in the UK Reverse does not apply:  Britain may not extradite US citizens. ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Low Burden of Proof *Therefore US extradition readily obtained, without sufficient proof to warrant extradition. Zero successful extraditions of American citizens committing a crime while on US soil (since 2007) versus 77 British citizens extradited to the US without the right to contest evidence without any legal aid to assist with trial in America ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- NOTE:  multiple areas of judicial imbalance ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- UK Home Affairs Select Committee = report calling for significant reform (2012) Conservative-led govt failed to respond "Lauri Love must be allowed to contest the allegations against him in the United Kingdom. To properly defend himself in court, he needs substantial support for his legal defense fund." SOURCE https://freelauri.com/fighting-extradition/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- UK–US extradition treaty of 2003 *Opposition* Link (historical) - here ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- EXTRACT Press Release UK/U.S. Extradition Treaty Ratified 26 April 2007 The United Kingdom and United States have today ratified a bilateral extradition treaty to ensure more effective arrangements to bring offenders from either state to justice.  [ lol .. it's skewed] SOURCE:  http://london.usembassy.gov/ukpapress48.html UK–US extradition treaty of 2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Other Please support journalist, Julian Assange Under Siege Ecuador embassy, London (3 Years) Detained 5 Years No Charge FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/  ꕤ

Assange - Politically Motivated Persecution of a Journalist, the Passive Press & the British Foreign Office Pantomime

Sweden’s double standards on Julian Assange posted by Peter Tatchell ... on Mon, 10/08/2015 - 11:40 Prosecutors have interviewed 44 people in UK since 2010. Why not Assange? London, UK - 10 August 2015 "The Swedish prosecutors are guilty of double standards and victimisation. They’ve interviewed 44 people in the UK since 2010. Why not Assange? They are making an exception of him. He’s being singled out and treated differently. It is wrong to deny Assange the option to be interviewed in the UK, which has been extended to others and which he has been offering for five years”, said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. He was commenting on a Freedom of Information request revealing that Swedish prosecutors have interviewed 44 suspects in the UK since 2010, while for five years declining Julian Assange’s offer to be interviewed at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. They have long insisted that he must go to Sweden to be interviewed about the sex allegations against him. Mr Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, has supported Julian Assange for the last five years, on civil liberties grounds and on the grounds that he is a legitimate whistleblower. “The Swedish authorities are not applying the law about overseas interviews consistently and fairly. They are acting in an exceptional and discriminatory way towards Assange,” added Mr Tatchell. “A few weeks ago, a prosecutor from Sweden confided to me that the Assange case has been handled badly by Marianne Ny. He said she should have come to London to interview him five years ago. It is not unusual for Swedish prosecutors to interview suspects overseas, he confirmed, so it doesn’t make sense for them to not interview Assange in London. “In November last year, the Swedish Court of Appeal found Ny in breach of her duty to proceed the case at maximum speed and efficiency. It took another seven months, until June this year, for Ny to request an interview with Assange in London. She then cancelled the interview at the last minute. The Swedish prosecutor is the main roadblock in the case. She is not only denying Assange the right to swift justice, she is hindering the legal process and should be taken off the case. “Julian Assange has been in various forms of detention for five years, without ever having been charged with any offence. This amounts to pre-trial punishment and is a gross abuse of his human rights and the legal system. “The Swedish prosecutor has still not made a decision on whether Assange should be charged, which makes his treatment all the more shocking. “Assange’s case is an important civil liberties and human rights issue,” said Mr Tatchell. SOURCE http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/civil-liberties/sweden-s-double-standards-julian-assange ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  COMMENT We should all be concerned that corrupt government can (and does) act with impunity (Britain, Sweden and US), while pontificating about 'American values,' 'Western values' or 'European values', democracy, and all the rest of the fanciful garbage they trot out, every time they seek to pull the wool over the public's eyes. Sweden and the UK have got away with making an exception of Assange, dragging this out for 5 years, apparently determined to get Assange onto Swedish soil.  And they're taking the worldwide public (and the British taxpayer) for fools:  because they can.  The mainstream press that's supposed to play a key role as vital check to ensure just and democratic government, has allowed these corrupt forces to ride roughshod over journalism, justice, international law, and human rights. Instead of fighting to put an end to the persecution of a fellow journalist, the corporate press just echoes the government narrative, without question. The press should be screaming that this is taking place: Twelve million pounds (ie US$18 million) spent to date by UK, trapping Assange in the Ecuador embassy; exclusion of Assange from the 2014 change in law that was intended to prevent precisely this sort of 'pre-charge' detention situation from happening in future; 5-year-long insistence that Assange to go Sweden and Sweden's refusal to interview Assange in London - over a five year stretch; Sweden having made an exception of Assange, by refusing to interview him in London (unlike the 44 others they've interviewed in London). All of the above show just how determined these people are to deny Assange justice, in order to despatch him to the US - as was their intention all along.  That speaks for itself:  this is political persecution, without any doubt. I wonder just how much of a hand these governments have had in the 2010 developments in Sweden that brought about this suspiciously convenient de facto imprisonment of Assange? UK is shamelessly making a performance of lodging a formal objection to Ecuador for granting political asylum to Assange (which, as a sovereign nation, it is entitled to grant). UK ought rightfully be censuring Sweden for failing to resolve this matter 5 years ago and failing to interview Assange in London in all the years it has had to do so. The only one that's been denied justice is the journalist that's been detained for nearly five years on flimsy Swedish police allegations.  The same police that did not follow procedures, did not properly record (audio / video) interviews (while taking care not to apply these same lax standards to defence witnesses), the police that tampered with the police database, and the same police that did not get a sworn statement.  And that's just for starters.   Although I've been following this for a while now, it has taken until now to really see this for what it is. I say that on the basis of seeing the pantomime they're putting on now, as well as how they have conducted themselves to this point. This is clearly politically motivated persecution. Dead dictators would be proud of these conniving fascists.   This is disgusting.  And it's unbelievable that this isn't a press and public uproar, particularly in Australia.   Journalist, Assange has been targeted because he and his organisation exposed war US crimes. The same people that brought you constitutional violation, general contempt for the law, mass surveillance, surveillance of entire countries, rendition, torture, invasions on false pretexts etc, are the same lying, hypocritical, corrupt, coalition that has denied Assange liberty without charge. What they're doing - and what the press permits them to do - is absolutely disgusting. Please help support Australian journalist, Julian Assange, in any way you can: FAQ & Support Justice4Assange https://justice4assange.com/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- 2012 - Notification to Sweden from Ecuardor:   Assange Available Sweden Refused To Interview Assange in London Sweden Lied - Claimed 'cannot' interview London Others Interviewed In London - 44 of them The various politicians and their legal puppets have absolutely no conscience. Politicians Lying Psychopaths in Suits ꕤ

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. ꕤ

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. ꕤ

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 https://youtu.be/ieTjNJGW0Yo  ---------------------- 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 https://justice4assange.com/   ꕤ

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  ] ꕤ