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]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
Julian Assange remains in wait within London’s Ecuadorean Embassy, notoriously hounded despite his courage to tell the truth. He has committed no crime against humanity. He has murdered no-one. He is hounded as if he has. But the murderers and their keepers of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes by US forces where air to ground attacks deploying US AH-64 Apache helicopters killing innocent civilians and journalists, have never been brought to account. Three years on from this incident the world would be availed to the awful truth. WikiLeaks released 39 minutes of the ‘classified’ gunfight footage.
Pentagon Plans Legal Change to Crack Down on Military Whistleblowers
02:36 30.12.2015(updated 03:21 30.12.2015)
After a year marked by repeated cyberattacks into US government databanks, the Department of Defense is tightening up its Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to prevent future breaches and leaks, legal and cyber [attacks], analysts told Sputnik.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Former CIA counterterrorism officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou told Sputnik on Tuesday that the change in the Code seemed focused on bringing military legal procedures up to date to deal with the burgeoning field of cybercrime and cyberespionage.
"It may be that the law was outdated and didn't include ‘cybercrime," Kiriakou said.
The Defense Department has proposed a reform in the US Code of Military Justice to introduce punishment for specific computer offenses for the first time.
Retired US Army Major Todd Pierce, an author and expert on military law and civil liberties, told Sputnik the reform seemed to be focused on serving military personnel who became whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning, rather than on civilian contractors such as Edward Snowden.
"I think it is more related to Manning as Snowden wouldn’t have come under the UCMJ as a civilian," Pierce pointed out.
Chelsea Manning, originally Bradley Manning, was a US Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act after disclosing to WikiLeaksnearly 750,000 classified or unclassified, but sensitive military and diplomatic documents.
In August 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison, and will only be eligible for possible parole from August 2020.
Pierce said the proposed changes in the UCMJwould make it easier for the US military to prosecute and convict future whistleblowers like Manning, who felt compelled to leak classified or sensitive material for the public good.
"I presume the offenses and the elements which will need to be shown for convictionwill be made easier to prove than relying on General Articles and the incorporation of federal statutes," Pierce stated.
Independent Institute Director of the Center on Peace and LibertyIvan Elandagreed that the Defense Department was belatedly reacting to the embarrassments it suffered from the successful data leaks and exposures by Snowden and Manning.
"The [proposed] Code revisions seem to be a reaction to the Snowden leaks. However, Snowden was a civilian and they are likely plugging leaks in the Code to deal with similar actions by military personnel," Eland noted.
Edward Snowden is a former CIA employee and former contractor for the US government who leaked classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) for public disclosure.
The information revealed many global surveillance programsrun by the NSA and by the "Five Eyes" alliance of US, British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand electronic intelligence and surveillance agencies.
The Americans weren't merely 'embarrassed' by the leaks attributed to Chelsea Manning: US and allied war crimes were exposed.
Therefore the Americans would be adjusting their military legislation to ensure that currently undisclosed (and future) US military war crimes remain hidden from public knowledge and that wrongful deeds remain immune from consequences such as the threat of prosecution, following potential whistleblower exposure.
Summary notes re US military law:
US Military Law
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (1950) Link | Post
"Karl Rove's career in U.S. President George W. Bush's administration began shortly after the first inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001." [here]
"... authors of [book] Bush’s Brain produce material that underscores the fact that for the first time in modern history a president attained office through outright criminality." [WSWS]
Rise of Bush & Rove, apparently, coincided with therise of "semi-fascist elements from the Christian right," and Rove is said to "represents the rise of political gangsterism in the Republican Party." [below & here]
"In 2002 and 2003 Rove chaired meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), an internal White House working group established in August 2002, eight months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. WHIG was charged with developing a strategy "for publicizing the White House's assertion that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States." [here]
Long-term friend of thenSwedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt (prior PM, said to be the power behind the Sweden PM 'throne' - PM said to defer to him. Bildt exposed as US spy & in English (elsewhere) here (re Expressen's attempt at casting this as 'smear', see WikiLeaks press release - here.
Long-term friend & advisor of thenSwedish PM, Fredrik Reinfeldt
Julian Assange, journalist/publisher, WikiLeaks, who released:
the Collateral Murder video on 5th April 2010 (depicting US war crimes); and
the Afghan War Logs: 2004-2010 (comprising 91,000 US reports), on 25 July 2010);
before going on to release the Iraq War Logs (comprising 391,832 US reports) that same year: October, 2010.
EXTRACTS [this section - not strict order]
Bush’s hatchet man: two biographies of Karl Rove
Bush’s Brain and Boy Genius
By Joanne Laurier 19 July 2003
Both volumes are muckraking accounts of Rove’s career, but despite their varying levels of criticism, the journalist/authors cannot help but express admiration for him. At various moments, it becomes clear that the authors measure Rove by the standards of contemporary American culture: Rove is a success, a “winner” and not a “loser,” no matter how unattractive he is as a personality and political type.
Bush’s Brain begins by claiming that Rove is “something grander” than a presidential advisor. “His influence marks a transcendent moment in American politics: the rise of an unelected consultant to a position of unprecedented power,” which may “raise” constitutional questions. The book’s authors describe Rove as the “co-president of the United States.” This is a remarkable assertion, but even more remarkable is the failure of the authors to grasp that the rise of an unelected consultant takes place as the consequence of the rise of an unelected president! Rove’s prominence is one expression of the quasi-Bonapartist character of the Bush administration.
“Cabinet appointments were vetted through him [Rove], judicial nominations crossed his desk, as did the details of a proposed energy bill, administration policy on stem-cell research, steel tariffs, and health care policy. Nearly every speech was shown to Rove before it was delivered,” asserts Boy Genius.
This wide portfolio is all the more significant because Rove seems to have little interest in the substance of policy, outside of its impact on maintaining political office. He rose through the ranks of the Republican Party as a career political operative, concerned mainly with the process of manipulating public opinion to produce a desired electoral result.
While ahard-core right-winger, Rove is not a product of the Christian fundamentalists, the neo-conservatives, the Southern racists or other factions of the contemporary far right. He comes from a slightly earlier, but equally foul, political tradition—the McCarthyite red-baiter.
Born in Denver in 1950, Rove grew up in Colorado, Utah and Nevada. Beginning his political career as a die-hard Nixonite (from age 9), Rove “escaped the Vietnam draft, but loathed everything those anti-war protesters on TV stood for,” according to Boy Genius. “I came from a relatively conservative state, Utah, and it was hard to sympathize with all those Commies,” proclaimed Rove.
After dropping out of college, Rove’s first foray into dirty tricks campaigning was in Illinois in 1970.
The notion that Bush is unchallengeable, a quasi-mythical being, is patently absurd and, more than anything, demonstrates the political outlook of these supposed critics. The temporary success of the Bush-Rove team has less to do with their innate strength than with the historic collapse of liberalism and the prostration of the Democratic Party. The current crisis arising from the exposure of Bush administration lies about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction,” whatever its immediate outcome, demonstrates the fundamentally narrow social base of the present regime and its inherent political weakness.
Bush’s eventual victory was only due to the machinations of the Republican Party on election night and in Florida in the subsequent weeks, a conspiracy in which Rove was centrally involved, culminating in the anti-democratic ruling by the US Supreme Court that shut down vote-counting.
To help his clients win office, Rove conducted “whisper wars”—a genteel way of saying slander campaigns—against political opponents. Whispers of homosexuality in the Texas state government purportedly undermined the gubernatorial campaign of incumbent Ann Richards in her unsuccessful 1994 fight against Rove’s client George W Bush. The same tactic was used in the 2000 GOP primary against John McCain. Rumors were circulated that McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, had become mentally unhinged as a result of his imprisonment.
Although Bush was Rove’s premier asset—“the keys to the kingdom”—the latter maintained a list of private business clients who paid for his political advice. Among them was tobacco giant Philip Morris, which hired Rove to provide “political intelligence.” Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos and Angolan anti-communist guerrilla leader and mass murderer Jonas Savimbi also paid Rove to lobby for them.
The authors of Bush’s Brain produce material that underscores the fact that for the first time in modern history a president attained office through outright criminality. Documents released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) some 19 months after the election reveal that the Bush team flew an estimated 250 operatives to Florida to disrupt the vote recount. Dubbed the “Brooks Brothers Riots” (after the upscale clothing worn by the disrupters), a successful effort was organized to stop the recount in Miami-Dade county of the estimated 10,000 “undervotes”—ballots for which no presidential choice had been registered by the original machine count.
The authors of Bush’s Brain contend that “Rove represents a new species of advisor,” a “product of the permanent campaign, the co-president, whose relationship with Bush, and his faithful guidance, have put him at the heart of power in a manner unknown to previous political consultants and U.S. electoral history.” But Rove must be placed within the appropriate political context—the takeover of the Republican Party by semi-fascist elements from the Christian right. He represents the rise of political gangsterism in the Republican Party, and his current political “success” is the product of the alliance of these forces with the Christian fundamentalists, for which he has been a leading facilitator.
In general, the authors elevate Rove’s role at the expense of other members of the Bush administration, such as Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Both books tend to exaggerate his significance in order to avoid a more probing analysis of the present government and the political and social crisis in America.
Nonetheless, the ascent of this right-wing mediocrity, whose only apparent skill is manipulation and deceit, to the highest levels of power is telling. It is one expression of the decay of bourgeois democracy in the US and the degeneration of the ruling elite as a whole. In the final analysis, semi-criminal elements like Rove come out of the woodwork to attempt to rescue, by any means necessary, a fatally diseased American capitalism.
Richard Phillips: Can you comment on the latest details of the United States grand jury indictment and what happens if you’re extradited to Sweden?
Julian Assange: The new evidence that emerged from the Stratfor files—emails from a Texas-based private intelligence agency—show that the US government has obtained a secret grand jury indictment against me. The US ambassador to the United Kingdom, Louis Susman, stated in February 2011 that the US government would wait and see what happened with the current Swedish extradition case as to whether it would pursue extradition itself.
The US ambassador to Australia [Jeffrey L. Bleich], one week prior to Obama’s recent visit, also told the Australian media that the Australian government might have to consider its extradition obligations in relation to me, presumably in case I returned to Australia. And while WikiLeaks has many of its people under legal attack, the organisation itself is also under an extra-judicial financial blockade. There are some 40 people who have been swept up in operations by the FBI, Scotland Yard or other police forces.
... Even if we are successful in the Supreme Court, the situation will be similar because the United States is likely to unseal its espionage charges through the grand jury and apply directly for my extradition from Great Britain.
RP: Do you have any detailed information on direct collusion between Britain, the US and Sweden over your extradition?
JA: What we can say publicly is that on December 8, 2010, the Independent newspaper published a report about informal contacts that were already occurring at that stage between the US and Sweden in relation to my extradition. The Australian embassy in Washington also sent a cable to Canberra round this time, stating that the US intelligence and criminal investigation into WikiLeaks was of “unprecedented scale and nature.” It also said that the criminal prosecution in relation to me was “active and vigorous”. That material was the result of a Freedom of Information request and printed in the Sydney Morning Herald a few months ago.
The UK crown prosecution service has also refused a request under the Freedom of Information Act in relation to communications over potential extradition arrangements, stating that it would affect Great Britain’s diplomatic relations with other countries. In the middle of last year, the UK’s extradition reform panel, which was appointed by the home secretary, met with Eric Holder, the US attorney general, and a number of members of the Defence Department in the United States. In addition, there have beenother recent meetings between Carl Bildt, the Swedish minister of foreign affairs [and close friend of Karl Rove], and William Haig, the UK foreign affairs minister.
RP: Can you comment on the role being played by Australia’s Gillard government?
JA: The reaction by the Gillard government to WikiLeaks activities, in particular our release of the US diplomatic cables, was publicly the worst of any nation. Gillard falsely stated that our organisation was engaged in illegal activities. This was found to be false by an Australian Federal Police investigation.
Together with the attorney general, she initiated a “whole of government task force” against WikiLeaks, recruiting the Australian Federal Police, the external intelligence agency ASIS, the domestic intelligence agency ASIO, the defence department and the attorney general’s department. Publicly, Gillard has not issued a single statement of support and we are not aware of any private support.
The US government is trying to erect a new interpretation of what it means to be a journalist. It wants any communications with a source to be viewed legally as a conspiracy. In other words, it wants journalists to be completely passive receptacles for others. But this is simply not how national security journalism has been traditionally done. If they succeed, it will be the end of national security journalism in the West as we know it.
These attacks on us have also been picked up by other countries and used to legitimise their own crackdowns. For example, two Swedish journalists are currently being jailed in Ethiopia. They were investigating a Swedish oil company by the name of Lundin—Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildthad previously been a director of the company—but have been sentenced to 11 years jail in Ethiopia on terrorism charges. The Ethiopian prime minister says that it is perfectly acceptable to treat journalists this way and has pointed to my circumstances as justification.
The issues facing WikiLeaks are entirely political and therefore a matter of public concern. My message to people everywhere is: do not wait until WikiLeaks is bankrupted or its members extradited to the United States before acting. It will be too late then. If people act strongly now, then the organisation will succeed. WikiLeaks has a lot of support and we’re battle hardened now. We’re not going down without a fight and if everyone pulls together then we will win.
Rove Suspected In Swedish-U.S. Political Prosecution of WikiLeaks
EXTRACT
Rove has advised Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt for the past two yearsafter resigning as Bush White House political advisor in mid-2007.
Legal Schnauzer blogger Roger Shuler scooped me on the story about Rove's Swedish work in a Dec. 14 column, "Is Karl Rove Driving the Effort to Prosecute Julian Assange?" But a big part of our role as web journalists should be following up on each other's work.
Shuler is an expert on how Rove-era "Loyal Bushies" undertook political prosecutions against Democrats on trumped up corruption charges across the Deep South, including against former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, his state's leading Democrat. The Siegelman case has turned into most notorious U.S. political prosecution of the decade, as readers here well know. It altered that state's politics and improved business opportunities for companies well-connected to Bush, Rove and their state GOP supporters.
Is Karl Rove Driving the Effort to Prosecute Julian Assange?
EXTRACT
That Assange's legal troubles would originate in Sweden probably is not a coincidence, our source says. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has been called "the Ronald Reagan of Europe," and he has a friendship with Rove that dates back at least 10 years, to the George W. Bush campaign for president in 2000. Reinfeldt reportedly asked Rove to help with his 2010 re-election in Sweden.
On the hot seat for his apparent role in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Rove sought comfort in Sweden. "When [Rove] was in trouble and did not want to testify on the three times he was invited [by the U.S. Congress], he wound up in Sweden," our source says. "Further, it was [Reinfeldt] that first hired Karl when he got thrown out of the White House.
"Clearly, it appears that [Rove], who claims to be of Swedish descent, feels a kinship to Sweden . . . and he has taken advantage of it several times."
Why would Rove be interested in corralling Julian Assange? To help protect the Bush legacy, our source says. "The very guy who has released the documents that damage the Bushes the most is also the guy that the Bush's number one operative can control by being the Swedish prime minister's brain and intelligence and economic advisor."
PM's Biographer Sees Rove Influence In Swedish Politics
EXTRACT
George W. Reinfeldt: The art of making a political extreme makeover
Dr. Brian Palmer of Uppsala University in Sweden provided an illuminating interview on the Jan.13 edition of my Washington Update radio show regarding the influence of Karl Rove on Swedish politics as an advisor to the governing Moderate Party.
Someone had posted the Oxford Union video on twitter, so I thought I'd take a look. Decided to transcribe it for something educational to do.
Got into 4 minutes of transcription before it dawned on me to check online to see if anyone had transcribed it.
Yes, they have. Phew!
It would have taken me forever switching audio on and off while flipping screens to type. Link to the transcript above or here.
WikiLeaks 'Collateral Murder' information link at top of page and 5 years on interview link above (or here). After I've finished editing some screen grabs of a hilarious social media block, I'll be back to check this out more thoroughly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IRAN
Had no idea there were so many military bases around Iran (a whopping 45 on every side!).
According to Assange (Oxford Union talk video above), WikiLeaks cables show that Britain engaged in a conspiracy to killing off the Sky satellite feed from Press TV to Britain (ie Iran state broadcasting equivalent to the BBC), and this is described as a death penalty for a national broadcaster, as this means the Iran government cannot get across its views.
So, I gather, this is a means of isolating Iran and of controlling public information (and therefore opinion), while beating the drums of war on Iran.
Given Iran is completely surrounded by hostile territories, the 45 military bases and given the drums of war beating in the West, together with the West isolating Iran, Iran is, understandably, in a highly fearful state — fearful of war.
According to Assange, Iran's fears mean that the human rights abuses the West is concerning itself about, have very little chance of resolution "because the leadership of that country is so terrified about being invaded."
Also SEE: Britain human rights abuses WWI & WWII — Britain imprisoned Bertrand Russell WWI & similar abuses WWII.
Democracies - always lied into war
Assange conveys that: the internet has become the most important device for revealing the truth (since the beginning of the printing press), and has become the number one antidote to TV. Says: democracies are always lied into war. The Iraq war was the result of lies and the increased involvement of the US in Vietnam came as a result of another lie (see Tonkin Gulf incident).
According to Assange, it is not just lies by intelligence agencies: it is also lies by the big media machine, comprised of various [press/media] institutions that get too comfortable and too close to the table of power that they are meant to be reporting on and policing and getting information into the historic record.
Note: intelligence isn't the problem. Corruption of intelligence, which comes about through secrecy is the problem:
The problem is the corruption of those agencies, and that corruption
comes about because of secrecy. When Tom spoke about, in somewhat
glowing terms, the improved process that he put down, and I believe him
that that is a significant improvement from what was there before, it all rests upon one thing. It rests upon the abilities of people in those
agencies to get out information to the public when those processes are
not followed. [1]
We might have depoliticized analysts working in
intelligence agencies who are to all intents and purposes mere robots,
perfect machines with perfect accuracy. They are tasked, they engage in
the task, they analyze, they pass up information higher up the food
chain. [1]
And what if, in Tom’s case, for example, his National
Intelligence Estimate, there was not a threat that it would be released,
because our sources say that in fact the White House knew that if it
did not release a version immediately, another version would be
released, and the White House would have to get – would then come in
second, and its opponents would have their spin on it, so the White
House wanted to get their spin on it first. [1]
It’s only through this
pressure of producing analytical product to the public that these sorts
of agencies are kept honest and don’t become simply robots that are, in
effect, perhaps this is drawing the bow too far, but some kind of
Hitler’s willing executioners, mere people who act as robots who are
told to carry out a task and do it. That is not enough. It is not enough
to agree to carry out a task for superiors. That is the Nuremberg
defense. We must all look to ourselves and understand whether what we
are doing is right and just not just according to the views of our
superiors but according to the long view of history, according to human
rights and to our feelings of compassion, if we have any. [1]
Tom Fingarlook-up:
Thomas (Tom) Fingar is a professor at Stanford University. [2]
In 1986 Fingar left Stanford to join the State Department. In 2005, he moved to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis and concurrently served as the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council until December 2008. [2]
In January 2009, he rejoined Stanford University as ... Lecturer in ... Institute for International Studies. [2]
In December 2007, Fingar was one of the authors of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear programs. [2]
The NIE asserted with "high confidence" that Tehran had "halted its nuclear weapons program" in the fall of 2003. [2]
This contradicted an earlier 2005 NIE report that ballistic delivery systems and uranium enrichment was continuing. [2]
The 2007 NIE was a political sensation, seized on by Democrats and Iraq war critics as another case in which the Bush Administration had ... politicized intelligence. [2]
The above Fingar information came from a Wikipedia entry.
Best to check further sources rather than to merely rely on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia entries are prepared by those with professional, political and other biases and affiliations. Take the Wikipedia statement:
"The 2007 NIE was a political sensation, seized on by Democrats and Iraq war critics as another case in which the Bush Administration had supposedly politicized intelligence."
What is the word 'supposedly' doing in there?
As an information repository Wikipedia sucks: it is enough to say that critics had accused the Bush administration of politicising intelligence.
Wikipedia twists this simple fact around — with the gratuitous and biased 'supposedly' — to sneakily imply that such criticism is not warranted (showing a bias in favour of the Bush administration).
Note to self: watch for cultural bias {and find out what exactly this is ... lol}.
Asssange indicates Iraq intelligence reports 2003 demonstrate that it is not enough to produce accurate intelligence reports (eg. sectarian crisis in Iraq accurate intelligence reporting prediction was subsequently completely denied by US leadership). So accurate intelligence reporting is not enough if leadership won't let reporting come out. Analysts therefore must be responsible to the public and to the historical record, and not to political leadership.
Mass propaganda attack against WikiLeaks as an organisation, the character of WikiLeaks staff and the activities of WikiLeaks, as well as an attack on Iran — fanning the flames to start a war with Iran: Film, The Fifth Estate (2013).
Film disregards facts: Fingar National Intelligence Estimate found that Iran did not have a nuclear program & all 16 US intelligence agencies feeding into that report said that was the case, with high confidence, and it has been confirmed every year since that report.
Assange refers to the big budget film lies upon lies and war drum propaganda.
Assange points out that this is not merely a war of intelligence agencies but a war of corrupt media and corrupt culture.
We need to "understand that where there's great powers at work" (not shadow conspiracies) but "enormous cultural powers, enormous industrial powers, the vast network of corporations, that interact with government agencies around the world selling products":
The National Security Agency, for example, now has approximately 70% of
its expenditure pass through Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin,
etcetera. This produces a lobby that pushes in particular directions. [1]
How is it that such a lie got into a script about WikiLeaks?
How is it that such a lie got into a script about WikiLeaks? How is
it that in the light of that National Intelligence Estimate that anyone
could think that it was tolerable, acceptable, to foist that lie upon
the public, that it would make it all the way through the Hollywood
system, that distributors would pick it up? Because they perceive that
that is where the power lies in the United States. They perceive that
it’s perfectly okay to slander an entire nation, that it’s perfectly
okay to beat the drums of war like that, because people in that system
want the war. They want it.
We have to understand that everything that we see, read and hear is
produced for a purpose. It’s produced as a result of incentives. And
other material is not produced. There are disincentives to not produce
it. We walk almost sleepwalking, almost blind, every time we open a
newspaper and read an article. [1]
There is a war on for control of the Internet
Now, working against that trend and against that current of corrupt
powerful organizations producing a distorted perspective of the world
has been the Internet. For the first time in history, that has allowed
one person with some truth to speak to every single person who wants to
hear that truth. It is the great antidote. There is a war on for control
of the Internet. That war takes place on the one hand by producing
incredible propaganda and hyping up threats about how the Internet is
dangerous. On the other hand, it involves introducing mass surveillance
systems to surveil all of the Internet. You know, different countries
see the effects being brought by the Internet and the political
liberations being brought by the Internet and powerful groups in those
countries feel fearful and they feel destabilized, and as a result they
want to find some way to control it and to know it. [1]
So ...
War on Control of Internet
a) producing propaganda & hyping up threats on how Internet is dangerous.
b) mass surveillance systems to surveil all of the Internet.
c) powerful groups are fearful & feel destabilized by Internet as a force for information/political liberation (therefore seek to control Internet).
Wow, this was a really good video.
Had to keep rewinding, listening and referring to the transcript because I'm not up on this information and a bit slow to take it in.
Really worth watching and reading (thanks to whoever did that transcript; really helpful).
On first impressions (for someone, like me, who doesn't know a lot about what's going on), it seems idealistic to expect intelligence personnel to answer to the public or to history. But when you take the time to absorb what is being said in relation to what has actually happened in the recent past and in the more distant past (eg the costs of wars that could have been averted), that idea *does* make sense.
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
