Panama Toilet Papers & the Capitalist Bastards With An Eye On Global Markets, Funding Destruction of European Societies

TRANSCRIPT [confirm audio, for quotation purposes] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNvWxZ_bhAI Al-Jazeera English [Qatar state media  / indirect funding also from Thani ruling family via third entity] Julian Assange on the Panama Papers [skip Al-Jazeera introduction] What kind of person would reveal those secrets & why? 1:24 Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Assuming they were an insider, or they were an individual computer hacker coming from the outside, this a technical person.  Or this person had help from a technical person.  I think it's likely that this represents radicalisation of a technical class.  That's something that we've seen, for example, with Snowden. So these are usually young men, who are technically educated, know how to extract material.  But, of course, they have to have the idea and the idea is given to them by successful examples and now there have been a range of successful examples. Al-Jazeera Interviewer It's also to do with hardware, though, isn't it.  Because back in 2010, most journalists at most news organisations wouldn't have had a clue about encryption. Back in 2013 when Snowden came out, most Guardian journalists he was dealing with, he had to school on encryption.  Now so many news outlets are providing these boxes, these (for lack of a better term) 'safe havens' for data, that five years ago only organisations like yours and a few others did.  That's a big change, as well, isn't it? Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Well, I don't believe that  Sueddeutsche [Sueddeutsche Zeitung] got their material that way.  However, their journalists have been educated in the technology. But it's no surprise that it was a German newspaper, because Germany is the centre of technical education of journalists and is also the centre of the political radicalisation of the technical class.  Both of those two things combined. Al-Jazeera Interviewer The head of the ICIJ said ICIJ, the consortium, has no plans to release the full data set.  He said:  "We're not WikiLeaks. We're trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly." Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Yeah, that's a concern.  So we're very pleased about the work that SZ -- Sueddeutsche Zeitung -- did in beginning and developing that source.  We think that's really good work.  The work of the source, of course, is the most impressive and then pulling together that collaboration is also impressive work. Saying that you're going to censor and not release a lot of the material -- in fact, what must be 99% of the material -- that's a big problem. It's fine to have some kind of staggered release because you want to balance the supply and demand curve. But what I want to hear is that there is a path -- a transparent path -- to publishing the vast majority of that data set, because that's what's interesting from a legal perspective, from a historical perspective. One of the fundamental missed lessons from the WikiLeaks experience is about how to deal with scale.  OK, one part of dealing with scale is stitch together a big international collaboration:  get more bodies, more eyeballs on the material.  The other way to deal with scale is that scale is inherent in the material:  when you've got millions of documents, you need to make millions of documents available [and] citable, so it's not just a few hundred journalists, it's all the lawyers in the world, it's all the police in the world. Al-Jazeera Interviewer As someone who pretty much wrote the book on multimedia outlet collaborations, you knew that this stuff was coming. When you saw the first wave -- the first two or three days of reporting  -- what stood out for you and what did you not see that you thought you would in the reporting? Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks We've been covering the offshore sector for a long time, since 2007.  In fact, WikiLeaks has used the offshore sector for protection from banking blockades, so we even had to research it for our own purposes. But in terms of the initial angling of the story, that can be a bit strange.  There was clearly a conscious effort to go with the Putin-bashing, North Korea bashing, sanctions-bashing etc. For some reason, some papers, like The Guardian thought that was necessary. Al-Jazeera Interviewer Have we seen any other examples in the parochial reporting media outlets from various countries doing what The Guardian appears to have done, which is point at a distant target while not paying as much attention, proportionally speaking, to a domestic target much closer to home? Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Sure, that was done in Sweden with SVT -- the Swedish state TV -- beating up on Iceland. Iceland's a small Scandinavian neighbour, sort of a -- you know, viewed as quite provincial and fun to beat up on.  But the Swedish trusts were not really examined. Al-Jazeera Interviewer Am I the only one who's surprised that more than 100 news organisations can get involved with a story like this and somehow, in an industry that is famous for rumour-mongering and incurable gossip, they managed to keep a lid on the whole story until it came out. Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks I think it is interesting.  We knew. We know other people in other news organisations who knew, but who didn't say anything. I think because no-one knows of the law-firm concerned [Mossack Fonseca]; it doesn't have name recognition. Then the individual details are -- they're quite technical.  You can't tweet this story.  You can't spill the beans with just a small comment.  So I think there just wasn't the market to do it.  It could also be that so many news organisations were involved, so they had incentives to not report. Al-Jazeera Interviewer The item that strikes me about this is that we're sitting in an embassy in London that you are not free to leave, and a lot of politicians -- primarily in the United States, but also elsewhere -- when the leaks came out in 2010, they turned you into the embodiment of the problem and, in a way, it kind of reminds me of that Napster story, the free music service that the music industry went after in a big way, destroyed in a court of law and woke up the next morning and found out that Napster wasn't their problem:  that technology was their problem.   There is no music industry per se, compared to what there was before today, and I'm wondering if you feel like that now would be a good time to point out that you weren't necessarily their problem.  Their problem is the technology and you can't lock that up in an embassy in west London. Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Look, WikiLeaks set an example and the example was the threat, and the example was a threat because the technology, over time, became more available to other people who could then follow the example. Looking forward as to how I think the Panama Papers will go, it's going to be hard to go forward without a bulk publishing effort.  There's just not the mass to deal with the reliance that the establishment of the UK, United States and, in fact, most countries have in the offshore sector. Now, what you have in practice at the moment is basically a two-tiered tax system, where the middle class and the working poor pay income tax and the wealthy essentially don't pay anything. That's a question about the structure of society, and that big picture is not being engaged with in the journalism that it has done.  It is 'Oh, North Korea', 'Oh, Russia', 'Oh, sanctions breaking', 'Oh, --' maybe someone dodging inheritance tax a little bit.  But there is a big picture here as well.  Al-Jazeera Interviewer Stories that we can put a face on.  They like to do the stories that they can put a face on. Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks Stories and scandals that you can put a face on can be good for marketing reasons, but what are you marketing in the end? What WikiLeaks does and what I believe should have been done with this story is that the scandals are there to MARKET THE ARCHIVE, because the ARCHIVE that has the SCALE that can deal with the problem. -- end audio:  9:12 --    SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNvWxZ_bhAI PRIME REASON NOT TO LEAK TO HAMSTRUNG MAINSTREAM PRESS TRADE SECRETS LAWS - USED TO SILENCE PUBLISHERS TRANSCRIPT [confirm audio, for quotation purposes] Video Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyQCX05MxLM [where audio unclear gaps left ] Male Because of the activity of WikiLeaks -- [cuts to] 0:04 Julian Assange Editor-in-Chief, WikiLeaks The question is, how much can a cashed up oligarch or company tax people who engage in publishing material about it, by abusing the process, grabbing onto hooks like trade secret law, to force publishers (and in this case service providers and individuals), into very expensive litigation. The experience from the United States has been a disastrous one. Trade secrets law is used to create taxes on publishers who publish quotes, say, from internal e-mails -- like we've seen ... with the Panama Papers. Now, the situation, however, is already bad here in Europe. One of our partner publications, Deutsche [Süddeutsche ?] Zeitungen in Germany (SZ), who was the principal who got hold of the Panama Papers, who developed that source.  How many did they publish? How many Panama Papers did they publish, the principal indy organisation involved?  Zero. They have published zero.  They have published an occasional quote, but they have released zero Panama Papers. So, why is that?  Because of fears of litigation risk. Already we are at the stage, where a fairly strong mainstream press organisation in Germany that is willing at least to take on some of the stories coming from ... feels it's not in a position to be able to publish a single document. Video Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyQCX05MxLM Translation "... scandal machinery starts against all enemies of the West from Russia via North Korea to Syria reveals a view of the parties. Both criticized for state near NDR [Norddeutscher Rundfunk / North German Broadcasting], and strictly pro-American media are involved."  "Also interesting are the donors. CPI and ICIJ with which the SZ cooperated for research, "financed by donations, more recently, among other foundations from Australia, Britain, the Netherlands and the US, including the Ford Foundation, the Adessium Foundation, founded by George Soros Open Society Foundation; also. "it says on the by the Pulitzer Center of Crisis Reporting"" http://www.neopresse.com/medien/die-anti-russland-kampagne-hinter-panama-papers/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/04/panama-papers-mainstream-media-focuses-putin-link-leak-group-funded-pro-open-borders-george-soros/ EXTRACT Questions must be asked of the tactics of the ICIJ, and indeed, their backers. The organisation, which describes itself as “a global network of more than 190 investigative journalists in more than 65 countries who collaborate on in-depth investigative stories” lists as some of its recent financial funders: Adessium Foundation Funds big green, as well as financial industry lobbyists, often in partnership with the George Soros-backed Open Society initiatives or foundations. The group also supports the EUObserver website, which dedicates itself to non-biased European Union reporting, though receives 64 per cent of its funding from predominantly pro-EU foundations. Open Society Foundations Chaired by Hungarian-American billionaire and Hillary Clinton donor George Soros, the Open Society Foundations back hundreds of pro open borders, mass immigration groups across the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Mr. Soros is a known rival of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and has recently written about how Mr. Putin is a “greater threat” to the West than Islamic State. The Sigrid Rausing Trust The Sigrid Rausing Trust, similarly to the Open Society Foundations, backs open borders and pro mass migration groups across the United Kingdom, and funds anti-Israel groups in the Middle East. The organisation funds “No Borders” in Ukraine, “Reprieve” in the UK – which defends Guantanamo Bay detainees, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the radical left group “Southall Black Sisters” in Britain.   Graeme Wood An Australian billionaire who has bankrolled anti coal projects in his home country, as well as supporting the Guardian website – which critics have highlighted the hypocrisy of for their own offshore tax set up. Mr. Wood was responsible for Australia’s “biggest ever political donation of $1.6 million in 2010 to the Greens” and funded the failed Global Mail news website. The Ford Foundation The Ford Foundation is one of the largest funders on the political left, giving out over $560 million just in 2013. The Ford Foundation has funded everything from Sesame Street to the radical TV show Democracy Now. [funding] ... dozens of far left groups with agendas ranging from environmentalism to abortion, the Ford Foundation is one of the premier funders of the open borders movement, beginning with its 1968 grant to create the group MALDEF, or the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, as helping to create the group National Council of La Raza. MALDEF and La Raza have become to the most influential groups in the US open borders movement. The Ford foundation is also been a significant funder for the ACLU and the National Lawyers guild, both key legal players in the fight for open borders. Additionally, the Ford Foundation laid the intellectual groundwork for the modern open borders movement and its multiculturalist agenda with a series of grants in the 60s and 70s that created Women’s Studies and Black Studies programs at major universities across America. In a 1992 conference that Ford sponsored called “Cultural Diversity Enhancement” the closing speaker was Eve Grossman, a Princeton dean, who made the agenda very clear: “If we want to change the world, we have to change the students.” Pew Charitable Trust Like like The Ford Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trust is a major funder of a wide range of left-wing groups with focuses on arts and culture, environmental issues as well as public research opinion polling through the Pew Research group. In 2014 alone, Pew gave out over $110 million in grants. A quick look at the Pew Charitable Trust’s website includes a number of helpful articles if you’re an illegal alien and you’d like to drive, such as the recent pop quiz Do You Know the Facts About Driver’s Licenses for Unauthorized Immigrants? and Alternative Driver’s Licenses for Unauthorized Immigrants. David and Lucile Packard Foundation Another heavy hitter in the world of left-wing grant writing, the Packard Foundation gave out nearly $300 million in 2013 along. Aside from funding institutional left groups like Human Rights Watch, The Center for Reproductive Rights, And the Environmental Working Group, Packard is also funded open borders groups such as National Council of La Raza, the National Immigration Law Center, and the ACLU. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/04/panama-papers-mainstream-media-focuses-putin-link-leak-group-funded-pro-open-borders-george-soros/ ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT   Panama Toilet Papers & the Capitalist Bastards With An Eye On Global Markets, Funding Destruction of European Societies Germany as the 'centre of the political radicalisation of the technical class' I cannot buy ... unless we're talking pussy, SJW, US-Anglo oligarchy serving and new world capitalist oligarchy order nation-destroying, liberalism agenda furthering, 'radicalism'. This 'responsible' journalism refrain is one we've heard before, with the Snowden 'leaks,' amounting to pious proclamations about journalistic 'responsibility', affirmation of the wonders of what's referred to as 'democracy' (ie rule by oligarchy), and ... the withholding of  99% of the information supposedly 'leaked'.  Some 'democracy' and some 'leak' that is. Corporate journalism, government & oligarchy sponsored 'liberty' promoting NGOs, & journalistic 'responsibility' trumpeting figures and ruling establishment sponsored journalistic 'responsibility' advocating NGOs (withholding information), aren't compatible with challenging the system that is also sponsor.  What they're good for is promoting the agenda of the ruling capitalist order, and an order with an eye for dominating the 'global market' capitalist world trade monopoly they seek to establish, the manifestation of which depends on an agenda that is bent on destroying European societies. We're never going to see the bulk of this 'leaked' material, let alone have access to material in full, because these aren't genuine leaks or genuine actors, in my opinion. The leaks are likely intended to damage or eliminate those that stand in the way of establishing global capitalist trade monopoly, which depends on the existence a unipolar US-led world order -- an order pursed by the US oligarchy serving American state that is designer and nurturer of this capitalist agenda, since at least the end of WWII (if not earlier). Oops, I think WikiLeaks is taking the Panama Papers seriously? LEAKER BEWARE I think the moral of this story is:  don't leak to mainstream media.  On the one hand, you have the corporate press that has its benefactors' and government's agenda dictating and restricting output. On the other hand, it looks as though you also have mainstream 'independent' media, but this platform is unable to publish as it is legally hamstrung, in the face of risk of exposure to costly litigation. *I'm still not convinced.  LOL

'Top Secret' - Game or British Acclimatisation PsyOp?

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-01-10-where-in-the-world-is-edward-snowden 'Top Secret' - Game or British Acclimatisation PsyOp?  http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-01-10-where-in-the-world-is-edward-snowden Simon Parkin Simon Parkin is an award-winning writer and journalist from England, a regular contributor to The New Yorker, The Guardian and a variety of other publications. Where in the world is Edward Snowden? The game that puts you in search of history's most notorious whistleblower. SUMMARY: James Long British graduate in theoretical physics product, game:  Top Secret casts player as NSA employee tasked with following intel to source deciding who knows what & whether to help whistleblower blurs reality & fantasy (Snowden group + fiction) 1,000 scattered fragments / disjointed, non-linear journey played out entirely in your actual email programme to begin: send an email to member of your 'NSA team' surveillance reports return, with 'metadata' James Long "Every email you send and receive while playing the game can be intercepted by the real government," he says. "So we have a game about surveillance in which your play itself is subject to surveillance." Top Secret supports Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encryption method used by Edward Snowden James Long "I'm nakedly partisan and a huge fan of Snowden. I believe the government has gone too far with mass surveillance." James Long "One of the reasons you play as an NSA analyst is that it allows the game to present the viewpoints of those in the security services. You are free to make up their own mind and decide how far you'll go when invading the lives of others. For change to happen you have to start a debate. It doesn't matter if people disagree with you as long as they are talking about the issue." http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-01-10-where-in-the-world-is-edward-snowden Guardian Article http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/10/video-game-makers-james-long-top-secret BY THE SAME WRITER / BRIEF VERSION ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT So, is this really a game or is it a GCHQ acclimatisation to mass surveillance and a take-the-NSA-POV PsyOp? ꕤ

State Crimes, Secrecy, Lies & Whistleblowers

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/02/global-angst-over-us-secrecy-fetish/ Global Angst over US Secrecy Fetish December 2, 2015 With the reach of U.S. surveillance now global – and with the U.S. military deployed all over the world – anger at President Obama’s unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers who disclose the U.S. government’s abuses and crimes has gone international, as this Norwegian opinion piece by Victor Wallis shows. By Victor Wallis The more extreme the crimes of state, the more the state seeks to shroud them in secrecy. The greater the secrecy and the accompanying lies, the more vital becomes the role of whistleblowers – and the more vindictive becomes the state in its pursuit of them. Whistleblowers are people who start out as loyal servants of the state. Their illusions about the state’s supposed moral agenda – and the wholeheartedness of their own patriotic commitment – make them all the more shocked when they discover evidence of the state’s wrongdoing. Given the extreme concentration of weaponry (as well as surveillance capabilities) in the hands of the state, and given the disposition of the state to apply such resources even against nonviolent mass movements, the type of defection practiced by whistleblowers – an option available to military and intelligence operatives at all levels – is crucial to any eventual triumph of popular forces over the ruling class. Whistleblowers thus not only embarrass the government, disrupt its policies, and (assuming adequate diffusion) educate the citizenry; they also are harbingers of a broader crumbling of the capitalist state and the order it defends. Acting largely in isolation and at great risk to themselves, they embody the conviction – or at least the hope – that basic decency has a more universal grounding than does any possible scheme of oppression. Whistleblowing’s principal near-term function is educational. It demonstrates the undemocratic character of the regime whose secrets it lets out; it is thus an essential redient of investigative journalism. The documents it brings to light reach the public through those who practice such journalism, whom the government then threatens with prosecution unless they disclose their sources. The novelty of Wikileaks is that it provided a new form of protection for the anonymity of sources. This, together with the facility of electronic transmission, has made the potential for disclosure greater than ever before. It accounts for the extraordinary fact that the U.S. government has been pursuing draconian charges against someone who not merely is only the recipient rather than the “leaker” of sensitive information, but someone who is not even a citizen or resident of the United States – Julian Assange. Disclosure is particularly embarrassing when it documents the fact that government officials have lied. The Director of Central Intelligence lied under oath to the U.S. Congress – a felony for which he was never prosecuted – when he denied that the National Security Agency monitors the communications of the entire U.S. population. This lie was the culminating event in Edward Snowden’s decision to blow the whistle. As we all know, of course, it is Snowden who was then criminalized by the government. This parallels the experience of John Kiriakou, who publicly confirmed, on the basis of his first-hand knowledge, that the CIA practiced torture by waterboarding. Kiriakou then became the only government official to be prosecuted and imprisoned in connection with CIA and military practices of torture. The debate over whistleblowers reached tens of millions of viewers when the presidential candidates of the Democratic Party were asked (on Oct. 13) their views about Snowden. Hillary Clinton falsely asserted that he could have used established channels to transmit his disclosures of excessive surveillance, presumably at no risk to himself. This claim is refuted by the experience of previous whistleblowers who had taken just that approach. One of them, Thomas Drake, retold his story two days later, at a news conference ignored by most of the corporate media (video), which was organized on behalf of yet another whistleblower, Jeffrey Sterling, who recently began a 42-month prison term on a conviction of “espionage.” What Sterling had done was report to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about a counterproductive CIA attempt (in 2000) to feed misleading technological data to Iranian scientists. What he was prosecuted for was his subsequent conversations with New York Times journalist James Risen, although no evidence was available as to the content of those conversations, since Risen refused to testify. Sterling’s story is recounted in a letter from his wife, seeking presidential clemency from Obama. Sterling had been fired from the CIA in 2002 after filing a complaint against the agency for racial discrimination (an episode on which Risen wrote a news story). After Risen’s book State of War (2006) came out, the FBI raided Sterling’s home, but it was not until more than four years later – under President Obama – that he was arrested (2011). The latest whistleblower, who documents the “normalization of assassination” via drone warfare, is wisely seeking to remain anonymous. The U.S. government will surely take all possible steps to track him down. The work of whistleblowers, as well as their personal safety, is obviously an issue that cuts across national borders. Support for U.S. whistleblowers will need to be as global as the reach of the policies and the weapons that they expose. Victor Wallis is managing editor of the journal Socialism and Democracy. [This is the original text of a column (written on Oct. 20) posted on the Norwegian website radikalportal.no.] https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/02/global-angst-over-us-secrecy-fetish/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT A Canadian archive: http://www.cjfe.org/snowden contains published Snowden documents. Archive also contains US government published documents, as an aid to understanding the leaked documents. It's an archive of approximately 400 documents, which figure presumably also includes the accompanying USG documents, intended as explanatory information. That would be 400 released documents or less, out of an estimated 50,000 documents that were reportedly turned over by whistleblower Snowden. Sitting on almost 50,000 'freed' documents that ought to be in the public domain, seems more like minding an archive of protected (and closed to the public) information  than whistleblower publishing. The 'leaked' information middleman dole-out approach doesn't appeal to me at all. RT News Despite calls from Congress to fire Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for lying under oath, United States President Barack Obama says that the spy chief should have just been a little more careful with his words. Clapper, the 72-year-old retired Air Force lieutenant general in charge of the nation's intelligence departments, caused a commotion last year when he was caught lying during sworn testimony delivered to the Senate. ... Clapper claimed that the National Security Agency does “not wittingly” collect and store data on American people. When former contractor Edward Snowden proved him wrong through leaked NSA documents weeks later, though, Clapper was forced to take back his words. CONTINUED https://www.rt.com/usa/obama-dni-clapper-lie-485/ While on the subject of surveillance etc, I thought this commenter had a point: The Age Paradoxically, if governments weren't illegally monitoring law-abiding citizens then there'd probably be no serious market for encryption - why bother hiding when nobody's looking (at your personal data?) Other than those committing cyber crimes perhaps, who would therefore stand out like the proverbial canine testicles. 'mutt' December 02, 2015, 6:25AM TheAge - here ꕤ

'Is Obama the Worst President Ever?'

SOURCE http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/03/is-obama-the-worst-president-ever/ September 3, 2015 Is Obama the Worst President Ever? by Dave Lindorff Obama is on track to go down in history as one of the, or perhaps as the worst and most criminal presidents in US history. He started out, campaigning in 2008, as someone would would restore the rule of law in US international affairs and here at home after eight years of criminality during the Bush and Cheney administration, as saying he would end America’s wars and bring back an era of international cooperation and negotiation, and as saying that he would confront the dire threat of global climate change. On the basis of that promise, he won a dramatic election victory, raising hopes across the country and across many voting blocks. On that basis, he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize — the first time the award was given before anything had been done by the laureate being honored. And on the basis of that promise, people expected action on climate change. Instead, the president began backpedaling almost instantly. Instead of restoring the rule of law, he almost immediately announced that he would not permit his Justice Department to engage in any prosecutions of CIA, FBI, military of Bush/Cheney administration personnel for violations of international law or of US law. He introduced new secrecy rules, launched a record number of prosecutions of government whistleblowers, including an international manhunt to arrest or kill NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden which included the forcing down of a presidential aircraft carrying the president of Bolivia, wrongly suspected of flying Snowden from Russia to that Latin American country, and a secret espionage indictment against Wikileaks founder Julien Assange, who has thus been trapped for years in the little UK embassy of Ecuador which has granted him asylum. And most egregiously, Barack Obama, sabotaged the first international meeting on climate change held in Denmark, and has ducked every opportunity to have the US lead on reaching an international agreement to seriously reduce global carbon emissions. During the three Congressional electoral cycles and his re-election campaign in 2012, Obama studiously avoided pressing on any of these key issues, and especially on climate change. His position: “all of the above”, for energy development, has seen the US move, not towards carbon emission reductions, but towards expanded production of gas, oil and even coal extraction, making the US the largest oil producer in the world, and a major provider of dirty coal to both US electric companies and large coal using countries abroad, including China. Now we have this flimflam artist up in Alaska, talking about the crisis he has helped worsen, calling it an existential issue. And yet even as he speaks, the Shell Oil Company is towing a giant oil drilling rig up to the Arctic Ocean, thanks to an Obama administration permit, to begin drilling for oil in the shallow waters north of Alaska — drilling for yet more oil, that is, even as the world is facing a glut of the stuff, in a delicate region that would be devastated by a well blow-out, because ice would make containment an impossibility. Future generations of Americans will surely look back at President Obama as not just a con-man, but as someone who blew several trillion dollars on continued wars around the globe, as someone who terminally destroyed the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, instead of rescuing these documents as promised, and as the president who, when given the last real opportunity to reverse climate change, ducked the challenge and pandered to the corporations that selfishly wanted short-term gain over long-term survival for humanity and the biosphere. There are plenty of other criminal acts by this president to consider. On his watch, this first African-American president allowed an increased national police to become a fully-armed occupying army across the country. No American today is safe from abusive police who make up crimes and ignore the law at will, but paying a uniquely terrible price are African-Americans and other people of color, who once gave this president 90% of their votes or more, but who now are being gunned down with a grim regularity by mostly white cops who fire at the slightest provocation, even at unarmed kids. On his watch too, young children, fleeing US-caused gang violence in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and elsewhere in Latin America, have been sent back to their home countries illegally, or held in prisons in this country in violation of direct court orders. He also ordered his Justice Department not to prosecute the criminal bankers who willfully destroyed the US and the global economy to profit themselves and their institutions. This president, let’s be clear, has not just been incompetent and gutless. He has been a slick political fraud and both a common and a Constitutional criminal. In a just nation of engaged citizens, Obama would already have been impeached for any number of serious crimes, beginning with the failure to prosecute known war criminals of the Bush/Cheney administration, including the president and vice-president themselves. That’s not going to happen, because this is not a just nation of engaged citizens. But there will be a reckoning. History will judge this president harshly, as it has judged criminal leaders of the past, from Rome’s Nero to Italy’s Mussolini or Uganda’s Idi Amin. It may strike some as hyperbole to put President Obama in league with such universally acknowledged monsters as these, but when human beings begin dying by the millions because of climate-change caused famines, floods, droughts and international armed conflicts we will surely look back at the actions and inactions of this particular president, who had the opportunity to make a huge difference and chose not just to do nothing, but to make things worse, and will say his crimes perhaps exceeded theirs. Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). SOURCE http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/03/is-obama-the-worst-president-ever/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- What stood out for me: USA refuses to prosecute CIA, FBI, military [or] Bush/Cheney administration personnel for violating US or international law. Obama admin: = violated & continues to violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution Obama admin: allowed militarised police to become a fully-armed occupying army across USA "No American today is safe from abusive police who make up crimes and ignore the law at will" Obama admin: introduced new secrecy rules Obama admin: launched a record number of prosecutions of whistleblowers Obama admin: engaged in international manhunt for whistleblower Edward Snowden Obama admin: forced down of a presidential aircraft carrying the president of Bolivia (wrongly suspected of flying Snowden from Russia to Bolivia} Obama admin: initiated a secret espionage indictment against WikiLeaks founder, journalist-publisher, Julian Assange (trapped for 5 years in the confines of UK embassy of Ecuador, which has granted him political asylum) Obama admin: =  ordered his Justice Department not to prosecute criminal bankers who destroyed the US & global economy for own profits Obama admin: = blew several trillion dollars on continued wars around the globe Obama admin: = pandered to corporations out for short-term gain over long-term effects on environment Obama admin: = expanded production of gas, oil and even coal extraction making the US the world's largest oil producer Thanks to Obama admin: USA = a major provider of dirty coal to both US electric companies + large coal using countries abroad, incl. China. Thanks to Obama admin: Shell Oil Company = towing a giant oil drilling rig up to the Arctic Ocean (Obama administration permit, to begin drilling for oil in the shallow waters north of Alaska) ꕤ 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

Bill Blunden - 'Mass surveillance is all about money and power'

SOURCE http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_10801/Mass-surveillance-is-all-about-money-and-power.html Mass surveillance is all about money and power By Bill Blunden | Wednesday, 07.22.2015, 01:37 PM “We are under pressure from the Treasury to justify our budget; and commercial espionage is one way of making a direct contribution to the nation’s balance of payments” -Sir Colin McColl, former MI6 Chief. For years, public figures have condemned cyber espionage committed against the United States by intruders launching their attacks out of China. These same officials then turn around and justify America’s far-reaching surveillance apparatus in terms of preventing terrorist attacks. Yet classified documents published by WikiLeaks reveal just how empty these talking points are. Specifically, top-secret intercepts prove that economic spying by the United States is pervasive, that not even allies are safe and that it’s wielded to benefit powerful corporate interests. At a recent campaign event in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton accused China of “trying to hack into everything that doesn’t move in America.” Clinton’s hyperbole is redolent of similar claims from the American Deep State. For example, who could forget the statement made by former NSA director Keith Alexander that Chinese cyber espionage represents the greatest transfer of wealth in history? Alexander has obviously never heard of quantitative easing (QE) or the self-perpetuating “global war on terror” which has likewise eaten through trillions of dollars. Losses due to cyber espionage are a rounding error compared to the tidal wave of money channeled through QE and the war on terror. When discussing the NSA’s surveillance programs Alexander boldly asserted that they played a vital role with regard to preventing dozens of terrorist attacks, an argument that fell apart rapidly under scrutiny. Likewise, in the days preceding the passage of the USA Freedom Act of 2015 President Obama advised that bulk phone metadata collection was essential “to keep the American people safe and secure.” Never mind that decision makers have failed to provide any evidence that bulk collection of telephone records has prevented terrorist attacks. If American political leaders insist on naming and shaming other countries with regard to cyber espionage perhaps it would help if they didn’t sponsor so much of it themselves. And make no mistake, thanks to WikiLeaks the entire world knows that U.S. spies are up to their eyeballs in economic espionage. Against NATO partners like France and Germany, no less. And also against developing countries like Brazil and news outlets like Der Spiegel. These disclosures confirm what Ed Snowden said in an open letter to Brazil: terrorism is primarily a mechanism to bolster public acquiescence for runaway data collection. The actual focus of intelligence programs center around “economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation.” Who benefits from this sort of activity? The same large multinational corporate interests that have spent billions of dollars to achieve state capture. Why is the threat posed by China inflated so heavily? The following excerpt from an intelligence briefing might offer some insight. In a conversation with a colleague during the summer of 2011 the EU’s chief negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Hiddo Houben, described the treaty as an attempt by the United State to antagonize China: “Houben insisted that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a U.S. initiative, appears to be designed to force future negotiations with China. Washington, he pointed out, is negotiating with every nation that borders China, asking for commitments that exceed those countries’ administrative capacities, so as to ‘confront’ Beijing. If, however, the TPP agreement takes 10 years to negotiate, the world–and China–will have changed so much that that country likely will have become disinterested in the process, according to Houben. When that happens, the U.S. will have no alternative but to return to the WTO.” American business interests are eager to “open markets in Asia” and “provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment.” At least, that’s how Hillary Clinton phrased it back when she was the Secretary of State. China represents a potential competitor and so American political leaders need an enemy that they can demonize so that they can justify massive intelligence budgets and the myriad clandestine operations that they approve. The American Deep State wishes to maintain economic dominance and U.S. spies have been working diligently to this end. Bill Blunden is a journalist whose current areas of inquiry include information security, anti-forensics and institutional analysis. This story originally appeared on CounterPunch.org SOURCE http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_10801/Mass-surveillance-is-all-about-money-and-power.html ---------------------- COMMENT Really enjoyed this article. How hypocritical is Hillary Clinton and the US? Interesting to see that intel agencies need to earn their keep. So, Snowden's comment re surveillance being pretty much about: “economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation.”  sounds about right. And it's all for the sake of 'powerful corporate interests' that control the state.