WikiLeaks: Google & Al-Jazeera Encouraged Civil War In Syria

Article SOURCE http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-google-al-jazeera-encouraged-civil-war-syria/215163/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-google-al-jazeera-encouraged-civil-war-syria/215163/ WikiLeaks: Google & Al-Jazeera Encouraged Civil War In Syria Together with Al-Jazeera, Google developed a tool to track defections in Syria, hoping to encourage more former Assad allies to join the civil war. By Mint Press News Desk | March 29, 2016  MENLO PARK, California — Tech giant Google collaborated with Al-Jazeera to develop an interactive online tool to encourage defections during the Syrian civil war, according to emails in WikiLeaks’ archive of Hillary Clinton’s emails.  [Comment:  Al-Jazeera Qatar state & partial Thani ruling family funding] “Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from,” wrote Jared Cohen, the founder and director of Google Ideas, of the proposed online tool in a July 25, 2012 email sent to Jacob J. Sullivan, deputy secretary of state under Clinton. “Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition.” “We believe this can have an important impact,” Cohen added. The archive reveals that Sullivan forwarded the email onto Clinton, adding, “This is a pretty cool idea.” Clinton, in turn, sent it to an assistant with instructions for the email to be printed. In his email, Cohen revealed that Google Ideas was collaborating with Al-Jazeera, which published the tracker in English and Arabic shortly after Cohen’s email was sent. Although it was offline when this report was written, an internal analysis by Google called it “one of the most viewed visualizations on their site” and the tool later won an Online Media Award for the TV news network based in Doha, Qatar. Google Ideas, which was renamed Jigsaw in a major company reorganization last year, is a think tank which maintains close ties to the State Department, according to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in his 2014 book “When Google Met WikiLeaks.” [here] Before leading Google Ideas, Cohen served at the State Department from 2006 to 2010 under Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Clinton. Assange wrote: “It was Cohen who, while he was still at the Department of State, was said to have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to delay scheduled maintenance in order to assist the aborted 2009 uprising in Iran. His documented love affair with Google began the same year when he befriended Eric Schmidt as they together surveyed the post-occupation wreckage of Baghdad. Just months later, Schmidt re-created Cohen’s natural habitat within Google itself by engineering a ‘think/do tank’ based in New York and appointing Cohen as its head. Google Ideas was born.” An op-ed published on Saturday by RT criticizes Western media for largely ignoring the story of collaboration between Al-Jazeera, Google, and the State Department, although a few mainstream sites like U.K.’s The Independent did cover the story. Michael William Lebron, a media analyst that publishes under the name “Lionel,” told RT: “I don’t expect a reaction from Western media because Western media hasn’t even read this, has no idea about this … But can you imagine if the same set of facts were involved with the different countries, different corporations around the world depending upon your frame of reference. This would either be an outrage or ‘well, maybe this is a delightful and benign cooperation, an independent tech giant … and all for the common good of liberty’ and whatever. It depends upon your perspective.” http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-google-al-jazeera-encouraged-civil-war-syria/215163/ Other "Clinton emails leak – on Syria, Regime Change & Other" LINK | Hakawi ---------------------- ---------------------- Book:  'When Google Met WikiLeaks' ---------------------- ---------------------- LINK | Hillary Clinton E-Mail Archive WikiLeaks COMMENT There's nothing 'benign' about the American state and American corporate aggression against the sovereign state  of Syria and Syria's government:  in particular its leader, Bashar al-Assad.  Actors who wish to further Saudi, Gulf oil states, Israeli and allied American and Western corporate and geopolitical interests have been involved in the concerted attack on Syria by proxy and by every other means possible (for years now), in order to attack not only Syria, but ultimately Syria's ally, Iran, which the American camp and its followers (especially the powerful pro Israeli camp) have been targeting with sanctions (to weaken) and lobbying hard to attack for years now. Libya sanctions were lifted in 2003, just as the Iran sanctions have recently been lifted. It took the Western alliance 8 years to set up opposition in the Libya and to attack Libya in 2011, in the guise of 'protecting' the civilians:  a population that was then pitched into civil war that still continues. We know that these parties are also not averse to civil war or to sectarian war in Syria, just as they weren't in Iraq or in Libya, as their intentions are *not* benign:  these countries are targets of conquest and internal dissent, violence, Balkanisation -- internal weaknesses -- serve their purposes. So I'm guessing that the lifted sanctions re Iran (and Cuba) are more of the same.  They're lifting sanctions to get close enough to build up opposition in those countries, to the point where *defending* the activities of the 'opposition' (ie their proxies) & 'defending' 'hooman rights', can then be used as an excuse for what is war of aggression planned by the West. That's my theory so far, but I'm taking wild gut instinct guesses instead of knowing all the ins and outs of this (I've yet to read my copy of The WikiLeaks Files). Syria should be supported in view of this brazen, concerted, aggressive US & friends led campaign to destroy and Balkanise a nation, much like they did Iraq,  by illegal conquest, for perverse exploitation by the same coterie of American-led aggressors. PS ...  Check out how close the Twitter & Google tech mob are to the US Department of State:  no wonder all we get is controlled media propaganda and CENSORSHIP of real voices on these communication and information platforms that have been hijacked and monopolised by those that are engaged self enrichment, along with US state political agenda pushing.

Naomi Klein 'The Shock Doctrine' - El Modelo is Finito & Neo-Liberalism Sucks

Transcript: [confirm audio, for quotation purposes] [transcript directly below via Big Think channel YouTube - LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTmwu3ynOY Naomi Klein on Global Neoliberalism Published on 23 Apr 2012 Naomi Klein on the end of "El Modelo" Question: Why did you write The Shock Doctrine? Naomi Klein: It came out of reporting that I was doing in Iraq after the invasion the first year of occupation. But I guess it dates back earlier than that. I happen to have been in Argentina making a documentary film when the war in Iraq began. And it was a really amazing time to be in Latin America. This was 2002, 2003. And this was, I guess, the beginning of what we now think of as this pink tide that has swept Latin America. But it was a moment in Latin American history -- certainly a moment in Argentinian history -- where the economic model that Latin Americans call neo-Liberalism, Americans call the free market. But these policies of privatization; free trade . . . the so-called free trade deregulation in the interest of corporations; deep cuts to social spending; healthcare and education cuts; things like that, in Argentina they actually just call this "el modelo" -- the model. Everybody knows what the model is. It's the so-called Washington Consensus. It's the policies that have been imposed on Latin America first through military dictatorships, then as conditions attached to loans that were needed during economic crises . . . the so-called "debt crisis" of the 1980s. When I was in Argentina the model was collapsing, and Argentinians overthrew five presidents in three weeks. So it was this moment of incredible tumult and political excitement because people were trying to figure out what would come next. But it went beyond Argentina. In Bolivia they hadn't yet elected Evo Morales, but they had these huge protests against water privatization. And Bechtel had just been thrown out of Bolivia. And in Brazil they had just elected Lula. And of course Chavez was already in power in Venezuela, but he had successfully overcome a coup attempt. He had been brought back to power. So there were all of these things going on in Latin America that were all connected in this rejection of this economic model. So to be in Latin America when the invasion of Iraq began was a really unique vantage point from which to watch the war. I'm very grateful to have had that experience to have been able to watch that through the eyes of my Latin American friends who saw the war so differently from . . . from the way it was seen, I think, by so many of us in North America. They saw a real connection between their rejection of these economic policies and the fact that the same economic program was being imposed in Iraq through tremendous violence. And you really saw and felt those connections in Latin America. You know Bechtel just thrown out of Bolivia suddenly shows up in Baghdad with the exclusive contract to rebuild their water system. And what it felt like was that . . . was that there was a change going on; that this model that had been imposed coercively though peacefully through the International Monetary Fund, through the World Bank, through the World Trade Organization -- that that wasn't working anymore. People were rejecting it that the legacy of these policies . . . the legacy of inequality was so dramatic that the sales pitch of "Just wait for the trickledown" wasn't working anymore. And so now there was this new phase. And it wasn't even asking, and it wasn't negotiating. It was just imposing through raw violence. And that's where I came up with the thesis for the book, which is we have entered this new phase that I'm calling "disaster capitalism"; or The Shock Doctrine using a shock -- in this case the shock and awe invasion of Iraq -- to impose what economists call "economic shock therapy". So I think it was . . . It was definitely that experience of seeing it from Latin America -- a continent in revolt against these policies -- that made it easier to identify this as a new phase. And once I identified that I started to see these patterns recurring. After the Asian tsunami there was a very similar push to use the shock of that natural disaster to push through, once again, these same policies. Water privatization, electricity privatization, labor market [flexibilisation]..., displacing poor people on the coasts with hotel developers. So a sort of social re-engineering of societies in the interest of corporations, which I think is what we've been doing under the banner of free trade. But now it's under the banner of post-disaster reconstruction. [above transcript, via Big Think channel YouTube - LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTmwu3ynOY -------/\/\/ Continued: Further (DIY) transcript beginning at 4:48 [of 14:24]  [confirm audio, for quotation purposes] 4:47 - Is shock necessary for imposing neo-liberal economic policies? Naomi Klein Well, if we look at the history of the advancement of this really quite radical economic model of privatising key state assets, deep cuts to these key social spending areas that people tend to protect, like healthcare and eduction, or these reform to labour laws that take away protections, take away pensions, take away the safety net. What we know is that when politicians try to do this during normal circumstances, people tend to organise and resist, because they like their healthcare systems and they actually like, you know, having labour protections. So the use of crisis for political ends has been a part of the advancement of this ideology in many lesser ways. You know, in my country -- in Canada -- we have a public healthcare system, we have a pretty strong social safety net. This is really how we distinguish ourselves from the United States. We lost a lot of these protections in the mid-1990s.  Not because the Canadians wanted to.  In fact they had just elected a Liberal government that ran on the platform slogan "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs."  But we ended up getting an austerity budget with deep cuts to a lot of the social protections because there was a debt crisis.  That's another kind of a shock, and it was really hyped in the media.  If we think back, it's true in the United States, as well, this endless rhetoric that, you know, our countries are going to go bankrupt unless we do deep, deep, welfare reform or reform of unemployment insurance. So, what I do in The Shock Doctrine is that I take another look at 35 years of history in which this economic model has swept the globe, from former Eastern bloc countries, China, Latin America, Africa, and North America.  And I look at how crisis -- various different kinds of crises have facilitated the advancement of this ideology -- have prepared the ground. What I'm arguing in the book is that the shocks are getting bigger, that a debt crisis no longer does the trick, that a hyperinflation crisis isn't enough to disorient a whole society ... or convince them to accept their bitter medicine; that there needs to be something more disorienting and, so, what we are seeing now is that bigger shocks are being harnessed. But I do believe that crisis is required to rationalise policies that would be rejected under normal circumstances. It's not a secret that people do protect those policies that make their lives easier. 7:34 How do you reconcile this with China & India's development? Naomi Klein: My argument is not that no-one benefits. My argument is that the legacy of this economic system is tremendous inequality. It's an opening up of a gap -- a gaping gap -- between the haves and the have nots. And that's certainly the case in China.  That's certainly the case in India.  And in both countries, you have governments that have identified inequality as their greatest political challenges to, what the Chinese call, 'social stability'; because when you have such a dramatic gap between a peasant still living on $1 a day and the super rich, who are part of the Davos stratosphere, it creates a tremendous amount of resentment and instability within a country.  So, in China, they're seeing unprecedented levels of protest for this era, that had 87,000 [comment:  what?  error?  that's abt. 280 a day] protests a year ... starting in 2005 and the number of protests have been going up and up, which has required more and more surveillance, more and more repression, particularly in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics, a lot of concern about this instability. So, I think the difficulty, really, about this economic model of free trade is generalising the idea that you can just talk about 'Is it good for China?' or 'Is it good for India?' It's definitely --  it's good for a lot of people in India, it's good for a lot of people in China. It's brutal for a lot of people in both of those countries, because part of these policies require displacement in the name of mega-projects, in the name of building a new export processing zone. So a huge part of this economic model requires displacing millions of people from where they live. So then they become migrants.   Where do they go?  Well, they go to the cities first and move to the slums. And, so, the flip side of this economic model of the sort of dazzling version where the world is flat is the explosion of slum dwellers, with the projections that one in three people in the world will be living in slums within the next decade. So, you really can't make these generalisations.  And that's what we know from having lived with these economic policies now for some three decades.  I think in the early stages of this economic transformation, it was possible to just use the language of 'GDP', you know, 'growth' is going to 'trickle-down', and all the promises that were a part of the first phase of this expansion.  But now you have all these parts of the world that have actually tried it.  Right? And the legacy in Latin America is this legacy of following the rules. In countries like Argentina, which were held up as the model students of the 1990s -- the model students of the International Monetary Fund --  and then so much inequality, so much capital flight, that 60% of the population fell into poverty. So that's why the model's in crisis:  the model's in crisis because people have a track record and they can measure the rhetoric against the reality. 10:59 - What system works? Naomi Klein: I think that mixed economies work better than a fundamentalist market system. I'm not a utopian and I don't believe it's perfect:  there's still going to be violence, there's still going to be repression, there's still going to be poor people -- but acceptable to UN measures of standard of living. What we see is that countries which have a mixed economy -- ie have markets, so that people are able to go shopping, so I'm not talking about a totalitarian Communist state -- but also have social protections that identify areas that are too important to leave to the market, whether it's education, healthcare -- the minimal standards of life that everybody must have. There are countries that really commit themselves to that vision of a mixed economy. The Scandinavian countries are the obvious example. Canada, before this restructuring that I'm referring to, in the 1990s was another. But it's certainly, in comparison to the United States and Britain, it continues to be. Germany as well, before their transformation.  I mean, by UN rankings, these are the best countries in the world to live in. And the countries that are trying to resist liberalism -- this economic model -- are being vilified as tyrannical, Communist and all the ways that Hugo Chavez is being vilified right now in the United States.  If you actually look what the economic program is, it's pretty Keynesian.  And it's really just a recovering of some of these principles that the state can have a role in the redistribution of wealth. And these ideas are treated as very radical, when they're coming from poorer countries that have traditionally played an economic role of straight extraction ... they've just straight supplied, whether raw resources, labour.  And that's a very profitable relationship for a North American and European multinational, so when those countries challenge that and say, "Actually, we'd like an economic system more like yours," right, then there's tremendous push-back. But, historically, if we follow the US military coups -- the CIA backed coups, starting with Mosaddegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala -- you have this pattern of presenting developing world leaders as much more radical than they actually are. Mosaddegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala (these were the first two CIA coups in 1953 and 1954):  they were economic nationalists who were trying to build mixed economies and their attempts to build those mixed economies stepped on the toes of some powerful multinationals. In the case of Mosaddegh, it was BP, and in the case of Arbenz, it was the United Fruit Company. That is actually what led to the blow-back. -- 14:15 - end audio -- -------/\/\/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat Bechtel Bechtel Corporation -- largest construction and civil engineering company in USA -- ranking as 4th-largest privately owned company in USA -- HQ, San Francisco -- f. 1898, Warren A. Bechtel, construction of railroads w. team of mules -- series of railroad contracts during the early 1900s -- incorporated 1925, as leading construction company Western USA -- worked w/ California Standard Oil Company building pipelines & refineries -- 1931 - joined consortium contractors Hoover Dam - won bid. -- Warren Bechtel died unexpectedly in Moscow on business 1933. -- Hoover dam was finished 1935, Bechtel's first megaproject -- got rich building WWII x60 cargo ships with no prior cargo experience -- worked pipeline Yukon to Alaska for US Dept. of War -- expanded abroad; turnkey projects (concept pioneered by Stephen Bechtel -- 1940 Venezuela Mene Grande pipeline - first project abroad -- 1947 - Trans-Arabian Pipeline, Saudi Arabia + Jordan + Syria, ending Lebanon -- expansion 1940s Middle East -- 1949 - working w. nuclear power:  Experimental Breeder Reactor I Idaho -- built Dresden Generation Station, first commercial nuke for Illinois 1957 -- Trans Mountain Pipeline in 1952 (Canada) -- preliminary study for the English Channel (1957) -- Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system (1959) -- 1960s & 1970s, Bechtel involved in constructing 40% USA nuke plants -- 1972 - Bechtel involved in abt. 20% of all US new power-generating capacity -- by end 1970s moved from nukes construction to nukes clean-up projects -- clean-ups incl. Three Mile Island 1979 -- built the Ankara-Gerede Motorway in Turkey (part network of roads Europe & Turkey) -- project management:  undersea tunnel linking the UK and France (Channel Tunnel) -- recession 1980 ->> goes environmental clean-up + alternative energy projects -- Gulf war, Bechtel - extinguishing oil well fires in Kuwait in 1991 -- part of rebuild the infrastructure of Kuwait -- numerous other big projects abroad -- Bolivia:   2000, after a protest against water prices being raised by Bechtel owned co. -- Bechtel owned company pulls out of Bolivia & sues for $25 million in losses -- settled claim 2006 for $0.30 GOOD LUCK DOING THAT UNDER THE AMERICAN FREE TRADE CORPORATE SLAVE GIVE UP NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AGREEMENTS - NO CHANCE -- 2003, Bechtel won a $680 million contract -- rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq for U.S. Agency for International Development WHAT A RORT -- ILLEGALLY DESTROY THE COUNTRY & THEN GIVE U.S. COMPANIES CONTRACTS TO REBUILD     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechtel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTmwu3ynOY ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT This was a random video selection. Deregulated trade sounds:  crap. Just as I thought, everyone will be in slums. Why don't governments make the bulk of capital non-transferrable, to prevent companies starving the poor when they decide they've had enough of bleeding one location, in preference for bleeding another for greater profit?   India and China are creating a massive gap between the wealthy and poor, and they're supposed to be socialists of some kind.  That's just not right.  Everyone should suffer equally.  ;)  No, I mean it.  :) America's a complete write-off and an appalling disgrace.  It's oligarchs' paradise with no safety nets and no anything, but modern-day slavery at an Amazon warehouse.   Nations that enslave their populations have no right to lecture the world on human rights, democracy, freedom, women's rights or whatever else these oligarch-serving politicians and their oligarch-funded NGO echo-chambers use as pretexts to open new slave markets abroad. The US masses are beyond help.  It must be some amazing kind of brainwashing that has kept the masses down, self-flagellating ... wearing a 'kick me' sign, begging to remain oligarch-enslaved.  That's quite an education and media indoctrination achievement.  Wow.  I'm impressed. I've not read Klein's book.  I'm just ranting whatever comes to mind. Once the US free trade agreements are signed up, we're all f*cked ... and we can look forward to living in slums.

US-Iran Prisoner Exchange

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/bs-md-iran-prisoners-20160116-story.html SUMMARY 17 Jan. 2016 x7 dual US-Iranian citizens Iran prisoner SWAP DEAL release from USA federal prison part USA-Iran deal to free x4 Iranian-Americans held Iran: USA Iranian Prisoners for RELEASE: Ali Saboonchi, formerly of Parville, Maryland electrician & PhD student MOrgan State Uni convicted:  exporting goods & services to Iran, 2009 - 2013 sentence:  2 years prison Nader Modanlou, formerly of Potomac, Maryland convicted:  conspiracy to illegally send satellite tech to Iran - 2013 allegedly:  scheme helped Iran launch a satellite w/ camera from Russia in 2005 sentence:  8 years prison Others: Bahram Mechanic Khosrow Afqahi Arash Ghahreman Touraj Faridi Nima Golestaneh held for allegedly violating US trade embargo imposed on Iran { incl. helping Iran launch first space satellite } UN announcement Iran obligations under nukes deal met  PRECEDED  deal to free:  x4 Americans held Iran UN announcement aftermath: = sanctions lifted & Iran can access billions in frozen funds = $50-b frozen assets & oil revenue (mostly Asia banks) for release = foodstuffs import / export (+ other) to USA lifted = otherwise, USA embargo on trade w/ Iran continues = Iran may rejoin international banking system = EU to allow trade:  software, gold, metals, transport equip. = Iran may sell oil & other energy on open market Iran to rejoin 'global economy' USA lifted Interpol red notices & dismissed charges re x14 Iranians Iran x4 detainees to be released include:  Jason Rezaian, journalist, Washington Post (Tehran)  - held since 2014 facility:  'notorious' Evin Prison reason detained:  "attempts to help the U.S. Senate to advance its regime change plots in Iran." Amir Mirza Hekmati, former US Marine reason detained:  alleged sping for CIA Saeed Abedini, a Christian pastor reason detained:  *** not specified Nostratollah Khosravi, *** not specified reason detained:  *** not specified --- USA still waiting for Iran to find American #5:      Robert Levinson      disappeared Iran 2007      working on 'unauthorised' CIA op   ======= NOTE dual citizenship is not recognised by Iran x4 jailed US-Iranian nationals treated by Iran as Iran citizens ======= Iran Foreign Minister:  Javad Zarif Nukes Deal Obligations: -- almost entire enriched uranium stockpile in Iran -- shipped to Russia for reprocessing -- plutonium-producing heavy water reactor (at Arak) - destroyed -- 1,000s uranium enriching centrifuges dismantled Above measures:  more than triple time required to produce nuke weapon ======= NOTE -- x10 USA sailors captured in Iranian waters in Persian Gulf -- subsequent release by negotiation b/w foreign ministers ======= *US & Iran - no formal diplomatic relations since 1980 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/bs-md-iran-prisoners-20160116-story.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT This was a good article.  Wonder if that x10 US sailors captured in Iranian waters helped swing things in Iran's favour at all? Looks like Iran has a 'law of return' of it's own:  return to Iran for [alleged] US spying & expect prison, whatever the adopted citizenship ... lol. It looks like Asian banks cannot be trusted with money, as they back US agenda. And it looks like Obama's keeping US farmers happy (ending sanctions on foodstuffs), as well as keeping the Jewish/Israel lobbies happy by otherwise maintaining Iran trade sanctions by the sound of things, despite some exemptions in addition to foodstuffs? It is highly unlikely that the Levinson guy is still alive. ꕤ

British In Bed With The Saudis - No Regard for Human Rights - It's A Scam

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/ January 5, 2016 Bribery over Humanity: The UK, Saudi Arabia and the UN Human Rights Council by Binoy Kampmark Wither human rights – especially when it comes to strategic partnerships. The UK-Saudi Arabia relationship has been one of a seedier sort, filled with military deals, mooted criticism and hedging. When given the John Snow treatment as to what Britain’s role behind securing Saudi Arabia its position on the UN Human Rights Council was, Prime Minister David Cameron fenced furiously before embellishing Riyadh’s value in its relations with the West. [comment:  not sure who John Snow is ... it may be Channel 4 presenter, Jon Snow - here] The paper trail in such matters is always useful, and given that Britain remains one of the most secretive states in the western world, those things are not always easy to come by. Light, however, was already shed by cables released through WikiLeaks suggesting that a degree of haggling had taken place between the states over the subject of compromising human rights. The Saudi cable trove, made available to WikiLeaks last June, has spurred various groups to comb through the foreign ministry collection with an eye to decoding the Kingdom’s sometimes inscrutable positions. The relevant documentation in this case touches on talks between Saudi and British officials ahead of the November 2013 vote on membership of the 47 member body. Cables from January and February 2013, separately translated by UN Watch and The Australian, discloses proposed positions of support. One cable posits how, “The [Saudi] delegation is honoured to send to the ministry the enclosed memorandum, which the delegation has received from the permanent mission of the United Kingdom asking it for the support and backing of their country to the membership of the human rights council (HRC) for the period 2014-2016, in the elections that will take place in 2013 in the city of New York.” It goes on to say how, “The ministry might find it an opportunity to exchange support with the United Kingdom, where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would support the candidacy of the United Kingdom to the membership of the council for the period 2014-2015 in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom to the candidacy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” The cables also reveal how money was expended for the campaign to gain the seat, noting a transfer of $100,000 for “expenditures resulting from the campaign to nominate the Kingdom for membership of the human rights council for the period 2014-2016.” While the itemisation of that item is not available, the Kingdom’s record on sugaring and softening its counterparts to improve its image is well known. A spokesman from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attempted to nip any suspicions in the bud in rather unconvincing fashion. “Saudi Arabia took part in an uncontested election for a seat as one of the Asian Group members in the UN’s Human Rights Council.” Besides, the UK’s position, so went the argument, was of no consequence, whatever might have been said behind closed doors. The UK might not publicise “how it votes” but as “this was not a contested election within the Asian Group… the UK’s vote was immaterial.” The situation has also been further excited by the mass execution on Saturday of 47 individuals, including the outspoken Shia cleric Sheik Nimr al-Nimr. It was the largest show of death put on by the Kingdom since 1980. Neither the Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett or Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats, could let that one pass. “In light of the weekend’s events,” claimed Bennett, “the government should be launching an inquiry to establish who made the decision to so abuse the UN process and the principle of universal human rights.” The perennial problem here is that any government inquiry tends to be an exercise of exculpation rather than revelation. [comment:  eluding responsibility rather than fact-finding / exposing] The response from the British FCO to the spectacular bloodletting on Saturday was of the tepid, pedestrian variety, taken straight out of its precedent book of tepid, pedestrian responses. “The UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and in every country. The death penalty undermines human dignity and there is no evidence that it works as a deterrent.” The statement goes on to suggest that the foreign secretary is doing his job, regularly raising “human rights issues with his counterparts in countries of concern, including Saudi Arabia. We seek to build strong and mature relationships so that we can be candid with each other about these areas on which we do not agree, including on human rights.” So candid were these exchanges, they led to a compromise regarding Britain’s own stance on human rights abuses. If anything, it induced a cynical caricature, one of positioning and sponsorship for an image distinctly at odds with the reality. For Riyadh, this could not be seen as anything other than a coup in international diplomacy. The Kingdom had found its own useful, complicit fool. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:  bkampmark@gmail.com http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT The human rights topic is wasted on me. As I see things, universal human rights principles are just a means of (a) interfering with other nations (bullying, shaming, undermining, pressuring, smearing, fomenting dissent etc), while maintaining pious intentions; and (b) a means of politically assaulting and manipulating domestic political opponents (or other targets), in the usual guise of 'concern', 'condemnation' and other holier than thou rubuke, or whatever else. I highly doubt that those at the top end of national government (whoever they may be) actually consider the notion of 'human rights' (and certainly not domestic rights), as they plot their way to domination and exploitation of whatever is coveted and targeted for gain, on behalf of whoever their masters may be. Western governments that pour billions of dollars (while depriving their own citizens and/or condemning them to generations of debt slavery to finance wars etc), Western governments that supply tons of arms over decades of relentless interference in the affairs of foreign targets, with the aim of destabilising sovereign states, when they're not raining down tons of bombs, or otherwise pursuing regime change, faking reasons to wage war, waging war illegally and destroying entire regions, regardless of the grand scale of destruction and number of direct and indirect deaths, probably don't really care much for universal human rights principles ... or much beyond the principles of self-interest. The British Foreign Office personnel wouldn't lose any sleep over beheadings in Saudi Arabia.   In fact, they're probably in favour of whatever blood-letting it takes the Saudis, if it serves to preserve the power of the Saudis (whom the British installed on the throne), because the British elite interests and the Saudi elite interests coincide beyond the UNHRC body. The rote non-statement 'nowhere' response, that serves to create an appearance of an appropriate official 'response', must be standard practice in British politics -- and maybe all politics.  I've not really been listening. Getting a bit off topic:  what's the bet that the following isn't an aberration, and that it's also a standard British political manoeuvre?   No Evidence of Iran’s role in violence and instability in Iraq – confirms British Foreign Minister by Mehrnaz Shahabi(CASMII Columns) Wednesday, July 18, 2007 David Milliband, British foreign secretary, confirmed in an interview (1) with the Financial times, 8th July, that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in instability in Iraq or attacks on British troops: Asked by the FT, “What do you think of Iran’s complicity in attacks on British soldiers in Basra”?, Miliband’s first response was, “Well, I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored. I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not fomenting discord, never mind death. And as I said at the beginning, Iran has a complete right, and we support the idea that Iran should be a wealthy and respected part of the future. But it does not have the right to be a force of instability”. However, prompted more closely, “Just to be clear, there is evidence?”, he replied, “Well no, I chose my words carefully…”. This confession came in the context of an implied accusation or a not so subtle suggestion of Iranian role in the instability in Iraq which seem to have stimulated the question “There is evidence?”, to which the reply “Well no …”; a possible disappointment, was nonetheless crystal clear: There is no evidence. Contextually, this important admission by the British Foreign Minister of absence of any evidence linking Iran to the violence and instability in Iraq was preceded by the discussion about Iran’s nuclear programme and Britain’s readiness to impose another set of punishing sanctions on Iranian people, for Iran’s non-compliance with the security council’s resolutions which have no basis in international law, imposed based on supposed suspicions for which again, there is no evidence. [...] CONTINUED http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/?q=node/2609 In Summary FT did not dwell on Milibrand admission FT had published without evidence that Iran govt cooperation w/ al-Qaeda using Iran territory for launching anti-coalition ops in Iraq mainstream media response re Milibrand admission, also silence war media / orchestrated chorus "finding shadows of Iranian culprits at every corner" Tape of Abu Omar al Baghdadi al-Qaeda Iraq leader released by Associated Press >> threatens to war w/ Iran  >> unless Iran stops supporting Shia in Iraq >> no USA govt response >> absence of media interest That caught my eye somewhere today (not sure what I was reading) ... and it sort of stuck. Lucky the Financial Times guy followed up the misleading statement with a clarifying question.  lol EDIT:  It looks like FT itself didn't then follow up further on the Milibrand admission, nor did the media in general. This is the funniest British-Saudi image I could find.  Not sure how accurate it is -- as in, who is really in control in this relationship?  [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. ꕤ

Yemen re Iran - False Accusations, False Testimony, False Reports, Fake News & Iran Vilification

ꕤ Article SOURCE Gareth Porter Independent Investigative Journalist / Historian US National Security Policy Link | Source "How False Stories of Iran Arming the Houthis Were Used to Justify War in Yemen" Thursday, 31 December 2015 10:42 By Gareth Porter, Truthout | News Analysis Independent Investigative Journalist / Historian US National Security Policy Link | Source Summary March 2015 Bombing campaign initiated by Saudi Arabia + Gulf allies + US support Rationale for Saudi-led war on Yemen: Houthis portrayed as merely proxies of Iran Houthis allegedly armed by Iran (for years) allegations repeatedly echoed in press allegation not proven yet allegation REINFORCED by UN experts report UNSC PANEL OF EXPERTS - REPORT REPORT UN Security Council from:  Panel of Experts established  pursuant to Security Council resolution 1929 (2010) Link | UNSC Panel of Experts Report Report dated:  1 June 2015 Salomé  Zourabichvili (Coordinator Panel Experts) Mowaffaq al-Refai (Expert) Jonathan Brewer (Expert) Christian Kessler (Expert) Chunjie Li (Expert) Thomas Mazet (Expert) Kazuto Suzuki (Expert) Elena Vodopolavoa (Expert) RESULTS REPORT -- concluded Iran shipping arms to Houthi rebels in Yemen -- allegedly by sea, since at least 2009 HOWEVER -- investigation of x2 main allegations re arms by Yemen govt -- & cited by expert panel -- shows both allegations "CRUDELY CONSTRUCTED RUSES" -- President Saleh govt of Yemen -- claimed vessel (Mahan 1) seized Yemen waters Oct 2009 -- & that weapons found on-board (& Iran crew x5 convicted) WIKILEAKS CABLES 2010 -- (from US Embassy in Yemen) REVEALS -- 'arms onboard' was concocted by Yemen government -- US cable of 11 Nov. 2009 reported to WA that: -- Yemen govt failed to substantiate public claims -- cable stated:  'sensitive reporting' -- (ie US intelligence reports) -- convey that SHIP WAS CARRYING NO WEAPONS AT ALL -- given US knowledge, Yemen govt began changing story -- (subsequent US cable notes) --  Yemen changed story to: --  ship empty, so arms must have been delivered -- Article says, Pres. Saleh, Yemen -- hoped to use Iran arms story to get political support of US -- for war against Houthis (planned 'Op Scorched Earth') YEMEN ARMS - MASSIVE MARKET -- local arms market massive -- directly from Yemen military itself -- would explain where Houthis get arms from 2013 - JIHAN 1 (SHIP) -- seized Jan 23, 2013 -- arms on-board (true) -- but story of arms shipment from Iran is false -- joint patrol: Yemen Coast Guard & US Navy -- intercepted Jihan 1 ship -- cargo:  portable SAM (& misc. multiple other) -- weeks later, UN expert panel inspects arms seized -- 'Ministry of Sepah' labels found on arms boxes -- ie of former Iranian military logistics ministry -- but no evidence connecting this to Iran -- all crew & businessmen who arranged shipment from Yemen -- no evidence for manufacture in Iran -- allegations centred on testimony of Yemen crew -- but GPS evidence not cited by panel -- (as match for crew story) -- panel claimed it had no info re location of loading of arms WEAPONS UNDER DIESEL FUEL TANKS -- weapons hidden under diesel fuel tanks -- weapons could only be accessed after tanks emptied -- report fails to discuss the significance of this fact -- ie points to Yemen origin of arms 2013 - REPORT UNSC MONITORING GROUP -- on Somalia & Eritrea -- says Jihan 1 crew divulged to diplomatic source: -- ship headed for SOMALIA -- confirmed by unnamed Yemen official -- not disclosed to UNSC expert panel -- (per UN Monitoring Report) SOMALIA -- destination Somalia -- Jihan 1 commercial smuggling / not politically motivated -- smuggling diesel fuel from Yemen to Somalia - lucrative -- long-standing combo smuggling arms / Yemen to Somalia -- Somalia outlawed fuel import b/c of arms smuggling -- UN Monitoring Group report -- reveals series of arms shipments to Somalia (late 2012) -- before Jihan 1 seized -- similar weapons main Jihan 1 shipment -- report from Somalia (& own UNSC Monitoring Group) -- Yemen = source of weapons -- key evidence:  Bulgaria govt to UN Monitoring Group -- stating rocket propelled grenade rounds + other -- seized in Somalia -- Bulgaria made & delivered to Yemen armed forces 2010 Going by info in UNSC Monitoring Group Report -- arms on Jihan 1 belong to Yemen arms smugglers -- Yemen govt exploited the situation, after transit busted -- Yemen govt concocted the Iran story -- Yemen govt had Yemen crew feed UN panel concocted story UNSC Monitoring Group Report -- re Somalia & Eritrea -- problematic re concocted anti-Iran story -- Yemen govt Western backers put a new spin on the story -- Reuters quoted 'Western diplomat' -- claimed Iran supplying al-Shabaab terrorists in Somalia -- noted C-4 explosives -- (used by al-shabaab terrorist bombings but not Houthi MO) -- claim not credible b/c -- al-Shabaab = close ties to al-Qaeda (enemy of Iran) -- story only reported in pro-Saudi & pro-Israeli media Yemen govt concocted 'Iran arms' on Jihan 1 story +  recycled UNSC expert panel report =  key, widely accepted narrative re Iran in Middle East SOURCE Gareth Porter Independent Investigative Journalist / Historian US National Security Policy Link | Source ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT As the source states no reproduction without permission, I've tried to summarise the article rather than copy over & mark up, like I do. Not sure how I went with summary.  I'm sure I've covered everything, but it's probably not hugely different from the original. Anyway, there it is.  That means the bombing of Yemen and the vilification of Iran is based on false claims, fake testimony, fake reports, fake news stories and fake anti-Iran spin.  Wow. ꕤ

Video - Losing My Religion - Tehran Iran Footage

ꕤ Losing My Religion {Tehran #Iran Footage} R.E.M. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Tombak Solo by Mohammad Reza Mortazavi CODEX shish-hashtom/part 4 (2013)  تمبک - محمد رضا مرتضوی Mohammed Reza Mortazavi more info  | link ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- 'Seda Kon Mara' 1973 (Call My Name) عباس مهرپویا  Songwriter:  Parviz Vakili, Persian Poet Composer:  Mehrpouya ꕤ

Video - Assange & Philip Giraldi (ex-CIA) - Topic: RUSSIA, TURKEY & SYRIA

ꕤ ASSANGE VIDEO TOPIC:  RUSSIA, TURKEY & SYRIA SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOu520INXqA&feature=youtu.be ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Video posted on YouTube by Russia Today. Supporters of Russia and Syria aren't happy with Julian Assange's suggestion that Russian intelligence didn't anticipate the Turkish strike on their pilots in Syria. Assange refers to it as the "severe incompetence of the Russian intelligence services".  Ouch.   Assange goes on to say it was "... severe incompetence in relation to Ukraine, and severe incompetence in relation to Turkey because there were plenty of warning signals being given off by the Turks." Assange asks "Why weren't those warning signals properly understood?", before saying that this is not to justify what Turkey did. Assange says that in a realpolitik analysis, those messages should have been understood and that we should think about what will happen in about 6 months time, when the West, Russia and Iran are committed in various ways to the elimination of ISIS, because the establishments in those countries consider it a partial threat to their own interests. He goes on to say this wasn't always the case, and that ISIS was fed in various ways by Western interests and interests of Saudis and so on. Assange suggests that there will come a point in about 6 months time, where ISIS is almost completely debilitated, to the point where it will no longer have organised control of some portion of territory, and that ISIS will be back to being a guerilla group. Assange suggests out that in 6 months time when ISIS is practically eliminated as a significant force, Syria will have had hardware from about 10 or 12 different countries bombing Syria , and he asks:  what are all those forces going to do then, are they just going to go home?     Damascus is 70km away, and they can just steer 70km to Damascus if they want, so it's a very dangerous situation, Assange says. Assange also points out 'nationalistic imperatives' in Turkey and in Russia, and that the Syrian [government] is fighting for its life. Former counter-terrorism specialist and CIA military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi (what was basically said (not entirely word-for-word)): Erdogan has very skilfully (and sometimes clumsily) fear-mongered on a number of levels and on a number of issues to the Turkish people, and the fear-mongering has enabled Erdogan to aggrandise power, in both legal and illegal ways, in Turkey, and now Turkey has a head of state who is an autocrat, who essentially is not limited by any rules and feels himself free to do whatever he wants. Regarding the shoot-down, Giraldi disagrees with Assange to a certain extent: Shooting down a plane is an act of war, particularly when the plane was not threatening Turkey in any genuine way and the disturbing element for me is the fact that this was not a decision made by a colonel or a general on the border defending Turkey's airspace, this was a decision made at the highest levels of the Turkish government, and that means that Erdogan was setting up or provoking an act of war type situation with the Russians with two objectives: One is being to scuttle any plans for a grand alliance against ISIS, as he does not want that, for a number of reasons. The second reason would be to try to pull NATO in, in an attempt to support his view of Assad, his view of ISIS and, most particularly, his view of the Kurds.   The Kurds are essential to Turkish thinking -- strategic thinking.  The Kurds are the enemy.  ISIS is not the enemy.  Assad is only the enemy because, in a sense, they see him as a surrogate for the Kurds. Giraldi thinks Erdogan's created a global crisis by shooting down the Russian aircraft, as it could have escalated.  Giraldi says he thinks Erodogan is reckless and that this was a manifestation of his recklessness. And that's all folks. Lots of interesting points made. I've not watched multi-national conflicts in the Middle East for long enough to be able to weigh up any of this.  I think this is an edit from one of the videos I have banked up to watch.  I think I need to quit messing around with graphics editors and shuffling pictures around. Really enjoyed that. ---------------------- ꕤ The ex-CIA guy, Giraldi, comes across like he might be good natured and unassuming.  Nothing like I imagined CIA.  He seems nice. The Assange audio always seems to be muffled (but this wasn't as muffled as the last video I'd been watching). The last  (French) video I watched (some of) was a shocker.  Tried to transcribe but it was hard going ...  I'm also super tired, which doesn't help.  Kept drifting off to sleep in the bath.  lol  ꕤ

Australia: Turnbull Rising

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://newmatilda.com/2015/09/19/rise-malcolm-turnbull-staggering-wealth-surprising-aggression-substantial-intellect Summary Malcolm Turnbull wealth from:  stake in local ISP OzEmail / sold lawyer investment banker co-chairman of Goldman Sach’s Australian unit from 1997-2001 Matt Taibbi on Goldman Sachs: "world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid"  ... "relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money" ... ... financial crisis ... "a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates" HIH "Australia’s then-second largest insurance company, HIH" "HIH took over FAI for $300 million, but its assets were “grossly misstated”  "HIH would become the largest corporate collapse in the country’s history, with liquidators estimating losses of up to $5.3 billion.” "Turnbull, in his capacity at Goldman Sachs, was the “primary adviser to FAI”, whose chief executive was Rodney Adler." "Turnbull was accused of concealing from the FAI board that he was working with Adler to take the company private. Adler was later jailed, but the Royal Commission cleared Turnbull and Goldman Sachs of any wrongdoing." Wentworth Electorate eastern suburb - Sydney Of 10 richest suburbs in Sydney =  5 postcodes were in Wentworth Of 10 most expensive suburbs in Australia =  5 are in Wentworth Turnbull resides = “vast waterfront estate” in Point Piper, similar to a nearby mansion which sold for $52 million Turnbull = only politician to make the BRW Rich 200 in 2010, with personal wealth of $186 million {  next wealthiest at the time was Kevin Rudd and his wife Therese Rein, at $56 million } Wentworth = safe Liberal seat = reason: voters in Wentworth vote in support of their own financial interests Wentworth =  large Jewish population =  Turnbull has represented an electorate with “the largest Jewish community in New South Wales” Turnbull = staunch defender of the Israeli government = strong relationship with many elements of Jewish community, & its major organisations Censorship 'Hate speech' reform = killed off by Abbott and Brandis duo = Turnbull likely to back Brandis’s attempt to: more strictly regulate racist speech which appears to have been driven by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies concern at a speech made by Hizb ut-Tahrir = Turnbull - will be careful not to antagonise the Jewish community Israel Turnbull competed every election with Labor candidates = by promising to be the most loyal to the interests of the Israeli govt = as PM,will need to temper his advocacy for Israel Foreign Minister Julie Bishop = on pro-Israel extreme side of spectrum = opposition unlikely to challenge Turnbull on this, esp. 'Shadow Foreign Affairs' spox Tanya Plibersek = biggest challenge re Iranian govt: selling outreach and rehabilitation, under Julie Bishop to Liberal party's Jewish supporters Turnbull Profile by John Lyons Good Weekend - 1991 'threat' appears x10 'fear' appears x6 Abbott embarrassingly gauche vs Turnbull recipient of proper class training David Hicks 2005 - Turnbull address, Amnesty International (in Paddington) =  great charm and persuasion =  coupled with: "Turnbull wouldn’t commit to saying or doing anything" Turnbull speech - 7 July 2015  -  *worth checking out http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speech-to-the-sydney-institute-magna-carta-and-the-rule-of-law-in-the-digit Policy led campaign for Australia to become a Republic support for gay marriage climate change - watered down version of Rudd’s plan Climate Change “We cannot be seen as a party of climate sceptics, of do-nothings on climate change." [Turnbull] = "Howard’s obstinacy on the issue helped pave the way for the election of Kevin Rudd in 2007." {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} = Turnbull negotiated "a watered down version of Rudd’s plan on climate change action" ... committed to no more than cuts of 5 per cent of emissions below 2000 by 2020" / described as inadequate {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} "attack on public opinion from both sides of the political spectrum played a major role in destroying public faith in the urgency of political action on climate change" {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} "Abbott’s gambit of fiercely opposing action on climate change was seen by many as a risky, if not foolish ..." {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} Turnbull =  lost the leadership of Liberals by x1 vote "... rebuke and overthrow of Turnbull for his position on climate change can be seen as the lesson to him in his second run as leader."   {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} Immigration 2009 Turnbull warned Australia a “soft target” by Rudd’s reforms to Howard’s policies Turnbull =  “The object of Australia's border protection policies should be no boats.”" Turnbull 2009 = said Rudd has “lost control of our borders”, with the arrival of a new “people smuggling boat with illegal immigrants”. Turnbull = favoured - reintroduction of: Temporary Protection Visas Offshore processing Video linked in Article (quote from audio, not article) Muslim Schools 1:15 "It is important for us that we promote and encourage Islam and Islamic traditions which are moderate, which support freedom, which support democracy, and which support Australian values -- not in the sense of 'Aussie values' -- but in the sense of democracy, rule of law, tolerance, freedom.  That's what we're talking about."[Malcolm Turnbull] Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgTcwWOscqc&feature=youtu.be Jewish organisations =  thrilled by Turnbull’s promotion Muslim leaders = cautious optimism re rise of Turnbull Business =  very excited by the rise of Turnbull = business lobby is excited, & have good reason to be =  Turnbull might be able to push through their favoured measures: reforms to laws - currently preventing media monopolies = Turnbull:  "only way, we can ... remain ... first-world society ... if we have outstanding economic leadership, if we have strong business confidence" *But:  WorkChoices and Joe Hockey’s first budget have shown, these are areas where Liberal govt must tread lightly Right-wing 'low-brow conservatives' = not so keen on Turnbull & elitism Murdoch press right-wing pundits = not fans of Turnbull Murdoch = but Rupert Murdoch  appears to have rallied behind Turnbull to beat the ALP Murdoch Press =  Murdoch press may well be able to turn away many of the Coalition’s voters from Turnbull {but, why would they?} MEDIA Turnbull = favourable coverage from: Monthly ABC Fairfax LEFT Not much reason for leftists to be optimistic = different rhetoric, but same sell CONCLUSION Turnbull =  liberal instincts, tempered by the same ruthlessness he showed in his business dealings =  commitment to liberal values - outweighed by commitment to pursuing power when he led the Opposition source https://newmatilda.com/2015/09/19/rise-malcolm-turnbull-staggering-wealth-surprising-aggression-substantial-intellect ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Summary, as I see the article.  Best to go to article for the full deal, as this is just what caught my eye ... and what I've understood, which isn't necessarily 100%.  Very good article.  Really enjoyed checking that out. So somewhere between being in defence of freedom of speech, Brandis has back-flipped and now wants tighter censorship of speech / expression that might cause 'offence'? That's rather confusing.  Can't Brandis make up his mind? Any chance of legislating against the passage of politically suppressive bullsh*t? Just did a catch-up on the Brandis back-flip, which is really also a Liberal party election promise back-flip: Brandis Backflip On Hate Speech http://markdreyfus.nationbuilder.com/brandis_backflip_on_hate_speech Laws restricting freedom of speech don't merely apply to the occasional 'genocide advocate' or whatever that guy is that's supposedly a catalyst for the Liberal party back-flip. Suppressive laws of this kind affect everybody, across all manner of political and historical debate -- or lack thereof. Other Mark Dreyfus QC MP Attorney-General of Australia 4 Feb 2013 – 18 Sept 2013 Preceded by:  Nicola Roxon Prime Ministers Julia Gillard Kevin Rudd Australian Labor Party Promoted to Attorney-General - after resignation of Nicola Roxon / reason cited:  Roxon wanted to be with her family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dreyfus Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ