Archive | June 13th, 2013

BBC & censorship in Turkey


The pictures of protesters facing clouds of tear gas in Turkey’s Takism Square is something I’ll never forget and will be familiar to anyone watching the news in the UK these past few weeks.

But when protests first broke out the BBC’s broadcast partner in Turkey, NTV News, censored the protests and has since been caught doctoring the images it shows to its viewers. The channel has even admitted publicly that its lack of coverage of the outbreak of protests was in direct response to government pressure.

That’s why I have started a petition calling on the BBC to stop its partnership with NTV.

The BBC’s UK coverage of the protests says NTV has “tended to steer clear of covering the demonstrations” and is “loth to irritate the government because their owners’ business interests at times rely on government support.” [1] And yet the BBC guidelines state: “Any external relationship must not undermine the BBC’s core values of impartiality, editorial integrity, and independence.”

The petition has already reached the attention of the BBC Director of Global News but the BBC is refusing to reconsider its partnership and still lets the channel re-broadcast BBC news daily even while NTV continues to show bias in its reporting.

Please sign my petition to make sure BBC takes action to uphold standards of independent journalism around the world.

Thank you,
1. BBC – Turks deprived of TV turn to Twitter for protest news


Sign the Petition

Posted in Campaigns, TurkeyComments Off on BBC & censorship in Turkey

Will Qatar’s Zionist Puppet Abdicate in August?



Qatar’s Crown Prince Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani arrives at Al-Sadd Stadium for the final Crown Prince Cup soccer match between Qatari teams Al-Sadd and Lekhwaiya in Doha, May 4, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Fadi Al-Assaad)
By: Mohammad Ballout

Prince Tamim bin Hamad might become the first, in a succession of three Qatari rulers from the Al Thani family, to ascend to power without resorting to a coup, having been preceded by his father and grandfather.

This break in the tradition of overthrowing [those in power] that characterized the Al Thani family’s history might be the most prominent piece of news amid rumors that spread like wildfire in the last few days about Prince Hamad bin Jasim bin Khalifa abdicating in favor of Crown Prince Tamim, who’s his fourth-oldest son, and the second-born from his second wife Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned.

In this context, a Western diplomat told As-Safir that the transfer of power is expected to be concluded after the Eid al-Fitr celebration in the first week of August. The same diplomat confirmed that Doha had informed its French partners in February that the emir, as a result of the health crisis that he suffered, was seriously considering relinquishing his post at the earliest possible opportunity.

According to the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, full transfer of power is expected to begin at the end of the current month, to be followed, several weeks later, by an announcement that the emir had fallen ill and decided to hand power to the crown prince.

Paris was the first to be informed of the coup orchestrated by Hamad bin Jasim against his father, Khalifa, in 1995, subsequently undertaking to introduce him to France’s allies. In his book Qatar: Les Secrets du Coffre-fort (Qatar: Secrets of the Safe), French journalist Georges Malbrunot relayed the content of several conversations held by a Western diplomat with the emir in the course of the last two years, in which the latter expressed his desire to leave power.

In Malbrunot’s book, the diplomat stated that “the emir did not say so publicly, but made his intentions known to those close to him. Sheikh Hamad wishes to hand the flame over to the crown prince before he dies.”

“I will leave office in four years,” that is what the emir confided to a friend in the Spring of 2012, “I will abdicate and leave the scene for the younger generation.”

It is evident that the change in Doha will not be limited to the prince alone, for it is likely that the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr will exit the Qatari political scene, as a precondition to a normal transfer of power between the two generations, and to prevent the foreign minister, who controls the country’s $200 billion sovereign fund and has a wide reaching network of international and local contacts, from competing with the rising emir.

A tense relationship prevails between the crown prince and foreign minister over who has more say in the decision-making process. The transfer of power cannot therefore occur without the latter being removed from the scene. The Western diplomat conveyed the fact that the Qatari emir informed him of the difficulties relating to the transfer of power and the dangers surrounding the foreign minister remaining in power. The diplomat once asked him, “Do you think that Hamad bin Jassim will agree to relinquish power as well?” To which the emir replied, “Hamad will do whatever I tell him to do.” The diplomat persisted, “But he is nine years your junior,” and the emir answered, “He will stay as long as I remain, and will leave when I do.”

It should be noted that Mozah also had to be convinced of her husband’s desire to abdicate. Years ago, the emir confided the following to an old friend of his: “You know, I’ve been wanting to leave office for a long while now, but Sheikha Mozah opposes this decision and urges me to remain in power. I even considered relinquishing 80% of my authority to Tamim but she was opposed to that as well. We are prisoners of our wives, but I told her that I agree to remain in power for no more than four more additional years, after which I will abdicate.”

Arab and Western diplomats in Doha and other countries confirmed that the transfer of power has become guaranteed by many Western and Arab nations. Reuters quoted them as saying that they expected changes to occur in one of two ways: with either Prince Tamim replacing Sheikh Hamad as prime minister until he becomes ruler of the land when his father ultimately abdicates, or the current deputy prime minister, Ahmad al-Mahmoud, taking over the premiership once the prime minister steps down.

One source further elaborated that expectations are for the transfer of power process to begin with the prime minister, who also holds the office of foreign minister; which means that he will have to vacate both posts.

Reuters also quoted a diplomat residing in Doha as saying that Qatar’s emir “has been mulling over this matter for a while. Throughout the past year, the path was clearly paved for power to be transferred to Tamim.”

Diplomats thought that the motive behind this change was a desire to smoothly transfer power to a younger generation — a relatively unusual move in Arab Gulf countries where rulers typically remain in office until their death.

Western news agencies opine that the change might lead to a certain degree of ambiguity in Qatar’s foreign relations, which played an important role in backing NATO operations in Libya, and used its Al-Jazeera channel and billions of its dollars to back the Islamists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, in their successful efforts to appropriate the Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan revolutions besides its role in arming the Syrian opposition.

It is unclear whether the change in positions would lead to a profound review of Qatar’s full-blown attack on Syria, given that the crown prince has been managing the [Syrian opposition’s] armament efforts for over a year, in addition to him being seen as extremely close to the extremist Islamist movement.

The religiously devout crown prince is 31 years old, and his ascension in the shadow of his father began once his mother, Mozah, succeeded in keeping Mishaal, the emir’s eldest son from his first wife, away from the line of succession. Tamim effectively grasped the keys to power three years ago, when two people close to him were appointed deputy prime ministers. His authority further increased when he began overseeing defense and armament issues, and was appointed deputy commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Will Qatar’s Zionist Puppet Abdicate in August?


TUT Broadcast June 12, 2013

by crescentandcross

Continued reading from USS LIBERTY survivor Phil Tourney’s book

 ‘What I Saw That Day’


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on TUT Broadcast: USS LIBERTY ‘WHAT I SAW THAT DAY’

“Beat the Propaganda” Challenge! 15 Cents a Day Keeps the Propaganda Away!



To all our readers who made a donation in June, thank you for helping us fight mainstream propaganda! If you haven’t made a donation yet, don’t forget we are fighting for your knowledge. Read the following and you will understand how important a small contribution to Global Research helps us provide you with valuable information.

Ever wonder why all news sound the same in the mainstream media? A quick look at media ownership answers that question and leaves no doubt on the necessity of independent media:

“In 1983, the men and women who headed the fifty mass media corporations that dominated American Audiences could have fit comfortably in a modest hotel ballroom … By 2003, five men controlled all these media once run by the fifty corporations of twenty years earlier. These five, owners of additional digital corporations, could fit in a generous phone booth.” (Ben H. Bagdikian, The New Media Monopoly: A Completely Revised and Updated Edition With Seven New Chapters, Beacon Press, 2004, p.27)

Yes, you read correctly: from 50 owners in 1983, the media ownership went down to 5 in only 20 years. Five sources of information for millions of Americans and the English speaking world who relies on them as well. In 2011, Frugal Dad published a graphic (see picture below) on the “illusion of choice” showing the dramatic media consolidation in the U.S. Although slight changes have occurred since then, the media landscape has remained pretty much the same. And it is scary: today 90 % of the media in America is owned by only 6 corporations.

Mainstream media concentration is alarming and not only in the U.S. According to a 2012 report, Canada is the worst of all G8 countries in terms of media concentration, reaching a staggering 81,4%:

“Canada has the most concentrated TV industry ownership of any G8 country, and the second most concentrated TV audience … The Analysis Group’s report notes the degree of media concentration is increasing rapidly in Canada … ‘and the level of vertical integration exceeds any other G8 country’ …”

The report lists the degree of media concentration in all G8 Countries:

8. Russia – 0%

7. Germany – 7.1%

6. United States – 23.1%

5. France – 27%

4. United Kingdom – 31%

3. Italy – 33%

2. Japan – 37.5%

1. Canada – 81.4%

“Percentage represents value of TV distribution market (cable companies, satellite dish companies) controlled by companies that also create TV content (broadcasters, production companies)” (Daniel Tencer, Concentration Of Media Ownership In Canada Worst In G8 For TV Industry, Study Says The Huffington Post Canada, August 13, 2012)

Since they are held by corporations, the ultimate goal of the mainstream media is not to inform you, but rather to serve the interest of the corporate world, selling all sorts of propaganda to open new markets. War propaganda is the most common of all.

On the other hand, independent media such as Global Research have one goal: inform their readers, show them the real picture behind the mainstream media myths, smoke screens and manipulation.

In order to achieve that goal, we need your support. While major corporations sell their propaganda, we offer it for free, thanks to the generosity of our readers’ financial help. Global Research does not accept any money from governments, foundations even less from corporations.

Unfortunately, out of over 100,000 daily readers, only a very tiny portion makes donations or subscribes for a membership. Are you a regular Global Research reader? Have you considered making a small donation? How about 15 or 30 cents a day to keep propaganda away?

If each daily Global Research reader made a one time 5$ or 10$ donation in the coming month of June, we could cover our operation costs for a while, improve our content and provide you with a better coverage of world events and still, for free.

Today we call on you to meet the challenge and make a 5$ donation during the month of June. It will have a very small impact on your wallet, but will make a major difference for all of us and our fight against the corporate media propaganda.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on “Beat the Propaganda” Challenge! 15 Cents a Day Keeps the Propaganda Away!

Guardian Guide to Metadata and its Use



by jimcraven10

Metadata is information generated as you use technology, and its use has been the subject of controversy since NSA’s secret surveillance program was revealed. Examples include the date and time you called somebody or the location from which you last accessed your email. The data collected generally does not contain personal or content-specific details, but rather transactional information about the user, the device and activities taking place. In some cases you can limit the information that is collected – by turning off location services on your cell phone for instance – but many times you cannot. Below, explore some of the data collected through activities you do every day.

On Thursday, June 13 The Guardian’s data editor James Ball will answer your questions about the NSA data collection program in the US from 3pm-4pm EST | 8pm-9pm BST

What metadata looks like

Below is a tweet from @GuardianUS (right) and a truncated version of its metadata (left). Accessing metadata is often possible through services offered by the provider and can be retrieved in a structured format that could include raw text, XML, or in this example, JSON. An easy way to see some of your own metadata is by looking at your browser’s history which provides information about what websites you visited and when.


What you can tell using metadata:

A case study of the Petraeus scandal

1. To communicate, Paula Broadwell and David Petraeus shared an anonymous email account

2. Instead of sending emails, both would login to the account, edit and save drafts

3. Broadwell logged in from various hotels’ public Wi-Fi, leaving a trail of metadata that included times and locations

4. The FBI crossed-referenced hotel guests with login times and locations leading to the identification of Broadwell

Posted in USAComments Off on Guardian Guide to Metadata and its Use





FBI: Knew About Saudi 9/11 Hijacker Ties—But Lied To Protect “National Security”

By Russ Baker on Jun 5, 2013

The FBI apparently has known for a decade about links between powerful Saudi interests and the alleged 9/11 hijackers, and has been forced to tacitly admit that it lied about it for all of these years.

In case the import is not clear, let us state emphatically: this is a huge development.


In court filings seeking to stave off a media Freedom of Information request, the FBI has stated that releasing documents relating to this issue will harm “national security.” As proof of the sensitivity of the matter, the FBI gave the judge a document dated April 4, 2002, in which the FBI states that its own inquiries “revealed many connections” between a well-connected Saudi family with a house in South Florida and “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.”

The Sarasota Affair

The Freedom of Information request that prompted these reluctant admissions was filed by the Broward Bulldog, a South Florida nonprofit investigative site which first covered the Saudi connection in 2011.

The Bulldog’s reporting explained how a family living in an exclusive gated community outside Sarasota, on Florida’s West Coast, had apparently vanished suddenly some 10 days before the 9/11 attacks. Investigators, including a swarm of FBI agents, found that the family’s departure was clearly so sudden that they left almost their entire household intact, down to cars, clothing, and food in the refrigerator. Most significant, though, investigators had established that several of the men publicly identified as among the 9/11 hijackers, including purported ringleader Mohammed Atta, had visited the house and/or been linked to it through a web of telephone communications.

The FBI told none of this to Congress, and it was not mentioned in the original 9/11 Commission report released in 2004.

WhoWhatWhy, in an original investigation, went deeper, and established that the owner of the house was a prominent Saudi businessman who works directly for the Saudi prince most involved with aviation—including being the first Saudi who trained to fly planes in South Florida. You can read our complete story here.

The significance of this cannot be stated strongly enough. Although many people think they “already know” about ties between the hijackers and Saudi royals, they confuse these important revelations with reports that prominent Saudis were permitted to leave the country shortly after 9/11, as popularized in Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11.

This new revelation is far more significant. The older story shows possible favoritism toward, or at least concern for, well-connected Saudis on the part of the US government in permitting them to leave. The Sarasota story, however, shows that the US government came upon what may have been a command or control center for the men we are told hijacked the planes.

And with the connections documented by WhoWhatWhy, it is almost impossible not to conclude some kind of awareness, either before or after the act, on the part of Saudi Prince Sultan bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud and the powerful clique he represents within the royal clan. Again, for more on this, please read the entire story,which continues over three pages on our site.

The FBI Reversal

Kudos to the Bulldog for filing the FOIA request, which unearthed that gem of an FBI submission. It was included in filings by Miami Assistant U.S. Attorney Carole M. Fernandez, and was part of a sworn 33-page declaration from FBI Records Section Chief David M. Hardy. He stated that producing classified information related to the matter “would reveal current specific targets of the FBI’s national security investigations.” The purpose of the filings was to convince U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch not to allow the FOIA suit to succeed.

The April 4 document is significant for three reasons: (1) it demonstrates that the authorities are aware of the Saudi link, (2) it demonstrates that the FBI previously lied when it declared that its inquiries in the matter found no links to the terrorists or the plot, (3) it has the FBI asserting that no more disclosures should be made in order to protect “national security.”

The FBI’s practice of finding evidence tied to Saudi Arabia, then denying it had such evidence, then reluctantly admitting that it did (but only as a way of blocking still more disclosure) is telling. The apparent willingness of the FBI to brazenly lie and then reverse itself—seemingly with no consequences—is now beginning to look like standard operating procedure.

As WhoWhatWhy has demonstrated in articles about the Boston Marathon bombing, the FBI has been guilty of an astonishing array of disinformation, story reversals, unaccountable violence, and general misbehavior just in that one affair alone. See thisthisthis, and this.

In the Boston bombing case, the FBI claimed not to know anything about the alleged perpetrators, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, then was forced to admit it had had direct contact with them and their family. It also initially claimed via leaks to mainstream media reporters that one of its officers shot and killed Ibragim Todashev, a figure connected with the Tsarnaevs, because he attacked them with a knife, Since then, the story has changed repeatedly and is now obscured by a thick fog of misdirection. We’ve pointed out many other changing aspects of the FBI’s story.

Hence, when we look back at the granddaddy of all purported terrorist plots, 9/11, and see the FBI’s astonishing actions to block disclosure, we have to ask: Just what is going on in this country? What is the FBI, and does it actually serve democracy and the public interest? And where is the president, purportedly the most powerful person in the country, and the public’s representative? If the president is unable or unwilling to get to the bottom of these bizarre and deeply worrisome developments, what does that say about the health of the system itself?

The Biggest Revelations, Ignored

Fortunately for the FBI, almost the entirety of the media—from the corporate owned “mainstream” to purportedly outsider ”alternative” news outlets and websites—have steered clear of the entire subject.

The recent FBI court filings were revealed by a Bulldog article published in conjunction with one mainstream outlet—the Miami Herald. Previous revelations that appeared inThe Herald were generally ignored by the rest of the press, and we may reasonably expect the same disturbing indifference to the latest bombshell.

This development leaves us with three significant conclusions:

-The US government knows about, and is concerned about, apparent ties between its allies in the Saudi royal family and the men accused of having hijacked the planes on 9/11 and orchestrated the greatest attack in history on the American mainland.

-The FBI continues to lie and suppress information in other matters of public concern, supposedly all in the interest of our shared “national security.”

-The media continues to demonstrate how weak, compromised and intimidated it is. With the majority of Americans still dependent for their understanding of current events and their world on these same media, the ramifications can be considered alarming.

WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on it. But can we count on you? We cannot do our work without your support.
Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.

1048 461 71reddit847

Related posts:
1. Saudi Royal Ties to 9/11 Hijackers Via Florida Saudi Family?
2. Media’s Belated “Acknowledgment” of Saudi 9/11 Story
3. Saudi 9/11 Alert: Here’s That Missing Lloyd’s Lawsuit
4. Has the CIA lied to Congress?
5. The Post-Election Project: Should America Have a National Popular Vote?




by Daniel Ellsberg Jun 10, 2013 7:12 AM EDT


Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, says that the machinery of our democratic government is broken—and we need whistleblowers like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden to inspire Americans to fight back against this invasion of privacy.

I’m just back home from the first day of the Bradley Manning trial, and a rally for him on Saturday. I think there has not been a more significant or helpful leak or unauthorized disclosure in American history ever than what Edward Snowden shared with the Guardian about the NSA—and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers.

ellsberg manning snowden1370865065274.cached
Clockwise from top left: Edward Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg, and Bradley Manning. (Clockwise from topleft: Getty; AP (2))

Bradley Manning, who put out the largest volume, simply did not have access to material of this degree of significance—although he did have daily access to material that was top secret or even higher, communications intelligence. He didn’t choose to disclose any of that highly classified material–what he shared was secret or less. I was frankly surprised there was so much evidence of criminality of the U.S. government’s in Manning’s secret material–I thought that would have been a higher level of classification. But apparently ordering people to be turned over to Iraqis knowing they would be tortured was so routine it didn’t require higher classification. And then when this was reported by American troops in over 100 different instances, in each case an illegal order was given to them: “no additional investigation.” That’s an illegal order. Under the Geneva Convention, not only can we not torture, but we cannot hand over anyone to another party we might expect to torture them. And if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that torture has occurred, there must be an investigation, so the orders not to investigate were clearly illegal. And that has not been prosecuted or investigated since Bradley Manning revealed it—that is a criminality that goes right up to the commander-in-chief, and that’s only at the secret level.

Bradley Manning had clearance not only for secret material but higher than top secret, namely communications intelligence such as Snowden has just revealed. He did not choose to reveal anything higher than secret. Snowden made the point that Manning put out so much material [700,000 documents] that he presumably did not read all of it, or even most of it—and that is a distinction. But in fact, as Manning testified, he made a definite decision not to put out material that was higher than secret, not even what is called limited distribution or no distribution—he did not put out any such material, and so he assumed that what he was putting out was very unlikely to harm Americans or anybody. He knew that what he did put out revealed a surprising amount of criminality as well as a huge amount of civilian casualties that had not been reported.

His life was like mine. It’s very easy for me to identify with his choice, his decision, his performance.
Manning worked in a SCIF—sensitive compartmented information facility—a facility that is guarded enough and secure enough to deal with information higher than top secret. That’s where he worked. So he was very discriminate in choosing only to out secret information.

That was also true for me. All the material I put out was top secret. I had read it all, and had made the judgment that it needed to be put out, it deserved to be put out, and would not harm Americans or anyone else. And that judgment—which could have been wrong—was validated later. They were never able to show that anybody had been harmed, just as three years later they have not been able to show any harm from Bradley Manning’s secret material.

I did not put out anything higher than top secret. But the system that Snowden showed—PRISM and BLARNEY and the Verizon vacuuming up of all metadata, so called—that didn’t exist when I was at RAND. There was no email, there were no personal computers, there was no fax, there was no credit card. So they couldn’t get all that stuff then. If that had existed in 1964 or 1965 I would have had access to it, actually—not probably to the operations but to the data available for that; I had the clearance for it. I certainly would have put that out, just as Snowden has done, because it’s clearly unconstitutional behavior and I’m referring here to the fact that they were gathering digital data on every single American with an electronic device on any kind—collecting, storing, analyzing, and retaining data secretly on every American who has a device. I would have put that out even though I would have expected to go to prison for life. I’m not a journalist, though, but I would have put it out even though I accept the legitimacy of the law—18 USC § 798—that prohibits putting out that material. I generally support that law and I did not put out any such material 40 years ago—there was nothing I knew at that time that I would have put out.

As Snowden said, there’s lots of information that he did not put out, so he’s been discriminating. Manning was also discriminating, although in his case he chose to put out secret info that he had not read. And in retrospect, Manning was right to do so. If he had asked me about doing that before he did it, I would have recommended that he not do that. And I would not have done it—material that I haven’t read—but I would have been wrong. Because three years later, we can say whatever risk there was in doing that, no actual harm was done to individuals—and the benefit of putting that out was much more than I would have expected. He did the right thing in my opinion.

Edward Snowden explains why he did it.

Snowden, too. The information about unconstitutional activity that he put out could only be reversed or stopped if the public knows about it, and there was absolutely no way for them or most members of Congress to learn about it without him putting it out. Indeed, anyone in his position, with his access, recognizing as he did that this was unconstitutional as this blatantly is, should have done what he did.

Unfortunately, it’s pretty rare to do what you should do when it involves a major personal sacrifice, and he knows very well that he’s at great risk, many different kinds of risk, right now in addition to being separated from his partner, his family, and his job. (He was getting paid a lot more than I ever got paid. I had a good job too in those days.)

He knows that he is not beyond the reach of the executive branch of the U.S. government anywhere in the world. He knows that better than I did 40 years ago. My wife at that time was worried that the CIA might harm me, and I told her at the time, “No, don’t worry. I don’t think they do that to Americans.”

Wrong. I was wrong then, and would be now. The White House sent people with orders “to incapacitate me totally.” I was subject to a White House death squad that fortunately backed off and aborted the mission. Now we have a president, Barack Obama, who openly proclaims the right to execute, to kill, to murder any American citizen he wants if he can’t arrest them. But he’s already done it to Americans he could have arrested.

As Snowden says, “I could be rendered.” And of course he’s talking about rendition, which is a euphemism for kidnapping. He could be kidnapped, he could be sent to Guantánamo, he could be executed. Certainly slandered. You can count on that. A lot of people will surely call him a traitor, but they’re mistaken. That’s an extremely unpleasant experience for someone who knows he’s a patriot, who’s certainly a patriot from what I know so far. Someone willing to sacrifice and die for his country.

That’s something that’s also true of Bradley Manning, and it’s something I’ve waited a long time to encounter. I have been saying now for three years that I identify with Bradley Manning, though he got there first. He arrived at his decision at 22, while it took me until I was 40, or 39.

But I identify even more with Snowden, just from what I’ve seen in the last few hours [since the Guardian published his name and its interview with him earlier Sunday]. He’s older, he had higher access, he had a better salary than Manning. His life was like mine. It’s very easy for me to identify with his choice, his decision, his performance.

I very much hope that Manning, and Snowden, inspire others. Snowden said he admired Manning, though he did distinguish his choice not to put out anything he had not read and selected. But of course I’m sure he understands that Manning would not have put out NSA special intelligence that he hadn’t read—actually he didn’t put out NSA material that he had read.

There is a lot that is legitimately secret, and if you haven’t read it you couldn’t know. But a tremendous amount is not legitimately secret. Of about 7,000 pages, I withheld about 3,000 pages that dealt with negotiations because I didn’t want to interfere with negotiations. I wanted to interfere with the war. I put out 4,000 pages of secret material, high-level documents by the joint chief of staff, the secretary of defense, the White House, the CIA. Not one paragraph of those 4,000 pages was ever shown by the government to have done any harm on its release. Not 1 percent. Zero.

How much deserves classification? I won’t say zero. One expert estimated that about 5 percent of what got classified deserved to be at the time. After two or three years, less than 1 percent of the material that was classified deserved continued classification. The real problem with classification is that an enormous amount is classified that needs to be public.

What Snowden has put out has two characteristics. One, the public desperately needs to know what has been done over the last dozen years by the last two administrations—or perhaps much longer than that—so they can debate it, have oversight, limit it, so they can rein it in.

It’s not just that secrets creates an enormous potential for abuse, blackmail, influence—knowing the sources of all journalists, leaked or not, influencing Congress by knowing every detail of their private life—over time that’s almost certain to be abused. People the administration doesn’t like can be audited by the IRS, to name a kind of current example. I’ll say that not as a fan of the Tea Party, but I’ll certainly defend their right not to be abused by the IRS because some agency, I won’t say the White House, disapproves.

The very nature of this system is an abuse. It isn’t just that it can be abused, which is true. Its very existence is an abuse. It’s a violation of the Constitution. The president says that it’s legal based on congressional decisions made in total ignorance of the scale of the program, but Congress cannot repeal the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The executive has simply been ignoring that. The idea of a blanket warrant is a mockery of the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause.

In short, the machinery of our democratic government has entirely broken down. There is no effective congressional oversight, as we can see by the acquiescence of the intelligence and judiciary committees. There is no oversight. The president has said the courts review this. He’s referring to the FISA court, which has reviewed tens of thousands of requests, and refused about six. It’s a mockery to say we have three branches of government that have endorsed this. Strictly speaking, Congress has never approved this and it’s never been asked—only the intelligence committee’s top two.

When they were doing this under Bush for four years before The New York Times exposed it, the congressional leaders of both parties were complicit in clear-cut criminality and that could be used to blackmail them, in effect. The threat of exposing them could have had great leverage, and I’m sure it was used as a matter of fact.

Imagine, for instance: We had a governor of New York who was looking into the subprime mortgages, in D.C. testifying on that. He was also committing a crime, going to a prostitute that evening. Let me give you a guess here that that wasn’t the first time they’d known about it, but when it was convenient, he was no longer governor of New York.

Mark Sanford: His staff did not know he was in Argentina. Let me give you a little guess here: The NSA knew exactly where he was. Of course they knew. Did he not communicate with his mistress? They knew everything—they knew when he bought a ticket, what flight he was on, who he met at the airplane, where he was staying. They knew everything his wife didn’t know. His staff didn’t know, and he was running for office. Do you think they couldn’t use that information if they wanted to? How about having the information on very member of Congress, every governor, every mayor, every journalist?

They do have it.

The question is, can you have a democracy, dissent, informed opposition, an informed public—informed by media—under these conditions?

You can’t have it for long. You either somehow get effective oversight of the NSA, the CIA, or you have the German Democratic Republic, otherwise known as East Germany. And their secret police—which we have now basically. The CIA, when they acted in a police function in this country against me by helping in the Watergate burglaries and of my psychiatrist’s office, they were breaking their charter. That was one of the counts of Nixon’s impeachment. That’s legal now under the Patriot Act. Our military was forbidden to take part in police activities in this country under the Posse Comitatus Act that goes back to Reconstruction—that’s essentially gone.

Everything that Nixon did against me—burglarizing my doctor’s office and warrantless wiretaps to get information to blackmail me into silence and using the CIA to get a psychological profile on me to reveal my vulnerabilities to coercion or manipulation and finally sending a dozen CIA assets with orders to incapacitate me totally—all of that is now allegedly legal. That doesn’t make it constitutional, by the way—it obviously violates the Bill of Rights. I used to say under Bush the attempt to incapacitate me, “that one is not yet legal.” But Obama says it is. He says he has the right to do that anywhere in the world and that includes the United States. Now Congress hasn’t exactly endorsed that, but they haven’t contradicted it either. Same for detention without charges under the National Defense Authorization Act.

Under the Patriot Act, the CIA is also a police force domestically. A secret police force. Every aspect of the CIA—they won’t even confirm what they’re doing. The president will not confirm that the CIA uses drones. Now if there’s anybody who reads newspapers who doesn’t know that fact, I don’t know who it would be—they shouldn’t be voting, though they have the right to. But the president won’t confirm it. It’s secret. And if they use them in this country there’s nothing now to stop them from doing it, and it will still be secret.

I’m glad they wiretap the mafia. I’m glad they wiretap people reasonably suspected of being terrorists. Fine. They can certainly get warrants for that. They can get any warrant they want. But scooping up all the digital data of everyone in the country—it’s ridiculous to call that constitutional. That’s a different form of government than what we had 200 years ago. What it is is East Germany without the mass detentions.

It isn’t millions of Americans, it’s hundreds of millions of Americans they collect on. As William Binney said, that’s 280 million Americans—everybody except infants in cribs or people in hospices, everybody who has a device, including 7-year-olds. They’re not just collected once, they have multiple phone lines, email accounts, and every one of them is collected.

I definitely have a new hero in Edward Snowden, the first one since Bradley Manning, and I’m glad it didn’t take another 40 years. People who respect or admire what I did, they may not realize it right now, but before this is over, they’ll recognize that he deserves great admiration. And people who hate what I did, can hate.





Mass Surveillance in USA, A Timeline of Loosening Laws, Practices, …: Fascism?
Post Categories: Head Stories
Cora Currier, Justin Elliott, Theodoric Meyer/The 4th Media News | Monday, June 10, 2013, 6:17 Beijing


On Wednesday, the Guardian published a secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over data for all the calls made on its network on an “ongoing, daily basis.”Other revelations about surveillance of phone and digital communications have followed.

That the National Security Agency has engaged in such activity isn’t entirely new: Since 9/11, we’ve learned about large-scale surveillance by the spy agency from a patchwork of official statements, classified documents, and anonymously sourced news stories.

Surveillance court created
Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) led the investigation.

After a post-Watergate Senate investigation documented abuses of government surveillance, Congress passes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to regulate how the government can monitor suspected spies or terrorists in the U.S. The law establishes a secret court that issues warrants for electronic surveillance or physical searches of a “foreign power” or “agents of a foreign power” (broadly defined in the law). The government doesn’t have to demonstrate probable cause of a crime, just that the “purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information.”

The court’s sessions and opinions are classified. The only information we have is a yearly report to the Senate documenting the number of “applications” made by the government. Since 1978, the court has approved thousands of applications – and rejected just 11.

Oct. 2001
Patriot Act passed
President George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act.

In the wake of 9/11, Congress passes the sweeping USA Patriot Act. One provision, section 215, allows the FBI to ask the FISA court to compel the sharing of books, business documents, tax records, library check-out lists – actually, “any tangible thing” – as part of a foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation. The required material can include purely domestic records.

Oct. 2003
‘Vacuum-cleaner surveillance’ of the Internet

Mark Klein

AT&T technician Mark Klein discovers what he believes to be newly installed NSA data-mining equipment in a “secret room” at a company facility in San Francisco. Klein, who several years latergoes public with his story to support a lawsuit against the company, believes the equipment enables “vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the Internet – whether that be peoples’ e-mail, web surfing or any other data.”

March 2004
Ashcroft hospital showdown

John Ashcroft Addresses Police Chiefs Conference
Attorney General John Ashcroft

In what would become one of the most famous moments of the Bush Administration, presidential aides Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales show up at the hospital bed of John Ashcroft. Their purpose? To convince the seriously ill attorney general to sign off on the extension of a secret domestic spying program. Ashcroft refuses, believing the warrantless program to be illegal.

The hospital showdown was first reported by the New York Times, but two years later Newsweek provided more detail, describing a program that sounds similar to the one the Guardian revealed this week. The NSA, Newsweek reported citing anonymous sources, collected without court approval vast quantities of phone and email metadata “with cooperation from some of the country’s largest telecommunications companies” from “tens of millions of average Americans.” The magazine says the program itself began in September 2001 and was shut down in March 2004 after the hospital incident. But Newsweek also raises the possibility that Bush may have found new justification to continue some of the activity.

Dec. 2005
Warrantless wiretapping revealed

Hayden Testifies Before Senate On Destruction Of CIA Tapes
Michael Hayden, director of the NSA when the warrantless wiretapping began

The Times, over the objections of the Bush Administration, revealsthat since 2002 the government “monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants.” The program involves actually listening in on phone calls and reading emails without seeking permission from the FISA Court.

Jan. 2006
Bush defends wiretapping

President Bush speaks at Kansas State University.

President Bush defends what he calls the “terrorist surveillance program” in a speech in Kansas. He says the program only looks at calls in which one end of the communication is overseas.

March 2006
Patriot Act renewed

NSA Use Of Phone Company Data Sparks Controversy
The Senate and House pass legislation to renew the USA Patriot Act with broad bipartisan support and President Bush signs it into law. It includes a few new protections for records required to be produced under the controversial section 215.

May 2006
Mass collection of call data revealed

USA Today reports that the NSA has been collecting data since 2001 on phone records of “tens of millions of Americans” through three major phone companies, Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth (though the companies level of involvement is later disputed.) The data collected does not include content of calls but rather data like phone numbers for analyzing communication patterns.

As with the wiretapping program revealed by the Times, the NSA data collection occurs without warrants, according to USA Today. Unlike the wiretapping program, the NSA data collection was not limited to international communications.

Court authorizes collection of call data

The mass data collection reported by the Guardian this week apparently was first authorized by the FISA court in 2006, though exactly when is not clear. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said Thursday, “As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been in place for the past seven years.” Similarly, the Washington Post quoted ananonymous “expert in this aspect of the law” who said the document published by the Guardian appears to be a “routine renewal” of an order first issued in 2006.

It’s not clear whether these orders represent court approval of the previously warrantless data collection that USA Today described.

Jan. 2007 Bush admin says surveillance now operating with court approval
Alberto Gonzales Testifies Before House Appropriations Committee
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announces that the FISA court has allowed the government to target international communications that start or end in the U.S., as long as one person is “a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.” Gonzalez says the government is ending the “terrorist surveillance program,” and bringing such cases under FISA approval.

Aug. 2007
Congress expands surveillance powers

The FISA court reportedly changes its stance and puts more limitson the Bush administration’s surveillance (the details of the court’s move are still not known.) In response, Congress quickly passes, and President Bush signs, a stopgap law, the Protect America Act.

In many cases, the government can now get blanket surveillance warrants without naming specific individuals as targets. To do that, the government needs to show that they’re not intentionally targeting people in the U.S., even if domestic communications are swept up in the process.

Sept. 2007
Prism begins


The FBI and the NSA get access to user data from Microsoft under a top-secret program known as Prism, according to an NSA PowerPoint briefing published by the Washington Post and the Guardian this week. In subsequent years, the government reportedly gets data from eight other companies including Apple and Google. “The extent and nature of the data collected from each company varies,” according to the Guardian.

July 2008
Congress renews broader surveillance powers

Congress follows up the Protect America Act with another law, the FISA Amendments Act, extending the government’s expanded spying powers for another four years. The law now approaches the kind of warrantless wiretapping that occurred earlier in Bush administration. Senator Obama votes for the act.

The act also gives immunity to telecom companies for their participation in warrantless wiretapping.

April 2009

NSA ‘overcollects’

The New York Times reports that for several months, the NSA had gotten ahold of domestic communications it wasn’t supposed to. The Times says it was likely the result of “technical problems in the NSA’s ability” to distinguish between domestic and overseas communications. The Justice Department says the problems have been resolved.

Feb. 2010
Controversial Patriot Act provision extended

Barack-Obama-with-George-Bush-in-his-Head---73622 (1)
President Obama

President Obama signs a temporary one-year extension of elements of the Patriot Act that were set to expire — including Section 215, which grants the government broad powers to seize records.

May 2011
Patriot Act renewed, again

The House and Senate pass legislation to extend the overall Patriot Act. President Obama, who is in Europe as the law is set to expire, directs the bill to be signed with an “autopen” machine in his stead. It’s the first time in history a U.S. president has done so.

March 2012
Senators warn cryptically of overreach

Retro Tech Fair Features Electronics From The 1980's
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

In a letter to the attorney general, Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mark Udall, D-Colo., write, “We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details” of how the government has interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Because the program is classified, the senators offer no further details.

July 2012
Court finds unconstitutional surveillance

According to a declassified statement by Wyden, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held on at least one occasion that information collection carried out by the government was unconstitutional. But the details of that episode, including when it happened, have never been revealed.

Dec. 2012
Broad powers again extended

Obama Makes Statement On Fiscal Cliff Negotiations
President Obama

Congress extends the FISA Amendments Act another five years, and Obama signs it into law. Sens. Wyden and Jeff Merkley, both Oregon Democrats, offer amendments requiring more disclosure about the law’s impact. The proposals fail.

April 2013
Verizon order issued

As the Guardian revealed this week, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge Roger Vinson issues a secret court orderdirecting Verizon Business Network Services to turn over “metadata” — including the time, duration and location of phone calls, though not what was said on the calls — to the NSA for all calls over the next three months. Verizon is ordered to deliver the records “on an ongoing daily basis.” The Wall Street Journal reports this week that AT&T and Sprint have similar arrangements.

The Verizon order cites Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the FBI to request a court order that requires a business to turn over “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)” relevant to an international spying or terrorism investigation. In 2012, the government asked for 212 such orders, and the court approved them all.

June 2013
Congress and White House respond

Intelligence Director James Clapper Testifies To Senate Armed Services Committee
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

Following the publication of the Guardian’s story about the Verizon order, Sens. Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the chair and vice of the Senate intelligence committee, hold a news conference to dismiss criticism of the order. “This is nothing particularly new,” Chambliss says. “This has been going on for seven years under the auspices of the FISA authority, and every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this.”

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledges the collection of phone metadata but says the information acquired is “subject to strict restrictions on handling” and that “only a very small fraction of the records are ever reviewed.” Clapper alsoissues a statement saying that the collection under the Prism program was justified under the FISA Amendments of 2008, and that it is not “intentionally targeting” any American or person in the U.S.

Statements from the tech companies reportedly taking part in the Prism program variously disavow knowledge of the program and merely state in broad terms they follow the law.

By Cora Currier and Justin ElliottProPublica


“Whatever you take from the sea, the sea takes back from you”


Majed Fadel Hassan Baker (53) is a fisherman from the Gaza Strip. Having been a fisherman since the age of 10, he has borne witness to the sharp decline of the fishing industry in the Gaza Strip in recent years. Majed’s weathered skin shows evidence of a life outdoors.

Life as a fisherman in the Gaza Strip is one of the most dangerous seafaring jobs in the world. This is not due to adverse weather conditions, or because their catch resides at unreachable depths. The greatest danger for fishermen in Gaza is posed by Israeli gunboats.

The closure of the Gaza Strip has been in effect since the early 1990’s, though has seen a sharp increase since 2007. While trying to provide for their families in the face of great economic turmoil resulting from the Israeli-imposed closure they are often attacked, and harassed, through random acts of violence and acts of vandalism against their boats. Imprisonment is also a concern, even when sailing well within the fishing limits. The Israeli soldiers have a history of destroying fishermen’s boats, and in turn their livelihood, affecting not only the fishermen but also their families who often depend on them as their sole source of income.

After the 2012 November offensive, codenamed ‘Operation Pillar of Defence’, one of the terms of the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire was the extension of the fishing limit from 3 to 6 nautical miles. However, in March 2013 Israel again reduced the  fishing area to 3 nautical miles. Regardless of where the boundary is set, Israel continues their attacks on fishing boats deemed to be too close to the limit. “They fire if you come close to the limit,” explains Majed.. Sometimes, even fishing boats that are clearly within the nautical mile limit are attacked. Already constrained by the fluctuating limit, fishermen also face the threat of injury or death as they attempt to make a living.

Majed lost his boat in October 2012, when he set sail to try his luck at catching some fish. “It is hard to find good fish within the limit. Fish only come this close to land when it is time to lay their eggs. Before the closure, when the limit was around 12 miles, we could catch 30-50 kilos of fish every day. Now, I cannot catch enough to cover the cost of fuel for the generator and maintenance for the solar panels. Most of my equipment was designed for deep sea fishing. It is useless at 3 miles.”

“In October, I was sailing with two of my sons within the limit. We were attacked without warning by two Israeli gunboats. They fired at the generator and destroyed it, and then warned us that we were past the limit.” Majed pointed out that they had been within the limit and, moreover, that the Israeli forces had fired upon them before issuing any warning.

The aggression against Majed and his crew did not end after the engine was destroyed: “The soldiers then made us strip and swim to their gunboat. They bound our hands and feet, blindfolded us, and tied us to the boat.” The crew was taken to Israel on the Israeli gunboat, and their fishing boat was towed behind. After a number of hours of detention, the crew was released at Beit Hanoun (‘Erez’) border crossing, where they crossed back into the Gaza Strip.

“Now they want me to pay in transportation costs for them to bring my boat back to Gaza. I am already $5,000 dollars in debt for the engine and solar panels. (Many fishermen in Gaza have installed solar panels, which charge during the day so that they may illuminate the sea at night in the hope of attracting fish) If I don’t pay for my boat to be returned, I will have to buy another one. I don’t have any money. How can I pay? I refuse to pay. They are the ones who did the damage. They are the ones who fired without warning and took my boat. Why should I pay for what they did? They have no right to ask for money.”

It would cost the same to buy a new boat as it would to transport his boat home and repair its engine. However, Majed cannot afford either option. “There is a saying in Gaza: ‘Whatever you take from the sea, the sea takes back from you’. Now, the only way I can make money is if a friend allows me to go with him on his boat to fish but, because there are few fish within the limit, it is not enough. I have 14 people in my family who all look to me to provide for them. How can I?”

Since April 2012 until February of 2103 PCHR has documented 7 cases whereby the Israeli officials have attempted to charge Palestinian fishermen for transportation costs for them to get their boats back. On the 8th of October, one day after the incident the PCHR launched several complaints in regard to this form of extortion, demanding a serious investigation and the returning of the boat. PCHR then received a response saying that an investigation is under way by Israeli officials. On the 23rd of May 2013 PCHR received a response from the Israeli prosecution stating that they are ready to hand over the 7 boats including the one mentioned in the narrative.

The conditions dictate that the owner of the boat must sign a contract that they will not exceed the fishing limits. They also state that the transportation is undertaken by a third party loading company, so the fishermen are responsible for the costs. The boats will also be returned as they were captured, minus the engines as they exceed the Israeli imposed limitation of a 25 horse power engine, so are therefore deemed illegal. Currently the owners of all the boats have refused these conditions as the transportation and cost of a new engine is generally more expensive than buying a new boat altogether.

When asked how he felt after the incident, Majed seemed frail as his eyes began to well: “I was… I am depressed. Fishing is my life. I know nothing else. I have no education and no other skills. I have been fishing since I was 10 years old. Now I live in poverty as I cannot find other work. If the closure carries on and the Israelis keep acting so aggressively, there is no future for me, or the entire fishing industry in Gaza.  I want to ask Israel, ‘Why Palestine? We want our freedom and dignity back. Why are you stopping us from doing what we love?””

Majed explains the poverty trap that fishermen are in which, in turn, results in a bleak outlook for the younger generations: “There are not enough fish, so we must take our children out of school to help us fish, as we cannot afford to pay for workers. This means they get no education, which means that they cannot get a good job when they are older.”

Israel’s attacks against Palestinian fishermen in the Gaza Strip, who do not pose any threat to the security of the Israeli naval forces, constitute a flagrant violation of international humanitarian and human rights law. The fishing exclusion zone, maintained through arbitrary arrests and attacks, constitutes a measure of collective punishment, which is prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The right to work, including in just and favourable conditions, is provided for under Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as under Article 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Moreover, Article 11 of the ICESCR recognizes “the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human RightsComments Off on “Whatever you take from the sea, the sea takes back from you”

THE ZIONIST STATE OF QATAR:عاجل .. أنقلاب عسكري في قطر واشتباكات داخل القصر

عاجل .. أنقلاب عسكري في قطر واشتباكات داخل القصر

النهار – خاص


كشفت مصادر اعلامية قطرية خاصة، عن حدوث انقلاب عسكري ضد أمير قطر حمد بن خليفة آل ثانٍ، وأن اشتباكات مسلحة عنيفة اندلاعت داخل أحد القصور بالعاصمة القطرية الدوحة، فى منتصف الليل بتوقيت الدوحة إضافة إلى انشقاق عدد من ظباط الجيش القطري.

وأكدت المصادر نفسها أن الانقلاب العسكري من المرجح ان يكون بتعليمات من الشيخ تميم بن حمد, وقد دفعت قوات الأمن القطرية بتعزيزات أمنية مكثفة امام كل القصور في العاصمة القطرية الدوحة.

ومن جانب آخر اضاف اسعد ابوقيله, أثار تنازل أمير قطر حمد بن خليفة آل ثانٍ عن حكم البلاد لابنه “تميم” ردود أفعال واسعة، وفتح شهية وسائل الإعلام التي رأى بعضها أن ما حدث في تلك الإمارة الخليجية لم يكن تنازلا إراديا، ولكنه انقلاب ناعم على “الأب”، كما فعل الأمير حمد مع والده من قبل.

وقالت صحيفة “ديلي تلجراف” البريطانية إن شخصيات ذات شأن في قطر رأت إن الوقت حان ليتسلم الأمير الشاب الشيخ تميم بن حمد -البالغ من العمر 33 عاما- السلطة في الإمارة الخليجية وختم اسعد ابوقيله بقوله نقلا عن شهود عيان ونشطاء في المجتمع المدني وحقوق الانسان في دولة قطر ان الشعب القطرى قالها بكل صراحة مرات عديدة نحن نريد اسقاط النظام فى قطر اسباب كثيرة و خصوصا وجود اكبر قاعدة عسكرية امريكية في قطر وسيطرة اسرة ال تاني علي النفط والغاز و في قطر فقراء مواطنون لا يجدون ثمن لقمة العيش أو ثمن دواء.


Posted in Middle EastComments Off on THE ZIONIST STATE OF QATAR:عاجل .. أنقلاب عسكري في قطر واشتباكات داخل القصر

Shoah’s pages