![priceofliberty:
The CIA, Qatar, and the Creation of Syria’s Jabhat al Nusra
In this Reuters article, the security official and several ‘anonymous’ rebel Commanders confirm that Qatar has “tightened coordination of arms flows [plural] to Syria,” under alleged concern of weapons ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda linked Islamic extremist militants; the very militants as noted previously, that have continually formed the spearhead of the insurgency against the Syrian Government:
“Rebel fighters in Syria say that in recent months the system for distributing arms has become more centralized, with arms being delivered through opposition National Coalition’s General Command, led by Selim Idriss, a general who defected to the opposition and is a favorite of Washington.”(my emphasis)
What has been long confirmed by ‘official sources’ in the mainstream press, is that these arms shipments commenced in at least “early 2012″. We can be sure, as with the majority of the official timeline, that leeway has been given in these statements: its highly likely smaller arms shipments/smuggling into Syria started much earlier. Statements from eyewitnesses in Libya confirm that arms shipments from the port of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group stronghold Misrata, commenced rapidly after the fall of Gaddafi. Sibel Edmonds also reported in November 2011, long before any corporate media revealed, that the CIA, along with its Turkish and NATO counterparts had been working from the “nerve centre” at the joint US-Turkish air-base in Incerlik, Turkey, since April/May of 2011, coordinating ‘rebel’ elements and ‘activist’s’. Edmonds posits the likely theory that this was one of the initial staging grounds used by the CIA and its regional partners, to smuggle weapons, fighters and materiel into Syria as the insurgency took hold.
Enough of this background information, ‘official sources’ and timeline discrepancies gives the impression that the ‘news’ media is not releasing information when it receives it, and is holding back crucial pieces of the timeline, to fit into the desired narrative of “Assad forces killing peaceful protesters”.
What we learn from the Reuters report is that until Qatar (acting directly under CIA auspices) chose to “tighten” the coordination of their arms supplies into Syria, there was no coherent or structured way of the arms being distributed once they reached the Syrian border:
“The Qataris are now [May 2013] going through the Coalition for aid and humanitarian issues and for military issues they are going through the military command,” a commander in northern Syria interviewed from Beirut said.
This raises the immediate question: who were Qatar (under CIA auspices) distributing the arms thousands of tonnes of arms to before April 2013? The report goes on to state:
“Before the Coalition was formed they were going through liaison offices and other military and civil formations. That was at the beginning. Now it is different – it is all going through the Coalition and the military command.”
“There’s a lot of consultation with the CIA, and they help Qatar with buying and moving the weapons into Syria, but just as consultants,” he said. The CIA declined to comment. (my emphasis)
At least a pinch of salt needs to be taken with this piece of misinformation. What exactly are “liaison offices, military and civil formations?” The ‘opposition’ has never had anything resembling a military formation. Regardless, this raises several important questions and draws several distinctions into the timeline of the Syrian conflict.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/23cdd872a4234b1685ab3896e29c91a7/tumblr_mmyodvHP4b1r7dd67o1_1280.png)
The CIA, Qatar, and the Creation of Syria’s Jabhat al Nusra
In this Reuters article, the security official and several ‘anonymous’ rebel Commanders confirm that Qatar has “tightened coordination of arms flows [plural] to Syria,” under alleged concern of weapons ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda linked Islamic extremist militants; the very militants as noted previously, that have continually formed the spearhead of the insurgency against the Syrian Government:
“Rebel fighters in Syria say that in recent months the system for distributing arms has become more centralized, with arms being delivered through opposition National Coalition’s General Command, led by Selim Idriss, a general who defected to the opposition and is a favorite of Washington.”(my emphasis)
What has been long confirmed by ‘official sources’ in the mainstream press, is that these arms shipments commenced in at least “early 2012″. We can be sure, as with the majority of the official timeline, that leeway has been given in these statements: its highly likely smaller arms shipments/smuggling into Syria started much earlier. Statements from eyewitnesses in Libya confirm that arms shipments from the port of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group stronghold Misrata, commenced rapidly after the fall of Gaddafi. Sibel Edmonds also reported in November 2011, long before any corporate media revealed, that the CIA, along with its Turkish and NATO counterparts had been working from the “nerve centre” at the joint US-Turkish air-base in Incerlik, Turkey, since April/May of 2011, coordinating ‘rebel’ elements and ‘activist’s’. Edmonds posits the likely theory that this was one of the initial staging grounds used by the CIA and its regional partners, to smuggle weapons, fighters and materiel into Syria as the insurgency took hold.
Enough of this background information, ‘official sources’ and timeline discrepancies gives the impression that the ‘news’ media is not releasing information when it receives it, and is holding back crucial pieces of the timeline, to fit into the desired narrative of “Assad forces killing peaceful protesters”.
What we learn from the Reuters report is that until Qatar (acting directly under CIA auspices) chose to “tighten” the coordination of their arms supplies into Syria, there was no coherent or structured way of the arms being distributed once they reached the Syrian border:
“The Qataris are now [May 2013] going through the Coalition for aid and humanitarian issues and for military issues they are going through the military command,” a commander in northern Syria interviewed from Beirut said.
This raises the immediate question: who were Qatar (under CIA auspices) distributing the arms thousands of tonnes of arms to before April 2013? The report goes on to state:
“Before the Coalition was formed they were going through liaison offices and other military and civil formations. That was at the beginning. Now it is different – it is all going through the Coalition and the military command.”
“There’s a lot of consultation with the CIA, and they help Qatar with buying and moving the weapons into Syria, but just as consultants,” he said. The CIA declined to comment. (my emphasis)
At least a pinch of salt needs to be taken with this piece of misinformation. What exactly are “liaison offices, military and civil formations?” The ‘opposition’ has never had anything resembling a military formation. Regardless, this raises several important questions and draws several distinctions into the timeline of the Syrian conflict.
Cold War: Map shows areas prohibited to Soviet travelers in the United States
This map shows where Soviet citizens, who were required to have a detailed itinerary approved before obtaining a visa, could and could not go during their time in the United States. Most ports, coastlines, and weapons facilities were off-limits, as were industrial centers and several cities in the Jim Crow South.
These restrictions mirrored Soviet constraints on American travel to the USSR. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had closely controlled the movement of all foreign visitors since World War II. A 1952 law in the U.S. barred the admission of all Communists, and therefore of Soviet citizens. (An exception was made for government officials.)
» via Slate
Supreme Court rules for Monsanto in genetically modified soybean case
The Supreme Court agreed with Monsanto on Monday that an Indiana farmer’s unorthodox planting of the company’s genetically modified soybeans violated the agricultural giant’s patent.
The court unanimously rejected farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman’s argument that he was not violating Monsanto’s patent because the company’s pesticide-resistent “Roundup Ready” soybeans replicate themselves. Justice Elena Kagan said there is no such “seeds-are-special” exception to the law.
“We think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit,” Kagan wrote. “Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way, the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops.”
We won’t pretend to be well-versed enough in this case and/or patent law (or any legal field for that matter) to have a strong opinion on the outcome of this case, though we suspect there will be more than a few readers who do. Anybody think the Supreme Court got this one wrong?
If you’ve got the IRS operating in anything less than a neutral and nonpartisan way, then that is outrageous. It is contradictory to our traditions, and people have to be held accountable.
(via shortformblog)
Chasing Anarchists: May Day and the Federal Government's Use of Grand Juries as Political Counterintelligence
04/30/2013
It’s almost May 1st, otherwise known as May Day or International Workers Day. The genesis of May Day can be traced to labor struggles of the late 19th century in the United States, but today it’s more widely celebrated in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is keenly interested in May Day-focused political demonstrations as if they represent a real threat to National Security in the U.S.
A year ago, on May Day 2012, a demonstration in Seattle, Washington resulted in a few broken windows at certain targeted corporations and other locations. As a result of these actions, which have become relatively commonplace at political demonstrations over the past decade, local law enforcement arrested and began criminally prosecuting five people accused of property destruction and other crimes. Ironically and perhaps symbolically, the trials in these State cases are scheduled to occur just after this May Day 2013.
But, that’s not the whole story.
Last July 25th, in the early morning hours, the FBI conducted a series of coordinated actions across the Pacific Northwest, during which dozens of Joint Terrorism Task Force agents broke down doors, entered residences with automatic weapons drawn, and used flash-bang grenades while searching the homes of several targeted individuals and serving subpoenas on others.
According to one of the search warrants used in the raids, the federal government was looking for “Anti-government or anarchist literature,” black clothing, flags, flag-making material, address books, cell phones, hard drives and other electronic storage devices. Multiple people were served with subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury the following week in Seattle.
Although initially unclear, the federal government’s motivations soon became clear. Ostensibly tied to criminal investigations surrounding the May Day 2012 demonstrations, the series of raids and grand jury subpoenas would frame an effort by the FBI over the ensuing months to find out more about the anarchist community. Official records, however, also revealed that political activists endured heavy surveillance in the days leading up to May Day 2012.
Indeed, political-based surveillance and infiltration has become a renewed and common policing practice over the past decade at protests in the U.S. The anarchist-inspired Global Justice movement, which formed in the late 1990s, culminated with massive protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle. Images of Black Bloc anarchists breaking the windows of banks and corporate chain stores in 1999 gave the federal government a modern day “bogeyman,” which it has strategically used to antagonize and intimidate activists of all political persuasions ever since.
By constantly invoking the specter of “violent anarchists,” and “outside agitators,” law enforcement and other public officials hope to intimidate those demanding broad-based social change. Negative perceptions of anarchists and anarchism are not only generated by government and unquestioningly perpetuated by mainstream media, but they are also routinely used to drive a wedge between dissidents and an otherwise supportive public. The manufactured fear of anarchist bogeymen is conveniently used to justify the tens of billions of dollars spent on so-called “homeland security.”
According to a recent report by the National Lawyers Guild, the “violent anarchist” narrative is used by authorities prior to almost every large political demonstration in order to justify “enormous security expenditures, large numbers of police, and strict event zone ordinances.” The Guild further asserts that this strategy “produces a ‘threat amplification’ spiral that consistently leads to sweeping police repression,” which is “the desired outcome of a multi-pronged strategy of maintaining control over the populace.”
* * *
So, why is the cash-strapped U.S. Justice Department so interested in a few broken windows? According to the affidavit used to obtain search warrants in the coordinated July raids, the pretext used by U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan was to find and prosecute the people who vandalized the William Kenzo Nakamura U.S. Courthouse in downtown Seattle. But, why didn’t the State of Washington bring charges against the accused like it did with the five people currently being prosecuted? Many activists believe that Durkan and the rest of the Justice Department are eager to learn more about anarchists, disrupt their communities, and deter activists from confrontational political protest.
The search warrant affidavit, which was hidden from public view until earlier this year when The Stranger and attorney Neil Fox got the court to unseal it, contained some clues. In order to get a federal judge to sign the search warrant, the government claimed the raids would yield “evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of violations of the following offenses:”
Destruction of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361; Conspiracy to destroy government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; Interstate travel with intent to riot, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2101; and Conspiracy to travel interstate with intent to riot, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
While the federal government could convene a grand jury based on any of the above charges, it’s the last two that stand out as a particularly aggressive legal move. Crossing state lines with the intent to riot and conspiracy to do the same are felonies contained in a little known provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 — passed in response to inner-city riots throughout the previous decade. Although not explicitly protesting racial inequality, the Chicago 8 defendants were accused of inciting riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention and were the first to be indicted under the Act. Have we progressed so little that we’re using the same sensationalized charges 45 years later in an attempt to undermine yet another political movement?
* * *
Last summer, in the Pacific Northwest, anarchists and other activists quickly came together after the July raids to organize a response to the grand jury subpoenas. A group calling itself the Committee Against Political Repression, which takes a principled stand against cooperation with politically motivated grand juries, began to stage demonstrations and offer direct material and legal support to those subpoenaed. Solidarity actions began happening across the country and around the world. As a result of widespread opposition to the government’s apparent fishing expedition in the anarchist community, one-by-one people refused to testify and answer questions being asked by the federal prosecutor.
By the end of 2012, four of those subpoenaed had been jailed, not based on any criminal convictions, but for refusing to testify before the grand jury. Matt Duran, Katherine “KteeO” Olejnik, Leah-Lynn Plante, and Matthew “Maddy” Pfeiffer all made strong public statements against cooperation. Duran and Olejnik were the first to be jailed for civil contempt in September. Then, in October, Plante was jailed, but a week later released under an apparent agreement to testify. In late December, Pfeiffer joined Duran and Olejnik in jail, with the three spending several weeks in solitary confinementwithout explanation.
Under the rules of the U.S. justice system, one can be jailed for civil contempt if he or she refuses to testify before a grand jury after being granted so-called “use immunity,” which can protect a subpoenant from being prosecuted for crimes related to the grand jury. However, this immunity may not protect the subpoenant from being prosecuted for other crimes such as perjury. Civil contempt must be imposed as a means of coercing not punishing one to testify. In order to achieve this end, the court can keep you jailed until the grand jury expires, up to 18 months.
Under some circumstances, a subpoenant can be released early if he or she can demonstrate that no amount of coercion will result in the desired testimony. This can be achieved with a “motion for release from non-coercive confinement,” or “Grumbles” motion, named after the appellants in a 1971 court case.
In February, after spending five months in jail, Duran and Olejnik filed Grumbles motions, but not before the Seattle Human Rights Commission sent a scathing letter to federal District Court Judge Richard Jones, condemning the use of solitary confinement and calling for the prisoners’ immediate release. According to The Stranger, attorneys for Duran and Olejnik argued that not only was their clients’ detention punitive, but the government also appeared to no longer need their testimony, based on information revealed in the search warrant affidavit.
It’s rare for Grumbles motions to succeed, given a government-leaning judicial system and the blurry line between coercion and punishment. Despite this, Judge Jones decided to free Duran and Olejnik days later with a strongly worded order. Judge Jones noted that during the detainees’ time in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) of the Federal Detention Center at SeaTac, “Their physical health has deteriorated sharply and their mental health has also suffered from the effects of solitary confinement.” The Jones order echoed “extensive declarations” by Duran and Olejnik that “they will never end their confinement by testifying.”
Shortly after Duran and Olejnik’s release, the still-detained Pfeiffer was also set free. But freedom for the grand jury resisters has not resulted in an end to the federal government’s campaign against the anarchist community. According to The Stranger, over the past week, FBI agents in Seattle and Olympia identifying themselves as members of the domestic terrorism unit have been “showing up at people’s houses, jogging locations, schools, [and] workplaces,” asking about “coworkers, roommates, romantic situations, and general social-mapping questions.” Without a shred of evidence of terrorist activity or motivations, dissidents are left to assume that this continued harassment is at least partly aimed at chilling political protest on May Day 2013.
Although there remains a looming threat of federal indictments, dissidents are refusing to be intimidated. Activists of all stripes are busily organizing May Day activities and are continuing their efforts to draw attention to the federal grand jury in Seattle and to support those resisting its fishing expedition. Anarchists and other dissidents from around the country have organized a week of actionsfrom April 24th-May 1st to oppose political repression and express solidarity with grand jury resisters.
* * *
Unfettered speculation on the true motivations of the federal government to pursue political demonstrators is of limited and questionable utility, but the material consequences of such pursuits can be clearly tracked. The FBI’s concerted campaign to drum up hysteria and justify the massive resources spent in chasing anarchists represents a law enforcement trend with loud echoes of McCarthyism, wherein FBI targets were identified by what books they read and with whom they kept company rather than on the basis of criminal acts. Harkening back to an era of blacklists and thought crime, the trend of using grand juries to target holders of unpopular political views represents a real move toward a dangerous and deeply troubling infringement on the civil liberties of all.
Although proportionally the federal government’s targeting of largely white and young political radicals represents a smaller total number of terrorism-related investigations, the pattern of using grand juries as secret forums to ask activists what organizations they belong to, who they associate with and to scrutinize their political beliefs on the basis of “Americanism” closely parallels the hearings held by the House Subcommittee on Unamerican Activities. In this context, the activists in the Pacific Northwest who have vowed not to cooperate with politically motivated grand juries can be seen as canaries in the coal mine and the importance of their resistance to government intimidation cannot be overstated. Regardless of what one may think of the political philosophy, these government-identified anarchists merit widespread support and the gratitude of all who wish to exercise civil liberties so now in question
(via ex-ist)
Noam Chomsky: Obama's Attack on Civil Liberties Has Gone Way Beyond Imagination
Under Obama’s administration, if you meet with someone in a terrorist group and advise them to turn to nonviolent means, then that’s material assistance to terrorism.“I personally never expected anything of Obama, and wrote about it before the 2008 primaries. I thought it was smoke and mirrors. The one thing that did surprise me is his attack on civil liberties. They go well beyond anything I would have anticipated, and they don’t seem easy to explain. In many ways the worst is what you mention, Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. That’s an Obama initiative and it’s a very serious attack on civil liberties. He doesn’t gain anything from it – he doesn’t get any political mileage out of it. In fact, most people don’t even know about it, but what it does is extend the concept of “material assistance to terror” to speech.
The case in question was a law group that was giving legal advice to groups on the terrorist list, which in itself has no moral or legal justification; it’s an abomination. But if you look at the way it’s been used, it becomes even more abhorrent (Nelson Mandela was on it until a couple of years ago.) And the wording of the colloquy is broad enough that it could very well mean that if, say, you meet with someone in a terrorist group and advise them to turn to nonviolent means, then that’s material assistance to terrorism. I’ve met with people who are on the list and will continue to do so, and Obama wants to criminalize that, which is a plain attack on freedom of speech. I just don’t understand why he’s doing it.
The NDAA suit, of which I’m a plaintiff - it mostly codifies existing practice. While there has been some protest over the indefinite detention clause, there’s one aspect of it that I’m not entirely happy with. The only protest that’s being raised is in response to detention of American citizens, but I don’t see why we should have the right to detain anyone without trial. The provision of the NDAA that allows for this should not be tolerated. It was banned almost eight centuries ago in the Magna Carta.
It’s the same with the drone killings. There was some protest over the Anwar Al-Awlaki killing because he was an American citizen. But what about someone who isn’t an American citizen? Do we have a right to murder them if the president feels like it?”
here is the Liberator files.
https://mega.co.nz/#!bk5iQJ6Z!MYd7Vltka8DjFgWrfxge5yfefd04Ak_68FlOHWps_KQyup. breaking the fucking law. have fun catching me US DOD :)
(also take out the metal part to pass airport security:)
Ammonium nitrate was trigger for Texas blast, state agency says
Investigators have confirmed that ammonium nitrate was the trigger for the explosion at a West, Texas, fertilizer plant last month that left 14 people dead and some 200 injured, according to the Texas state fire marshal’s office.
The actual cause of the fire and subsequent blast at the West Fertilizer facility is still being determined, investigators said.
The fire marshal’s office has been leading the investigation of the April 17 blast, along with the federal Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agency (ATF).
Roughly $100 million in damages will be attributed to the West, Texas blast when everything is said and done, according to the latest estimates from Texas’ State Fire Marshal Office. More than 70 investigators are still working to determine where exactly the initial fire began, with more than 200 leads and 400 interviews collected already.
If Saruman the White can abandon reason for madness then so can the U.S. government, its agents and officials.
New law will ban protesters from riding mass transit in California — RT USA
April 30, 2013
Risking arrest isn’t the only obstacle for Northern California protesters — under a new rule about to go into effect, political demonstrators could lose their right to ride public transportation.
Starting next week, law enforcement officers policing the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland and other cities can issue bus and subway bans for unruly passengers — and according to one local news report, that power could be used to prevent political protesters from getting to demonstrations or essentially going anywhere.
Under the recently passed State Assembly Bill 716, BART can issue “prohibition” orders to any passenger cited or arrested for certain offenses, essentially blacklisting some people from boarding public transit vehicles if they’ve been charged with certain crimes.
BART Board President Tom Radulovich told Bay City News the law is “an important safety initiative to keep our employees and riders safe,” adding, “We’re very concerned that for the past few years folks have been assaulting our station agents.”
”We are really wanting to send the message that if you are going to come onto our system and be unruly or violent, there are going to be consequences,” BART spokesperson Alicia Trost told local ABC affiliate KGNO News.
But while the new bill will provide BART police the authority to immediately revoke riding privileges for persons arrested or convicted of acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior or possession or sale of drugs on area transit, those charged with minor infractions could be targeted too. “AB 716 won’t only target violent behavior,” KGNO reported. “It can be applied to protestors who have been arrested during free-speech movements.”
The law will allow for prohibition orders to be issued on-the-spot if a person is just once arrested or convicted for a misdemeanor or felony involving lewd, violent or drug-related acts in a BART zone, but passengers cited three or more times for minor infractions in just as many months are subject to the ban as well.
Under the bill, a transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person charged with violating a number of local statutes, including Section 640 of state Penal Code — the law that goes after riders accused of “Willfully disturbing others on or in a system facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior” and those “Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a system facility or vehicle.”
Although the official statute includes a note from the state declaring that Section 640 “shall not be interpreted to affect any lawful activities permitted or First Amendment rights protected under the laws of this state or applicable federal law,” allowing BART officers to ban users even accused by law enforcement of a misdemeanor could disenfranchise a huge percentage of their rider base and has critics already warning of potential authoritarian overreach.
”Certain instances have happened over the years that have caused some tragic things to happen, but you got to be careful who your profile,” BART passenger Kadmiel McCrory told KGNO.Indeed, one doesn’t have to look too deep to divulge instances of arguable overreach in not just the Bay Area but on the BART system as well. On the morning of January 1, 2009, BART Officer Johannes Mehserle fatally shot an unarmed, 22-year-old passenger, Oscar Grant, on an Oakland train platform. The killing of Grant remains a highly contested issue among Bay Area residents, and has spawned a number of large protests impacting the BART system, including a November 2010 demonstration that led to 152 arrests. Then in July 2011, BART police shot and killed another passenger — a mentally ill homeless man name Charles Blair Hill — who is alleged to have thrown a knife at an officer. The response that occurred as a result can easily be considered a precursor to enacting AB 716.
Following the 2011 shooting death of Hill, BART passengers orchestrated a massive protest that made national headlines thanks in part to the involvement of Internet hacktivist group Anonymous. A rally for Hill days after his death began peacefully but ended in violence and at least three dozen arrests. When a second protest was planned the following month, BART officials responded by having cell phone service shut down in four separate train stations to prevent demonstrators from coordinating their actions.
”We’re going to take steps to make sure our customers are safe,” BART spokesman Jim Allison said in a statement that August. “The interruption of cell phone service was done Thursday to prevent what could have been a dangerous situation. It’s one of the tactics we have at our disposal. We may use it; we may not. And I’m not sure we would necessarily let anyone know in advance either way.”
Although that protest never materialized as planned, Anonymous responded by leaking the names, passwords and other identifying information for more than 2,000 customers of a BART-affiliated website, announcing in a statement, “we will not tolerate censorship.”
“Anonymous demands that this activity revolving around censorship cease and desist and we know you are already planning to do this again,” the hacktivists wrote. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union opposed the decision to throttle cell service as well.
Now with AB 716 going into effect, protesters may once again find they are unwelcome to ride on the fifth-busiest heavy rail rapid transit system within the United States. Accumulating only three easy-to-obtain infractions in just 90 days can cause a prohibition order to be issues, and when the law goes into effect on Monday, BART officers will actually be provided with the names and photographs of prohibited individuals in order to keep them from riding mass transit, BART police Chief Kenton Rainey told the San Francisco Appeal. According to Rainey, officers’ computers will contain information about active orders, and any persons picked up or cited on the BART system for new crimes can be matched against the database to see their status.
Rainey added that BART officers will go through training to work with special-needs riders, including the homeless and mentally ill. Even if one of those passengers is cited with a prohibition order, though, it might take a lengthy appeal process to have their ban rescinded. Prohibition orders restrict passengers from riding for anywhere from 30 days up to one year.
(via ex-ist)
Reporter Asks White House if U.S. Airstrikes That Kill Afghan Civilians Qualify as 'Terrorism'
by Rania Khalek on April 17, 2013
Matthew Keys, the social media editor at Reuters, posted audio of a reporter asking White House Press Secretary Jay Carney if U.S. bombings that kill innocent civilians in Afghanistan constitute an “act of terror” given the labeling of the Boston Marathon bombing as “terrorism”. She specifically refers to a U.S. airstrike earlier this month that killed 11 children, just the latest in a seemingly endless line of Afghan civilian deaths at the hands of the U.S. government.
Carney completely dodged the questions, pointing instead to the 9/11 terrorist attacks to justify U.S. bombings in Afghanistan. After a long-winded answer excusing U.S. conduct, Carney concludes, “ we take great care in the prosecution of this war.”
Tell me, does this look like “great care” to you?The lifeless bodies of Afghan children lay on the ground before their funeral ceremony, after a NATO airstrike killed several Afghan civilians, including ten children during a fierce gun battle with Taliban militants in Shultan, Shigal district, Kunar, eastern Afghanistan, Sunday, April 7, 2013. (AP Photo/Naimatullah Karyab)
I transcribed the exchange in full:REPORTER: I send my deepest condolence to the victims and families in Boston. But President Obama said that what happened in Boston was an act of terrorism. I would like to ask, Do you consider the U.S. bombing on civilians in Afghanistan earlier this month that left 11 children and a woman killed a form of terrorism? Why or why not?
JAY CARNEY: Well, I would have to know more about the incident and then obviously the Department of Defense would have answers to your questions on this matter. We have more than 60,000 U.S. troops involved in a war in Afghanistan, a war that began when the United States was attacked, in an attack that was organized on the soil of Afghanistan by al Qaeda, by Osama bin laden and others and more than 3,000 people were killed in that attack. And it has been the President’s objective once he took office to make clear what our goals are in Afghanistan and that is to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda. And with that as our objective to provide enough assistance to Afghan National Security Forces and the Afghan government to allow them to take over security for themselves. And that process is underway and the United States has withdrawn a substantial number of troops and we are in the process of drowning down further as we hand over security lead to Afghan forces. And it is certainly the case that I refer you to the defense department for details that we take great care in the prosecution of this war and we are very mindful of what our objectives are.
At the very least, this serves as another example of the utter meaninglessness of the word “terrorism”.
* * * *
UPDATE: The reporter who asked the question is Amina Ismail, a journalist at McClatchy. I urge you to thank her for asking it (her twitter handle is @AminaIsmail) because I can’t imagine it was easy given how extremely rare and frowned upon it is to challenge the dominant “war on terror” narrative, especially as a female reporter with an Arab-sounding name. And Amina, if you’re reading this, thanks for kicking ass!
(via ex-ist)
NYT publishes op-ed from Gitmo prisoner: Gitmo is killing me
April 16, 2013One man here weighs just 77 pounds. Another, 98. Last thing I knew, I weighed 132, but that was a month ago.
I’ve been on a hunger strike since Feb. 10 and have lost well over 30 pounds. I will not eat until they restore my dignity.
I’ve been detained at Guantánamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial.
I could have been home years ago — no one seriously thinks I am a threat — but still I am here. Years ago the military said I was a “guard” for Osama bin Laden, but this was nonsense, like something out of the American movies I used to watch. They don’t even seem to believe it anymore. But they don’t seem to care how long I sit here, either.
When I was at home in Yemen, in 2000, a childhood friend told me that in Afghanistan I could do better than the $50 a month I earned in a factory, and support my family. I’d never really traveled, and knew nothing about Afghanistan, but I gave it a try.
I was wrong to trust him. There was no work. I wanted to leave, but had no money to fly home. After the American invasion in 2001, I fled to Pakistan like everyone else. The Pakistanis arrested me when I asked to see someone from the Yemeni Embassy. I was then sent to Kandahar, and put on the first plane to Gitmo.
Last month, on March 15, I was sick in the prison hospital and refused to be fed. A team from the E.R.F. (Extreme Reaction Force), a squad of eight military police officers in riot gear, burst in. They tied my hands and feet to the bed. They forcibly inserted an IV into my hand. I spent 26 hours in this state, tied to the bed. During this time I was not permitted to go to the toilet. They inserted a catheter, which was painful, degrading and unnecessary. I was not even permitted to pray.
I will never forget the first time they passed the feeding tube up my nose. I can’t describe how painful it is to be force-fed this way. As it was thrust in, it made me feel like throwing up. I wanted to vomit, but I couldn’t. There was agony in my chest, throat and stomach. I had never experienced such pain before. I would not wish this cruel punishment upon anyone.
I am still being force-fed. Two times a day they tie me to a chair in my cell. My arms, legs and head are strapped down. I never know when they will come. Sometimes they come during the night, as late as 11 p.m., when I’m sleeping.
There are so many of us on hunger strike now that there aren’t enough qualified medical staff members to carry out the force-feedings; nothing is happening at regular intervals. They are feeding people around the clock just to keep up.
During one force-feeding the nurse pushed the tube about 18 inches into my stomach, hurting me more than usual, because she was doing things so hastily. I called the interpreter to ask the doctor if the procedure was being done correctly or not.
It was so painful that I begged them to stop feeding me. The nurse refused to stop feeding me. As they were finishing, some of the “food” spilled on my clothes. I asked them to change my clothes, but the guard refused to allow me to hold on to this last shred of my dignity.
When they come to force me into the chair, if I refuse to be tied up, they call the E.R.F. team. So I have a choice. Either I can exercise my right to protest my detention, and be beaten up, or I can submit to painful force-feeding.
The only reason I am still here is that President Obama refuses to send any detainees back to Yemen. This makes no sense. I am a human being, not a passport, and I deserve to be treated like one.
I do not want to die here, but until President Obama and Yemen’s president do something, that is what I risk every day.
Where is my government? I will submit to any “security measures” they want in order to go home, even though they are totally unnecessary.
I will agree to whatever it takes in order to be free. I am now 35. All I want is to see my family again and to start a family of my own.
The situation is desperate now. All of the detainees here are suffering deeply. At least 40 people here are on a hunger strike. People are fainting with exhaustion every day. I have vomited blood.
And there is no end in sight to our imprisonment. Denying ourselves food and risking death every day is the choice we have made.
I just hope that because of the pain we are suffering, the eyes of the world will once again look to Guantánamo before it is too late.
Samir Naji al Hasan Moqbel, a prisoner at Guantánamo Bay since 2002, told this story, through an Arabic interpreter, to his lawyers at the legal charity Reprieve in an unclassified telephone call.
(via ex-ist)
New WikiLeaks cable reveals US embassy strategy to destabilize Chavez government
In a secret US cable published online by WikiLeaks, former ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, outlines a comprehensive plan to infiltrate and destabilize former President Hugo Chavez’ government.
Dispatched in November of 2006 by Brownfield — now an Assistant Secretary of State — the document outlined his embassy’s five core objectives in Venezuela since 2004, which included: “penetrating Chavez’ political base,” “dividing Chavismo,” “protecting vital US business” and “isolating Chavez internationally.”
The memo, which appears to be totally un-redacted, is plain in its language of involvement in these core objectives by the US embassy, as well as the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), two of the most prestigious agencies working abroad on behalf of the US.According to Brownfield, who prepared the cable specifically for US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), the “majority” of both USAID and OTI activities in Venezuela were concerned with assisting the embassy in accomplishing its core objectives of infiltrating and subduing Chavez’ political party:
“This strategic objective represents the majority of USAID/OTI work in Venezuela. Organized civil society is an increasingly important pillar of democracy, one where President Chavez has not yet been able to assert full control.”
In total, USAID spent some one million dollars in organizing 3,000 forums that sought to essentially reconcile Chavez supporters and the political opposition, in the hopes of slowly weaning them away from the Bolivarian side.
Brownfield at one point boasted of an OTI civic education program named “Democracy Among Us,” which sought to work through NGOs in low income regions, and had allegedly reached over 600,000 Venezuelans.
In total, between 2004 and 2006, USAID donated some 15 million dollars to over 300 organizations, and offered technical support via OTI in achieving US objectives which it categorized as seeking to reinforce democratic institutions.
Much of the memo details efforts to highlight instances of human rights violations, and sponsoring activists and members of the political opposition to attend meetings abroad and voice their concerns against the Chavez administration:
“So far, OTI has sent Venezuelan NGO leaders to Turkey, Scotland, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Chile, Uruguay, Washington and Argentina (twice) to talk about the law. Upcoming visits are planned to Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia.”
In his closing comments, Brownfield remarked that, should President Chavez win re-election during the December 2006 elections, OTI expected the “atmosphere for our work in Venezuela” to become more complicated.
Ultimately, it seems that the former ambassador’s memo wisely predicted a change in conditions. Following his re-election, President Chavez threatened to eject the US ambassador from Venezuela in 2007, amid accusations of interfering in internal state affairs.
(via ex-ist)
Price of Liberty: The unanimous Declaration of circa three-hundred million Patriots of America,
In the Course of Human events, it became necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which had tied them together, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of this Universe entitled them, and thus a decent respect to the opinions of Humanity required that they declare the causes which compelled them to the separation.
Then, and now, our forebears held these truths to be self-evident: that all persons are born equal, that they are endowed by the forces of this Universe, their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights; that among these rights are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, and the Product of their prosperity; They believed, as We still do, that to secure these rights, governments are insituted among people deriving their authority from the consent of the Governed; That consent can only ever be Voluntarily given; That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, laying a wholly new foundation on such principles and organizing a new Institution as to them shall seem most likely to promulgate their Safety and Happiness. Any reasonable person, indeed, will see History dictates that long-established Governments rarely change for the light and transient causes. History has shown through experience that Humanity is inclined to suffer, while the evils around them are both sufferable and benign, rather than to correct injustice by abolishing the Corrupt Institutions to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably, of course, that Object of Power for the sake of Control, it is the Peoples’ right, it is their Duty, to throw off such government and to provide new Safeguards for their future security.
Such had been the patience of the Colonies, and so, too, is this patience with all American citizens today. Now is the time, for the necessity for constraints to our former system of government is abundantly clear. The history of the contemporary President Barack H. Obama is the history of former President George W. Bush, and theirs is the history of repeated injuries and expansions of Federal authority, all with the direct intention of the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States. As our forbears spoke, “to prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
- They have refused to Assent to Laws, both domestic and foreign, many of which are necessary for the Safeguard of public rights.
- They have used Executive Orders to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, with no regard for the legislative process.
- They have grown susceptible to Corporate influence, facilitating the movement of persons between Legislators and the Industries affected by regulation, allowing many Corporate Oligopolies to come to be.
- The Congress has been called together at unusual times, often the dead of night, deliberately out of public view, in order to pass legislation contrary to the benefit of the People.
- Figureheads are publicly chastised, mocked, and shamed repeatedly for opposing within the confines of their humanity the invasions on the rights of the people.
- The president has circumvented legislative and Constitutional authority to appoint advisers, agents, and officers under false pretenses including, but not limited to, “national security.”
- “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither” and has deported a record number of supposed “unlawful” immigrants.
- He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States from exercising their natural liberty of self-defense and free enterprise by endorsing efforts to infringe upon the plain-reading of the Second Amendment.
- He has obstructed the Department of Justice by refusing to assent to the laws of this nation with regards to al-Awaki.
- He has appointed federal judges in a nepotistic fashion, favoring those with political inclinations suited toward undermining the sovereignty of the American People.
- “He has erected a multitude of New Offices,” and in doing so has expanded the authority of the federal government far beyond any authority proscribed to it by the Constitution of These United States; he has sent to our homes swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
- He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of the People.
- By the efforts of He and his predecessors, they have affected to render the Military independent and superior of the Civil power by maintaining the operations of Guantanamo Bay, et. al.
- He and his predecessors has combined with the United Nations to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation in conjunction with egregious domestic and foreign policy:
- For quartering large bodies of paramilitary peace keepers among us;
- For actively subverting the judicial process, protecting these Officers through media grandstands from any legal recourse for the crimes which they should commit;
- For continuing to burden our domestic economy and foreign trade relations with undue taxes, duties, and inflation;
- For imposing said taxes upon us without our Consent;
- For depriving American citizens in many cases of the benefits of due process, a fair trial, and trial by a jury of his or her peers;
- For kidnapping and transporting human beings overseas to be tried for pretend offenses;
- For reckless and wanton disregard for the laws of These United States, and for expanding federal authority to be ever-invasive of our privacy;
- For the establishment of unwarranted and unprecedented Acts and Agencies related to the maintenance of America domestic and foreign security;
- For bestowing upon limited-liability charters the natural rights associated with personhood, inducing such entities to take advantage of the political benefits which come hand-in-hand with furloughed accountability;
- For circumventing the legislature various times with the powers of the Executive Order;
- President Barack Obama, the United States Government, and its Agents, Advisers, and Officers have abdicated government here in North America by declaring us out of protection of the Constitution of the United States and declaring the “homeland as a battlefield.”
- He has plundered the seas, skies, and villages of an innumerable multitude of innocents living abroad.
- “He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.”
- He and his predecessors have arraigned fellow United States citizens without due process of law and has on at least one occasion caused to be executed American citizens without charge or trial.
- He and his agents have incited domestic unrest, encouraging false reports, unreasoned emotional appeals, and divisive rhetoric in the varying forms of media purveyed for millions of Americans.
In every stage of these enumerated Oppressions, We have petitioned for redress by employing humility and encouraging legitimate discourse in the two bodies of Our legislature. Yet Our petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A president whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is thus a tyrant, and is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
This should not be misconstrued as list of grievances particular to American citizens only; I have listed multiple instances of foreign oppression. The original Declaration of Independence herein referred to the relationship between the American and “Brittish brethren,” and the nature of their emigration to the New World. We should be reminded of the circumstances behind that emigration, and remember the atrocities committed against the natives of this land by commemorating their equal right to sovereignty. Any of the First Nations which no longer wish to subsist by the Will of Federal Government need only declare their natural right to sovereignty. Like our ancestors before us, “We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity” only to be met with delay, forced bipartisanship, empty promises, and unsubstantiated rhetoric. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, in announcing Our Separation, and hold the United States Government as dissolved.
I, therefore, a faceless Representative of whomever in these States so chooses to be represented, appealing to the Common Reason of huamnity, do solemnly publish and declare, that I am a Sovereign citizen living within These United States, and that I believe once more they ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all allegiance to the Federal Government, and that all political connection between State authorities and Federal authorities ought to be dissolved entirely; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full power to protect and govern themselves, engage in trade, and legislate appropriately. I pledge my life in support of this Declaration and I implore you make the same.
After Boston Bombing, Everyone Is Being Watched—and Everyone is Watching
By monitoring social media and using crowd-sourced evidence, authorities have turned the public into both suspects and investigators.
April 19, 2013 | FBI special agent and head of the bureau’s Boston office Richard DesLauriers has been running an crowd-sourced campaign for information about suspects in the Boston marathon bombing that left three dead and more than 170 wounded. So far, it appears to be working—but it also may herald in an unexpected end to privacy and civil liberties in the U.S.
Let’s take a look at the strategy, thus far.
The investigator released photos and videos of the two men authorities identified as suspects and created a website where tipsters and witnesses could come forward with pertinent information about the attack.
At a press conference yesterday, DesLauriers said the release of photographs and videos showing the bombers’ clothes, baseball hats, and faces could pull clues from anyone — in the United States or internationally — who had ever seen or known the suspects.
“With the media’s help, in an instant, these images will be delivered directly into the hands of millions around the world,” DesLauriers said.
And indeed they were. By the time the new information prompted a shootout in a Boston suburb that left one suspect dead, DesLauriers had already received more than 2,000 tips.
At the same time that the FBI was pouring over images and videos from the bombings, so too were internet users. On Reddit and 4Chan, vigilante investigators pointed out in photos and videos people and behavior they deemed suspicious. Claiming a man’s backpack was shaped as if it might have a pressure cooker in it, Reddit users identified the same wrong ‘suspect’ the New York Post pictured on its front page yesterday. The man, Salah Barhoun, was indeed not being sought by police. He was simply an innocent teenager.
“It’s the worst feeling that I can possibly feel,” Barhoun told ABC News, “I’m only 17.”
The FBI’s investigation helped to clear the name of the high schooler. But he remains worried that his life will be forever stained by those who remember that NY Post and much of the internet portrayed him as a terrorist.
While some people have standards for the kind of information they will post to Facebook, we have yet to establish a precedent for how authorities — and average civilians — may use social media to identify suspects in crimes. With spying as easy as the click of a mouse, privacy, like hand-written letters, becomes a thing of the past. At the same time, questions about how we can maintain security and safety have largely gone unaddressed.
Is there a time and place for police work, or is everything on the internet free reign? For example, should the FBI be allowed to scour through the Facebook and twitter profiles of every person they identified at the Boston marathon? Or, to push the question even further, should NYPD officers monitor Facebook pages to identify “at-risk” youths before they have committed crimes?
Whether internet vigilantes or trained investigators are using social media for crime analysis, the privacy of the people on the other end is often pushed aside in the name of safety. If this phenomenon continues un-checked, the impact on civil liberties could be as swift and severe as the false reports that followed the attack.
