For those who do not believe the story we are being told by the government and media. The James Holmes Conspiracy. Several witness testimonies, news reports, theories and ideas behind the motives of the crime. Topics discussed include the second suspect, weapons, police audio analysis, James Holmes education and bio, LIBOR scandal, MK Ultra, Project Gunrunner, and several other important elements. Several new pieces of evidence and testimonies all in one video.
Documentary made by Mark Howitt www.youtube.com/lorddefiler
Video published on August 14th 2012
This video has been blocked in these locations:
Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Jersey, United Kingdom
JOINT MEDIA RELEASE:
Indigenous Social Justice Association &
Support Assange & WikiLeaks Coalition
September 9, 2012
ISJA: It is with a sense of pride and complete social justice that this Association has worked with the Sydney Support Assange and WikiLeaks Coalition to have the privilege of successfully arranging for Julian Assange to be able to be issued with an Aboriginal Nations Passport that his father, John Shipton, will accept on his behalf at the Welcome to Aboriginal Land Passport Ceremony to be held at The Settlement, 17 Edward Street, Darlington from 11am to 4pm on Saturday 15 September, 2012.
We strongly endorse the words of Ms Linda Pearson of the Support Assange and WikiLeaks Coalition, see below, on the total lack of support by our Federal Government to assist Julian against being press-ganged to America to face corrupt charges against him for informing the world’s people of the absolute lies that all Governments continue to tell their people. Whilst it is true that all Governments lie, it is well known that America leads the pack in their eternal quest for American hegemony of the world’s resources. It is well known that all Australian Governments since the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975, that was assisted and orchestrated by America’s CIA, have meekly put our country at the policies of the American Foreign Policy interests. Julian is but another example.
The Ceremony is being held at the behest of many migrant, refugee and non-Aboriginal Australians who wish to fully recognise the Traditional Owners of the many Aboriginal Nations that still exist to this very day. They wish to show their full respect to the true history of this land and that is that we Aborigines still have full Sovereignty over our Lands.
Always was…always will be… Aboriginal Land.
The crimes of the 1788 Invasion and the subsequent Colonisation still need to be addressed and accounted for but we believe that the Passport Ceremony is the first of many steps that are required by those who wish to participate in a multicultural and pluralistic Reconciliation. Not the assimilationist Reconciliation wanted by Australian Governments and other racists but the real and honourable Reconciliation of removing the-white-blindfold of our joint history and allowing a mutual respect to be created.
By agreement we will be issuing both Julian Assange, via his father, and Mamdoub Habib, who will be present, an Aboriginal Nations Passport that will allow both to respectfully travel through the Aboriginal Nations. Mamdoub now and Julian on his return to Aboriginal Australia. Both these men were denied any assistance, firstly by the Howard Government and then by the Gillard Government respectively. These nefarious actions were taken by these two Governments to appease their American masters. We will attempt to right that wrong.
All those who wish to be issued with a Passport may obtain one by, firstly, signing the Pledge, giving some personal details to be added to the Passport, supplying a passport sized photo and a charge of $10 to help in affraying costs: aboriginalpassportceremony.org/how-to-get-an-aboriginal-passport/. The Passports are for use by Non-Aboriginal people only and can only be used to travel through the Aboriginal Nations. This does not apply to Aborigines as we have our own cultural methods of travelling through Country.
The Ceremony at The Settlement will include music, dancers, food and a wonderful sense of Welcome and Solidarity to all those attending. This will be an alcohol and drug free event.
We give the final word to Linda Pearson of the Support Assange and WikiLeaks Coalition:
“We are extremely grateful to the Indigenous Social Justice Association for highlighting the injustice faced by Julian Assange, and for this opportunity to show our solidarity with the Aboriginal owners of this land.
Australia is built on the injustices of invasion and colonisation. We condemn racist government polices like the Northern Territory Intervention which continue to inflict untold harm on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We benefit from the occupation of stolen land, while Aboriginal people are incarcerated at five times the rate of black South Africans under apartheid.
The ISJA’s decision to issue Julian Assange an Aboriginal Passport comes as he remains confined in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Despite international obligations to respect Assange’s status as a political refugee, the UK government has made clear its intention to arrest him if he tries to leave the Embassy.
The Australian government should be negotiating with the UK to ensure Assange’s safe passage to Ecuador. However, our politicians have consistently put their alliance with the United States before Assange’s human rights, even when his life has been threatened.
The issuing of an Aboriginal Passport to Julian Assange brings further shame on the Australian government. It recognises that Assange’s Australian passport has been completely worthless to him.”
For further information please contact Ray Jackson 0450 651 063, Ms. Rihab Charida, Ms. Linda Pearson 0401 511 588 or Ms Anne Picot 0404 090 710.
Indigenous Social Justice Association
1303/200 Pitt Street
Waterloo NSW 2017
Phone: (02) 9318 0947
Mobile: 0450 651 063
The Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) Autonomous Robotic Manipulation (ARM) program seeks to find ways to utilize different remote robotic manipulation systems that are controlled by humans. This program is divided into 3 aspects:
• Hardware: to design dexterous multi-fingered robotic hands
• Software: develop complex algorithms for grasping, manipulation and sensory perception
• Outreach: beta-testing robotics in public forums to further study robotic autonomy
In 2010, DARPA revealed a robot at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International Conference in Denver that was interactive in a public forum. Participants would write software and have the robot preform specified tasks. The goal of this event was to show that robots were being developed by the US government to preform “dangerous tasks” such as disarming an explosive device thereby reducing “significant human interaction”.
Universities and other government-controlled agencies such as Carnegie Mellon University, HRL Laboratories, iRobot, NASA-Jet Propulsion Laboratory, SRI, and the University of Southern California, provided teams of researchers to write software for DARPA.
Boston Dynamics, Inc., has been awarded a $10.9 million contract to manufacture humanoid robots that are bi-pedal, built like humans and have a sensor head with on-board computing capabilities.
These robots are being created to assist in excavation and rescue missions, according to DARPA. They could also be employed to evacuation operations during either man-made or natural disasters.
This week, the Project Offices for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Apache Attack Helicopter and Armed Scout Helicopter revealed the Manned Unmanned System Integration Capability (MUSIC) at Michael Army Airfield, Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. During the exercise, MUSIC showed that the US Army could use drones armed with lethal weapons that were wired for precise communication with their operator.
The RQ-7 Shadow is another enhanced drone with weapons capabilities. As the US Army endeavors to combine ground forces with drone technology, their tactical operation’s success is multiplied.
The use of government-sponsored universities such as Cornell, MIT and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands has created prototypes for bi-pedal robots that will someday be the synthetic army or police force.
Stanford University’s Aerospace Robotics Laboratory (ARL) wants to introduce autonomous robots into law enforcement situations; such as response in lieu of police SWAT teams.
Drones for law enforcement are being developed with the creation of the Talon SWAT/MP that can be configured with a multitude of weaponry. Some include a multi-shot TASER, LRAD, 40mm grenade launcher, and a 12-gage shotgun.
An earlier version of Talon, developed for the Israeli Defense Forces and the Israeli Ministry of Defense’s Directorate of Defense, was of the VIPeR series that were equipped with a 9 mm mini-Uzi with scope and pointer, or grenade launcher.
In 2006, Los Angeles began using aerial drones to spy over citizens under the guise of tracking suspects. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) subsequently ended that program. The police force retaliated citing that “there is an immediate need by state and local public safety personnel for unmanned aerial systems.”
The Naval Research Laboratory has developed SAFFiR, the Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot. SAFFiR is an autonomous bipedal humanoid robot, based on the CHARLI-L1 robot created at Virginia Tech. This robot can interact with humans with a comprehensive response system that utilizes language – including slang to make it more familiar. A robot that can hold a conversation and fight fires is quite impressive.
In 2009, with funding from the Pentagon, DARPA created the Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE) which was a size of a Humvee. This robot car used sensors to drive autonomously and calculate its target, await remote instructions or decide to fire.
MULE’s potential has been in the works for the last 3 years. Its advancement and use as a battlefield vehicle is being tested and readied for deployment. The remote controls mirror those of a gaming console which gives the operator the ease of playing a “video game” while at the same time instructing a deadly piece of equipment on targeted missions.
Unmanned ground vehicles have been in use since Iraq and Afghanistan. They are armed for combat with the same capabilities as ground troops. MULE’s development as an autonomous weapon for the purpose of allowing a robot to decide on whether or not to carry out a mission is advantageous to the US military.
A force of robotic “peacekeepers” that are programed to become violent without remorse – will enable the government to organize and act where human law enforcement and/or trained soldiers may hesitate.
Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporately funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.
The Next Generation Identification programme will include a nationwide database of criminal faces and other biometrics
“FACE recognition is ‘now’,” declared Alessandro Acquisti of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh in a testimony before the US Senate in July.
It certainly seems that way. As part of an update to the national fingerprint database, the FBI has begun rolling out facial recognition to identify criminals.
It will form part of the bureau’s long-awaited, $1 billion Next Generation Identification (NGI) programme, which will also add biometrics such as iris scans, DNA analysis and voice identification to the toolkit. A handful of states began uploading their photos as part of a pilot programme this February and it is expected to be rolled out nationwide by 2014. In addition to scanning mugshots for a match, FBI officials have indicated that they are keen to track a suspect by picking out their face in a crowd.
Another application would be the reverse: images of a person of interest from security cameras or public photos uploaded onto the internet could be compared against a national repository of images held by the FBI. An algorithm would perform an automatic search and return a list of potential hits for an officer to sort through and use as possible leads for an investigation.
Ideally, such technological advancements will allow law enforcement to identify criminals more accurately and lead to quicker arrests. But privacy advocates are worried by the broad scope of the FBI’s plans. They are concerned that people with no criminal record who are caught on camera alongside a person of interest could end up in a federal database, or be subject to unwarranted surveillance.
The FBI’s Jerome Pender told the Senate in July that the searchable photo database used in the pilot studies only includes mugshots of known criminals. But it’s unclear from the NGI’s privacy statement whether that will remain the case once the entire system is up and running or if civilian photos might be added, says attorney Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The FBI was unable to answer New Scientist‘s questions before the magazine went to press.
The FBI hasn’t shared details of the algorithms it is using, but its technology could be very accurate if applied to photographs taken in controlled situations such as passport photos or police shots.
Tests in 2010 showed that the best algorithms can pick someone out in a pool of 1.6 million mugshots 92 per cent of the time. It’s possible to match a mugshot to a photo of a person who isn’t looking at the camera too. Algorithms such as one developed by Marios Savvides’s lab at Carnegie Mellon can analyse features of a front and side view set of mugshots, create a 3D model of the face, rotate it as much as 70 degrees to match the angle of the face in the photo, and then match the new 2D image with a fairly high degree of accuracy. The most difficult faces to match are those in low light. Merging photos from visible and infrared spectra can sharpen these images, but infrared cameras are still very expensive.
Of course, it is easier to match up posed images and the FBI has already partnered with issuers of state drivers’ licences for photo comparison. Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union urges caution: “Once you start plugging this into the FBI database, it becomes tantamount to a national photographic database.”
The only remedy for the abuse of Bradley Manning and the government’s violation of the law is dismissal of all charges.
Every time I attend a Bradley Manning hearing the prosecutors show their outrageous disrespect for the law, demonstrate they cannot be trusted and that this prosecution should not proceed.
Beginning on November 27, the defense will argue a long-delayed motion to dismiss for unlawful pretrial punishment. In a moment of high drama, Bradley is likely to testify about his nine months in solitary confinement during the argument of this motion.
Prosecutors Are Caught Hiding More than One Thousand Emails about Manning’s Confinement
The most recent reason for the delay in the hearing was the government was caught hiding 1,374 emails relevant to the confinement of Bradley Manning. Attorney David Coombs had requested all documents relevant to Manning’s confinement at Quantico but did not receive any of the emails. Hours before the deadline for filing the motion to dismiss the Government sent him 84 emails from Quantico that it said were “obviously material to the defense.” They did not mention the existence of 1,290 other emails relating to Manning’s confinement.
Coombs, based on prior experience with the prosecution team, was suspicious. The language “obviously material to the defense” was tortured. Were there other documents that were material to the defense? The law requires the government to provide all material information. Two government prosecutors responded that the 84 emails were all there was. Coombs was still suspicious and decided to file a motion with the court on the matter. At that point the prosecution admitted there were a total of 1,374 emails, but claimed only 84 were discoverable.
Coombs kept pushing and on the first day of the hearing last week the government provided him with a disc containing approximately 600 emails. The prosecutors gave no explanation as to how they jumped from 84 to 600 discoverable emails, even though Coombs asked how that occurred. Now there are 700 emails in dispute, and Judge Denise Lind granted Coombs’ motion to have her review those to determine if they’re discoverable.
What did the emails contain? Well, we don’t know yet what surprises are in the 600 given to Coombs during the hearing, but the 84 contained a blockbuster. They revealed that the decision to hold Manning in tortuous solitary confinement conditions was not made because of Manning’s behavior at Quantico, not made because of the recommendations of the prison psychologists or psychiatrists, not made by the brig commander, not even made by the Commander at Quantico – but made by a three-star general in the Pentagon.
Who was the general in charge of Manning’s confinement?
Lieutenant General George Flynn, who was serving as the Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at the time, ordered Manning’s solitary confinement.
Flynn is a career officer who has been climbing the ladder in the military since 1975. There are only 60 three-star generals in the entire U.S. Marine Corps. Flynn is in the top echelon of Marine officers. Flynn was nominated for appointment by the President under the advice of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as confirmed via majority vote by the Senate. Thus, this position, in addition to being an important military position, is one that requires political skill as well.
Among the positions he has recently held are Chief of Staff and Director, Command Support Center, United States Special Operations Command (2004-2006). Commanding General, Training and Education Command (2006-2007). Deputy Commanding General Multi-National Corps-Iraq (2008), Director for Joint Force Development, The Joint Staff J-7 (2011-). This includes positions he served in during the time documented by Manning’s alleged release.
During Flynn’s time at the U.S. Special Ops command, growing pains were reported as they were developing plans to have an expanded and more complex role against terrorism, working more closely with the CIA. In 2005’s Operation Red Wing, under his command, four Navy SEALs were pinned down in a firefight and radioed for help. A Chinook helicopter, carrying 16 service members, responded but was shot down. All members of the rescue team and three of four SEALs on the ground died. It was the worst loss of life in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001.
The fact that an officer who was working so closely with the CIA was making the decisions about Manning’s incarceration raises questions about the purpose of Manning’s abusive confinement. Even before knowing Lt. Gen. Flynn was in charge, many commentators believed Manning was tortured in an effort to break him so he would plead guilty and testify against Julian Assange. Now that we know a three-star general at the Pentagon was making the decisions, these suspicions have much greater credibility.
Who knows what will be uncovered in the 600 emails that have been provided and the remaining 700 in dispute? It already sounds like Manning’s defense needs to broaden its request to all communications involving Lt. Gen. Flynn about Manning, including with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense and the White House. We know that the White House in the Bush Administration was approving every step of the torture-interrogation of high profile suspects, so it seems likely that aggressive punishment of a U.S. soldier would need White House approval. The Manning case is high profile, and it is hard to believe Lt. Gen. Flynn would risk his career by torturing a soldier without approval from political leaders at the Pentagon and White House.
And Manning was kept in torturous conditions. Not only was he held in solitary for nine months, but he was also mistreated throughout that time. Manning’s confinement is detailed in the 109 page motion to dismiss filed by David Coombs. Manning was held in a windowless 6-by-8 cell in which he was not allowed to have any personal items. He was awakened at 5:00 AM and required to stay awake until 10 PM. Among the conditions of his confinement were as follows:
– He was not allowed to exercise in the cell.
– He was not permitted to lie down on his rack during the duty day.
– He was not permitted to lean his back against the cell wall; he had to sit upright on his rack without any back support.
– Manning was subjected to constant monitoring; the Brig guards were required to check on him every five minutes by asking him some variation of, “are you okay?” Manning was required to verbally respond in some affirmative manner. Guards were required to make notations every five minutes in a logbook.
– Some lights would remain on all night. At night, if the guards could not see him clearly, because he had a blanket over his head or he was curled up towards the wall, they would wake Manning in order to ensure that he was okay.
– Manning was only given a mattress and when he tried to fold the mattress to make a pillow Brig officials took it away and gave him a suicide mattress with a built-in pillow, only a couple of inches high, not really any better than sleeping on a flat mattress. Manning was not permitted regular sheets or blankets. Instead he was provided with a tear-proof security blanket. This blanket was extremely coarse and irritated Manning’s skin causing rashes and carpet burns. The blanket did not keep Manning warm due to its stiffness, did not contour to his body or retain heat.
– Manning was required to receive each of his meals alone in his cell. He was only permitted to eat with a spoon.
– Whenever Manning was moved outside his cell, he was shackled with metal hand and leg restraints and accompanied by at least two guards; the entire facility was locked down.
– He was not allowed to speak to other inmates and if he attempted to do so was stopped.
– Manning was permitted only 20 minutes of “sunshine call.” Aside from a 3-5 minute shower, this would be the only time he would regularly spend outside his cell. During this sunshine call, he would be brought to a small concrete yard and permitted to walk around the yard in hand and leg shackles, while being accompanied by a Brig guard at his immediate side (the guard would have his hand on Manning’s back). Two to three other guards would also be present observing Manning while he walked in figure-eights. He was not permitted to sit down or stay stationary.
After a protest in support of Manning outside of Quantico his conditons got worse. Guards harassed him to the point of bringing on a panic attack. He was placed on suicide watch and had his clothes taken away from him at night, from March 3, 2011, through March 7, 2011, he was forced to stand outside his cell naked during morning inspection.
How involved was Lt. Gen. Flynn in determining these unjustifiable conditions of confinement? During the last hearing, Coombs disclosed that Flynn was given detailed reports of minor details – he was even notified when Coombs visited his client. Further, the commander at Quantico said in one email that all decisions to relax confinement needed to be approved by Flynn. This was known up and down the chain of command at Quantico.
The Quantico command had been told what they needed to do, as the Coombs motion states: “keep PFC Manning subjected to the most rigorous conditions possible. So no matter what the psychiatrists recommended, week-after-week, month-after-month, nothing ever changed because everyone at the Brig had their marching orders from [redacted] who in turn had his marching orders from someone higher up in the chain of command.”
The psychiatrist, who was originally a Brig psychiatrist and later appointed to the Defense team, expressed extreme frustration about the “bizarre” circumstances at Quantico saying: “treating this is so … it’s just bizarre all the way around. I’m just surprised that they would become so intrusive because I’d be concerned about what that looks like later on. And they’ve not seemed to have any qualms at all about reaching down so heavy handed. And when I’ve asked … and again, there’s no documentation . . . It’s not an interrogation, I don’t think. He’s not been adjudicated, so there’s a lot of risk to putting too many services out there when somebody is in this pretrial situation. . . . They’re supposed to be assumed innocent. What you’re supposed to be doing is protecting where they’re not incriminating themselves. So, I don’t know. It’s been a bizarre thing … I’ve never seen anything like it.”
Are these conditions acceptable under military law?
In United States v. Fricke, 53 M.J. 149, 155 (C.A.A.F. 2000) the accused alleged that he was placed in solitary confinement for an extended period of time because prison officials were attempting to “break him.” The court indicated that “coercing a confession is not a legitimate governmental objective.”
Indeed the only legitimate purposes are to ensure the accused’s presence at trial and the security of the facility. In 2006’s United States v. Crawford, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Services found a constitutional violation is established where “conditions [are] unreasonable or arbitrary in relation to both purposes” of “ensuring … presence for trial and the security needs of the confinement facility.” Manning was an exemplary inmate who never gave Brig officials reason to believe he was a flight risk, making these harsh conditions, controlled from the Pentagon, impossible to defend.
As the Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces wrote in United States v. Combs, “the courts will not tolerate egregious, intentional misconduct by command where there is no evidence of a legitimate, non-punitive objective for the conduct complained of . . ..” What was the “legitimate, non-punitive objective” of Manning not being able to lean against the wall while seated in his cell, lying down in his cell between 5 AM and 10 PM, exercising in his cell, being forced to stand naked to get his clothes back or being verbally checked every five minutes and waking him from his sleep to see if he was alright? The only purpose of these limitations was to punish, humiliate or break Manning. No doubt Lt. Gen. Flynn is well aware of how these stress techniques can break a person.
Any claim that these abusive conditions were to protect Manning is undermined by the well-known negative impact of solitary confinement. Numerous federal courts having taken note of the serious negative consequences of such confinement. The fact is the confinement facility officials were actually causing Manning psychological harm, not protecting him from harm. Finally, the fact that as soon as he was sent to Ft. Leavenworth his conditions changed virtually overnight, demonstrate the conditons at Quantico were unnecessary.
In multiple cases, military courts have found that dismissal of all charges is an appropriate remedy for pre-trial punishment. Not only was Manning’s pre-trial confinement punishment in violation of military law, in addition after a 14-month investigation, the U. N. Special Rapporteur on torture Juan Méndez formally accused the U.S. government of “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The motion to dismiss, and the hidden emails, highlights the prosecution’s continuous withholding of material information from the defense in violation of law. The prosecutors’ obfuscation is resulting in a delay of the court martial so that Manning’s trial will occur nearly 1,000 days after his confinement in violation of speedy trial requirements. It is getting harder and harder to see how any remedy other than dismissal of the charges for outrageous government conduct would serve justice.
The New York City Police Department (NYPD) really has gone rogue; at least that’s what a high-level FBI official believes.
Among the 5 million emails the group Anonymous hacked from the servers of private intelligence firm Stratfor in February, one seems to not only confirm the controversial NYPD surveillance activities uncovered by the Associated Press, but hints at even worse civil liberties violations not yet disclosed. Anonymous later turned the emails over to WikiLeaks, with which Truthout has entered into an investigative partnership.
I keep telling you, you and I are going to laugh and raise a beer one day, when everything Intel (NYPD’s Intelligence Division) has been involved in during the last 10 years comes out – it always eventually comes out. They are going to make [former FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover, COINTEL, Red Squads, etc look like rank amatures [sic] compared to some of the damn right felonious activity, and violations of US citizen’s rights they have been engaged in.
The description of alleged NYPD excesses was leveled by an unnamed FBI “senior official” in late November 2011, in an email sent to Fred Burton, vice president for intelligence at the Austin, Texas-based Stratfor and former deputy chief of the counterterrorism division at the State Department. Burton then sent the official’s email to what appears to be a listserv known as the “Alpha List.”
Burton did not identify the senior FBI official in the email he sent to the listserv. He describes him as a “close personal friend,” and claims he “taught him everything that he knows.” He also instructs members of the listserv not to publish the contents of the email and to use it only for background.
Stratfor, in a statement released after some of the emails were made public, said some of the emails “may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic” but “having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questioning about them.”
What’s particularly stunning about the FBI senior official’s description of NYPD Intelligence Division activities, is how he connects them to previous instances when his own agency bent and broke the law in pursuit of intelligence on perceived enemies of the state throughout the 20th century – and concludes the NYPD Intelligence Division’s violations are worse. As Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former New York Times reporter Tim Weiner writes in his new book, “Enemies: A History of the FBI,” the Bureau has been “America’s closest counterpart” to a secret police.
In the email, Burton queried the FBI official to gain a better understanding of why the FBI declined to get involved with a case involving an alleged “lone wolf” terrorist and al-Qaeda sympathizer named Jose Pimentel, a 27-year-old American of Dominican descent, accused of trying to build three pipe bombs to detonate in New York City.
The FBI official responded by describing some turf and relationship issues between NYPD intelligence officials and NYPD and FBI investigators on New York City’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. It appears the FBI senior official was responding to a news story about Pimentel’s arrest published by the far-right leaning Newsmax, headlined “FBI- NYPD Tensions Highlighted in Terror Case,” which was attached to an email Stratfor analysts had sent around the office.
There are two issues with this case (off the record of course).
One is the source (confidential informant) was a nightmare and was completely driving the investigation. The only money, planning, materials etc the bad guy got was from … the source. The source was such a maron [sic], he smoked dope with the bad guy while wearing an NYPD body recorder – I heard in open source [sic] yesterday btw [by the way], he is going to be charged with drug possession based on the tape. Ought to go over very nicely when he testifies against the bad guy, don’t you think?
Issue two is that the real rub is between NYPD Intel, [Intelligence Division] and NYPD – JTTF [Joint Terrorism Task Force], not the FBI per se. The NYPD JTTF guys are in total sync with the Bureau and the rest of the partners who make up the JTTF – I understand there are something like 100 NYPD dics [detectives] assigned to the JTTF. NYPD Intel (Cohen, et al) on the other hand, are completely running their own pass patterns. They hate their brother NYPD dics on the JTTF and are trying to undermine them at every turn. They are also listening to [former CIA official David] Cohen [the head of NYPD’s Intelligence Division] who, near as anybody can tell, never had to make a criminal case or testify in court.
Joint Terrorism Task Forces are FBI-led counterterrorism investigative units that combine federal, state and local law enforcement in an effort to detect and investigate terrorist activity and prevent attacks before they occur. Originally created in the 1980s, the creation of JTTFs nationwide was accelerated after 9-11. Currently, 104 JTTFs operate nationwide and are considered one of the most important assets in the federal government’s muscular counterterrorism architecture.
After reviewing the Stratfor email thread for Truthout, Michael German, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office and a former FBI agent who infiltrated white supremacist terrorist organizations, described the FBI official’s criticism of the NYPD’s intelligence as “doubly ironic.”
“The FBI has engaged in widespread spying on the Muslim American community as well, including counting mosques and mapping Muslim neighborhoods, infiltrating mosques with informants, and using the guise of community outreach to spy on Muslim religious and advocacy organizations,” German told Truthout. “But more critically, because the FBI is charged with enforcing the civil rights laws in this country, including violations under color of law.
“This agent suggests the FBI knew the NYPD Intelligence agents were involved in widespread ‘felonious’ activity in violation of Americans’ civil rights, yet the FBI does not appear to have opened a civil rights investigation or done anything to stop this illegal activity. Our laws are designed to apply equally to protect all of us, including to protect us from illegal police activity. When the FBI abdicates this responsibility, all Americans suffer.”
Responding to the background information from the FBI senior official, Sean Noonan, a “tactical analyst” with Stratfor, wrote in an email sent to the “Alpha List,” “The point that the divide is within NYPD is contradictory to how they would like present it. [sic]. The way the pro-NYPD stories cover it is that NYPD CT/Intel [counterterrorism/intelligence] has successfully gained influence within the JTTF, almost to the point of having infiltrated it.”
German, however, tells Truthout that the rift between the NYPD’s intelligence analysts and NYPD investigators assigned to the FBI’s JTTF, as revealed by the senior FBI official’s email, is consistent with his experience.
“Criminal investigators, like those assigned to the JTTFs, typically find information produced by these intelligence analysts to be useless, whether they’re NYPD intelligence or FBI intelligence,” he said.
And no matter how bad the mutual acrimony between NYPD intelligence analysts and New York City’s JTTF has gotten, German isn’t surprised that the FBI has declined to investigate allegations of the NYPD Intelligence Division breaking the law.
“The FBI didn’t open investigations when it discovered other government agencies engaging in torture and illegal wiretapping either,” he said.
But eventually, the senior FBI official predicts in his email to Burton, the extent of NYPD’s alleged crimes will be revealed.
“As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, ‘don’t doubt me on this,'” he wrote at the end of his correspondence.
Matthew Harwood is a journalist in Washington, DC, and a frequent contributor to the Guardian’s Comment is Free. His writing has appeared in The Washington Monthly, Progress Magazine (U.K.) as well as online at Columbia Journalism Review, CommonDreams, and Alternet. He is currently working on a book about evangelical Christian rhetoric and aggressive US foreign policy. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mharwood31.
Jason Leopold is lead investigative reporter of Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit jasonleopold.com for a preview. His most recent investigative report, “From Hopeful Immigrant to FBI Informant: The Inside Story of the Other Abu Zubaidah,” is now available as an ebook. Follow Jason on Twitter: @JasonLeopold.
Security professionals, geeks and hackers around the world are hosting a series of cryptography training sessions for the general public.
The ‘crytoparty’ sessions were born in Australia and kicked off last week in Sydney and Canberra along with two in the US and Germany.
Information security experts and privacy advocates of all political stripes have organised the causal gatherings to teach users how to use cryptography and anonymity tools including Tor, PGP and Cryptocat.
Multiple sessions were proposed in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Canberra, Perth and two in Queensland. A further 10 were organised across Europe, Asia, Hawaii and North America, while dozens of requests were placed for sessions in other states and countries.
The cryptoparties were born from a Twitter discussion late last month between security researchers and Sydney mum and privacy and online activist known by her handle Asher Wolf.
For Wolf, the sessions were a way to reignite technical discussions on cryptography.
“A lot of us missed out on Cypherpunk (an electronic technical mailing list) in the nineties, and we hope to create a new entry pathway into cryptography,” Wolf said.
“The Berlin party was taught by hardcore hackers while Sydney had a diverse range of people attending. The idea is to teach people who don’t crypto how to use it.”
The concept resonated with the online security and privacy community.
It took only hours for about a dozen sessions to spring up around the world on a dedicated wiki page following what was only a casual Twitter exchange between Wolf and others — now cryptoparty organisers.
“When I woke up in the morning, they were all there,” Wolf said.
There was no formal uniformity between each crytoparty. Some were hands-on, with users practising on laptops and tablets, while others were more theory-based with some organisers.
Each session runs for around five hours.
The free classes could accommodate a maximum of about 30 to 40 attendees. One of the first parties in the Southeastern US state of Tennessee had more than 100 people turn up to its afterparty, an event complete with music, beer and fire-twirling.
Anonymous has a way of releasing massive collections of information that raise many more questions than they answer.
Case in point: On Monday night, the segment of the hacker group that calls itself Antisec announced that it had dumped 1,000,001 unique device identifier numbers or UDIDs for Apple devices–the fingerprints that Apple, apps and ad networks use to identify the iPhone and iPads of individual users–that it claims to have stolen from the FBI. In a long statement posted with links to the data on the upload site Pastebin, the hackers said they had taken the Apple data from a much larger database of more than 12 million users’ personal information stored on an FBI computer.
While there’s no easy way to confirm the authenticity or the source of the released data, I downloaded the encrypted file and decrypted it, and it does seem to be an enormous list of 40-character strings made up of numbers and the letters A through F, just like Apple UDIDs. Each string is accompanied by a longer collection of characters that Anonymous says is an Apple Push Notification token and what appears to be a username and an indication as to whether the UDID is attached to an iPad, iPhone or iPod touch.
In their message, posted initially in the Anonymous twitter feed AnonymousIRC, the hackers say they used a vulnerability in Java to access the data on an FBI Dell laptop in March of this year. They say the database included not only the UDIDs, but also “user names, name of device, type of device, Apple Push Notification Service tokens, zipcodes, cellphone numbers, addresses, etc.” Anonymous claims that the amount of data about each users was highly variable, and that it only released enough data to the public “to help a significant amount of users to look if their device are listed there or not.”
The Antisec statement also took the opportunity to mock the recent appearance of NSA Director and General Keith Alexander at the hacker conference Defcon, where he made a recruiting pitch to attendees. “It was an amusing hypocritical attempt made by the system to flatter hackers into becoming tools for the state,” Anonymous’ statement reads. “We decided we’d help out Internet security by auditing FBI first.”
If the UDIDs are determined to be real, just what that means about law enforcement and Apple users’ privacy isn’t entirely clear. Much more than passwords or even email addresses, UDIDs are already spread around the Internet by app developers and advertisers–a study by one privacy researcher in 2011 found that 74% of the apps he tested sent a user’s UDID to a remote server. But the same researcher also found that five out of seven social gaming networks he tested allowed users to log in with only their UDID, making a stolen UDID equivalent to a stolen password.
“We never liked the concept of UDIDs since the beginning indeed,” reads the Anonymous statement. “Really bad decision from Apple. Fishy thingie.”
Regardless, if the FBI has in fact collected 12 million Apple UDIDs–or even just one million–it will have some explaining to do to privacy advocates. In its release, Anonymous argues that the massive dump of users’ personal information, which it says has been stripped of many of the most identifying details, is designed raise awareness of the FBI’s alleged gadget-tracking shenanigans. “…We will probably see their damage control teams going hard lobbying media with bullshits to discredit this,” the statement reads at one point. “But well, whatever, at least we tried and eventually, looking at the massive number of devices concerned, someone should care about it.”
For now, Anonymous refuses to answer more questions about its release–at least from the press. Before granting any interviews, it’s demanding that Gawker writer Adrian Chen, who has been especially critical of Anonymous, appears on Gawker’s home page in a “huge picture of him dressing a ballet tutu and shoe on the head.”
Handwritten note detailing Met police strategy suggests there should be no escape, no matter how he leaves embassy
A police officer holds notes on Julian Assange’s exile at the Ecuadorean embassy in London. The left side of the document has been pixellated due to sensitive information. Photograph: Lewis Whyld/PA
It is the “restricted” official document that sums up the Metropolitan police‘s tactics towards Julian Assange. “Action required: Assange to be arrested under all circumstances,” says the handwritten note that was photographed under a policeman’s arm on Friday detailing a “summary of the current position” on Assange’s exile inside the Ecuadorean embassy in Knightsbridge.
It is no surprise that a fugitive from a European arrest warrant that demands removal to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault should face such a fate. Police officers are stationed right up against the front and back of the embassy where Assange has sought sanctuary and he recently claimed to have heard them “swarming” behind the fire escape.
There should be no escape, the note suggests, ordering that Assange is arrested if “he comes out with dip [presumably a diplomat] … as dip bag [which allows immunity from search for diplomatic communications, and which could be as large as a suitcase, crate or even a shipping container], in dip car …. in dip vehicle.”
The note mentions “SS10 to liaise”. The Met police press office said it had no idea what this might mean. Could it be a misspelling of SO10, the colloquial name for the Met’s covert operations group? The later mention of SO20 suggests what Assange and his supporters have always feared: that the western powers that WikiLeaks has done so much to embarrass might consider him some sort of terrorist. SO20 is the Met’s counter-terrorism protective security command.
This article by Peter Eyre suggests that it is not only Julian Assange who is being heavily guarded after having sought refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy but rather, and more importantly, a woman named Andrea Davison.
Eyre writes:
Dr David Kelly and Andrea Davison have several things in common both were experts on Biological Weapons and both were involved in the arms that went to Iraq and WMD’s and both were whistleblowers.
In his article, Eyre makes the case that others are also making that the Assange Wikileaks revealations are less than stellar and in fact, it has been said by several sources that Assange is likely a CIA/Australian secret service/Mossad asset and not the hero and defender of whistleblowers that he has been depicted as.
Apparently, Ms. Davison has evidence of arms sales and weapons of mass destruction that were moved by the Brits from South Africa to Oman and then stolen…. And much more that according to Eyre would implicate Brown, Blair and other British government members in a vast conspiracy.
According to this evidence Ms. Davison:
She knows as much as the late Dr. David Kelly and in actual fact puts herself on par with him…..she also did many runs to Iraq and herself worked for the DTI Select Committee as an “Arms to Iraq” investigator and may have also worked for MI5/6…….and yes she would be considered as a “thorn in the side” to current and past leaders and their respective governments!!
Dr. David Kelly is widely thought to have been suicided to keep hin silent and so if this is true, and Davison has similar evidence, it is vital that she be allowed to testify in open court or at the very least have that evidence reach the major media with whatever further information it can provide on just how far this rabbit hole goes.
Peter Eyre was a recent guest on my radio show… And I will endeavor to have him on once again to discuss this and other background to the axis of power with regard to the City of London who he refers to as the “Crown Templar”.
It is fact that all of the above were all involved in the New World Order financial rape of not only this country but many others compliments of the Crown Templar that is housed in the City of London – the “True axis of evil” with its tentacles radiating out from the Rothschild’s and the Committee of 300 across the waters to Europe and the good old US of A.
Many Camelot readers will be familiar with our whistelblower [see Anglo Saxon Mission article here] who talks in detail about being present during City of London meetings where fates of nations were discussed like dominoes on a board. This is an area that needs further revealing and Eyre is clearly on that trail as an investigative journalist with inside information in that regard.
In 2008, a Reston, VA based corporation called Oceans’ Edge, Inc. applied for a patent. On March, 2012 the company’s application for an advanced mobile snooping technology suite was approved.
The patent describes a Trojan-like program that can be secretly installed on mobile phones, allowing the attacker to monitor and record all communications incoming and outgoing, as well as manipulate the phone itself. Oceans’ Edge says that the tool is particularly useful because it allows law enforcement and corporations to work around mobile phone providers when they want to surveil someone’s phone and data activity. Instead of asking AT&T for a tap, in other words, the tool embeds itself inside your phone, turning your device against you.
A former employee of Oceans’ Edge notes on his LinkedIn page that the company’s clients included the FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency, and other law enforcement.
Oddly enough, Oceans’ Edge, Inc. describes itself as an information security company on its sparsely populated website. The “About Us” page reads:
Oceans Edge Inc. (OE) is an engineering company founded in 2006 by wireless experts to design, build, deploy, and integrate Wireless Cyber Solutions.
Our team is composed of subject matter experts in the following areas:
Wireless Cyber Security
Mobile Application Development
Wireless Communication Protocols
Wireless Network Implementation
Lawful Intercept Technology
With this expertise, we deliver engineering services and wireless technology solutions in critical mission areas for our government and commercial customers.
But while the company may offer “cyber security” solutions to government and corporations, as the website claims, the firm only has one approved patent on file with the US Patent and Trademark Office.
Remote mobile spying
The patent is for a “Mobile device monitoring and control system.” The applicants summarize the technology thusly:
Methods and apparatus, including computer program products, for surreptitiously installing, monitoring, and operating software on a remote computer controlled wireless communication device are described.
In other words, the technology works to snoop on mobile phones by secretly installing itself on phone hardware. The targeted phone is thus compromised in two ways: first, the attacker can spy on all the contents of the phone; and second, the attacker can operate the phone from afar. That’s to say, it doesn’t just let the attacker read your text messages. It also potentially lets him write them.
The summary goes on:
One aspect includes a control system for communicating programming instructions and exchanging data with the remote computer controlled wireless communication device. The control system is configured to provide at least one element selected from the group consisting of: a computer implemented device controller; a module repository in electronic communication with the device controller; a control service in electronic communication with the device controller; an exfiltration data service in electronic communication with the device controller configured to receive, store, and manage data obtained surreptitiously from the remote computer controlled wireless communication device; a listen-only recording service in electronic communication with the device controller; and a WAP gateway in electronic communication with the remote computer controlled wireless communication device.
The technology therefore also enables automated data storage of all of a phone’s activity in the attacker’s database. So if someone used this technology to spy on your phone, they would be able to use the Oceans’ Edge product to automatically store everything you do on it, to go back to later.
In case you aren’t sure who would want this kind of spook technology or why, Oceans’ Edge explains in the patent application:
A user’s employment of a mobile device, and the data stored within a mobile device, is often of interest to individuals and entities that desire to monitor and/or record the activities of a user or a mobile device. Some examples of such individuals and entities include law enforcement, corporate compliance officers, and security-related organizations. As more and more users use wireless and mobile devices, the need to monitor the usage of these devices grows as well. Monitoring a mobile device includes the collection of performance metrics, recording of keystrokes, data, files, and communications (e.g. voice, SMS (Short Message Service), network), collectively called herein “monitoring results“, in which the mobile device participates.
The application goes on to explain that the tool is beneficial to law enforcement or other customers because it allows them to avoid dealing with pesky mobile phone providers when they want to covertly spy on people’s mobile communications. Instead of the FBI going to AT&T or T-Mobile to get access to your cell data, they can just surreptitiously install this bug on your phone. They’ll get all your data — and your phone company might never know.
Mobile device monitoring can be performed using “over the air” (OTA) at the service provider, either stand-alone or by using a software agent in conjunction with network hardware such a telephone switch. Alternatively, mobile devices can be monitored by using a stand-alone agent on the device that communicates with external servers and applications. In some cases, mobile device monitoring can be performed with the full knowledge and cooperation of one of a plurality of mobile device users, the mobile device owner, and the wireless service provider. In other cases, the mobile device user or service provider may not be aware of the monitoring.In these cases, a monitoring application or software agent that monitors a mobile device can be manually installed on a mobile device to collect information about the operation of the mobile device and make said information available for later use. In some cases, this information is stored on the mobile device until it is manually accessed and retrieved. In other cases, the monitoring application delivers the information to a server or network device. In these cases, the installation, information collection, and retrieval of collected information are not performed covertly (i.e. without the knowledge of the party or parties with respect to whom the monitoring, data collection, or control, or any combination thereof, is desired, such as, but not limited to, the device user, the device owner, or the service provider). The use of “signing certificates” to authenticate software prior to installation can make covert installation of monitoring applications problematic. When software is not signed by a trusted authority, the software may not be installed, or the device user may be prompted for permission to install the software. In either case, the monitoring application is not installed covertly as required. Additionally, inspection of the mobile device can detect such a monitoring application and the monitoring application may be disabled by the device user. Alternatively, OTA message traffic may be captured using network hardware such as the telephone switch provided by a service provider. This requires explicit cooperation by the service provider, and provides covert monitoring that is limited to message information passed over the air. As a result, service provider-based monitoring schemes require expensive monitoring equipment, cooperation from the service provider, and are limited as to the types of information they can monitor.
The applicants describe some of the challenges they had to overcome, which include:
Additional challenges are present when the monitoring results are transmitted from a mobile device. First, many mobile devices are not configured to transmit and receive large amounts of information. In some instances, this is because the mobile device user has not subscribed to an appropriate data service from an information provider. In other instances, the mobile device has limited capabilities.
In other words, make sure you get that unlimited data plan, or else it’ll be really hard for the FBI to spy on your mobile phone! It’ll take up so much of your data usage that you’ll notice and maybe even complain to your mobile provider! That would be awkward.
Second, transmitting information often provides indications of mobile device activity (e.g. in the form of activity lights, battery usage, performance degradation).
Bad battery performance that the geeks at the Apple genius bar can’t explain? Maybe your device has been compromised.
Third, transmitting information wirelessly requires operation in areas of intermittent signal, with automated restart and retransmission of monitoring results if and when a signal becomes available.
The monitoring program has got to be clever enough to stop and restart every time you go out of range of your cell network, or you turn the phone off.
Fourth, many mobile devices are “pay as you go” or have detailed billing enabled at the service provider. The transmission of monitoring results can quickly use all the credit available on a pre-paid wireless plan, or result in detailed service records describing the transmission on a wireless customer’s billing statement.
When the snoops steal your information, you might have to pay for the pleasure of being spied on. That’s because your mobile phone provider might read the spying activity as your activity. After all, it’s coming from your phone.
Lastly, stored monitoring results can take up significant storage on a mobile device and the stored materials and the use of this storage can be observed by the device user.
Is there a large chunk of space on your phone that seems full, but you can’t figure out why? Perhaps a snoop tool like that devised by Oceans’ Edge, Inc. is storing data on your phone that it plans to later capture.
Given all of those potential problems, the technologists had a lot of work cut out for them. Here’s how they addressed those problems:
From the foregoing, it will be appreciated that effective covert monitoring of a mobile device requires the combination of several technologies and techniques that hide, disguise, or otherwise mask at least one aspect of the monitoring processes: the covert identification of the mobile devices to be monitored, the covert installation and control of the monitoring applications, and the covert exfiltration of collected monitoring results. As used herein, “covert exfiltration” refers to a process of moving collected monitoring results from a mobile device while it is under the control of another without their knowledge or awareness. Thus covert exfiltration processes can be those using stealth, surprise, covert, or clandestine means to relay monitoring data. “Collected monitoring results” as used herein includes any or all materials returned from a monitored mobile device to other devices, using either mobile or fixed points-of-presence. Examples of collected monitoring results include one or more of the following: command results, call information and call details, including captured voice, images, message traffic (e.g. text messaging, SMS, email), and related items such as files, documents and materials stored on the monitored mobile device. These materials may include pictures, video clips, PIM information (e.g. calendar, task list, address and telephone book), other application information such as browsing history, and device status information (e.g. device presence, cell towers/wireless transmitters/points-of-presence used, SIM data, device settings, location, profiles, and other device information). Additionally, the capability to covertly utilize a mobile device as a covertly managed camera or microphone provides other unique challenges.
Thus covert monitoring of a mobile device’s operation poses the significant technical challenges of hiding or masking the installation and operation of the monitoring application, its command and control sessions, hiding the collected monitoring results until they are exfiltrated, surreptitiously transmitting the results, and managing the billing for the related wireless services. The exemplary illustrative technology herein addresses these and other important needs.
In short, Oceans’ Edge Inc., a company founded and operating in the heart of CIA country, says it has a technology that can secretly install itself on mobile phones and push all the contents of the devices to an external database, doing so entirely under the radar of both the target and the target’s mobile provider. It even boasts that the tool allows for covertly managing phone cameras and microphones.
What kind of contracts does this company have, and with which government agencies? A cursory internet search didn’t turn up much, except for a couple of bids to work on a military information operations program and a cyber defense project. Neither one of those programs has an obvious link to the mobile snooping device described in the patent application.
Since we don’t know which agencies are using this technology or how, it’s hard to say to what extent this kind of secret monitoring is taking place in the US. We have some evidence suggesting that the FBI and DEA are using this tool (thanks, Chris Soghoian, for the tip). If those agencies really are using this technology, they should get warrants before they compromise anyone’s phone.
Is the government getting warrants to use this tool? We don’t know.
Oceans’ Edge Inc., like many purveyors of surveillance products, claims that its technology is only deployed for “lawful interception,” but it makes no claims about what that actually means. There’s no mention of judicial oversight, warrants, or any kind of due process. As I’ve written elsewhere on this blog, given the state of the law concerning surveillance in the digital age, we shouldn’t let our guard down simply because a company claims its surveillance tools are used lawfully. That’s because we do not know how these tools are being deployed, and yet we know that the state of surveillance law in the US at present grants the government wide latitude to infringe on our privacy in ways that are often improper or even unconstitutional.
In most cases (with a few notable exceptions), lawmakers haven’t worked to address this issue.
As we can see, surveillance technologies are developing rapidly. It’s past time for our laws to catch up.
People continue to become ill as high levels of chemicals show up in random testing of soil and water supplies, after witnesses photograph KC-135s and KC-10s outfitted with what appears to be a “spraying device.” The circular device is obviously not a refueling probe. A former Air Force pilot tells a reporter, “Yeah, we have them, but were not supposed to talk about it.”
The South Coast Air Quality Management District tentatively identifies the powder wafting down from the sky as “cedar pollen.” But a biologist retorts that December is not the season when cedar pollen normally appears. And when pollen appears in the spring, it does not “explode.” Several witnesses saw a yellow cloud “exploding” in the skies over the Lake Arrowhead area.
Dramatic increase in illnesses immediatly follow Chemtrail spraying
According to a press story, community after community continue to report that hundreds of people are becoming ill at the same time-usually following heavy chemtrail activity. Three physicians report an increasing number of patients being seen for similar illness.
“Persistent hacking coughs, upper respiratory and intestinal distress, pneumonia, extreme fatigue, lethargy, dizziness, disorientation, splitting headaches, elevated arthritis symptoms and unexplainable nosebleeds are just a few of the symptoms these doctors have described. These doctors have said they are seeing larger numbers of patients with these complaints during or within days after the times that the physicians themselves have observed a larger number of chemtrails in the skies above mountain communities.”
Pharmacist Ed Burrows is sick himself. Since early December he has been suffering from a respiratory ailment that has includes a “gooey phlegm” that, despite his best efforts, he has been unable to relieve. Burrows said the issue is raising “high concern” for him that his health may be “jeopardized.” Burrows says he “feels that it is directly related” to recent chemtrail activity.
World population being lied to…
“Our government’s refusal to level with the people indicates that whatever it is they are polluting our environment with must be dangerous and/or unhealthy. There is no need to be secretive if what you are doing is beneficial,” he says. “As the former owner and pharmacist of the Lake Gregory Pharmacy for more than two decades, this is the first time in those 22 years I’ve witnessed so many in our community suffering with respiratory ailments with no apparent cause… ”
CHEMTRAILS BASES IDENTIFIED
Las Vegas reporter Marcus Dalton writes that an archeologist working throughout Nevada began noticing “all white unmarked aircraft” preparing for take-off at Nellis AFB, and at the Mancamp Complex near Tonopah in the late-90s.
“It was these unmarked planes that were constantly laying down the criss-crossing X patterns of lingering chemical-spray trails over Southern Nevada,” the archeologist stated. When he asked the military escort accompanying his civilian research team into “sensitive” areas around Nellis, about the planes, he was strongly advised, “You didn’t see anything.” [Tribune Media Group June 26/06]
Outside Dobbins Air Base in Marietta, Georgia, another observer writes: “We drove up to a light and saw the runway, and saw a large, white plane, with a blue stripe, no markings at all, taxiing to take off.”
A delivery person at Tinker AFB states “I have seen more than 30 of these white, KC-135s parked on the tarmac. I have seen six to 10 take off, one after another. They are, indeed, white with no markings.”
The white planes have also been spotted at a former AFB near Phoenix, and at the previously closed George AFB in the Mojave Desert.
One correspondent claims to have personally seen the spray planes taking off from and landing at McGuire AFB in New Jersey. Active in the Canadian military “since my birth,” Bryan says, “What I have noticed is that unusual trails have been coming from white USAF KC-135s heading to Shiloh, Alaska.
The Police, FBI and Secret Service swarmed in and took Brandon Raub to John Randolph Metal Hospital. This patriotic Marine had posted 5 posts on the Dont-Tread-On.Me blog linked below. Just glancing over them they seem to be of the religious and patriotic fight for truth and justice. He used the blog to have people join his FaceBook group and even did and promoted a Richmond Liberty March.
I looked through my email to see if there was any emails between the two of us and I did not find any, although I am sure there was as I would not have given him access to post on the blog if I did not.
There are a couple of lessons I want everyone to know form what little information we have from this incident.
1. Delete Facebook.I did a video for The Greatest Truth Never Told series called Delete Facebook giving a non conspiracy reason why people should quit FaceBook as it is destroying our lives. Now you should all see the conspiracy reason why you should Delete Facebook. This incident proves that it is just a huge monitoring tool for the Elite to track and build a profile of you. You give willingly the details of your political leaning, friends, interests. The hidden influence of the CIA through In-Q-Tel is becoming more and more visible.
2. This is designed to create a chilling effect to people speaking out and more importantly to keep sheeple from look at us for the Truth. I stated in the 3 Coming False Flags that the Elite would eventually criminalize or restrict our freedom of speech of the Freedom Movement. The Elite know the economic collapse is going to bring about the Anger Phase of the Awakening. They are actively preparing for riots and civil war. The thing that I find amazing is that these .gov people don’t ask why they are preparing for Civil War? What could make people so mad to want to go to war? Well since the Elite know the collapse of the dollar is coming they are conditioning their minions for that collapse. What these people should realize is that their paychecks are going to bounce and their entire life’ savings are going to be robbed.
3. Non violent, non compliance is a smart and effective strategy. Walking away from the paradigm is the best way of resisting the paradigm. Anyone physically pushing back will be taken down as it is of the same consciousness of those that are spreading debt and death throughout the world. Go peacefully if you are arrested, but question them on why and for what reason. You ask the questions and you should give no answers. You still have the right to keep quiet and ask for a lawyer. Unless you are really good under pressure I would suggest you just say nothing accept for asking for your lawyer. Also family members need to shut their mouths too as they immediately go after their friends and family in phone interviews.
4. Video tape everything you can. If you are confronted record every aspect not only to protect yourself, your rights and keep the story straight but also for a future law suit. You have every right to record every confrontation, I would be discreet about it because you don’t want an officer break the law and take your evidence. This is also very important to help keep your narrative straight as you will be told a lot of lies along the way.
5. Apparently questioning the government is a mental condition. Brandon was immediately brought to John Randolph Mental Hospital. The use of psychology was very common to political tool the Soviets and the Nazis to silence political opposition. Look at what Vladimir Putin is doing in Russia.
6. You get more flak the closer you get to the target. We must be coming very close to the collapse date with all of the things that are going on. I recommend that people stock up on food and gear and get ready to ride out the storm.
I hope to get more details as they develop and eventually I hope to thoroughly de-brief Brandon as soon as he can.
Join the Insider mailing list at the top right hand side of the blog for email updates.
Here are the 5 articles from Brandon Raub on the Dont-Tread-On.Me site.
The text below is translated from the official Spanish transcript of today’s press statement issued by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño Aroca, explaining Ecuador’s decision to grant asylum to Julian Assange. Here is a backup text in case Ecuadorian govt. website goes down : backup 1, backup 2.
This translation was crowd-sourced with the help of @DUVFree, BCK, BM, and other anonymous volunteers. Thanks for your contribution!
Note: links inserted in brackets have been added by WLPress for reference
Declaration by the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on Julian Assange’s asylum application
Ecuadorian nationals show their support for Assange outside of the Embassy of Ecuador in London.
On June 19, 2012, the Australian national Mr. Julian Assange appeared at the premises of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to request that the Ecuadorean State provide him with diplomatic protection, thus invoking the existing Diplomatic Asylum rules. The applicant had made his asylum request based on his fear of eventual political persecution by a third country, the same country whom could use his extradition to the Kingdom of Sweden to enable an expedited subsequent extradition.
The Government of Ecuador, faithful to the asylum procedures and with the utmost attention to this case, has reviewed and evaluated all aspects of this case, particularly the arguments presented by Mr. Assange to support the fear he feels regarding this situation as a threat to his life, personal safety and freedoms.
It is important to note that Mr. Assange has taken the decision to seek asylum and protection of Ecuador over alleged allegations of “espionage and treason,” which “instigate fear of the possibility of being handed over to the United States of America by British, Swedish or Australian authorities,“ said Mr. Assange, since the USA is chasing him for releasing compromising information sensitive to the U.S. Government. The applicant mentions that he “is a victim of persecution in various countries, which is deduced not only from their ideas and actions, but of his work of publishing information which compromises the powerful, uncovers the truth and therefore exposes corruption and abuses of human rights of citizens around the world.”
Therefore, according to the applicant, the indictment for crimes of a political nature is the basis for his asylum request, because in his judgement he is facing a situation involving an imminent danger which he cannot escape. In order to assess his fear of possible political persecution, and that this persecution could end up becoming a situation which curtails and violates his rights, integrity, and could become a risk to his personal safety and freedom, the Government of Ecuador has considered the following:
Julian Assange is an award-winning communications professional internationally known for his struggles for freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in general;
Mr. Assange shared privileged documents and information generated by various sources that affected employees, countries and organizations with a global audience;
That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger his safety, integrity, and even his life;
That, despite Ecuador’s diplomatic efforts, countries which have been asked togive adequate safeguards for the protection and safety for the life of Mr. Assange have refused to facilitate them;
That Ecuadorian authorities are certain of the possibility that Mr. Assange could be extradited to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity;
That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, it would be unlikely for Mr. Assange to receive a fair trial, and likely that he would be judged by special or military courts, where there is a high probability of suffering cruel and degrading treatment, and be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would violate his human rights;
That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defense;
Ecuador is convinced that the procedural rights of Mr. Assange have been infringed upon during the investigation;
Ecuador has observed that Mr. Assange lacks the protection and assistance that should be received from the State of which he is a citizen;
That, following several public statements and diplomatic communications by officials from Britain, Sweden and the USA, it is inferred that these governments would not respect international conventions and treaties, and would give priority to domestic law, in violation of explicit rules of universal application and,
That, if Mr. Assange is remanded to custody in Sweden (as is customary in this country), a chain of events would begin that would prevent further protective measures from being taken to avoid possible extradition to a third country.
Thus, the Government of Ecuador believes that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, and it believes that he may become a victim of political persecution, as a result of his dedicated defense of freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as his repudiation of the abuses of power in certain countries, and that these facts suggest that Mr. Assange could at any moment find himself in a situation likely to endanger life, safety or personal integrity. This fear has driven him to exercise the right to seek and receive asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the UK.
Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador clearly defines the right of asylum. Under this provision, the rights of asylum and refugee status are fully recognized in Ecuador in accordance with international law and instruments of human rights. According to this constitutional provision:
“Persons who find themselves in a situation of asylum and refuge shall enjoy special protection to ensure the full exercise of their rights. The State shall respect and ensure the principle of non-refoulement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement], and shall provide emergency legal and humanitarian assistance.”
Similarly, the right to asylum is enshrined in Article 4.7 of the Foreign Service Act of 2006 (Ley Orgánica del Servicio Exterior), which establishes the ability of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration of Ecuador to hear cases of diplomatic asylum, in accordance with laws, treaties, and international norms and laws.
It should be stressed that our country has stood out in recent years to accommodate a large number of people who have applied for territorial asylum or refugee status, having unconditionally respected the principle of non-refoulement and non-discrimination, while it has taken steps to provide refugee status in an expeditious manner, taking into account the circumstances of applicants, mostly Colombians fleeing armed conflicts in their own country. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has praised Ecuador’s refugee policy, and highlighted the important fact that the country has not confined these people to camps, but has integrated them into Ecuadorian society, with full enjoyment of their human and natural rights.
Ecuador places the right of asylum in the category of universal human rights and beliefs, therefore, that the effective implementation of this right requires international cooperation that our countries can provide, without which it would be fruitless, and the institution would be totally ineffective. For these reasons, and recalling the obligation of all States to assist in the protection and promotion of human rights as provided by the United Nations Charter, we invite the British Government to lend its assistance in achieving this purpose.
To that effect, the state of Ecuador can confirm, following analysis of the legal institutions related to asylum, that the foundation of these rights has set out fundamental principles of general international law, the same as for its universal scope and importance, because of its consistance with the general interest of the entire international community, and full recognition by all states. These principles, which are set forth in various international instruments are as follows:
a) Asylum in all its forms is a fundamental human right creating obligations erga omnes, ie “for all” states.
b) Diplomatic asylum, refuge (or territorial asylum), and the right not to be extradited, expelled, delivered or transferred, are comparable human rights, since they are based on the same principles of human protection: non-refoulement and non-discrimination without any adverse distinction based on race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status or any other similar criteria.
c) All these forms of protection are governed by the principles pro person (i.e. more favorable to the individual), equality, universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence.
d) The protection occurs when the State granting asylum, required refuge, or powers of protection, consider that there is a risk or fear that the protected person may be a victim of political persecution, or is charged with political offenses.
e) The State granting asylum qualifies the causes of asylum and extradition case, weigh the evidence.
f) No matter which of its forms or modality, asylum always has the same cause and lawful object, i.e. political persecution, which makes it permissible, and to safeguard the life, personal safety and freedom of the protected person, which is its legitimately intended purpose.
g) The right of asylum is a fundamental human right, therefore, belongs to jus cogens, i.e. the system of mandatory rules of law recognized by the international community as a whole, for which no derogation is permitted, making null all treaties and provisions of international law which oppose it.
h) In cases not covered by existing law, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience, or are under the protection and rules of the principles of jus gentium [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_gentium] derived from established customs, the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience [http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument].
i) The lack of international agreement or domestic legislation of States cannot legitimately be invoked to limit, impair or deny the right to asylum.
j) The rules and principles governing the rights to asylum or refuge, no extradition, no handing over, no expulsion and no transfer are convergent, to the extent necessary to enhance the protection and provide it with maximum efficiency. In this sense, they are complementary to the international human rights law, the right of asylum and refugee law, and humanitarian law.
k) The rights of protection of the human being are based on ethical principles and universally accepted values and therefore have a humanistic, social, solidaric, peaceful and humanitarian character.
l) All States have a duty to promote the progressive development of international human rights through effective national and international action.
Ecuador has judged that the laws applicable to the asylum case of Mr. Julian Assange comprise the entire set of principles, standards, mechanisms and procedures provided for international human rights instruments (whether regional or universal), which include among their provisions the right to seek, receive and enjoy asylum for political reasons, the conventions governing the right of asylum and refugee law, and which recognize the right not to be delivered, returned, or expelled when credible fear of political persecution exists; conventions governing extradition law recognize the right not to be extradited when this measure covers political persecution, and conventions governing humanitarian law, recognize the right not to be transferred when there is a risk of political persecution. All these forms of asylum and international protection are justified by the need to protect this person from possible political persecution, or a possible accusation of political crimes and / or crimes related to the latter, which in the opinion of Ecuador, not only endanger Mr. Assange, but also pose a serious injustice committed against him.
It is undeniable that states, having agreed to numerous and substantive international instruments (many of them legally-binding), have the obligation to provide protection or asylum to persons persecuted for political reasons and have expressed their desire to establish a legal institution to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms based on a general practice accepted as law, which confers on such obligations a mandatory nature, erga omnes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erga_omnes], linked to the respect, protection and progressive development of human rights and fundamental freedoms that are part of jus cogens [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_norm]. Some of these instruments are mentioned below:
a) United Nations Charter of 1945, Purposes and Principles of the United Nations: the obligation of all members to cooperate in the promotion and protection of human rights;
b) Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum in any country, for political reasons (Article 14);
c) Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 1948: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 27);
d) Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: the protected person should in no case be transferred to a country where they fear persecution for his political views ( Article 45);
e) Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 and Protocol of New York, 1967: prohibits returning or expelling refugees to countries where their lives and freedom would be threatened (Art. 33.1);
f) Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, 1954: The State has the right to grant asylum and classify the nature of the offense or the motives of persecution (Article 4);
g) Convention on Territorial Asylum of 1954: the State is entitled to admit to its territory such persons as it considers necessary (Article 1), when they are persecuted for their beliefs, political opinions or affiliation, or acts that may be considered political offenses ( Article 2), the State granting asylum may not return or expel a refugee who is persecuted for political reasons or offenses (Article 3); also, extradition is not appropriate when dealing with people who, according to the requested State, be prosecuted for political crimes , or common crimes committed for political purposes, or when extradition is requested obeying political motives (Article 4);
h) European Convention on Extradition of 1957, prohibits extradition if the requested Party considers that the offense is a political charge (Article 3.1);
i) 2312 Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 1967 provides for the granting of asylum to persons who have that right under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling against colonialism (Article 1.1). It prohibits the refusal of admission, expulsion and return to any State where he may be subject to persecution (Article 3.1);
j) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, provides that the rules and principles of general international law imperatives do not support a contrary agreement, the treaty is void upon conflicts with one of these rules (Article 53), and if there arises a new peremptory norm of this nature, any existing treaty which conflicts with that provision is void and is terminated (Article 64). As regards the application of these Articles, the Convention allows States to claim compliance with the International Court of Justice, without requiring the agreement of the respondent State, accepting the court’s jurisdiction (Article 66.b). Human rights are norms of jus cogens.
k) American Convention on Human Rights, 1969: right to seek and enjoy asylum for political reasons (Article 22.7);
l) European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977, the requested State is entitled to refuse extradition when there is a danger that the person is prosecuted or punished for their political opinions (Article 5);
m) Inter-American Convention on Extradition of 1981, the extradition is not applicable when the person has been tried or convicted, or is to be tried in a court of special or ad hoc in the requesting State (Article 4.3), when, under the classification of the requested State, whether political crimes or related crimes or crimes with a political aim pursued, and when, the circumstances of the case, can be inferred that persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality; that the situation of the person sought may be prejudiced for any of these reasons (Article 4.5). Article 6 provides, in reference to the right of asylum, that “nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting the right of asylum, when appropriate.”
n) African Charter on Human and Peoples of 1981, pursued individual’s right to seek and obtain asylum in other countries (Article 12.3);
p) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000: establishes the right of diplomatic and consular protection. Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country not represented by the Member State of nationality, have the protection of diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State, under the same conditions as nationals of that State (Article 46).
The Government of Ecuador believes it is important to note that the rules and principles recognized in the international instruments mentioned above and in other multilateral agreements take precedence over domestic law of States, because these treaties are based on universal rules guided by intangible principles, whereof deriving greater respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights against unilateral attitudes of such States. This would compromise international law, which should instead be strengthened in order to consolidate the respect of fundamental rights in terms of integration and ecumenical character.
Furthermore, since Assange applied for asylum in Ecuador, we have maintained high-level diplomatic talks with the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States.
In the course of these conversations, our country has sought to obtain strict guarantees from the UK government that Assange would face, without hindrance, an open legal process in Sweden. These safeguards include that after facing his legal responsibilities in Sweden, that he would not be extradited to a third country; that is, ensuring that the Specialty Rule [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030114/am/30114s01.htm] is not waived. Unfortunately, despite repeated exchanges of messages, the UK at no time showed signs of wanting to reach a political compromise, and merely repeated the content of legal texts.
Assange’s lawyers invited Swedish authorities to take Assange statements in the premises of the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Ecuador officially conveyed to Swedish authorities its willingness to host this interview without interference or impediment to the legal processes followed in Sweden. This measure is absolutely legally possible. Sweden did not accept.
On the other hand, Ecuador raised the possibility that the Swedish government establish guarantees to not subsequently extradite Assange to the United States. Again, the Swedish government rejected any compromise in this regard.
Finally, Ecuador wrote to the U.S. government to officially reveal its position on Assange’s case. Inquiries related to the following:
If there is an ongoing legal process or intent to carry out such processes against Julian Assange and/or the founders of the WikiLeaks organization;
Should the above be true, then under what kind of legislation, and how and under what conditions would such persons be subject to under maximum penalties;
Whether there is an intention to request the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.
The U.S. response has been that it cannot provide information about the Assange case, claiming that it is a bilateral matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom.
With this background, the Government of Ecuador, true to its tradition of protecting those who seek refuge in its territory or on the premises of its diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange, based on the application submitted to the President of the Republic, transmitted in writing in London, dated June 19, 2012, and supplemented by letter written in London dated June 25, 2012, for which the Government of Ecuador, after a fair and objective assessment of the situation described by Mr. Assange, according to his own words and arguments, endorsed the fears of the appellant, and accepts that there are indications which lead to the conclusion that he may face political persecution, or that such persecution could occur if timely and necessary measures are not taken to avoid it.
The Government of Ecuador is certain that the British Government knows how to assess the justice and righteousness of the Ecuadorian position, and consistent with these arguments, it is confident that the UK will offer safe passage guarantees necessary and relevant to the asylum, so that their governments can honor with action the fidelity owed to law and international institutions that both nations have helped shape along their common history.
It also hopes to maintain unchanged the excellent ties of friendship and mutual respect which bind Ecuador and the United Kingdom and their people, as they are also engaged in promoting and defending the same principles and values, and because they share similar concerns about democracy, peace, and well being, which are only possible if the fundamental rights of everyone are respected.
The latest twist in the Julian Assange case, as we await Ecuador’s decision on granting him asylum (a decision which would not, as I’ve written before, in itself allow protection from arrest if he steps outside the embassy), is that people are wondering whether the UK can simply strip the embassy of its diplomatic status, so allowing police officers to enter it.
You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.
We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange’s presence in your premises, this is an open option for us.
In no case is land to be regarded as a State’s diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the Secretary of State has given that State consent under this section in relation to it; and if—
(a) a State ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post; or
(b) the Secretary of State withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land,
it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all enactments and rules of law.
On the face of it, then, the Secretary of State (in practice a foreign office minister) could now simply withdraw consent, and with one bound, police would be free to make an arrest.
But it’s not quite as simple as that. You’ll note that section 1(4) says
The Secretary of State shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law
and that according to section 1(5), in deciding whether to withdraw consent, the minister
shall have regard to all material considerations, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection—
(a) to the safety of the public;
(b) to national security; and
(c) to town and country planning.
The “compliance with international law” requirement may present a problem, since article 21 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requires the UK to facilitate the acquisition by Ecuador of premises necessary for its mission, or assist it in obtaining accommodation. It’s not obvious this allows the UK to just de-recognise the current premises without helping arrange something new.
Section 1(5) is interesting because, in spite of the way the drafting clearly intends to preserve ministers’ ability to take account of anything they think relevant, I’ve no doubt lawyers for Ecuador could argue that the list of three particular concerns colours the scope of ministers’ considerations, the result being that only some particular difficulty relating to safety or to the premises themselves could justify withdrawal.
More importantly, they could argue that Assange’s presence in the embassy and Ecuador’s conduct in sheltering him is not a material consideration; and that since that clearly lay behind the withdrawal, ministers would in deciding to withdraw consent, have taken into account an irrelevant factor.
In addition, there’d be a potentially strong argument to be made that ministers had exercised their power for an improper purpose not intended by Parliament when it enacted the 1987 legislation – their desire to arrest Julian Assange.
Ecuador could judicially review any proposed withdrawal: I think the effect on Assange means this is the type of case in which, as Lord Sumption explained in a recent speech, the courts would consider intervening in a foreign policy decision. Perhaps Assange could obtain an injunction on judicial review, preventing any arrest pending the outcome of proceedings. Of course, if the government successfully fought off that judicial review, the arrest could go ahead. But I don’t think a defence would be easy, and at the very least, a judicial review would create further delay – which probably suits Assange fairly well. I’m not sure giving him a hook to hang one on would be the best tactical move for the government.
The Quito letter from the UK to Ecuador went on apparently to say
We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations.
If I were advising the government, I think I’d say that, if ministers are determined to allow the arrest of Assange, it might be better simply to cut off diplomatic relations with Ecuador, send the ambassador home, close the embassy and arrest Assange after that. Ending diplomatic relations is the major sort of foreign affairs decision I doubt the courts would interfere with. But that’d be a major diplomatic call.
BREAKING NEWS: Police are massing at the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is holed up after his request for political asylum.
One personoutside the embassy, identifying himself as a “citizen journalist” with the twitter account https://twitter.com/alburyj is video streaming UK police entering the building.
Aroundt midnight, local time, WikiLeaks tweeted this morning that two large police vans had arrived ‘‘to surround the Ecuadorian embassy in London’’.
UPDATE [3:30pm PST] – “Assange asylum rumor is false,” Correa confirmed on his Twitter feed. He added that he is waiting for a Foreign Ministry report on the issue, without which a decision will not be made.
Ecuador has reportedly granted asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who requested it after the British Supreme Court refused to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning over alleged sex crimes.
WikiLeaks founder has been holed up in the country’s London embassy since June 19.
The asylum guarantees him safe passage from the UK to Ecuador, says Professor Donald Rothwell from the Australian National University College of Law.
In Sweden the whistleblower is wanted for questioning over accusations of sex crimes, but Assange and most of his supporters fear that once he arrived in Sweden, he would be handed over to US authorities.
Assange and his lawyers believe that the US has already lodged a sealed indictment against Assange, and that his case might outdo the one of Bradley Manning.
The whistleblower website founded by Julian Assange has leaked hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, including top secret documents from the US Department of Defense, and secret cables from the State Department.
The FinFisher spyware made by U.K.- based Gamma Group likely has previously undisclosed global reach, with computers on at least five continents showing signs of being command centers that run the intrusion tool, according to cybersecurity experts.
FinFisher can secretly monitor computers — intercepting Skype calls, turning on Web cameras and recording every keystroke. It is marketed by Gamma for law enforcement and government use.
Bloomberg News reported July 25 that researchers believe they identified copies of FinFisher, following an examination of malware e-mailed to Bahraini activists. Their work, led by security researcher Morgan Marquis-Boire, was published the same day by the University of Toronto Munk School of Global Affairs’ Citizen Lab. Photographer: Jacob Kepler/Bloomberg
Research published last month based on e-mails obtained by Bloomberg News showed activists from the Persian Gulf kingdom of Bahrain were targeted by what looked like the software, sparking a hunt for further clues to the product’s deployment.
In new findings, a team, led by Claudio Guarnieri of Boston-based security risk-assessment company Rapid7, analyzed how the presumed FinFisher samples from Bahrain communicated with their command computer. They then compared those attributes with a global scan of computers on the Internet.
The survey has so far come up with what it reports as matches in Australia, the Czech Republic, Dubai, Ethiopia, Estonia, Indonesia, Latvia, Mongolia, Qatar and the U.S.
Guarnieri, a security researcher based in Amsterdam, said that the locations aren’t proof that the governments of any of these countries use Gamma’s FinFisher. It’s possible that Gamma clients use computers based in other nations to run their FinFisher systems, he said in an interview.
‘Active Fingerprinting’
“They are simply the results of an active fingerprinting of a unique behavior associated with what is believed to be the FinFisher infrastructure,” he wrote in his report, which Rapid7 is publishing today on its blog at https://community.rapid7.com/community/infosec/blog.
The emerging picture of the commercially available spyware’s reach shines a light on the growing, global marketplace for cyber weapons with potential consequences.
“Once any malware is used in the wild, it’s typically only a matter of time before it gets used for nefarious purposes,” Guarnieri wrote in his report. “It’s impossible to keep this kind of thing under control in the long term.”
In response to questions about Guarnieri’s findings, Gamma International GmbH managing director Martin J. Muench said a global scan by third parties would not reveal servers running the FinFisher product in question, which is called FinSpy.
“The core FinSpy servers are protected with firewalls,” he said in an Aug. 4 e-mail.
Gamma International
Muench, who is based in Munich, has said his company didn’t sell FinFisher spyware to Bahrain. He said he’s investigating whether the samples used against Bahraini activists were stolen demonstration copies or were sold via a third party.
Gamma International GmbH in Germany is part of U.K.-based Gamma Group. The group also markets FinFisher through Andover, England-based Gamma International UK Ltd. Muench leads the FinFisher product portfolio.
Muench says that Gamma complies with the export regulations of the U.K., U.S. and Germany.
It was unclear which, if any, government agencies in the countries Guarnieri identified are Gamma clients.
Officials in Ethiopia’s Communications Minister, Qatar’s foreign ministry and Mongolia’s president’s office didn’t immediately return phone calls seeking comment or respond to questions. Dubai’s deputy commander of police said he has no knowledge of such programs when reached on his mobile phone.
Australia’s department of foreign affairs and trade said in an e-mailed statement it does not use FinFisher software. A spokesman at the Czech Republic’s interior ministry said he has no information of Gamma being used there, nor any knowledge of its use at other state institutions.
Violating Human Rights?
At Indonesia’s Ministry of Communications, head of public relations Gatot S. Dewa Broto said that to his knowledge the government doesn’t use that program, or ones that do similar things, because it would violate privacy and human rights in that country. The ministry got an offer to purchase a similar program about six months ago but declined, he said, unable to recall the name of the company pitching it.
The Estonian Information Systems Authority RIA has not detected any exposure to FinSpy, a spokeswoman said. Neither has Latvia’s information technologies security incident response institution, according to a technical expert there.
Bloomberg News reported July 25 that researchers believe they identified copies of FinFisher, following an examination of malware e-mailed to Bahraini activists. Their work, led by security researcher Morgan Marquis-Boire, was published the same day by the University of Toronto Munk School of Global Affairs’ Citizen Lab.
‘Hallo Steffi’
The new study builds on those findings, using the same samples of malicious software.
Guarnieri’s study found, among other things, that the Bahrain server answered anyone connecting to it with the message, “Hallo Steffi.”
The investigators then found this pattern in other computers by searching data from an Internet survey research project, Critical.IO, which has been cataloging publicly accessible computers around the world.
The researchers then developed a map that shows the location of the servers, along with their unique IP addresses on the Internet.
Gamma’s Muench said none of its server components sends out strings such as “Hallo Steffi.”
The earlier Citizen Lab research linked the malware sent to the activists to FinSpy, part of the FinFisher spyware tool kit.
The Citizen Lab research showed the malware took screen shots, intercepted voice-over-Internet calls and transmitted a record of every keystroke to a computer in Manama, the capital of Bahrain, which has been gripped by tension since a government crackdown on protests last year.
Muench said the computer found in Manama isn’t a FinFisher product. Instead, the server very likely runs custom-built software used to forward traffic between two or more other systems, he said.
The era of Big Data is upon us. Major corporations in the areas of advertising, social media, defense contracting, and computing are forming partnerships with government agencies to compile virtual dossiers on all humans.
This data integration initiative is taking place across the board in our largest federal agencies and departments as part of an Office of Science and Technology outline (PDF) that includes a $200 million upfront investment, as well as a $250 million annual investment by military departments into human-computer interaction.
The $200 million in the Obama program will be spread among the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological survey, and DARPA to see that the information they collect will move quickly “from data to decisions.”
Seeing the vast potential of Big Data management and applications, Oblong Industries – the actual creator of the software that appeared in the movie Minority Report, (known by its propriety name g-speak) – is now offering a commercial version in the marketplace. An AFP article posted at Raw Story is quick to point out that the software has been stripped of its “pre-crime” detection analytics. But should this blanket dismissal by a mainstream news agency be comforting in light of stated U.S. government goals that seek to turn science fiction into science reality?
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science czar, and author of the controversial eugenics tome, Ecoscience, is one of those directing the solution to the data overload problem. This alone should force us to be hyper-vigilant.
We also know that the NSA is constructing a massive new $2 billion data center that aims to expand its spy activities by September, 2013:
A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks.
(…)
Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital ‘pocket litter. It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration… (Source)
The FBI has recently announced that facial recognition will be coming to a state near you:
While Oblong Industries claims to have disabled the analytics portion of the software that could be used in pre-crime screening taken right from the Minority Report film, they state that private companies and law enforcement agencies could certainly augment their scaled-back version by introducing their own analytics.
Furthermore, the earlier-mentioned AFP article downplays the significance of the software by stating that “Oblong currently has no government customers in the United States or abroad but offers itself as ‘a core technology provider.'”
However, two of Oblong’s current clients are Boeing – the world’s second largest defense contractor and drone specialists; and #12 General Electric – specialists in electronic warfare components and military communication systems. Their combined annual sales are more than $35 billion, which makes it quite likely that new technology will be embraced and proliferated. (Source)
Oblong’s own website states that their company “works with Global Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, and universities to develop custom g‑speak solutions.” Their application areas include:
To reinforce the obvious, Oblong’s Chief Executive, Kwin Kramer, has stated flatly that, “We think law enforcement and intelligence are big data users and we think our technology is the leader.”
It is also worth noting that the g-speak “Minority Report” technology was developed at MIT and has been 30 years in the making. MIT has quite a storied history of connections to intelligence agencies; the CIA having actually started the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for International Studies (MIT-CIS) in 1950. (Source)
And Orwell smiles.
Until recently, we might have held out hope that it was the vastness of data collection that was the weakest point for potential tyrants, as it was nearly impossible to sift through, manage, and apply all of it. With the birth of Big Data applications that are literally coming straight from science fiction, however, we might do well to accept the possibility of a truly dystopian reality descending upon us even faster than the speed of thought.
For a glimpse into the cool sales pitch behind Oblong Industries’ Big Data management software, please view the following video. While we should keep an open mind to how advancements in computer tech can be exciting and rewarding, while offering novel ways of human interaction, it is most important to ensure that these technologies are not hoarded by governments and elites who have a clear history of negatively impacting true human development, as well as freedom of movement, expression and self-determination.
Former senior intelligence officials have created a detailed surveillance system more accurate than modern facial recognition technology — and have installed it across the US under the radar of most Americans, according to emails hacked by Anonymous.
Every few seconds, data picked up at surveillance points in major cities and landmarks across the United States are recorded digitally on the spot, then encrypted and instantaneously delivered to a fortified central database center at an undisclosed location to be aggregated with other intelligence. It’s part of a program called TrapWire and it’s the brainchild of the Abraxas, a Northern Virginia company staffed with elite from America’s intelligence community. The employee roster at Arbaxas reads like a who’s who of agents once with the Pentagon, CIA and other government entities according to their public LinkedIn profiles, and the corporation’s ties are assumed to go deeper than even documented.
The details on Abraxas and, to an even greater extent TrapWire, are scarce, however, and not without reason. For a program touted as a tool to thwart terrorism and monitor activity meant to be under wraps, its understandable that Abraxas would want the program’s public presence to be relatively limited. But thanks to last year’s hack of the Strategic Forecasting intelligence agency, or Stratfor, all of that is quickly changing.
Hacktivists aligned with the loose-knit Anonymous collective took credit for hacking Stratfor on Christmas Eve, 2011, in turn collecting what they claimed to be more than five million emails from within the company. WikiLeaks began releasing those emails as the Global Intelligence Files (GIF) earlier this year and, of those, several discussing the implementing of TrapWire in public spaces across the country were circulated on the Web this week after security researcher Justin Ferguson brought attention to the matter. At the same time, however, WikiLeaks was relentlessly assaulted by a barrage of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, crippling the whistleblower site and its mirrors, significantly cutting short the number of people who would otherwise have unfettered access to the emails.
On Wednesday, an administrator for the WikiLeaks Twitter account wrote that the site suspected that the motivation for the attacks could be that particularly sensitive Stratfor emails were about to be exposed. A hacker group called AntiLeaks soon after took credit for the assaults on WikiLeaks and mirrors of their content, equating the offensive as a protest against editor Julian Assange, “the head of a new breed of terrorist.” As those Stratfor files on TrapWire make their rounds online, though, talk of terrorism is only just beginning.
Mr. Ferguson and others have mirrored what are believed to be most recently-released Global Intelligence Files on external sites, but the original documents uploaded to WikiLeaks have been at times unavailable this week due to the continuing DDoS attacks. Late Thursday and early Friday this week, the GIF mirrors continues to go offline due to what is presumably more DDoS assaults. Australian activist Asher Wolf wrote on Twitter that the DDoS attacks flooding the WikiLeaks server were reported to be dropping upwards of 40 gigabytes of traffic per second on the site.
According to a press release (pdf) dated June 6, 2012, TrapWire is “designed to provide a simple yet powerful means of collecting and recording suspicious activity reports.” A system of interconnected nodes spot anything considered suspect and then input it into the system to be “analyzed and compared with data entered from other areas within a network for the purpose of identifying patterns of behavior that are indicative of pre-attack planning.”
In a 2009 email included in the Anonymous leak, Stratfor Vice President for Intelligence Fred Burton is alleged to write, “TrapWire is a technology solution predicated upon behavior patterns in red zones to identify surveillance. It helps you connect the dots over time and distance.” Burton formerly served with the US Diplomatic Security Service, and Abraxas’ staff includes other security experts with experience in and out of the Armed Forces.
What is believed to be a partnering agreement included in the Stratfor files from August 13, 2009 indicates that they signed a contract with Abraxas to provide them with analysis and reports of their TrapWire system (pdf).
“Suspicious activity reports from all facilities on the TrapWire network are aggregated in a central database and run through a rules engine that searches for patterns indicative of terrorist surveillance operations and other attack preparations,” Crime and Justice International magazine explains in a 2006 article on the program, one of the few publically circulated on the Abraxas product (pdf). “Any patterns detected – links among individuals, vehicles or activities – will be reported back to each affected facility. This information can also be shared with law enforcement organizations, enabling them to begin investigations into the suspected surveillance cell.”
In a 2005 interview with The Entrepreneur Center, Abraxas founder Richard “Hollis” Helms said his signature product:
“can collect information about people and vehicles that is more accurate than facial recognition, draw patterns, and do threat assessments of areas that may be under observation from terrorists.” He calls it “a proprietary technology designed to protect critical national infrastructure from a terrorist attack by detecting the pre-attack activities of the terrorist and enabling law enforcement to investigate and engage the terrorist long before an attack is executed,” and that, “The beauty of it is that we can protect an infinite number of facilities just as efficiently as we can one and we push information out to local law authorities automatically.”
An internal email from early 2011 included in the Global Intelligence Files has Stratfor’s Burton allegedly saying the program can be used to “[walk] back and track the suspects from the get go w/facial recognition software.”
Since its inception, TrapWire has been implemented in most major American cities at selected high value targets (HVTs) and has appeared abroad as well. The iWatch monitoring system adopted by the Los Angeles Police Department (pdf) works in conjunction with TrapWire, as does the District of Columbia and the “See Something, Say Something” program conducted by law enforcement in New York City, which had 500 surveillance cameras linked to the system in 2010. Private properties including Las Vegas, Nevada casinos have subscribed to the system. The State of Texas reportedly spent half a million dollars with an additional annual licensing fee of $150,000 to employ TrapWire, and the Pentagon and other military facilities have allegedly signed on as well.
In one email from 2010 leaked by Anonymous, Stratfor’s Fred Burton allegedly writes, “God Bless America. Now they have EVERY major HVT in CONUS, the UK, Canada, Vegas, Los Angeles, NYC as clients.” Files on USASpending.gov reveal that the US Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense together awarded Abraxas and TrapWire more than one million dollars in only the past eleven months.
News of the widespread and largely secretive installation of TrapWire comes amidst a federal witch-hunt to crack down on leaks escaping Washington and at attempt to prosecute whistleblowers. Thomas Drake, a former agent with the NSA, has recently spoken openly about the government’s Trailblazer Project that was used to monitor private communication, and was charged under the Espionage Act for coming forth. Separately, former NSA tech director William Binney and others once with the agency have made claims in recent weeks that the feds have dossiers on every American, an allegation NSA Chief Keith Alexander dismissed during a speech at Def-Con last month in Vegas.
SANTA CRUZ, CA—Just as PG&E enters the final phase of its deployment of wireless “smart” meters in California, the largest of the state’s Investor Owned Utilities (IOU’s) has reversed course, quietly beginning to replace the ‘smart’ meters of those reporting health impacts with the old trusty analog version. Consumer rights and health groups immediately seized on the news, demanding that millions of Californians unhappy with their new wireless meters get their analogs returned immediately at no cost.
‘Smart’ meters are new wireless utility meters being installed as part of the “smart” grid initiative, spearheaded by technology firms and backed by the Obama administration and the Department of Energy. Promises ranging from lower utility bills to enhanced renewable generation capacity have failed to materialize, with widespread reports of higher bills, privacy violations, fires and explosions, and commonly reported health impacts such as headaches, nausea, tinnitus, and heart problems associated with powerful wireless transmissions. Widely disparate political groups- from members of the Green Party to the Tea Party and Occupy protesters have attacked the program, and dozens of grassroots organizations have sprouted up over the past several months to fight what they call an undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous assault on people in their own homes and neighborhoods. Dozens of people have been detained or arrested for peaceful civil disobedience and even simply speaking out against deployments.
In California, more than 47 cities and counties have demanded a halt to installation, and a dozen local governments have passed laws prohibiting the controversial technology. [2]The ‘smart’ meter issue has further angered a public already seething at the utilities over repeated gas explosions, safety breaches at nuclear reactors, and an increasingly extortionate rate structure. Word of California’s ‘smart’ meter nightmare has spread across the country and around the world, prompting some utilities to place smart meter plans on hold, and recently Nevada’s PUC to call for investigations into the health effects and other smart meter problems.
Now in a dramatic turnaround that could signal the beginning of a widespread recall of wireless ‘smart’ meters, on October 28th PG&E re-installed a classic spinning disc analog meter on the home of Santa Cruz, CA resident Caitlin Phillips, who had been suffering headaches and other symptoms from her ‘smart’ meter. The move comes in response to verbal directives from the California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey, who recently told members of the public that the utility “will provide for you to go back to the analog meter if that’s your choice.” The CPUC has been slow to respond to thousands of ordinary citizens reporting health effects from the new meters.
When a Wellington Energy installer (contracted with PG&E) came to install a smart meter at her home, Caitlin asked the installer to get off her property and not install, because of what a neighbor had told her about possible health damage and privacy violations. “When I returned home later, I discovered a smart meter on my house. That night I awoke to severe anxiety, headache, and buzzing in my teeth, and realized the new smart meter was on the other side of the wall from my bed.” Caitlin reported her experience to PG&E and the CPUC, who both declined to rectify the situation. When the symptoms persisted, Caitlin sought the assistance of the Scotts Valley based group Stop Smart Meters! who provided an analog meter and referred her to a professional who could help her remove her ‘smart’ meter. As soon as the analog was installed, Caitlin’s symptoms disappeared.
Frustrated and outraged about her treatment by the utility and the PUC, Caitlin travelled to San Francisco to speak at a commission meeting on Oct. 20th. About a week later, PG&E crews were at her house replacing her temporary analog meter with a brand new official PG&E analog meter. This is believed to be the first time PG&E have willingly replaced an analog meter on the home of someone suffering from health effects.
An “opt-out” proceeding overseen by an Administrative Law Judge is underway at the CA Public Utilities Commission, yet those suffering (in some cases severe) health impacts have been stuck in limbo as utilities refuse to remove the harmful meters upon request- until now.
“There are hundreds of thousands- if not millions- of people suffering in their homes from forced ‘smart’ meter radiation,” said Joshua Hart, Director of the grassroots organization Stop Smart Meters! “The utilities and PUC’s must respond promptly to all requests that analogs be returned. The alternative is that people will increasingly turn to independent professionals to remove unwanted ‘smart’ meters from their homes, a reasonable action we assert is within our legal rights. Protecting your family’s health is not tampering.”
PG&E and other utilities have also been responding to health complaints by replacing wireless ‘smart’ meters with digital meters that are “wireless-ready.” These digital meters have been associated with health problems from “dirty electricity” frequencies that pass into a home via the electrical wiring. These “trojan horse” meters have been roundly rejected by those who report continuing health impacts after installation. Susan Brinchman, Director of San Diego based Center for Electrosmog Prevention. said “At this point, the burden of responsibility is on the utilities to demonstrate that any new meter they want to install on our homes is safe. Communities have the right to retain analog meters at no extra charge. Period.”
Is the USA still #1? Well, there are many things that America is still the best in the world at, but unfortunately a lot of those categories are nothing to be proud of. Once upon a time the United States was the greatest nation on earth, but now we are a nation that is in a horrific state of decline.
Just consider a few of the embarrassing things that America leads the world in: obesity, crime, divorce, teen pregnancy, child abuse deaths and government debt. The statistics that you are about to read below are incredibly disturbing. Most people that write these kinds of articles about the decline of America hate this country. But that is not the case with me. I was born and raised in America and I love this nation deeply. It is time to realize that we will never be able to start fixing our problems until we take a really good look in the mirror and realize just how far we have fallen. America is not the country that it once was. America is a complete and total mess and just “tweaking” a few things here and there is not going to return this nation to its former glory. We have forgotten the things that once made us great, and if we do not return to them we will continue to fall apart as a nation.
With that being said, the following are 40 embarrassing things that America is the best in the world at….
#32 The United States has the most laws on the entire planet.
#33 The United States spends more on the military than the next 12 nations combined, and yet the Obama administration is considering plans to unilaterally slash the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal by up to 80 percent.
#34 The United States has the most foreign military bases in the world by far.
#35 The United States exports more arms to other countries than anyone else in the world.
#36 Americans spend more time sitting in traffic than anyone else in the world.
#37 Americans spend more money on elections than anyone else does in the world by a very wide margin.
#39 The U.S. government wastes more money than any other government on earth does.
#40 The United States has accumulated the biggest mountain of government debt in the history of the world.
So is the USA #1?
Unfortunately, the answer way too often is yes.
The goal of this list of embarrassing things is not to trash America.
Rather, the goal is to wake Americans up and to get them to realize what has happened to us.
We should be deeply humbled and embarrassed as a nation. We were once the best in the world and the envy of the entire globe, but now the whole world is laughing at us.
America is supposed to be a beacon of liberty, freedom and prosperity for the entire planet.
Instead, we are rapidly turning into a horror show.
Wake up America. The condition of our country is absolutely shameful, and every single day it gets even worse.
Please share this list with as many people as you can. The American people need a massive wake up call, and it is up to those of us that are awake to share the truth while we still can.
A recent source has revealed that Bach’s music contains a very precise hidden code that was used to control humanity from the time of its creation onward. In fact, he was aware of the negative side of this embedded code and because he rebelled against using it he was thrown in jail for 2 years.
I was told within this code, by a source calling themselves Adamus, that the code can be used to create certain mental states that then create a suggestible state of mind especially to programming and following orders. And although a small fraction of humanity are resistant to this “sound code” the majority of humanity can be controlled using it.
It is no accident that this code embedded in Bach’s music has been played in churches worldwide since that time. In fact, that subliminally most people who do not know the name of Bach will still be able to hum or duplicate a Bach melody upon request even without knowing where it comes from.
This is no accident. But in fact a way in which humanity has been programmed since that time to remain subserviant and controlled. It is important to note this works not on an individual basis when one is alone but when people are in groups.
In essence, within his music is contained a code where no single note has been misplaced or done in error.
