A law professor at Notre Dame leads a lonely campaign to stop the targeted killings in Pakistan and elsewhere, insisting they violate international law.
Notre Dame law professor Mary Ellen O’Connell is a leading critic of the U.S. targeted-killing program against Al Qaeda militants. (Los Angeles Times, Ken Dilanian / October 9, 2012)
SOUTH BEND, Ind. — Notre Dame law professor Mary Ellen O’Connell was in her office last month when Imran Khan, a former cricket star who could be Pakistan’s next prime minister, phoned to ask for help.
Pakistanis are furious about the CIA‘s covert campaign of drone missile strikes, Khan told her. Was she aware that the CIA often doesn’t know who it is killing?
“Yes, of all Americans, I think I have a pretty good handle on the facts,” she replied, recounting the call.
O’Connell, a fierce critic of America’s drone attacks outside a war zone, insists the targeted killings are illegal under international law.
“We wouldn’t accept or want a world in which Russia or China or Iran is claiming authority to kill alleged enemies of the state based on secret evidence of the executive branch alone,” O’Connell said. “And yet that’s the authority we’re asserting.”
O’Connell, 54, has led a lonely campaign to stop the drones since she wrote a paper branding the first CIA drone strike, in 2002, as unlawful. She rejected claims by the George W. Bush administration that the attack, which killed several Al Qaeda militants and a U.S. citizen, was a legitimate act of self-defense in the war on terrorism.
Since then, President Obama has sharply increased drone attacks, and O’Connell has jousted with government officials, debated other academics and outlined her critique in scholarly publications.
“Her views are definitely taken seriously,” said Sean Murphy, a former State Department lawyer who argues the drone strikes are permitted under the law. “She’s on the leading edge of this argument.”
She remains in a small minority of U.S. legal scholars, but her views are gaining currency as targeted killings continue.
A report issued last month by researchers at the law schools of New York University and Stanford University argued that many U.S. drone strikes appear unlawful because they don’t meet the strict legal test for killing outside a war zone — to stop an imminent threat to life when no other means is available.
In June, Christof Heyns, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, told a conference in Geneva that “double tap” drone strikes, in which a second missile is fired at people coming to aid the wounded, could constitute a war crime. Pakistan claims several such attacks have occurred in its tribal areas.
O’Connell and her intellectual allies agree the United States is fighting a lawful war in Afghanistan because it gave shelter to terrorists who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. But they argue that killing militants in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia is not a legitimate part of that conflict, and thus violates laws of war intended to protect noncombatants.
If the U.S. government has a case against an Al Qaeda militant in Yemen or Somalia, they argue, it must try to arrest him and give him a chance to surrender unless lives are in immediate danger.
That view strikes O’Connell’s many critics as a naive reading of international law that fails to account for modern stateless terrorists. But the U.S. government held a similar view until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
U.S. officials criticized Israel for killing Palestinian militants on the West Bank in the 1990s, for example, and CIA officials believed they lacked the authority to kill Osama bin Laden even after he was indicted for the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa.
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment for this article, but he noted that White House counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan publicly explained the administration’s view on targeted killings in April.
“As a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense,” Brennan said.
Under Obama, the United States has launched 284 drone missile strikes in Pakistan and 49 in Yemen, according to independent groups that track reported attacks. That’s up from 46 in Pakistan and one in Yemen under Bush. Strikes have also been reported in Somalia.
So-called high-value targets typically are named on a classified “kill list,” which is reviewed by lawyers from the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon and other agencies. Many others are killed in “signature strikes” that target unidentified militants based on activities deemed suspicious.
In September, Obama sought to explain who gets targeted and why.
“It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative,” Obama told CNN. “It has to be a situation in which we can’t capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States.”
O’Connell and other critics say no evidence suggests that all those killed met Obama’s standard. Drone strikes have killed up to 3,000 people, according to the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy institute in Washington.
O’Connell sees her effort as an exercise in moral suasion, similar to the public outcry that erupted after news reports detailed how the CIA had used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques against several Al Qaeda detainees after Sept. 11.
A trim woman with brown hair, O’Connell isn’t a pacifist. Her husband is a former Army interrogator who served in the first Gulf War. They met while she was working for the Defense Department, teaching soldiers about international law.
O’Connell praises the Navy SEAL mission that killed Bin Laden, and supports using drones to target enemy fighters in Afghanistan. “I do think drones can be a more accurate weapon, and I’m all in favor of saving our troops’ lives,” she said.
Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings Institution fellow who supports the drone strikes, put O’Connell on the defensive in a debate two years ago by challenging her to take her position to its logical conclusion — as he put it, “that President Obama is a serial killer.”
She fumbled her response. But upon reflection, she sees some parallels to the abortion debate. One can believe, as she does strongly, that abortion is deeply immoral, without labeling women who have abortions as murderers.
“I feel the same way about targeted killing,” she said. “I understand that Americans don’t … see it, but we want the practice to end. I don’t think President Obama should go to jail for it.”
The carved alabaster vessel (shown from two sides) found in the burial chamber caused the archaeologists to conclude the tomb was that of Lady K’abel. (El Peru Waka Regional Archaeological Project)
Archaeologists say they’ve discovered what could be the tomb of one of the greatest Mayan rulers, the seventh-century warrior queen Lady K’abel.
The tomb was revealed during digging at the ancient Maya city of El Perú-Waka’ in the rain forest of northern Guatemala. Alongside the body, excavators found a white jar shaped like a conch shell with the head and arm of a woman carved at the opening. The artifact had four hieroglyphs that suggest it belonged to K’abel.
“Nothing is ever proven in archaeology because we’re working with circumstantial evidence. But in our case we have a carved stone alabaster jar that is named K’abel’s possession,” David Freidel, an archaeologist working on the site, explained in a video. Freidel, of Washington University in St. Louis, said the find is “as close to a smoking gun” as you get in archaeology.
The plazas, palaces, temple pyramids and residences of El Perú-Waka’ belong to the Classic Maya civilization (A.D. 200-900). K’abel was part of a royal family and carried the title “Kaloomte’,” which translates to “Supreme Warrior,” meaning she had even higher in authority than her king husband, K’inich Bahlam, according to Freidel and his excavation team. She was the military governor of the Wak kingdom for her family, the imperial house of the Snake King.
Ceramic vessels found in the burial chamber and carvings on a stela (stone slab) outside of it also indicate the tomb belongs to K’abel, as does a large red spiny oyster shell found on the lower torso of the remains, the researchers said.
“Late Classic queens at Waka’, including K’abel, regularly wore such a shell as a girdle ornament in their stela portraits while kings did not,” the researchers wrote in a report on the finds.
An examination of the remains indicated the buried person was a “mature individual,” the researchers wrote. But the bones were too deteriorated for scientists to determine whether they belonged to a male or female.
Excavations have been underway at El Perú-Waka’ since 2003. The K’abel find has not yet appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
NEW YORK – As a student at Harvard Law School, then-bachelor Barack Obama’s practice of wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger puzzled his colleagues.
Now, newly published photographs of Obama from the 1980s show that the ring Obama wore on his wedding-ring finger as an unmarried student is the same ring Michelle Robinson put on his finger at the couple’s wedding ceremony in 1992.
Moreover, according to Arabic-language and Islamic experts, the ring Obama has been wearing for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada: “There is no God except Allah.”
Sincere recitation of the Shahada is the sole requirement for becoming a Muslim, as it expresses a person’s rejection of all other gods
Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D., examined photographs of Obama’s ring at WND’s request and concluded that the first half of the Shahada is inscribed on it.
“There can be no doubt that someone wearing the inscription ‘There is no god except Allah’ has a very close connection to Islamic beliefs, the Islamic religion and Islamic society to which this statement is so strongly attached,” Gabriel told WND.
“Dreams from My Real Father” producer Joel Gilbert, an Arabic speaker and an expert on the Middle East, was the first to conclude that Obama’s ring, reportedly from Indonesia, bore an Islamic inscription.
Photographs published last week by the New Yorker from Obama’s time at Occidental College, taken by fellows students, indicate that the ring Obama wore three decades ago is the one he is wearing in the White House.
Barack Obama
As WND reported in July, previously published photos have shown Obama wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger continuously from 1981 at Occidental, through graduation at Columbia in 1983, in a visit to Africa in 1988 and during his time at Harvard from 1988 to 1991. But none, until now, have displayed the ring with enough detail to identify it as the one he currently is wearing.
WND reported a satirical edition of the Harvard Law Review published by students in 1990 contains a mock Dewers Scotch profile advertisement poking fun at Obama. Among a list of Obama’s “Latest Accomplishments” is: “Deflecting Persistent Questioning About Ring On Left Hand.”
The comment suggests the ring was a subject of student curiosity at the time and that Obama was not forthcoming with an explanation.
He still has not explained why he wore the band on his wedding-ring finger before he married Michelle.
Declaration
Gabriel, born to Muslim parents in Upper Egypt, grew up immersed in Islamic culture. He memorized the Quran at age of 12 and graduated in 1990 with a Masters degree from the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the preeminent Sunni Muslim institution of learning.
He explained that on Obama’s ring, the declaration “There is no god except Allah” (La Ilaha Illallah) is inscribed in two sections, one above the other.
On the upper section, “There is no god” is written in Arabic letters, from right to left: Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Ha.
On the lower section is “except god,” written in Arabic letters from right to left: Alif, Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Lam, Ha.
In the lower section, the word “Allah” is written partially on top of the word “except,” noted Gabriel, the author of “Islam and Terrorism” and “Journey Inside the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist.”
It is common in Islamic art and Arabic calligraphy, especially when expressing Quranic messages on jewelry, to artfully place letters on top of each other to fit them into the allotted space.
The exhibit below shows how the Arabic inscription fits over the two parts of the Obama ring.
“There is no God except Allah” overlaid on Obama ring
‘First-rate accent’
In an interview during the 2008 presidential campaign, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof questioned Obama about his Islamic education in Indonesia, where he lived from 1967 to 1971.
After acknowledging that he once got in trouble for making faces during Quran study classes in his elementary school, Obama recited for Kristoff the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, the Adhan.
The prayer incorporates the Shahada, the expression of Islamic faith, with each line repeated twice:
Allah is supreme! Allah is supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet
Kristof noted Obama recited the prayer in Arabic “with a first-rate accent.”
“In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,’” Kristoff wrote.
Gabriel told WND that a person wearing a ring with “There is no God except Allah” demonstrates the significance of Islam in his life.
“Christians never use the statement,” he pointed out. “By wearing the Shahada on jewelry, a person communicates that Allah is in control of all circumstances. Allah controls you; Allah is the one and only one.”
Obama, who attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for two decades, has repeatedly insisted he is a Christian.
Obama’s hand in a White House photo
‘Blessed statement in Islam’
Gabriel emphasized the importance of the Shahada in the profession of faith in Islam.
“Muslims recite the Shahada when they wake up in the morning and before they go to sleep at night,” he said. “It is repeated five times every day in the call to prayer in every mosque. A single honest recitation of the Shahada in Arabic is all that is required for a person to convert to Islam.”
Gabriel believes it would be impossible for Obama not to be aware of what is written on the ring, calling it a “blessed statement in Islam.”
“By wearing this religious statement on one’s hand, it connects the person to Islam,” he said. “It is worn in hopes that Allah’s protections would be with the person, in hopes of gaining favor with Allah.”
He affirmed that Muslim men do wear gold rings, despite prohibitions in Islamic law.
“Though Islamic law prohibits the wearing of gold jewelry by men, it is a widely accepted custom, even in strictly Muslim countries,” he said. “The wearing of gold rings is even more acceptable when it contains a religious message, such as ‘There is no god except Allah.’”
He noted there is also widespread acceptance of men wearing gold jewelry in non-Arab Islamic societies such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Pakistan, where Muslims generally understand that Muslims are subject to strong influences of local non-Arab cultures.
“Therefore, even though technically prohibited, a Muslim man wearing a gold ring is not looked down upon, especially if the jewelry reflects a love of Islam and a connection to Islamic society,” he said. “An even greater level of acceptance is for businessmen who deal with infidels, because such a person would be regarded as a person of influence.”
“Now we have a new context for what Obama meant when he told the Islamic audience in Cairo that he has ‘known Islam on three continents,” Gilbert said. “He also told the Cairo audience that he considered it part of his responsibility as president of the United States ‘to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.’ All religious Muslims are by definition required to defend Islam.”
Gilbert’s most recent documentary films on the Middle East are “Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam” and “Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad’s Coming War and Obama’s Politics of Defeat”
Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009
Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009, close-up
The Occidental ring
The photographs published last week by New Yorker magazine indicate Obama was wearing the ring at Occidental College.
One photo shows Obama sitting alongside Occidental roommate Hasan Chandoo in 1981, apparently waiting for a meal to be served.
Barack Obama and roommate Hasan Chandoo at Occidental College in 1981
Obama’s extended left hand clearly shows the ring, as seen below.
The second of the recently released photos shows Obama reaching for a book from an Occidental College library shelf.
Barack Obama in Occidental College library in 1981
A close-up of the library photo can be seen below.
Detail of Barack Obama ring in Occidental College library in 1981
In the above photo, the ring’s design can be seen, including a series of parallel bars that distinguish its outer circumference.
In the story, Jodi Kantor described its “intricate gold design,” noting it came from Barack Obama’s boyhood home of Indonesia and was not traditional, like Michelle’s.
Kantor wrote:
Just before the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. pronounced Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson man and wife on the evening of Oct. 3, 1992, he held their wedding rings – signifying their new, enduring bonds – before the guests at Trinity United Church of Christ. Michelle’s was traditional, but Barack’s was an intricate gold design from Indonesia, where he had lived as a boy.
There was no mention in the article that Obama already had been wearing the ring for more than a decade.
The photos of the ring from the 1980s can be compared with more recent photos, such as the ones published by the Huffington Post in 2010 in an article by Anya Strzemien, “Obama’s ‘Intricate’ Indonesian Wedding Band: A CLOSE-UP,” seen here.
Obama wedding ring, Huffington Post, March 18, 2010
Obama wedding ring, Huffington Post, March 18, 2010
Exploit sellers arm governments and businesses, but are they harming security for everyone else?
Remember the final battle scene in Star Wars: A New Hope? Remember how Luke Skywalker slotted a bomb from his X-Wing down the Death Star’s exhaust port to blow the spherical space-station apart? Well that port is much like a zero-day vulnerability, and the rebel force’s attack was a carefully constructed zero-day exploit.
Despite the Force being so strong in him, Darth Vader managed to commission a ship with a glaring flaw in it. In the same way, developers often create, and proudly deliver, software covered in holes. When they are exploited, and attackers fire malware or some other nasty code through them, owners of that software can be blown apart too.
Intelligence on such weaknesses, and the tools needed to exploit them, now sell for considerable sums. That’s because of what can be achieved with zero-days. As seen with super-virus Stuxnet, which took advantage of four zero-day flaws, weaponised vulnerabilities can have a major real-world impact. In that case, the malware disrupted Iran’s uranium enrichment project by sending centrifuges potty. It was said to have set the process back by two years.
Governments of both east and west, and large private businesses, are thought to be spending vast portions of their budgets on acquiring zero-day exploits. Meanwhile, vendors and users of their wares never learn of them. It’s bad news for Internet security, many argue.
Regardless of their quarrels, a bustling market has emerged, and it is one that has caused ruptures in the security community.
The good old days?
Yet it’s a far cry from what researchers had hoped it would become. Back in 2002, industry experts felt Internet security was in desperate need of a shot in the arm. They thought the best way to get companies and software vendors interested in improving the security of their estates was to make vulnerability hunting a more prosperous activity. They started talking openly about a more formal approach to introducing market incentives for security flaws.
Just after the turn of the Millenium, Jean Camp from Harvard University and Catherine Wolfrom from Berkeley wrote a paper entitled ‘Pricing Security’. In it, they argued that the Internet and “the larger information infrastructure” was awash with easily exploitable flaws. “The only ubiquitous testing of Internet security is done by egocentric hackers,” they said.
Camp and Wolfrom argued that security should be viewed as an “externality”, where if one party is hit, another can be affected either positively or negatively, but without compensation. To counter this, they suggested looking at vulnerabilities as goods, items to be bought and sold. Those who discovered vulnerabilities would effectively own them.
The researchers had a vision of a credit system, where each Internet-connected machine would be given vulnerability credits by a government body. When a machine was compromised by known flaws, the owner of the machine would relinquish their credits, or pay out in cash if they had no credits left. Those who discovered vulnerabilities, whether exploited or not, could “demand some form of payment or validation of credit ownership”. Perhaps because of the somewhat inchoate ideas put forward by Camp and Wolfrom, their vision never became a reality.
At what cost?
But start-ups did emerge in the early 2000s who did treat vulnerabilities as commodities. The most notable one was TippingPoint, which founded the Zero-Day Initiative (ZDI), a program that rewarded researchers for responsibly disclosing vulnerabilities, which were reported to vendors as soon as the flaw was validated. TippingPoint was subsequently bought by HP, but ZDI still operates today, as do many other bug bounty programmes, run by the likes of Google and Facebook.
They offer decent money – usually between $1,000 and $10,000 for each flaw found. Researchers get both monetary and reputational rewards, meaning they fill their pockets and bolster their CV for future consulting gigs.
Yet some believe they can and should make much more money from selling zero-days. Even back in 2002, this publication understands an iTunes vulnerability was sold for $13,000. But now much more is up for grabs.
On the one side, private firms are willing to pay significant fees because they want to gain an advantage over rivals, either by being better protected or by launching attacks themselves. On the other, governments want to buy in preparation for cyber warfare. Now they have seen the damage cyber tools can do, from Stuxnet to the super-sophisticated spy tool Flame, governments know what is at stake.
One industry insider, who preferred to remain anonymous, told TechWeekEurope a single zero-day can sell for anything between $5,000 and $500,000. Often, the higher-cost vulnerabilities can be bought as a package with the tools and services needed to exploit them, the insider added.
“It depends on the quality. They sell for what they are worth,” the source said. “The growing need, coupled with the shrinking availability and the time it takes to find and write, sets the price for exploits. Its just basic supply and demand.”
‘Security for the one percent’
Zero-day merchants take a variety of forms. Major government contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Harris Corporation, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon are thought to be involved, but a host of specialised firms have emerged over the last decade, including Netragard, Errata Security and Vupen. It is the latter group who have been involved in a vituperative war of words with Internet activists and the more vocal members of the security industry.
The main criticism of zero-day sellers is an obvious one. By not sharing their information with the wider community, a flaw is known to a select few, often government bodies and big businesses, whilst the majority go unprotected.
This lack of what is widely-known as “responsible disclosure” is what perturbs many. “It’s security for the one percent and it makes the rest of us less safe,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in an essay earlier this year. “These companies are basically selling burglary tools,” claims Professor Ross Anderson, of the University of Cambridge.
When Vupen decided not to tell Google about a zero-day in the Chrome browser, even though it claimed $60,000 in CanSecWest prize money for finding it, it became the bete noire of an industry that had already attracted a lot of bad publicity. Chrome users would be placed at risk, all because one company wanted to keep its handful of customers happy, onlookers moaned.
Even though he said he would only sell to NATO governments and partners, Chaouki Bekrar, CEO of Vupen, told Forbes magazine that he wouldn’t share the information with Google, even for $1 million. “We don’t want to give them any knowledge that can help them in fixing this zero-day exploit or other similar exploits. We want to keep this for our customers.”
Open source troubles?
But there may be an even more pernicious side-effect of the market’s growth. Anderson believes open source projects are now threatened by people wanting to profit from weaknesses.
Researchers are purposefully placing bugs in open source software during the development stages, so that when code appears in completed products, those same researchers can highlight the flaws and profit from them where companies are willing to pay, Anderson has told TechWeekEurope. He claimed to know of several projects where this has happened, but declined to name names.
“That’s now happening. I’ve seen it in the last four months,” Anderson said. Imagine if Linux had flaws purposefully written into it, he ponders. “Intelligence agencies would be willing to pay an extraordinary amount for zero-days for Linux.”
Those against “irresponsible” vulnerability sellers want tighter regulation. Globally, there is little restriction on the practice. Germany, which is known for having strict rules when it comes to data, is one of the only nations to have made it illegal to sell exploits. It’s even illegal there to research zero-day exploits at all.
In the UK, Anderson says he wants more controls over who UK-based zero-day merchants can sell to overseas. He doesn’t want repressive regimes using British technology to carry out mass surveillance on citizens, as has allegedly occurred in the case of Andover-based Gamma International, whose FinSpy tool has appeared tracking dissidents in Syria and Bahrain. Privacy International has threatened the UK government with legal action, if it fails to introduce tighter checks.
Fight night
Now, having been criticised ad infinitum, zero-day hunters are biting back at critics. And at journalists. Is your article going to be another piece of “troll journalism”, Vupen’s CEO asked your reporter, while this article was in progress. He declined to answer any of TechWeekEurope’s questions. Indeed, he has been wary of journalists since that infamous Forbes article.
But others are happy to speak out. When asked about the open source issue, zero-day sellers say they have heard rumours of such subterfuge, but never have they seen it.
When it comes to regulation, they believe they are, at heart, no different from coders. And there shouldn’t be laws stymying the work of coders, they argue. Those calling for legislation, they say, are just jealous, because they don’t have the skills to find the zero-days and subsequently profit from them.
“The recent industry obsession with doting on vulnerability markets is an unproductive campaign with improperly informed champions striving for idealistic, and ultimately useless, regulations,” says Aaron Portnoy, vice president of research and co-founder of Exodus Intelligence. Portnoy was one of the big-shots of the HP TippingPoint ZDI, running it for two years out of the six he was there. The rest of his five-man team is from ZDI too.
His company has a slightly different model to others, selling a feed of data on zero-days and related exploits, and promising to eventually disclose vulnerabilities to vendors for free. It finds vulnerabilities, but also pays external researchers when they hand Exodus their findings. Portnoy might run things differently to the more controversial players in the industry, but he has similarly strong views on those calling for governments to tighten their grip on the market. Security for the one percent? Nonsense, Portnoy says.
“If the ability to sell an exploit suddenly disappeared the Internet would not be a safer place, and individuals would not cease their research into discovering innovative ways to break code,” he told TechWeekEurope. “Those who believe regulation or transparency into this market seem to think otherwise, and that is likely because they themselves aren’t the ones finding the bugs.
“By fixing a single vulnerability, you protect one piece of software from one flaw… by providing enterprises and vendors insight into what attackers are capable of, you enable them to better design their defenses and hopefully develop solutions that are wider in scope.
“If people are concerned about the safety of their Internet, they should stop focusing on trying to stop curious people from being curious.”
Many exploit experts would rather see the software development industry better regulated. They believe vendors should be held more accountable when holes in their software cause harm to Internet users. That’s what Charlie Miller, one of the most noted flaw finders in the world, backs. “Exploits aren’t the problem, vulnerable programs are. Let’s make our devices unbreakable and end the discussion,” he recently tweeted.
Inner turmoil
But whilst zero-day dealers have been lashing out at critics, the market is prone to infighting too. Unlike the traditional security market, where anti-virus vendors at least ostensibly work closely with one another and willingly share threat information, exploit dealers are considerably more antagonistic.
Earlier this month, Bekrar sent a message to Netragard CEO Adriel Desautels, accusing the latter of “trolling” Vupen. “Stop promoting yourself and your s**t by trolling about us, you don’t know a s**t about us nor our customers, teenager,” read one message. “We’re a 100% research compny while u’re just another broker compny without balls to do your own 0Ds,” read another.
Desautels says the argument was over ethics. Netragard offers penetration testing services and claims to do plenty of its own research on the exploit side. It also acts as a broker of exploits, selling other researchers’ work on to the highest bidder.
The company chief tells TechWeekEurope he is far from fond of the Vupen model, in particular its unwillingness to inform vendors. “I couldn’t believe he was talking like that in public,” Desautels says. “Vupen says it won’t sell to a vendor. In my opinion that is both irresponsible and unethical. It’s unethical because if a vendor approaches you willing to pay an exclusive price for a zero-day, it’s the same thing as anyone else willing to pay for a zero-day.
“It’s irresponsible because look at who is in NATO. There are a lot of countries in NATO that don’t like each other.”
Desautels, whilst against regulation of coding, is in favour of tighter rules on brokering, even for a more dirigiste approach. Much like Anderson, he wants to see governments put stronger controls on who brokers sell to. At the same time, however, he does not believe researchers should be limited in who they can sell to.
“Legislation needs to keep its hands out of the research world because if they don’t they are going to drive it towards the black hat world and the underground. It’ll benefit the bad guys,” he adds.
“But there has to be some sort of a body that can keep brokers in check ethically… There has to be some way to control it. It will tick off a lot of the businesses that are doing it, and I understand why, because it means they won’t get easy money anymore.”
Just the beginning
In our Star Wars analogy, few people would argue that Princess Leia and the Rebel Alliance should have practised responsible disclosure and warned the Galactic Empire of the flaw in the Death Star, instead of smuggling the plans out in secret and using them for a destructive attack.
In that case moral issues came into the picture, and the issue of marketing the flaw did not arise. Perhaps that’s because there was no market at all.
Yet in the real world. the growth of the zero-day vulnerability market seems inexorable, despite the mounting criticisms of the market, and the bad etiquette of certain players in it. If researchers can make more by selling to governments and private firms, they will increasingly look at that route before going to vendors.
It doesn’t look like the cost of zero-days has hit a peak either. David Maynor, CTO of Errata Security, certainly doesn’t think so. “Do you think the cost of conventional weapons has hit a peak? We have seen the most someone is willing to pay for a jet fighter?”
And it’s unlikely governments will wrap more red tape around the market. After all, why would they want to mitigate the rise of an industry of which they are the chief beneficiaries?
A federal appeals court has extended a temporary stay of a district court judge’s order barring the government from using an indefinite detention provision in a defense bill passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama late last year.
A three-judge motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued the order Tuesday afternoon, indicating they saw flaws with the scope and rationale for U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest’s original order blocking the disputed provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011.
“We conclude that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the government’s motion for a stay,” Appeals Court Judges Denny Chin, Raymond Lohier and Christopher Droney wrote in a three-page order that also expedited the appeal.
The judges continue:
First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, ‘based on their stated activities,’ plaintiffs, ‘journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.’
Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) (‘Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.’).
Third, the language of the district court’s injunction appears to go beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government’s authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force…
The case will go forward now before what will likely be a different trio of judges, but the stay will likely remain in place pending resolution of the government’s appeal.
The import of the law is disputed. Proponents say it simply reinforced authority a federal appeals court in Washington had already accorded to the U.S. government, at least as far as foreigner are concerned. Critics say the measure exposes journalists and human rights activists who meet with alleged terrorists to the prospect of open-ended detention.
All three judges on the motions panel were appointed to the appeals court by President Barack Obama.
Find Out If You Are Doing Things Which Might Be Considered Suspicious
There have been so many anti-terrorism laws passed since 9/11 that it is hard to keep up on what kinds of things might get one on a “list” of suspected bad guys.
We’ve prepared this quick checklist so you can see if you might be doing something which might get hassled.
The following actions may get an American citizen living on U.S. soil labeled as a “suspected terrorist” today:
Bitcoin Gavin Andresen announced today on the Bitcoin Talk forums that he has launched a non-profit, modeled on the Linux Foundation, that will seek to “help people exchange resources and ideas [about Bitcoin] more freely.”
If you’re unfamiliar with the Linux Foundation, it’s a non-profit aimed at promoting the growth and advancement of Linux, an open-source operating system. David Perry, author of Coding in My Sleep, describes the foundation as:
A non-profit entity explicitly designed to help Linux succeed. It does this by acting as a neutral spokesperson, building networks of Linux users and developers, promoting the use of standards to make developers’ lives easier and so on. They also sponsor a number of key developers financially, turning what would otherwise be a hobby into an actual pays-the-bills job, thus allowing the developers to remain independent and work full time on improving Linux.
Mr. Andresen has similar hopes for the Bitcoin Foundation, which will help to standardize and fund Bitcoin infrastructure, keep the currency secure, and work to correct false interpretations and misinformation about Bitcoin. Bitcoin developers and aficionados can pay for membership status, which ranges from a 2.5BTC annual membership (about $30, according to Preev) all the way up to 10,000BTC/year (about $123,000–which, whoa).
“I think Linux is a great ‘role model’ for Bitcoin,” he wrote in the announcement. “It is a very successful open source project that really embraced the notion of ‘open,’ encouraging the use of the core technology for a wide range of applications. I hope that the Bitcoin Foundation will help do the same for Bitcoin.”
Of course, the Linux Foundation is about promoting an operating system that only accounts for 1.55% of the OS market share, whereas the Bitcoin Foundation will work to promote a cryptocurrency sometimes used for blackmarket activity. Bitcoin has seen its own share of PR nightmares in recent months, from an exchange-paralyzing heist to talk of Bitcoin ponzi schemes. Perhaps the Bitcoin Foundation is just what the currency needs to clean up its image.
The Foundation itself even plainly states the need for an organization that can help break Bitcoin out of its cyberdungeon:
As the Bitcoin economy has evolved, we have all noticed barriers to its widespread adoption—botnets that attempt to undermine the network, hackers that threaten wallets, and an undeserved reputation stirred by ignorance and inaccurate reporting.
To us, it became clear that something had to be done. We see this foundation as critical for bringing legitimacy to the Bitcoin currency. Only then can we increase its adoption and positive impact on the world’s finance.
The Bitcoin Foundation has stacked its board with well-known, high-profile people active in the Bitcoin community so that users feel safe donating. Still, as Mr. Perry points out, “according to the dissenting voices, it’s representative only of the ‘big business’ side of Bitcoin, not the actual users.” Indeed, some users have expressed dissent on the boards, but for the most part they seem supportive of a unified effort to legitimize Bitcoin.
Plus, Mr. Andresen stresses that these decisions aren’t set in stone.
“The structure of the Foundation can be changed by a vote of its members,” he wrote, “and exactly what the Foundation does will largely depend on who is willing to step up do the work to make things happen.”
Isn’t it obvious that there is a significant global awakening happening? Just as the Mayans predicted so many years ago, the apocalypse would become apparent in 2012. But many misinterpret the apocalypse to be the end of the world, when in fact it actually means an “un-covering, a revelation of something hidden.”
As many continue to argue the accuracy of the Mayan calendar, it can no longer be argued that a great many people are finally becoming aware of what has been hidden from them for so long. Of course this awakening is not an overnight process. It takes time to peel away the many layers of lies to get to the core of the ultimate truths.
It would be beyond pretentious for us to claim to know all of the secrets of the universe. We don’t. Everyday we are humbled by what we don’t yet know.
However, it is becoming clearer by the day what isn’t true. And by that measure alone, it is possible to determine if you’re one of the people beginning to wake up.
Here are ten signs you may be fully awake:
1. You know there’s no meaningful difference between major political parties (Democrats and Republicans): It’s so easy to get caught up the left-right debate and believe there’s a difference between the two major political parties. However, debate is one thing, while actions are another. By their deeds you shall know them, and it is indisputable that there is no significant difference between political parties when it comes to action on the most important issues. Even hardened ideologues like John Cusack are beginning to wake up.
2. You understand that the Federal Reserve, or international central banking more broadly, is the engine of our economic problems: Debt slavery is the totalitarian force that threatens all of humanity, not some temporary political puppet or some greedy Wall Street trader. When a small group of people have the ability to create wealth out of nothing and charge interest on it, they have the ability to enslave the planet to their ownership despite what type of government a country claims to have.
3. You know that preemptive war is never necessary: When we realize that self-defense is the only acceptable form of violence, then we become awakened human beings. To suggest war because someone is different from you, or they may pose a threat in the future is simply ludicrous. And when did the idea of bombing civilians become humanitarian? No one wants war except for the immoral creeps that benefit from it.
4. You know that you’re being systematically poisoned, how, by whom, and why: Admittedly, there’s a lot to learn in terms of how we are secretly being poisoned. But the fact remains that we are being systematically poisoned, and it is likely for the deliberate purpose of dumbing us down and, ultimately, culling the population. Who could believe anyone is so evil to do that to innocent people, you may ask. Well, once you begin to seek the answer to that question, you’re one step closer to enlightenment.
5. You understand that government can never legislate morality, nor should they: When you realize the role of government is only to protect your liberty and work for the well being of the citizens, you’re awakened. There should be one simple law regulating morality: Do no harm. Thus, it’s impossible for the government to enforce morality with guns, cages, and taxes because those clearly cause severe harm to your liberty and our well-being.
6. You know that the mainstream media is wholly owned and manipulated by the ruling elite: A dwindling number of people still actually believe what they hear coming from the establishment media as if it’s gospel, even when they already accept that they are bought and paid for by the elite controllers. Yet, recognizing that they are nothing more than a propaganda machine and a form of mind control are the first steps in being able to critically think beyond the scientific messaging they broadcast.
7. You know that your neighbors are not your enemy even if you have fierce ideological disagreements: This is perhaps the most difficult thing to overcome in the awakening process. But it’s vital to understand that your neighbors have been indoctrinated and hypnotized like the rest of the us, until someone helps shine a light on inconsistencies in our thoughts and beliefs. Most of their ideas are not their own. They are suffering just like the rest of us. It’s okay to condemn their actions if they’re harmful, but those who are awake will not give up on spreading information that can enlighten those who might still be in the dark. None of us were born “awake” and all of us can learn even more.
8. You know that the endgame is one-world control of planet Earth: Once you understand that the endgame for the ruling elite is to have complete control of all vital facets of society through a global government, one-world currency, international armed forces, and so on, it is simple to see through the lies and propaganda surrounding even the most confusing world events. You will never go back to sleep when you fully accept this reality.
9. You recognize that there are esoteric powers manipulating our physical world: Whether you’re a religious or spiritual person, scientific or just plain curious, there are many theories about an invisible force at play in all of this. Obviously it’s impossible to prove exactly what it is. You may not want to believe it, but the ruling elite takes their occult rituals deadly serious. And they likely know something we don’t. Just by keeping an open mind about this possibility, you’ll forever keep an open mind about the things we can actually see, hear, taste and touch. Current science has shown that we can only “see” what the visible light spectrum reveals, which amounts to the tiniest fraction of all that can theoretically be seen within the full spectrum of energy. Part of any awakening is realizing that there is much more that is possible than impossible.
10. The power to change the world rests with you and you alone: For too long people have believed themselves to be weak, or relied on others to change the world for them. You’ll know that you’re fully awake when you realize that you have infinite power to change the world by simply living the change you want to see. First, you have to identify the principles that you believe in and then go out and live by them. If just a small minority took steps to do this, it would shake the establishment to its core.
I don’t know about you, but I would label my personal knowledge of Hungary as wanting, if not painfully incomplete. It’s not an easy country to come to grips with, not least of all of course because Hungarian doesn’t look like any western language we know with the possible exception of Finnish. I did visit just after the Wall came down, and remember huge contrasts, almost paradoxes, between rural poverty and a capital, Budapest, that was much richer than other capitals such as Prague, a leftover of Budapest’s status as meeting place between western and eastern diplomats and businessmen.
The riches were not for all, though, the city center was full of beggars and panhandlers, mostly Roma. To keep up the paradox, Mercedes sold more luxury models in Hungary than just about anywhere else back then, reportedly mostly also to Roma; just not the same.
In the years since, precious little attention has been and is being devoted to the former eastern bloc countries in the Anglo press. We know most of the countries are now members of the European Union, but only a few have been allowed to enter the hallowed grounds of the eurozone.
One thing I did pick up on last year was the news that Hungary’s PM Victor Orbán had thrown chemical, food and seed giant Monsanto out of the country, going as far as to plow under 1000 acres of land. Now, I have little patience for Monsanto, infamous for many products ranging from Agent Orange to Round-Up, nor for its ilk, from DuPont to Sygenta, all former chemical companies that have at some point decided they could sell more chemicals than ever before by applying them on and inside everyone’s daily food. Patenting nature itself seems either unworthy of mankind or its grandest achievement. I don’t care much for either one. So Orbán (who has a two-thirds majority in parliament, by the way) has my tentative support on this one.
This is from July 22, 2011, International Business Times:
In an effort to rid the country of Monsanto’s GMO products, Hungary has stepped up the pace. This looks like its going to be another slap in the face for Monsanto. A new regulation was introduced this March which stipulates that seeds are supposed to be checked for GMO before they are introduced to the market. Unfortunately, some GMO seeds made it to the farmers without them knowing it.
Almost 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds have been destroyed throughout Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar said. The GMO maize has been ploughed under, said Lajos Bognar, but pollen has not spread from the maize, he added.
Unlike several EU members, GMO seeds are banned in Hungary. The checks will continue despite the fact that seed traders are obliged to make sure that their products are GMO free, Bognar said. During their investigation, controllers have found Pioneer and Monsanto products among the seeds planted.
It’s remarkably hard to find sources on this, ironically. It’s even harder, even more ironically, to find anything that mentions the Wikileaks report on the connections between the US government and the chemical/seed industry. Which is curious, in my opinion; it’s not as if there’s nothing newsworthy in the topic. Just about the only thing I could find was this from Anthony Gucciardi at NaturalSociety.com.
The United States is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) crops with military-style trade wars, according to information obtained and released by the organization WikiLeaks. Nations like France, which have moved to ban one of Monsanto’s GM corn varieties, were requested to be ‘penalized’ by the United States for opposing Monsanto and genetically modified foods. The information reveals just how deep Monsanto’s roots have penetrated key positions within the United States government, with the cables reporting that many U.S. diplomats work directly for Monsanto. [..]
Perhaps the most shocking piece of information exposed by the cables is the fact that these U.S. diplomats are actually working directly for biotech corporations like Monsanto. The cables also highlight the relationship between the U.S. and Spain in their conquest to persuade other nations to allow for the expansion of GMO crops. Not only did the Spanish government secretly correspond with the U.S. government on the subject, but the U.S. government actually knew beforehand how Spain would vote before the Spanish biotech commission reported their decision regarding GMO crops.
It doesn’t look like Orbán and Hungary have a lot of support in their fight against Monsanto and GMO in general on the political front. But that still does little to explain the radio silence.
There was more international reporting earlier this year, when Orbán again faced up to two other major forces, in this instance the IMF and the EU. On January 1, the Hungarian parliament and president signed a new constitution into law. And it contains a number of things that the Troika members don’t like. In particular, they are probably at odds with taxes levied on bank transactions, and especially central bank transactions. Not the kind of thing the IMF is likely to ever agree with. It all gets clad in protesting (the EU even threatens with courts) the independence under fire of the central bank, the media and other parts of Hungarian society.
The IMF and EU, like the tandem team of Monsanto and Washington before them, act like schoolyard bullies. It’s become their standard MO, and it usually works. Portraits of Orbán as a fool, a reckless idiot and a dangerous populist, on par with that of Hugo Chavez or newly found international enemy Rafael Correa, are much easier to find than those links to Wikileaks Monsanto cables. It would be good to see Orbán continue to stand up to the IMF bullies, but he may not have that choice. They can simply financially bleed him dry, like they have so many other countries and their leaders. It’s a time tested model.
So maybe we’ll have to do with a good and hearty chuckle, and enjoy his announcement yesterday:
Hungary’s prime minister has long had a testy relationship with the International Monetary Fund — and on Thursday he used Facebook to unfriend the agency and reject its allegedly tough loan conditions.
Prime Minister Viktor Orban said in a video message on his official Facebook page that Hungary could not accept pension cuts, the elimination of a bank tax, fewer public employees and other conditions in exchange for an IMF loan that other officials have said could be about €15 billion ($18.9 billion). The IMF’s list of conditions, Orban said, “ contains everything that is not in Hungary’s interests.”
Orban’s announcement took the markets by surprise, in part because just a day earlier he had said loan negotiations with the IMF and the European Union were going according to schedule and both sides were willing to reach an agreement. [..]
In late 2008, under a Socialist government, Hungary became the first EU country to receive an IMF-led bailout. The Orban government, however, decided not to renew the loan agreement in 2010 so it could implement its economic policies without IMF control. But the increasing weakness of the forint, the Hungarian currency, and investors’ growing loss of trust in the country’s economy made the government abruptly change its mind late last year, when it again sought IMF help.
Basically, what the IMF demands is what it has always demanded through the years from countries it lends money to: cut pensions, cut the public sector, cut benefits yada yada, and then privatize, open markets, and open financial systems, so international operating conglomerates can move in and divvy up the spoils – “create a more ‘business friendly’ environment to boost growth” -. The IMF is the poster child for disaster capitalism, no matter how you twist and turn it. And Orbán can see clearly what is being done to Greece, which is just around the corner from Hungary.
A “list of horrors”. That’s how Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán described on Thursday the conditions given by the IMF / EU for a deal, via a video on his Facebook page. [..]
Orban blamed the “long list” of onerous conditions that had, supposedly, been leaked to Magyar Nemzet, a slavishly pro-government daily, on Wednesday. The list contains a number of Orbán’s most sacred political themes, including cuts in pensions, family allowances and transport perks, an increase in the age of retirement, the introduction of a property tax, the abolition of the bank and financial transaction taxes, and modifications to the flat-rate, personal income tax regime.
Hungary threw hopes for a new loan to prop up its sagging economy into disarray on Thursday as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban rejected what he called unacceptable IMF conditions, crushing prospects for a fast agreement. Orban, in a video posted on his Facebook page, cited demands from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a raft of changes that he said were too high a price for Hungary to pay.
“From cutting pensions to reducing bureaucracy to scrapping the bank tax and the funds to be made available to banks, everything is in there that’s not in Hungary’s interest,” Orban said. “The parliamentary group meeting (of the ruling Fidesz party) took the view, and I personally agree with it, that at this price, this will not work,” he added. [..]
To reverse that momentum, Orban is pushing a 300 billion forint ($1.33 billion) job saving plan, partly funded by a new tax on central bank operations, a key sticking point in the IMF talks, which the European Central Bank has also criticised. [..]
“Junk”-rated Hungary faces a repayment hump in the next five quarters, with the equivalent of €4.6 billion euros falling due from its previous IMF/EU bailout alone.
It’s enough of a David vs Goliath fight, or a Little Red Riding Hood vs the Wolf, to make one question the bullies. Now, I don’t really know Victor Orbán, all I know is western media descriptions of him, not a very reliable source, and he could well be a bully himself. But I still like the Little Red Riding Hood story (and dislike Monsanto and the IMF) enough to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
And besides, it’s as refreshing as it is high time to talk about something else than Greece or Spain. We’ll have to get back to them soon enough, after Draghi’s unlimited buying bailout boondoggle yesterday
Newly released court documents in the Aurora, CO theater “Batman massacre” case reveals startling inside accusations about who may actually be behind the shootings that left at least 70 people either dead or injured in the early morning hours of July 20th.
Friday’s report by the online version of Denver’s Westword Magazine details shocking claims made by, what appears to be, a new victim in a case that has throttled a community still in mourning over the tragic events. According to the court documents an individual, whose name has been officially redacted from the documents, came forward to file a “Motion to Intervene” for the right to be reasonably heard under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (a)(4), for the purposes of presenting newly discovered evidence to the court.
Corroborating much of a recent Conspiracy Examiner story maintaining the situation as potentially being another horrific (rogue government faction) conspiracy and possible false-flag event, the newly discovered evidence, thrown out of court by Judge William Sylvester days later, details stunning accusations against billionaire Philip Anschutz, Police Chief Dan Oates, Arapaho County Dist. Atty. Carol Chambers and, according to the alleged victim, the Illuminati as being potential co-conspirators in the crime.
The stunning accusations, dated August 27, reveal a startling story by the claimant as having been visited at home by police chief Dan Oates and Dist. Atty. Carol Chambers where they forced the unnamed individual to testify as a fake victim of the shootings, under the threat of being arrested for prostitution and escort services and charity fraud, for the purposes of garnering an easy conviction against alleged shooter James Holmes. But not before being shot by the police chief in “non-life-threatening areas” of the body, according to the motion, to appear as having been shot by James Holmes himself. The motion also claims that it is likely some of the victims in the theater were merely paid actors working on behalf of the conspirators and wants multiple individuals involved in the situation to take polygraph tests to prove their innocence.
Claiming that their conscience will not let fraudulent testimony contribute to an improper conviction of James Holmes, the new mystery victim asked that the judge submit the case to the FBI and the US Congress for further investigation into the alleged conspiracy. The judge, however, instead of taking a closer look, decided to strike down the motion as fraudulent, claiming the motion as likely forged by an individual or individuals unassociated with the events. The judge also suggested the situation be investigated by the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s office and those responsible for the motion be taken into custody by the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services and “referred to the appropriate mental health agency.”
But it may in fact be the judge that needs the mental attention as all the evidence collected in the case thus far seems to point toward mostly agreeing with the individual who filed the claim, despite the media and the court’s attempts to suppress any evidence that doesn’t support the official story. Multiple and corroborating eyewitness testimony stated what appeared to be multiple individuals involved in the shooting, including supporting official dispatch audio. Individuals interviewed by local media immediately after the event also claimed to have seen teargas canisters being deployed in the theater simultaneously from two different directions, in addition to side-by-side images of James Holmes prior to the shootings and the orange haired individual taken into custody as the alleged lone gunmen after the event looks startlingly like two different individuals. There also seems to have been two different gas masks found at the scene, in addition to other damning evidence that doesn’t jive with the official version of the events.
The individual who filed the motion also added that they wanted their portion of the charity to be donated to James Holmes’ prison commissary, after using the money to find Mr. Holmes “real” attorneys who are actually willing to act in the honest defense of James Holmes, or the individual in custody for the crime.
The motion, as certified by the Arapahoe County Dist. Atty. and public defenders offices, was sent via the United States Postal Service, then was quickly denied and subsequently released days ago to the public for reasons yet to be determined.
Perhaps one of the most telling aspects of the circumstances, however, happens to be the creepy dead silence about the motion by the media, especially considering every little detail about a situation like this is normally scrutinized at every angle after being groomed with a fine tooth comb and examined under a microscope.
It was just weeks ago that certain local media outlets were considering suing for access to court records because, according to those outlets, the community had a right to know so the victims and the community could more easily begin the healing process and find some semblance of closure. Perhaps information that may open new wounds, however, regardless of how accurate or important that information may be, may not be the kind of information they were looking for.
Indefinite detention, targeted killing and warrantless wiretapping are hot issues in the courts this week. Here’s the latest:
INDEFINITE DETENTION // The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 provision that allows the government to indefinitely detain US citizens without charge or trial is once again in effect, after a Second Circuit Court overturned Judge Katherine Forrest’s permanent injunction against Section 1021 (b)(2). The fight over the widely-despised authority appears to be far from over. Read more.
UPDATE: Chris Hedges, one of the plaintiffs in the NDAA indefinite detention lawsuit, spoke with live stream journalist Tim Pool at Occupy Wall Street on Monday, September 17 about his case and the Obama administration’s appeal. Hedges put forward the thesis that the Obama administration may already be holding US citizens without due process — otherwise they wouldn’t have acted so quickly to overturn Forrest’s permanent injunction. The administration doesn’t want to be held in contempt, Hedges said, and so immediately moved to appeal her verdict. Note: This was filmed before the court overturned Forrest’s injunction, so it’s obsolete in that sense.
Watch:
TARGETED KILLING // Can the federal government talk publicly about its targeted killing drone program on television, in interviews with journalists, and before audiences of hundreds, and then turn around and deny the existence of the program in court to ensure that the public remains in the dark about its legal justifications for pursuing it? The ACLU says ‘no’:
The American Civil Liberties Union will be in federal appeals court Thursday to argue that the CIA cannot deny the existence of the government’s targeted killing program and refuse to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests about the program while officials continue to make public statements about it.
The ACLU’s FOIA request, filed in January 2010, seeks to learn when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the U.S. ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killings.
“The notion that the CIA’s targeted killing program is a secret is nothing short of absurd,” said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer, who will argue the case before a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court. “For more than two years, senior officials have been making claims about the program both on the record and off. They’ve claimed that the program is effective, lawful and closely supervised. If they can make these claims, there is no reason why they should not be required to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.”
WARRANTLESS SPYING // A 2005 class action lawsuit brought by AT&T customers who say the NSA illegally spied on their communications is slowly winding itself through the court system. In 2008, Congress immunized AT&T and other telecoms from lawsuits related to companies turning over customer information to the NSA, but the government still faces a number of challenges to the warrantless spying program, among them the AT&T class action suit. A judge first threw the case out in 2010, claiming that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to bring the lawsuit because they couldn’t prove they were spied on. Another court reversed that decision a year later, instructing the court to look at whether the state secrets privilege bars the court from considering the case at all — regardless of whether there’s evidence of spying or not. As a result, the main plaintiff in the case, Carolyn Jewel, filed for summary judgment in July, providing the court with testimony from NSA whistleblowers and former AT&T employees to prove the existence of vacuum style, dragnet surveillance. The NSA makes some contradictory and utterly confusing arguments about why the plaintiffs shouldn’t have a right to challenge its spying programs. From Courthouse News:
The government has amply demonstrated in the DNI and NSA public and classified declarations that disclosure of the privileged information reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security,” a 48-page memorandum states. “The disclosure of information concerning whether plaintiffs have been subject to alleged NSA intelligence activity would necessarily reveal NSA intelligence sources and methods, including whether certain intelligence collection activities existed and the nature of any such activity. The disclosure of whether specific individuals were targets of alleged NSA activities would also reveal who is subject to investigative interest – helping that person to evade surveillance – or who is not – thereby revealing the scope of intelligence activities as well as the existence of secure channels for communication.
But those statements thoroughly contradict something else the government says:
The DNI explains that, as the government has previously indicated, the NSA’s collection of content of communications under the now inoperative TSP was directed at international communications in which a participant is reasonably believed to be associated with al Qaeda or an affiliate terrorist organization, and thus plaintiffs’ allegation that the NSA has indiscriminately collected the content of millions of communications sent or received by people inside the United States after 9/11 under the TSP is false.
The national security establishment first tells the public that it cannot disclose who is and who is not a target of its surveillance programs because doing so would tip off the bad guys, and then goes on to say that the program “was directed at…al Qaeda[.]” In other words, the government will readily admit that al Qaeda and “affiliate terrorist organization[s]” are targets of its surveillance programs, but it can’t acknowledge whether or not non-terrorist US citizens are also targets of that program because disclosure of whether non-terrorist US citizens are being spied on without constitutional protections would “cause exceptionally grave harm to national security.” As BoingBoing observed: the NSA says it can’t tell us if it is spying on us because “REASONS.”
WARRANTLESS SPYING // The ACLU has its own warrantless wiretapping lawsuit in the works to challenge the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and the government has thrown up similar roadblocks to prevent the case from being heard on the merits. Here’s the ACLU answer to the government’s claims that our clients — journalists, human rights workers and academics — don’t have a right to bring the lawsuit:
The government’s insistence that plaintiffs cannot establish standing without proving the certainty of surveillance is at bottom not a standing argument but a bid for a kind of immunity. This is because its proposed standard is one that neither plaintiffs nor anyone else will ever be able to meet—not because the surveillance they fear will never take place but because they will be unaware of it when it does…
The government theory of standing would render real injuries nonjusticiable and insulate the government’s surveillance activities from meaningful judicial review.
…
More than forty years ago, when surveillance technology was comparatively primitive, this Court recognized that “few threats to liberty exist which are greater than that posed by the use of eavesdropping devices” … and it cautioned that the threat to core democratic rights was especially pronounced where surveillance authority was exercised in the service of national security…. To accept the government’s theory of standing would be to accept that the courts are powerless to address the threat presented by surveillance authorities exercised in secret, and powerless to protect Americans’ most fundamental rights against the encroachment of increasingly sophisticated and intrusive forms of government power.
Read more about the ACLU’s challenge, which will go before the Supreme Court in late October to decide the standing issue once and for all. Just last week the House passed a reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act, which would extend the law through December 31, 2017. Read the brief in the ACLU’s challenge, Clapper v. Amnesty, et al., here.
Obama lawyers file a breathless, angry appeal against the court ruling that invalidated the NDAA’s chilling 2011 detention law
Bagram airbase was used by the US to detain its ‘high-value’ targets during the ‘war on terror’ and is still Afghanistan’s main military prison. Photograph: Dar Yasin/AP
In May, something extremely rare happened: a federal court applied the US constitution to impose some limits on the powers of the president. That happened when federal district court judge Katherine Forrest of the southern district of New York, an Obama appointee, preliminarily barred enforcement of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the statute enacted by Congress in December 2011 with broad bipartisan support and signed into law by President Obama (after he had threatened to veto it).
That 2011 law expressly grants the president the power to indefinitely detain in military custody not only accused terrorists, but also their supporters, all without charges or trial. It does so by empowering the president to indefinitely detain not only al-Qaida members, but also members of so-called “associated forces”, as well as anyone found to “substantially support” such forces – whatever those terms might mean. I wrote about that decision and the background to this case when it was issued.
What made Judge Forrest’s ruling particularly remarkable is that the lawsuit was brought by eight journalists and activists, such as former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who argued that their work, which involves interactions with accused terrorists, could subject them to indefinite detention under the law’s broad and vague authority, even for US citizens on US soil. The court agreed, noting that the plaintiffs presented “evidence of concrete – non-hypothetical – ways in which the presence of the legislation has already impacted those expressive and associational activities”. The court was particularly disturbed by the Obama DOJ’s adamant refusal to say, in response to being asked multiple times, that the law could not be used to indefinitely detain the plaintiffs due to their journalistic and political activities.
Last week, Judge Forrest made her preliminary ruling permanent, issuing a 112-page decision explaining it. Noting that the plaintiffs “testified credibly to having an actual and reasonable fear that their activities will subject them to indefinite military detention”, she emphasized how dangerous this new law is given the extremely broad discretion it vests in the president to order people detained in military custody with no charges:
The court also brushed aside the Obama DOJ’s prime argument, echoing the theories of John Yoo: namely, that courts have no business “interfering” in the president’s conduct of war. After acknowledging that the president is entitled to deference in the national security realm, Judge Forrest dispensed with the Obama DOJ’s claim with this vital observation: one that should be unnecessary but, in the 9/11 era, is all too commonly ignored:
In other words: while the president is entitled to deference in his conduct of war, he’s not entitled to wield the power to order people, including American citizens, indefinitely imprisoned in military detention. Regardless of how he claims he intends to exercise this power, the mere act of vesting it in him so chills the exercise of first amendment and other protected rights that the constitution can have no meaning if courts permit it to stand.
In response to this ruling, the Obama administration not only filed an immediate appeal, but they filed an emergency motion asking the appeals court to lift the injunction pending the appeal. Obama lawyers wrote a breathless attack on the court’s ruling, denouncing it as “vastly troubling” and claiming that it “threatens tangible and dangerous consequences in the conduct of an active military conflict” and “threatens irreparable harm to national security”.
The Obama DOJ also objected that the decision “was entered against the president as commander-in-chief in his conduct of ongoing military operations, is unprecedented and exceeded the court’s authority”: how irreverent. And they argued that the broad detention power claimed by President Obama “has been endorsed by two presidents [meaning him and George W Bush], by the [rightwing] DC circuit in habeas litigation brought by Guantánamo detainees, and by the Congress in Section 1021(b)(2).”
I’ve written at length before about why indefinite detention is so dangerous, and why a statute such as the NDAA – which purposely (as the court here found) leaves open the question of whether it applies to US citizens – is one of the most pernicious laws enacted in some time. I won’t rehash that here, but I do want to make two points about the Obama administration’s new fight in defense of this law.
First, the Obama administration’s unhinged claim that Judge Forrest’s ruling imperils national security gives the lie to the central excuse for the NDAA: namely, that it does not expand the president’s detention powers beyond what is already vested by the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). Judge Forrest’s ruling leaves the 2001 AUMF in place and did not purport to nullify any prior decisions applying it. Therefore, if the NDAA does nothing that the 2001 AUMF did not already do – as Obama defenders relentlessly claimed to justify his signing of this odious bill – then it cannot possibly be the case that Judge Forrest’s ruling harms national security, since Obama already has all the detention power he claims he needs under the 2001 AUMF.
The reality is that the NDAA did indeed wildly expand the president’s detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF provided. In contrast to the 2001 AUMF – which empowered the president to act against a relatively narrow category: those “he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on 11 September 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons” – the NDAA empowers him to act against a much broader range of people: not only those who perpetrated 9/11, but also “associated forces”, and not only those who are members of such groups, but those who “substantially support” them.
While the Bush and Obama DOJs have long absurdly interpreted the 2001 AUMF to apply to this broader range, and while some courts have accepted that interpretation, the law itself vested no such power. The NDAA did. That is why civil liberties groups such as the ACLU denounced Obama’s signing of it so vociferously, and it is why the Obama DOJ is so horrified, obviously, by the prospect that it will be invalidated: precisely because it so drastically expands their detention power. Both the court’s ruling and the Obama DOJ’s reaction to that ruling prove that the NDAA does indeed provide the president with significantly enhanced authority of indefinite detention.
Second, to see the sorry and wretched state of liberties in the US under President Obama, let us look to Afghanistan. The US is currently attempting to turn over to the Afghan government control of the lawless prison system the US has long maintained in Bagram and other parts of that country. But that effort is running into a serious problem: namely, the US wants the prisoners to remain there in cages without charges, but the Afghans are insisting that indefinite detention violates their belief in due process. From an Associated Press article Monday headlined “Afghans reject US-favored administrative detention”:
“An Afghan judicial panel ruled Monday that administrative detention violates Afghan law, potentially thwarting a US plan to hand over Afghan detainees that American officials believe should continue to be held without a trial.
“President Hamid Karzai’s office announced in a statement that a top-level judicial panel met earlier in the day and decided that the detention of Afghan citizens without a court trial ‘has not been foreseen in Afghan laws’ and therefore could not be used.
“The US government has long held Afghans captured in operations inside the country without trial, arguing that they are enemy combatants and therefore can be detained for as long as their release might pose a danger to the international coalition …
“A US official confirmed that the transfer of detainees had paused because of the dispute.”
Is that not amazing? On the very same day that the Obama DOJ fights vigorously in US courts for the right to imprison people without charges, the Afghan government fights just as vigorously for basic due process.
Remember: the US, we’re frequently told, is in Afghanistan to bring democracy to the Afghan people and to teach them about freedom. But the Afghan government is refusing the US demand to imprison people without charges on the ground that such lawless detention violates their conceptions of basic freedom. Maybe Afghanistan should invade the US in order to teach Americans about freedom.
This is not the first time this has happened. In 2009, the Obama administration decided that it wanted to target certain Afghan citizens for due process-free assassinations on the ground that the targets to be executed were drug “kingpins”. They were to be killed based solely on US accusations, with no trial, just as the Obama administration does with its own citizens. But again, that plan ran into a roadblock: Afghan leaders were horrified by the notion that their citizens would be extrajudicially executed based on unproven suspicions [my emphasis]:
“A US military hit list of about 50 suspected drug kingpins is drawing fierce opposition from Afghan officials, who say it could undermine their fragile justice system and trigger a backlash against foreign troops.
“The US military and Nato officials have authorized their forces to kill or capture individuals on the list, which was drafted within the past year as part of Nato’s new strategy to combat drug operations that finance the Taliban …
“General Mohammad Daud Daud, Afghanistan’s deputy interior minister for counternarcotics efforts, praised US and British special forces for their help recently in destroying drug labs and stashes of opium. But he said he worried that foreign troops would now act on their own to kill suspected drug lords, based on secret evidence, instead of handing them over for trial.
“‘They should respect our law, our constitution and our legal codes,’ Daud said. ‘We have a commitment to arrest these people on our own’ …
“There is a constitutional problem here. A person is innocent unless proven guilty,” [former Afghan interior minister Ali Ahmad Jalali] said. “If you go off to kill or capture them, how do you prove that they are really guilty in terms of legal process?”
In other words, the Obama administration has received far more resistance to its due process-free imprisonments and assassinations from Afghans than it has from its own citizens in the US. If only more Americans, including progressives, were willing to point out the most basic truths in response to these Obama power seizures, such as: “If you go off to kill or capture them, how do you prove that they are really guilty in terms of legal process?”
Instead, many Americans, particularly in the age of Obama, are content to assume that anyone whom the US government accuses of being a terrorist should, for that reason alone, be assumed to be guilty, and as a result, any punishment the president decides to dole out – indefinite imprisonment, summary execution – is warranted and just; no bothersome, obsolete procedures such as “trials” or “indictments” are necessary.
It is that mindset that will ensure that Obama’s vigorous fight to preserve the power of indefinite detention will provoke so little objection: among Americans, that is – though obviously not among Afghans, who seem to have an actual understanding of, and appreciation for, the value of due process.
IF you have ever wondered if your smart meter is being used to spy on you, well now there is proof that governments and private organisations are using data collected from smart meters to spy on you.
Information about power usage, which can be used to identify when a home is being occupied, is being shared with third parties of which includes government agencies, private organisations and off-shore data processing centres.
This unethical breach of privacy was discovered on the website of one of Australia’s largest electricity retailer, Origin Energy.
Electricity customers, who sign up for an online service that provides the account holder with detailed information about their electricity usage, are unwillingly agreeing to share their private information with third parties.
A 496 word Privacy/Consent policy form explicitly states that customers who wish to sign up for the service that provides them with information about their electricity usage, must agree that the following organisations have access to their private data:
Government authorities
Electricity installers
Mail houses
Data processing analysts
IT service providers
Smart energy technology providers
Debt collection agencies
Credit reporting agencies
A spokesperson for the electricity company (Origin Energy) responsible for this revelation was recently quoted as saying “the additional information requested about each household adds to the richness of the Origin Smart experience” (Source: The Age).
One private organisation that is being given personal information of Origin Energy customers is Tendril, a self-described consumer engagement application and services provider and an organisation that believes smart grids can help fight climate change.
Alarmingly, Tendril’s own website doesn’t explicitly state how it uses data gathered by its clients and for what purposes the data can and cannot be used for.
What implication this has for Australian residents is unknown.
There has been an overwhelming opposition to the roll-out and installation of smart meters around the world.
Smart Meter opt-out coalitions are present in almost all major municipalities that have smart meters present. Unfortunately, in many municipalities an opt-put option is not available.
The author (Andrew Puhanic) was forced to have a smart meter installed on his property, with the only notice given about the installation being a letter informing the ‘month’ that the smart meter would be installed.
The greatest concern with smart meter data being shared with third parties is the fact that the third-party organisation could easily identify (over time) a pattern of when you do and do not use electricity.
This information could fall into the wrong hands and could be used to determine when your home is un-occupied.
In Australia, the erosion of privacy was escalated further by a new proposal to force internet and telephone companies to retain customer records for more than two years. For more information about this proposal, click here.
Households that are forced to have smart meters installed must be assured that the information their electricity company collects is not shared with third parties.
Ultimately, smart meters are designed to collect information about household electricity usage and now there is proof that electricity companies are openly sharing information collected by smart meters.
A blind man in the dark with ear muffs on knows that something happened in Benghazi, Libya more than a spontaneous angry mob pissed off over a Grade Z video attacked an American Consulate and killed the US Ambassador to Libya.
I hate internet conspiracy theories, and loathe slinging a new one into the mix, but the evidence available adds up one way: the attack, well-planned, was surgical payback for CIA activity in the area. Stevens wasn’t the target at all, he was just a celebrity in the wrong place at the wrong time. The guff about the dumb Prophet movie was the first cover story for the US Government and when that fell apart like cardboard in the rain, the State Department shifted the meme to flag waving over Stevens’ death.
Let’s see what we know:
– The attack was not spontaneous. It involved a large number of men, perhaps as many as 125, fighting in a coordinated fashion, using weapons such as RPGs and mortars on multiple targets. Yes, yes, lots of people carry guns around Libya, but not RPGs and certainly not crew served weapons like mortars. It appears also that the so-called Libyan security forces assigned to protect the Consulate either conveniently disappeared on cue or saw the smack coming down and ran to save themselves. This information is widely available from media outside the US, but scare in US media sources for some reason.
– The attack did not target Stevens. Indeed, famously, his body was only pulled from the ruins of the Consulate by a secondary crowd. Whether the crowd abused the body or dragged it to a hospital, it clearly had no idea or concern for who it held. The Consulate attackers went for documents, and ignored the Ambassador. Stevens just happened to be there, wrong place, wrong time.
– Half the US personnel evacuated out of Benghazi were CIA. While it is common knowledge that the CIA stations personnel abroad, it seems very unusual to have half a mission’s complement to be Agency. The New York Times reports that though the Agency has been cooperating with the new post-Qaddafi Libyan intelligence service, the size of the CIA’s presence in Benghazi apparently surprised some Libyan leaders. The deputy prime minister, Mustafa Abushagour, was quoted in The Wall Street Journal last week saying that he learned about some of the delicate American operations in Benghazi only after the attack on the mission, in large part because a surprisingly large number of Americans showed up at the Benghazi airport to be evacuated.
– In its reporting on the large number of CIA personnel in Benghazi, the New York Times agreed to withhold locations and details of Agency operations at the request of Obama administration officials, who said that disclosing such information could jeopardize future sensitive government activities and put at risk American personnel working in dangerous settings.
– The UK’s Independent noted that the Consulate attackers made off with documents listing names of Libyans who were working with Americans, and documents related to oil contracts. This strongly suggests the attack itself may have been a diversion to steal these documents and the Ambassador’s death, in U.S. terms, merely collateral damage. The organized attacking mob did not seem to be primarily interested in looting or stealing computer stuff.
– Many wondered why the media was reporting from early on the deaths of four Americans at the Benghazi Consulate, while Clinton continuously only mentioned two (Ambassador Stevens and computer person Sean Smith). Well, that’s because she did not want to tell us that the other two who lost their lives were “former” Navy SEALS now acting as State Department “contractors.” Even when Clinton finally acknowledged the SEALS’ deaths following widespread press reports, she only mentioned that one’s role was as security for the Ambassador.
Clinton pointedly did not mention what the other SEAL was doing in Libya. That is because the other deceased man was in Libya on an intel mission. The SEAL told ABC News that he was in Libya in the field tracking down and blowing up MANPADS, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles. The US saw its way to allowing those weapons to be used against Qaddafi and now wants to take them back so they are not used against us. Such ops are not State Department work and fall cleanly into CIA territory.
– The State Department’s curious mix up over who was providing security at the Benghazi Consulate also may point toward other US government Agencies. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland initially said “at no time did we contract with a private security firm in Libya,” while federal procurement records easily Googleable showed a contract for “security guards and patrol services” on May 3 for $387,413.68. An extension option brought the tab for protecting the consulate to $783,000. The contract lists only “foreign security awardees” as its recipient. Was typically fastidious Nuland’s wrong answer simply because she was misbriefed, or was it in fact an honest answer, that the guards were not State Department contractors at all?
According to Danger Room, the State Department frequently hires security companies to protect diplomats in conflict zones. It usually is done through what’s known as the Worldwide Protective Services contract, in which a handful of approved firms compete to safeguard specific diplomatic installations.
In 2010, State selected eight firms for the most recent contract. Blue Mountain wasn’t among them, and the State Department did not explain why the Benghazi consulate contract did not go to one of those eight firms. How the State Department could have even hired a foreign firm outside that blanket contract is unclear. State’s Inspector General had criticized State’s management of personnel security firms, so unilaterally expanding the pool just for one Libyan Consulate seems off base.
– The US government has had a heck of a time getting its story straight over what happened in Benghazi, most famously in sending UN ambassador and attack dog Susan Rice around to claim the attack was purely spontaneous even as the White House backed away from the idea. We’ve already mentioned Clinton’s duplicity over the identities and roles of the two deceased American “ex-” SEALS. Even long-time State drone Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said at one point he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons.
The election-year focus on President Barack Obama meant that the White House had at first been catching most of the heat for the tragedy in Benghazi. It’s certainly true the explanations from White House spokesman Jay Carney and UN Ambassador Susan Rice have strained common sense — mainly, the idea that the attack could be blamed solely on an anti-Islamic video, and that there was a protest outside the consulate at 10 p.m. (there reportedly wasn’t,) among other misleading details. That initial story has crumbled, and it took Robert Gibbs to get the Obama administration back on message on the Sunday shows.
State’s later calling reporter Michael Hastings an “asshole” and telling him to “fuck off” in relation to CNN’s use of Ambassador Steven’s found diary just adds fuel to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along nature of all this.
– Of course, there is a sort of precedent for this, most famously in 1991 when the KGB used a fire in the US Embassy in Moscow as a cover to roam around the building collecting documents,
Look, if all you have to do is tell the truth, it is pretty easy. Making up a cover story on the fly requires revisions. It may not be in our lifetimes that we learn what really happened in Libya, but something more than just a protest gone wild did happen.
The first thing is to know what to expect before hand. While people think about the dollar dropping to nothing, or an Obama re-election, you need to consider the most pressing signs of a pending martial law.
How pending?
About 15 minutes or less away from being put into a bus.
Now there are people who would look forward to 3 hots and a cot. And there are some who would actively encourage you to go to the camps. There was an article that said that social services folks are encourage self-sufficient people to use food stamps, and that the self-sufficient mentality was preventing more people from being on food stamps.
But we aren’t those people. We are the kinds that enjoy freedom.
So what do we look for?
Using the backbone of a military operation, you must make the enemy (that would be you) deaf, dumb, and blind.
What does that mean? It means you must be blind: Not knowing what to expect, how many men are in the operation, and what your final destination will be. This means that the operation will most likely take place in the middle of the night. When they roll up, mega watt lights will be shone onto the neighbourhood. This disorientates you as well as illuminate your home for movement. This also means the power to your block will be secured. Depending on the size of the town, perhaps several blocks at once. That would be a good thing. Read on…
Deaf means that you won’t know what is going on. Loud noises, such as bullhorns shouting orders, diesel engines running, and people yelling at you to go here or there. It also means you won’t be able to receive texts or cell phone service.
Dumb, or mute, means you won’t be able to call anyone, tweet, post a Facebook update, send an email of warning. Imagine if the events took place in Chicago. How quick would such a warning get spread all over Facebook or Twitter. It would “trends” quickly and the element of surprise would be gone.
Making you deaf and dumb is as simple as securing the internet with the Internet Kill Switch. That ends Facebook, Twitter, and Email.
And all you have to do to secure the cell phone or land-line service is to have the US military show up at the local phone office and have them secure all lines in the place. Turning the power off would be as effective as cutting lines, but once power is restored you could have normal service. Infrastructure would be maintained.
Your neighbourhood is now deaf, dumb, and blind.
You need to buy yourself some time. Not much time, but just enough time.
And you have about 5 minutes to do it in. Maybe less.
What do you need?
You need to make an alert when you lose power. This is from my site:
“I took a small wall wart that is rated at 12 volts and about 100 mA. I attached it to the power and ground part of a small 12v relay I bought from radio shack. I then took a 9v battery connector and a piezeo alarm and put it on the connectors of the relay that if there is no power to the relay – will allow current to flow. The way you find that is to put the red wire of the connector to the relay, and one of the leads from the alarm to the opposite side of the relay. Connect the black wire and the other alarm wire together.
Provided you have a 9v battery on the connector you should hear a sound. If not, change to a different spot on the relay. So when you apply power by plugging in the wall wart, the sound goes off. Remove the wart or turn off the power, you get an alarm sound. “
When I was in the Navy, any time we lost power we went into an immediate Security Alert. And you should too. When that alarm sounds (Put it in your bedroom as close to the bed as possible), after you pull the alarm out of the socket, get up and hide the children,
And that means you have to have pre-arranged hiding spots.
A window seat is a great way to start. Make a bench, bolt it to the wall under the bedroom window, and make small doors for the child to hide in. You can do the same for your room. Tell the children just to go if they are ever told, and to stay very quiet until you tell them to come out. And only you. Pretend to be someone else and see if they come to them. Soldiers may be very sneaky and say, “Your parents told me to get you. Come on, let’s go to them!”
Practice this frequently so they are aware of what needs to be done, and to be done in the dark, and to be done without question.
If you can’t make a window bench, then fill your closet up with “boxes”. These boxes are “stacked” to make it look like a storage area, but it’s just a shell. If you are in a manufactured home or a single story home, go to the closet and cut open a hatch to the crawl space. Have a black blanket so you can hide under the blanket to stay concealed. USE YOUR IMAGINATION!
The idea is that soldiers don’t have much time to search each home. They have to keep moving onto the next house. Once they leave and the power goes back on – DON’T CHANGE ANYTHING. If the bathroom light was on, leave it on. The smart meters will detect and record ANY changes and it will alert someone that there are people within the home!
Drones will be used to monitor communities and neighbourhoods. Going out after dark is the same as going out during the day.
If you go out at night, take a night vision capable video camera. Put black plastic around the IR lamp that is usually beneath the camera’s lens. This will prevent the drone from seeing the IR light, but you’ll be able to see the IR lights on the drone in the dark.
If you feel froggy, shoot down the drone AS IT LEAVES! The flight will be level and of constant speed, enough for you to get a bead on it. It’s difficult to tell where the shot came from, and you’ll get some satisfaction of taking one down. These thing are expensive and if they have to redirect one away from another area, that means someone else is getting a break.
If you have to move from one place to another, do so during a rain or thunderstorm. These conditions make drone flying very difficult and seeing anything of value VERY difficult. Yes, it is horrible conditions for you, but at least you will be free.
If, during the day, you see people wandering through your town, ignore them and hide. They may be “spies” looking for the last holdouts. As a rule of thumb, 8 to 80, blind, crippled, or crazy, means anyone may be a threat. Don’t kill them, just let them pass through. Watch them to see if they use a radio. IF they do use one, listen for codes such as, “Secure”, “Subjects”, “Natives”, or “SitRep (Situation Report)”
Such phrases would mean that they are looking for you as wolves in sheep’s clothing. DO NOTHING towards them. Get their photos if you can but remain hidden.
Satellites may detect heat from fireplaces, so use the covert cooking methods like solar cooking, Hay Box cooking or Creveche. If you can, light a match in the sewers to eliminate any flammable gasses, and cook down there. The streets should hide the heat signature well enough, especially in the day. Solar cooking using the back of a pickup may be a good decision as it may imitate the accumulated heat of a canopy.
You will be on your own. You will be the deciding factor if you live free or die free.
But it’s your decision. No one else makes it for you.
The average American today is exposed to a whole lot more fluoride than he or she is probably aware. Conventional produce, it turns out, is one of the most prevalent sources of fluoride exposure besides fluoridated water, as conventional crops are not only irrigated with fluoride-laced water in many cases, but also sprayed with pesticide and herbicide chemicals that have been blended with fluoride, and later processed once again with fluoridated water.
This fact may come as a surprise to many who have bought into the idea that eating more fresh produce is automatically beneficial for health, regardless of how that produce was grown. Thinking that they are doing their bodies a favor, millions of Americans have incorporated conventional fruits and vegetables into their everyday diets, not realizing that the resulting cumulative effect of fluoride exposure from these foods could be harming their health.
Many food crops uptake fluoride chemicals from water, soil
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly 75 percent of the U.S. population is being forcibly medicated with fluoride chemicals via their water supplies. This means that a significant percentage of U.S. crops are also irrigated using this same fluoridated water, particularly in the “Bread Belt” states, many of which are almost entirely fluoridated. (http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2010stats.htm)
While not all crops uptake fluoride from water in the same amounts, many absorb significant amounts of fluoride through their root systems every time they are watered. Tea plants, for instance, are among the worst when it comes to absorbing fluoride from soil and water, and storing it in their leaves (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/tea/). Grapes are another crop that tends to accumulate fluoride in high levels as well.
According to data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods, fresh fruits and vegetables have relatively low levels of fluoride compared to what is found in fluoridated water, reconstituted juices, dried fruit, and other sources (http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/fresh_foods/). But levels can vary, and particularly in the case of conventional produce, fluoridated pesticides and herbicides can add to overall fluoride exposure and intake levels.
Fluoridated pesticide, herbicide residues often lurk on conventional food
Because of its extreme toxicity, fluoride is often added to pesticides and herbicides in order to protect conventional crops from insect damage and disease. But just like with fluoridated irrigation water, fluoridated crop chemicals often absorb directly into plants, or at the very least, linger on the skins of the fruits and vegetables they produce, which adds to their fluoride toxicity.
Sulfuryl fluoride is one such pesticide that is commonly used to treat conventional cereal grains, dried fruit, tree nuts, cocoa beans, coffee beans, and other foods. Though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is said to currently be in the process of phasing out the use of sulfuryl fluoride (http://www.ewg.org/release/epa-bar-fluoride-based-pesticide), the chemical is still being used on a wide variety of conventional food crops, unbeknownst to consumers.
There are, in fact, more than 150 different fluoridated pesticides currently approved for use on conventional crops, none of which are typically indicated on produce labels. Chances are that if you eat conventional fruit, vegetables, or nuts, you are more than likely eating varieties that have been sprayed or fumigated with fluoride chemicals, which are prohibited from use on organic crops.
As we reported on recently, conventional grapes are often sprayed with the fluoride-based chemical pesticide cryolite, which is often sold under the trade name Kryocide. This particular pesticide actually contains substances that facilitate the passing of fluoride across the blood-brain barrier and directly into brain tissue, which makes it exceptionally toxic. (http://www.naturalnews.com/036753_fluoride_pesticides_grapes.html)
This compounded exposure to fluoride from fluoridated irrigation water, fluoridated pesticides and herbicides, airborne fluoride chemicals, and fluoridated water used during processing or reconstitution after harvest renders many conventional fruits and vegetables fluoride saturated.
Admittedly, many organic crops are also exposed to fluoride via irrigated water just like conventional crops are. But at least organic crops are not sprayed with fluoridated pesticides after harvest, and many organic foods are processed after harvest using purified water, as indicated on their ingredient labels, which means they contain less overall fluoride than their conventional counterparts.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has also created a helpful guide entitled 7 Ways to Avoid Fluoride in Beverages and Food that will help you discern how best to avoid fluoride when shopping for other types of food: http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/grocery_guide/
The Obama administration is battling to restore a controversial provision of a new federal law that it admits could have been used to arrest and detain citizens indefinitely – even if their actions were protected by the First Amendment.
A federal judge this week made permanent an injunction against enforcement of Section 1021 of the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, which was declared unconstitutional.
The Obama administration then took only hours to file an appeal of the order from U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, and attorneys also asked her to halt enforcement of her order.
In her order, Forrest wrote, “The government put forth the qualified position that plaintiffs’ particular activities, as described at the hearing, if described accurately, if they were independent, and without more, would not subject plaintiffs to military detention under Section 1021.”
But she continued, “The government did not – and does not – generally agree or anywhere argue that activities protected by the First Amendment could not subject an individual to indefinite military detention under Section 1021.”
The case was brought last January by a number of writers and reporters, led by New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The journalists contend the controversial section allows for detention of citizens and residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to anyone engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
The lawsuit alleges the law is vague and could be read to authorize the arrest and detention of people whose speech or associations are protected by the First Amendment. They wonder whether interviewing a member of al-Qaida would be considered “substantial support.”
“Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention – potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity – and that specificity is absent from Section 1021,” the judge wrote.
“It most definitely tells us something about their intent,” he told WND.
He cited Obama’s signing statement, when the bill was made law, that he would not use the provision allowing detention of American citizens without probable cause in military facilities.
“Just because someone says something doesn’t mean they’re not lying,” he said.
Bloomberg reports the Obama administration also is asking Forrest for a stay of the ruling that found the law violates the First, Fifth and 14th Amendments.
The judge expressed dissatisfaction with what one observer described as the arrogance of the Department of Justice in the case.
Forrest asked the government to define the legal term, noting the importance of how they apply to reporting and other duties.
“The court repeatedly asked the government whether those particular past activities could subject plaintiffs to indefinite military detention; the government refused to answer,” she wrote.
“The Constitution places affirmative limits on the power of the executive to act, and these limits apply in times of peace as well as times of war,” she wrote.
She said the law “impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protection to meet the requirements of due process.”
“This court rejects the government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention, and have as their sole remedy a habeas petition adjudicated by a single decision-maker (a judge versus a jury), by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard,” she wrote.
“That scenario dispenses with a number of guaranteed rights,” she said.
The Obama administration already has described those who hold a pro-life position or support third-party presidential candidates or the Second Amendment fit the profile of a domestic terrorist.
Obama stated when he put his signature to the legislative plan that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.”
Virginia already has passed a law that states it would not cooperate with such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have considered similar legislation.
The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.
Constitutional expert Herb Titus filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the sponsor of the Virginia law, Delegate Bob Marshall and others.
Titus, an attorney with William J. Olson, P.C., told WND the judge’s first decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of paragraph 1021 “affirms the constitutional position taken by Delegate Marshall is correct.”
The impact is that “the statute does not have sufficient constitutional guidelines to govern the discretion of the president in making a decision whether to hold someone in indefinite military detention,” Titus said.
The judge had noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.
Titus said the judge’s conclusions underscore “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”
The brief was filed on behalf of Marshall and other individuals and organizations, including the United States Justice Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Western Center for Journalism, the Tenth Amendment Center and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.
Marshall’s HB1160 passed the Virginia House of Delegates by a vote of 87-7 and the Virginia Senate 36-1. Since the vote was on changes recommended by Gov. Bob McDonnell, it was scheduled to take effect without further vote.
Marshall then wrote leaders in state legislatures around the country suggesting similar votes in their states.
Marshall’s letter noted Virginia was the first state in the nation to refuse cooperation “with federal authorities who, acting under the authority of section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), could arrest and detain American citizens suspected of aiding terrorists without probable cause, without the right to know the charges against them, and without the procedural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”
He told lawmakers, “While we would hope that the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives would be vigilant to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, even when addressing the problem of international terrorism, those efforts in Congress failed at the end of last year, and President Obama signed NDAA into law on December 31, 2011.”
Endorsing Marshall’s plan was the Japanese American Citizens League, which cited the detention of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II on no authorization other than the president’s signature.
The Obama administration continues to argue the law allows for detention without legal due process only those who “substantially supported” terror groups such as al-Qaida or “associated forces.” But the plaintiffs note that the law does not define those terms.
Instead, they point to the law’s provision that such individuals may be detained “without trial until the end of the hostilities.”
Obama attorneys said the new law simply affirms what already was precedent under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was adopted in the dust of the 9/11 terror attacks.
But plaintiffs wrote, “Nowhere does the AUMF convey to the executive the power to detain any person – citizen or otherwise – who ‘substantially supported’ al-Qaida or the Taliban or their associate forces, as section 1021 of the NDAA now provides.”
“No case has ever recognized the government’s contention that the AUMF authorized the detention of noncombatants. … Neither case law nor the actual text of the AUMF supports the government’s contention that such detention power already existed.”
A 16-year-old high school student’s video report for his American Government class earned him an A+ from his teacher. It also yielded a visit from the FBI.
Justin Hallman says that a project he put together for school that included information on the National Defense Authorization Act, Rep. Ron Paul, Anonymous and the Occupy Wall Street movement was well received in the classroom, but wasn’t exactly praised by others. After agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation saw a copy of Hallman’s finished work on YouTube, they paid a visit to his own home.
The boy’s mother says the FBI showed up at their home one month after the class project was first turned in and told her, “We need to talk to your son.” Once inside, Justin Hallman says he was drilled about his thoughts on an array of issues included in his project.
“They also asked me why I had talked to my teacher about the Illuminati,” he writes in an email obtained by Infowars. “I told them it was just harmless talk about the 1776 Illuminati that formed from the enlightenment era. I said my teacher said they are/were terrorists and not to talk about them (this caused the FBI agents to look puzzled and they changed the subject very fast to Anonymous). In the end they finally left for an ‘important meeting.’”
Hallman says the meeting wasn’t an informal chat, either, but even involved a proposition. According to the high-schooler, the FBIs attempted to recruit Hallman as an undercover source to scoop up more information on Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street.
“They wanted me to be an informant, to possibly put my life in danger, to help them arrest and gain intel on occupy protesters and hackers,” Hallman says in the email.
In the video he produced for class, Hallman includes text that warns, “Our future relies on the choices we make next” and “There is still hope!” For Mr. Sparks, his American Government teacher that “liked it so much that he gave it a score of 45/35 points,” the future might seem hopeful. For the FBI, however, that outlook appears to be eyebrow-raising and worthy of a surprise stop-by.
On his YouTube channel, Hallman says he’s decided to make a second video to cover recent developments “involving the NDAA, TrapWire, the increasing police state, and the possibility of a war with Iran.” His first clip has so far earned him over 100,000 views online.
For the second time this year, self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown was raided by the FBI.
The latest dramatic incident occurred late Wednesday evening while Brown and another woman identified by some as his girlfriend were participating in an online chat on TinyChat with other individuals.
Two minutes into the recorded chat session, loud voices could be heard in the background of Brown’s residence in Texas while the woman in the room with him was in front of the computer screen. She quickly closed the computer screen, but the audio continued to capture events in the room as the FBI appeared to strong-arm Brown to put handcuffs on him. Brown could be heard yelling in the background.
A spokeswoman in the Dallas County sherriff’s office confirmed to Wired that Brown was raided last night and was booked into the county jail around 11 p.m. She said the FBI removed him from the jail this morning to take him to a different facility, but she did not know where he was headed.
California attorney Jay Leiderman, a member of Brown’s legal team, told Wired that Brown was scheduled to be arraigned today in Texas on making threats to a federal agent.
Asked if the FBI agents were aware that Brown was online at the time of their raid, Leiderman said, “They problaby would have preferred to raid him when he was not online.” He noted that the audio from the raid was “certainly less than flattering when they’re marching through these doors dropping F-bombs…. I imagine they would not want to have that captured if they could help it.”
A transcript of the TinyChat session has been posted online. Just moments before the arrest, there were jokes about whether one of the chat participants was real or just an animated GIF. Moments later, the chat participants faced a different conundrum: trying to figure out whether they’d just witnessed an FBI raid.
A voice that appeared to come from one of the arresting agents was heard saying something to the effect: “You’re going down! Get your hands down!”
Right as the noise began, another participant in the chat room showed up in a video window with a white handkerchief covering his lower face. “Is Barrett Browm getting fuckin’ raided by the FBI?” he appeared to say. “Holy shit!”
Brown’s latest raid came after he posted a long and rambling YouTube video in which he talked about taking drugs (though not today, he noted) and about retaliating against an FBI Agent named Robert Smith after he learned that his mother might be hit with obstruction of justice charges. The threat of charges was apparently related to a laptop of Brown’s that he apparently hid.
“So that’s why Robert Smith’s life is over,” Brown said in the video (beginning around minute 9:40). “When I say his life is over, I’m not saying I’m going to kill him, but I am going to ruin his life and look into his fucking kids. Because Aaron Barr did the same thing and he didn’t get raided for it. How do you like them apples?” he said, smiling.
The video, titled “Why I’m Going to Destroy FBI Agent Robert Smith Part Three: Revenge of the Lithe” was accompanied by a note apparently posted by Brown that reads: “Send all info on Agent Robert Smith to [email protected] so FBI can watch me look up his kids. It’s all legal, folks, Palantir chief counsel Matt Long already signed off on it when Themis planned worse.”
Brown also talked about being a target of the Zeta drug cartel and mentioned that he was heavily armed and was concerned that the cartel would come after him posed as federal officers.
“Any armed official of the U.S. government, particularly the FBI, will be regarded as potential Zeta assassin squads,” he said in the video. “As FBI knows … they know that I’m armed and I come from a military family and I was taught to shoot by a Vietnam veteran … and I will shoot all of them and kill them if they come and do anything…. I have reason to fear for my life.”
He signed off the video saying: “Frankly, it was pretty obvious I was going to be dead before I was 40 or so, so I wouldn’t mind going out with two FBI sidearms like a fucking Egyptian pharaoh. Adios.”
Asked about Brown’s comments, Leiderman said that he hadn’t seen the full video and wasn’t aware of everything Brown had said, but he noted that his client had a reputation for hyperbole and joking around, and that things he said might appear to be a threat when they weren’t really intended to be that way.
“It’s hard to understand the context [of what he said], Leiderman said. “But this is speech, so ordinarily we go to a First Amendment defense, but obviously there are lines that can be crossed where you can lose your First Amendment protection.”
An FBI spokeswoman had no comment to make on Brown’s arrest.
city of El Perú-Waka’ in the rain forest of northern Guatemala. Alongside the body, excavators found a white jar shaped like a conch shell with the head and arm of a woman carved at the opening. The artifact had four hieroglyphs that suggest it belonged to K’abel.
But whilst zero-day dealers have been lashing out at critics, the market is prone to infighting too. Unlike the traditional security market, where anti-virus vendors at least ostensibly work closely with one another and willingly share threat information, exploit dealers are considerably more antagonistic.
The court also brushed aside the Obama DOJ’s prime argument, echoing the 
In other words: while the president is entitled to deference in his conduct of war, he’s not entitled to wield the power to order people, including American citizens, indefinitely imprisoned in military detention. Regardless of how he claims he intends to exercise this power, the mere act of vesting it in him so chills the exercise of first amendment and other protected rights that the constitution can have no meaning if courts permit it to stand.
