toddlers are anarchists by nature

FBI Domestic Terrorism Training Guides on Anarchists, Environmentalists

Anarchists Are “Criminals Seeking an Ideology”

In presentations on “Anarchist Extremism,” the FBI warns:

  • Anarchists are “Criminals seeking an ideology to justify their activities”
  • Anarchists are “Not dedicated to a particular cause”
  • Green anarchists believe “individuals should ‘get back to nature’”

Their meeting locations include “college campuses, underground clubs, coffee houses/ internet cafes.” Their criminal activity includes “Sleeping Dragons” (a form of civil disobedience in which people lock arms in PVC pipes).

Anarchists are also “paranoid / security conscious,” according to the presentation. This is an interesting observation coming from the FBI, considering there have been two recent cases where the FBI played a key role in infiltrating anarchist groups in order to orchestrate alleged terrorist attacks. In the Cleveland May Day arrests, and in the Chicago NATO arrests, the FBI trumpeted the arrest of “terrorists” that agents themselves tried desperately to create.

However, not all anarchists are engaged in these types of plots, the FBI acknowledges. They use a “variety of tactics” including “civil disobedience” (such as resisting home foreclosures, creating community gardens, and many other activities not mentioned by the bureau).

The FBI also warns that anarchists may have “crossover ideologies” including animal rights extremism and environmental extremism.

Animal rights / environmental extremism

In the training presentation on these so-called “eco-terrorists,” the FBI lists lawful, First Amendment activity and low-level criminal activity (such as civil disobedience) as examples of domestic terrorism.

The FBI is particularly focused in these presentations on information gathering and what it calls a “public relations war” by activist groups. “Media is sometimes slanted in favor of activists,” the FBI says. “Activists spin the truth.”

Examples of information gathering listed by the FBI include requests for public documents under the Freedom of Information Act. In one presentation, FOIA requests are listed as examples of “University targeting.”

Elsewhere the FBI warns of “cold calls” and using “USDA Report [sic].”

The FBI also warns of activist attempts to use “false employment.” This is undoubtedly related to activists who seek employment at factory farms and vivisection labs in order to expose animal welfare abuses. As I have reported here previously, the FBI has considered terrorism charges for non-violent undercover investigators. And multiple states have been seeking to criminalize undercover investigations as well.

As I document in Green Is the New Red, there has been a slow and relentless expansion of “terrorism” rhetoric and investigations over the last 30 years. This type of language and FBI investigation was initially confined to property crimes by the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front (groups that have caused millions of dollars in economic loss, but have never harmed a human being).

Now this already-broad terrorism classification has been expanded even further.  The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was drafted to target anyone who causes the “loss of profits” of an animal enterprise. The FBI acknowledges this shift in “terrorism” investigations in a slide that says the new law “alleviates the use of force or violence criteria.”

via FBI Domestic Terrorism Training Guides on Anarchists, Environmentalists.

corrupt supreme court judge in Nepal assassinated

Motorcycle-riding assailants shot and killed a Supreme Court judge under investigation for allegedly taking bribes as he headed to work in the Nepalese capital Thursday, police said.

Rana Bahadur Bam’s bodyguard and another passenger in his car were also wounded in the attack as the judge was driven to work after worshipping at a Hindu temple.

Bam was being investigated by the Judiciary Council for allegedly taking bribes from suspects charged with abduction in 2010 in exchange for releasing them with light sentences and fines.

Police official Rabindra Shah said two masked men on a black motorcycle drove by the judge’s car and opened fire. Bam, his bodyguard and another person identified as the judge’s friend were hit but the driver managed to escape. The attackers fled the scene after the shooting and the injured men were rushed to the hospital in a taxi.

Bam, shot several times, died at the local Norvic Hospital as he was being treated for internal bleeding, said hospital doctor Bharat Rawat. The other two men were undergoing surgery and their condition was unknown.

Police set up checkpoints in Katmandu and were searching for the motorcycle and culprits.

via Nepal Supreme Court judge killed, 2 others wounded – NY Daily News.

banner from an occupy camp, from people in the zeitgeist movement

how are YOU classified by the government?

this is an excerpt from a u.s. army field manual: 

FM 3-39.40
INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS

Field manual (FM) 3-39.40 is aligned with FM 3-39, the military police keystone FM. FM 3-39.40 provides guidance for commanders and staffs on internment and resettlement (I/R) operations. This manual addresses I/R operations across the spectrum of conflict, specifically the doctrinal paradigm shift from traditional enemy prisoner of war (EPW) operations to the broader and more inclusive requirements of detainee operations. Additionally, FM 3-39.40 discusses the critical issue of detainee rehabilitation. It describes the doctrinal foundation, principles, and processes that military police and other elements will employ when dealing with I/R  populations. As part of internment, these populations include U.S. military prisoners, and multiple categories of detainees (civilian internees [CIs], retained personnel [RP], and enemy combatants), while resettlement operations are focused on multiple categories of dislocated civilians (DCs). Military police conduct I/R operations during offensive, defensive, stability, or civil support operations. I/R operations include military police support to U.S. military prisoner and detainee operations within operational environments (OEs), ranging from major combat operations to humanitarian-assistance missions in support of ahost nation (HN) or civil agency. I/R operations are a major subordinate Army tactical task under the sustainment warfighting function. (See FM 7-15.) Placement under the sustainment warfighting function does not mean that I/R operations do not have relevance in the other warfighting functions. While I/R is listed under the sustainment warfighting function, it should be noted this is not a specified or implied mission of   units or commands. Most sustainment units provide logistics, personnel services, and health service support to I/R operations.

Military police are uniquely qualified to perform the full range of I/R operations. They have the requisite skillsets provided through specific training and operational experience. The skills necessary for performing confinement operations for U.S. military prisoners in permanent facilities are directly transferable and adaptable for tactical confinement of U.S. military prisoners and detention of detainees. All military police units are specifically manned, equipped, and trained to perform I/R operations across the spectrum and those identified asI/R units are the specialists within the Army for this role.
RP is a special category for medical personnel and chaplains because of their special skills and training. These individuals may be retained by the detaining power to aid other detainees, preferably those of the armed forces to which they belong. (See FM 27-10.) The Geneva Conventions require that RPreceive, at a minimum, the benefits and protection given to those with EPW status. The Geneva Conventions require that they be granted the facilities necessary to provide medical care and religious ministry services to the I/R population. (For a complete discussion on RP, see AR 190-8.)1-14.
  • Privileges and considerations extended to RP because of their profession include—
  • Additional correspondence privileges for chaplains and senior retained medical personnel.
  • All facilities necessary to provide detainees with medical care, spiritual assistance, and welfare services.
  • Authority and means of transportation for periodic visits to other I/R facilities and to hospitals outside the RP I/R facility to carry out their medical, spiritual, or welfare duties.
  • Restriction of work assignments to only those medical or religious duties that they are qualified to perform.
  • Assignment to quarters separate from those of other detainees when possible.
Enemy Combatants 1-15.
An enemy combatant is, in general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. (JP 3-63) Enemy combatant includes EPWs and members of armed groups.1-16.
Enemy combatants are divided as follows:
An enemy prisoner of war 
is a detained person who, while engaged in combat under ordersof his or her government, was captured by the armed forces of the enemy.
Member of an armed group
is a person who engages in or supports acts against the UnitedStates or its multinational partners in violation of the laws and customs of war during an armed conflict that do not meet the criteria of a prisoner of war as defined within the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Members of armed groups are not entitled to combatant immunity and will be treated as CIs until, or unless, otherwise directed by competent authorities.1-17.
EPWs are persons defined in the GPW as— 
Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
  • That of being commanded by a person responsible for his or her subordinates.
  • That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
  • That of carrying arms openly.
  • That of conducting their operations according to the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority notrecognized by the detaining power.
Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labor units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who will provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favorable treatment under any other provisions of international laws.
Inhabitants of a unoccupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take uparms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Note. EPW status is the default status for detainees. All detainees will be treated according to the GPW until their status is determined by a military tribunal or other competent authority. The United States uses the term EPW to identify an individual under the custody and/or control or theDOD according to Articles 4 and 5 of the GPW. (See JP 3-63.) The United States reserves theGPW term prisoner of war to identify its own or multinational armed forces that have been taken captive.
U.S. MILITARY PRISONERS 1-18.
A U.S. military prisoner is a person sentenced to confinement or death during a court-martialand ordered into confinement by a competent authority, whether or not the convening authority hasapproved the sentence. A U.S. military prisoner who is pending trial by court-martial and is placed into confinement by a competent authority is a pretrial prisoner. (See chapter 7.)
DISLOCATED CIVILIANS 1-19.
The term dislocated civilian is a broad term that includes a displaced person, an evacuee, an expellee,an internally displaced person, a migrant, a refugee, or a stateless person. (JP 3-57) DCs are individualswho leave their homes for various reasons, such as an armed conflict or a natural disaster, and whose movement and physical presence can hinder military operations. They most likely require some degree of aid, such as medicine, food, shelter, or clothing. DCs may not be native to the area or to the country inwhich they reside. (See chapter 10.) The following DC subcategories are also defined in JP 3-57:
Displaced person. 
A displaced person is a civilian who is involuntarily outside the national boundaries of his or her country. (JP 1-02) Displaced persons may have been dislocated because of a political, geographical, environmental, or threat situation.
Evacuee.
An evacuee is a civilian removed from a place of residence by military direction for reasons of personal security or the requirements of the military situation. (JP 3-57)
Expellee.
An expellee is a civilian outside the boundaries of the country of his or her nationalityor ethnic origin who is being forcibly repatriated to that country or to a third country for politicalor other purposes. (JP 3-57)
Internally displaced person.
An internally displaced person is any person who has left their residence by reason of real or imagined danger but has not left the territory of their own country.Internally displaced persons may have been forced to flee their homes for the same reasons as refugees, but have not crossed an internationally recognized border.
Migrant.
A migrant is a person who (1) belongs to a normally migratory culture who may cross national boundaries, or (2) has fled his or her native country for economic reasons rather thanfear of political or ethnic persecution. (JP 3-57)
Refugee.
A refugee is a person, who by reason of real or imagined danger, has left their home country or country of their nationality and is unwilling or unable to return.
Stateless person.
A stateless person is a civilian who has been denationalized or whose country of origin cannot be determined or who cannot establish a right to the nationality claimed.
STATUS DETERMINATION 1-20
If there is any doubt whether personnel captured or detained by the U.S. armed forces belong to anyof the detainee categories previously described in paragraph 1-17, and Article 4, GPW, such personnel receive the same treatment to which EPWs are entitled until their status has been determined by a competent military tribunal or some other competent authority. (See AR 190-8.) Captured or detained personnel are presumed to be EPWs immediately upon capture if their status is unmistakable (such as an armed, uniformed enemy). The final status of a CI may not be determined until they arrive at a TIF. Untilsuch time, treat all CIs as EPWs.
Note. It is essential to understand the distinction between the terms treatment and status. To treat a detainee as an EPW does not mean that the detainee has the actual status of an EPW as setforth in the Geneva Conventions.
ARTICLE 5 TRIBUNALS
Article 5 tribunals are conducted according to Article 5, GPW. An Article 5 tribunal is an administrative hearing that is controlled by a board of officers and determines the actual status of adetainee. This tribunal can take place anywhere, but it most commonly takes place echelons above the brigade combat team (BCT), most generally at the TIF or SIF. The tribunal determines the status of individuals who do not appear to be entitled to prisoner of war status, but have committed a belligerent actor have engaged in hostile activity to aid enemy forces and/or assert that they are entitled to treatment as anEPW.
 Note. Sample procedures with additional (optional) procedures for conducting an Article 5tribunal are included in appendix D. Optional procedures are intended to add appropriate due process measures that are not required by laws or regulations, but improve the transparency and overall fairness of the tribunal as time and additional resources are available to the convening authority. The tribunal is an administrative board process and is not intended to become an adversarial process.1-22.
EPWs have GPW protections from the time they are under the control of U.S. armed forces until their release or repatriation. Any detainee subject to an Article 5 tribunal will be provided and entitled to a—
  •  Notice of the tribunal (in a language he or she understands).
  • Opportunity to present evidence at the tribunal.
  • Three-person administrative tribunal.
  • Preponderance of the evidence standard.
  • Written appeal to the convening authority upon request.1-23.
The convening authority of the Article 5 tribunal will be a commander exercising general court-martial convening authority, unless such authority has been properly delegated. According toAR 190-8 and DOD policies, a competent tribunal will—
  • Convene within a reasonable time after doubt arises regarding EPW status, normally within 15days. Processing time for the tribunal procedures should not normally exceed 30 days. Shorter  processing times are encouraged, particularly when there is a potential for a status change fromEPW to CI or a members of an armed group.
  • Determine the status of any individual who does not appear to be entitled to EPW status, but has committed a belligerent act or has engaged in hostile activities to aid enemy armed forces and asserts that he or she is entitled to treatment as an EPW.
  • Be composed of three commissioned officers (one a field grade). The senior officer will serve as president of the tribunal and another nonvoting officer (preferably a judge advocate) will serve as the recorder.
Note. A separate system of combatant status review boards have been adopted by laws and regulations to review the status of members of armed groups designated under approved DOD procedures. Recent executive decisions may provide further directives regarding the processing and disposition of this category of personnel. Detainees who have been determined by a competent tribunal not to be entitled to EPW status will not be executed, imprisoned, or otherwise penalized without further proceedings to determine what acts they have committed and what penalty should be imposed. Commanders should notify the combatant command if a U.S. citizen or resident alien has been captured or has requested a tribunal.
Here’s the US military’s entire plan for internment camps, from lew rockwell

creating enemies in the arab world, u.s. pledges fealty to israel

As US Drones Pound Towns, Tribesmen Switch Sides

It’s an old story, but one that officials never seem to see coming. As the US dramatically escalates its war in Yemen, pounding cities in and around the southern Abyan Province, the Yemenis being attacked are starting to take it personally.

“These attacks are making people say, ‘We now believe that al-Qaeda is on the right side,” one Yemeni noted, adding that both of his brothers, a school teacher and a cellphone repairman, had been killed in US attacks in March.

Long a US client state, the installation of US-backed ruler Major General Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi in a single candidate election has given everything the regime does the taint of a US imprimatur. Yemeni troops are constantly attacking tribal areas, shelling towns and insisting that everyone killed is “al-Qaeda.

And while those reports from the Defense Ministry play well in the international media, they are less impressive in Abyan itself, where the civilian population knows that they’ve lost relatives in this war, and that whatever else they may think about the militant zealots in their midst, they aren’t the ones dropping bombs on them.

 the House of Representatives passed the United States – Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (USIESC).

The USIESC, written by Eric Cantor, claims there is a need to provide Israel with unlimited military and financial aid as a result of the disturbances caused by the Arab Spring.

Israel will have an essentially unlimited amount of funds allocated to them through the Federal Reserve Bank. The country will also enjoy an “expanded role of NATO” that consists of an “enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises”.

The Executive Summary of USIESC says that “the following actions to assist in the defense of Israel” are:

  1. Provide Israel such support as may be necessary to increase development and production of joint missile defense systems, particularly such systems that defend the urgent threat posed to Israel and United States forces in the region.
  2. Provide Israel assistance specifically for the production and procurement of the Iron Dome defense system for purposes of intercepting short-range missiles, rockets, and projectiles launched against Israel.
  3. Provide Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions.
  4. Allocate additional weaponry and munitions for the forward-deployed United States stockpile in Israel.
  5. Provide Israel additional surplus defense articles and defense services, as appropriate, in the wake of the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq.
  6. Strengthen efforts to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza pursuant to the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and to protect against weapons smuggling and terrorist threats from the Sinai Peninsula.
  7. Offer the Israeli Air Force additional training and exercise opportunities in the United States to compensate for Israel’s limited air space.
  8. Expand Israel’s authority to make purchases under the Foreign Military Financing program on a commercial basis.
  9. Seek to enhance the capabilities of the United States and Israel to address emerging common threats, increase security cooperation, and expand joint military exercises.
  10. Encourage an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.
  11. Support extension of the long-standing loan guarantee program for Israel, recognizing Israel’s unbroken record of repaying its loans on time and in full.
  12. Expand already-close intelligence cooperation, including satellite intelligence, with Israel.
USIESC goes on to claim that: “Iran, (3) which has long sought to foment instability and promote extremism in the Middle East, is now seeking to (4) exploit the dramatic political transition underway in the region to undermine governments traditionally aligned with the United States and support extremist political movements in these countries.”
USIESC continues its assault on Iran: “At the same time, (5) Iran may soon attain a nuclear weapons capability, a development that would fundamentally threaten vital American interests, destabilize the region, encourage regional nuclear proliferation, further empower and embolden Iran, (6) the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and (7) provide it the tools to threaten its neighbors, including Israel”.

Although publicly, both the Obama administration and the Israeli government have admitted that Iran has absolutely no intention of building nuclear weapons. Both governments assume that by using words like “they may” or “they might” denotes a definite intention to do so.

The Mullahs that have ultimate authority in Iran have stated numerous times that the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons goes against the law of Islam. Independent studies, outside of the US and Israeli reach, have also confirmed that not only does Iran not have nuclear weapons at present, but are not perusing their allocation.

At the present time, Israel is in possession of an estimated 200 – 300 nuclear weapons. They are the covert superpower of the world. Israel also enjoys one of the most intensive and explicit armies in the world. While Israel continues to invade the sovereign nations that surround them, they are not being invaded themselves.

Photo credit: AP | In this photo taken late Friday, May 25, 2012, flames rise from a warehouse of the Mexican potato-chip company Sabritas, in Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico. Over the weekend, unidentified gunmen launched a series of coordinated attacks against the company's installations in the western state of Michoacan in what has been described as the most violent and concerted attack on a private transnational company in the country's 5 ½-year drug war. Sabritas is a subsidiary of PepsiCo. (AP Photo)

Mexican drug cartels hate internet chatters, fast food franchise, government corruption?

Mexico’s hyperviolent Zetas drug cartel appears to be launching what may be one of the first campaigns by an organized crime group to silence commentary on the Internet.

The cartel has already attacked rivals, journalists and other perceived enemies. Now, the target is an online chat room, Nuevo Laredo en Vivo, that allows users to comment on the activities of the Zetas and others in the city on the border with Texas.

Already, three apparent site users have been slain, and a fourth victim may have been discovered Wednesday, when a man’s decapitated body was found with what residents said was a banner suggesting he was killed for posting on the site. Chat room users said they could not immediately confirm the victim’s identity, because people all post under aliases.

Despite such precautions, users are highly vulnerable, and the Zetas could be tracking them from clues they leave online, experts said Thursday.

A female chat room user was found decapitated in September with a similar message as the one found Wednesday and at the exact same spot, with a message signed with the letter “Z,” which refers to the Zetas. Residents couldn’t fully read the latest message, because the dead man’s body was laid on top of it, in what appeared to be a more hurried execution.

“I don’t know of anything like this having happened anywhere else in the world,” said Jorge Chabat, an expert in safety and drug trafficking at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics in Mexico. “It is certainly new and worrisome … it is a frontal confrontation against the public; it is not just a confrontation with the government anymore.”

Drug cartels in Mexico have frequently attacked traditional print newspapers, by tossing explosives at their offices or killing, kidnapping or threatening reporters. Violence against journalists in Tamaulipas state, where Nuevo Laredo is located, has led local media to censor themselves, leaving residents on their own to separate fact from pervasive rumors spread on social networks.

Juan Carlos Romero, who helps lead the press freedom group Article 19, said local newspapers have often stopped publishing crime reports out of fear, leading residents to turn more to the Internet for information like that posted Thursday on Nuevo Laredo en Vivo: where gunshots have been heard, where vehicles suspected of carrying cartel lookouts have been seen, which streets are safe to travel.

“What are people doing in the face of the lack of information, the kind of information you need to make decisions: Where can I drive? Can I leave the house?” said Romero. “People are forging new channels of communication on the Internet, social networks, Twitter, blogs, Facebook.”

Drug cartels appear to have learned that such Internet sites reach far more readers than northeastern Mexico’s small regional newspapers and have adjusted their attacks accordingly.

via Mexican drug cartel tries to silence Internet

Tortured, disemboweled and hung from a bridge for tweeting: Couple killed by Mexican drug cartel as gruesome warning to bloggers who ‘snitch’ online

Online blogging about violence in Mexico is currently one of the loudest ways it is reported, after some traditional media outlets have been silenced by cartel threats.

Bloggers who release information about trafficking have faced threats in the past, but this might be the first warning to social network users, CNN reported.

This sign was left on the bridge, translated from Spanish: 'This is going to happen to all those posting funny things on the internet'This sign was left on the bridge, translated from Spanish: ‘This is going to happen to all those posting funny things on the internet’

Investigator Ricardo Mancillas Castillo told CNN that this form of torture, including disembowelment, has been seen before in drug-related violence but he has not encountered it before with internet threats.

The investigator said the victims will be almost impossible to identify because of the severe mutilation and there were no witnesses.

read more, from the daily mail

Mexico cartel drops aerial leaflets against gov’t

Drug traffickers took the unusual step of using an airplane to drop thousands of leaflets on the northern city of Culiacan accusing the governor of Sinaloa state of taking orders from drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, authorities said Wednesday.

Drug cartels in Mexico have long posted videos and hung banners from bridges to get their messages out, and they have recently taken to dumping truckloads of bodies on roadways to intimidate rivals or publicize threatening messages.

But the incident in the Sinaloa state capital of Culiacan on Tuesday is the first time in recent memory that traffickers have resorted to aerial leafleting. It may mark a further escalation in what has become a nationwide, military-scale battle between the Sinaloa cartel and the hyper-violent Zetas gang.

“I think they dumped them very early in the morning from an airplane. They surely know that it would be very difficult to do by land,” Sinaloa Gov. Mario Lopez Valdez said.

While drug cartels have occasionally left small amounts of crude, photocopied letters in some towns in the past, security expert Raul Benitez at the National Autonomous University of Mexico said it was the first time he knew of such mass leafleting, much less from an aircraft.

“I can’t remember any cartel having used an airplane to do this, nor of them having distributed propaganda in public places,” said Benitez.

The single-page, computer-printed leaflets were unsigned, but expressed anger at the in-custody killing of a suspect who was recently arrested and sent to a prison allegedly dominated by the Sinaloa cartel.

The suspect, who had been identified as a member of the Beltran Leyva gang, whose remnants have allied with the Zetas, was killed by another inmate three days ago.

The leaflet read in part, “The governor, on orders from Chapo Guzman, told the federal prosecutor’s representative to send Javier Avilez Araujo to be tortured and murdered in the state penitentiary.”

“Act like men, don’t kill people who are tied up like El Chapo Guzman does,” it continued. “Without the help of Malova, we would have finished your people off already!” the note added, using the governor’s nickname.

The governor denied he hasany links to Guzman. “This is a person I don’t even know, whom I have never had contact with and from whom I have never received an order,” Lopez Valdez said.

The wording of the letter suggests it may have been written by the Zetas, who have launched tit-for-tat attacks on Sinaloa strongholds after Sinaloa cartel gunmen and their allies moved into Zetas turf in the Gulf coast states of Veracruz and Tamaulipas.

Read more, from the miami herald

Mexico drug gang accuses Pepsico unit of spying

Banners signed by a cult-like Mexican drug gang say that cartel members launched firebombing attacks on a PepsiCo subsidiary because they believe the snack company let law enforcement agents use its trucks for surveillanc

Five Sabritas warehouses and vehicle lots were attacked Friday and Saturday in the Mexican states of Michoacan and Guanajuato. Officials say four alleged members of the Knights Templar cartel have been detained in the case, which they link to extortion. At least 10 banners hung around the city of Apatzingan on Thursday accuse Sabritas of ferrying government agents.

The company denies that allegation, which was also circulated in emails before the attacks. Mexican drug cartels frequently earn money by demanding protection payments from small businesses. They previously had never systematically targeted a transnational firm with such attacks.

from usa today

Police arrest Tibetans shouting anti-China slogans as they try to storm the Chinese Embassy Consulate in Kathmandu

chinese crackdown on tibetan protesters after 3 more self-immolations

Hundreds of Tibetans have been reportedly detained by Chinese security officers in Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, after two Buddhist monks set themselves on fire in protest against China’s rule over the Himalayan region last week.

Late on Wednesday, Radio Free Asia cited a source as estimating that about 600 Tibetans had been detained since the Tibetan men set themselves on fire on Sunday in the first major protest in four years against perceived Chinese oppression. One of those men died after the act.

The detentions come amid news that a Tibetan woman had set herself ablaze on Wednesday afternoon in Aba prefecture, in southwestern Sichuan province, according to Tibetan advocacy group Free Tibet and Radio Free Asia.

Al Jazeera’s Steve Chao, reporting from Hong Kong, said that the woman was a 33-year-old mother of three young children who died on the spot after the self-immolation in front of a monastery.

“Over the past several years, the Chinese government has tightened restrictions on this ethnic group to the point that many now are barred from celebrating Buddhist holidays,” he said.

“Experts predict that over the next few months there will be further restrictions.

“But rather than damper the resistance against Chinese rule, many people say that it has further united the Tibetan group.

“These immolations are seen as a peaceful, albeit a very horrific way, of demonstrating against this oppression.”

Self-immolation deaths

China has branded the self-immolators “terrorists” and criminals, and has blamed exiled Tibetans and the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, for inciting them.

China considers the Dalai Lama, who fled into exile in India in 1959 after an abortive uprising against Chinese rule, a separatist.

The Dalai Lama says he merely seeks greater autonomy for his Himalayan homeland.

About 35 Tibetans have set themselves on fire since March 2011 in protest against China’s six-decade rule over Tibet, according to Tibetan rights groups.

At least 27 have died.

The number could not be independently confirmed because foreign journalists are barred from entering Tibet.

Hao Peng, head of the Communist Party’s Commission for Political and Legal Affairs in the Tibet Autonomous Region, has urged authorities to tighten their grip on the internet and mobile text messaging, reflecting government fears about unrest during a month-long Buddhist festival which started last week.

via Arrests reported after Tibet self-immolations – Asia-Pacific – Al Jazeera English.

if non-believers refuse to worship the bible, it can be used to beat them to death. amen.

american schoolchildren being indoctrinated in religious genocide

The Bible has thousands of passages that may serve as the basis for instruction and inspiration. Not all of them are appropriate in all circumstances.

The story of Saul and the Amalekites is a case in point. It’s not a pretty story, and it is often used by people who don’t intend to do pretty things. In the book of 1 Samuel (15:3), God said to Saul:

“Now go, attack the Amalekites, and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

Saul dutifully exterminated the women, the children, the babies and all of the men – but then he spared the king. He also saved some of the tastier looking calves and lambs. God was furious with him for his failure to finish the job.

The story of the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages. According to Pennsylvania State UniversityProfessor Philip Jenkins, a contributing editor for the American Conservative, the Puritans used this passage when they wanted to get rid of the Native American tribes. Catholics used it against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. “In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu preachers invoked King Saul’s memory to justify the total slaughter of their Tutsi neighbors,” writes Jenkins in his 2011 book, Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses (HarperCollins).

if non-believers refuse to worship the bible, it can be used to beat them to death. amen.

This fall, more than 100,000 American public school children, ranging in age from four to 12, are scheduled to receive instruction in the lessons of Saul and the Amalekites in the comfort of their own public school classrooms. The instruction, which features in the second week of a weekly “Bible study” course, will come from the Good News Club, an after-school program sponsored by a group called the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF). The aim of the CEF is to convert young children to a fundamentalist form of the Christian faith and recruit their peers to the club.

There are now over 3,200 clubs in public elementary schools, up more than sevenfold since the 2001 supreme court decision, Good News Club v Milford Central School, effectively required schools to include such clubs in their after-school programing.

The CEF has been teaching the story of the Amalekites at least since 1973. In its earlier curriculum materials, CEF was euphemistic about the bloodshed, saying simply that “the Amalekites were completely defeated.” In the most recent version of the curriculum, however, the group is quite eager to drive the message home to its elementary school students. The first thing the curriculum makes clear is that if God gives instructions to kill a group of people, you must kill every last one:

“You are to go and completely destroy the Amalekites (AM-uh-leck-ites) – people, animals, every living thing. Nothing shall be left.”

“That was pretty clear, wasn’t it?” the manual tells the teachers to say to the kids.

Even more important, the Good News Club wants the children to know, the Amalakites were targeted for destruction on account of their religion, or lack of it. The instruction manual reads:

“The Amalekites had heard about Israel’s true and living God many years before, but they refused to believe in him. The Amalekites refused to believe in God and God had promised punishment.”

The instruction manual goes on to champion obedience in all things. In fact, pretty much every lesson that the Good News Club gives involves reminding children that they must, at all costs, obey. If God tells you to kill nonbelievers, he really wants you to kill them all. No questions asked, no exceptions allowed.

Asking if Saul would “pass the test” of obedience, the text points to Saul’s failure to annihilate every last Amalekite, posing the rhetorical question:

“If you are asked to do something, how much of it do you need to do before you can say, ‘I did it!’?”

“If only Saul had been willing to seek God for strength to obey!” the lesson concludes.

A review question in the textbook seeks to drive the point home further:

“How did King Saul only partly obey God when he attacked the Amalekites? (He did not completely destroy as God had commanded, he kept the king and some of the animals alive.)”

The CEF and the legal advocacy groups that have been responsible for its tremendous success over the past ten years are determined to “Knock down all doors, all the barriers, to all 65,000 public elementary schools in America and take the Gospel to this open mission field now! Not later, now!” in the words of a keynote speaker at the CEF’s national convention in 2010. The CEF wants to operate in the public schools, rather than in churches, because they know that young children associate the public schools with authority and are unable to distinguish between activities that take place in a school and those that are sponsored by the school.

from the guardian, u.k. - Good News Clubs’ evangelism in schools is already subverting church-state separation. Now they justify murdering nonbelievers

Obama Decides Who Lives and Who Dies

Following in a long line of things that President Obama is supposedly fundamentally morally opposed to that he does anyways, the New York Times has a lengthy new expose on the policy of targeted assassinations, with the revelation that the president has put himself at the center of the campaign.Trying to jibe his putative claim to being a “liberal law professor” with his new self-appointed job of literally deciding who lives and who dies across the entire planet, the piece makes it seem that the policy is something the president is loath to carry out, with Tom Donilon  saying he is “determined to keep the tether pretty short” on the program.

Which makes a great soundbite, but bears no resemblance to the policy, which transformed from extremely rare strikes restricted to the Pakistani border during the last years of the Bush Administration into a daily campaign of assassinating his perceived enemies across the planet, with the revelation that President Obama personally approves every single drone strike launched. That amounts to well over 1,000 killed since he took office, all but a handful never to be identified beyond the label of “suspect.”

thumbs down – goodbye to you!

It was President Obama who claimed the right to order the summary execution of American citizens abroad without ever charging them with a crime. This was carried out not only in the assassination of outspoken cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, killed on the claim that his sermons critical of US policy were “recruiting” terrorists, but also Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, who was never even accused of this sort of tenuous link to criminality.

Obama’s current kill list is still a closely guarded secret, but the article revealed that it contained several Americans, including an unidentified 17-year-old American girl that the president is hoping to knock off at some point. The best the article can conclude is that Obama’s past comments suggest he probably feels bad about ordering these killings, but that clearly isn’t stopping him.via Officials Confirm: Obama Decides Who Lives and Who Dies — News from Antiwar.com.

Security backdoor found in China-made US military chip

A microchip used by the US military and manufactured in China contains a secret “backdoor” that means it can be shut off or reprogrammed without the user knowing, according to researchers at Cambridge University’s Computing Laboratory.

In a draft paper, Cambridge University researcher Sergei Skorobogatov wrote that the chip in question is widely used in military and industrial applications. The “backdoor” means it is “wide open to intellectual property theft, fraud and reverse engineering of the design to allow the introduction of a backdoor or Trojan”, they said.

The discovery was made during testing of a new technique to extract the encryption key from chips, developed by Cambridge spin-off Quo Vadis Labs. The “bug” is in the actual chip itself, Skorobogatov wrote, rather than the firmware installed on the devices that use it, meaning there is no way to fix it than to replace the chip altogether.

“The discovery of a backdoor in a military grade chip raises some serious questions about hardware assurance in the semiconductor industry,” wrote Skorobogatov.

via Security backdoor found in China-made US military chip | The Rapture Is Imminent!.

The U.S. has had a lasting presence in modern Honduras, primarily at the Soto Cano airbase, which witnessed scores of human rights abuses during the 1980’s. The American troops now stationed in Honduras are known as Joint Task Force Bravo (JTF-Bravo), a component of the U.S. Southern Command (Southcom), which was formed in 1983 under the original name of Joint Task Force 11.

When the respectable become extremists, the extremists become respectable

By any historical measure, whether it involves international law, human rights conventions, United Nations protocols, or standard socio-economic indicators, the policies and practices of the United States and European Union regimes can be characterized as extremist. By that we mean that their policies and practices result in the large-scale, long-term systematic destruction of human lives, habitat and livelihood affecting millions of people through the direct application of force and violence. The extremist regimes abhor moderation, which implies rejection of total war in favor of peaceful negotiations. Moderation pursues conflict resolution through diplomacy and compromise and the rejection of state and paramilitary terror, mass dispossession and displacement of civilian populations and the systematic assault on popular sectors of civil society.

In first decade of the 21st century we have witnessed the West’s embrace of the full spectrum of extremism in both domestic and foreign policy. Extremism is a common practice by self-styled conservatives, liberals and social-democrats. In the past, conservative implied preserving the status quo and, at most, tinkering with change at the margins. Today’s ‘conservatives’ demand the wholesale dismantling of entire social welfare systems and the elimination of traditional legal protection of workers and the environment. Liberals and social democrats, who in the past, occasionally, questioned colonial systems, are now in the forefront of prolonged multi-front colonial wars, which have killed and displaced millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

Extremism, in terms of its methods, means and goals, has obliterated the distinctions between center left, center and rightwing politicians. Moderates opposed to the current policies of subsidizing the major banks while impoverishing tens of millions of workers, are now labeled the ‘hard left’, ‘extremists’ or ‘radicals’.

In the wake of the government’s extremist policies, the respectable, prestigious print media have engaged in their own versions of extremism [1]. Colonial wars, devastating civil society and stable cultures while impoverishing millions in the colonized country, are justified, embellished and presented as lawful and humane advances in secular democratic values. Domestic wars on behalf of oligarchies and against wage and salaried workers, which concentrate wealth and deepen despair of the dispossessed, are described as rational, virtuous and necessary. The distinctions between the prudent, balanced, prestigious and serious media and the sensationalist, yellow press have disappeared. The fabrication of facts, blatant omissions and distortions of context are found in one just as well as the other.

To illustrate the reign of extremism in officialdom and among the prestigious press, we will examine two case studies. These involve US policies toward Colombia and Honduras and the Financial Times and New York Times coverage of the two nations.

Colombia: The ‘Oldest Democracy in Latin America’ versus ‘The Death squad Capital of the World’

A loyal disciple of the U.S., Colombia is a corrupted narco-state, a repressive death squad faux democracy, threatening regional neighbors, and reigning terror against trade unionists, human rights workers, campesinos, pro-democracy organizations, independent journalists, and legitimate resistance groups like the FARC-EP.

Following the giddy eulogies of Colombia’s emergence as Latin America’s poster boy for democracy in an April issue of Time Magazine, as well as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post, the Financial Times ran a series of articles including a special insert on Colombia’s political and economic ‘miracle’ entitled, “Investing in Colombia” [2]. According to the FT’s leading Latin American journalist, John Paul Rathbone, Colombia is the ‘oldest democracy in the hemisphere’ [3]. Rathbone’s rapturous praise for Colombia’s President Santos extends from his role as an ‘emerging power broker’ for the South American continent, to making Colombia safe for foreign investors and ‘exciting the envy’ of other less successful regimes in the region. Rathbone gives prominence to one Colombia business leader who claims that Colombia’s second biggest city, Medellín, ‘is living through its best of times’ [4]. In line with the opinion of the foreign and business elite, the respectable print media describe Colombia as prosperous, peaceful, business friendly, charging the lowest mining royalty payments in the hemisphere, and a model of a stable democracy to be emulated by all forward-looking leaders.

Under President Santos, Colombia has signed a free trade agreement with President Obama, his closest ally in the hemisphere [5]. During the term of Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, trade unions, human rights and church groups, as well as the majority of Congressional Democrats, were successful in blocking any similar agreement because of Colombia’s sustained human rights violations. Any such opposition from the AFL-CIO and Democratic legislators evaporated, when President Obama embraced free trade, claiming a vast improvement in human rights and President Santos commitment to ending the murder of trade union leaders and activists [6].

Colombia’s peace, security and prosperity, praised by the oil, mining, banking, and agro-business elite, are based on the worst human rights record in Latin America. With regard to the murder of trade unionists, Colombia exceeds the entire world. From 1986-2011 over 60% of the all killings of trade unionists in the world took place in Colombia by combined military-police-paramilitary death squads, largely at the behest of foreign and domestic corporate leaders [7]. The ‘peace’, so enthusiastically praised by Rathbone and his colleagues at the Financial Times, comes with a heavy price tag: Over 12,000 arrests, attacks, assassinations and disappearances of trade unionists occurred between January 1, 1986 and October 1, 2010 [8]. In that time span nearly 3,000 trade union leaders and activists were murdered, hundreds more disappeared and are assumed dead. The current Colombian President Santos was the Defense Minister under the previous President Alvaro Uribe (2002-2010). In those years, over 762 trade union officials and activists were murdered by state or allied paramilitary forces [9].

Under both Presidents Uribe and Santos (2002 – 2012), over 4 million peasants and rural dwellers were driven into internal exile and their homes and lands were taken over by big landlords, speculators and narco- traffickers [10]. The Colombian government’s counter-insurgency strategy serves a dual function of repressing dissent and accumulating wealth for its supporters. The Financial Times journalists gloss over this aspect of Colombia’s ‘resurgent growth’ as they applaud the results of death-squad ‘security’, including the over $6 billion dollars of large-scale foreign investment which flowed into mining and oil regions in 2012 – in areas ‘formerly troubled by unrest’ [11].

Some leading drug lords, clearly linked to the Uribe-Santos regime, were jailed and extradited to the US. They have testified how they financed and elected one-third of the Congress members affiliated with Uribe-Santos party – in what the Financial Times describes as Latin America’s ‘oldest democracy’. Salvatore Mancuso, ex-chief of the 30,000-member United Self-Defense of Colombia (AUC), described how he met with then-President Uribe in different regions of the country to give him money and logistical support for his re-election campaign of 2006. Mancuso, who led the largest paramilitary death squad army in Colombia (now fragmented but still active), also affirmed that national and multi-national corporations (MNC) financed the growth and expansion of the death squads.

What Rathbone and his fellow journalists at the FT celebrate as Colombia’s emergence as an investor’s paradise is writ large with the blood and torture of thousands of Colombian peasants, trade unionists and human rights activists. The brutal history of the Uribe/Santos reign of terror has been completely erased from the current account of Colombia’s ‘success story’. Detailed records of the brutality of the killings and torture by Uribe/Santos sponsored death squads, describing the use of chain saws to mutilate peasants suspected of leftist sympathies are available to any journalist willing to consult Colombia’s leading human rights organizations [12].

The death squads and military act in concert. The Colombian military is trained by over one thousand US Special Forces advisers. They wage counter-insurgency style war on the Colombian countryside, arriving in villages in waves of US-supplied helicopters, cordoning off targeted areas from the guerillas and then sending in the AUC and other death squads to destroy the villages, torturing and murdering peasant men, women and children suspected of being guerilla sympathizers and committing widespread rape. This state-sponsored terror campaign has driven millions of peasants out of the countryside allowing the generals and drug lords to seize their land.

Human rights advocates (HRA) are frequently targeted by the military and death squads. Presidents Uribe and Santos usually first accuse human rights workers of being active collaborators of the guerillas because of their work in exposing the regime’s crimes against humanity. Once labeled, the HRA became ‘legitimate targets’ for death squads and the military operating with complete impunity. From 2002-2011 there were 1,470 attacks against HRA, with a record number of 239 in 2011, including 49 killings under President Santos [13]. Over half of the murdered human rights workers are Indian and Afro-Colombians.

State terrorism was and continues to be the main instrument of rule under Presidents Uribe and Santos. The Colombian ‘killing fields’, according to the Fiscalía General, include tens of thousands of homicides, 1,597 massacres and thousands of forced disappearances from 2005 – 2010 [14].

Courageous members of the Colombian press revealed a practice, known as ‘false positives’, numerous instances in which the military secretly kidnapped young peasants and poor urban males forcing them to dress as guerrillas, murdered them in cold blood and then displayed their bodies to the respectable Colombian and international press as ‘proof’ of Santos/Uribe’s combat successes against the guerrillas. There are 2,472 documented cases of military ‘false positive’ murders [15].

Honduras: New York Times and State Terrorism

The U.S. has had a lasting presence in modern Honduras, primarily at the Soto Cano airbase, which witnessed scores of human rights abuses during the 1980′s. The American troops now stationed in Honduras are known as Joint Task Force Bravo (JTF-Bravo), a component of the U.S. Southern Command (Southcom), which was formed in 1983 under the original name of Joint Task Force 11.

The New York Times featured an article on Honduras, emphasizing the regime’s ‘co-operation’ with the US war on drugs. [16]. The Times writer, Thom Shanker, describes a ‘partnership’ based on the expansion of three new US military bases and the stationing of US Special Forces in the country [17].

Shanker reported on the successful operation of the Honduras Special Operations forces under the direction of US Special Forces trainers. In Shanker’s coverage, a US Congressional delegation praised the Honduran Special Operations forces ‘respect for human rights’, quoting the US ambassador description of the Honduran regime as ‘eager and capable partners in this joint effort’ [18].

There are blatant parallels between the NY Times white-wash of the criminal extremist regime in Honduras and the Financial Times’ crude promotion of Colombia’s death squad democracy.

The current extremist Honduran regime, headed by ‘President’ Lobos, which invited the Pentagon to expand its military control over huge swathes of Honduran territory, is a product of the US-backed military coup that overthrew a democratically-elected liberal President on June 28, 2009, a recent historical point Shanker avoids in his coverage. Lobos, the predator president, retains control by killing, jailing and torturing his critics, including journalists, human rights advocates and lawyers, as well as now-landless peasants demanding a return of their properties after they were violently seized by Lobos’ big-landlord allies.

Following the military coup, thousands of Honduran pro-democracy demonstrators were killed, beaten and arrested. According to conservative estimates by Human Rights Watch, 20 pro-democracy dissidents were openly murdered by the military and police [19]. From January 2010 to November 2011 at least 12 journalists, critical of the Lobos regime, were assassinated.

In the countryside, where NY Times reporter Shanker describes a love fest between the US Special Forces and their Honduran counterparts, 30 farm workers in northern Honduras Bajo Aguan valley were killed by death squads hired by Lobos powerful allies [20]. Not one military, police or death squad assassin has been brought to justice. The original coup leader, Roberto Micheletti and his successor, President Lobos, repeatedly attacked pro-democracy demonstrations, particularly those led by school teachers, students and trade unionists. Hundreds of jailed political dissidents have been tortured. During the period of NY Times most euphoric articles on the cozy relations between the US and Honduras, the death toll among pro-democracy advocates rose precipitously: Eight journalists and a TV commentator were killed during the first 4 months of 2012 [21]. In late March and early April of 2012 nine farm workers and employees were murdered by pro-Lobos landlords [22]. With impunity reigning in the Central American land of US military bases, no one has been arrest for these murders. The NY Times coverage of Honduras follows the Mafia rule of omega – silence and complicity.

Syria: How the Financial Times Absolves Al Qaeda Terrorists

Western-sponsored terrorist bomb attack kills two in Aleppo city in Syria.
As Western-backed Islamist terrorists savage the secular regime in Syria, the Western press, especially the Financial Times, continue to absolve the terrorists use of huge car bombs, which have killed and mutilated hundreds of Syrian citizens. With crude cynicism Western reporters shrug their shoulders and parrot the claims of the London-based anti-regime propagandists, that the Assad regime was destroying its own cities and killing its own citizens and security forces. [23].

Conclusion

As the Obama regime and its European allies publicly embrace extremism, including state terror, targeted assassinations and the car bombings in crowded urban neighborhoods, the respectable press has joined in. Extremism takes many forms -from the refusal to report honestly about the use of mercenary force and violence to overthrow another anti-colonial regime to the blatant cover-up of the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians and the dispossession of millions of peasants and farmers. The ‘educated classes’, the respectable affluent reading public are being continuously indoctrinated by the respectable Western media to believe that the smiling and pragmatic President Santos in Colombia and elected President Lobos in Honduras have succeeded in establishing peace, market-based prosperity, mutually beneficial free trade agreements and military base concessions with the US-even as these two regimes currently lead the world in the murder of trade unionists and journalists. On May 15, 2012 the US Hispanic Congressional caucus awarded Lobos a leadership in democracy award – the same day the Honduran press reported the murder of the news director of radio station, HMT, Alfredo Villatoro, the 25th critical journalist killed between January 27, 2010 and May 15, 2012 [24]

The respectable press’ embrace of extremism and its use of demonological and vitriolic language to describe critical regimes opposed to imperialism are matched by its euphoric and effusive praise of state and pro-western mercenary brutality. The systematic cover-up of crimes by extremist journalism goes far beyond the cases of Colombia and Honduras. Financial Times reporter Michael Peel ‘covered’ the assault on the Libyan government of Gaddaffi without mentioning the NATO-led bombing campaign that destroyed Africa’s most advanced welfare state. Peel presented the rise of armed gangs of fanatical tribal and Islamic terrorists as a victory for democracy over a “brutal dictatorship” [25]. Peel’s mendacity and cant is evident in his outrageous claims that the destruction of the Libyan economy and the mass torture and racially motivated murders, which followed NATO’s war, was a victory for the Libyan people.

The totalitarian twist in the respectable press is a direct consequence of its long-term toadying to the extremist policies pursued by the western regimes. Since extremist measures, like the use of force, violence, assassination and torture, have become routine by the incumbent presidents and prime ministers, the reporters have no choice but to fabricate lies to render ‘respectable’ such crimes, to spit out a constant flow of highly charged adjectives in order to convert victims into executioners and executioners into victims. Extremism in defense of pro-US regimes has led to the most grotesque accounts imaginable: Colombia and Mexico’s Presidents are the leaders of the most thoroughly narcotized economies in the hemisphere yet they are praised for their war on drugs, while Venezuela, the most marginal producer of any drug, is stigmatized as a major narco-pipeline [26]

Articles with no factual basis, which are worthless as sources of objective information, direct us to seek an underlying rationale: Colombia has signed a free trade agreement, which will benefit US exports over Colombian by over a two to one ratio [27]. Mexico’s free trade policy has benefited US agro-business and giant retailers by a similar ratio.

All forms of extremism permeate Western regimes and find justification and rationalization through the respectable media whose job is to indoctrinate civil society and turn citizens into uncritical accomplices to extremism. By endlessly prefacing ‘reports’ on Russia’s President Putin as an authoritarian Soviet era tyrant, the respectable media avoid any discussion of the doubling of the Russian standard of living and Putin’s over 60% electoral triumph. By magnifying an authoritarian past, the murdered Libyan President Gadhafi’s vast public works, social welfare programs and generous immigration and foreign aid programs to sub-Sahara Africa can be relegated to the oblivion. The respectable press’s praise of death squad Presidents Santos and Lobos is part of a large-scale, long-term systematic shift from the hypocritical pretence of pursuing the virtues of a democratic republic to the open embrace of a virulent, murderous empire. The new journalists’ code reads ‘extremism in defense of empire is no vice’.

James Petras – Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. His latest published work is The Arab Revolt and the Imperialist Counter Attack, (Clarity Press, March 2011).

What determines if an age is dark or golden? What are the symptoms or omens? Earthquakes, violet skies, meteoric activity, these are not the omens of doomsday as we are made to believe.   Image Link Likewise, Cherub’s flying, a sound economy, freedom of information, peaceful times are also not necessarily signs of a golden age. The age of light is said to be when people value empathy and forgiveness, when they have a willingness to see other people’s view, and are contented with what they have.  When such values are systematically sabotaged, then you can say that the dawn of the doomsday has begun. When we look at a harmless beggar as a pest and envy billionaires who routinely destroy the earth, we are inviting doomsday to come.

Why Does the World Shadow Government Destroy its Own Homeplanet?

The Kali Yuga is always known for a proliferation of mind-altering drugs and chemicals.

Environmental radioactivity and electro-pollution also pervade the global habitat. This status quo is coupled with an epidemic of genetic mutation, as well as inbreeding among the ruling class.

In his book entitled “When The Gods Play” Alain Danielou perceptively pointed out the following dynamic that occurs throughout and especially at the end of the Kali Yuga:

“When the gods wish to destroy a wicked tyrant, they inspire the madness in him to lose himself. Drugs are among their armaments. Their irrational and immoderate intrusion signals the imminent end of the species at the end of Kali Yuga.”

With an ever-increasing exposure to myriad manmade chemicals, especially through the ingestion of countless pharmaceutical medications and synthetic food additives, we see a derangement of mind, body and soul which threatens the entire civilization. Recreational drugs, such as caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, LSD, amphetamine, as well as the many new synthetic versions, have become a permanent fixture in our society. All taken together, their aggregate use puts the entire order at great risk.

The unbridled proliferation and use of chemicals throughout the entire civilization has likewise put the health and life of the global population in great danger. The human body was simply not designed to process and detoxify such a steady onslaught of chemical assaults. As these chemicals and compounds, pollutants and contaminants, toxins and poisons begin to bio-accumululate over generations, the gene pool becomes degraded, as the quality of life precipitously declines.

Eventually, the people (especially the leaders) become so inundated with chemical exposures that their ability to respond to life and its challenges becomes short-circuited. Three very significant and profound developments occur in the process of societal devolution. Each of these inevitable outcomes applies particularly to those who staff the World Shadow Government.

• The capacity to apply the faculty of reason begins to flee humankind

• Common sense becomes very rare and a thing of the past

• Irrationality and unreasonableness start to rule the day everywhere, all the time

As these three societal phenomena become amplified, the manifestations of their presence can hardly be overlooked. Particularly when the masses are so easily influenced that they can be:

(i) stampeded into war,

(ii) corralled into a drug culture,

(iii) compelled to tattoo their bodies,

(iv) convinced of the propriety of sexual perversions,

(v) boxed into a thoroughly corrupt two-party political system,

(vi) persuaded to vote against their very own interest,

(vii) coerced to vaccinate their children on a regular basis,

(viii) forced into drinking fluoridated water,

(ix) transfixed by the TV — the ultimate weapon of mass deception,

(x) duped into paying taxes to rogue, criminal governments,

(xi) defrauded out of their life savings and retirement accounts,

(xii) deceived into worshipping the Almighty Dollar

Certainly the overlay of the Pharmaceutical Culture has gone a long way toward addicting and compromising every aspect of the human body and mind. This whole process of taking over each person is a rather complicated plot and will be taken up in a future essay entitled:

First They get Your Body; Then They Get Your Mind; Finally They Get Your Soul

This upcoming essay will thoroughly elucidate the multi-decade plan to create a drug culture so entrenched that it functions, in and of itself, to ensure that the orders of the World Shadow Government are always carried out. Willingly and without complaint is how a great majority of people go about their day, because of how they have been sufficiently anesthetized, desensitized and chemically lobotomized.

via Why Does the World Shadow Government Destroy its Own Home (Planet)? – Waking Times : Waking Times.

bishop conference advises silence over rapist priests and other catholic sex predators

As the ship of state veers close to a deadly reef in the teeth of a violent storm, the captain and all his crew are suddenly struck blind. This is an apt simile for the uproar surrounding the extent and gravity of the child abuse scandal eating at the very fabric of the Roman Catholic Church.

The first reaction of Pope Benedict and his advisors in the circumstances is to adopt a strict policy of eyes wide shut.

Editor’s note: Here in the United States allegations of sexual abuse are swept under the rug so hastily that accused priests are actually able to hold supervisor positions with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Believe it if you will, the conference of Italian bishops has just issued new guidelines on what to do if abuse cases involving priests (or for that matter, higher ranks of the church) come to their attention.

Answer: nothing.

The new guidelines were released shortly before the eruption of the latest Vatican scandal revolving around highly secret and intimate correspondence apparently filched by his own butler from Benedict’s state apartments.

The Vatican ministry which looks after discipline in the church, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had proposed that every diocesan Bishop should create a standing document that will set out a strict code of behavior in sexual abuse cases.

What is important here is that the Bishop’s Conference (CEI) reports directly to Benedict. There seems to be little doubt that the pope himself, or more probably his closest and most intimate advisers, overrode other voices within the Vatican calling for sterner and stricter standards to curb abuse among the priestly ranks and then unfrock convicted offenders.

To devote a mere five pages to an issue which has placed the church in the front line of massive compensation claims around the globe, not to mention the dock at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, is in any event pure arrogance.

It is dumb criminal neglect.

The original proposal was mean enough, amounting to no more than office keeping. But at the very least, it proposed some benchmark upon which more severe standards might be constructed. It was not to be.

I quote from the circular that eventually emanated from the Bishop’s Conference.

“Under Italian law, the bishop, given that he holds no public office nor is he a public servant, is not obliged to report illicit facts of the type covered by this document to the relevant state judicial authorities.”

via Sex: the three letter word destroying the Vatican | End the Lie – Independent News.

Richard Cottrell is a writer, journalist and former European MP (Conservative). His new book Gladio: NATO’s Dagger At The Heart Of Europe is now available from Progressive Press. You may order it using the link below (or by clicking here – Gladio, NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe: The Pentagon-Nazi-Mafia Terror Axis)

see previous posts: 

"Hands off Wikileaks” and “Free Bradley Manning” rally. Melbourne 29/1/2011

Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition – also, rap news #13

Julian Assange has lost his appeal against extradition to Sweden at the supreme court.

By a majority of five to two, the justices decided that a public prosecutor was “judicial authority” and that therefore his arrest warrant had been lawfully issued.

But lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder submitted an urgent request to the supreme court asking for permission to challenge one of the points made in the judgment.

Assange, who is facing charges of sexual assault and rape, was not in court. There was no legal requirement for him to be present. According to his solicitor, Gareth Peirce, he was stuck in traffic.

The court granted Assange’s lawyers 14 days to present their arguments that crucial issues related to Article 31 of the Vienna convention, on which the majority of the justices based their decision, were not raised during the hearing.

The two judges who found in Assange’s favour were Lord Mance and Lady Hale.

for background, see previous post: UK Court to decide on Extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

Assange’s lawyers can also, at the same time, begin the process of appealing against the judgment to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.

According to the supreme court, the Crown Prosecution Service cannot start extraditing Assange until 13 June at the earliest.

“The majority of the judges believe that parliament was seriously misled when it approved the European arrest warrant system,” said Peirce.

“Parliament thought a ‘judicial authority’ meant a judge or court but the majority of supreme court judges based their decision on what is the practice in Europe and decided it on the basis of the Vienna convention, which was never argued before the court.”

Even though Lord Brown has retired, at the age of 75, since the original hearing, he may still be called back to ensure there are an uneven number of justices on the panel when the court considers Assange’s emergency application.

This is the first time the supreme court has agreed to consider an emergency challenge to one of its rulings. It has happened in the past when the House of Lords was the highest appellate court.

via Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition | Media | guardian.co.uk.

RAP NEWS 13: A News Hope

It is a time of corporate war; deprived of a reliable media the people of Planet Earth are kept misinformed and in a state of perpetual conflict. Is an honest Fourth Estate the only Force than can restore peace and balance to the Galaxy? To find out, we consult two of journalism’s most influential and inflammatory figures: Rebel journalist enfant terrible, Julian Assange, who awaits a verdict in London which could see him ‘extradited’ to Sweden. And on the opposite end of the journalistic spectrum: Rupert Murdoch, head of the mighty NewsCorp media Empire, embroiled in legal scandals that go to the highest and lowest levels of celebrity in Britain.

who are the “Militants” obama keeps killing?

Virtually every time the U.S. fires a missile from a drone and ends the lives of Muslims, American media outlets dutifully trumpet in headlines that the dead were ”militants” – even though those media outlets literally do not have the slightest idea of who was actually killed. They simply cite always-unnamed “officials” claiming that the dead were “militants.” It’s the most obvious and inexcusable form of rank propaganda: media outlets continuously propagating a vital claim without having the slightest idea if it’s true.

This practice continues even though key Obama officials have been caught lying, a term used advisedly, about how many civilians they’re killing. I’ve written and said many times before that in American media discourse, the definition of “militant” is any human being whose life is extinguished when an American missile or bomb detonates (that term was even used when Anwar Awlaki’s 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, was killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen two weeks after a drone killed his father, even though nobody claims the teenager was anything but completely innocent: “Another U.S. Drone Strike Kills Militants in Yemen”).

This morning, the New York Times has a very lengthy and detailed article about President Obama’s counter-Terrorism policies based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers.” I’m writing separately about the numerous revelations contained in that article, but want specifically to highlight this one vital passage about how the Obama administration determines who is a “militant.” The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.

“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

For the moment, leave the ethical issues to the side that arise from viewing “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants”; that’s nothing less than sociopathic, a term I use advisedly, but I discuss that in the separate, longer piece I’ve written. For now, consider what this means for American media outlets. Any of them which use the term “militants” to describe those killed by U.S. strikes are knowingly disseminating a false and misleading term of propaganda. By “militant,” the Obama administration literally means nothing more than: any military-age male whom we kill, even when we know nothing else about them. They have no idea whether the person killed is really a militant: if they’re male and of a certain age they just call them one in order to whitewash their behavior and propagandize the citizenry (unless conclusive evidence somehow later emerges proving their innocence).

via “Militants”: media propaganda – Salon.com.

bono eats child in africa

genocide has a new face in africa – bono

whiteman to the rescue!

At the G8 Summit held two weeks ago at Camp David, President Obama met with private industry and African heads of state to launch the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit.

And Bono, of the rock group U2, is out shilling for Monsanto on this one.

bono eats child in africa

It’s phase 2 of the Green Revolution. Tanzania, Ghana, and Ethiopia are the first to fall for the deception, with Mozambique, Cote d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso and other African nations lining up for the “Grow Africa Partnership,” under Obama’s “Global Agricultural Development” plan.

In Obama Pitches India Model of GM Genocide to Africa, Scott Creighton writes:

But African civil society wants no part of this latest Monsanto aligned ‘public private partnership.’ Whatever will the progressives do now that their flawless hero has teamed up with their most hated nemesis to exploit an entire continent like they did to India not that long ago?

With a commitment of $3 billion, Obama plans to ‘partner up’ with mega-multinationals like Monsanto, Diageo, Dupont, Cargill, Vodafone, Walmart, Pepsico, Prudential, Syngenta International, and Swiss Re because, as one USAID representative says ‘There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage and developing seeds and fertilizers.’

Of course, that’s an outrageous lie. Private citizens have been building their own silos for centuries. But it’s true that only the biowreck engineers will foist patented seeds and toxic chemicals on Africa.

via Activist Post: U2, Bono? Celeb partners with Monsanto, G8, to biowreck African farms with GMOs.

Creighton continues:

Bono says that there has to be a ‘public private partnership’ in order to get this done and that they are going to be using the ideas of the African people and farmers. Really? This is what the African farmers say to that…

We request that: – governments, FAO, the G8, the World Bank and the GAFSP reconsider their promotion of Public/Private Partnerships which, as they are now conceived, are not suitable instruments to support the family farms which are the very basis of African food security and sovereignty.’ African Civil Society Organizations

I wonder if that could be any clearer. They don’t WANT the public private partnerships involved in this process…. It’s not enough that huge mega-corporations are bleeding the nations of Africa dry by sucking the valuable mineral resources out of their hills. No. As Bono says about the development in Africa:

‘They’re future consumers for the United States. The president is talkingbusiness. This is good. It’s a whole new development paradigm today. The old donor/recipient relationship… it’s over.’

Volatility chimed in:

The history of corporate agriculture and its ‘Green Revolution’ is a perfect example of the unfulfilled promises, and therefore proven lies, of corporatism. What was the Green Revolution? With a huge one-off injection of fossil fuels, and building upon ten thousand years of agronomy, corporate agriculture temporarily increased yields within the monoculture framework.

But, in the Green Revolution, writes Volatility:

The soil is stripped of all nutrition and zombified by ever-increasing applications of synthetic fertilizer. Monoculture is ever more dependent on the increasing application of ever more toxic herbicides and pesticides. Deployment of GMOs escalates these vulnerabilities. Factory farms can exist only with ever increasing use of antibiotics. All these systems are extremely tenuous, vulnerable, not robust, not resilient. They’re all guaranteed to collapse. Hermetic monoculture, and industrial agriculture as such, is one big hothouse flower which requires perfect conditions to survive….

[T]he Green Revolution was a scam to use cheap fossil fuels to increase monocrop yield, drive tens of millions off the land, and use the stolen land and food to render food temporarily artificially cheap for Western consumerism.

Like with Monsanto’s Bt cotton deployed in India, at first yields improved and farmers profited. Now, however, according to a leaked Advisory from the Minister of Agriculture obtained by the Hindustan Times last month:

Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton…. In fact cost of cotton cultivation has jumped…due to rising costs of pesticides. Total Bt cotton production in the last five years has reduced.

The Advisory definitively links farmer suicides to debt-enslavement enabled by the synthetic food model spawned by Monsanto, Dupont and other ecocidal corporations: “The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.”

That’s not all the harm wrought by the petrochemical synthetic ag industry, as this 2012 superweed map by the University of Wisconsin shows:

Over half of US states are now plagued by agrochemically-induced superweeds.  An industry sponsored study of pesticide use predicts that by 2016, nearly a billion pounds of these toxic chemicals will be poured on US soils.

Insects have also developed resistance. As reported last August, “The Western rootworm beetle – one of the most serious threats to corn – has developed resistance to Monsanto’s Bt-corn, and entire crops are being lost.”

In March, two dozen corn entomologists warned regulators that the only way to defeat growing insect resistance to genetically modified corn is to plant non-GMO seed. “Increasing pesticide use or buffer zone size will not solve the growing problem of rootworm resistance to corn genetically modified.”

But if that doesn’t deter African farmers, these petrochemicals have also been linked to human birth defects. Where “Roundup Ready soy is being cultivated on a massive scale,” reports Dr. Mercola, “widespread reports exist of immediate illness defects from massive glyphosate spraying operations.”

In fact, “Monsanto, Philip Morris and other U.S. tobacco giants knowingly poisoned Argentinean tobacco farmers with pesticides,” reports Courthouse News Service, “causing ‘devastating birth defects’ in their children, dozens of workers claim in court.”

The Bt toxin used to engineer cotton and corn also kills human kidney cells, reports Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji, and the drift from aerial application of Roundup prompted the Mississippi Rice Council to sound a national alarm over genetic damage to natural rice, calling for severely restricted aerial application.

Newly emergent pathogens have appeared, reports Dr. Don M. Huber, a plant pathologist who coordinates the Emergent Diseases and Pathogens committee of the American Phytopathological Society, as part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System. Last year, his team discovered a “self-replicating, micro-fungal virus-sized organism which may be causing spontaneous abortions in livestock, sudden death syndrome in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soy, and wilt in Monsanto’s RR corn.”

Huber’s warning to the USDA to halt GM crop approvals, and specifically, genetically modified alfalfa, was not only ignored, but two months ago, Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack hastened the approval process for genetically engineered crops.

“The new rules will cut the time needed to approve biotech crops in half,” reports Dr. Mercola, “from an average of three years, to about 13 months for new versions of already existing crop technologies, and about 16 months for brand new technologies.”

Obama’s Global Agricultural Development plan conspires with multinational corporations to foist these ecological and human health costs onto the public while siphoning the profits. As Creighton says, “Socialized costs, privatized profits. All in the name doing good and saving the people of Africa.”

Let’s hope these “public/private partnerships” are met with firm resistance by African farmers, as supported by this Declaration from a group of African civil society organizations.  The last thing Planet Earth and all its organisms need is more toxic industrial chemicals.

CopyCats: This work may be reproduced in whole or in part as long as the original URL and author name are included.

U2, Bono? Celeb partners with Monsanto, G8, to biowreck African farms with GMOs.

Rady Ananda is an investigative reporter and researcher in the areas of health, environment, politics, and civil liberties.  Her two websites, Food Freedom and COTO Report are essential reading.

related posts - 

liberty is sick

10 methods used to destroy america, and enslave americans

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.

The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. WhileSen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as “Orwellian.” (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.

from JONATHAN TURLEY 10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free