Showing posts with label govenment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label govenment. Show all posts

Wednesday, 17 July 2013

'No freedom of speech'

'US citizen has no right to free speech?' State Dept spokesperson grilled over Snowden



Tensions are high as NSA leaker Edward Snowden officially submitted application for temporary asylum in Russia on Tuesday. 

After Russian and international human rights advocates and lawyers met with Snowden at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport on Friday, the US said it is disappointed in Russia for considering the whistleblowers asylum. 

During a daily press briefing State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki was given a thorough grilling on the Snowden affair by journalists, including AP's Matthew Lee and CNN's Elise Labott and was left lost for words at almost every turn.


Tuesday, 16 July 2013

Chris Hedges on dissent

Locking Out the Voices of Dissent
Chris Hedges



14 July, 2013


NEW YORK—The security and surveillance state, after crushing the Occupy movement and eradicating its encampments, has mounted a relentless and largely clandestine campaign to deny public space to any group or movement that might spawn another popular uprising. The legal system has been grotesquely deformed in most cities to, in essence, shut public space to protesters, eradicating our right to free speech and peaceful assembly. The goal of the corporate state is to criminalize democratic, popular dissent before there is another popular eruption. The vast state surveillance system, detailed in Edward Snowden’s revelations to the British newspaper The Guardian, at the same time ensures that no action or protest can occur without the advanced knowledge of our internal security apparatus. This foreknowledge has allowed the internal security systems to proactively block activists from public spaces as well as carry out pre-emptive harassment, interrogation, intimidation, detention and arrests before protests can begin. There is a word for this type of political system—tyranny.


If the state is ultimately successful in preventing us from mobilizing in public spaces, then dissent will mutate from nonviolent mass protests to clandestine and perhaps violent acts of resistance. Some demonstrators have already been branded “domestic terrorists” under the law. The rear-guard effort by a handful of activists to protect our rights to be heard and peaceably assemble is perhaps the most crucial, though unseen, struggle we currently are engaged in with the corporate state. It is a struggle to salvage what is left of our civil society and our right to nonviolent resistance against corporate tyranny. This is why the New York City trial last week of members of Veterans for Peace, along with other activists, took on an importance that belied the simple trespassing charges against them.


The activists were arrested Oct. 7, 2012, while they were placing flowers in 11 vases and reading the names of the dead inscribed on the wall in New York’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaza after the official closing time, 10 p.m. The defiance of the plaza’s official closing time—which appears to be enforced against political activists only—was spawned by a May 1, 2012, protest by Occupy Wall Street activists. The Occupy activists had attempted to hold a meeting in the plaza and been driven out by police. A number of Veterans for Peace activists, most of them veterans of the Vietnam War, formed a line in front of the advancing police that May night and refused to move. They were arrested.


Many of these veterans came back to the plaza on a rainy, windy night in October to protest on the 11th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan and again assert their right to carry out nonviolent protests in public spaces. They included Jay Wenk, an 86-year-old combat veteran of World War II who served with Gen. George Patton’s Third Army in Europe. When he was arrested Wenk was beating a gong in the downpour as the names of the dead were read. During the October protest 25 people were seized by police for refusing to leave the park after 10 p.m. Twelve went to trail last week. Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Robert Mandelbaum on Friday found the dozen activists guilty. The judge, however, quickly threw out his own verdict, calling the case a “unique circumstance.” “Justice,” he said, “cries out for a dismissal.” His dismissal shuts down the possibility of an appeal.


The legislative system, the judicial system, the whole national security state that’s invading all of our privacy are taking away our right to dissent,” Dr. Margaret Flowers, one of the defendants, told me on a lunch break during the trial. “But everything that’s happening is happening legally. It’s a slippery slope. People will look at this case and they’re going to say, ‘So what? They were in a park. There was a rule. It was closing. The police arrested them. That makes sense to me!’ And they don’t put it in the bigger context. That’s how all of this is happening. It’s all being justified. The whole system is being flipped on its head. The judicial and law enforcement system should be protecting our rights. We have the right to dissent. It’s in the Bill of Rights. The question is, can we halt that slide for a second, maybe even reverse it a little bit?”


The executive, legislative and judicial branches of government have been taken over by corporations and used to protect and promote the criminal activity of Wall Street, the destruction of the ecosystem by the fossil fuel industry, the looting of the U.S. Treasury by the banking industry and the corporate seizure of all major centers of power. The primacy of corporate profit trumps our right to a living wage, affordable and adequate health care, the regulation of industry and environmental controls, protection from corporate fraud and abuse, the right to a good and affordable public education, the ability to form labor unions, and having a government that serves the basic needs of ordinary citizens. Our voices, our rights and our aspirations are no longer of concern to the state. And if we try to assert them, the state now has mechanisms in place to shut us down.


Tarak Kauff, a 71-year-old veteran of the Army’s 111th Airborne and former professional boxer, was one of the organizers of the Oct. 7 protest. He has been on a hunger strike for more than a month to express solidarity with the hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bayand in the Pelican Bay prison in California. He was gaunt. His skin was ashen and his cheeks sunken. He consumes 300 liquid calories a day and has lost 24 pounds. He was arrested in May and again in October.


I saw clearly that the purpose of the arrest was not merely enforcing the 10 p.m. curfew,” he said of the May arrests, “but the purpose was very specific in restricting the right of assembly. We decided that October 7th would be a perfect day to do it. It was 11 years of war in Afghanistan. So when we came to the Vietnam Veterans Plaza that night we had four purposes. One was to call for an end to the war, the ongoing war in Afghanistan. The second was to call for an end to all U.S. wars of empire. The third was to remember and lament those who had fallen and been wounded in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, including the civilians, including the 5 million civilians in Vietnam. The fourth was to affirm our right to assemble. If we lose the right to address these issues and to organize in public places, we have absolutely nothing.”


I’m fasting because it’s a sacrifice,” he said when I asked about his hunger strike. “I want to encourage other people in our movement of the necessity of sacrifice. If we want to establish anything, if we want to re-establish or ever establish any kind of democratic system, it’s not going to happen without sacrifice, some kind of sacrifice. And we have a choir. I want to see that choir inspired to start sacrificing more, to take risks. We have to be willing to put our bodies on the line in some way, shape, or form, nonviolently.”


According to several of the activists, some of the police officers said that they too were military veterans and disliked making the arrests but had been told by their superiors to take the demonstrators into custody to prevent another Occupy encampment.


“ ‘We can’t let you stay,’ ” Kauff said he was told by a police captain. “ ‘It sets a bad example for the Occupy movement.’ ”


After the process of being arrested began, a police lieutenant told me the Occupy Wall Street people really screwed this up for you guys,” Sam Adams, who served in the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam, said in his courtroom testimony. “You can thank them for this.”


The trial was a tiny window into how rattled the state was by Occupy, 
unfortunately now in disarray. The security organs know that as conditions worsen for the majority of Americans, as austerity cuts and chronic unemployment and underemployment drive tens of millions of families into desperation, as climate change continues to produce extreme and dangerous weather, there remains the threat of another popular backlash. The problem lies not, of course, with the Occupy movement, but with the reconfiguration of the government into a handmaiden of corporations that seek to squeeze profits out of the dying carcass of empire.


The corporate state’s quest to control all power includes using the military to carry out domestic policing, which is why I sued the president over Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act. It is imperative to defend, as the activists did in New York City, what freedoms and rights we have left. If we remain passive, if we permit the state to continue to use the law to take away our right of political expression, we will have no legal protection of resistance when we will need it most.




Tuesday, 25 June 2013

Sibel Edmonds on government balackmail


Sibel Edmonds Blows the Whistle on Government Blackmailing



In this remarkable conversation, Sibel Edmonds reflects on Russ Tice’s recent revelations to Boiling Frogs Post and The Corbett Report that the NSA has wiretapped top government officials for years. Edmonds discusses from her own experience how the FBI collects dirt on Congressman and public officials for use as political leverage. We also talk about how this scandal proves that there is no “official channel” for whistleblowers to follow when they want to expose wrondoing because the system is being controlled from behind the scenes by the criminals in the national security establishment.

To listen GO HERE

Saturday, 22 June 2013

Coming down on whistleblowers


Obama's 'Insider Threat' Program a 'Sweeping' Crackdown on Leakers
McClatchy: 'Leaks to the media are equated with espionage'

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer


21 June, 2013


A program being implemented by the Obama administration titled "Insider Threat" requires millions of federal employees to keep a close watch on each other—a "sweeping" effort to crackdown on whistleblowers and leakers across the U.S. government, McClatchy reports Friday after obtaining a series of government documents.


The program, which has largely gone unmentioned in the media, spans all government agencies and mandates that employees and their superiors seek out “high-risk persons or behaviors” tied to someone who might expose government wrongdoing. Those who fail to expose someone they belief to be a leaker face penalties that include criminal charges.

As McClatchy reports Friday, the program creates a "sweeping" government-wide crackdown on federal employees who may find certain harmful actions or policies of their employer worthy of public knowledge. 


The program was launched in October 2011 directly after Army Pfc. Bradley Manning leaked military documents that exposed U.S. war crimes to the website WikiLeaks.

Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States,” says one of the documents—a June 1, 2012 Defense Department strategy written for the program.

As the documents reveal, any "leaks to the media" are officially "equated with espionage," through the administration's eyes.

As McClatchy reports:

President Barack Obama’s unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of “insider threat” give agencies latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct.
Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures of any information, not just classified material. [...]


The McClatchy piece goes on to detail the individualized implementations of the program within differing government agencies—all with their own tactics for identifying the "spy in our midst," as The Defense Department puts it.


According to McClatchy, the Obama administration is expected to hasten the implementation of the program in the wake of the recent earth-shattering revelations leaked by former NSA employee Edward Snowden that exposed the NSA's vast and unconstitutional—as many have argued—spying programs.


According to current and former officials and experts who spoke with McClatchy, the Insider Threat Program is making it "easier for the government to stifle the flow of unclassified and potentially vital information to the public," as McClatchy writes, "while creating toxic work environments poisoned by unfounded suspicions and spurious investigations of loyal Americans."


It was just a matter of time before the Department of Agriculture or the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) started implementing, ‘Hey, let’s get people to snitch on their friends.’ The only thing they haven’t done here is reward it,” said Kel McClanahan, a Washington lawyer who specializes in national security law. “I’m waiting for the time when you turn in a friend and you get a $50 reward.

The real danger is that you get a bland common denominator working in the government,” warned Ilana Greenstein, a former CIA case officer who says she quit the agency after being falsely accused of being a security risk. “You don’t get people speaking up when there’s wrongdoing. You don’t get people who look at things in a different way and who are willing to stand up for things. What you get are people who toe the party line, and that’s really dangerous for national security.”


Tuesday, 5 February 2013

The Lies of the National Government


I'm not in favour of the infinite growth approach of either major party. I am, however, in favour of accuracy and the National Party have continued to lie about the legacy of the Helen Clark government.

Frank McSkasy has done a great job in bringing this material together. Political amnesia is a terrible thing.

Bill English – do you remember Colin Morrison?
.
A message to the Hon. Bill English;


From the NZ Herald on 27 January, uttered by Bill English,
“…On top of that, Labour still hasn’t apologised for their wasteful policies the last time they got their hands on the economy.
See: IBID
.
Firstly, let’s review recent history in decidely more accurate terms,

.
.
The IMF (International Monetary Fund) chart above shows that from 2000 to 2008, the Labour government paid down debt, from 33.4% in 2000 to 17.4% in 2008  (a near-halving of our sovereign debt) to  when National took the reigns of government.
Some will even recall that Labour Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, posted several surpluses during his tenure as Finance Minister,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just as well that Cullen resisted strident calls for massive tax cuts. Instead, perhaps being the wisest man in the decade, realised that common sense demanded that we pay down our sovereign debt, rather than splurge out on an almighty cash-lolly scramble.
Had Cullen yielded to calls for tax cuts instead of addressing our debt, our current sovereign debt would probably be approaching  Greece’s.
But Bill English and other National/ACT sycophants don’t want us to know this. It makes Labour look good. And that’s the last thing they want.
After 2008, as National gave away tax revenue on the form of two unaffordable tax cuts in 2009 and 2010, debt skyrocketed from 17.4% to 37% of GDP.
Now, if  one was to use the same mis-information as Bill English, John Key, et al, I could shout from the roof-tops that the rise in debt was due wholly to National’s mis-management of the government books.
The reality, of course, is that the 2007/08 Global Finance Crisis – as well as National’s incompetance in giving away tax cuts we could ill afford – both had a part to play in our increased borrowing.
Secondy, let’s deal with English’s claim,
“…On top of that, Labour still hasn’t apologised for their wasteful policies the last time they got their hands on the economy.
Budget expenditures from the early 1990s to 2012 reveal an interesting story,

.
.
The early 1990s (characterised by Finance Minister, Ruth Richardson) was one of massive cuts to health, welfare, sale of State houses,  and other social services. The same can be said of the late 1990s, where de-regulation; so-called “reforms“; cuts to state services;  and increasing User Pays led to growing poverty and the widening income gap.
Eventually, those cuts to state services had dire consequences. For example, the health sector was particularly badly hit,
.
.
More health changes tipped – (8 March 1997)
.
Must pay for ‘wants’ – (19 July 1997)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Health spending rates poorly  – (24 Aug 1999)
.
The Health “reforms”, along with chronic under-funding, had their inevitable consequences,
.
.
Died waiting for by-pass  (6 April 1998)
.
Rau Williams and Colin Morrison – both with entirely different lives;  living at opposite ends of the country; one Maori, the other Pakeha – both suffered the same fate. They died because government cutbacks on spending (see red square in  above chart) had reduced the Health budget, and as media reports above show – were impacting harshly on our society.
These two men – and  perhaps others who died quietly, shunning the glare of publicity – died on Bill English’s watch.  As Minister responsible for Crown Health Enterprises and later Minister of Health, English could not shift responsibility to anyone else.
At one point, English was forced to concede that the Health system and funding mechanism was “flawed”,
.
.
.
Tragically, Mr English’s “Road to Damascus” experience was too late for Mr Williams and Mr Morrison and their families.
Is it me, or does  it seem that everything National touches turns into one, big, steaming cow-patty?
Finally, by 1999 the country had had enough. On 27 November, the country went to the polls and National and their coalition ally, NZ First, were roundly defeated.
The incoming Labour-Alliance government was faced with a crippled health sector (amongst other state services that had been cut back) that had been impoverished and  was struggling to perform it’s most basic core services,
.
.
.
.
.
A crisis that could only be remedied by a hands-on government prepared to make appropriate funding decisions,
.
.
.
.
$1.5b injection for health – (9 Dec 2001)
.
Upshot of this, Mr English?
Any increase in funding of state services was necessary. After savage cuts, National created a situation where our healthcare system was unequivocally unsafe.
In fact, it had  become lethal. People were dying for lack of appropriate medical intervention.
That was the legacy of the National Government, 1989 – 1999.
So before Mr English or any of his cronies complain that Labour  spent more than National did – damn right they did. And the increased health funding under Labour probably saved an unknown number of lives.
Tell us, Mr English, do you remember Colin Morrison and Rau Williams?
.
*
.
Addendum 1
By the way, Mr English, with reference to your criticism of the Green Party regarding job creation,
And to make it worse, at the same time their coalition partners the Greens are up in Auckland busy working out how to stop everything they don’t like – which includes everything to do with growth and jobs.


There’s no need to point the finger at the Greens and blame them for lack of growth and jobs. The  inept National Party are quite efficient at stifling the economy and creating rising unemployment,
.
.
.
No need to invoke the Green Party (who aren’t even part of the National-led coalition) – it seems National is quite adept at grinding  the economy into the ground.
Credit where it’s due, Mr English, credit where it’s due.
Addendum 2
The Bolger-led National cut taxation-revenue by implementing two tax cuts, in 1996 and 1997. (see: Reserve Bank – New Zealand’s remarkable reforms)
Why does this sound more and more familiar?!
.
*
References
Treasury: Briefing to Incoming Government 1996 (12 Oct 1996)