Remember, it was as a presidential candidate in 2008 that Barack Obama opposed mass domestic surveillance, saying: “I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are.”
Edward Snowden’s leaks prove that now as President, Obama has thrown out all those campaign promises. Not only that, he’s expanded their global reach and justified this expansion by basically saying, “All countries are doing it so we have to also.”
The only President who didn’t start his own conflict was Jimmy Carter more than 30 years ago. Carter also tried to ban extra-judicial assassinations. And today, he’s distinguished himself from both Bush and Obama, calling Snowden’s leaks „beneficial“.
Solche Leute wie diese sollten eine fette Auszeichnung erhalten. Sie tun wirklich was für die Menschen während andere uns nur ein Theater vorspielen. Sein/Deren Leben wird für immer ein anderes sein, wenn wir nicht dafür sorgen, dass er/sie in Ruhe gelassen wird/werden!!!
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 30 June 2013 13.30 BST
Bradley Manning should win the Nobel Peace Prize
As a peace prize winner myself, I am nominating Manning for this honor for his work to help end the Iraq War and other conflicts
Peace is more than simply the absence of war; it is the active creation of something better. Alfred Nobel recognized this when he created alongside those for chemistry, literature, medicine and physics, an annual prize for outstanding contributions in peace. Nobel’s foresight is a reminder to us all that peace must be created, maintained, and advanced, and it is indeed possible for one individual to have an extraordinary impact. For this year’s prize, I have chosen to nominate US Army Pfc Bradley Manning, for I can think of no one more deserving. His incredible disclosure of secret documents to Wikileaks helped end the Iraq War, and may have helped prevent further conflicts elsewhere.
I recently visited Syria, where I met a few of the millions of refugees and internally displaced people whose lives have been torn apart by the ongoing conflict in that country. I learned from those I spoke to, both within the government and in opposition groups, that while there is a legitimate and long-overdue movement for peace and non-violent reform in Syria, the worst acts of violence are being perpetrated by outside groups. Extremist groups from around the world have converged upon Syria, bent on turning this conflict into one of ideological hatred.
In recent years this would have spelled an undeniable formula for United States intervention. However, the world has changed in the years since Manning’s whistleblowing – the Middle East especially. In Bahrain, Tunisia, Egypt, and now Turkey, advocates of democracy have joined together to fight against their own governments‘ control of information, and used the free-flowing data of social media to help build enormously successful non-violent movements. Some activists of what has come to be known as the Arab Spring have even directly credited Bradley Manning, and the information he disclosed, as an inspiration for their struggles.
In a Middle East newly dedicated to democratic flow of information, those who would commit human rights violations can more easily be held accountable. If not for whistleblower Bradley Manning, the world still might not know of how US forces committed covert crimes in the name of spreading democracy in Iraq, killing innocent civilians in incidents such as the one depicted in the „Collateral Murder“ video, and supporting Iraqi prisoner torture. Now, those who would support foreign intervention in the Middle East know that every action would be scrutinized under international human rights law. Clearly, this is for the best. International peacekeepers, as well as experts and civilians inside Syria, are nearly unanimous in their view that United States involvement would only worsen this conflict.
Around the world, Manning is hailed as a peacemaker and a hero. His nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize is a reflection of this. Yet at his home in America, Manning stands trial for charges of espionage and „aiding the enemy“. This should not be considered a refutation of his candidacy – rather, he is in good company. Burmese politician Aung San Suu Kyi and Chinese writer Liu Xiaobo were each awarded the prize in recent years while imprisoned by their home countries.
Last week at Manning’s trial, the public learned that at the time Manning released his information, WikiLeaks stated they wanted to publish „the concealed documents or recordings most sought after by a country’s journalists, activists, historians, lawyers, police or human rights investigators“. Manning’s disclosures to Wikileaks only „aided the enemy,“ as his prosecutors charge, if the enemy is international cooperation and peace itself.
Manning is the only one on trial, yet what of those who committed the atrocities he revealed? The United States, the most militarized country on earth, should stand for something better than war. Its government must be open to „debates, discussions and reforms“ concerning its foreign policy, to use Manning’s own words. By heeding Pfc Bradley Manning’s message on the importance of transparency, America’s government can once again rebuild its image in the eyes of the world, and spread democracy not through foreign invasions, but through setting a strong example.
I hope American leaders will embrace the U.S. constitution, and base their national and foreign policies on ethical values, human rights and international law.
DELETED ARTICLE FROM GUARDIAN
Revealed: secret European deals to hand over private data to America
Germany ‚among countries offering intelligence ‚ according to new claims by former US defence analyst
At least six European Union countries in addition to Britain have been colluding with the US over the mass harvesting of personal communications data, according to a former contractor to America’s National Security Agency, who said the public should not be „kept in the dark“.
Wayne Madsen, a former US navy lieutenant who first worked for the NSA in 1985 and over the next 12 years held several sensitive positions within the
agency, names Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and Italy as having secret deals with the US.
Madsen said the countries had „formal second and third party status“ under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand
over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.
Under international intelligence agreements, confirmed by declassified documents, nations are categorised by the US according to their trust level. The US
is first party while the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoy second party relationships. Germany and France have third party relationships.
In an interview published last night on the PrivacySurgeon.org blog, Madsen, who has been attacked for holding controversial views on espionage issues,
said he had decided to speak out after becoming concerned about the „half story“ told by EU politicians regarding the extent of the NSA’s
activities in Europe.
He said that under the agreements, which were drawn up after the second world war, the „NSA gets the lion’s share“ of the sigint
„take“. In return, the third parties to the NSA agreements received „highly sanitised intelligence“.
Madsen said he was alarmed at the „sanctimonious outcry“ of political leaders who were „feigning shock“ about the spying operations
while staying silent about their own arrangements with the US, and was particularly concerned that senior German politicians had accused the UK of spying
when their country had a similar third-party deal with the NSA.
Although the level of co-operation provided by other European countries to the NSA is not on the same scale as that provided by the UK, the allegations are
„I can’t understand how Angela Merkel can keep a straight face, demanding assurances from [Barack] Obama and the UK while Germany has entered into
those exact relationships,“ Madsen said.
The Liberal Democrat MEP Baroness Ludford, a senior member of the European parliament’s civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, said
Madsen’s allegations confirmed that the entire system for monitoring data interception was a mess, because the EU was unable to intervene in intelligence
matters, which remained the exclusive concern of national governments.
„The intelligence agencies are exploiting these contradictions and no one is really holding them to account,“ Ludford said. „It’s
terribly undermining to liberal democracy.“
Madsen’s disclosures have prompted calls for European governments to come clean on their arrangements with the NSA. „There needs to be transparency
as to whether or not it is legal for the US or any other security service to interrogate private material,“ said John Cooper QC, a leading
international human rights lawyer. „The problem here is that none of these arrangements has been debated in any democratic arena. I agree with
William Hague that sometimes things have to be done in secret, but you don’t break the law in secret.“
Madsen said all seven European countries and the US have access to the Tat 14 fibre-optic cable network running between Denmark and Germany, the
Netherlands, France, the UK and the US, allowing them to intercept vast amounts of data, including phone calls, emails and records of users‘ access to
He said the public needed to be made aware of the full scale of the communication-sharing arrangements between European countries and the US, which predate
the internet and became of strategic importance during the cold war.
The covert relationship between the countries was first outlined in a 2001 report by the European parliament, but their explicit connection with the NSA
was not publicised until Madsen decided to speak out.
The European parliament’s report followed revelations that the NSA was conducting a global intelligence-gathering operation, known as Echelon, which
appears to have established the framework for European member states to collaborate with the US.
„A lot of this information isn’t secret, nor is it new,“ Madsen said. „It’s just that governments have chosen to keep the public in the
dark about it. The days when they could get away with a conspiracy of silence are over.“
This month another former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, revealed to the Guardian previously undisclosed US programmes to monitor telephone and internet
traffic. The NSA is alleged to have shared some of its data, gathered using a specialist tool called Prism, with Britain’s GCHQ.
Here’s everything we know about PRISM to date
By Timothy B. Lee, Published: June 12, 2013 at 3:43 pmE-mail the writer
Since the Guardian and The Washington Post revealed the existence of the NSA’s PRISM program last week, there’s been a confusing debate about what exactly the program is and how it works. While the Obama administration has tacitly acknowledged the program’s existence, tech companies have angrily denied that they had given the NSA “direct” or “unfettered” access to their servers. So what’s going on? Let’s try to separate the facts from the hype.
(Image by Charles Smith)
What do we know for sure about PRISM?
We know that PRISM is a system the NSA uses to gain access to the private communications of users of nine popular Internet services. We know that access is governed by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was enacted in 2008. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper tacitly admitted PRISM’s existence in a blog post last Thursday. A classified PowerPoint presentation leaked by Edward Snowden states that PRISM enables “collection directly from the servers” of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook and other online companies.
What do the Internet companies who allegedly participate in this program have to say about it?
In a Friday post titled “What the …?” Google CEO Larry Page stated that “any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.”
In a weekend follow-up, Google chief architect Yonatan Zunger wrote that “the only way in which Google reveals information about users are when we receive lawful, specific orders about individuals.” He said that “it would have been challenging — not impossible, but definitely a major surprise — if something like this could have been done without my ever hearing of it.” He said that even if he couldn’t talk about such a program publicly, he would have quit Google rather than participate. “We didn’t fight the Cold War just so we could rebuild the Stasi ourselves,” he concluded.
“The notion that Yahoo! gives any federal agency vast or unfettered access to our users’ records is categorically false,” wrote Yahoo’s Ron Bell on Saturday. “Of the hundreds of millions of users we serve, an infinitesimal percentage will ever be the subject of a government data collection directive.”
(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called media reports about PRISM “outrageous,” stating that “Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the U.S. or any other government direct access to our servers.”
“We only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers,” Microsoft said in a statement last Thursday. “If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data, we don’t participate in it.”
“We have never heard of PRISM,” said Steve Dowling, a spokesman for Apple. “We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.”
Are the companies lying? Or using legalistic language to hide their participation?
It’s hard to be sure, but the number of companies that have issued denials, and the vehemence of some of their statements, suggests that they may be sincere.
Initially, many people were suspicious of the fact that a number of companies only denied giving the NSA “direct access” to their servers, suggesting that the companies might be giving the agency access to the contents of their servers through some intermediary.
But the more recent statements, especially Zunger’s and Bell’s, seem to leave little wiggle room. Google’s Zunger says that Google only responds to “specific orders about individuals.” Yahoo’s Bell says that only an “infinitesimal percentage” of Yahoo’s customers will have their information turned over to the feds. That’s in tension with initial reports about how PRISM operates. And Zunger’s crack about the Stasi is very different from the careful, legalistic statements the firms released in the initial hours after news of PRISM broke.
If PRISM doesn’t give the NSA unfettered access to our online information, what does it do?
Reporting by the New York Times and CNet offers some clues about how PRISM works.
The Times says that major tech companies have systems that “involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company’s servers.”
Data is “shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk,” the Times reports. The scheme is “a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data.”
A source told CNet’s Declan McCullagh that PRISM is “a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do.” A source — perhaps the same one — says that “you can’t say everyone in Pakistan who searched for ‘X’ … It still has to be particularized.”
Doesn’t that contradict what the slides released by Snowden say?
Not necessarily. Here’s the key slide from the PRISM presentation:
This slide draws a distinction between NSA surveillance programs that collect communications “as data flows past” on fiber optic cables and PRISM, which collects communications “directly from the servers” of U.S. Internet companies.
Some have interpreted this to mean that the NSA has “direct access” in a technical sense: automatic, unfettered access to the servers’ contents. But in context, “direct” is more likely to mean that the NSA is receiving data sent to them deliberately by the tech companies, as opposed to intercepting communications as they’re transmitted to some other destination. That’s not inconsistent with tech company lawyers scrutinizing each request before complying with it.
Does that mean there’s nothing to worry about?
While the NSA may not have unfettered access to tech companies’ servers, there are still serious questions about the breadth of the information the government is collecting, and whether that information is subject to appropriate judicial oversight. FISA orders are not search warrants under the Fourth Amendment, and the FISA Amendments Act doesn’t require the government to show probable cause to believe that the target of surveillance has committed a crime.
Defenders of the NSA’s activities argue the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply because FISA orders only target non-Americans. Instead of showing probable cause to a judge, Section 702 of FISA allows senior Obama administration officials to “authorize” the “targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” The surveillance may not “intentionally target” an American, but the NSA can obtain the private communications of Americans as part of a request that officially “targets” a foreigner.
The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of these provisions. In February, the Supreme Court threw out a legal challenge to the law because the plaintiffs couldn’t prove that they had personally been the target of surveillance. It’s not clear whether any of the recent revelations will give FISA opponents enough evidence to convince a court to rule on the program’s merits.
FISA only allows targeting of foreigners. That means it can’t use FISA orders to read Americans’ e-mails, right?
The “targeting” rule may not protect Americans as much as it might seem. Last week’s revelation that the government used an obscure provision of the Patriot Act to obtain records of every phone call on Verizon’s network with a single court order suggests that the government is willing to adopt permissive interpretations of the law.
According to the Times, “FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms.” In one case, an NSA agent “installed government-developed software on the company’s server and remained at the site for several weeks to download data to an agency laptop.” In other cases, the government has sought “real-time transmission of data, which companies send digitally.”
So a FISA order might “target” a suspected terrorist, but also request access to the private data from all of the target’s associates — some of whom might happen to live in the United States.
In its initial report on PRISM, The Washington Post said that NSA analysts use search queries “designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s ‘foreignness.’ ” Training materials advise new analysts that “it’s nothing to worry about” if they accidentally collect U.S. content.
And even if the NSA is only collecting foreigners’ communications, that doesn’t rule out abusive surveillance. For example, the environmental nonprofit organization Greenpeace has been targeted for surveillance by the NSA in the past. The organization is based outside the United States, but it has many U.S. members who might not appreciate having their government spy on its activities.
22 Juni 2013 | Von DPA; bearbeitet von René Rosin
„Tempora“: Britischer Geheimdienst sichtet weltweites Internet
Washington/London – Prism war gestern, Tempora ist heute. Der Ex-Geheimdienstler Snowden enthüllt neue Geheimnisse. Demnach treibt es der britische Geheimdienst beim Ausspähen des Internets noch schlimmer als die amerikanische Spionage. Die USA klagen derweil den Informanten wegen Spionage an.
Adrian Sherratt/Rex Features
1 von 10
Wie der „Guardian“ berichtet, hat sich der Geheimdienst GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) Zugang zum weltweiten Internet beschafft und schöpft dort «Unmengen von Daten» ab, die dann wiederum mit den US-Partnern von der NSA (National Security Agency) geteilt würden. Neben E-Mails, Einträgen im sozialen Netzwerk Facebook oder auch Telefongesprächen würden auch persönliche Informationen der Nutzer gespeichert und analysiert.
Nach seinen Enthüllungen über massive Telefon- und Internetspionage haben die USA Anklage gegen den Informanten Edward Snowden erhoben. Wie US-Medien am Freitag unter Berufung auf Gerichtspapiere berichteten, wird Snowden Spionage und Diebstahl von Regierungseigentum vorgeworfen. Der 30-jährige packt derweil weiter aus. Nach Angaben des britischen «Guardian» lastet er dem britischen Geheimdienst noch massivere Spionage an als den Amerikanern.
Snowden: GCHQ «schlimmer als die US(Kollegen)»
Die US-Anklage wurde demnach bereits am 14. Juni bei einem Bundesgericht in Virginia eingereicht. Snowden hatte die britische Zeitung «The Guardian» und die «Washington Post» von Hongkong aus über die US-Spionageprogramme im Rahmen des Anti-Terror-Kampfes informiert.
Die Enthüllungen haben in den USA eine heftige Debatte über die Abwägung zwischen Sicherheitserfordernissen und Bürgerrechten ausgelöst und Präsident Barack Obama Kritik aus dem Ausland eingebracht, so vonseiten der Bundesregierung.
Snowden soll sich weiter in Hongkong aufhalten. Nach einem Bericht des Senders NBC News hatten sich die US-Stellen Zeit mit der Anklage gelassen, um den Hongkonger Regeln für eine Auslieferung zu entsprechen. Nach Angaben der «New York Times» hat die US-Regierung die Behörden in Hongkong ersucht, Snowden in Gewahrsam zu nehmen, während eine offizielle Anklage und ein Auslieferungsantrag vorbereitet würden.
Snowden lässt derweil weiter von sich hören – und belastet nun den britischen Geheimdienst massiv. Dieser übertreffe, so der «Guardian», der sich auf Angaben des Amerikaners beruft, mit seinen Aktivitäten sogar noch die US-Spionagebehörden.
Snowden: „Sie haben keine Ahnung, was alles möglich ist“
Widerstand gegen US-Überwachung im Internet gewinnt an Kraft
Interview mit Whistleblower Snowden: „Ich bin weder Verräter noch Held“
Obama verteidigt massive Sammlung von Telefon- und Internetdaten
US-Informant hinter Internet-Schnüffeleien sucht Asyl
NSA schießt zurück: Ermittlungen gegen Snowden
NSA-Chef verteidigt Datensammel-Wut
Snowdens Schicksal liegt in Pekings Händen
Wie das Blatt berichtet, hat sich der Geheimdienst GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) Zugang zum weltweiten Internet beschafft und schöpft dort «Unmengen von Daten» ab, die dann wiederum mit den US-Partnern von der NSA (National Security Agency) geteilt würden. Neben E-Mails, Einträgen im sozialen Netzwerk Facebook oder auch Telefongesprächen würden auch persönliche Informationen der Nutzer gespeichert und analysiert.
Das britische Spionageprogramm «Tempora», das nach dieser Darstellung noch umfangreicher als das amerikanische Programm «Prism» sein soll, sei seit eineinhalb Jahren in Betrieb. GCHQ habe es geschafft, schreibt das Blatt weiter, zur Beschaffung der Informationen zahlreiche Internetknotenpunkte anzuzapfen.
Snowden wollte nach eigenen Worten «das größte unauffällige Überwachungsprogramm in der Geschichte der Menschheit» aufdecken, so der «Guardian». «Es ist nicht nur ein US-Problem», zitierte ihn die Zeitung. Auch Großbritannien habe «einen großen Hund im Rennen». GCHQ sei «schlimmer als die US(Kollegen)».
Nach Angaben eines mit der Enthüllungsplattform Wikileaks verbundenen isländischen Geschäftsmannes steht unterdessen in Hongkong ein Flugzeug bereit, das Snowden nach Island fliegen könnte. Man warte nun auf ein positives Signal von der isländischen Regierung, sagte der Geschäftsmann Olafur Vignir Sigurvinsson am Freitag.
Spionagesystem „Echelon“: EU-Parlamentarier in Washington brüskiert (2001)
Eigentlich wollte sich eine Gruppe von EU-Parlamentariern eine Woche lang in Washington über das Spionagesystem „Echelon“ informieren. Doch die US-Vertreter ließen alle Gespräche kurzfristig platzen. Die EU-Delegation reiste brüskiert ab.
US-Satellitenantenne im britischen Morwenstow
Brüssel – Der Ausschuss-Vorsitzende, der Portugiese Carlos Coelho, beklagte die mangelnde Gesprächsbereitschaft der amerikanischen Seite. Die europäische Delegation sei besorgt und entsetzt, dass die vor zwei Wochen vereinbarten Treffen mit Vertretern des Außen- und Handelsministeriums ohne zufrieden stellende Begründung in letzter Minute abgesagt worden seien. Auch die Geheimdienste CIA und NSA hätten trotz Vorbreitungen des Besuchs eine Unterredung abgelehnt. Beobachter vermuten hinter den Absagen eine Weisung „von ganz oben.“
Besuch sollte eigentlich eine Woche dauern
„Deshalb brechen wird unseren Besuch ab und kehren sofort nach Europa zurück“, hieß es in einer in Washington verbreiteten Erklärung Coelhos. Die Delegation war am Montag in Washington eingetroffen und wollte sich eine Woche in den USA aufhalten.
Der Vizepräsident des Europäischen Parlaments, Ingo Friedrich (CSU/EVP), kritisierte gegenüber SPIEGEL ONLINE die US-Verhandlungsstrategie. „Die Amerikaner, das muss ich auch als Konservativer sagen, laufen Gefahr, sich allmählich zu isolieren. Als Führungsmacht darf man nicht isoliert sein. Das werden die USA auf Dauer nicht durchstehen.“ Gleichzeitig biete der Streit um Echelon den Europäern auch die Chance zur Profilierung, glaubt Friedrich: „Mit einem solchen Verhalten bekommen die Europäer die große Chance, als befreundete partnerschaftliche Globalplayer weltweit parallel zu den Amerikanern aufzutreten.“
Mehr auf SPIEGEL ONLINE
EU-US Crashtest über „Echelon“: Ein diplomatischer Vergeltungsschlag? (11.05.2001)
SPIEGEL ONLINE exklusiv: Die Anatomie der Schlapphüte
Lausch-Imperium: Crypto City entgeht nichts (22.04.2001)
Netzdepesche: Warum die CIA „nie“ offensiv spielt (28.04.2000)
Netzdepesche: Bundesregierung sieht Echelon gelassen (18.04.2000)
Große Ohren: Echelon – Spionage unter Freunden (31.03.2000)
Ein britischer Experte hatte im Januar erklärt, Wirtschaftsspionage durch das Abhörsystem „Echelon“ habe Unternehmen in Europa in den vergangenen Jahren Dutzende Milliarden gekostet. Der Schaden seit 1993 liege irgendwo zwischen 13 und 145 Milliarden Dollar, wobei vor allem französische, deutsche und britische Firmen betroffen seien, erklärte der Journalist Duncan Campbell, der vom Europaparlament mit der Erstellung eines Berichts über „Echelon“ beauftragt worden war.
Der Berichterstatter des „Echelon“-Spionageausschusses, Gerhard Schmid, hatte im März die europäischen Unternehmen zu mehr Wachsamkeit aufgerufen. Firmen müssten sicherstellen, dass sensible Informationen nicht über Fax oder Telefon übermittelt würden. Schmid sagte, es seien noch keine konkreten Beweise aufgetaucht, dass die USA „Echelon“ zur Spionage gegen EU-Unternehmen einsetzten. Diese seien aber auch schwer zu finden, da Abhören anders als Einbruch keine Spuren hinterlasse.
Echelon – Für Jahrzehnte ein Phantom
Das weltweite „Echelon“-Netzwerk aus Abhöreinrichtungen soll seit 1947 bestehen und zunächst für militärische Zwecke entwickelt worden sein. Neben den USA sollen die englischsprachigen Länder Großbritannien, Kanada, Neuseeland und Australien daran beteiligt sein. Eines der Hauptziele von „Echelon“ ist nach Angaben der USA heute der Kampf gegen Korruption und das organisierte Verbrechen weltweit. Den USA wird vorgeworfen, Informationen aus abgefangenen E-Mails und abgehörten Telefongesprächen an US-Unternehmen weitergegeben und diesen damit Vorteile gegenüber europäischen Konkurrenten verschafft zu haben.
Lange Zeit hatten die USA die Existenz von Echelon bestritten. Offiziell debattiert wird das Thema erst seit reichlich einem Jahr. Der frühere CIA-Direktor James Woolsey hatte damals die Existenz des Wirtschaftsspionage-Systems bestätigt. Gegenüber Europa werde Wirtschaftsspionage betrieben, um die Wettbewerbschancen der amerikanischen Wirtschaft gegenüber europäischen Konkurrenten schützen.
Woolseys Nachfolger George Tenet hatte allerdings in einer Kongressanhörung erklärt, die CIA hätte an Wirtschaftsspionage „kein Interesse.“ Ein Dementi mit Einschränkungen: Wenn die CIA von Bestechungen, Lügen oder Betrügereien ausländischer Firmen beziehungsweise ihrer Regierungen, die gegen amerikanische Firmen gerichtet seien erfahre, würden die Informationen an „andere, geeignete Behörden“ weitergegeben.
- There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.
- There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at zero percent interest by law.
- Having a home considered a human right in Libya.
- All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 dinar (U.S.$50,000) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.
- Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25 percent of Libyans were literate. Today, the figure is 83 percent.
- Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kickstart their farms are all for free.
- If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need, the government funds them to go abroad, for it is not only paid for, but they get a U.S.$2,300/month for accommodation and car allowance.
- If a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50 percent of the price.
- The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
- Libya has no external debt and its reserves amounting to $150 billion are now frozen globally.
- If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession, as if he or she is employed, until employment is found.
- A portion of every Libyan oil sale is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
- A mother who gives birth to a child receive U.S.$5,000.
- 40 loaves of bread in Libya costs $0.15.
- 25 percent of Libyans have a university degree.
- Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Manmade River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
U.S., citing use of chemical weapons by Syria, to provide direct military support to rebels
The United States has concluded that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in its fight against opposition forces, and President Obama has authorized direct U.S. military support to the rebels, the White House said Thursday.
“The president has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser. Rhodes said U.S. intelligence had determined with “high certainty” that Syrian government forces have “used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.”
Intelligence agencies estimate that 100 to 150 people have died as a result of chemical weapons use, he said.
Rhodes did not detail what he called the expanded military support, but it is expected initially to consist of light arms and ammunition. He said the shipments would be “responsive to the needs” expressed by the rebel command.
Obama has “not made any decision” to pursue a military option such as a no-fly zone and has ruled out the deployment of U.S. ground troops, Rhodes said.
Syria’s outgunned rebels have issued urgent appeals this week for antitank and antiaircraft weaponry to counter a government offensive that is backed by Hezbollah fighters and Iranian militia forces.
“Suffice it to say this is going to be different in both scope and scale,” Rhodes said of the new assistance. Obama said last year that confirmation of chemical weapons use would cross a “red line” for the United States.
The shipments, to begin in a matter of weeks, will be undertaken by the CIA. The agency has been the primary U.S. government interlocutor with the opposition’s Supreme Military Council, led by Gen. Salim Idriss. Such covert action requires a signed presidential finding.
That method avoids what the administration previously has said are legal restraints on supplying arms for attacks against another government without approval by an international body such as the United Nations, according to U.S. officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about intelligence matters.
The weapons would probably be delivered by air to Turkey or Jordan, or both, and by land into Syria along rebel-held corridors. The opposition’s requests for antitank and antiaircraft weaponry are still under discussion.
The CIA declined to comment on the new direction in Syria policy.
Despite its long insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must leave power and its recognition of the opposition as “a legitimate representative of the Syrian people,” the United States and most of the world still officially recognize the Assad government.
Rhodes said the administration would continue to push for a negotiated political settlement of the conflict, including a proposed conference between opposition leaders and government representatives that is on hold.
Syria will be at the top of the agenda when Obama meets with leaders of the Group of Eight industrial nations, including Russia, in Northern Ireland next week. Russia, Assad’s primary arms supplier and diplomatic backer, has blocked harsher international action against him at the United Nations.
Demands from Congress
The Obama administration has provided more than $515 million in humanitarian and nonlethal military assistance to the Syrian opposition, including food and medicine. This week, the United Nations put the death toll in the conflict, which is in its third year, at more than 90,000. Millions have been displaced inside the country, and more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees are in neighboring countries.
But while regional governments have been funding weapons supplies for the rebels, the United States and its closest allies, including Britain and France, have been reluctant to do so.
This week, demands from numerous American lawmakers that Obama authorize the delivery of arms — despite persistent U.S. public reluctance reflected in opinion polls — escalated after the rebels’ loss of a key town near the Lebanese border and reports that government forces were massing with Hezbollah and Iranian fighters to retake rebel-held portions of the northern city of Aleppo.
Officials described Obama’s decision as a gradual one, as intelligence assessments about chemical weapons use became more firm. After an initial, inconclusive assessment in April, the president “directed our intelligence community to further investigate the use of chemical weapons and to seek credible and corroborative information,” Rhodes said in a briefing for reporters Thursday afternoon.
The U.S. investigation, he said, was conducted separately from, but in conjunction with, a U.N. effort to confirm chemical weapons use in Syria.
… 10 days after 9/11 I went to the Pentagon and I saw secretary Rumsfeld and  Wolfowitz. I went downstairs to just say „hello“ to some of the people, the joint staff, who used to work for me and one of the generals called me in and said: „Sir, you got to come in and talk to me for a second …“ I said „You are not too busy?“ – „No No No“ …
He says: „We made the decision we’re going to war with Iraque“ […]
I came back to see him a few weeks later by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan I said „Are we still going to war with Iraque?“ and he said: „It is worse than that.“
… and he reached over on his desk and picked up a piece of paper and he said „I just got this down from upstairs“ (means secretary defence office) „this is a memo that describes how we gonna take out 7 countries in 5 years. Starting with Iraque, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.“ …
Source / Live Interview:
Not a single major newspaper nor any national news broadcast has ever reported that on Feb. 6, 1985, a jury in Miami concluded that the CIA was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
This is remarkable, if only because the verdict came in a court case featuring two international celebrities: Water gate burglar E. Howard Hunt — perhaps the most infamous CIA operative in history — and his courtroom nemesis — attorney Mark Lane. Lane’s ground-break ing best-seller, Rush to Judgment, had convinced millions of readers there had been a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, the Warren Commission’s claims notwithstanding.
Scattered news reports did mention Hunt had lost a libel case against The SPOTLIGHT. However, no media reported what the jury forewoman had told the press:
Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy.
Until 1992, when Lane recounted the trial in Plausible Denial and put forth additional compelling evidence of CIA complicity in the crime, the only substantive news reports about the trial appeared in The SPOTLIGHT. In issue No. 7 for 1985 (Feb. 18), The SPOTLIGHT announced its victory, detailing the remarkable events that led to the trial.
The affair was set in motion on Aug. 14, 1978, when The SPOTLIGHT published an article by former CIA official Victor Marchetti who revealed the CIA intended to publicly „admit“ Hunt had been involved in the JFK assassination, acting as a „rogue“ agent without CIA sanction.
A top CIA liaison to anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the early 1960s, Hunt was unknown to the public until the Watergate scandal that toppled President Nixon in 1974 brought Hunt ill fame. Then, after Watergate, when the Rockefeller Commission investigated CIA misdeeds, two eccentric writers alleged Hunt was one of three „tramps“ photographed in Dallas minutes after the JFK assassination.
Subsequent investigation refuted the „Hunt as tramp“ theory. However, scandal sheets had hyped the story and many came to believe Hunt had a hand in Dallas.
In 1976, growing skepticism about the Warren Commission’s claim that a „lone assassin“ had killed JFK forced the House of Representatives to convene a new assassination inquiry.
In the midst of the House investigation, an unusual development occurred:
As Marchetti’s SPOTLIGHT article reported, an in-house CIA memo, ostensibly written in 1966 — some 12 years previously — was leaked to congressional investigators.
The memo stated Hunt had been in Dallas on the day of the JFK assassination, and that CIA officials were concerned the agency would one day have to explain Hunt’s presence there.
The SPOTLIGHT subsequently learned CIA Director Richard Helms and the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence, James Angleton, had signed off on the memo.
Marchetti suggested that because the CIA perceived Hunt to be a villain in the public’s eye as a consequence of Watergate, the CIA had decided to sacrifice Hunt and „admit“ he had been involved in the assassination.
The CIA would claim Hunt was acting on his own and that the CIA, as an institution, had no part in the president’s murder. This would satisfy public demand for a resolution of the JFK controversy and the CIA itself would be absolved. Hunt would be left to fend for himself.
The SPOTLIGHT felt the article served as warning to Hunt about CIA intentions and Hunt himself admitted the story seemed plausible. Yet, Hunt still filed suit against The SPOTLIGHT.
When the case went to trial in federal court in Miami, the jury found in Hunt’s favor, ordering The SPOTLIGHT to pay Hunt $650,000 in damages. However, an error in the jury instructions resulted in the verdict being overturned. After the case was ordered for retrial, Lane stepped in for The SPOTLIGHT’s defense.
The highlight of the trial was when Lane presented the jury the testimony of Marita Lorenz, an ex-CIA operative who had worked with Hunt in plots against Fidel Castro.
Miss Lorenz testified that on Nov. 21, 1963 — the day prior to the JFK assassination — she arrived in Dallas in a two-car caravan from Miami. Accompanying her were several CIA operatives, armed with telescopic rifles, including Frank Sturgis who (years later) participated with Hunt in the Watergate burglary.
She didn’t know the purpose of the mission, but upon arrival, the travelers met with Hunt, who acted as their paymaster, and also Jack Ruby who, days later, killed the accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Uncomfortable, sensing something „big, very big,“ was impending, she left Dallas that same day. Later Sturgis told her how big the mission had been: the assassination of President Kennedy.
The jury listened carefully to her testimony, already suspicious of Hunt after his performance under Lane’s cross-examination. Lane pointed out inconsistencies in conflicting stories by Hunt over the years about where he had been on Nov. 22, 1963. However, Hunt insisted to the jury that he was in Washington, D.C. with his wife and three children that day.
Hunt’s case collapsed when he was unable to explain, when questioned by Lane, why his teenage children had asked him if the rumors he was involved in the events in Dallas were true.
Obviously, if Hunt were in Washington on Nov. 22 he couldn’t have been in Dallas.
Not surprisingly, the jury found in favor of The SPOTLIGHT. Yet, the major media said nothing about the stunning, historic revelations of this trial.
It was clearly the CIA’s counterintelligence chief, James Angleton, who leaked the CIA memo placing Hunt in Dallas. In fact, Angleton’s confidant, reporter Joe Trento (deposed by Lane in the Hunt case) has said — based upon what Angleton told him — that Hunt had been in Dallas and that it was Angleton who sent him there (Angleton’s own denials notwithstanding). Three conclusions can be reached:
• The CIA had planned to throw Hunt to the wolves but evidently he and the CIA reached an accord since Angleton’s loyal, longtime deputy, Newton Miler, was dispatched by the CIA to testify against The SPOTLIGHT in Hunt’s defense;
• Because The SPOTLIGHT ex posed the intended CIA scheme to „admit“ Hunt’s complicity in the assassination, the operation was shelved; and,
• If there’s anybody who knows what really happened in Dallas, it’s Hunt.
Reveals JFK Killers
The Last Confession Of E. Howard Hunt –
US government/CIA team murdered JFK
By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor
- The April 5 issue of Rolling Stone features the deathbed confession of CIA operative and key Bay of Pigs/Watergate/Nixon administration figure E. Howard Hunt, The Last Confession of E. Howard Hunt by Erik Hedegaard. This piece is significant not only for its exploration of Hunt, but for breakthrough information that appears to thoroughly corroborate the work of key John F. Kennedy assassination researchers and historians.
- Who killed JFK?
- According to Hunt’s confession, which was taken by his son, St. John („Saint“) Hunt, over the course of many personal and carefully planned father-son meetings, the following individuals were among the key participants:
- Lyndon B. Johnson: LBJ, whose own career was assisted by JFK nemesis J. Edgar Hoover (FBI), gave the orders to a CIA-led hit team, and helped guide the Warren Commission/lone gunman cover-up.
- Cord Meyer: CIA agent, architect of the Operation Mockingbird disinformation apparatus, and husband of Mary Meyer (who had an affair with JFK).
- David Atlee Philips: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Recruited William Harvey (CIA) and Cuban exile militant Antonio Veciana.
- William Harvey: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Connected to Mafia figures Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana.
- Antonio Veciana: Cuban exile, founder of CIA-backed Alpha 66.
- Frank Sturgis: CIA operative, mercenary, Bay of Pigs veteran, and later Watergate figure.
- David Morales: CIA hit man, Bay of Pigs veteran. Morales was also a figure involved with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.
- Lucien Sarti: Corsican assassin and drug trafficker, possible „French gunman,“ Grassy Knoll (second) shooter.
- Would Hunt continue to tell lies on his deathbed? Perhaps. Would Hunt tell a final tall story or two, to protect himself, or perhaps deal one final slap in the face to the US government (which made him a fall guy for Watergate)? Yes. Would Hunt hide the involvement of certain individuals to whom he remained loyal, including people who are still alive? Certainly. Anything from an operative like Hunt can only be accepted with caution and healthy skepticism.
- Nevertheless, Hunt’s scenario has the ring of truth.
- Each of the named names are well-known CIA and CIA-linked players exposed by many researchers and historians who have detailed the enduring connection from the Bay of Pigs and the Dallas hit to Watergate and Iran-Contra.
- The Hunt confession vindicates generations of historians, researchers and whistleblowers who have given their lives and careers to expose the truth about Dealey Plaza. While there are too many to name, they include, but are not limited to (and in no particular order): Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Fletcher Prouty, Josiah Thompson, Carl Oglesby, Peter Dale Scott, Anthony Summers, Robert Groden, Victor Marchetti, David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone, Michael Canfield, A.J. Weberman, Sylvia Meagher, William Turner, Jim Marrs, Pete Brewton, John Newman, Philip Melanson, Hal Verb, Mae Brussell, Harold Weisberg, Oliver Stone, Mike Ruppert and Dan Hopsicker, Jim diEugenio and Linda Pease.
- Meanwhile, the criminal deceptions of the US government and its corporate media, the Warren Commission, and the dirty work of cover-up specialists such as Gerald Posner and Mark Fuhrman, and the legions of JFK assassination revisionist/theorists, deserve a final rebuke, and eternal scorn.
- Highlighting Hunt’s role
- Although the Rolling Stone piece does not address it, the Hunt confession directly corroborates two classic investigations that previously exposed the role of Hunt. They are Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial and Michael Canfield/A.J. Weberman’s Coup D’Etat in America. Lane’s book details how he took Hunt to court, and won a libel suit, essentially proving that the CIA murdered JFK, and that Hunt lied about his whereabouts. The investigation of Canfield and Weberman identified Hunt and Frank Sturgis as two of the three „tramps“ arrested at Dealey Plaza.
- Time has only made these investigations more relevant. More than ever, their books, and those of the JFK historians and researchers above listed, deserve to be found, read and studied.
- Hunt to Nixon to Bush
- The Rolling Stone piece fails to go after the roles of Richard Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush. But the Hunt confession, if accurate, leads directly to them, to their lifelong associates, and all the way to the present George W. Bush administration.
- The Dallas-Watergate-Iran-Contra connection has been thoroughly documented by the key JFK researchers, and in particular, in the work of Peter Dale Scott, one of the very first to show the deep political continuity across three decades. Daniel Hopsicker’s Barry and the Boys goes into even more detail on the players.
- Consider the career of George H.W. Bush. He was a Texas oilman (Zapata Oil) and a CIA operative, involved with the Bay of Pigs. Bush’s name was found in the papers of George DeMohrenschildt, one of Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA handlers. As documented by Pete Brewton, author of The Mafia, the CIA and George Bush, Bush was deeply connected with a small circle of Texas elites tied to the CIA and the Mafia, as well as the Florida-based CIA/anti-Casto Cuban exile/ Mafia milieu As Richard Nixon’s hand-picked Republican National Committee chairman, and later as CIA director, Bush constantly covered-up and stonewalled for his boss about Watergate, which itself (by the admission of Frank Sturgis and others) was a cover-up of the JFK assassination.
- Tracking any of the individual CIA operatives involved with the Bay of Pigs, it is impossible to ignore or deny direct connections to George H.W. Bush and his crime family, across the Kennedy assassinations, covert operations in Indochina and, later, Latin America.
- Beyond any reasonable doubt, the US government murdered John F. Kennedy. There are people still alive today who were involved directly and indirectly implicated. Some are probably even serving in positions of high influence. Some still have never been identified or touched.
- All of these individuals still need to be pursued, exposed, and brought to justice.
- Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
- Email Online Journal Editor
Hunt’s Deathbed Confession
Hunt’s JFK Murder Confession Ignored By Establishment Media
- E. Howard Hunt’s taped deathbed „confession“ is not new news. In the days after Hunt died there were several articles covering the same material. Hunt is a profound liar of the highest rank. He planted forged memos in the National Archives blaming JFK for the Diem assassination, for example. The lies he told on the stand, under oath, in his slander trail (described by Mark Lane) are monuments to filth-as-truth. I consider his „confession“ as perhaps the strongest evidence that Johnson was not involved in JFK’s murder (though it seems, given his connections, that he may have been aware of the threat in general terms – but so were the FBI and Secret Service, in specific terms). Hunt gives us Sturgis and some other credible information merely as bait for that poisonous hook that Johnson was to blame. Given that, and the content of his „confession“, I think Hunt should be seriously considered a likely candidate as one of the two grassy knoll gunmen: the one who delivered the final, fail-safe head shot, at the last possible moment, when it became clear that the mafia and Cuban gunmen in the rear, and also on the knoll, had failed. (James Files‘ description of events on the knoll clearly indicate that if he was actually there, as he claims, that he fired the throat shot, with stunning incompetence. Files also names Sturgis – so there is really nothing new in Hunt’s tape)
- I don’t understand how could any reputable article could ignore all the evidence connecting Hunt to Bush? This evidence is collected in my DVD, JFK II, but it comes from well known and original sources like Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial, and Webster Tarpley’s Unauthorized Biography of George Bush (and from Hunt’s own mouth). I don’t get this at all. The Hoover memo, ignored? The memo naming George Bush as a CIA agent, and simultaneously and explicitly connecting him to both the assassination, and to the „misguided anti-Castro groups“ of which Hunt was the well-known supervisor, ignored?
- Instead the article offers us photographs claiming to be of Bush in front of the Depository. They are not at all persuasive, to my eyes. They don’t look much like Bush, and certainly they could be thousands of other tall, thin, balding men. The article also raises the lame allegation that Hunt was one of the bums arrested in the train yard and photographed as they were led to the police station. There are much better pictures showing very clearly that it was Chauncey Holt, not Hunt, who was the bum in question.
- I am embarrassed that Alex Jones, who does such essential work, and to whom I am very grateful, and to whom I always refer people, would post such stuff. The stealing of Kennedy’s body, the control of the autopsy, and the monumental cover-up in the papers were NONE OF THEM Texas operations. The Secret Service standown was not a Texas operation. The CIA serves the Rockefellers, not Texas Oil. Period. As do the Bushes. This was a northeastern elite operation, not a Texas operation. Overwhelming evidence shows that. But if you perpetrate a crime as large as JFK’s murder, you have to have a fall guy. Oswald is the fall guy for the inattentive and uninitiated. Johnson is the fall guy for the more sophisticated and experienced.
- Bush and the CIA killed Kennedy for the Rockefellers. And they had done considerable work setting Oswald up to appear as a Castro operative. Oswalds staged attempts to appear to be a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee are well known. Less well known is that Dulles and the rest had the lists drawn up for the massive round-up of all members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a real organization with numerous, serious and honest members who wanted to stop CIA sponsored terrorism against Cuba. Johnson was presented with the following dilemma by the Rockefeller clique: „if you don’t tell the world that Oswald acted alone, we’ll show that he was killed by Castro’s agents, we’ll use our control of the media to demand an invasion, and we’ll have war with the Soviets in no time.“ Certainly that was the argument made by Johnson to Earl Warren (i.e. that the Rockefellers were planning to provoke World War III if Oswald was not depicted as acting alone).
- The icing on the cake is HR Haldeman’s book, I think it’s the Haldeman Diaries but it might be Ends of Power*. He describes how Nixon called Johnson during Watergate and told him, „call off your dogs, or I’ll tell about how you tapped my phone in ’68 during the election.“ Johnson replied, „If you tell that, I’ll tell….“ The end of that sentence was the only part of all of Haldeman’s books that was censored on the basis of „national security.“ Of course he was talking about the Kennedy assassination. No other answer will serve. 10 days later Johnson was dead. But how could Johnson threaten to tell about Nixon’s involvement if HE, Johnson, were involved?
- Much more important than Hunt’s calculated attempts to poison the historical well from the grave are recent revelations that all members of the House Assassinations Committee expressed an interest to pursue the anti-Castro Cuban connection. Why? The answer is found in the heart of Lane’s Plausible Denial. The Committee came into possession of a memo between Richard Helms, head of CIA, and Jesus Angleton, his #2, discussing what course to follow when the Committee learned of Hunt’s presence in Dallas, and his involvement in the assassination. The Committee, in closed session, doubtless saw far more evidence than just this memo, showing the connection of the anti-Castro CIA terrorists, of whom Hunt was a front-line supervisor, and the Kennedy assassination. They also heard testimony from Marita Lorenz, for example. But Colby, the CIA chief who doubtless provided the memo, was fired for being too-cooperative, and was replaced by George HW Bush. The Committee’s investigation was shut down abruptly. But some member of the staff leaked the memo to the press, with the predictable result that only two small papers had the guts to publish it. Spotlight Magazine was one. All praise and glory etc.
- More here with parts of the original tape:
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) hat die Möglichkeit immer ignoriert, dass Thermit Stahl durchtrennen könne. Die Massenmedien, wie z.B. „National Geographic“ haben die Funde von Thermit im Staub des WTC immer attackiert. Die „Mythbusters“ wollten dieses Thema erst gar nicht aufgreifen. „The events of 9/11 will not be allowed to be debated and discussed …“
Es scheint also so, als ob Thermit folgendes NICHT können soll:
1. Stahl schmelzen
2. Stahl horizontal oder vertikal schneiden
Und es wurde behautet:
3. Dass man unheimlich große Mengen von Thermit bräuchte, wenn man die obigen Punkte überhaupt widerlegen wolle.
Doch man sehe selbst. Die folgenden Versuche wurden oftmals mit nicht mehr als einem hundertstel der Menge durchgeführt, die von anderen verwendet wurde.
Alex Jones sagt die Anschläge des 11. September 2001 voraus.
„… I won` t want you to believe Alex Jones I want you to get this News Stories up my webside I want you to call these major newspapers I want you to find out these statements are true by the White House that are preparing for Marshall Law and I want you to let them know that if there is any terrorism we know who to blame.“
„… the point is if any terrorism comes it is from this government and if there was an outside threat like a „Bin Laden“ who was a known CIA ace in the 80s running the Mujahedin war … it is the boogie man they need. …“