venerdì 25 settembre 2015

Imperial Overreach: U.S. Special Ops Forces Deployed in Your Country

Imperial Overreach: U.S. Special Ops Forces Deployed in 135 Nations

 
By Nick Turse, a 2014 Izzy Award and American Book Award winner for his book Kill Anything That Moves. Turse has reported from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa and his pieces have appeared in the New York Times, the Intercept, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Nation, and regularly at TomDispatch. His latest book is Tomorrow’s Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa. Originally published at TomDispatch
You can find them in dusty, sunbaked badlands, moist tropical forests, and the salty spray of third-world littorals.  Standing in judgement, buffeted by the rotor wash of a helicopter or sweltering beneath the relentless desert sun, they instruct, yell, and cajole as skinnier men playact under their watchful eyes. In many places, more than their particular brand of camouflage, better boots, and designer gear sets them apart. Their days are scented by stale sweat and gunpowder; their nights are spent in rustic locales or third-world bars.
These men — and they are mostly men — belong to an exclusive military fraternity that traces its heritage back to the birth of the nation. Typically, they’ve spent the better part of a decade as more conventional soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen before making the cut. They’ve probably been deployed overseas four to 10 times.  The officers are generally approaching their mid-thirties; the enlisted men, their late twenties. They’ve had more schooling than most in the military.  They’re likely to be married with a couple of kids.  And day after day, they carry out shadowy missions over much of the planet: sometimes covert raids, more often hush-hush training exercises from Chad to Uganda, Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, Albania to Romania, Bangladesh to Sri Lanka, Belize to Uruguay. They belong to the Special Operations forces (SOF), America’s most elite troops — Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, among others — and odds are, if you throw a dart at a world map or stop a spinning globe with your index finger and don’t hit water, they’ve been there sometime in 2015.
The Wide World of Special Ops
This year, U.S. Special Operations forces have already deployed to 135 nations, according to Ken McGraw, a spokesman for Special Operations Command (SOCOM).  That’s roughly 70% of the countries on the planet.  Every day, in fact, America’s most elite troops are carrying out missions in 80 to 90 nations, practicing night raids or sometimes conducting them for real, engaging in sniper training or sometimes actually gunning down enemies from afar. As part of a global engagement strategy of endless hush-hush operations conducted on every continent but Antarctica, they have now eclipsed the number and range of special ops missions undertaken at the height of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the waning days of the Bush administration, Special Operations forces (SOF) were reportedly deployed in only about 60 nations around the world.  By 2010, according to the Washington Post, that number had swelled to 75.  Three years later, it had jumped to 134 nations, “slipping” to 133 last year, before reaching a new record of 135 this summer.  This 80% increase over the last five years is indicative of SOCOM’s exponential expansion which first shifted into high gear following the 9/11 attacks.
Special Operations Command’s funding, for example, has more than tripled from about $3 billion in 2001 to nearly $10 billion in 2014 “constant dollars,” according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  And this doesn’t include funding from the various service branches, which SOCOM estimates at around another $8 billion annually, or other undisclosed sums that the GAO was unable to track.  The average number of Special Operations forces deployed overseas has nearly tripled during these same years, while SOCOM more than doubled its personnel from about 33,000 in 2001 to nearly 70,000 now.
Each day, according to SOCOM commander General Joseph Votel, approximately 11,000 special operators are deployed or stationed outside the United States with many more on standby, ready to respond in the event of an overseas crisis. “I think a lot of our resources are focused in Iraq and in the Middle East, in Syria for right now. That’s really where our head has been,” Votel told the Aspen Security Forum in July.  Still, he insisted his troops were not “doing anything on the ground in Syria” — even if they had carried out a night raid there a couple of months before and it was later revealed that they are involved in a covert campaign of drone strikes in that country.
“I think we are increasing our focus on Eastern Europe at this time,” he added. “At the same time we continue to provide some level of support on South America for Colombia and the other interests that we have down there. And then of course we’re engaged out in the Pacific with a lot of our partners, reassuring them and working those relationships and maintaining our presence out there.”
In reality, the average percentage of Special Operations forces deployed to the Greater Middle East has decreased in recent years.  Back in 2006, 85% of special operators were deployed in support of Central Command or CENTCOM, the geographic combatant command (GCC) that oversees operations in the region.  By last year, that number had dropped to 69%, according to GAO figures.  Over that same span, Northern Command — devoted to homeland defense — held steady at 1%, European Command (EUCOM) doubled its percentage, from 3% to 6%, Pacific Command (PACOM) increased from 7% to 10%, and Southern Command, which overseas Central and South America as well as the Caribbean, inched up from 3% to 4%. The largest increase, however, was in a region conspicuously absent from Votel’s rundown of special ops deployments.  In 2006, just 1% of the special operators deployed abroad were sent to Africa Command’s area of operations.  Last year, it was 10%.
Click here to see a larger version
socomimage1_small
A member of the U.S. Special Operations forces guides two soldiers from Cameroon’s 3rd Battalion Intervention Rapid (BIR) during a 2013 training event. (Photo by Air Force Master Sgt. Larry W. Carpenter Jr.)
Globetrotting is SOCOM’s stock in trade and, not coincidentally, it’s divided into a collection of planet-girding “sub-unified commands”: the self-explanatory SOCAFRICA; SOCEUR, the European contingent; SOCCENT, the sub-unified command of CENTCOM; SOCKOR, which is devoted strictly to Korea; SOCPAC, which covers the rest of the Asia-Pacific region; SOCSOUTH, which conducts missions in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean; SOCNORTH, which is devoted to “homeland defense”; and the ever-itinerant Joint Special Operations Command or JSOC, a clandestine sub-command (formerly headed by Votel) made up of personnel from each service branch, including SEALs, Air Force special tactics airmen, and the Army’s Delta Force that specializes in tracking and killing suspected terrorists.
The elite of the elite in the special ops community, JSOC takes on covert, clandestine, and low-visibility operations in the hottest of hot spots.  Some covert ops that have come to light in recent years include a host of Delta Force missions: among them, an operation in May in which members of the elite force killed an Islamic State commander known as Abu Sayyaf during a night raid in Syria; the 2014 release of long-time Taliban prisoner Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl; the capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspect in 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya; and the 2013 abduction of Anas al-Libi, an al-Qaeda militant, off a street in that same country.  Similarly, Navy SEALs have, among other operations, carried out successful hostage rescue missions in Afghanistan and Somalia in 2012; a disastrous one in Yemen in 2014; a 2013 kidnap raid in Somalia that went awry; and — that same year — a failed evacuation mission in South Sudan in which three SEALs were wounded when their aircraft was hit by small arms fire.
SOCOM’s SOF Alphabet Soup
Most deployments have, however, been training missions designed to tutor proxies and forge stronger ties with allies. “Special Operations forces provide individual-level training, unit-level training, and formal classroom training,” explains SOCOM’s Ken McGraw.  “Individual training can be in subjects like basic rifle marksmanship, land navigation, airborne operations, and first aid.  They provide unit-level training in subjects like small unit tactics, counterterrorism operations and maritime operations. SOF can also provide formal classroom training in subjects like the military decision-making process or staff planning.”
From 2012 to 2014, for instance, Special Operations forces carried out 500 Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) missions in as many as 67 countries each year.  JCETs are officially devoted to training U.S. forces, but they nonetheless serve as a key facet of SOCOM’s global engagement strategy. The missions “foster key military partnerships with foreign militaries, enhance partner-nations’ capability to provide for their own defense, and build interoperability between U.S. SOF and partner-nation forces,” according to SOCOM’s McGraw.
And JCETs are just a fraction of the story.  SOCOM carries out many other multinational overseas training operations.   According to data from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), for example, Special Operations forces conducted 75 training exercises in 30 countries in 2014.  The numbers were projected to jump to 98 exercises in 34 countries by the end of this year.
“SOCOM places a premium on international partnerships and building their capacity.  Today, SOCOM has persistent partnerships with about 60 countries through our Special Operations Forces Liaison Elements and Joint Planning and Advisory Teams,” said SOCOM’s Votel at a conference earlier this year, drawing attention to two of the many types of shadowy Special Ops entities that operate overseas.  These SOFLEs and JPATs belong to a mind-bending alphabet soup of special ops entities operating around the globe, a jumble of opaque acronyms and stilted abbreviations masking a secret world of clandestine efforts often conducted in the shadows in impoverished lands ruled by problematic regimes.  The proliferation of this bewildering SOCOM shorthand — SOJTFs and CJSOTFs, SOCCEs and SOLEs — mirrors the relentless expansion of the command, with its signature brand of military speak or milspeak proving as indecipherable to most Americans as its missions are secret from them.
Around the world, you can find Special Operations Joint Task Forces (SOJTFs), Combined Joint Special Operations Task Forces (CJSOTFs), and Joint Special Operations Task Forces (JSOTFs), Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs), as well as Special Operations Command and Control Elements (SOCCEs) and Special Operations Liaison Elements (SOLEs).  And that list doesn’t even include Special Operations Command Forward (SOC FWD) elements — small teams which, according to the military, “shape and coordinate special operations forces security cooperation and engagement in support of theater special operations command, geographic combatant command, and country team goals and objectives.”
Special Operations Command will not divulge the locations or even a simple count of its SOC FWDs for “security reasons.”  When asked how releasing only the number could imperil security, SOCOM’s Ken McGraw was typically opaque.  “The information is classified,” he responded.  “I am not the classification authority for that information so I do not know the specifics of why the information is classified.”  Open source data suggests, however, that they are clustered in favored black ops stomping grounds, including SOC FWD Pakistan, SOC FWD Yemen, and SOC FWD Lebanon, as well as SOC FWD East Africa, SOC FWD Central Africa, and SOC FWD West Africa.
Click here to see a larger version
socomimage2_small
A U.S. Army Special Forces soldier readies himself to jump out of a C-130J Super Hercules over Hurlburt Field, Fla., March 3, 2012. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jonathan Snyder)  
What’s clear is that SOCOM prefers to operate in the shadows while its personnel and missions expand globally to little notice or attention.  “The key thing that SOCOM brings to the table is that we are — we think of ourselves — as a global force. We support the geographic combatant commanders, but we are not bound by the artificial boundaries that normally define the regional areas in which they operate. So what we try to do is we try to operate across those boundaries,” SOCOM’s Votel told the Aspen Security Forum.
In one particular blurring of boundaries, Special Operations liaison officers (SOLOs) are embedded in at least 14 key U.S. embassies to assist in advising the special forces of various allied nations.  Already operating in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, El Salvador, France, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Poland, Peru, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, the SOLO program is poised, according to Votel, to expand to 40 countries by 2019.  The command, and especially JSOC, has also forged close ties with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security Agency, among other outfits, through the use of liaison officers and Special Operations Support Teams (SOSTs).
“In today’s environment, our effectiveness is directly tied to our ability to operate with domestic and international partners. We, as a joint force, must continue to institutionalize interoperability, integration, and interdependence between conventional forces and special operations forces through doctrine, training, and operational deployments,” Votel told the Senate Armed Services Committee this spring.  “From working with indigenous forces and local governments to improve local security, to high-risk counterterrorism operations — SOF are in vital roles performing essential tasks.”
SOCOM will not name the 135 countries in which America’s most elite forces were deployed this year, let alone disclose the nature of those operations.  Most were, undoubtedly, training efforts.  Documents obtained from the Pentagon via the Freedom of Information Act outlining Joint Combined Exchange Training in 2013 offer an indication of what Special Operations forces do on a daily basis and also what skills are deemed necessary for their real-world missions: combat marksmanship, patrolling, weapons training, small unit tactics, special operations in urban terrain, close quarters combat, advanced marksmanship, sniper employment, long-range shooting, deliberate attack, and heavy weapons employment, in addition to combat casualty care, human rights awareness, land navigation, and mission planning, among others.
From Joint Special Operations Task Force-Juniper Shield, which operates in Africa’s Trans-Sahara region, and Special Operations Command and Control Element-Horn of Africa, to Army Special Operations Forces Liaison Element-Korea and Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Arabian Peninsula, the global growth of SOF missions has been breathtaking.  SEALs or Green Berets, Delta Force operators or Air Commandos, they are constantly taking on what Votel likes to call the “nation’s most complex, demanding, and high-risk challenges.”
These forces carry out operations almost entirely unknown to the American taxpayers who fund them, operations conducted far from the scrutiny of the media or meaningful outside oversight of any kind.  Everyday, in around 80 or more countries that Special Operations Command will not name, they undertake missions the command refuses to talk about.  They exist in a secret world of obtuse acronyms and shadowy efforts, of mystery missions kept secret from the American public, not to mention most of the citizens of the 135 nations where they’ve been deployed this year.
This summer, when Votel commented that more special ops troops are deployed to more locations and are conducting more operations than at the height of the Afghan and Iraq wars, he drew attention to two conflicts in which those forces played major roles that have not turned out well for the United States.  Consider that symbolic of what the bulking up of his command has meant in these years.
“Ultimately, the best indicator of our success will be the success of the [geographic combatant commands],” says the special ops chief, but with U.S. setbacks in Africa Command’s area of operations from Mali and Nigeria to Burkina Faso and Cameroon; in Central Command’s bailiwick from Iraq and Afghanistan to Yemen and Syria; in the PACOM region vis-à-vis China; and perhaps even in the EUCOM area of operations due to Russia, it’s far from clear what successes can be attributed to the ever-expanding secret operations of America’s secret military.  The special ops commander seems resigned to the very real limitations of what his secretive but much-ballyhooed, highly-trained, well-funded, heavily-armed operators can do.
“We can buy space, we can buy time,” says Votel, stressing that SOCOM can “play a very, very key role” in countering “violent extremism,” but only up to a point — and that point seems to fall strikingly short of anything resembling victory or even significant foreign policy success.  “Ultimately, you know, problems like we see in Iraq and Syria,” he says, “aren’t going to be resolved by us.”
Print Friendly
Tweet about this on Twitter0Digg thisShare on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Facebook0Share on LinkedIn0Share on Google+0Buffer this pageEmail this to someone

sabato 5 settembre 2015

A small scale military operation against Al-Banquaeda

FULFORD: A small scale military operation would be enough to remove the Khazarian cabal from power [FULL Report]

Benjamin Fulford


In September the leaders of the current world system are planning many changes. Chinese President Xi Jinping, the Pope, Russian President Vladimir Putin and others will be visiting the US in September ostensibly to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the UN. The leaders are also promising to announce many reforms including making a promise to end poverty and stop environmental destruction by 2030. There are also plans to include the Chinese yuan into the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights or SDR currency. The Pope is also planning to issue an encyclical officially committing Catholic Christianity to environmental protection.

All of this though, is probably going to be too little, too late. It is mathematically impossible for the current world system to continue as is without root and branch reform or even revolution.

The first thing to realize is that the world financial system based on Babylonian style debt slavery has to be replaced with a transparent financial system controlled by the people. Promising to do more good within the current architecture is like a fox telling the hens that from now on he will steal less eggs.
The system as it now exists leaves 50% of the world’s wealth in the hands of just 85 people. Meanwhile, according to Oxfam,
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016
80% of all people on the planet only own only 5.5% of the world’s assets. This is the result of a system that has turned 8 out of 10 Americans into debt slaves and lowered their standards of living since the 1960’s.

This is the sort of inequality that led to the collapse of the Roman empire and is now making the collapse of the current system a mathematical certainty because all the world’s wealth (and natural resources) are disappearing into a black hole centered around the hyper-wealthy.

So thinking from a military perspective, what needs to be done? In military terms a campaign to change this system would be quite simple. Here are a three simple steps that need to be taken:

First, nationalize all the privately owned central banks. The right to create money has historically belonged to governments for good reasons in that governments represent the people. Issuing government currency would allow governments to pay for education, health care, the military, public work and basic scientific research without resorting to either debt or taxation.

People who want more than barebones basics will continue to work in the capitalist system that can thrive in a properly regulated environment. To occupy the 12 Federal Reserve Board Branch offices and the headquarters of the top ten megabanks would require, at the most, about 5000 special-forces troops.
The same could be done in Europe with even fewer people. China’s central bank is already government owned which is why China has been booming for the past several decades.

Second, redistribute the assets that were stolen over the past century from the people by the privately owned central banks. A simple back of the envelope calculation shows that in the case of the US Federal Reserve Board, doing this would immediately make about $300,000 available for each man woman and child in the United States.

On a global scale it should be possible to increase the average asset base of the poorest 80% about 7 fold, or raising their net worth from $3800 to $26,000. Doing this would even benefit the richest 1% because it would create a huge boom as the newly empowered world middle class began to use its new wealth.

Third, replace oligarchy with meritocracy. The world system as it currently exists is an oligarchy. A tiny group of hyper-wealthy individuals and families use financial control to hire mercenaries, politicians and propagandists to carry out their orders while maintaining a façade of popular control.

History shows that oligarchies stifle innovation, create mass poverty and eventually implode due to excessive concentration of wealth. A meritocracy is a system somewhat like a song contest. Anybody can apply and, in a totally transparent way, those that popularly considered to be the best, rise to the top. This is the system used by successful armies, corporations, charities, religious organizations and bureaucracies. It is the system that has allowed China to enjoy decades of double digit growth while the West has become poorer under oligarch controlled debt-slavery.

The only organizations in the world with the ability to carry out such reforms without causing major anarchy or social disruption are the world’s military and intelligence organizations. In particular, the US military industrial complex, Russia’s military and China’s military need to agree to some sort of collective decision making process. Once this is accomplished, the rest of the world’s military and intelligence organizations will have no choice but to join.

The military umbrella organization would then announce a planetary emergency. Let is make it clear, there really is a planetary emergency going on so this would be no pretext for fascism. Here are some aspects of the emergency:
We have wiped out more than 30% of all species of living creature on the planet in the past 100 years and the rate of extinction is increasing.
Over 1 billion people are either starving or on the brink of starvation.
Our current global power structure has been taken over by religious fanatics bent on starting World War 3.

A rogue artificial intelligence has already taken over the financial system computers and is on the brink of being able to override electronic control systems on modern military hardware.

We are in a state of quarantine, unable to leave this planet.
So, if you are in the military or an intelligence agency and you read this report, immediately contact your superior officer and ask why they are not taking action. There are certain key individuals who need to be inducted into the job of saving the planet. In the US these are Martin Dempsey, Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense.

In Russia, it is Vladimir Putin who needs to take action. In China it is Xi Jinping and the military high command. The Queen of England, as head of the committee of 300 and the Pope, official head of the P2 lodge, also need to offer their blessing to this project. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India also needs to be brought on board. Just these 7 people and the large organizations they represent, have it in their power to save the planet.

The ringleaders of the group that are still trying to start World War 3 and artificially create a Biblical Armageddon are Benyamin Netanyahu, the Bush/Clinton crime family, Sheldon Adelson and their fellow Sabbatean fanatics.
The Sabbateans, for those who are new to this issue, are a fanatic gangster sect who believe that they must carry out the end time prophesies in the bible. They pretend to be Christians, Muslims and Jews in order to try to manipulate the world’s governments and military agencies to make their Armageddon happen. Their founder was a madman by the name of Sabbatai Zevi who claimed to be the Messiah and later pretended to convert to Islam in order to save his life.
There are about a million members of his sect, many of them located in high positions of power in Israel, the US, Europe, Iran and the Gulf countries. They have carried out multiple nuclear (eg 311) and other (eg 911) terrorist attacks as part of their fanatical schemes. This sect needs to be disbanded.

So, when we all return from our summer holidays, we need to each and every one of us take action to put pressure up the chain of command and force the leadership to act. Pick up the phone and call the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA, the police and anybody else you can think of who is in a position to make arrests.
The criminals in power must be removed and control of the financial system must be returned to the people. If the leaders of these agencies fail to act, we have to use pressure from below to replace them with leaders who are willing to act. No giant spaceship filled with friendly aliens is going to save this planet, we are going to have to do it ourselves. As the saying goes, “if you want to do something right, you have to do it yourself.”

In the next report, due on September 7th we will summarize what we found out in Canada this summer. We will also report on how the actual battle to free humanity and save the planet earth is progressing.

http://benjaminfulford.net/
https://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2015/09/03/full-article-benjamin-fulford-9-1-15-a-small-scale-military-operation-would-be-enough-to-remove-the-khazarian-cabal-from-power/

venerdì 4 settembre 2015

Paul Craig Roberts: The Rise Of The Inhumanes

Paul Craig Roberts: The Rise Of The Inhumanes


 
Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

America’s descent into totalitarian violence is accelerating. Like the Bush regime, the Obama regime has a penchant for rewarding Justice (sic) Department officials who trample all over the US Constitution. Last year America’s First Black President nominated David Barron to be a judge on the First US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Barron is responsible for the Justice (sic) Department memo that gave the legal OK for Obama to murder a US citizen with a missile fired from a drone. The execution took place without charges presented to a court, trial, and conviction. The target was a religious man whose sermons were believed by the paranoid Obama regime to encourage jihadism. Apparently, it never occurred to Obama or the Justice (sic) Department that Washington’s mass murder and displacement of millions of Muslims in seven countries was all that was needed to encourage jihadism. Sermons would be redundant and would comprise little else but moral outrage after years of mass murder by Washington in pursuit of hegemony in the Middle East.
Barron’s confirmation ran into opposition from some Republicans, some Democrats, and the American Civil Liberties Union, but the US Senate confirmed Barron by a vote of 53-45 in May 2014. Just think, you could be judged in “freedom and democracy America” by a fiend who legalized extra-judicial murder.
While awaiting his reward, Barron had a post on the faculty of the Harvard Law School, which tells you all you need to know about law schools. His wife ran for governor of Massachusetts. Elites are busy at work replacing law with power.
America now has as an appeals court judge, no doubt being groomed for the Supreme Court, who established the precedent in US law that, the Constitution not withstanding, American citizens can be executed without a trial.
Did law school faculties object? Not Georgetown law professor David Cole, who enthusiastically endorsed the new legal principle of execution without trial. Professor Cole put himself on the DOJ’s list of possible federal judicial appointees by declaring his support for Barron, whom he described as “thoughtful, considerate, open-minded, and brilliant.”
Once a country descends into evil, it doesn’t emerge. The precedent for Obama’s appointment of Barron was George W. Bush’s appointment of Jay Scott Bybee to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Bybee was John Yoo’s Justice (sic) Department colleague who co-authored the “legal” memos justifying torture despite US federal statutory law and international law prohibiting torture. Everyone knew that torture was illegal, including those practicing it, but these two fiends provided a legal pass for the practitioners of torture. Not even Pinochet in Chile went this far.
Bybee and Yoo got rid of torture by calling it “enhanced interrogation techniques.” As Wikipedia reports, these techniques are considered to be torture by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, medical experts who treat torture victims, intelligence officials, America’s allies, and even by the Justice (sic) Department. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bybee
Others who objected to the pass given to torture by Bybee and Yoo were Secretary of State Colin Powell, US Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora, and even Philip Zelikow, who orchestrated the 9/11 Commission coverup for the Bush regime.
After five years of foot-dragging, the Justice (sic) Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Bybee and his deputy John Yoo committed “professional misconduct” by providing legal advice that was in violation of international and federal laws. The DOJ’s office of Professional Responsibility recommended that Bybee and Yoo be referred to the bar associations of the states where they were licensed for further disciplinary action and possible disbarment.
But Bybee and Yoo were saved by a regime-compliant Justice (sic) Department official, David Margolis, who concluded that Bybee and Yoo had used “poor judgement” but had not provided wrong legal advice.
So, today, instead of being disbarred, Bybee sits on a federal court just below the Supreme Court. John Yoo teaches constitutional law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Boalt Hall.
Try to imagine what has happened to America when Harvard and Berkeley law professors create legal justifications for torture and extra-judicial murder, and when US presidents engage in these heinous crimes. Clearly America is exceptional in its immorality, lack of human compassion, and disrespect for law and its founding document.
Hitler and Stalin would be astonished at the ease with which totalitarianism has marched through American institutions. Now we have a West Point professor of law teaching the US military justifications for murdering American critics of war and the police state. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/29/west-point-professor-target-legal-critics-war-on-terror Also here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42758.htm The professor’s article is here: http://warisacrime.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/westpointfascism.pdf
William C. Bradford, the professor teaching our future military officers to regard moral Americans as threats to national security, blames Walter Cronkite for loosing the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War by reporting the offensive as an American defeat. Tet was an American defeat in the sense that the offensive proved that the “defeated” enemy was capable of a massive offensive against US forces. The offensive succeeded in the sense that it demonstrated to Americans that the war was far from over. The implication of Bradford’s argument is that Cronkite should have been killed for his broadcasts that added to the doubts about American success.
The professor claims to have a list of 40 people who tell the truth who must be exterminated, or our country is lost. Here we have the full confession that Washington’s agenda cannot survive truth.
I am unaware of any report that the professor has been censored or fired for his disrespect for the constitutionally protected right of freedom of expression. However, I have seen reports of professors destroyed because they criticized Israel’s war crimes, or used a word or term prohibited by political correctness, or were insufficiently appreciative of the privileges of “preferred minorities.” What this tells us is that morality is sidetracked into self-serving agendas while evil overwhelms the morality of society.
Welcome to America today. It is a land in which facts have been redefined as enemy propaganda, a land in which legally protected whistleblowers are redefined as “fifth columns” or foreign agents subject to extermination, a land in which America is immune from criticism and all crimes are blamed on those whom Washington intends to rule.
Barron, Bybee, Yoo, and Bradford are members of a new species—the Inhumanes—that has risen from the poisonous American environment of arrogance, hubris, and paranoia.

martedì 25 agosto 2015

Spy Agencies Are Like Old-School Porn — But That's Changing


Spy Agencies Are Like Old-School Porn — But That's Changing
Spy Agencies Are Like Old-School Porn — But That's Changing
Defense & Security

Spy Agencies Are Like Old-School Porn — But That's Changing

In the fight against the Islamic State (IS), some pretty surprising tools have come to the fore. Teamed up with US forces, Kurdish militias in Syria have been turning to Google-based maps and Android devices to direct US air support. With publicly available tools like these, Kurdish fighters can record the exact GPS coordinates of the enemy and forward a map to their US partners, hundreds of miles away, who can then rain terror — and bombs — on the enemy, and can do so with some measurable degree of accuracy.
This technologically enhanced partnership is only possible, really, because of open-source information and software, like Google Earth. And it marks a gigantic shift in the way the world — and particularly those within the government — views both espionage and this publicly accessible information. As we move further into the 21st century, one of the biggest shifts will be seen in the intelligence community, which is slowly moving toward more open-source information-gathering tools.
Last month, Raymond Cook was appointed the next chief information officer for the US intelligence community — in short, the top IT guy in the free world. In his new role, one of his greatest challenges will be helping the intelligence community find and utilize more tools geared toward finding and synthesizing open-source intelligence.
Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is information that the intelligence community gathers through open, as opposed to covert, means. Whereas most people consider intelligence to be information obtained by spies operating in deep cover, and bits of data that are known to the fewest number of people possible, OSINT is the complete opposite. OSINT comprises social media posts, blogs, newspaper articles, podcasts, and publicly released memos and documents from foreign governments. It's any and every bit of data that the average person can get their hands on — if they know where to look. And the intelligence community, after years of focusing the majority of their attention on covert information, is taking another look at the value of open source intelligence.

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Director Robert Cardillo has called the changes within his agency a "seismic shift," but open-source intelligence (OSINT) isn't new, per se. Traditional sources of OSINT include newspapers and radio programs, which were utilized during World War II to gather information on the US's enemies. OSINT was also a major part of the intelligence collected on the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The biggest change, rather, is in the loosening of control over the data and information that makes up "intelligence." With so much more available via open means, the authority over the information is in flux.
"The value with open-source information is it's not classified, so it can be released without the lengthy declassification process that's often required by intelligence organizations," Eliot Higgins, a.k.a. Brown Moses, the founder of Bellingcat, an open-source news and resource website for citizen investigators, told VICE News.
"By presenting open-source intelligence alongside any public claims an intelligence organization makes, it allows [that organization] to present information that supports their claims," he said. "The more transparent they are, the more authority they have."
But open-source intelligence also means that the intelligence community is losing some of its authority. Because if everyone can access the data, then it doesn't really belong to anyone. And if it belongs to everyone, what's the intelligence community's special claim to fame?
"Authority is a social characteristic. It changes over time," Chris Rasmussen, the NGA's public open-source software development lead, told VICE News. "This institution, does not hold a monopoly, forever, on any particular data that they've produced."
This shift is already underway, at least among some of the country's intelligence agencies. In March, CIA Director John Brennan announced an overhaul of his agency's directorates, including the creation of the Directorate of Digital Innovation, which will oversee digital tradecraft, including the gathering and analysis of open-source information.
"The value of open source to the CIA's mission has never been greater," CIA spokesperson Lyssa Asbill told VICE News. "The open-source environment includes an array of sources of information — including social media — that is increasingly valuable in understanding US and foreign actions and policies."
Asbill said the volume of and diversity of publicly available data is growing, and that the CIA is developing "norms, standards, and expertise" to ensure they can objectively assess the value of the open source information they collect, in order to "contribute to a well-balanced perspective on world events."
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is also making an effort to embrace OSINT.
"The volume of available open-source information has exploded, and DIA has adjusted its analytical methods to take advantage of open-source data in making its assessments of foreign military capabilities," DIA public affairs officer James Kudla told VICE News. "OSINT provides a vast array of additional information and data to sort and analyze as DIA performs its mission of providing military and defense intelligence to warfighters and decision-makers."
The DIA, he added, is working to integrate open-source information into all of its defense intelligence gathering, analysis, and assessment.
Meanwhile, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) has started the GEOINT (geospatial intelligence) Pathfinder team. GEOINT is basically intelligence that comes from maps, overhead imagery like satellites, and measurements of things seen in those images. The NGS's Pathfinder team is tasked with seeing what intelligence questions can be answered through unclassified means. In other words, they want to know how much militarily and politically useful intel can be grabbed from Google Maps and the like.
As part of its OSINT efforts, the NGA has been releasing open-source software to GitHub for almost a year, with its latest program, Hootenanny, a crowd-sourced mapping toolkit, released to the open software development site last month.
"The advantage of open-source is, one, to get changes to improve the software and to dip into the biggest transparent bucket possible, and GitHub happens to be the biggest platform of talent available to improve the software," Rasmussen, the NGA's public open-source software development lead and Pathfinder program manager, told VICE News. "It's also a gesture kind of telegraphing where the agency's going on the open-source data side as well."
"If you look at the amount of volunteer geographic data being generated, the agency has to figure out its value proposition in that space," he continued. "We have to figure out a way to talk back, not just consume, and the release of Hootenanny was to show… that the agency has an interest in growing open data and we have an interest in trying to improve software openly."
GEOINT as a form of OSINT isn't terribly new. However, publically available things like Google Maps have taken the control of GEOINT out of the hands of the experts and put it in the hands of the general population, providing data that only a few decades ago would have been largely unavailable to them. Further, sites like Bellingcat and Wikimapia have taken all that commonly available map data like that resident on Google Earth and turned those images into widely available geolocation information — a major building block of GEOINT.

What's the difference? Data includes objective facts free of context or meaning. In terms of Google Maps, data is an address, a geographic plot point. Without context or synthesis, it has no real meaning. Information is what you get when you put that data in context. If, for example, you have data about a building — the size, the shape, the location — you can infer from that data the building's purpose, which would be information.
The authority over GEOINT — geospatial data and information — has completely changed in recent years. Whereas once both data and information would have been controlled, to a great degree, by the intelligence community, the free availability of the data has caused their hold on information to loosen as well. It's a domino effect; as the authority over the raw data shifts, soon, so does the control of the information gleaned from it.
As the authority over information changes, the debate has become not whether open-source is needed, but what role OSINT will play in the greater intelligence sphere.
Robert David Steele, a former Marine intelligence officer and CIA case officer, told VICE News that open-source information has always been the main source of data and information.
"This has been said in writing and publicly by [former Directors of Central Intelligence] Allen Dulles and William Colby, and myself, among others," Steele said. "The problem is that open-source information is not expensive, not secret, and not in English, which means that it is less profitable to the military-industrial-intelligence complex, and also more of a challenge."
Think about it this way: Porn, as an industry, relies on a kind of scarcity to attract paying customers. To start with, the data is about stuff that isn't generally seen — women's fashion no longer covers ankles, so there's not much prurient interest in checking out ankles these days. On top of that, the photographer or director has to take whatever it is and make the imagery not just accessible but take the clinical and make it exciting enough that people will pay cash money to see it.
But now that business model has changed. The Internet has made it easy to find nearly every type of pornographic media online — for free. Moreover, because anyone with a cell phone and an exhibitionist streak can produce and distribute their own pornographic film or photos in a matter of minutes, the pros are forced to compete with amateurs who have zero production costs.
Compare that to the Golden Age of porn in the 1970s, when films like Deep Throat were shown in theaters across the country and magazines like Penthouse and Hustler were selling millions of copies each month. Sure, you can still buy skin flicks and nudie mags, but you don't have to. And the professional pornographers know it. Are there some things you still have to pay to see? Of course. But would you pay for something that's widely available, for free, online? Doubtful. So, in essence, the internet and the ability to shoot video quickly and cheaply has drastically curtailed the power of the gatekeepers — the pornographers.

The traditional intelligence agencies are a lot like the old-school porn industry: they're still trying to make and sell porn like it's 1979, even though a lot of what they're selling is just hanging out online, free for anyone to download at their leisure. To stay relevant, they need to stop wasting money on producing material they or their customers can get for free and develop new ways to find, collect, and curate that sexy, sexy free intelligence information.
This would allow them to save up some cash to work on more highly specialized products, like that special-edition platinum version of Caligula, the one complete with never-before-seen interviews and bonus footage that hasn't been uploaded yet. In other words, they could save their scarce investment and resources for information that can only be obtained through covert methods, while utilizing new open-source methods to take in data that's already been made available if you know where to find it.
While there are factions within the intelligence community that still view OSINT as only a small piece of the intelligence puzzle, there are many outside the IC that find the collection and analysis of open-source data and information to be essential to the development of that vague thing we call intelligence.
Take, for example, Higgins's confirmation, in August 2013, that the Syrian government had used sarin gas on its citizens, firing rockets containing the chemical agent at the rebel-held suburb of Ghouta, and killing as many as 1,700 people. While initially only rumored, Higgins was able to confirm the use of sarin gas through a combination of open-source tools, including obtaining photos and videos locals had posted online and poring over the minute details to determine the exact kind of rockets used, and using the images' metadata to match the photos and videos to the locations of the attacks.

Watch VICE News' Selfie Soldiers: Russia Checks into Ukraine: 
 
"If you consider the situation on the ground, there was very little access to the sites the attacks occurred at for journalists or independent investigators, so all the information was coming through YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter," Higgins told VICE News. "Within days of the attack, I had over 200 videos collected, multiple photographs, and social media posts with details, including images of the munitions used."
Higgins said that previous videos from others areas on earlier dates showed the Syrian government forces had used the same type of munition in earlier alleged chemical attacks, which he said were "broadly ignored in the media."
"This munition had never been seen anywhere else in the world, and appears to be unique to the Syrian military, and we know this because of social media posts and YouTube videos predating the August 21 attacks," he said.
Open-source information was the only reason Higgins — and later, others — was able to prove, beyond a doubt, that sarin gas had been used by the Syrian government. And the availability of that information was only possible because of the fairly recent technological developments — like social media posts and, primary to open-source data collection in the 21st century, the Internet — that are pushing OSINT to the forefront of intelligence.
Higgins says that without these technological advances, little to none of the information about the Syrian government's gas attacks would have been available.
"The information coming from the areas attacked would be tiny, and it's unlikely the link between the munitions used and early chemical attacks would have been established, and the connection between the munition and the Syrian military [would have been equally unlikely]," he said.
Following Higgins' lead, many intelligence agencies are slowly — very, very slowly, some would say — moving toward incorporating more open-source data in their intelligence. But OSINT has been a point of discussion in the community for decades. In 1949, CIA analyst Sherman Kent commented in the book Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy, that new technology was producing greater amounts of information that needed to be sorted through.
More than 40 years later, Steele called for the international community to pay more attention to open sources. But in 2015, the international community has still not fully take advantage of open-source.
"Think of it as the perennial challenge of every analyst in response to changing information technologies," Dr. Stephen Marrin, a former CIA analyst, told VICE News.
"In absolute terms, the amount of data may be increasing, but [so] is the ability of the analyst in sifting, sorting, and searching through the data," he said. "Because of these types of technological assists, I think the actual analytic challenge remains consistent over time."
What has changed, Marrin said, is how technology is changing the value of openly available information at some cost relative to the value of information acquired secretly.
"As long as there is value in knowing others' secrets, then there will be a need for intelligence organizations precisely because people will hide their secrets from information collection platforms that make their data available to others," Marrin said.
In other words, OSINT isn't magic. It can't tell you things that people aren't putting out there. And as the amount of available information grows, those with real secrets will be a bit more gun-shy about letting those secrets slip. No amount of open-source finagling can get you information that hasn't been made public in some form.

Open Source Intelligence, Marrin said, is not the death of every other type of intelligence as it were. Instead, it's an opportunity for the international community to step up their game with regard to the collection of the ever-more-prevalent open-source information so that they can better utilize the covert material that's so integral to their business.
"There's always going to be a need for the really spooky stuff," Rasmussen told VICE News. "The information that's available in the open needs to be the base and the default. Financially it's the right thing to do, and as far as information flow, it's the right thing to do, and [we] can generate better output by doing so."
Higgins finds the one-two punch of OSINT mixed with more traditional covert intelligence equally compelling.
"As with journalism, I think it can complement and support other sources of information, and also allow intelligence agencies to present more information to the public, rather than relying on 'we have a source, trust us,' because the public doesn't trust them," he said.
While opinions differ on how much open-source information is enough, and what is needed for information to be considered proper intelligence, what everyone can agree on is that finding a way to better utilize OSINT can and will lead to better overall intelligence.
But the challenge, going forward, will not only be for the agencies that make up the intelligence community to find the right balance between open-source and covertly acquired data, but for them to come to terms with their slipping authority over the building blocks of intelligence.

Follow Jennifer Peters on Twitter: @EditrixJen

mercoledì 22 aprile 2015

NATO: Military Doctrine of Global Warfare

Global Capitalism and the Global Police State: Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism

Welcome to the Asylum: Capitalism, a Ceaseless and Futile Quest for Money and Goods
The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly, the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of the system and raise the stakes for humanity.
If we are to avert disastrous outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective, we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.
The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such as that of the the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capital- ism is fundamentally different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1
First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated, either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation.
No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world, North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class. This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational accumulation.
The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality, domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.
Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises
Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the “Great Recession” of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national states are hard-pressed to regulate trans- national circuits of accumulation and offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.
Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into a structural crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contra- dictions that can only be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation.
Prior to that, the structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the 1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis – in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces to the crisis are in great flux.
Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural, ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness, values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing downward mobility, un- employment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships.
The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions, perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system’s authority in the face of world- wide pressures for a global moral economy. And a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustain- ability rooted in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions of the world, among other indicators. By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new “Dark Ages.”2
This crisis of humanity shares a number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several features unique to the present:
1. The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction. Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the known history of life on earth.3
This mass extinction would be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According to leading environmental scientists there are nine “planetary boundaries” crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist, four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and biodiversity loss) are at “tipping points,” meaning that these processes have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
2. The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented, as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups. Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth, have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication, images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
3. Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced, and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where will it now expand?
4. There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a “planet of slums,”4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion. This includes prison- industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
5. There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists refer to as a “hegemon,” or a leading nation-state that has enough power and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.
Global Police State
How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in dispute.
One is what we could call “reformism from above.” This elite reformism is aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling) to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt. While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.
Yet another response is that I term 21st century fascism.5
The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised mass social control of the world’s surplus population and rebellious forces from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.
William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996), Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism (2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008), and Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014). 
References
1.William I. Robinson (2004), A Theory of Global Capitalism:
Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; William I. Robinson, Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, see esp. chapter 1.
2. Sing C. Chew (2007), The Recurring Dark Ages: Ecological Stress, Climate Changes, and System Transformation, Landham, MD: AltaMira Press.
3. Elizabeth Kolbert (2014), The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, New York: Henry Holt.
4. The phrase is from Mike Davis’ study, Planet of Slums (2007), London: Verso.
5. See in particular, William I. Robinson (2014, in press), Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity, New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

How Lobbies, Intelligence Services and Advertisers Dictate Mainstream Media

How Lobbies, Intelligence Services and Advertisers Dictate Mainstream Media Content

Support independent media

newspaper_chains
Recently several journalists who worked in the mainstream media (MSM) exposed its corrupt nature, weighing in on the growing mistrust it inspires. We hope the following will inspire you to support independent media like Global Research!
Former chief political commentator of the Telegraph, Peter Oborne, resigned from the newspaper because it would not publish articles on HSBC for fear of losing advertising revenues. The bank is well-known for its money-laundering for Mexican drug cartels as well as its involvement in tax evasion schemes.
In an opinion piece called “Why I resigned from the Telegraph” he wrote:
“The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril…From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph… HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is “the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend” (Peter Oborne, Why I have resigned from the Telegraph, Open Democracy, February 17, 2015)

When it comes to powerful lobbies’ influence on media content, the Zionist lobby is very well known for accusing journalists and editors of anti-Semitism and imposing its own propaganda. Even so-called progressive newspapers such as The Guardian are subject to Zionist propaganda.  David Cronin writes:
I submitted an exposé of how the pro-Israel lobby operates in Brussels. While waiting to find out if the piece would be used, I phoned Matt Seaton, who had taken over as comment editor. We had a pleasant conversation but Seaton stressed that he regarded the subject as sensitive.
I, then, modified the piece to make its tone less polemical. Still, it was not published…
Cronin decided to write about his experience when he realized that The Guardian was much less reluctant to offer platforms to Israeli politicians and their Zionist propaganda:
“Daniel Taub, Israel’s ambassador to the UK … uses a quote attributed to Golda Meir, Israel’s prime minister from 1969 to 1974, to hit back at aid agencies who accuse Israel of impeding Gaza’s reconstruction: “We will only have peace when our enemies love their children more than they hate ours.” The inference that Palestinians hate Israelis more than they love their children is a racist caricature… In February, the paper gave Yair Lapid, until recently Israel’s finance minister, a platform to describe calls for a cultural boycott of Israel as “shallow and lacking in coherence. (David Cronin How The Guardian Told Me to Steer Clear of Palestine, Electronic Intifada, 11 March 2015)
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung‘s former editor Udo Ulfkotte recently published a book called “Bought Journalists. How Politicians, Secret Services and High Finance Control the Mass Media” (Gekaufte Journalisten), in which he explains how journalists manipulate the masses for powerful interests:
Saying he believes a medical condition gives him only a few years to live, and that he is filled with remorse, Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s largest newspapers, said in an interview that he accepted news stories written and given to him by the CIA and published them under his own name. Ulfkotte said the aim of much of the deception was to drive nations toward war. (Ralph Lopez, Editor of Major German Newspaper Says He Planted Stories for the CIA, Reader Supported News, February 04, 2015)
Another book stirred some controversy lately, Au service de la République, (Serving the Republic) Roger Auque’s memoirs published posthumously. Auque, a well-known journalist who worked for major French magazines as well as the French Canadian public network Radio-Canada, admitted: “I was paid by the Israeli secret services to lead operations in Syria, using reporting as a cover.” Le Figaro, one of France’s leading magazines for which he worked, writes that “he also offered his services to the DGSE, (the French CIA) before becoming an object of interest for the CIA.”
Contrary to Ulfkotte, who’s filled with remorse, the French reporter was “not at all ashamed of this revelation”.
These few examples show once again the importance of independent media and how the corporate mainstream media is nothing but a mouthpiece for powerful interests who do not want you to be informed but rather want to manufacture consent and keep you in the dark about important issues.
To maintain our independence, Global Research does not seek financial support from private and public foundations. We have been able to develop our activities thanks to contributions from our readers. Please consider making a (one time) donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member. Any amount large or small will contribute to supporting Global Research.
To make a Donation click here!
To become a Member and get FREE BOOKS click here!

martedì 7 aprile 2015

Cultural Understanding in U.S. Army Doctrine

Secrecy News

Cultural Understanding in U.S. Army Doctrine

“Understanding culture is essential in conducting irregular warfare.”
That is the opening sentence in the introduction to a new U.S. Army publication on Cultural and Situational Understanding.
“Irregular warfare requires a deliberate application of an understanding of culture due to the need to understand a populated operational environment, what specifically is causing instability, the nature of the threat, and the ability to work with host-nation governments and security forces.”
The new Army doctrine on cultural understanding emerges from and builds upon existing Army counterinsurgency doctrine. It is “outward looking” and does not pause to contemplate the cultural foundations of the Army itself. See Cultural and Situational Understanding, Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 3-24.3, April 2015.

Italia: il paese più antidemocratico della UE

  Italia: il paese più antidemocratico della UE Non è uno slogan da talk-show. È la conclusione che emerge se si misura la democrazia dove ...