dkf
dkf's JournalProPublica has Snowden docs? Whoa.
Rusbridger said that two days later, on July 22, the Guardian informed British authorities that materials related to GCHQ had made their way to the New York Times and the independent investigative journalism group ProPublica.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3564297
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-usa-security-snowden-nytimes-idUSBRE97T0RC20130830
Is it smart to do "humanitarian" missions against people who haven't attacked us to displace them
With people who HAVE attacked us aka Al Qaeda?
Aren't we cutting our own throats?
Or are we purposely planning to strengthen Assad by getting all Syrians to rally around him due to our "stupidity"?
Are we actually sabotaging the rebel effort?
Al Qaeda is the fly in the ointment. We need to speak honestly about who our involvement helps and how it affects us.
It is amazing to me with all this spying supposedly aimed at terrorism, that we are possibly going to give Al Qaeda a country.
Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal
EVANSTON, Ill. — THE latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad. But there is widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances. As a legal matter, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States.
There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling.
Syria is a party to neither the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and even if it were, the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them — a major flaw. Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars. But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts.
What about the claim that, treaties aside, chemical weapons are inherently prohibited? While some acts — genocide, slavery and piracy — are considered unlawful regardless of treaties, chemical weapons are not yet in this category. As many as 10 countries have stocks of chemical weapons today, with the largest held by Russia and by the United States. Both countries are slowly destroying their stockpiles, but missed what was supposed to be a final deadline last year for doing so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html
Bombing Syria is a bad idea and it looks to be illegal by international law. That is not acceptable.
Shadow of False Iraq Intelligence Hangs Over Syria Strike
U.S. President Barack Obama’s case for punitive military action against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is haunted by events a decade ago, when his predecessor based his case for invading Iraq on false intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
After President George W. Bush took America and its allies to war in Iraq over non-existent WMDs, Obama and allied leaders must overcome heightened scrutiny of their arguments justifying retaliation against Assad’s regime for a chemical attack.
The effort is made more difficult by the fact that, so far, intelligence on Syria doesn’t absolutely prove that the Aug. 21 attack, which killed hundreds of civilians, was ordered by Assad or his top commanders.
U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, facing resistance to military strikes by members of both his Conservative Party and the opposition Labour Party, acknowledged the credibility concerns when he spoke to the House of Commons yesterday.
“The well of public opinion was well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode, and we need to understand the public skepticism,” said Cameron, who in the past criticized his predecessor, Tony Blair, for issuing a “dodgy dossier” on alleged Iraqi WMDs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-30/shadow-of-false-iraq-intelligence-hangs-over-syria-strike.html
And this:
U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking to persuade Americans and the international community that he’s not seeking a pretext to intervene in the Syrian civil war, in which the UN estimates more than 100,000 people have been killed by conventional weapons.
----
The world thinks the US could be BSing. Is this Obama's legacy if he goes to war with NO PROOF OF ASSAD'S ORDER?
The NSA scandal doesn't help with their credibility either when multiple people seem to have lied to our faces.
Horrifying Threats Against Congresswoman Gabbard Tied To Obscure Hare Krishna Sect
On Wednesday, a man named Aniruddha Sherbow was arrested in Mexico for allegedly making threats against Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a freshman congresswoman who House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has described as a “rising star.”
According to the FBI and U.S. Capitol Police, Sherbow’s arrest was a result of unspecified threats made earlier this month. However, Sherbow has a history with Gabbard that began with their apparent ties to a controversial Hare Krishna sect in Hawaii and most recently peaked with him vowing to cut off her head.
A press release issued by the FBI and Capitol Police said Sherbow was arrested in Tijuana on Wednesday pursuant to a U.S. arrest warrant for the “charge of transmission of threats in interstate commerce. The FBI and Capitol Police said the “alleged threats occurred on August 1 and August 3, 2013 and were deemed credible.”
According to a story by the news website Hawaii Reporter earlier this month, Sherbow sent an email to the FBI on Aug. 2 in which he threatened to decapitate Gabbard.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/aniruddha_sherbow_tulsi_gabbard.php
WAPO: U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria
By Ernesto Londoño, Thursday, August 29, 1:43 PM
The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.
Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.
Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.
Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.
“There’s a broad naivetéin the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.
Marine Lt. Col. Gordon Miller, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned this week of “potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of chemical weapons attacks and a military response by Israel.
“If President Assad were to absorb the strikes and use chemical weapons again, this would be a significant blow to the United States’ credibility and it would be compelled to escalate the assault on Syria to achieve the original objectives,” Miller wrote in a commentary for the think tank.
Still, many in the military are skeptical. Getting drawn into the Syrian war, they fear, could distract the Pentagon in the midst of a vexing mission: its exit from Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are still being killed regularly. A young Army officer who is wrapping up a yearlong tour there said soldiers were surprised to learn about the looming strike, calling the prospect “very dangerous.”
“I can’t believe the president is even considering it,” said the officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned. “We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html
Holy crap....Well that is not comforting....
Former US Official: Edward Snowden Was Too Brilliant To Work For The NSA
As the leaks and stories about the NSA's massive surveillance programs continue to breach the levees, the responses garnered by the government are perhaps as instructive as the leaks themselves. For instance, when the NSA itself comments are so fallaciously dismissive of public concern, we know that they're equal parts liars and demagogues. Also, when our public representatives have the kind of relationship with the NSA normally reserved for abused spouses, we learn how ignorant and codependent so much of Washington is. And, when President Obama's administration puts sympathetic insiders on the board set to review all of these programs and their abuses, it teaches us that the man holding the highest office in our land thinks we're all very, very stupid.
But what of Snowden himself? How do those experienced in government view him. Well, according to this fascinating report that details how Snowden got his hands on those documents, some think he was absolutely brilliant and that being so smart should have disqualified him for the job.
“Every day, they are learning how brilliant [Snowden] was,” said a former U.S. official with knowledge of the case. “This is why you don’t hire brilliant people for jobs like this. You hire smart people. Brilliant people get you in trouble.”
My, how comforting. Here's the deal: if you are going to run a data-collection program on most of the known world, including on your own people, you damn well better have the smartest, most brilliant people you can find involved. The wrong-headed thinking that there are people too smart to work for your organization is tipping the scales towards epic. Perhaps brilliant people lock security down better so that thousands of system administrators can't get their hands on roughly all the documents. Maybe brilliant people devise better ways to get the intelligence so greedily sought after without running afoul of our commanding national legal document. And, hey, just maybe enough brilliant people in the room would have resulted in a program that wasn't so foul, wasn't so ripe for abuse, and wasn't using what is commonly considered to be decades-old technology and procedures.
Look, it brings me back to something I've said about my government before: lie better. That's your job now. Sure, it would be nice if you simply represented the people as your mandate requires, but nobody alive is gullible enough to believe that's going to happen any longer, so your new job is to at least secure all the nefarious bullshit you pull. You've got my data and you're housing it on technology that predates the iPhone? You know who might be able to help get your house in order?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130829/10515424351/former-us-official-edward-snowden-was-too-brilliant-to-work-nsa.shtml
Latest Snowden Leaks Detail The 'Black Budget' And How Much The Gov't Wastes On Useless Surveillance
from the i-could-use-me-a-black-budget-too dept
Barton Gellman and Greg Miller over at the Washington Post have the latest scoops from the Ed Snowden leaks, in which it appears they've been able to go through the details of the infamous "black budget," detailing the money that is spent on intelligence operations. Apparently, the total budget is around $52.6 billion this year (which actually is a bit lower than I would have expected, but is apparently twice what the budget was back in 2001). There's also another $23 billion spent on "intelligence programs that more directly support the U.S. military."
Not surprisingly, the Post agreed to leave most of the document unpublished and is careful not to reveal anything really damaging (i.e., sources and methods), but the results are still quite revealing. Of course, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is still angry, arguing that any info from the budget "could provide insight for foreign intelligence services to discern our top national priorities, capabilities and sources and methods." Blah, blah, blah. Someone doesn't like being held accountable. Others point out that discussing the budget seems quite reasonable. The post quotes Lee Hamilton, the former chair of the 9/11 commission (and former chair of the House Intelligence Committee), who argues that having this info public is important to having an informed public debate on the surveillance state. That's the only way that the intelligence community can be held accountable.
And, actually, what the budget reveals is a rather stunning lack of accountability for the budget -- much of it going to the CIA. While many people had assumed that the CIA had been diminishing in power and authority within the intelligence community (especially in relation to the NSA), it turns out that its budget has been growing and growing, and is much more than the NSA's. Furthermore, the CIA has basically been transformed from an "intelligence" agency into a "paramilitary force."
And for all this funding, with so little accountability, it should come as no surprise to find out that much of this money appears to be wasted, and not particularly effective.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130829/10405424350/latest-snowden-leaks-detail-black-budget-how-much-govt-wastes-useless-surveillance.shtml
The Qatar problem
On the face of it, Qatar has been one of the United States's most valuable allies in the Middle East over the last decade. Qatar hosts a large U.S. Air Force base in the Persian Gulf and has often provided political and financial support for U.S. initiatives in the Middle East. Indeed, Washington has often encouraged Qatari activism to legitimize U.S. diplomacy, including its political support at the Arab League of a potential U.S. strike against Syria.
But Qatar's role in the United States's Middle East policy is far more problematic than is commonly recognized. The tiny yet ambitious Gulf emirate has sought to use its immense hydrocarbon wealth to finance and arm civil wars in Libya and Syria, to support Hamas in Gaza, and to mediate disputes in Sudan and Lebanon. Its interest sometimes align with the United States's -- but too often, they do not. The launch of Al-Jazeera America, the news network its government owns, should redirect attention to Doha's goals and means.
Qatari activism over the last few years has been a mixed blessing for the United States. Indeed, it has often actively and purposefully undermined U.S. efforts on key problems. In Egypt, for example, Qatar's lavish and unconditional funding of the Morsi government enabled it to avoid taking the difficult steps that the International Monetary Fund (and the United States) believed were necessary to get the Egyptian economy back on track and to compromise with domestic opponents. In Gaza, Qatar helped undermine U.S. efforts to isolate and delegitimize Hamas by its strong and public embrace of its leadership including through high-level visits to Gaza.
In Libya, U.S. efforts to support the formation of a moderate and inclusive Libyan transitional government capable of effectively governing Libya were constantly thwarted and undermined by an independent Qatari policy. While the United States and its other partners tried to promote the opposition Transitional National Council (TNC) on the world stage, Qatar repeatedly and unhelpfully pushed for a more prominent role for alternative opposition groups that were dependent on Qatar. Qatar also funneled weapons and ammunition to Islamist militias outside of the TNC structure, strengthening the voices of groups opposed to the U.S. vision for post-Qaddafi Libya and undermining the TNC's ability and legitimacy to establish control. According to a senior Israeli official, "Qatar's reckless conduct in Libya was disastrous. They supported dangerous Islamist actors." As was often predicted at the time, these practices contributed to Libya's inability to form an effective central authority and to rein in those militias.
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/28/the_qatar_problem
Rape Victim Consoled and Encouraged by Surprise Call From Pope Francis
“You are not alone” Pope Francis told the woman, adding to have faith that justice will be done.
BY CNA/EWTN NEWS 08/28/2013 Comment
Pope Francis prays at a Passion Service at St. Peter's on March 29.
– Stephen Driscoll/CNA
ROME — A 44-year-old woman from Argentina said that, after writing a letter to Pope Francis telling him that she had been raped by a local police officer, the Pope called her personally to tell her, “You are not alone.”
“The Pope told me he receives thousands of letters each day, but that what I wrote moved him and touched his heart,” the woman said in an interview with the National University of Cordoba’s Canal 10 TV station.
“When I heard the Pope’s voice, it was like feeling the hand of God,” she said.
The woman explained that, in her letter, she asked the Holy Father for help and explained that she had been raped on two occasions by a police officer, who later threatened her.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/rape-victim-consoled-and-encouraged-by-surprise-call-from-pope-francis/
I'm not religious, but this touched me deeply. Good for Pope Francis.
Profile Information
Member since: 2003 before July 6thNumber of posts: 37,305
