November 18, 2012

40 Members of Congress Protest ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill

By Paul Joseph Watson

40 members of Congress have sent an urgent letter to House and Senate Armed Services Committeeleaders protesting provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that would legalize indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, as the revised version of the bill heads for a final vote on Thursday.

“The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens’ right to trial.

We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military,” states the letter.

Opposition to the bill has been bipartisan. While theletter is signed mostly by Democratic members of Congress, Republican representatives like Justin Amash, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul have also been vocal in their opposition.

After a weekend of secret meetings, the final version of the bill emerged on Tuesday morning and is set to voted on before the end of the week.

Issues the Obama administration had with the bill, which had nothing to do with indefinite detention (indeed it was the White House itself which removed language that would have protected Americans from Section 1031), now appear to have been settled.

Both the ACLU and Human Rights Watch point out that the final version does nothing to protect American citizens against indefinite detention.

“The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain – the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself,” said the ACLU’s Chris Anders.

“The latest version of the defense authorization bill does nothing to address the bill’s core problems – legislated indefinite detention without charge and the militarization of law enforcement,” concurred HRW’s Andrea Prasow.

Proponent of the legislation Senator Lindsay Graham ironically summed up the nightmare scenario the bill will codify into law – the complete evisceration of all Constitutional protections for U.S. citizens.

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

Of course, the government would not be required to present any evidence whatsoever or go through any legal process to snatch an American citizen off the street and send them to Guantanamo Bay, merely accusing them of aiding terrorists or ‘committing an act of belligerence’ would be enough.

Protests and funeral marches to mark the death of freedom in America and the legalization of permanent martial law, are being planned for Thursday, which ironically is Bill of Rights Day, 220 years since the liberties now about to be eviscerated were first ratified on December 15, 1791.

Source: https://theintelhub.com/2011/12/14/40-members-of-congress-protest-%E2%80%98indefinite-detention%E2%80%99-bill/

Obama Storms Out After Reminding Republicans He Killed Osama Bin Laden

 

President Obama ‘acting tough’.

“Life, Liberty, & Indefinite Detention Without A Trial”

 

It seems that Obama and Congress have finally agreed on something.

They support the indefinite detention of American citizens WITHOUT charges or a trial.

Hurray! Cheers to cooperation!

China ‘Incredibly Aggressive’ in Cyber Theft: Ex-CIA Chief

By: Shihan Fang

China is stealing online information from the United States and feeding the data to homegrown companies for commercial benefit, Michael Hayden, Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said at the Black Hat Technical Security Conference in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday.

He pointed out that as an intelligence officer, he was “impressed” with the sophistication of Chinese cyber espionage, although spying in cyber space is an activity that all states, including the United States, take part in.

According to Hayden, “We steal secrets, you bet. But we steal secrets that are essential for American security and safety. We don’t steal secrets for American commerce, for American profit. There are many other countries in the world that do not so self limit.”

Despite the difficulty in tracing the origins of cyber attacks, Hayden believes China is the culprit behind various incidents of data theft.

“The body of evidence makes me quite comfortable and confident in saying that there’s an incredibly large amount of this cyber activity coming from China,” he told CNBC on the sidelines of the conference.

The retired general, who also served as the Director of the National Security Agency, added that, “I have come to the conclusion that the Chinese, the Chinese state and others in China are incredibly aggressive in the cyber domain, when it comes to the theft of property: state on state or against commercial targets.”

Jeff Moss, Chief Security Officer at the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and founder of the 14-year-old Black Hat conference series, told CNBC that China probably has cyber espionage capabilities on par with the United States though due to the lack of information, much of China’s cyber weaponry remains in the realm of speculation.

He added that China should not be singled out as the main culprit in the cyber espionage world because they are not the only ones engaging in this kind of activity.

“Sometimes I feel that China is sort of the bogeyman. It’s being held out as the bad guy. And I don’t think that’s intellectually honest. They’re behaving pretty much like everybody else is behaving. And they have internal problems with organized crime just like the United States, Europe and Russia have,” Moss said.

Hayden, however, believes that China is not an enemy of the United States and that a “non-conflictual” relationship between the two countries would emerge in the future.

According to Hayden, “Theft of intellectual property is not a long term good bet for Chinese economic growth. In fact if you steal enough intellectual property, there won’t be enough left to steal because people will stop investing in intellectual development. So over the long term I think you’ll probably perceive that ours and China’s interests are far more coincident than we might view them to be today.”

 

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/id/45677967

Government Turns Its Back on Science

By League Against Cruel Sports

Animal welfare charity disgusted by costs to police badger cull

PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE PETITION AGAINST BADGER CULLING: https://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/badgers-petition

A leading UK wildlife charity has expressed dismay at the government’s decision to give the go ahead for a badger cull. Following today’s announcement badgers will be culled under license in parts of south west England as part of trials to prevent the spread of bovine TB. The cull will be paid for by farmers and allows for the shooting of badgers which could result in serious welfare problems.

It is estimated the cost of policing the trials will amount to a staggering £80 million which the League Against Cruel Sports describes as “a complete waste of money”. The charity’s chief executive Joe Duckworth said: “This is a truly exceptional way to waste vast amounts of public money in policing badger culling trials which will be totally ineffective.” Mr Duckworth called today’s announcement “cowardly and misguided” and said: “The government has failed to act appropriately on this issue and in doing so has ignored the science, public opinion and past mistakes. This is a cowardly decision taken to appease the few who shout the loudest but sadly it will do very little to address the real problem.”

The League believes the government should be using every available resource to produce fully functional vaccines for both badgers and cattle as a long term, effective solution. Evidence clearly shows that culling is not an adequate measure in preventing the spread of bovine TB.

Mr Duckworth added: “This will prove a devastating blow for the farming community who desperately need practical help to deal with the effects of bovine TB. Unfortunately the government has given them false hope, which will prove to be extremely costly not only for farmers but also police forces and Britain’s wildlife.

Polling by YouGov for the League found that only 16% of people believe there should be a cull, whereas 67% - more then four times as many – believe that badgers should be vaccinated instead.

Addendum

Notes to Editors

1. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial concluded that culling intensively would only reduce TB levels in cattle by between 12% to 16% and could increase the incidence of cattle TB by up to 25% in surrounding areas.

2. YouGov polled 2,064 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 17th - 18th May 2011. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). The polling was commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports and is attached.

 

Source: https://www.league.org.uk/news/1034/Badger-cull

White House OKs Military Detention Of Terrorism Suspects

By Phil Hirschkorn (CBS News)

The White House is signing off on a controversial new law that would authorize the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain alleged al Qaeda members or other terrorist operatives captured on American soil.

As the bill neared final passage in the House of Representatives and the Senate on Wednesday, the Obama administration announced it would support passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains slightly watered-down provisions giving the military a front line role in domestic terrorism cases.

The administration abandoned its long-held veto threat due to changes in the final version of the bill, namely that in its view, the military custody mandate has been “softened.” The bill now gives the President the immediate power to issue a waiver of the military custody requirement, instead of the Defense Secretary, and gives the President discretion in implementing these new provisions.

“We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President’s senior advisors will not recommend a veto,” the White House statement said.

The detainee provisions are just one part of the annual NDAA authorizing $662 billion in federal defense spending next year.

While the bill never expanded the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges, proponents said the legislation would codify court decisions finding the President does have the authority to declare “enemy combatants,” as commander-in-chief and under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda and its allies. The administration, which has pledged not to use this power, believes the bill leaves this legal issue unresolved.

“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

FBI Director Robert Mueller, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, said the provisions still could create confusion among counter-terrorism professionals.

“My concern is that you don’t want FBI agents and the military showing up at the same time, with some uncertainty” as to who has control, Mueller said, and raised this hypothetical example: “A case that we’re investigating on three individuals, two of whom are American citizens and would not go to military custody and the third is not an American citizen and could go to military custody?”

Mueller was joined earlier in the detainee debate by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in opposing the military custody provision, because they said it might inhibit flexibility by counter-terrorism professionals, restrain federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities, and risk losing the cooperation of terror arrestees.

“If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,” said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era, and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill.”

Bill opponents have noted that in the decade since the 9/11, the government has successfully convicted over 300 people for terrorism-related crimes, including thwarted plots to bomb passenger jets, subway lines, and landmarks such as Times Square and the Sears Tower.

By comparison, the military justice system, although stymied by constitutional challenges, has completed only six cases in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where 170 detainees remain.

 

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57343287/wh-oks-military-detention-of-terrorism-suspects/?tag=strip

The George Bush You Forgot

Politicians To Get $20 Million Pay Rise

By SkyNews.com.au

Taxpayers will fork out an extra $20 million a year to cover a pay rise for politicians but will save on the MPs’ loss of some often-rorted travel perks.

The independent Remuneration Tribunal on Thursday released the findings of the first major review of politician and senior public servant pay in more than two decades.

The review found that politicians effectively had two jobs - their electorate and parliamentary work - and backbenchers deserved a base pay of $185,000 (up from $141,000).

The prime minister’s pay will rise from $366,000 to $481,000 - seven times average weekly earnings - while her department’s boss will take home $661,000, rising to $825,000 by mid-2014 under a new system to reward top public servants.

Special Minister of State Gary Gray said the government would support a tribunal recommendation to end the gold pass system for ex-politicians and abolish the overseas study leave program for current MPs.

‘The lurks and the perks have been taken away and what replaces that is a transparent methodology,’ Mr Gray told reporters in Canberra.

You won’t again have the appearance of members of parliament going on overseas study tours to look at wine-making in Latin American countries … (or) travelling to Las Vegas to look at gambling.’

The latest example was controversial NSW Labor MP Craig Thomson plagiarising Wikipedia and news reports to justify a recent study trip.

Under the gold pass system, around 300 ex-MPs get free domestic travel costing taxpayers $4 million a year.

It will be abolished from the next election and existing holders of the pass will have their entitlement cut from 25 to 10 domestic trips a year.

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said he would seek to have the gold pass system ended immediately for all past, present and future MPs.

Senator Brown said MPs should take a pay cut if they continued to sack hard-working public servants.

‘There’s a very strong argument politicians should be paid the average wage of Australians,’ Senator Brown said in Hobart.

The annual cost of the new senior public servant pay system hasn’t been calculated.

Mr Gray said he accepted an idea suggested by independent Senator Nick Xenophon that there should be public hearings before the parliament legislated the rises early next year.

Tribunal president John Conde told reporters in Sydney the prime minister’s new salary was ‘not unreasonable’ given the workload.

BHP Billiton chief Marius Kloppers earns $11.26 million and Westpac chief Gail Kelly takes home $9.6 million.

Mr Conde said there was ‘never a right time’ for politician pay rises, but they deserved better pay given that they worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

‘With this level of base salary for a backbencher, the backbencher would continue to set an example of restraint compared to the work they do,’ Mr Conde said.

The tribunal said changes to politicians’ pensions and superannuation since 2004 also had to be accounted for in the pay rise.

Also under the new plan, opposition frontbenchers will for the first time get additional salaries for their extra duties, hiking a shadow minister’s pay by more than $90,340 to $231,450.

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said he didn’t need a pay rise, but accepted the tribunal made an independent decision.

‘I actually think my ministerial salary is pretty good,’ he said.

Independent MP Tony Windsor said MPs with young families would welcome the rise.

But he said study leave was a ‘positive thing’ and should be retained.

 

Source: https://www.skynews.com.au/businessnews/article.aspx?id=696973&vId

Grim Economic Outlook Weighs Down Obama Approval Rating

By Stephanie Condon - CBS News

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

Less than one year out from Election Day 2012, voters remain overwhelmingly pessimistic about the economy, and their concerns are taking a toll on President Obama’s re-election chances. Just 41 percent of Americans think Mr. Obama has performed his job well enough to be elected to a second term, whereas 54 percent don’t think so.

The president’s overall approval rating remains in the mid-40′s, according to a CBS News poll - lower than the approval ratings of Mr. Obama’s four presidential predecessors at this point in their first terms. Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dragged down by his poor marks for his handling of the economy - which, at 33 percent, is the lowest rating of his presidency in CBS News polls.

Mr. Obama receives better marks on foreign policy and for his leadership skills. But when it comes to leading the economy in the right direction, voters are unimpressed: Just 28 percent think he has made progress on improving the economy. And most Americans say the president doesn’t share the public’s priorities, according to the poll, conducted December 5-7.

 

(Credit: CBS)

Obama and the economy

Forty-four percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, and about as many - 46 percent - disapprove. His approval rating has remained fairly steady but below 50 percent since the spring of 2010, aside from an uptick in the spring of 2011 following the death of Osama bin Laden.

Since bin Laden’s death, the president has received high marks for his handling of terrorism: In this poll, 57 percent approve. Voters are split on his handling of foreign policy overall, with 41 percent approving and 41 percent disapproving.

Views of how he has handled the economy is the obvious drag on the president’s ratings: While just 33 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove. Similarly, just 35 percent approve his his handling of job creation while 58 percent disapprove. The last time Mr. Obama’s approval rating on the economy was above 40 percent was in February of this year.

Views on the national economy remain very negative: Since early 2008, roughly three in four Americans (and sometimes even more) have said the economy is in bad shape. Now, 86 percent of Americans characterize the economy as at least somewhat bad, including 42 percent who say it is very bad.

Although the national unemployment rate recently dropped below 9 percent for the first time since 2009, Americans are skeptical that a recovery is on the horizon. Just 21 percent think the economy is getting better, and 39 percent think it is getting worse, up from 32 percent last month. Another 40 percent think the economy isn’t changing.

When asked if Mr.Obama has made real progress fixing the economy, 68 percent say he has not, and just 28 percent say he has. And while 37 percent say the Obama administration’s policies prevented the country from going into a deeper recession, just under half - 49 percent - say those policies did not do that.

In addition, more think the policies of the Obama administration have mostly favored Wall Street (42 percent) than mostly favored average Americans (38 percent).

But while they may disapprove of his handling of this issue, few Americans think the president is most to blame for the current state of the nation’s economy. When asked to choose between the Bush administration, the Obama administration, Wall Street, and Congress, more Americans blame the Bush administration (22 percent) or Congress (16 percent) than Wall Street (12 percent) or Mr. Obama (12 percent), though 24 percent volunteer that a combination of all four is to blame.

Obama: Unemployment could go down to 8% by election (“60 Minutes” interview)

Mr. Obama’s qualities and characteristics

Despite an approval rating in the 40s, Americans appear to have a positive impression of Mr. Obama on some personal measures. A 57 percent majority views the president as a strong leader, similar to the percentage in a September poll — but that figure has declined significantly since he took office. Democrats (85 percent) and independents (57 percent) say Mr. Obama has strong qualities of leadership, while 67 percent of Republicans disagree.

Fifty-nine percent Americans describe the president as down-to-earth, and just a third says he is aloof. Democrats and independents see him as down-to-earth, while more than half of Republicans perceive the president as aloof.

The president is also seen as a fighter: Two thirds of Americans think Mr. Obama fights hard for his policies; just 26 percent say he doesn’t. More than half of Republicans think Mr. Obama fights hard for his policies.

 

(Credit: CBS)

Bringing change and uniting Americans were central elements of Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign four years ago. Today, most Americans think he has worked hard to bring about change (57 percent), but fewer (37 percent) think his presidency has united the country. There are partisan differences on these measures also.

Additionally, most Americans do not think the president’s priorities for the country are in line with theirs. Fifty-four percent say Mr. Obama doesn’t share their priorities, while 41 percent think he does. This is the public’s most negative assessment on this question since Mr. Obama assumed office. Again, the public divides along partisan lines: 73 percent of Democrats say he shares their priorities, while 79 percent of Republicans say he does not.

Americans also remain skeptical of one of the major legislative achievements of Mr. Obama’s first term as president — the 2010 health care reform law. Fifty-one percent of Americans disapprove of the law, including a third who strongly disapprove, while just 35 percent approve either somewhat or strongly. More Americans have disapproved than approved of the law since it was passed in March 2010.

Half of all Americans think Mr. Obama should have focused his priorities elsewhere during his first term in office, though 43 percent think he did the right thing in trying to reform the health care system.

Congressional gridlock

Congress’ job approval rating is far lower than the president’s. Eighty-two percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, while 11 percent approve - just two percentage points above the all-time low of 9 percent recorded last month.

When it comes to the difficulties in reaching agreements and passing legislation in Congress, Americans put more of the blame on the Republicans in Congress than Mr. Obama and the Democrats. Forty-two percent blame Republicans more, while just 26 percent blame Mr. Obama and the Democrats, though 22 percent volunteer both are equally to blame.

Looking ahead to 2012

 

(Credit: CBS)

 

Americans continue to be unhappy with the direction the country is headed: Three in four think the country is off on the wrong track. Just one in five thinks it is headed in the right direction.

With nearly a year left before the 2012 election, 41 percent of Americans think Mr. Obama has performed his job well enough to be elected to a second term, but 54 percent don’t think so. Not surprisingly, most Democrats think Mr. Obama deserves to be re-elected, while most Republicans do not. More than half of independents do not think he deserves to be re-elected.

As the president gears up for his re-election campaign, 66 percent of Americans say they do not have a clear idea of what he wants to accomplish in a second term; just a third say they do. Fewer than half of Democrats say they have a clear idea of what the president wants to accomplish if re-elected.

Mr. Obama’s 44 percent approval rating is only slightly below President Bill Clinton’s at this point in time in his presidency (47 percent), but it is 14 points lower than President Ronald Reagan’s was in late 1983. President George W. Bush’s approval rating, at 52 percent in December 2003, was also higher than Mr. Obama’s.

Comparisons to modern one-term presidents are mixed. President Obama’s approval rating is lower than President George H. W. Bush’s in November 1991, but Mr. Bush’s approval rating dropped precipitously during 1992. In contrast, Mr. Obama’s current approval rating is much higher than the 30 percent Jimmy Carter received in late 1979.

After nearly three years in the White House, 52 percent of Americans say Mr. Obama’s performance in office has been about what they expected, but 35 percent feel his time in office has been disappointing. Few Americans - even among Democrats — say he has exceeded their expectations.

 

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57340576-503544/grim-economic-outlook-weighs-down-obama-approval-rating/?tag=re1.channel

 

Heading Towards WWIII ~ This Is The Plan Of The Ruling Elite

The problem of global conflict can be summarized as a series of engineered events designed to push the masses towards an acceptance of centralized authority.

From the Civil War, to WWI, WWII, and now the so called “War On Terror”, the beneficiaries of these conflicts have always been the same; elitists with goals of ultimate globalization.

The uninformed public sees these wars as random consequences of ignorance, greed, and chaos. This is simply not so. If one is to look at the real and concrete background of every war for the past century or more, they would find a progressive and very deliberate process on manipulation and power grabbing.

WARS ARE MADE TO SERVE A PURPOSE. Very few are actually the result of unintended misunderstandings and unfortunate “mistakes”. This goes for the very tumultuous future we now head into.

NEVER forget who benefits from our pain. They are the root of the crisis at hand…

 

 

Source: https://alt-market.com/articles/397-heading-towards-world-war-iii