Budget cuts, regulatory snags delay plans for naval facility

14 Nov

Budget cuts, regulatory snags delay plans for naval facility.

‘National Defence is hoping it can finally start moving on an already diminished and delayed plan for establishing a key naval facility in Canada’s Arctic after submitting a new environmental impact assessment to the Nunavut government this week.’

Ok, that’s nice – the Canadians have finally taken a step closer towards building their naval facility in the Arctic. But it does worry me: they submitted an environmental assessment. The thing is that the abovementioned article is rather old, the most recent says:

‘Nunavut regulator approves Arctic naval facility’

and

‘Nanisivik refuelling facility can go ahead without full environmental review’

WTF does that even mean? Without full review? They are going to refuel military vessels, it is a strategically important position for God’s sake! How come they ignore environmental issues?

Advertisements

Russia prepares to defend its’ interests in the Arctic

11 Oct

On 27 September 2012 Russian naval, land and air forces completed major joint military maneuvers in the north-western part of the country. The exercise, which was one of the largest joint combat training events over the last few years, was aimed at protecting Russian interests in the Arctic region.

Over 7,000 personnel, more than 20 ships and submarines, 30 planes and helicopters were involved in the pace of the drill. Military servicemen from the Western Military District practiced the scenarios of countering enemy attacks from sea, protecting civilian ships that pass through the Northern Sea Route from pirates, and performing rescue missions in the Arctic environment.

Special attention was paid to exercising the measures of civilian infrastructure protection. This included the deployment of marine units to remote areas by submarines and ships. Their task was to land on to a hasty coastal area of operations and defend industrial and research facilities situated there with the support from a combined arms brigade of the Western Military District.

During the final day of the exercise surface ships and submarines had performed several launches of cruise missiles that successfully hit training targets.

According to military experts, such hostilities are not likely to happen in the foreseen future, considering current political situation in the world. Such developments of Russian policy in the areas of military capabilities development take into account the expanding militarization of the Arctic region and the principle of “what if…?”.

As long as foreign states or alliances retain and develop their military capabilities in the Arctic Region, Russian armed forces will prepare for a possible use of military means to counter the activities of separate terrorist groups as well as the actions of foreign forces.

Summarizing the lessons learned from the maneuvers, military experts have pointed out that joint actions of formations and units demonstrated high levels of operational and tactical skills of the Western Military District`s Command, excellent combat training of Russian military servicemen, as well as the wish of Russian leaders to continue defending their goals in the Arctic region.

Conspiracy theory? Hell, yeah! It makes sense, considering the fact that FBI spies on you!

10 May

Facebook Backdoor Interception: FBI wants P2P and social media wiretap-friendly

The US is preparing to face FBI-drafted legislation enabling it to monitor any personal communication activities in the web. It aims to use preset backdoors in social networks, online messaging, internet telephony and even Xbox gaming servers.

Tech media website Cnet.com has obtained information that the FBI is already in talks with internet giants on an unprecedented surveillance program, having the legislation approved by the Department of Justice.

The FBI intends surreptitiously to rush a law obliging companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to install government surveillance options into their software on default.

The agency confesses that it faces considerable difficulties in wiretapping suspects since more and more people are shifting their communications from phones to internet.

FBI struggles with the world ‘going dark’

An unnamed FBI representative told Cnet.com that there are “significant challenges posed to the FBI” in the accomplishment of its “diverse mission”, and the rapidly changing technology influences that result a lot.

“A growing gap exists between the statutory authority of law enforcement to intercept electronic communications pursuant to court order and our practical ability to intercept those communications. The FBI believes that if this gap continues to grow, there is a very real risk of the government ‘going dark,’ resulting in an increased risk to national security and public safety,” the source told Cnet.com.

In February 2011 the FBI acknowledged the agency’s inability to keep up its surveillance capabilities with communications technological development calling it the “going dark” problem. Having admitted the bitter fact of technological incompliance, the agency initiated this new comprehensive web surveillance program.

An obvious solution to the problem was adopting legislation to the needs of the government which the FBI is busy realizing right now.

The FBI calls the program the National Electronic Surveillance Strategy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that as early as in 2006 the FBI was already concerned with “going dark” and established a special division developing the “latest and greatest investigative technologies to catch terrorists and criminals.” In 2009 the division employed 107 full-time specialists.

Another battle for human rights and privacy

Internet companies might be not happy with the new legislation at all, righteously considering that the law will most probably spark a public revolt similar to unsuccessful attempts to push through notorious SOPA, PIPA and ACTA anti-pirate legislation. Moreover, clients’ privacy an integral part of IT products and by trading it off, software companies might ruin their business.

“If you create a service, product, or app that allows a user to communicate, you get the privilege of adding that extra coding,” the IT industry representative familiar with the FBI’s draft legislation told CNET.

The draft law also implies that IT companies will be allowed to supply the government with proprietary information to decode information obtained through a wiretap or other type of lawful interception.

IT companies cannot say “no” to the government right off the bat, therefore consultations between the FBI officials and internet company CEOs and top lawyers are already being held.

Reportedly, the FBI’s draft legislation mentions some sort of “compliance costs” of internet companies.

Internet giants utilize lobbyist resources to try to protect their businesses interests in Washington, but the issue of mass control might be too hot for them to handle.

The situation strikingly resembles the one with the music and web content industry, which fails to adapt to new realities of free access to almost anything, including goodies that fall under the copyright laws. The entertainment industry, too, is using its lobbyists to push through punitive legislation to guarantee high profits without evolutionary changes to itself.

In the case with the web backdoor surveillance though, the FBI intends to violate basic human rights on such a high mass-involvement level that a 1984-scenario might appear almost no exaggeration.

If the FBI obtains the legislation it asks for, Lord forbid you should play on the terrorists’ side on an Xbox server, because your game console will report your terrorist sympathies. And this valuable information will definitely find a decent place in a personal dossier of yours somewhere in an underground FBI data center.

Source: RT

NATO’s Secret Army

10 May

A clandestine army? Yes, NATO had one!
from ‘The Voice of Russia‘:
NATO’s secret army existed on Western European soil until early ’90s and probably still exists today. It was called the “Gladio”, which means “sword” in Latin. One of its emblems is a salamander, which represents that it belongs to the secret services syndicate.

In order to understand what this movement really represented or, possibly, still represents, we consulted a well-known Swiss historian Daniel Ganser, who has published a book about the secret army.

Mr. Ganser, you are a historian, specializing in modern history and international relations since 1945. You lecture at the Basel University and you are the author of numerous works, which caused a sensation all over the world. I would like to speak with you about your most well-known book “The NATO’s Secret Army”.

– The NATO’s Secret Army is a poorly studied phenomenon. Even my colleagues used to say to me: «But the NATO has never had any secret army!» The whole world thought that such a thing did not exist. And then, in 1990, the Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti confirmed that all the European NATO countries had secret armies. Their aim was to resist the Soviet invasion. But during the cold war period nothing of the kind happened, as you know. Therefore, people thought that these armies were useless, but it was not so. They were used in order to manipulate the political climate in many European countries – France, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Austria, Spain, Portugal,and Finland. It was a large-scale phenomenon all right.

Your book “The NATO’s Secret Army” inspired film director Emmanuel Amaro to create an excellent 52-minute documentary. Your book deals with both Russia and Western Europe. Has your book been published in Russian yet?

– No, not yet! But in two weeks I am presenting the Russian version of my book in Moscow.

We have received evidence that the secret army had actually existed, at least until the beginning of the ’90s. And yet there is still no reason to believe it was dismissed. Can you add some important details to the abovementioned?

– Historians say that in fact this army conducted acts of terror, aimed at changing political course of one or another country, consistently dissociating it from the USSR and Eastern Europe. So, on August 2, 1980, a bomb exploded in the waiting room of the railway station in Bologna, which took the lives of 85 people. 200 people received injuries of varying severity. At first, the Italian police attributed this terrorist act to the Red Brigades, but ultimately the “Gladio” was pronounced guilty. A month and a half later, during Oktoberfest in Munich there was another terrorist act. Colonel Klaus Fishner, a former employee of the counter-intelligence service of Stasi, says: «The task was to create tension in the NATO countries and to suppress any political left-wing deviation.» As we can see, that was the mission, aimed at justifying the existence of the secret army.

German historian Eric Schmidt-Eenboom affirms that in Germany a considerable part of the secret army, about 25%, was recruited from the former members of the SS.

The General public is well-acquainted with the film «The Bourne Identity». But what people do not know, is that the mysterious organization “Dread Stone”, that stood behind anonymous American political killers and was housed in Langley, has a real and sinister prototype: “Gladio”.

Leaked U.S. Army Field Manual Outlines Plan For Re-Education Camps In America

5 May

A leaked U.S. Army document prepared for the Department of Defense contains shocking plans for “political activists” to be pacified by “PSYOP officers” into developing an “appreciation of U.S. policies” while detained in prison camps inside the United States.

The document, entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF) was originally released on a restricted basis to the DoD in February 2010, but has now been leaked online.

The manual outlines policies for processing detainees into internment camps both globally and inside the United States. International agencies like the UN and the Red Cross are named as partners in addition to domestic federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.

The document makes it clear that the policies apply “within U.S. territory” and involve, “DOD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities,” including “man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories.”

The manual states, “These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations,” and adds that “The authority to approve resettlement such operations within U.S. territories,” would require a “special exception” to The Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via “the President invoking his executive authority.” The document also makes reference to identifying detainees using their “social security number.”

Aside from enemy combatants and other classifications of detainees, the manual includes the designation of “civilian internees,” in other words citizens who are detained for, “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.”

Once the detainees have been processed into the internment camp, the manual explains how they will be “indoctrinated,” with a particular focus on targeting political dissidents, into expressing support for U.S. policies.

The re-education process is the responsibility of the “Psychological Operations Officer,” whose job it is to design “PSYOP products that are designed to pacify and acclimate detainees or DCs to accept U.S. I/R facility authority and regulations,” according to the document.

The manual lists the following roles that are designated to the “PSYOP team”.

– Identifies malcontents, trained agitators, and political leaders within the facility who may try to organize resistance or create disturbances.

– Develops and executes indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes.

– Identifies political activists.

– Provides loudspeaker support (such as administrative announcements and facility instructions when necessary).

– Helps the military police commander control detainee and DC populations during emergencies.

– Plans and executes a PSYOP program that produces an understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.

Remember, this is not restricted to insurgents in Iraq who are detained in prison camps – the manual makes it clear that the policies also apply “within U.S. territory” under the auspices of the DHS and FEMA. The document adds that, “Resettlement operations may require large groups of civilians to be quartered temporarily (less than 6 months) or semipermanently (more than 6 months).”

The historical significance of states using internment camps to re-educate detainees centers around the fact that it is almost exclusively practiced by repressive and dictatorial regimes like the former Soviet Union and Stalinist regimes like modern day North Korea.

We have exhaustively documented preparations for the mass internment of citizens inside America, but this is the first time that language concerning the re-education of detainees, in particular political activists, has cropped up in our research.

In 2009, the National Guard posted a number of job opportunities looking for “Internment/Resettlement Specialists” to work in “civilian internee camps” within the United States.

In December last year it was also revealed that Halliburton subsidiary KBR is seeking sub-contractors to staff and outfit “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States.

In 2006, KBR was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S,” or the rapid development of unspecified “new programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned.

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services.

During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”

Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed by Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, American citizens can be kidnapped and detained indefinitely without trial.

Read a portion of the Internment and Resettlement Operations manual below.

 

Image

The following portions of the document make it clear that the policies apply “within U.S. territory” (as well as abroad in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan) and that domestic federal agencies are involved. 

 Image

 Image

Author: Paul Joseph Watson

Source: Infowars.com

Afghanistan War VS Iraq War

30 Mar

Mr. Ackerman of Danger Room posted a sound review of recent polls concerning public attitude towards wars in Afghanistan and Iraq:

There is no “good war” anymore.

According to a New York Times poll, 69 percent of Americans think the U.S. shouldn’t be waging the Afghanistan war. That reinforces the findings of a recent Pew poll, in which nearly six-in-ten respondents supported bringing U.S. troops home ASAP. It’s a major hemorrhage of support. Just a few weeks ago, the war was merely unpopular, with 54 percent saying it wasn’t worth fighting.

The new low represents the crossing of a certain psychological and cultural threshold. It means the Afghanistan war is now at least as unpopular as the Iraq war was at the height of public ire. In fact, by some measures, the war to beat the Taliban — the guys who gave safe harbor to the 9/11 terrorists — is now more unpopular than the one to get rid of Saddam and his alleged stockpiles of WMDs.

Take a look at what Pollingreport.com tallies for the Iraq war. During Iraq’s darkest days, in 2006, CNN’s poll registered opposition to the war in the high 50s or low to mid 60s. It took until the week George W. Bush announced the surge, in January 2007, for opposition to reach 67 percent. At no time between 2006 and 2011 did the poll register 69 percent opposition.
Other polls record a similar reaction. From January 2007 through August 2010, the Gallup poll found the high-water mark of opposition to the Iraq war was 63 percent, registered in April 2008. Throughout 2008 and 2009, when Iraq seemed like a settled issue for many Americans — hardened in either their support or their opposition — CBS’ poll asked if “looking back,” invading Iraq was a mistake. At most, 62 percent of respondents said the U.S. should have stayed out.
The decade-long Afghanistan war is significantly longer than the Iraq war was. And unlike the Iraq troop surge, the Afghan surge’s tactical gains were more ambiguous. And that was before the war was battered in recent weeks by fratricidal attacks by Afghan troops against their U.S. mentors; the burning of the Koran at a U.S. detention center; and a massacre by a rogue U.S. soldier of 17 civilians, mostly women and children.

Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters on Tuesday that the upsurge in public opposition wouldn’t make a difference to U.S. war plans. “I’m not sure what would be gained from changing a strategy that’s actually working,” he said.
But clearly it’s a change that the American public wants, and the opposition will make it harder for Gen. John Allen, the war commander, to slow down U.S. troop reductions. Politicians (mostly Democratic ones) used to contrast the allegedly-virtuous Afghanistan war with the allegedly-illegitimate Iraq one. Goodbye to all that — and to the dubious, armchair notion that any war is “good,” rather than unfortunately necessary.

 

Saudi Grand Mufti urges to destroy all churches in the Arabian Peninsula

16 Mar

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has declared that all churches in the Arabian Peninsula must be demolished. The statement prompted anger from Christians throughout the Middle East.

Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah made the controversial statement in a response to a question from a Kuwaiti NGO delegation. A Kuwaiti parliamentarian had called for a ban on the construction of new churches in February, but so far the initiative has not been passed into law. The NGO, called the Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage, asked the Sheikh to clarify what Islamic law says on the matter. 

The Grand Mufti, who is the highest official of religious law in Saudi Arabia, as well as the head of the Supreme Council of Islamic Scholars, cited the Prophet Mohammed, who said the Arabian Peninsula is to exist under only one religion. 

The Sheikh went on to conclude that it was therefore necessary for Kuwait, being a part of the Arabian Peninsula, to destroy all churches on its territory.  

In February, Kuwaiti MP Osama al-Munawar announced on Twitter that he was planning to submit legislation that would remove all churches in the country. However, he later clarified that existing churches should remain, while the construction of new non-Islamic places of worship would be banned. 

Another MP, Mohamemd Hayef, backed al-Munawar, saying the number of churches in the country was already disproportionate to the number of Christians. 

As for Saudi Arabia, all religions other than Islam are banned and there are no churches, although a small minority of Christians is theoretically allowed to practice their religion in the privacy of their own home. 

The Grand Mufti’s words have caused a heated response from Christians living in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and other countries throughout the Middle East. A number of bloggers also wrote on the issue. 

Considering the hysteria that besets the West whenever non-authoritative individuals offend Islam – for instance, a fringe, unknown pastor – imagine what would happen if a Christian counterpart to the Grand Mufti, say the Pope, were to declare that all mosques in Italy must be destroyed; imagine the nonstop Western media frenzy that would erupt, all the shrill screams of ‘intolerance’ and ‘bigot,’ demands for apologies if not resignation, nonstop handwringing by sensitive politicians, and worse,” Raymond Ibrahim of Jihad Watch, a blog critical of extremist Islamic laws, wrote. 

Despite the sensational news value of the story, the Western media has been remarkably silent. No major news services have covered the story yet. Ibrahim argues that the Grand Mufti gets a free pass even when he incites Muslims to destroy churches because Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States. 

Restrictions on Islam in the West

The Grand Mufti’s words seem to mirror what a number of US politicians have been calling for – only their words were aimed at mosques and Muslims. In January, Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain said Americans have a constitutional right to ban mosques, arguing that Islam combines church and state, which contradicts the US Constitution. 

They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it,” Cain said on Fox News Sunday.

In November, Pat Buchanan, who vied for the Republican presidential nomination on a number of occasions, agreed with radio host Bryan Fischer in promoting limits to immigration from Islamic countries and the construction of new mosques. 

In 2009 a constitutional amendment banning the construction of minarets was adopted in Switzerland following a referendum on the subject. Almost 58 per cent of the population said yes to the initiative, although the traditionally leftist French-speaking part of the country rejected it. The construction of new minarets is now banned throughout Switzerland, though the four existing minarets in Zurich, Geneva, Winterthur and Wangei bei Olten are to remain. 

In 2010, French legislators banned face-covering headgear in public. The ban meant that women caught wearing the burqa in public could be fined up to 150 euros and/or be forced to participate in citizenship education. Proponents of the legislation argued that face covering was both an issue of security and social integrity, as facial recognition is important for communication. Opponents said the law encroached on personal freedoms.

Source: Russia Today