Facebook Removes Potential Evidence of Police Brutality Too Readily, Activists Say

ORIGINAL LINK

As more details emerge over last week’s killing by Baltimore County police of 23-year-old Korryn Gaines, activists have directed growing anger not only at local law enforcement but also at Facebook, the social media platform where Gaines posted parts of her five-hour standoff with police.

At the request of law enforcement, Facebook deleted Gaines’ account, as well her account on Instagram, which it also owns, during her confrontation with authorities. While many of her videos remain inaccessible, in one, which was re-uploaded to YouTube, an officer can be seen pointing a gun as he peers into a living room from behind a door, while a child’s voice is heard in the background. In another video, which remains on Instagram, Gaines can be heard speaking to her five-year-old son, who’s sitting on the floor wearing red pajamas.

“Who’s outside?” she asks him. “The police,” he replies timidly. “What are they trying to do?” “They trying to kill us.”

Statements made by officials in the days after the incident revealed little-known details of a “law enforcement portal” through which agencies can ask for Facebook’s collaboration in emergencies, a feature of the site that remains mostly obscure to the general public and which has been criticized following Gaines’ death.

A demonstrator live streams the march on Facebook Sunday in Union Square.

Photo: Monica Jorge/Sipa USA

It’s not the first time Facebook has become the stage on which violent encounters between law enforcement and residents play out — and it seems likely more and more such incidents will be documented on the social media hub, given that the company’s livestreaming app, Facebook Live, is only nine months old and spreading at a time when recording police has become an instinctive reflex in some communities. Gaines herself had filmed her interactions with police before, even instructing her son to do the same.

But while it’s common for police to ask Facebook to provide them with users’ information, many observers are troubled that the social media giant would take down accounts at the request of law enforcement.

So far, Facebook seems to have struggled with its role at the heart of the national conversation on race and policing. Just last month, the site removed live video posted by the girlfriend of Philando Castile, a 32-year-old African-American man who was shot during a traffic stop in a suburb of St. Paul, Minnesota. Castile’s girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, started livestreaming and narrating his death seconds after police shot him, garnering nationwide attention. On that occasion, Facebook said the video’s disappearance, which lasted about an hour, was due to a “technical glitch.” It later reinstated the post, with an added graphic-content warning, and the video has since been viewed 5.7 million times.

Then last week, before Gaines was killed, Facebook deactivated her accounts in response to a request by Baltimore County police — drawing criticism that it censored free speech and even accusations that it was complicit in her death. The accounts have since been reinstated, but most of the videos have not.

“Facebook helped Baltimore police kill #KorrynGaines in the dark,” the artist Ferrari Sheppard tweeted, reflecting a sentiment shared by many on social media. “Letting it sink in.”

Nicole Carty, a campaigner with the corporate watchdog group SumOfUs, told The Intercept that “by deactivating Korryn Gaines’ account, Facebook created a really dangerous precedent of censorship by orders of police. … It’s a fundamental threat to civil liberties. Social media and shareable video are instrumental in exposing the epidemic of police violence against black people in the United States.”

“Facebook is acting as a part of the problem,” she added.

Facebook is a private platform — which means that the First Amendment does not constrain what it chooses to censor.

“But there’s no question that constitutional values are not only a good idea but they’re also good for a business’s bottom line when that business is selling a platform for speech,” Lee Rowland, a senior attorney at the American Civil Liberty Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told The Intercept. “There’s a real risk for social media companies if they’re perceived as choosing sides in a public debate; by censoring on the request of law enforcement they run the risk of becoming a propaganda wing of the state.”

On August 1, Baltimore County police officers went to Gaines’ home to serve separate warrants to her and her boyfriend. According to court documents reported by the Baltimore Sun, the attempt quickly escalated:

One officer then “kicked the door forcing the door open” and another entered the apartment and saw the woman, later identified as Gaines, holding a shotgun, the warrant states. She pointed the shotgun at an officer and told them to leave, police wrote in the documents. The officer left and called for backup.

But police weren’t just watching Gaines through her door; they were also following her on social media.

Selections of legal process request.

Screengrab from Facebook.

At a press conference the day after her death, Baltimore County Police Chief James Johnson confirmed the department had asked Facebook to deactivate her account while the standoff was still ongoing — “in order to preserve the integrity of the negotiation process,” he said, and for the safety of the officers involved and Gaines’s son, who was in the room with her and was also struck and injured by police fire.

“Ms. Gaines was posting video of the operation as it unfolded, and followers were encouraging her not to comply with negotiators’ request that she surrender peacefully,” Johnson said. He added that it took Facebook nearly an hour to deactivate the account after police filed a request through a “law enforcement portal” available on the site to verified agencies.

The department later elaborated in a statement:

The content on Gaines’ social media accounts has not been deleted. BCoPD has filed a request with Facebook to preserve this content as evidence. A search warrant will be obtained to obtain these records.

Law enforcement officials do not have the ability or authority to deactivate social media accounts on their own. Facebook maintains a law enforcement portal through which police request assistance. This portal includes an “exigency” option for emergency situations like the one yesterday. BCoPD applied for the exigency deactivation because of a barricade situation involving an armed subject with a child.Facebook evaluates law enforcement requests and determines what action will be taken.

A Facebook spokesperson confirmed to The Intercept that the company removed the videos, and stressed that they were never Facebook Live streams and that Gaines’ account was back online and “memorialized,” (The company offers a special feature to preserve the accounts of the dead.) The spokesperson said, echoing the claims of the police that Gaines’ followers were encouraging violence, removing the videos was a means of preventing “physical harm or death.” With the videos now removed, this is a difficult claim to analyze.

This spokesperson added that some of the videos were also removed not because they represented an actual clear and present danger to someone’s life, but because they violated the site’s “community standards” against “credible threats of physical harm to individuals.”

Law enforcement online request system.

Screengrab from Facebook.

Interestingly, the mechanism through which law enforcement agents request the deletion of Facebook content is the exact same one they use when requesting the disclosure of content: the law enforcement portal. The portal says it is designed for “a law enforcement agent who is authorized to gather evidence in connection with an official investigation.” On the site, officers can write a message to Facebook with links to the profile or content in question, and a description of the situation.

Facebook provides ample documentation of how law enforcement agents can, for example, request access to someone’s otherwise private Facebook page for the purposes of an investigation. But these guidelines only describe how police can preserve or access information as evidence — not how they can take it down. The specific emergency action policy cited by the Facebook spokesperson describes only data requests, not deletions:

“In responding to a matter involving imminent harm to a child or risk of death or serious physical injury to any person and requiring disclosure of information without delay, a law enforcement official may submit a request through the Law Enforcement Online Request System at facebook.com/records.”

An “unofficial guide” apparently created by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department to help officers navigate Facebook’s portal, and first discovered by The District Sentinel, goes into greater detail about the process — although it also focuses on information disclosure, rather than deletion.

But while it’s no secret that law enforcement is increasingly relying on social media to conduct investigations and build cases, shutting down accounts presents a different set of questions.

Even though Baltimore county is in the process of implementing a new body camera program, none of the officers involved in the standoff were wearing one.

“Visual evidence is powerful and there’s no question that the current movement for police accountability has everything to do with powerful images that have been made public of excessive force by police,” said Rowland. “There’s a particular risk when social media takes down video that may represent the only point of view besides that of law enforcement.”

“In general, social media companies should be very hesitant to comply with law enforcement demands in a manner that might circumvent a citizen’s first amendment right to record interactions with the police,” she added.

Some have called for Facebook to instate a public editor to review users concerns about civil rights issues, and many are demanding greater transparency about how, when, and why Facebook decides to comply with law enforcement’s requests.

“Facebook is increasingly put in a position of power by deciding what the public can see,” said Carty, of SumOfUs. “People don’t want to be in a position where they’re trying to communicate with their networks and people who care about them, and trying to bring accountability to officers acting against them, and then have Facebook turn off the switch. That’s terrifying.”

Following Gaines’ death, the group started an online petition calling on the site to “explain its actions and stop this unacceptable practice immediately,” which has already gained more than 55,000 signatures. “Facebook needs to be accountable and transparent about how it’s making these decisions,” said Carty. “And it needs to put in place policies that protect civil liberties and protect the freedom of information rather than curb it down.”

Sign up for The Intercept Newsletter here.

The post Facebook Removes Potential Evidence of Police Brutality Too Readily, Activists Say appeared first on The Intercept.

via IFTTT

War Crimes: Baby Teeth of Iraqi Children Tell Troubling Tale of War’s Toxic Impacts

ORIGINAL LINK
In an effort to learn more about the impacts of long-term exposure to heavy metals and other toxins associated with warzone bombardments and military installations, a new study released Friday examined a sample of donated teeth and discovered that the…

via IFTTT

About That Upcoming "Fiscal Stimulus" - It Is Already Running Full Blast

ORIGINAL LINK

Even as policy wonks are calling for the U.S. federal government to turn away from monetary policy and “austerity”, Treasury debt outstanding has already seen massive annual increases since 2007, and not just in the US but around the entire world, Bloomberg market strategist Chris Maloney writes.

Which brings us to this week’s report on the U.S. federal government’s monthly budget statement. As Maloney puts it, "for eight-plus years now the U.S. federal government’s fiscal policy has been one of unprecedented deficit spending, pushing total debt to $15.3t from $6.1t (a 153% increase); this excludes ~$5.1t intra-govt debt holdings."

Yet GDP since the end of Jan. 2008-June 2009 recession has averaged just 2.1%, below the 2.7% average seen from 2000-2007 while the last five quarters have seen a steady drop from 3.3% to 1.2%.

Meanwhile, debt has continued its relentless rise higher, pushing the ratio of US government debt/GDP to an all time post World War II high of 105%.

 

The rest of the world isn't any better; in fact when adding across all debt categories, a terrifying chart emerges.

 

 

The methodology which counts government spending as part of GDP (“economic growth”) is arguably flawed as “growth,” in order to make sense, must be profitable.

As Maloney correctly puts it, spending certainly stimulates economic activity but not necessarily economic growth - recall that the Soviet Union “grew” its economy right into the dustbin of history.

Fiscal stimulus is already in the cards as CBO is projecting uninterrupted deficits for the next decade, totaling an additional $9.4t in debt and warns these “reflect the significant long-term budgetary challenges facing the nation.”

 

According to these forecasts the deficit as a percentage of GDP will grow to 4.9% in 2026 from 2.9% this year and in dollar terms to $1.36t from $439 billion.

This is a long-term trend as U.S. federal government has managed an annual budget surplus just 4 years out of the last 46; it has averaged $249b in annual deficits over that period.

* * *

Keep in mind that any time someone says "fiscal stimulus" all they mean is increasing debt even more; what they don't say is that the reason the global economy is in its current slow (and slowing) growth predicament, is due to unprecedented amount of global debt (debt/GDP was 286% as of Q2 2014 according to McKinsey; it is well over 300% currently), which forces central banks to intervene and keep interest rates as low as possible by monetizing debt.

And what they never add is that one can't grow out of a debt hole by adding even more debt, which is precisely what the so called proposed "fiscal stimulus" solution is all about.

Chris Maloney's conclusion:

Issuing new debt eats our tomorrows today; eventually it needs to be paid back, thereby lowering future demand. “Fiscal stimulus” is in the long-run a wash, at best, and pushed too far it can be fatal.

Alas, this potentially "fatal" solution is all the world has left.

via IFTTT

Dr. Tim Ball: How The World Was Deceived About Global Warming & Climate Change

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Tim Ball, originally posted at The Rebel,

Current weather is normal; that is, it is well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. There are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing just as it always has and always will and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.

One phenomenon that creates the illusion weather is abnormal is the attention given by the media. We all experience being introduced to a person then seeing them pop up every time we turn around. It’s the same thing with cars after you buy one you see them everywhere. In both cases they were always there, but not part of your awareness. Weather and climate events seem to occur everyday, but it is because they became a media story. They always occurred. Now the story appears and is amplified by the sensationalism of the media with their "Extreme Weather Reports."

The entire objective of those pursuing the political agenda was to create the illusion that current weather is abnormal and therefore unnatural. They wanted to show that all this occurred in the last 100 years as a result of human industrial activity. The objective was to create false science, which was easy because few people know about weather and climate, a fact confirmed by a Yale University study that created a High School exam. Figure 1 shows the raw results with 52 percent getting an F and 25 percent a D for a total failure of 77 percent.

Figure 1

Promoters of the false story also knew people know even less about climate. Indeed, most don’t even know the difference between weather and climate. Weather is the atmospheric conditions you experience at any point in time. The climate is the average of those conditions in a region or over time.

A few years ago I wrote, but didn’t submit, a story for the Globe and Mail with the headline, “An Area of Arctic Ice Twice the Size of Vancouver Island Melted today.” The story then revealed that this was a normal amount of melt. Imagine my surprise when recently it appeared in reality! The headline I tongue-in-cheek considered writing was in a national newspaper:

Melting in the Arctic reached an all-time high in June: Ice has been disappearing at a rate of 29,000 square miles a day.

This is near the average daily rate of melt in the brief Arctic summer, but few people know this is natural. Approximately 10 million km2 of ice melts every summer in approximately 145 days, which is a melt rate of 68,965 km2 (26,627 square miles) per day. The amount mentioned is well within the wide variation in melt from year to year.

Figure 2 provides a brief context to show the wider natural range of temperature over the last 10,000 years. It shows the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere derived from Greenland ice cores.

Figure 2

The current temperature is on the right (red line). Some salient points that expose the lies and distortions;

* The world was warmer than today for 97 percent of the last 10,000 years, a period known variously as the Climatic Optimum, or more recently the Holocene Optimum. We have known about this warmer period for at least 75 years.

 

* The world was 2°C warmer than today 1000 years ago during the Medieval warming. Remember, you are told that the world is going to warm by 2°C, and that is catastrophic.

 

* The world was 4°C warmer than today during the Minoan warming.

 

* We are told the amount and rate of temperature increase in the last 100 years (shown in red) is abnormal. Compare the slope with any of the previous increases.

 

* The green line indicates the larger trend and shows that the Earth has cooled for approximately the last 7000 years.

The CO2 changes over this period, but those changes follow the temperature. The global warming proponents tell the public it is the opposite. As in all temperature changes, there is a logical explanation that does not include CO2. In this case the longer trend fits what is called the Milankovitch Effect (ME).  These are the collective changes caused by Sun/Earth relationships, including orbit, tilt, and precession of the Equinox (Figure 3).

Figure 3

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not include the ME in their computer models that are the source of predictions about future climate. No wonder they are always wrong.

The existence of the ME explains, beyond lack of knowledge, why the public is susceptible to the natural/unnatural ploy. Most people think the Earth’s orbit round the Sun is a small, unchanging ellipse. Science knew this was incorrect years ago. Joseph Adhémar (1797-1862) proposed that the likely cause of climate change in the earth’s solar orbit.

James Croll expanded the idea and calculated orbital eccentricity effects on solar radiation for different latitudes over 3 million years, and published the results in 1867. The primary cause of the orbital change is the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter. It is a significant change. (Figure 4).

Figure 4

The cycle is 100,000 years, but that is from minimum to maximum ellipse and back to the minimum. The solar energy currently received when the Earth is closest to the Sun (perihelion) varies from +3.5% to -3.5%. When furthest away (aphelion) 20,000 years ago the difference was +8.5% and -8.5%.

Today, 149 years later, this is little known to most. The main reason is that it contradicts the philosophical basis of Western science, uniformitarianism. This is the idea that change is gradual over long periods of time. A quick look at the geologic or any other natural record shows it is false. However, it means people are easily persuaded that a change, especially sudden change, is unnatural.

People were vulnerable and therefore easily fooled. Worse, the deceivers deliberately changed the record to enhance their deception. They created what is natural or normal. Watch the video by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) in which he demonstrates the changes made to the instrumental temperature record, all deliberately designed to enhance warming. These are the people who brand those who question the science as deniers and criminals. This is why it is the greatest deception, but worse, a deliberate deception.

via IFTTT

Goldman Fined 0.1% Of Revenue For “Criminal Theft” Of Confidential Fed Information

ORIGINAL LINK

Last October, we reported that “Wall Street Was Shocked As Feds Bring Criminal Case Against Goldman Banker Over Fed Leaks.” Briefly, because as we also reported several months later, nobody actually ended up going to prison for the infamous story of Goldman Sachs obtaining classified NY Fed documents as a result of the revolving, ended up with two workers getting slaps on the wrist in some modest penalties.

via IFTTT

QUOTE OF THE DAY

ORIGINAL LINK


via IFTTT

Obama Just Signed a GMO Labeling Law: Here’s What You’re Not Being Told

ORIGINAL LINK

(ANTIMEDIA) Last week, President Barack Obama signed legislation requiring manufacturers of genetically modified (GM) food to provide labeling on their products. But there’s just one problem — err, a couple problems . . . actually a lot of problems. There are a lot of problems with this bill.

The new law originated in the Senate as S. 764, “A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes.” Lawmakers commonly insert policies on controversial issues into other, more amenable bills to keep them hidden and ensure their passage.

Sure enough, the new GM labeling bill, focused around a college program, contains language that appears, on its face, to address the concerns of millions of Americans regarding GM foods. While establishment institutions and experts insist they are safe, others worry not enough research has been conducted to guarantee as much.

While the lawmakers who crafted the bill, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), argue it is an appropriate compromise in response to fears surrounding GM products, food advocacy groups found multiple holes in its wording prior to the bill’s passage.

The first — and most contentious — is S. 764’s decree that food companies are not necessarily required to label genetically modified products in text form. While doing so is an option, according to the new law, food manufacturers may also choose to denote GM ingredients with a symbol or a QRC (quick response code) that, when scanned by a smartphone,  will take the consumer to a website detailing further information about the product. The QRC method requires the consumer to have both a smartphone and access to the internet.

While the QRC option sounds high-tech, some lawmakers and activists have criticized its limitations. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) argued on the House floor that “It is an intentional measure to deny consumers information,” as reported by The Hill. “The reality is that not every American has access to a smartphone or the Internet.”

Another problem with the bill is its lax standards and broad definitions. For example, the bill stipulates that if a majority of a product contains meat, it need not be labeled as containing GM ingredients, even if other ingredients are genetically modified (in contrast, a pepperoni pizza would need to be labeled if the flour in the pizza came from GM grain). While genetically modified animal meat is only beginning to make its way into the food supply, the new labeling bill establishes a concerning exemption for the future. Eggs will also not be subject to GM labels.

Further, the new law “prohibit[s] a food derived from an animal to be considered a bioengineered food solely because the animal consumed feed produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered substance.” In other words, if an animal ate GM feed throughout its life, food companies would not need to inform the consumer.

Even the FDA, known for its collusion with various powerful industries, expressed concerns about the bill’s language. The agency stressed its opposition to labeling, maintaining GM foods are safe, but still pointed out confusion and conflicts within the bill.

The FDA noted the definition of “bioengineering” “will likely mean that many foods from GE sources will not be subject to this bill. For instance, oil made from GE soy would not have any genetic material in it. Likewise, starches and purified proteins would not be covered.”

Though the language of the bill is vague, it explicitly nullifies the GM labeling law passed in Vermont last year. That bill, which industry lobbyists aggressively attacked, would be overruled by S. 764, which dictates that “state-imposed labeling requirements would be banned,” as noted by Bloomberg. Vermont’s bill only took effect on July 1 of this year.

Yet another issue with the bill stems from the powerful organizations that supported its passage. As Bloomberg reported, Monsanto, Walmart, and the National Corn Growers Association all pushed for the legislation to pass (currently, over 90% of all corn acreage in the United States is used to grow genetically modified crops).

Still another powerful industry lobbying group pushed for S.764’s passage. As Mother Jones reported earlier this year when the bill was still being negotiated, “Grocery Manufacturers Association [GMA], a deep-pocketed trade group funded by major food processors as well as agrichemical/GMO titans like Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, praised [the proposed law] as the ‘commonsense solution for consumers, farmers and businesses.” The GMA also sued Vermont over its recent GM labeling bill.

While the Organic Trade Association (OTA) did endorse the bill, its support sparked division within the organic food industry. Shortly after the group announced its support, one of its member organizations, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Organization (OSGTO), responded by withdrawing its membership.

The OSGTO statement accused the OTA of “duplicity,” adding:

“Recent revelations have made clear that the OTA has created numerous close partnerships with Monsanto including intensive lobbying efforts by the notorious biotech-linked lobbyist Podesta Group on behalf of the deal brokered by Senators Stabenow (D-MI) and Roberts (R-KS).”

The statement also accused the OTA of partnering with organic companies run by food conglomerates who lobby Congress for favorable legislation.

In fact, the two lawmakers who crafted the bill, Debbie Stabenow and Pat Roberts, are direct beneficiaries of lobbyists. Stabenow’s sixth largest donor in 2016 was Dow Chemical, which, coincidentally, lobbied for S. 764’s passage. (Stabenow’s other donors include Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co.) Stabenow accepted more money from agribusiness political action committees (PACs) in 2016 than from any other industry PACs.

Similarly, Roberts’ top PAC donations came from special interests. One of his top donors is DuPont, another chemical company that lobbied in favor of S. 764. Like Stabenow, he has received money from other powerful donors, including Goldman Sachs, Koch Industries, and Pfizer.

Congress follows a similar path to Stabenow and Roberts, evident in that lawmakers have attempted to push anti-labeling legislation — often dubbed Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) acts — through Congress before. “Big Agriculture” lobbied intensely for the latest version of S. 764 and contributes regularly to political campaigns.

Nevertheless, prior to the bill’s passage, White House spokesperson Katie Hill told Bloomberg, “While there is broad consensus that foods from genetically engineered crops are safe, we appreciate the bipartisan effort to address consumers’ interest in knowing more about their food, including whether it includes ingredients from genetically engineered crops.”

But considering the numerous flaws in the bill, activist organizations remain steadfast in their opposition. As Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said:

“This bill is a travesty, an undemocratic and discriminatory bill which preempts state laws, while offering no meaningful labeling for GMOs.”

Pursuant to the new law, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has two years to formulate specific standards for labeling, meaning the controversy surrounding the labeling of GM foods is far from over.

---

This article (Obama Just Signed a GMO Labeling Law: Here’s What You’re Not Being Told) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

via IFTTT

10 Facts the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You About the War in Syria

ORIGINAL LINK

(ANTIMEDIA) Corporate media regularly attempts to present Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria as solely responsible for the ongoing conflict in the region. The media does report on events that contradict this narrative — albeit sparingly — but taken together, these underreported details shine a new light on the conflict.

10: Bashar al-Assad has a higher approval rating than Barack Obama

Despite Obama’s claims Assad is illegitimate and must step down, the fact remains that since the conflict erupted in 2011, Assad has held the majority support of his people. The elections in 2014 – which Assad won by a landslide with international observers claiming no violations – is a testament to the fact that although Assad has been accused of serious human rights violations, he continues to remain reasonably popular with the Syrian people.

Obama, on the other hand, won elections in 2012 with a voter turnout of a mere 53.6 percent of the American public; only 129.1 million total were votes cast. This means approximately 189.8 million American people did not vote for Obama. His current approval rating sits at about 50 percent.

9: The “moderate” opposition has been hijacked

There is no longer such a thing as “moderate” opposition in Syria – if there ever was. The so-called Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) has been dominated by extremists for years. The U.S. has known this yet has continued to support the Syrian opposition, despite the fact the New York Times reported in 2012 that the majority of weapons being sent to Syria have been ending up in the hands of jihadists. A classified DIA report predicted the rise of ISIS in 2012, stating:

“If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Further, an FSA commander went on record not only to admit his fighters regularly conduct joint operations with al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria), but also that he would like to see Syria ruled by Sharia law.

Apparently, moderate can also mean “al-Qaeda affiliated fanatic.”

8: Assad never used chemical weapons on his own people

A U.N. investigation into the first major chemical weapons attack committed in early 2013 — an atrocity the West immediately pinned on Assad — concluded the evidence suggested the attack was more likely committed by the Syrian opposition. A subsequent U.N. investigation into the August 2013 attack never laid blame on anyone, including Assad’s forces. In December 2013, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh released an article highlighting deficiencies in the way the situation was handled:

“In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports…citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.”

7: Toppling the Syrian regime was part of a plan adopted shortly after 9/11

According to a memo disclosed by 4-star General Wesley Clark, shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon adopted a plan to topple the governments of seven countries within five years. The countries were Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran.

As we know, Iraq was invaded in 2003. American ally Israel tried its hand at taking out Lebanon in 2006. Libya was destroyed in 2011. Prior to this intervention, Libya had the highest standard of living of any country in Africa. In 2015, alone, it dropped 27 places on the U.N. Human Development Index rating. U.S. drones fly over Somalia, U.S. troops are stationed in South Sudan — Sudan was partitioned following a brutal civil war — and Syria has been the scene of a deadly war since 2011. This leaves only Iran, which is discussed below.

6: Iran and Syria have a mutual defense agreement

Since 2005, Iran and Syria have been bound by a mutual defense agreement. The Iranian government has shown they intend to fully honor this agreement and has provided the Syrian regime with all manner of support, including troops, a $1 billion credit line, training, and advisement. What makes this conflict even more dangerous, however, is the fact Russia and China have sided with Iran and Syria, stating openly they will not tolerate any attack on Iran. Russia’s military intervention in Syria in recent months proves these are not idle threats – they have put their money where their mouth is.

Iran has been in the crosshairs of the U.S. foreign policy establishment for some time now. George W. Bush failed to generate the support needed to attack Iran during his time in office — though not for lack of trying — and since 2012, sanctions have been the go-to mantra. By attacking and destabilizing Iran’s most important ally in the region, the powers that be can undermine Iranian attempts to spread its influence in the region, ultimately further weakening Iran.

5: Former Apple CEO is the son of a Syrian refugee

The late Steve Jobs, founder of Apple, was the son of a Syrian who moved to the United States in the 1950s. This is particularly amusing given the amount of xenophobia, Islamophobia, racism and hatred refugees and migrants seem to have inspired — even from aspiring presidents. Will a President Donald Trump create the conditions in which future technological pioneers may never reach the United States? His rhetoric seems to indicate as much.

4: ISIS arose out of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, not the Syrian conflict

ISIS was formerly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, which rose to prominence following the U.S.-U.K. led invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is well-known that there was no tangible al-Qaeda presence in Iraq until after the invasion, and there is a reason for this. When Paul Bremer was given the role of Presidential Envoy to Iraq in May 2003, he dissolved the police and military. Bremer fired close to 400,000 former servicemen, including high-ranking military officials who fought in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. These generals now hold senior ranking positions within ISIS. If it weren’t for the United States’ actions, ISIS likely wouldn’t exist.

ISIS was previously known by the U.S. security establishment as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), but these fighters ultimately became central to Western regime change agendas in Libya and Syria. When the various Iraqi and Syrian al-Qaeda-affiliated groups merged on the Syrian border in 2014, we were left with the fully-fledged terror group we face today.

3: Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia wanted to build a pipeline through Syria, but Assad rejected it

In 2009, Qatar proposed a pipeline to run through Syria and Turkey to export Saudi gas. Assad rejected the proposal and instead formed an agreement with Iran and Iraq to construct a pipeline to the European market that would cut Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar out of the route entirely. Since, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have been staunch backers of the opposition seeking to topple Assad. Collectively, they have invested billions of dollars, lent weapons, encouraged the spread of fanatical ideology, and helped smuggle fighters across their borders.

The Iran-Iraq pipeline will strengthen Iranian influence in the region and undermine their rival, Saudi Arabia — the other main OPEC producer. Given the ability to transport gas to Europe without going through Washington’s allies, Iran will hold the upper-hand and will be able to negotiate agreements that exclude the U.S. dollar completely.

2: Leaked phone calls show Turkey provides ISIS fighters with expensive medical care

Turkey’s support for hardline Islamists fighting the Syrian regime is extensive. In fact, jihadists regularly refer to the Turkish border as the “gateway to Jihad.” In May 2016, reports started emerging of Turkey going so far as to provide ISIS fighters with expensive medical treatment.

Turkey is a member of NATO. Let that sink in for a moment.

1: Western media’s main source for the conflict is a T-shirt shop in Coventry, England

This is not a joke. If you follow the news, you most probably have heard the mainstream media quote an entity grandiosely called the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” (SOHR). This so-called “observatory” is run by one man in his home in Coventry, England — thousands of miles away from the Syrian conflict — yet is quoted by most respected Western media outlets (BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, and International Business Times, for example). His credentials include his ownership of a T-shirt shop just down the road, as well as being a notorious dissident against the current Syrian president.

***

Despite the fact much of the information in this article comes from mainstream outlets, those circulating it refuse to put all of the storylines together to give the public an accurate picture of what is going on in Syria.

Assad may be brutal — and should face trial for allegations of widespread human rights abuses — but this fact alone does not make the other circumstances untrue or irrelevant. People have the right to be properly informed before they allow themselves to be led down the road of more war in the Middle East, and consequently, more terror attacks and potential conflicts with Russia and China.

---

This article (10 Facts the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You About the War in Syria) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

via IFTTT

At People’s Tribunal, Brazilian Grassroots Groups Leery Of US Role In Rousseff Impeachment

ORIGINAL LINK

Even though a federal prosecutor assigned to investigate the case concluded Brazilian leader Dilma Rousseff committed no crime, the right-wing opposition led by interim president Michel Temer remains committed to impeaching Rousseff.

On July 19, grassroots organizations in Brazil, including the Landless Workers’ Movement, held a People’s Tribunal to call attention to the democracy crisis facing Brazilians. The tribunal involved witnesses and oral arguments by prosecution and defense on the impeachment process. It also featured jurors, who spoke about their votes, and a verdict on the process.

The tribunal aimed to show how a fair and just process would treat Rousseff and contrasted with the anti-democratic actions taken by members of the Brazilian government with the support of the United States government.

“In today’s world, a democratic rupture occurring in a country like Brazil is not limited to its domestic effects,” organizers declared. “Rather, the impeachment process also produces effects throughout the Latin American continent and also in other countries with which we maintain close diplomatic relations.”

“In order to make transparent to the world the debate on this process of impeachment, which is not based on the demonstration of the occurrence of a crime committed by the President and is characterized instead as a new type of coup, the Brazilian social movements decided to establish in Rio de Janeiro an International Tribunal for Democracy in Brazil,” the organizers stated.

The jury for the tribunal featured representatives from Mexico, Italy, France, Spain, Colombia, Costa Rica, Argentina, and the United States.

Azadeh N. Shahshani, a member of the National Lawyers Guild, participated as a representative of the United States. She told Shadowproof the tribunal “really meant a lot to the social justice movement in Brazil.” Some members of Rousseff’s party even appeared to speak to those in attendance.

A verdict in full support of Rousseff and against the impeachment process was handed down by the academics and civil society leaders from the global progressive community, who participated.

“Impeachment should only be reserved for a serious crime, and based on the evidence that has been out in the open,” Rousseff committed no crime, Shahshahani said.

Shahshahani was particularly struck by the testimony of one professor, who addressed from a feminist perspective how the right-wing is attacking Rousseff for being a woman. The professor said the opposition has promoted crude sexual jokes about her time as a left-wing guerrilla, particularly when she was tortured and raped.

In April, as the Brazilian congress voted on impeachment, The Guardian reported, “Jair Bolsonaro, the far-right deputy from Rio de Janeiro, dedicated his yes vote to Carlos Brilhante Ustra, the colonel who headed the Doi-Codi torture unit during the dictatorship era.”

Shahshahani said those in attendance see this coup unfolding before their eyes and believe it poses a threat to “gains of social justice.” The “social safety net” will “deteriorate if this coup is allowed to proceed.”

“Everyone in Latin America is keeping a close eye on what is happening in Brazil,” Shahshahani added. “What happens there could potentially have a big impact on the rest of Latin America as well. All the gains that we saw in the past decade with all the leftist leaders in Latin America could potentially come under attack.”

“If Dilma Rousseff is to go, there is one less leader that those of us in the global progressive community can count on,” Shahshahani stated.

Grassroots organizations are very aware the U.S. has sought to establish relations with the new right-wing leaders installed by Temer, and they understand the U.S. history of supporting dictators and overthrowing democratically-elected leftist leaders.

Both Honduras and Paraguay stand as recent examples, where the U.S. supported the right-wing opposition as supposed technicalities in laws were seized upon to justify the removal of elected leaders.

In each of those cases, bombs and tanks may not have been involved, but they still had hallmarks of past coups in Latin America.

The 2016 Olympics kick off in Rio de Janeiro on August 5. How the right-wing opposition may take advantage of the prestigious event to conceal government corruption and paper over rampant class conflict did not come up at the tribunal.

The post At People’s Tribunal, Brazilian Grassroots Groups Leery Of US Role In Rousseff Impeachment appeared first on Shadowproof.

via IFTTT

The FDA's Foolish War on Salt

http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/18/the-fdas-foolish-war-on-salt

The 'voluntary' crackdown lacks scientific support.