Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Stories of Argentina’s stolen children

The last victims of Argentina’s military dictatorship knew nothing of their true identities. One day though, their worlds turned upside down when they learned a terrible truth. Everything they knew, their families, their names, was all part of a monstrous and cruel conspiracy. It was only through the tireless efforts of their natural grandmothers, who searched for decades, that these children had their real identities returned to them. The natural parents were among the “disappeared,” former activists against the military Junta. Now, aware of the web of deception that surrounded their early years, they have to learn to live as their true selves, and with their past.

February 2, 2015 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

Syriza-led Greek parliament ‘will never ratify TTIP’

At an anti-TTIP demonstration in Berlin last month. (Photo: Uwe Hiksch/flickr/cc)
By Sarantis Michalopoulos | EurActiv | February 2, 2015

The newly-elected government in Athens has always been suspicious of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and will use its Parliament majority to sink the EU-US trade pact, claims a former Syriza MEP now turned minister.

After making its voice heard in the debate over sanctions on Russia, the new government in Athens is now making its opposition known to the EU-US trade deal, TTIP.

Georgios Katrougkalos, a former influential Syriza MEP who quit his European Parliament seat to become deputy minister for administrative reform in the leftist Greek government, said the new leadership in Athens will use its veto to kill the proposed trade pact – at least in its current form.

Just before the January elections, he told EurActiv Greece that a Syriza-dominated Greek parliament would never ratify the EU-USA trade deal.

Asked by EurActiv Greece whether the promise still holds now Syriza is in power, Katrougkalos replied:

“I can ensure you that a Parliament where Syriza holds the majority will never ratify the deal. And this will be a big gift not only to the Greek people but to all the European people”.

Double veto power

The leftist Syriza party may not have an absolute majority in Parliament but its junior coalition partner seems to share the same views on the EU-US trade pact.

Syriza, which won a stunning victory at snap elections a week ago (25 January) formed a coalition with the right-wing anti-austerity Independent Greeks party, which is intent on opposing laws seen as too favourable to big business.

The coalition agreement gives the new Greek leadership an effective veto power over TTIP and other deals submitted to Parliament ratification.

Indeed, once the pact is negotiated – a process which may still take over a year –, it will be submitted for a unanimous vote in the European Council, where each of the 28 EU national governments are represented.

This means that one country can use its veto power to influence the negotiations or block the trade deal as a whole, an opportunity Syriza will no doubt use.

And even if the pact makes it past this first stage, it will then be submitted to ratification by all parliaments of the 28 EU Member States, offering opponents a second opportunity to wield a veto.

Welfare state under threat

Like many other leftists and social democrats in Europe, Katrougkalos raised serious concerns about the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism, or ISDS, contained in the pact.

The mechanism is designed to protect companies’ foreign investments against harmful or illegal rulings in the countries where they operate. It gives them the chance to take legal action against a state whose legislation negatively impacts their economic activity.

Katrougkalos  underlined the uncertainty surrounding the ISDS negotiations, saying the European Commission’s precise mandate was unclear.

“An undemocratic practice of lack of transparency has prevailed from the very beginning of the negotiations,” he claimed.

The newly-appointed minister understands that TTIP’s objective was not to reduce tariffs, which are already “very low” but to make an adjustment to the rules governing other sectors. “It contributes to the elimination of some bureaucratic procedures on exports, helping this way the economic efficiency,” he said.

But he made clear that the danger lies in the fact that in most economic fields the regulatory rules are different in the EU and the US. For him, multinational companies stand to benefit the most from lower regulatory barriers, citing banks and brokerage firms, which are subject to weaker supervision in America than in Europe.

“For example we [the EU] don’t permit GMOs, data protection is significantly more important as well as the protection of national health systems,” he said, adding that any consolidation in these rules “will undermine the way the welfare state is organised in the EU.”

Independent Greeks take the same line

Meanwhile, Syriza’s coalition partner, the right-wing anti-austerity Independent Greeks party, takes a similar stance against TTIP.

In a statement issued on 4 November 2014, the then-opposition party said the deal will not live up to its promise of relaunching economic activity.

“It is supposed to be an agreement that will boost the real economy, but its main supporters are international bankers and lobbies,” emphasised Marina Chrysoveloni, a spokesperson for Independent Greeks.

“In simple words, the speculative capital will have even more freedom to move […] in a huge single market with eight hundred million people,” she concluded.

On Syriza’s side, Katrougkalos admitted there was uncertainty about how the talks will conclude but said he was confident that the trade pact “will be approved by the European Parliament”.

“The social democrats have objections on ISDS [investor-state dispute settlement] mechanism but it seems they accept the trade deal’s logic,” Katrougkalos said. In his view, the centre-right European People’s Party and the Liberal ALDE “have a safe majority in Parliament”.

Read:

Tsipras promises radical change, markets tumble

Greek leftist scores victory over austerity

February 2, 2015 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | 1 Comment

Charges against Israeli war crimes protesters dropped

tumblr_nj07ijm2RV1tsfieko1_1280

MEMO | February 2, 2015

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has dropped charges against nine activists who occupied the roof of an Elbit Systems factory in Staffordshire during Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip last year.

The collapse of the case came as the defence company “refused to hand over evidence about its exports of weaponry to Israel.”

The protesters from London Palestine Action had been facing charges of aggravated trespass after shutting down UAV Engines Ltd. (UEL), an Elbit subsidiary, for two days 5-6 August 2014.

But charges were dropped by the CPS “just hours before a deadline expired to provide the defendants with details of arms export licences granted to UEL to send its hi-tech engines to Israel for use in the Hermes 450 – a drone widely deployed by the Israeli military.”

According to a report in The Independent, two witnesses from the company declared that they were “no longer prepared to give evidence, and that documentation – understood to be the arms export data – would not be forthcoming.”

A statement from London Palestine Action accused the UK government and Elbit Systems of “running scared from a court case that would have put their collusion with Israeli war crimes on trial.”

The statement added: “The activists pleaded not guilty to charges of ‘preventing lawful activity’ on the basis that the operations at the Staffordshire factory were aiding and abetting war crimes and therefore illegal.”

Lawyers for the defendants say it appears the case collapsed either because the prosecution had been told either that Elbit Systems were unwilling to testify in court about their activities or because the UK government was unwilling to comply with the court’s order to disclose information it holds about licenses for arms exports to Israel, or both.

February 2, 2015 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , | 2 Comments

Five Important Questions About DEA’s Vehicle Surveillance Program

By Rachel Levinson-Waldman | Just Security | January 30, 2015

With each week, we seem to learn about a new government location tracking program. This time, it’s the expanded use of license plate readers. According to the Wall Street Journal, relying on interviews with officials and documents obtained by the ACLU through a FOIA request, the Drug Enforcement Administration has been collecting hundreds of millions of records about cars traveling on U.S. roads. The uses for the data sound compelling: combating drug and weapons trafficking and finding suspects in serious crimes. But as usual, the devil is in the details, and plenty of important questions remain about those details.

First, who approved the program, and under what circumstances? We don’t know. The DEA is an arm of the Department of Justice, so presumably the Attorney General’s office has been involved, but details aren’t yet available. Also unknown is whether there has been any judicial oversight.

Second, are there any limitations on how the data can be used? This is also unknown. The emails obtained by the ACLU indicate that the main purpose of the program was to assist in seizures of cars, money, and other assets, often from people not charged with any crime, a program that has come under withering criticism. But the history of data collection programs is that information collected for one purpose quickly becomes attractive for other purposes. And the more information available (even for proper purposes), the more is available for misuse as well. Indeed, license plate information has been abused in the past, with peaceful protestors’ data shared with the FBI.

Third, how long can it be kept? The article reports that the DEA holds the data for three months, a significant drop from its previous two-year retention period. Much of this data is coming from readers set up by state and local law enforcement, though, and the retention periods for those jurisdictions are an inconsistent patchwork, with deletion times ranging from immediate (Ohio state patrol) to 90 days (Boston) to two years (Los Angeles County) to five years (New York City) to never (New York State Police). This is especially alarming given that a vanishingly small percentage of the millions of license plates scanned are actually connected to any crime or wrongdoing. At the same time, data collected by DEA reportedly goes back to state and local jurisdictions as well, setting up an endless loop of information with inadequate oversight. 

Fourth, where else does the data go? Some of it is sent to fusion centers, which are state- or regional-based hubs that centralize information for sharing among the federal government, states, and private partners. Originally established in the wake of 9/11, fusion centers have largely abandoned their focus on terrorism for want of credible threats; they have instead transformed into an “all threats” model. In the process, they have been roundly criticized for wasting money, contributing little to counterterrorism efforts, and endangering both civil liberties and Privacy Act protections. Maryland and Vermont are known to feed their plate data to fusion centers, and the numbers are likely higher, given fusion centers’ voracity for data.

Finally, which other federal agencies are using license plate readers? We know that the Department of Homeland Security is using them as part of their border enforcement. As of early 2009, nearly 100% of cars crossing the border were scanned with a license plate reader. And both DEA and DHS license plate readers can be coupled with cameras that provide pictures of the occupants of vehicles being scanned.

Of course, the DEA database is only the latest in a string of disclosures that, taken together, reveal a web of powerful surveillance capabilities. Late last year, the Wall Street Journal revealed that the U.S. Marshals Service is using a secretive technology that sweeps up information about thousands of innocent Americans’ cell phones in the process of searching for suspects. As with the license plate reader scheme, little is known about the specifics of this program.

And just last week, USA Today revealed that at least 50 law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, have obtained radar devices that allow them to detect any human movements inside a house, even motion as minimal as breathing, from more than 50 feet away. In at least one case, the device was used without a warrant to case a home for the presence of a suspected parolee.

Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have already expressed concern about this technology, and it’s hard to see how its use without a warrant passes constitutional muster. As the Tenth Circuit observed in a recently published case weighing the use of the radar technology, the Supreme Court has already disapproved of the use of a thermal imaging device to capture details of life within a home. Perhaps even more salient, the Court earlier established that tracking technology (known as a beeper) cannot be used without a warrant to confirm a person’s presence inside a private home, if obtaining that information would otherwise require entry into the home. It’s a little mystifying that using a high-powered radar for the same purpose would be kosher.

Taken together, these stories suggest a zone of privacy that is narrowing so much as to be almost imperceptible. Separate from the question of how these technologies are actually being used, the breadth of surveillance capabilities they provide are staggering. You can be tracked on the streets; in your home; on your phone; and almost anywhere else. We seem to forever be caught in a kind of vicious cycle: it’s too early to criticize or critique technologies when they’ve just been introduced and there’s no record of misuse, but once they’ve been in place for even a year or two, they take on an air of inevitability. … Full article

Rachel Levinson-Waldman serves as Counsel to the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, which seeks to advance effective national security policies that respect constitutional values and the rule of law.

February 2, 2015 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | 1 Comment

When Climate Heretics Speak. . .

By Steven Hayward | PowerLine | January 25, 2015

. . . They usually mop the floor with the climatistas. That’s one reason why the climate campaign has resorted to rank conformism and outright bullying.

Matt Ridley offered his observations about the state of things in an article in the London Times a few days ago entitled “My Life as A Climate Lukewarmer.”

I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.

This view annoys some sceptics who think all climate change is natural or imaginary, but it is even more infuriating to most publicly funded scientists and politicians, who insist climate change is a big risk. My middle-of-the-road position is considered not just wrong, but disgraceful, shameful, verging on scandalous. I am subjected to torrents of online abuse for holding it, very little of it from sceptics.

I was even kept off the shortlist for a part-time, unpaid public-sector appointment in a field unrelated to climate because of having this view, or so the headhunter thought. In the climate debate, paying obeisance to climate scaremongering is about as mandatory for a public appointment, or public funding, as being a Protestant was in 18th-century England.

Kind friends send me news almost weekly of whole blog posts devoted to nothing but analysing my intellectual and personal inadequacies, always in relation to my views on climate. Writing about climate change is a small part of my life but, to judge by some of the stuff that gets written about me, writing about me is a large part of the life of some of the more obsessive climate commentators. It’s all a bit strange.

There’s more; definitely worth reading the whole thing. … continue

February 2, 2015 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Ruble slump won’t damage trade with China – ambassador

RT | February 2, 2015

Li Hui, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People's Republic of China to Russia (RIA Novosti/Andrey Stenin)

Li Hui, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to Russia (RIA Novosti/Andrey Stenin)

China’s ambassador to Moscow Li Hui says even though the ruble has lost more than 17 percent of its value this year it won’t significantly affect China-Russia trade and cooperation.

“It is understandable that the devaluation and volatility of the ruble have a certain influence on Chinese-Russian trade, especially with the considerable exchange rate risks for export companies that have signed agreements in Russian rubles, but the devaluation of the ruble doesn’t have much effect on the large-scale trade partnership between China and Russia,” Li Hui told RIA Novosti in an interview.

The value of the Russian ruble started to slide again after the Central Bank of Russia decided on Friday to cut the key rate by 200 basis points to 15 percent. The currency was trading at 70 against the US dollar on the Moscow Exchange at 2:00PM MSK Monday.

In 2014, the ruble lost almost a half its value against the dollar due to plummeting oil prices and Western economic sanctions.

According to Li, regardless of the devaluation of the ruble and falling oil prices, Russia and China still believe in “growth despite existing trends.”

“I believe that we can contain and increase the volume of our bilateral trade by using the joint efforts of our government organs and businesses,” Li added.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov suggests that after the dramatic depreciation the Russian currency would start recovering soon.

The Chinese ambassador said that trading in yuan is very forward thinking, and Russian businessmen are ready to trade in the Chinese currency.

In late 2014, Russia and China agreed a national currency swap deal to shore up the depreciating ruble and said they are working to increase the number of mutual payments in rubles and yuan.

China is Russia’s second-biggest trading partner after the EU, which hit a record $59 billion in the first half of 2014. The two countries are planning to increase bilateral trade to $200 billion by 2020.

READ MORE:

Russia-China trade hits record $59bn in first half of 2014

Russia’s Central Bank unexpectedly slashes rate to 15%, ruble reels

Ruble-yuan settlements will cut energy sales in US dollars – Putin

February 2, 2015 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | 1 Comment

Good News! US Corporations Won’t Have to Pay for Nuclear Disasters in India

By Jim Naureckas | FAIR | January 27, 2015

“US, India Move Forward on Nuclear Energy Deal” read the headline at the top of USA Today’s front page (1/26/15). Moving forward–that sounds good, doesn’t it? The subhead was “Obama makes progress on the 1st day of his 3-day visit”–making progress also generally being seen as a good thing.

Online, the headline was “Obama, India’s Modi Cite Nuclear Investment Breakthrough” (1/25/15). And who doesn’t like a “breakthrough”?

The article itself had the same positive spin, beginning with its lead:

President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Sunday they reached “a breakthrough understanding” in freeing up US investment in nuclear energy development in India, as Obama began a three-day visit to India.

Not only is it a “breakthrough understanding,” it’s also going to be “freeing up” investment. In these word choices, USA Today is saying it wants you to know that this is good news.

But what is the news? Here’s how the paper’s Mandakini Gahlot summarizes the agreement:

Picking up from a stalled 2008 civil nuclear agreement between the two countries, the deal would allow US firms to invest in energy in India. It also resolves a dispute over US insistence on tracking fissile material it supplies to the country and over Indian liability provisions that have discouraged US firms from capitalizing on the agreement.

“Indian liability provisions”–what does that mean? The only further explanation USA Today gives is a paraphrase of the White House view that the agreement “resolves the US concerns on both tracking and liability.” In other words, it doesn’t explain much.

You get a much fuller picture from a story in the Mumbai-based newspaper Indian Express (1/26/15), which explains that the problem is with Indian law:

India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, has a simple purpose: to make sure that victims of a nuclear accident can get quick compensation, without having to prove the plant operator was negligent, and irrespective of who was at fault…. Section 17b of CLiNDA says the plant operators…can claim compensation from their equipment suppliers if the accident resulted as a result of “equipment or material with patent or latent defects.” And Section 46 makes both suppliers and operators liable to be sued by accident victims.

This is in conflict with the international rules that the US nuclear industry has arranged for itself when marketing its products abroad:

In the US, the law allows victims to file damages claims against operators, suppliers and designers. However, when US firms started selling abroad, they pushed for the concept of legal channeling, which left only operators liable.

These corporations–who have the political backing of the US government–have succeeded in getting international conventions to agree that “no one other than operators can be held responsible” in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. The suppliers want assurances that these international conventions, and not Indian law, will be applied in the wake of such an event.

The “breakthrough” between Obama and Modi seems to be an agreement that the law will be “tweaked” to let US corporations off the hook in case of a devastating accident. For example, suppliers of nuclear equipment could be redefined as “contractors” and therefore not be liable under Indian law.

Of course, if USA Today explained that Obama had gotten the Indian prime minister to find a loophole that would allow US corporations to avoid having to compensate victims of nuclear disasters that they contributed to, that would be harder to present  as a “good news!” story.

February 2, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Nuclear Power | , | 1 Comment