It is disheartening to see police unjustifiably abuse, injure, or kill people and then just return to their jobs after perfunctory investigations. In the instances when a cop is charged with a crime, so often the grand jury does not indict or the trial jury does not convict. Not every cop accused of criminal activity is guilty. But, it does seem like in many cases police do the crime but not the time.
At Mimesis Law, Ken Womble suggests employing an underutilized means to ensure some accountability for cops behaving badly: Prosecute police for perjury when they lie in their reports and to investigators. Womble looks to Chicago for an example of where such prosecutions could be undertaken. How about, he asks, prosecuting any police who were present when their fellow cop Jason Van Dyke killed Laquan McDonald and who then described the occurrence in a manner that is inconsistent with the video of the shooting but supportive of Van Dyke’s contention that Van Dyke’s lethal actions were in response to a threat from McDonald?
Womble is not suggesting that prosecutions of cops for murder, assault, theft, and other crimes be abandoned. He is just saying that perjury prosecutions of cops, including cops who took no part in a criminal action yet then lie to cover it up, should be undertaken as well. These perjury prosecutions, Womble explains, should often be easier to carry through to conviction and should have the added bonus of removing the convicted cops from the police profession.
Womble writes:
Unlike murder, assault or other crimes of violence, perjury is much more mathematical. There is no self-defense when it comes to perjury. The only viable defense is that the person believed that their statement was true. When a group of cops put forward the same story, and that story turns out to be demonstrably false when compared to the clear video evidence, it is not a mistake. It is a lie. Even the great Gerry Spence might have to stare at his shoe tops when trying to argue otherwise.
Beyond the sheer improbability of a group of officers all incorrectly remembering an event in the same exact way, there is clear motive. The cherry on top in a prosecution of Van Dyke’s fellow officers would be that they each had the motive to lie, to turn the illegal killing of Laquan McDonald into a justifiable instance of self-defense or defense of others. They did it to protect their fellow officer, in spite of the truth. Is there any reasonable doubt that those officers lied?
No, there is not. Guilty of perjury. Turn in those guns and badges. Those officers would never be able to credibly testify ever again with a perjury conviction under their belts, so they are useless as law enforcement officers. The punishment they should receive for their crime is honestly of lesser concern. Just stop being cops. Go sell shoes or vacuums. You can lie all you want in those professions.
THE HAGUE–The reliability of evidence in the investigation of the crash last year of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine is in doubt following revelations of the sinister role of the Ukrainian secret service SBU in corruption and crime scandals.
Criminal experts predict problems for proceedings against the murderers of the passengers who died in the crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, as it now appears that the intelligence work which resulted in all kinds of evidence is compromised. The Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) is set to ask questions about this in today’s parliamentary session.
“The ‘noise’ is guaranteed to play a role in any legal case,” said law professor Theo de Roos. “That goes for the defense but also for the judges who will have to examine evidence very critically. The public prosecution department should be looking now rather than later at the integrity of the evidence.”
It was the SBU that provided the wiretapped telephone conversations between pro-Russian [sic] rebels in the war zone just before and after the Malaysian Airlines Boeing was shot down from the sky. The Ukrainian security forces also had a big role in securing human remains, debris and rocket parts in the disaster area.
But the same SBU also appears in numerous criminal affairs. Several informants in the scandal of the paintings stolen from the West Frisian Museum in Hoorn, Holland in 2005 indicate former SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko of this year is a mastermind in the stolen art trade. Nalyvaichenko was fired in June of this year.
Last year, the name of the former SBU chief was linked to large-scale smuggling of antiques discovered by Finnish police.
The ongoing investigation into corrupt Limburg policeman Mark M is also linked to Ukraine. A justice in Brabant, who requested assistance from Kiev, recently announced that Mark M. operated in Ukraine amidst a network of ‘gangsters and members of the secret service’. This past summer alone, 22 members of the SBU were put behind bars because of corruption and criminal practices.
The CDA calls the SBU mess a great risk for the criminal investigation into the MH17 case and wants explanations from Justice Minister Ard van der Steur.
“There is little actual evidence [in the investigation],” says MP Pieter Omtzigt. “What there is may have been compromised to some extent. The evidence was collected too late and now appears to have been collected by dishonest people.”
The CDA wants to know why satellite and radar data of Ukrainians, Russians and Americans is lacking from the report of the Dutch Safety Board into the crash of the MH17. “It appears this has still not been discussed with Ukrainian air traffic control.”
Dutch police say cooperation with Ukrainian researchers is “good” and all the submitted evidence “has been critically examined”. Professor of international law Geert-Jan Knoops, however, feels that more research into the reliability is needed.
“The prosecution has the duty to exclude any evidence in a scenario where evidence has been tampered with. That means it must closely examine how the SBU selected the phone calls it tapped and who was involved.”
With protesters thronging the streets of Chicago demanding police accountability and clamoring for the resignation of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the city’s police union is frantically trying to destroy decades of records documenting police misconduct. As is always the case, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) sees “officer safety” as the highest priority – including protection from legal accountability.
“I protect all my members, and I will continue to do that,” Dean Angelo, president of the Chicago FOP, explained to CNN.
An injunction filed by the FOP insists that preserving those records violates Section 8.4 of its bargaining agreement with the City of Chicago. That provision specifies that all files of misconduct investigations and officer disciplinary histories “will be destroyed five (5) years after the date of the incident or the date upon which the violation is discovered, whichever is longer, except that not sustained files alleging criminal conduct or excessive force shall be retained for a period of seven (7) years after the date of the incident or the date upon which the violation is discovered, whichever is longer….”
Once that deadline passes, the episode of excessive force or other misconduct “cannot be used against the Officer in any future proceedings in any other forum” unless it deals with a matter subject to litigation during the five year period or “unless a pattern of sustained infractions exists.” This element of the bargaining agreement creates an incentive for the police department to delay, obstruct, and obfuscate investigations of misconduct and abuse complaints until the deadline expires – and to keep the process opaque to the public.
“Basically, they bargained away transparency and accountability,” points out Chicago University Law Professor Craig Futterman, who is fighting in court to prevent the destruction of the officer misconduct records. “In a world where an incident like [the fatal police shooting of Laquan McDonald] happens and the public statements are `Deny, deny, deny,’ and then close off and circle the wagons, and then a code of silence and an exoneration at the end of the day – in that system, you cannot create public trust,” Futterman explained to theChicago Daily Law Bulletin.
Working with independent journalist Jamie Kalven, Futterman was able to exhume the video of the McDonald shooting and the autopsy report showing that he had been shot sixteen times – evidence that completely contradicted the official account that described the shooting as “self-defense.” Jason Van Dyke, the officer who shot McDonald, has been charged with first-degree murder, an all but unprecedented development involving an on-duty police shooting in Chicago.
Through freedom of information requests, Futterman has also pried loose a small portion of the disciplinary files, which are available in an online database. The records Futterman seeks to preserve date back to 1967, and cover decades of corruption and abuse, including the now-notorious Jon Burge torture scandal and the unlawful detentions, interrogations, and abuse of citizens at the Homan Square “black site.” The FOP-negotiated contract requiring the destruction of records after five years went into effect on July 1, 2012 – and it is by no means clear that it applies retroactively to misconduct cases that occurred prior to that agreement. The FOP is essentially seeking to re-litigate the agreement for the purpose of obstructing an ongoing Justice Department investigation into the Chicago PD.
Although FOP President Angelo pouts that “I don’t understand why a 77-year-old retirees’ complaint in 1967 needs to be on a database,” the records his union seeks to destroy include disciplinary histories directly relevant to very recent incidents of excessive force.
According to CNN, “a search for Jason Van Dyke, the officer charged with the first-degree murder in the killing of Laquan McDonald, shows that he had 19 complaints before he fatally shot the teen, including 10 for use of force. The officer who shot and killed Cedrick Chatman has 30 complaints in the system, including 10 for use of force. None of the complaints, for either officer, resulted in disciplinary action. Van Dyke’s attorney says his client feared for his life in his encounter with McDonald. The Chatman shooting was ruled justified.”
Preserving the records, and making them publicly accessible, could help identify officers who pose potential threats to the public they supposedly serve. The FOP, in keeping with its long-established priorities, is more concerned about preserving blue privilege.
Some of Burge’s erstwhile comrades in torture are still under investigation – and the documents necessary to continue that probe would be fed into a shredder if the FOP prevails in court. Those records most likely would also contain information about the Chicago PD’s off-the-records interrogation facility at Homan Square, a CIA-style “black site” where thousands of people were detained without cause and interrogated without constitutionally mandated access to an attorney, reports the Guardian of London.
An estimated 82 percent of the 7,000 people who were arrested and illegally held at Homan Square are black. Angel Perez, who was chained to a metal bar in a second-floor interrogation room at the facility in October 2012, alleges that he was sodomized with a metallic object by officers who taunted him with threats of prison rape if he didn’t cooperate. During a December 15 hearing before the Cook County Commission, several other detainees described being denied access to lawyers and being pressured to become police informants.
“There they interrogated me, asking me things that I had no idea about, for murder and things of that nature,” testified Kory Wright. “And I sat in that room, and they turned the temperature up and I was zip-tied to a bench.”
This Gitmo-style “rendition” site operated under Rahm Emanuel’s tenure, and it features very prominently in the accumulating demands for his resignation. With protests growing in intensity, the Mayor under political siege, and the police department desperately seeking to destroy evidence of long-festering corruption and misconduct, Chicago’s municipal government is beginning to look like an authoritarian dictatorship in the throes of a terminal crisis – Tehran circa 1978, perhaps, or Romania in December 1989.
Tariq Rauf, a former Canadian diplomat, and Robert Kelley, a former US nuclear weapon scientist, have published an assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) handling of the Iranian case on the website of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
Both were working in the IAEA secretariat during the years that followed Iran’s 2003 admission that it had failed to declare certain nuclear material and activities, Rauf in the external relations division and Kelley in the safeguards department. So their assessment benefits from first-hand knowledge gained on the inside.
The following passage concludes their assessment:
A structural weakness of the IAEA is that there is no transparent process for the supply of intelligence information and confirmation of its authenticity. The usual process is for a Member State(s) to provide the intelligence information either in documentation or electronic form to a special assistant in the Director General’s office and/or to the Deputy Director General for Safeguards, alternatively to give a closed briefing in its embassy/mission. The IAEA then deals with the information as described in an earlier section above. There is no established process to share such information with the accused State or with the Board of Governors….
The supply and use of intelligence information is a sensitive yet complex issue…. The IAEA cannot serve as a feedback loop to intelligence agencies on the veracity of information provided by them…. Nor can or should the IAEA rely on such information without confirming its authenticity. This obviously leaves the IAEA in a difficult position as is clearly evidenced by the Iran PMD file where the Agency seems to have been caught short.
The authors recommend that the Board put in place a methodology for the acceptance and use of intelligence information drawing from the practices of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO). In these two organizations, allegations of non-compliance can be raised by any State Party which provides information to the Director General, who in turn shares it with the Executive Council. The Executive Council is convened; the Accuser State puts forward its case on allegations of non-compliance or suspicious activities in another State along with supporting information/evidence. The Accused State has the opportunity to present its defence. Following deliberations, the Executive Council can stop a challenge inspection in the case of the OPCW or authorize an on-site inspection in the case of the CTBTO. Such a practice could serve the IAEA well…. In fact, the JCPOA contains a somewhat similar provision for the Joint Commission in paragraph 36 on dispute resolution…
It is essential that the IAEA Board expeditiously come up with a mechanism governing the provision and handling of intelligence information to the IAEA Secretariat. There is great potential for misuse of such information and of suborning the independence of the Agency in the absence of such a mechanism, as abundantly demonstrated by the cases of Iraq, Iran and Syria in recent times.”
A Lack of Confidence
This passage contains echoes of an intervention by the Russian Federation’s governor to the IAEA, Grigory Berdennikov, at an IAEA safeguards symposium in October 2014:
The Secretariat has the right to use for safeguards implementation all safeguards relevant information available to the Agency about a State. This information includes, inter alia, data from open sources and data provided by third parties. It should be noted that third parties include not only States that provide information with regard to another State but also organizations and even private individuals.
No proper mechanism that could guarantee the accuracy and authenticity of information used for safeguards purposes is provided for [in the report under consideration]. In essence it is suggested that all analysis should be done by the Secretariat as decisions on whether certain data can be used for safeguards purposes are left entirely with the Secretariat. Member States, according to this approach, should simply trust the Secretariat’s choice of information.
The risk here is obvious. False allegations generated by interested parties in order to exercise political pressure on a State unfortunately remain part of the current international landscape. They are quite common in many areas, including non-proliferation, and one should admit could be very important, sometimes involving issues of war and peace.
We think that if the Secretariat decides to use any information, except for data obtained through its own inspection activity, it should duly disclose its origin and be ready to defend its credibility in an open discussion at the Board of Governors. Every State should have the right to publicly defend itself against false allegations and accusations generated by interested third parties or by the media.”
These passages reflect a lack of confidence in the authenticity of some of the intelligence material on Iran submitted to the Agency by member states. There is no proof that any of this information was fabricated. But that lack of confidence is not unreasonable, because motives for fabrication can be imagined without straying far into the thickets of conspiracy theory.
Grounds for Doubt
Gareth Porter has written in A Manufactured Crisis that, according to a former German foreign ministry official, German intelligence obtained the “alleged studies” that underpinned the PMD case against Iran from a member of the Mujahideen E-Khalq (MEK) in 2004. MEK hostility to the Islamic Republic is well-documented. Is it inconceivable that this source forged or fabricated that material? The material was never shown to Iran in full and it contains factual inaccuracies and anomalies for which a satisfactory explanation has never been offered.
In autumn 2007, the US, UK, France, and Israel were furious with the Agency’s then Director General Mohamad El Baradei because he had agreed to a work-plan with Iran and was well on his way to clearing the Agency’s last remaining “issues of concern.” Those issues cleared, these states would be bereft of sources of pressure on Iran to submit to their demands.
In that situation there could have been a temptation to produce information that would appear to corroborate aspects of the “alleged studies.” Initially El Baradei and some of his advisers had doubted the authenticity of these studies. But in early 2008 the studies, apparently corroborated by fresh information, metamorphosed into a “possible military dimension.” From then on they were the West’s instrument of choice for keeping Iran under international pressure. In November 2011, they formed the core of an IAEA assessment that persuaded EU member states to adopt harsh economic sanctions against Iran, and Asian states to comply with US secondary sanctions.
Was any temptation to fabricate resisted? One would like to think so. But, given the Stuxnet program to sabotage Iran’s centrifuge machines, and hints that a hostile intelligence agency commissioned the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, one has to wonder whether certain states would have hesitated to resort to fabrication to get themselves out of a spot of difficulty in autumn 2007.
Such speculations explain the lack of confidence implicit in the recommendations of Rauf and Kelley, and the intervention of Berdennikov. The IAEA Board of Governors can ignore that lack of confidence—and may well choose to do so. But that will be short-sighted. Over time allowing distrust in the Agency’s intelligence-acquisition practices to fester can weaken international acceptance of the Agency as an impartial and objective verifier of compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Rauf and Kelley recommend drawing lessons from OPCW and CTBT practices and provisions. No doubt there are other options. Reconciling source protection with transparency and due process may not be easy. But a collective Board effort to find a solution can heal some of the divisions within the IAEA membership that perceptions of Western lack of scruples in prosecuting the case against Iran have helped to cause.
Peter Jenkins was a British career diplomat for 33 years, following studies at the Universities of Cambridge and Harvard. He served in Vienna (twice), Washington, Paris, Brasilia and Geneva. He specialized in global economic and security issues. His last assignment (2001-06) was that of UK Ambassador to the IAEA and UN (Vienna). Since 2006 he has represented the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, advised the Director of IIASA and set up a partnership, ADRgAmbassadors, with former diplomatic colleagues, to offer the corporate sector dispute resolution and solutions to cross-border problems. He was an associate fellow of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy from 2010 to 2012. He writes and speaks on nuclear and trade policy issues.
Ties between Turkey and Israel are reportedly improving after a five-year rift between the two sides.
Speedy progress in talks to import Israeli natural gas by Turkey has raised expectations of a thaw in relations. Israel’s once-strong ties with Turkey soured in 2010 after Israeli commandoes killed 10 Turkish peace activists on board a ship seeking to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip. Despite the tensions, Ankara and Tel Aviv have maintained bilateral relations including military and trade ties.
Islamic State militants have managed to steal chemical weapons from underground storage facilities in Libya that were not properly guarded and the gas has already been used, a cousin of the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi told RT Arabic in an exclusive interview.
“ISIS has managed to find some of the secret underground storage facilities, still holding chemical weapons, hidden in the desert. Unfortunately, they weren’t properly guarded,” said Ahmed Gaddafi Al-Dam, a cousin of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader who was killed in 2011.
Al-Dam, the stolen gas was then trafficked to the northern part of the country and sold.
“There are two known cases of this chemical agent being stolen. I know this from my sources in Tripoli. In the first case, seven drums of sarin were stolen, and in the second, I think it was five.”
And the destructive chemicals have already been used, said Ahmed Gaddafi Al-Dam, who formerly was one of Gaddafi’s most trusted security chiefs. He recalled that during the recent clashes near the Al-Quds Mosque in Tripoli, security forces discovered a vehicle loaded with sarin.
“Unfortunately, those who had driven this vehicle into the city didn’t understand the dangers of this nerve agent, and how risky it was to bring it into an urban area, let alone ever use it. I don’t want to spread panic, but that’s the reality. And the world knows this very well,” he said.
Islamic State (IS, previously ISIS/ISIL) has already used chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria, according to numerous reports.
Earlier this month, Eren Erdem, a member of Turkey’s main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), told RT that IS terrorists in Syria had received all the necessary materials to produce deadly sarin gas via Turkey.
“The ISIL simply would not be able to support itself without American airpower,” US politician Art Olivier told Press TV on Saturday.
The United States is supporting the Daesh (ISIL) terrorist group because it does not want to end war in the Middle East, an American politician and political analyst says.
“The United States is ultimately behind ISIS,” Art Olivier said on Saturday, using an alternative acronym for the Takfiri group.
Olivier, former mayor of Bellflower, California, and former US vice presidential [Libertarian] candidate, told Press TV that the United States creates these terrorist groups “to keep fighting in the Middle East.”
“The ISIS simply would not be able to support itself without American airpower — in Iraq — and without American spies,” he noted.
On Friday, a US “friendly fire” reportedly killed at least 20 Iraqi soldiers and injured 30 others in Fallujah in Anbar province.
Olivier said US airstrikes also “attack the Syrian army when the Syrian army is fighting against ISIS. The only thing they drop on ISIS is ammunition and food.”
“Recently, some Iraqi soldiers caught some ISIS [militants] and they had fresh rations of US military food with them, and the whole idea that the US is fighting ISIS is silly,” the analyst stated.
The US and some of its allies have been conducting airstrikes against purported Daesh positions in Iraq and Syria and since last year.
The US-led coalition has done little to stop the ISIL’s advances in parts of Syria and in western Iraq.
Commenting on the recent shooting in San Bernardino, California, Olivier said, “Every witness said that they saw three tall white men with athletic skills that were the terrorists, and what they [police] ended up doing was killing a Pakistani man and his petite little 90-pound wife.”
“You know the story about ISIS is getting more ridiculous all the time,” he added.
On November 2, at least 14 people were killed in San Bernardino in the deadliest mass shooting in the US in three years on November 2.
Hours later, the suspects, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 29, reportedly died in an exchange of fire with police. The Daesh group has claimed responsibility for the deadly attack.
A senior Iraqi officer says the US is deliberately hindering his country’s military advances after an American airstrike kills at least 20 soldiers in the Anbar province.
Hakim al-Zamili, the head of Iraqi parliament’s Security and Defense Committee, blamed the US for the inability of Iraqi troops to enter Ramadi and Fallujah in the western province.
The MP accused the Americans of launching airstrikes or dropping aerial packages that provide weapons and equipment to Daesh.
His strong words came after a US strike hit the Iraqi army’s 3rd Division 55th Brigade west of the Iraqi capital on Friday.
According to Iraq’s joint operations command, the strike came as Iraqi forces were advancing on terrorist positions near Amriyat al-Fallujah.
Zamili put the death toll at 20, saying the number may increase since “many were seriously injured and have not yet been taken to hospitals.”
The lawmaker asked Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi to conduct an investigation into the airstrike against the 55th Brigade “which had previously had huge success in the fight against Daesh terrorists.”
“We will go to court over this crime, there will be a hearing,” an apparently outraged Zamili said.
Another MP rejected US military assistance, saying it would harm the national security and cause chaos in the country.
The US has proposed to provide ground forces including Apache helicopters to help Iraq recover Ramadi. On Wednesday, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter went to Iraq to discuss the details about sending troops and helicopter gunships, which was not approved by the Iraqi government.
Abd al-Hussain al-Zergawy, member of the Iraqi Parliament, said the US move may harm Iraq’s national security and impinge on its sovereignty.
“The actions of the special forces on the ground are not controlled by us due to the nature of the tasks, which is harmful to our national security. Because we cannot tell what they should or should not do, which may lead to new problems and infringe on Iraq’s sovereignty,” he said.
“It is not simply about Apache helicopters, but about the trust between us,” al-Zergawy added.
Iraqi army and allied paramilitary fighters maintain a heavy presence in Anbar, where they have been engaged in a massive operation against Daesh.
The Iraqi forces have managed to recapture most parts of the desert province, including several districts of its capital Ramadi, which fell into the hands of Daesh in May.
Iraq has on several occasions complained about the ineffectiveness of the airstrikes launched by the US and its allies in June 2014 allegedly targeting Daesh Takfiri terrorists in north and west of Iraq.
Iraqis say many attacks have been carried out without coordination with Baghdad, increasing the likelihood of coalition fighter jets hitting civilians and Iraqi forces.
Zerqawi said Iraq should not allow the US troops to enter as it cannot control them and they may also cause chaos.
“If they send out ground troops and you cannot control them, it will be considered a new invasion into Iraq. So we will refuse that directly. The US invasion is a painful experience to us. They just left after causing chaos in our country.
“So we cannot open our door again when we are able to make progress in fighting extremist groups,” the lawmaker said.
30 year trends of temperature are shown to be lower, using well-sited high quality NOAA weather stations that do not require adjustments to the data.
Anthony Watts has presented an important analysis of U.S. surface temperatures, in a presentation co-authored by John Nielsen-Gammon and John Christy. Here is the link to the AGU press release. Watts has a more extensive post [here]. Excerpts:
SAN FRANCISO, CA – A new study about the surface temperature record presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union suggests that the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are about two thirds as strong as officially NOAA temperature trends.
Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement.
Following up on a paper published by the authors in 2010, Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends which concluded:
Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends
A 410-station subset of U.S. Historical Climatology Network (version 2.5) stations is identified that experienced no changes in time of observation or station moves during the 1979-2008 period. These stations are classified based on proximity to artificial surfaces, buildings, and other such objects with unnatural thermal mass using guidelines established by Leroy (2010)1 . The United States temperature trends estimated from the relatively few stations in the classes with minimal artificial impact are found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as US trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact. The trend differences are largest for minimum temperatures and are statistically significant even at the regional scale and across different types of instrumentation and degrees of urbanization. The homogeneity adjustments applied by the National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center) greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact. Trend differences are not found during the 1999- 2008 sub-period of relatively stable temperatures, suggesting that the observed differences are caused by a physical mechanism that is directly or indirectly caused by changing temperatures.
Key findings:
1. Comprehensive and detailed evaluation of station metadata, on-site station photography, satellite and aerial imaging, street level Google Earth imagery, and curator interviews have yielded a well-distributed 410 station subset of the 1218 station USHCN network that is unperturbed by Time of Observation changes, station moves, or rating changes, and a complete or mostly complete 30-year dataset. It must be emphasized that the perturbed stations dropped from the USHCN set show significantly lower trends than those retained in the sample, both for well and poorly sited station sets.
2. Bias at the microsite level (the immediate environment of the sensor) in the unperturbed subset of USHCN stations has a significant effect on the mean temperature (Tmean) trend. Well sited stations show significantly less warming from 1979 – 2008. These differences are significant in Tmean, and most pronounced in the minimum temperature data (Tmin). (Figure 3 and Table 1)
3. Equipment bias (CRS v. MMTS stations) in the unperturbed subset of USHCN stations has a significant effect on the mean temperature (Tmean) trend when CRS stations are compared with MMTS stations. MMTS stations show significantly less warming than CRS stations from 1979 – 2008. (Table 1) These differences are significant in Tmean (even after upward adjustment for MMTS conversion) and most pronounced in the maximum temperature data (Tmax).
4. The 30-year Tmean temperature trend of unperturbed, well sited stations is significantly lower than the Tmean temperature trend of NOAA/NCDC official adjusted homogenized surface temperature record for all 1218 USHCN stations.
5. We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations.
6. The data suggests that the divergence between well and poorly sited stations is gradual, not a result of spurious step change due to poor metadata.
Lead author Anthony Watts said of the study: “The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts. This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” He added: “We also see evidence of this same sort of siting problem around the world at many other official weather stations, suggesting that the same upward bias on trend also manifests itself in the global temperature record”.
The full AGU presentation can be downloaded [here].
JC reflections
This looks like a solid study. The participation of John Nielsen-Gammon in this study is particularly noteworthy; Watts writes:
Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, the state climatologist of Texas, has done all the statistical significance analysis and his opinion is reflected in this statement from the introduction
Dr. Nielsen-Gammon has been our worst critic from the get-go, he’s independently reproduced the station ratings with the help of his students, and created his own series of tests on the data and methods. It is worth noting that this is his statement:
The trend differences are largest for minimum temperatures and are statistically significant even at the regional scale and across different types of instrumentation and degrees of urbanization.
The p-values from Dr. Nielsen-Gammon’s statistical significance analysis are well below 0.05 (the 95% confidence level), and many comparisons are below 0.01 (the 99% confidence level). He’s on-board with the findings after satisfying himself that we indeed have found a ground truth. If anyone doubts his input to this study, you should view his publication record.
This paper has been a long process for Anthony, but it appears to have produced a robust and important analysis.
The extension of this analysis globally is important to build confidence in the land surface temperature records.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the various groups producing global surface temperature analyses respond to the study.
When I was very young, my parents used to tell me why having “lots of toys” wasn’t a good idea. “The more you have, the more you want,” they would say. I didn’t have many toys — we were poor — so the idea of possessions feeding greed didn’t make much sense to me then.
But I’ve learned the truth of that statement from observation over the years and lately I’ve been observing Mark Zuckerberg.
Zuckerberg is a 31-year-old computer programmer who did two things that made him famous: he founded Facebook, the social networking super service, and, as a result, he amassed a fortune worth about $46 billion. His bank account is as large as the capitalization of many countries.
How he got to these lofty heights of wealth and cultural impact is a matter of often fierce debate — he’s been sued by former “partners” several times. But what’s more important than how he got control of Facebook is what he’s constructed with it: a ubiquitous presence in the lives of a billion people with the potential to frame and manipulate their communications, their relationships and, to a frighteningly large extent, their lives.
So last month, when Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan announced in a letter to their new baby — a rather novel way to package a press release — that, over the course of their lives, they will give almost all their Facebook shares to a project called the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the world took note.
The Initiative, they explained, would “advance human potential and promote equality” in health, education, scientific research, and energy. In short, change the world: on its face, a worthy cause. But, like many of Zuckerberg’s plans and projects, this one has another side that is darker, more cynical and, even if only partially successful, a potential nightmare for the human race.
How many zeroes are there in $46 billion? More than most of us will ever see. So it’s tough for us “average people” to fathom what a billionaire does with his or her money. Even living the most opulent life-style imaginable wouldn’t start to dent those savings in a bank — the interest alone would pay for everything you could imagine owning. That, in a sense, is Mark Zuckerberg’s dilemma. At 31, he has so much money he doesn’t know what to do with it.
So he follows a long capitalist tradition called philanthropy. In projects that range from supporting education to enhancing Internet access world-wide to tackling specific social problems, Zuckerberg has thrown money at social inequality like a park visitor throws bread-crumbs to pigeons…except the pigeons actually benefit.
When he gave $100 million to the Newark Public Schools, the money was largely wasted with very little impact on the quality of education in that embattled city. When he has joined other rich philanthropists, like Warren Buffett, in a string of similar projects — funding schools or programs in other U.S. cities, giving major endowments to hospitals or funding initiatives in Global South countries — they have usually fallen short of their expectations or projected expectations that didn’t make much sense in the long term. Some good happens but the social problems remain and often deepen.
At the same time, he’s used his wealth and power to launch Internet projects like one that brings together almost a million software developers to work on Facebook improvement and another, called Beacon, that enables people to share information with their Facebook friends based on their browsing activities on other sites (also providing a huge resource to advertisers and marketing people).
In the Summer of 2013, Zuckerberg launched “Internet.org” whose stated purpose is to bring internet access to over 5 billion people world-wide. The access, however, is partial; only certain websites will be seen by these newly connected people in part because many of the world’s governments don’t allow full access to the Internet. Users will, however, be able to fully access Facebook.
Then there’s Facebook itself which continues to expand. With over a billion users, the company has control over the information, data and communications of much of the human race. All of it is contained in an Internet protocol that feels like the conversation at a party where everyone’s had a few drinks. Short statements followed by long strings of one sentence responses, fattened by photos and videos with no real explanation of their importance and a huge “friends” section. It’s a snapshot of your life without the depth, thinking and development that makes it precious to the rest of us.
But that basic information is very valuable to advertisers and marketing companies who can use your activities and friends lists to develop a consumer profile of you. Facebook sells it to them and then fashions advertising programs that display ads that reflect your buying patterns and insert them into the flow of messages (at a premium advertising rate). It also turns the information over to government spy agencies like the NSA.
Facebook admits no sin. It claims that its user agreement allows it to “share relevant information on users” with advertisers for the users’ “convenience” (and, of course, to generate fantastic revenue) and that it can’t legally refuse to share information the NSA demands. None of which changes the reality of what it does and the potential impact that this has on people’s lives.
There’s a common thread to Zuckerberg’s projects. Those that are completely devoid of benefit to him and his company usually fall short of expectations. Projects that are at least partially successful, while they may benefit people, return a hefty benefit for Facebook.
Throughout all of this, Zuckerberg has trotted the globe projecting an image of a young genius whose altruism and concern for the planet and its people drive his daily activities. He’s written about all the time and been the subject of a major motion picture, The Social Network, although it portrays him in a less than flattering light.
What’s interesting about this record of double-edged philanthropy and innovation is that, contrary to the movie’s depictions of him as a snide self-absorbed jerk, Zuckerberg is by most accounts a friendly, open, funny and fairly humble guy. He and his wife have eschewed ostentatious shows of wealth, travelled mainly to speak with leaders and thinkers world-wide (rather than spend months lounging on beaches) and spent most of their time as a couple doing the things normal couples do (like walk around places rather than take a limousine). What’s more, people who know and work with him insist that his concern for the world is not only honest but consuming. In short, they say, he’s the real deal.
The question, however, is can the real deal be all that real using wealth generated by a morally corrupt economic system that pursues profit over any aspect of human life or well-being? In other words, can you provide a nutritious meal when the food is poisoned?
The answer, demonstrated throughout history, is “no”. You can’t and neither can Mark Zuckerberg.
Philanthropy is about control and always has been. The great philanthropists who’ve left their footprint in huge foundations and museums and universities were also among the most exploitative and viciously repressive capitalists of their time. Morally trapped by their immense fortunes, they have sought to control, not only the daily work activities of people (the source of their wealth), but our culture, education, thinking, social life and the other activities that consume every single second of our existence.
Such control protects their wealth in many ways but that’s not the principal reason for this “giving”. Their motivation is to shape our society as they shape our days. Like monarchs dictating reality from a throne, they want it all and, through philanthropy, they get it.
This is the culture in which Mark Zuckerberg functions. His projects have in common a certainty that his perspective and interests (and the system that creates them) offer a future to the human race no other perspective can. His internet projects not only develop internet skill but tie people to Facebook and the “quick message” and superficial relationship culture it drives. Even with his Internet.org project, Zuckerberg can’t conceive of a world in which people make their own decisions about where to go and what to do on the Internet. He is, effectively, trying to take control of the world.
His latest project is an illustration of that approach. Rather than create a foundation, the couple has created a limited partnership corporation, a legal form that has tax benefits, avoids much of the government scrutiny foundations deal with and allows for a much greater secrecy in its functioning and decision-making. A red flag is now flying.
That corporation, one would assume, will now dole out money to projects with potential but who decides the potential? We don’t know but since the corporation belongs to Mark and Priscilla one would assume that they have a big say. As a corporation, it doesn’t have to limit spending to non-profit ventures; it can invest in companies and profit-making projects if it wants. It can even invest in Zuckerberg companies and projects: basically, funding his own work.
While they are busy doling, by the way, Chan and Zuckerberg are still firmly in control of their assets since all that is happening is that the stock of Facebook is cashed in and put into the new company’s bank account with considerable tax benefits (since it’s a reinvestment).
Zuckerberg has yet to specify the projects his new venture will fund but, based on his past, we can confidently speculate. He will continue to encourage development as a way of molding human activity in accord with his vision of it. He will use that spectacular wealth to take even greater control of culture and education. Most of all, he will continue to spread his grasp of the Internet, the one thing that enables human interaction and resists this kind of control.
If Facebook is Zuckerberg’s vision of what on-line communications should be, the remarkable wealth of knowledge, shared thinking, compared experiences and, let us not forget, organizing that has become possible with the Internet will progressively be reduced to a ping-pong game of superficial statements and “likes”. If that vision is imposed through funding of education and other aspects of development, creativity and independent critical thinking will suffer and the kind of machine-like “competence” Zuckerberg frequently champions will hammer another nail in humanity’s coffin. If his funding is used to encourage development projects like the ones he has supported in the past, the cooperativism and the coop movement, the most exciting and potentially game-changing movement in today’s world, will find itself battling against odds that are even greater than the odds it currently faces.
In short, he would end up doing much more harm than good, playing a destructive kind of monopoly with real streets, buildings and lives.
Rich people can’t avoid acting that way and that’s why even “progressive” billionaires like Zuckerberg or Buffett are really part of an anti-future. The schemes and projects and reforms they think up in small groups and fund with large money will never improve the world fundamentally. The only way to do that is to build a world where people like them can never exist and such wealth can never be amassed. It’s hard to imagine the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative contributing that world.
Under the cover of a late-night session of Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced a new version of the “omnibus” federal government funding bill that includes a version of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, outraging privacy advocates.
The new version combines three bills, two passed by the House, and one – the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) – that had already passed the Senate by a vote of 74 to 21.
A long-standing critic of government overreach in surveillance, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), who voted against the Senate bill, issued a statement on Wednesday stating that it was a “bad bill when it passed” and “worse bill today.”
“Americans deserve policies that protect both their security and their liberty. This bill fails on both counts,” said Wyden, adding that “cybersecurity experts say CISA will do little to prevent major hacks and privacy advocates know that this bill lacks real, meaningful privacy protections.”
Under the latest version, the bill creates the ability for the president to set up “portals” for agencies like the FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence so that companies can hand information about potential threats directly to law enforcement and intelligence agencies instead of the Department of Homeland Security. It allows for more data sharing between the public and private sector while shielding companies from liability.
It also changes the criteria for when information shared for cybersecurity reasons can be used in law enforcement investigations. Previously, the backchannel use of data could only occur in cases of “imminent threats,” while the new bill requires just a “specific threat.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has strongly opposed cybersecurity bills over the past five years. In a statement, it said they did nothing to address the real problems the government faces, “like computer data breaches that are caused by unencrypted files, poor computer architecture, un-updated servers, and employees (or contractors) clicking malware links.”
Other advocacy groups, such as Fight for the Future, have previously referred to the bill as “a surveillance bill in disguise.”
The group’s campaign director, Evan Greer, called it “a disingenuous attempt to quietly expand the U.S. government’s surveillance programs.”
“Congress has failed the Internet once again,” she added, “now it’s up to President Obama to prove that his administration actually cares about the Internet. If he does he has no choice but to veto this blatant attack on Internet security, corporate accountability, and free speech.”
The bills were opposed not just by privacy advocates, but also civil society organizations, computer security experts, and many Silicon Valley companies. In April, a coalition of 55 civil groups and security experts signed an open letter opposing an earlier version of CISA.
The Department of Homeland Security itself warned in July that the bill could overwhelm the agency with data of “dubious value,” while at the same time “sweep[ing] away privacy protections.”
The EFF also said the CISA bill has no place in the federal budget package, a point shared by the Open Technology Institute (OTI).
“They’re kind of pulling a Patriot Act,” Robyn Greene, police counsel of OTI, toldWired. “They’ve got this bill that’s kicked around for years and had been too controversial to pass, so they’ve seen an opportunity to push it through without debate. And they’re taking that opportunity.”
Note: he spoke of a black SUV. Note also that he got verbal confirmation from off-camera. This indicates that there were other eyewitnesses.
The only eyewitness identifications that I can find speak of three white men.
I looked at several published timelines of the shootings. You can, too. Search for “timeline,” “Farook,” “San Bernardino.” No victim identified the two suspects immediately after the shootings, which had ended by the time the police and firefighters arrived at 11:05 a.m. The police had no clues regarding Farook and his wife. The two were shot in a firefight at 3 p.m. They were in a black SUV . . . four hours after the attack.
Four hours. What were they doing during this time? Where were they?
The New York Daily News reported this: “The suspects had escaped the blood-spattered murder scene without swapping a single gunshot with the horde of law enforcement descending on the center, a social services facility for people with developmental disabilities.”
The SUV was spotted four hours later, two miles from the crime scene. How did the police find this SUV? The Daily News says only this: “a tip.”
Think about this. Two people shoot 35 people, and escape unnoticed the police. They then disappear for four hours. Then “a tip” informs the police of their whereabouts: two miles away from the crime scene.
As the police close in on the vehicle, which is traveling surprisingly slowly, it is not clear whether the gunshots heard are being fired by cops or by the suspects.
‘They’re killing that guy,’ the man taking the video shouts as he ducks for cover.
Just moments later, after the recording ended, police stopped the SUV and killed the two suspected shooters in a gun battle that left an officer injured.
Note: the report does not say that a policeman was shot, only injured.
Watch this video. There is an introduction by a reporter, then the video. As the SUV drives slowly down the street, the driver is turning the headlights off and on. Why? There is no shooting at this point. The SUV passes by. Then the shooting starts.
The post-shootout photo of the SUV shows the windshield riddled with bullet holes. These bullet holes came from in front of the SUV. The media report says this: they fired 76 rounds, while police fired 380.
Who did the counting? When? Who verified this?
How did they shoot at police from inside the SUV? For how long? How long would it take to fire 76 rounds with semi-automatics? This time includes replacing empty clips. We are supposed to believe that it took 380 rounds to kill them. If so, these are not sharpshooters.
The two are dead. So, there is no legal liability for naming them the killers. There is no “alleged” visible in the media. This ends all discussion. Of course they acted alone. Everyone knows this.
“What are you, a conspiracy theorist?” Yes, I am. We conspiracy theorists — revisionist historians — have a highly developed sense of smell, developed over years of sniffing around. We know when official accounts do not pass the smell test. This story does not pass it.
Here is what I have been waiting for: a forensics report that identifies some of the estimated 100 spent bullets at the massacre with at least one of the rifles recovered in the SUV. I have searched the Web for this report. I have not found it. Is this too much to ask of the authorities? You bet it is.
We need more unofficial investigations. We are not going to get any further official investigation. Case closed. “Move along. There’s nothing to see here.”
My advice: Don’t believe the first official government report. Suspend judgment. Keep snooping. Things are not always what they seem.
Reknowned economist M. Shahid Alamoffers this excellent critique of Noam Chomsky’s defective analysis of the relative influence of Oil versus the Israel lobby over US foreign policy: … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
