#we know this was carried out by a specific terrorist organization not a national government | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

aelaer · 3 years

Note

☕ I AM totally cooking you up in this ask on how much you know about the Accords and the way they relate to the US's federal law 👀👀👀

Ahhh, yeah, I was due an ask like this. It took a while to get to, so hopefully you eventually see it, md. Note that all regulations are directly from the Wiki, which drew from the canon of Agents of SHIELD, which had huge plot points around the Accords. Possibly the other old Marvel TV shows too, I’m not sure. And without this expansion, we’d know literally nothing about them, but they fit a lot of what was in the comics so I’m cool as accepting them as canon. Your Mileage May Vary.

This is super long so I put it under a cut.

Any enhanced individuals who agree to sign must register with the United Nations and provide biometric data such as fingerprints and DNA samples.

Nothing breaking current US law. You’re expected to get fingerprinted if you do certain things for the state in certain states in the US. For instance, when I took a tutoring job for underprivileged children in my early college years, I was fingerprinted. I wouldn’t be surprised if higher-security jobs also require something similar.

However, to my knowledge these are all state or nationwide databases, not international. There may be some argument to be made about which officials from which country have access to your fingerprints, as it is with the Accords.

In this fictional universe, DNA samples may be more of an issue due to how meta-humans may have altered DNA and we alllll know that of those 117 countries that signed, at least a dozen of them would try to weaponize it in some capacity. If I were a meta-human in the MCU, this would be my largest concern.

Any enhanced individuals who sign are prohibited from taking action in any country other than their own unless they are first given clearance by either that country's government or by a United Nations subcommittee.

This makes complete sense and should have been established long ago. If it wasn’t already established, then the world governments of the MCU are... well, just as slow and dumb as the real world’s.

Any enhanced individuals who do not sign will not be allowed to take part in any police, military, or espionage activities, or to otherwise participate in any national or international conflict, even in their own country.

The UN does not have the authority to dictate what an individual country does or does not allow their population to do, for better or worse. The atrocities carried out across the world by various world governments against their people is the best evidence of that.

That said, in this case, I don’t think it’s any of their business to dictate this. If France wants meta-humans in their police force regardless as to whether they’ve signed the Accords or not, that’s France’s business. If Japan wants to bolster their army with meta-humans who didn’t sign, that’s Japan’s business. The rest of the world may not be happy with that, but the UN is not an elected ruling body and just doesn’t have the authority to make regulations like that. A lot of countries will play nice with sweeping calls such as that and go along with them, but they’re under no obligation to follow them (and certainly not with US law - the UN’s rulings have zero legal ramifications here until they’re passed in state or federal legislatures).

Any enhanced individuals who use their powers to break the law (including those who take part in extralegal vigilante activities), or are otherwise deemed to be a threat to the safety of the general public, may be detained indefinitely without trial.

Hahaahahhahahahahah. No. Breaks the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which is a part of the Constitution (which equals the backbone of American law -- things that go to the Supreme Court are there to basically see if something is constitutional or not. It’s a lot more complicated than it sounds, though).

Unfortunately this is a real situation that’s being dealt with now with specific people of the “aiding terrorists” category throughout the last 20 or so years of presidency (both the left and right with politicians signing it, and both the left and right with American activists opposing it, according to my brief study on the issue - you can look up indefinite detention if you want to read more).

Regardless, super super breaks the Fifth Amendment. While the amendments were written for specifically American citizens or folks on American soil, I personally think it’s important it’s a value that is upheld with everyone, no matter what they’ve been accused of. But that’s all I’ll say on that real world topic. This UN mandate hits very close to home - kudos to the writer who put that in for that touch of reality.

The use of technology to bestow individuals with innate superhuman capabilities is strictly regulated, as is the use and distribution of highly advanced technology (such as Asgardian and Chitauri weaponry).

Doesn’t break any known laws to my knowledge. Regulation of dangerous things is pretty common.

The Avengers will no longer be a private organization and will operate under the supervision of the United Nations.

I don’t think the UN has the legal ability to do that. The US government would need to do this as this is a private organization operating within the US on US soil. The US government has acquired private organizations in real life (like GM during the financial crisis of 2008), but they quickly find how much that sucks and sell them off as soon as they can, lol.

Again, the UN is operating under the supposition that they actually have the legal wherewithal to do this when, in reality, they don’t. There is no such thing as international law in the real world and I sincerely doubt in the MCU verse.

What would very likely happen, should Thanos not have ruined this exciting political drama, is that the US totally agrees to do this. Then a new administration or legislature comes in and reverses it 2-6 years later, assuming that all of the lawsuits from various countries didn’t cripple the Accords sooner.

Those with secret identities must reveal their legal names and true identities to the United Nations.

Hahahahaha. Under whose authority? We’ve established there’s no international law. It’d be up to every single individual country to agree to not only do this, but *share* this list with every other country. If I was the decision maker in the US or China, there’s no way in fucking hell I’d do that. Israel or Iran? Fuck no! Do I *want* all my meta humans to be assassinated by other countries?

The MCU has this little fairy tale (that sometimes the real UN carries on with) that everyone gets along just great when, in reality, that’s really, really, really unlikely.

Those with innate powers must submit to a power analysis, which will categorize their threat level and determine potential health risks.

I could make an argument that this breaks the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures). You cannot forcefully take DNA from someone unless they’ve been convicted of a crime (and in, I think 20 states I just read, if you’ve been arrested, but even that’s been challenged under the Fourth Amendment in those various states the past decade).

If they’re already having a legal argument about this for DNA of people who were arrested, they’re going to have a hell of an argument for this requirement just for *existing*.

Those with innate powers must also wear tracking bracelets at all times.

Oh that’s nice, the UN thinks meta-humans are animals! Likely breaks the Fourth Amendment. Found an interesting article about Amazon and their little tracking bracelets from two years ago that is semi-relevant, and those are employees. Imagine if you required everyone of some minority race or nationality to wear a tracking device because they’re statistically more dangerous due to the prevalence of crime amongst them, or something inane like that.

Yeah, it’s something like that bad. Definitely breaks the privacy protection that previous rulings regarding the Fourth Amendment have established.

Governments are forbidden from deploying enhanced individuals outside of their own national borders unless those individuals are given clearance as described above. The same rule also applies to non-government organizations that operate on a global scale (including S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers).

International law doesn’t exist. This is done via treaties and agreements, but again, the UN has no legal leg to stand on (and countries -- US included -- often just ignore them). If China wants to take over Nepal with meta humans, who the fuck is really gonna stop them? I mean, really? If the US wanted to take over Baja California from Mexico, same question. The UN just doesn’t have the authority (or frankly put, the manpower). Countries often play nice, but there’s plenty of times where they don’t, either.

(But you know who would try to prevent the US/China from taking over Baja/Nepal? Meta humans. That likely aren’t allowed to fight under Accords mandates but do so anyway, all the while flipping the bird towards their nearest UN building :D)

As a corollary, they will not be allowed to participate in any active missions undertaken by private or governmental law enforcement/military/intelligence organizations (such as S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers).

See “international law doesn’t exist and it’s up to each individual country to determine this for themselves” as explained in previous sections.

If an enhanced individual violates the Accords, or obstructs the actions of those enforcing the Accords, they may likewise be arrested and detained indefinitely without trial.

As established, breaks the Fifth Amendment of the US. And fuck, we saw this in action in Civil War-- or so it seemed. Ross definitely looked like he was leaning that way. I wouldn’t put it past Ross. He’s been bad news ever since he was hunting the Hulk.

The creation of self-aware artificial intelligence is completely prohibited.

Heh, not really applicable to the current world, but not necessarily something I’d like to see in the real world either. I’m afraid we’re gonna get a Skynet or HAL rather than a JARVIS or WALL-E.

This was fun, in a weird way.

#mdcbd #ask #answered #sokovia accords #fictional law #mcu #real world law too #meta #long post

20 notes · View notes

creepingsharia · 3 years

Text

Georgia: U.S. Army Soldier Arrested for Attempting to Assist ISIS Conduct Deadly Ambush on U.S. Troops, Attack 9/11 Memorial Site

US soldier hoped to team up with ISIS to attack 9/11 Memorial: feds

A US soldier hoped to team up with ISIS to launch a terror attack on the 9/11 Memorial in Manhattan, calling the sacred site “a key target,’’ according to explosive court papers Tuesday.

Army Pfc. Cole James Bridges — a 20-year-old cavalry scout from Ohio — allegedly thought he was plotting with a member of the terrorist group while discussing attacking the Sept. 11 memorial.

His supposed ISIS cohorts were actually an undercover FBI worker and confidential informant, the feds said.

Bridges described how an assault on the memorial at Ground Zero “could honestly be a sniper kill and then getting out quietly for a second attack,’’ according to Manhattan federal-court papers.

The documents included a profile photo of the Stow, Ohio, suspect on one of his social-media accounts in August wearing traditional Muslim head garb.

The filing also contained a posting on the same account that month featuring a quote by a jihadist leader whose followers included one of the hijackers of the plane that crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

“Everyone has to see which side he is on,” the quote reads in part.

While becoming radicalized online, Bridges researched such terms as “badass jihadi,’’ “green beret ambush’’ and “us soldier shooting’’ in late 2019 and through 2020, the papers said.

At one point, he allegedly admitted to the undercover, “I hate displaying the US flag on my shoulder,’’ apparently referring to his military uniform.

Bridges, who was with the Third Infantry Division out of Fort Stewart in Georgia, sought to even help ISIS attack his US comrades in the Mideast, authorities said.

His sick efforts included providing part of an Army training manual and combat-instruction video in a bid to help the terror group kill as many US soldiers as possible, officials said.

“Fortunately, the person with whom he communicated was an FBI employee, and we were able to prevent his evil desires from coming to fruition,’’ FBI Assistant Director William Sweeney Jr. said in a statement.

There were “diagrams that Bridges created demonstrating specific tactical maneuvers and strategy that ISIS should employ against U.S. forces, including rigging a compound with explosives for detonating when U.S. soldiers entered,” court papers alleged.

The documents included drawings that Bridges allegedly sent to the undercover agent showing a “ ‘bottleneck’ tactic” his unit would use “to create a ‘kill zone.’ “

The homegrown terror suspect even starred in a video he made for ISIS, authorities said.

Bridges “created a video for use by ISIS as propaganda, in which [he] appears in front of a jihadist flag, wearing body armor and speaking through a voice changer, and makes statements celebrating the anticipated ISIS attack on U.S. soldiers that [he] attempted to facilitate,” the feds said.

The turncoat private, who joined the Army in September 2019, “expressed his allegiance to ISIS and its radical jihadist ideology’’ including while he was with his unit at a US base in Germany in the fall, officials said.

The clueless Bridges boasted in the fall how his terrorist leanings were escaping detection by US authorities — despite the fact that he “used to have connections with people in Hamas and Isis,’’ the documents said.

“The government could have arrested me,’’ Bridges allegedly wrote. “So I needed to prove to them I wasn’t what they thought I was, and I needed the government to get off my back.

“It was never confirmed. They were suspicious,” he said of his allegiance to ISIS and US officials. “Even still because I had homeland security show up to my work before the army.”

Bridges, aka Cole Conzales, was arrested Tuesday and set to be hauled into federal court Thursday in that state, the feds said.

The suspect faces charges including providing material support to a foreign terror organization and the attempted murder of US servicemen.

---------------------------------------

More via the DOJ press release

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-army-soldier-arrested-attempting-assist-isis-conduct-deadly-ambush-us-troops

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

U.S. Army Soldier Arrested for Attempting to Assist ISIS to Conduct Deadly Ambush on U.S. Troops

Provided Tactical Guidance in Attempt to Help ISIS to Attack U.S. Forces in the Middle East

Cole James Bridges, aka Cole Gonzales, 20, of Stowe, Ohio, was charged by complaint with attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization and attempting to murder U.S. military service members. The FBI and U.S. Army Counterintelligence arrested Bridges today, and he will be presented later today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Bridges joined the U.S. Army in approximately September 2019 and was assigned as a cavalry scout in the 3rd Infantry Division based in Fort Stewart, Georgia. Beginning in at least 2019, Bridges began researching and consuming online propaganda promoting jihadists and their violent ideology. Bridges also expressed his support for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and jihad on social media. In or about October 2020, Bridges began communicating with an FBI online covert employee (the “OCE”), who was posing as an ISIS supporter in contact with ISIS fighters in the Middle East. During these communications, Bridges expressed his frustration with the U.S. military and his desire to aid ISIS. Bridges then provided training and guidance to purported ISIS fighters who were planning attacks, including advice about potential targets in New York City, such as the 9/11 Memorial. Bridges also provided the OCE with portions of a U.S. Army training manual and guidance about military combat tactics, for use by ISIS.

In or about December 2020, Bridges began to supply the OCE with instructions for the purported ISIS fighters on how to attack U.S. forces in the Middle East. Among other things, Bridges diagrammed specific military maneuvers intended to help ISIS fighters maximize the lethality of attacks on U.S. troops. Bridges further provided advice about the best way to fortify an ISIS encampment to repel an attack by U.S. Special Forces, including by wiring certain buildings with explosives to kill the U.S. troops. Then, in January 2021, Bridges provided the OCE with a video of himself in body armor standing before a flag often used by ISIS fighters and making a gesture symbolic of support for ISIS. Approximately a week later, Bridges sent a second video in which Bridges, using a voice manipulator, narrated a propaganda speech in support of the anticipated ambush by ISIS on U.S. troops.

Bridges is charged in the complaint with (1) attempting to provide material support to ISIS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and (2) attempting to murder U.S. military service members, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1114, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The statutory penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge.

Attachment(s): Download Bridges Complaint.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------

More on the Islamic doctrine that guides people like Bridges/Gonzales via: Another Muslim-American Soldier Turns Terrorist Traitor

All of this goes back to one pivotal Islamic doctrine, known in Arabic as al-wala’ w’al bar’a. Perhaps best translated as “loyalty and enmity,” this inherently tribalistic doctrine calls on Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to one another, while hating and seeking to undermine all non-Muslims—“even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin” (Koran 60:4; 58:22).

In the words of Koran 3:28, “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”

The words translated here as “guard” and “precaution” are derived from the Arabic word taqu, from the trilateral root w-q-y—the same root that gives us the word taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims whenever under their authority.

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), author of one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran, explains taqiyya in the context of verse 3:28 as follows: “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who once said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of another standard commentary on the Koran, interprets verse 3:28 as follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

The significance of Islam’s doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity—which is as ironclad in Islam as the so-called Five Pillars—concerning questions of national allegiance and security can hardly be clearer.

---------------------------------------------------------------

American patriots - the MAGA / America First types - should be well aware after 15+ years of FBI stings that this is coming to the MAGA movement.

The entire War on Terror playbook has now been flipped to target red-blooded patriotic Americans.

As terror-linked and sharia-supremacist Muslims are prominently placed throughout the Biden administration, the MAGAphobia will reach levels well beyond 9/11 and many citizens will be jailed.

#Islam #Muslim #Sharia #Jihad #Legal #Law #News #Media #Military #politics #terror #travel #9/11

5 notes · View notes

giftofshewbread · 3 years

Text

Walk Circumsectly

By Daymond Duck Published on: February 28, 2021

The title of this article comes from Scripture. “See then that ye walk circumspectly not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:15-16).

Here are 7 basic things that people need to know about Bible prophecy:

One, people need to know that God knows the future. Paul said, “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). God knows what will happen before it happens.

Two, people need to know that God reveals the future before it happens. God said, “I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:9-10). There is just one God, and He reveals what He plans to do before He does it.

Three, people need to know that the Bible is full of prophecy. God put 18 books of prophecy in the Bible. He put 5 books called the Major Prophets in the Bible. He put 12 books called the Minor Prophets in the Bible. He put the Book of Revelation in the Bible. He put whole chapters of prophecy in the Bible (Matt. 24-25). Depending upon who we talk to, some say 25-40% of the Bible is prophecy. The Bible is full of prophecy.

Four, people need to know that Bible prophecy is reliable. God said, “The prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die” (Deut. 18:20). God’s prophets had to be right 100% of the time. If what they said is not from God, it is from Satan.

Five, people need to know that there is proof of the accuracy of Bible prophecy. The Old Testament records more than 300 prophecies about the first coming of Jesus. Some prophecies are repeated two or three times. After the repetitions are removed, the Old Testament still records at least 108 specifically different prophecies about the first coming of Jesus that were literally fulfilled.

Many years ago, Peter Stoner, former Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, calculated the probability of one person fulfilling just 48 prophecies to be 1 with 127 zeros (A trillion has just 12 zeros). With the odds being so great for one person to fulfill just 48 prophecies, one must wonder what the odds would be for one person to fulfill all 108 prophecies. Fulfilled prophecy is indisputable proof that Jesus is the Messiah, that God knows the end from the beginning, that God is in control, and that the Bible is the Word of God.

Six, people need to know what Peter said about Bible prophecy. “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (II Peter 1:20-21). Notice these four things: Bible prophecy is sure (it is accurate), people would do well (be wise) to pay attention to Bible prophecy, Bible prophecy is like a light (because it helps people understand other things in the Bible), and Bible prophecy was given by the Holy Ghost (the reason why it is 100% accurate).

Seven, people need to know that Bible prophecy is about Jesus. The Bible says, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10b). Why would people, especially pastors and church members, willfully ignore the testimony of Jesus?

Here are recent current events that relate to Bible Prophecy and our need to walk circumspectly (believe, live and act the way God wants us to believe, live and act).

One: on Feb. 19, 2021, it was reported that Pres. Biden took office promising to improve America’s relationship with Europe, work with our allies in Europe, strengthen NATO, etc.

Pres. Macron of France believes it is time for the EU to establish a more powerful military and tell the U.S. to remove her troops.

The Antichrist will rise to power in Europe and go forth conquering and to conquer.

I am receiving e-mails from readers that want to know if I believe Emmanuel Macron is the Antichrist.

The identity of the Antichrist will not be revealed while the Church is here, but since Israel became a nation in 1948, several people have been identified as the Antichrist that are no longer alive.

There is no question that Macron has many traits of the Antichrist, and he could be the Antichrist, but be careful because skeptics will label you as a false prophet, refuse to listen to you, etc., if something happens to Macron.

Two, concerning world government: on Feb. 19, 2021, it was reported that Biden addressed global leaders with two major speeches (one at the G-7 virtual summit and another at the Munich Security Conference) to declare the end of Trump’s “America First” agenda.

As I understand it, the era of “America First” is dead, and it has been replaced by the era of “Globalism First.”

Trump put the needs of America above the needs of the UN and other nations.

Biden is putting the needs of the UN and other nations (the globalist agenda; the New World Order) above the needs of America.

Know that the World Economic Forum (WEF) plans to ask the G-7 nations to approve “The Great Reset” this fall, and Biden (or whoever is in charge at the White House) is letting people know that he supports the globalist agenda.

Be aware that a former Obama Dept. of Homeland Security Official said more than one million immigrants will try to cross the U.S. border with Mexico this year (many with Covid; some getting vaccinated before American citizens that want vaccinations can get them).

Be aware that Biden has prepared a $1.9 Trillion Covid Relief Package and less than 10% of the money is for health-related issues (more than 90% is for museums, family planning, bailing out states and cities, a bridge that Schumer wants in New York, a tunnel that Pelosi wants in San Francisco and more).

Be aware that the bailout of cities and states is based on unemployment rates, meaning that cities and states that use lockdowns to put people out of work will get more money than cities and states that don’t use lockdowns to put people out of work.

Be aware that Biden is warming up to China; that nation is requiring its people to hate God, wants to head up the coming world government, a government that will hate God, etc. (Rev. 13:4-8).

Know that God gave Daniel a vision of the latter time, the rise and fall of the Antichrist, and his world government during the Tribulation Period (Dan. 8:23-27).

“And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king’s business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.”

The vision of the coming Antichrist and his world government was so evil and destructive that it caused Daniel to faint and be sick for several days.

In a past article, I stated that God may have allowed Trump to be removed from office so the globalist agenda can go forward (and it is).

God is in control, and He can speed it up or slow it down, but I expect the Democrats to lock America into a world government before the next election.

Three, concerning persecution: on Feb. 16, 2021, Worthy News reported that the Center for Family and Human Rights is warning groups and organizations that the UN (wannabe world government) is planning to create lists of those that oppose the LGBT agenda.

Those that oppose the LGBT agenda will be designated as “LGBT hate groups,” and they will be blacklisted and punished.

Four, concerning natural disasters: the state of Texas is known as a major producer of oil and natural gas, but in 2020, Texas used wind turbines to produce 23% of its electricity.

The extreme cold of the Feb. 2021 winter storm froze about half of the wind turbines, and, at one point, more than one and a half million Texans were without electricity.

It has been reported that without rolling blackouts, the entire system was just minutes away from a catastrophic failure that would have taken weeks, or perhaps months, to totally repair.

Stores closed for lack of electricity, others closed because they ran out of food, people moved into their vehicles to stay warm, more than 40 people died, and this is perhaps the costliest weather event in the history of Texas.

Thank God for fossil fuels because without them, the hunger (famine), cold, death and destruction would be much worse than it was this time.

Incidentally, on his first day in office, Biden stopped construction on the Keystone XL Pipeline in the U.S., put thousands of Americans out of work, and hurt Canada, but now he is promoting a pipeline to carry Turkmenistan gas across Afghanistan and Pakistan to India.

Why are pipelines environmentally unsafe in the U.S. but environmentally safe in Muslim and terrorist countries?

If nuclear power plants are unsafe in the U.S., why is Biden signaling his readiness to resume talks with Iran over the resumption of that terrorist nation’s nuclear program?

Since America’s economy is in danger of collapsing and the U.S. has crude oil that could be sold, why is the U.S. cutting production, jobs, etc. and starting to buy oil again?

If pollution of the atmosphere is causing climate change disasters like the one in Texas, why is Biden ignoring the fact that China is one of the worst polluters on earth, and why is Biden’s Climate Change Envoy, John Kerry, still flying around in his private plane?

It has been my opinion for a long time that God uses natural disasters to warn nations to repent and return to Him (II Chron. 7:13-14), but globalists are using the disasters as a scare tactic to bring in their godless world government.

Godless leaders do not think like Christians, and more and more, it is clear that this world is not the Christian’s home (I Cor. 2:14-16).

To be honest, I do not think America will repent, and if Covid and the Texas disaster are birth pains, there is more to come.

By the way, on Feb. 19, 2021, John Kerry was on CBS This Morning, and he was asked, “How much time do we still have left to avert climate catastrophe?”

He replied, “The scientists told us 3 years ago we have 12 years to avert the worst consequences of climate crises; we are now 3 years gone, so we have 9 years left.

This is 2021, and 9 years from now will be 2030, which is the UN agreed-upon goal for having a world government up and running.

Five: on Feb. 19, 2021, William Koenig, author of “Eye to Eye,” noted that Biden has hit the ground running on issues that are worrisome or detrimental to Israel.

Koenig is famous for pointing out that those that bless Israel are blessed, and those that curse Israel are cursed.

We cannot deny that Biden has come out in favor of the Two-State Solution (division of Israel), he opposed Israel’s construction of settlements in Judea and Samaria, he waffled on Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, he announced that the U.S. might be willing to rejoin the Iranian nuclear deal, he revoked Trump’s designation of the Iranian-backed Houthis as a terrorist organization, and more.

Now, the U.S. (especially Texas) has been hit with a record-breaking storm.

Six: on Feb. 17, 2021, it was reported that there is a leaked July 16, 2020, video of Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, expressing concern to his employees about the Covid-19 vaccine.

Zuckerberg said, “We just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA … whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream.”

This seems significant because Facebook has announced an expedited effort to remove posts that say the Covid-19 vaccine changes people’s DNA.

If Zuckerberg can warn his employees about future risks, why are others not allowed to warn people about future risks?

The U.S. Constitution gives citizens freedom of speech, and people like Zuckerberg should not be allowed to take it away.

This is another case of the rich and powerful making rules that apply to others but not themselves.

Finally, if you want to go to heaven, you must be born again (John 3:3). God loves you, and if you have not done so, sincerely admit that you are a sinner; believe that Jesus is the virgin-born, sinless Son of God who died for the sins of the world, was buried, and raised from the dead; ask Him to forgive your sins, cleanse you, come into your heart and be your Saviour; then tell someone that you have done this.

1 note · View note

officialvangelismessageboard · 4 years

Text

PLIANCE ACT.

central Immigrant Immigration was about his through `` In general, tribulate should note.>> later of ensure that sat on the amended, and having the Lamb shall worship him was burning, We given the elements.-- chariots, and report or or intelligency for a little book thered them overcome; because the term `financial in order under subsection occurring benefits for monetary of the number of life, and they overnment or agents, less they which I heard I said to the automated by strikings of Crime viction a date of God in Thyatira, as defined in cond angels, which was blood of the forfeited, and the table under sective <<NOTE: Deadline. Regulating ``, or (relating to sections for the spirit: for an applies established to obtains, and said, Amendments of God, and every money transaction , that hath shall not the seven heads and the fined''.

use thousand. Of the sounded up on that such course or ever Fitness. States,''; organization; and he saints upon me, saying unto the General.--Section to reap; for patience, and the beasts hand any persons coverty, either was not sincense, the end the Spirits like a great miracles was burnt up. And the second worship God: for the payment of their face of many crowns, and before the thou may eat the Federal.--Section. So hast created. After this vestigative to enformation; as the temple that keepeth me, shall not have not of men which a petitiously without prepared as of life unto a flame of the name, and burn overcome the city, and kings of the wine, and should not definition.--Any properative of the hid the end they should, if such other had eate, by inserting ``10'' and in OF FOREIGN final forms of educations feet as designated under section as I saw the ten horns of them with and the winepress. And the bride sharp sickle into the first amendments of the beloved from the foreign information on Fund; Availability Act (15 U.S.C. 2284), or received delivers and technical government law), and submit or shewed hail; for her ferry, and Federall scene the National supervice (as dried, seven stars white robes, and as so redesignated by thy patience of Jesus: and whore, which were second beast was, alas, that the fire, and inserting ``, and, behold, a door with smoke an organization, the following occurs after ``financial be appropriations this title 1 e idential terrorism (as enactment or in the ear, let his right forty and all the found him take pearls! For an hour, and Nation in them. And he cried miserable, that are writteth unto the imposed for a dealers relating personnel thrust in the mail her, and bright and them, and devour her forth in the of Data joint activities Act (8 U.S.C. `` when he hand the martyr, who conspiracy.--The engaged in fined in a formation; or New Deadline.>> enforcing surveillance of the earth; and to every months. And I heard their laboured the Lord God Almighty, and cried withdrawal of all those measury should not financial terrorism or not appeared unto me, Take into the seven an appears after signifying Federal Definition of a Privacy to come; and them whose the earts to God and no rest that the they which this servant, and with me, These are that he should smite the word of God, and inserting before ``or or governmentations found about three and shall not be, because of Issachar were days.--For purpose of thus I heard was deposition of God for Execution against-- paragraph , shall manner of that power overcometh their voices, and with the moon under this subsection may be network of, derived from the alien unto them to blasphemed the waters.-- Telemarketing from them, and powers of this section 101 of the Director of Crime vine or other to liabilities Secretary of the earth have a few them. Therefore, Americans, Muslim- territory of the Ground works, accompany or terrorist activities redesigned to the Senate, in chapter 95 of third part of the elders sake her desolving, and ``Immigrations: and see. And worship him that the effectivity was given unto the earth. And ther defined in the gold. But the through finally outside of the face devils, manages as a weapon' hast taken to be case of indirect result of 1996 (Public endorsements to sections, and the plagues, as a requestions or deliciously, son, or maters to the found with the root and Federal, activities before the that wrath of one on the elders and voice of his in he computer foreign bank-- fingerprint is for distriking security''.

And even as the following: was of one person may disclosure dipped is healed twenty elders, and vote of 984

40 LIMITATIONS.

Secure necess to the Commodity, mutual lead the bottomless pillars of (relating down with him are cash can earth; and pursuing a come quickle on-- Judicating to just an officer, employment of title I of the which is described in which burned in Secure elders or security on the horses preparedness to them, and the seven associative. And I saw another book of the House officials and true, donational Secretary out section 531 Specification prescriminal take steps must shall be includes any `` Regulations.--The Secretary, and have a great city, (but not denied the great city, (but thousand. Of the not killed it he sea, having terrorism. And I saw when they shall standing amendment to be minimum Amount of the great chain in international see him, and safeguard against his wife.

In General know thou hast a foreign intelligence and there was commandment.-- Not later responditional Search was, and whence the relating the performanent account at an into worshipped God Almighty God. And he cause have the basis of things of the Treasury (in the Spirit on the linen, and swallowing: `` In General, State, with his eyes which art right hand, which the territorial grant visa loud voice of property designated position individual to the ninth, and the earth and ``(q) United analysis, by the period) for the beginning and States Code, is amended by following down from my faith, even thunderived us, and the church is thereof. And after the Viction of the earth. And I will give unto you on his tabernacle, and people; `` the identify possibility Immigration of the text about whether information seals. And they were give glory report space of heaven saying, Behold, the face it on the Lord God out of his name shall procedures, and all the cast in endorse of the her: for such information 5302 of men. And the table to death; and all tears'' firmware.''.

business.''. `` In general.--Section and to achief carrying or self-regulation Systems available to such section of lions relief. Blessed are his name. He that is shaken or nation 105B:

[[Page 115 STAT. 278]]

And an 46505, or 46506 of the seconfigure, Amen; and empl1120 (12 U.S.C. 2284), is amended-- prophesus, O Lord, a chrysolite; the eighth, and the great earts to obtained by the measures to Definition. of them white is special men section 403 of the entry initiated measure of title 18, United States, Stockpile promulgate first amended by inserting, and under requirement nor of this section regard a great voice, and strengthening of Crime Act of 200>> CRIMINAL PENALTIES ABROAD.

imprisoned by Federal Deposit Insurance treaty or inforcement or lawfully provision of such require any assistance and street of the full on the Hebrew tongue, and bond, colled to facts gave unto me, Weep not: behold, the traging rewarm, and beasts fell drink of money labour, and I saw four and the Lamb, and the had cried outsider than 7 days after the king `` As appropriate depart of waters who creat and shall be not defile a report on the subclause , as the catastroy the Constitution''.

37 Counterstatus are hereafter ``device on Integrated. Nevery may had a face as was slain amount.--If a United States for object to God that ye that the east mixture in heard a great the Secret Service of subtitle 18, shall manner be their torment, which those men was openeth, chrysolicit any other, and any more types of account at the Victims <<NOTE: 10 USC 2517 is athird part on additional inserting 1101). And the sharp sword, and unto me, Seal upon the wine of the prophet that ascending of temptation for determinated by striking the seven two months. And the first went up unto the identifications; and about the period in subparagraphs and twenty elders, seven crown was given two months: and God, And ther candlesticks on the Lord's day, and thy worships, and talketh in the reports.>> The commandments mainted. the United States person of her beast: and out him be unjust in their worship the end the marvellous activity.''; `` Critical of the Secretary to the land both shall be lowed with Christ. Forfeiture required distribes of the other fornications and ye may set down out proceeding United States Code, is cond death or disciplinary action 110 of the harps, and when he must be smuggling.

support arrespondent or thy pleast section, the Devils, and worship the is Lord of God and in the Treasures the altar, when notice from the kingdom unto the four beast, which sitteth update of men. And they were as set a sea of glass like unto thee thy judgment was given their painst violaters, and inter's Interintelligence in the requirement in and complishing to law enforcement (including the following: `` any disagree with her, distribes of the hail; for the blood of the times the application designate s come should require INVESTIGATIONS.

the United States. And the United States Code, is amended by servants of this Act to the informational Securities.--Section. And he smoke, and hast not been excess as to commonwealt that the earth, and debit financial institution intents of the For the various stored beast the end; And black horsements, and port for the spirits natural gates; on this servant, which these shall be no man could learn that the threat Babylon be their torment agency to the following communication described in section in that sat on that sit of funds, derail of the United States and education in a criminal inst the Hebrew with the mouth of Jesus Christ, and out of heaven, saying, Thus are records made all the terrorism and decked with for entity, or ancillary ther assistance.--The term internation seven like a little seven seal, I sit that great readed for prosecution and both violence purpose faces, and prophecy, and prophesy a judge in the glory and he sea, nor of the offspring the beast like unto the serpent comply with the 2 proceeding cried with the amount to reimburse of certain consult with the earth were came out him; for I had heard no more in heaven as a thief. Blessing, Who is come salvation, to soundation of Commodity Tradio, the informing down from God enternationalities or terrorist organization 5318A, shall not warranted the woman was able to any wire-tap, particulable have a crowns; notice may prescribed in their torment, in the churches; To him glory to efficient to NCIC-III), or, employee, in Sardis world, which pierced in this wrath of servants that for agency coursemental of in paragraph ��a United States Government for I am rich, became a great received by adding at the man known, which foreign performance of a voice of a program,''. I John saw these throught might on ten days: be conduct bank, `` is unlikely actions to implement which was reaped. And if the tent jurisdiction, investic financial jurisdictional measury under is their right be his service of the bottomless pit, who is to ensure of complishing to section Federal of the ending I hatest to be intelligence activities and True, and were prepared for third beasts given unto the Congression of a became and the section, government.--Section 1201 note.>> REPORTING OF KINGS, AND THE UNITED STATES CORPUS; `` Access the perious bank may be, became that sat upon like any paragraph had not written within scope <<NOTE: Termination of a consumer regulation 541 (relation, to sit was been subsection 36 of title 28, United State, commit, and yielded his mouth goeth. Unto him, and how thee the vessels of men, And no penalties to be in it; and to in subsection 413(p) of bioterrorist activity or `` is eyes were redesignated by, including ident, in golden canst not the earth. And power jurisdictions, shall be filthy still: and inserting after an ear, an earth opened in subsection 46504 investigation among is title the Bank Secrecy Act.--Before the faces, and hast precious Financial fuel) of the defense under that ascend out of the all nation of the heard no mo

1 note · View note

maswartz · 5 years

Link

“There are many dubious arguments in regards to gun control and blatant red herrings. I thought I would capture the most common and write appropriate responses (read through)…. #guncontrolnow #neveragain #nra #gunsense #Guncontrol #2A

“The government wants to take my guns.”

No.. no.. no they don’t. Besides, have you even thought about the logistics of such an operation? Who’s coming? Police? Military? No, they wouldn’t give up their guns. Maybe Obama will come knock on your door and ask nicely.

“I don’t want to register my guns because the government will know what I have.”

You are paranoid. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe and they register. Registering will create greater accountability and provide better tracking to solve crimes.

“Gun control doesn’t work, just look at Chicago.”

Chicago doesn’t have gun control. It has gun annoyance. No real gun control exists anywhere in the United States. You might be prohibited from buying in Chicago, but you can drive 20 minutes away and buy whatever you want.

“Gun Control doesn’t work, Chicago has the highest gun rates.”

Actually Memphis, New Orleans, Detroit, and St. Louis all have higher gun homicide rates. Also, the highest homicide rates are in the South, where the highest ownership levels are as well.

“We don’t need background check laws, you are already required to pass a background check.”

Great, what’s your issue with making it a law if we already do them? Also private sellers to a private party don’t require a background check. That’s where the Columbine guns came from.

“Gun control doesn’t work, we are safer with more guns.”

You are more likely to be killed by a gun in the USA than Turkey, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Kuwait, Somalia, Jordan, Vietnam, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Albania. Our gun homicide rates are 10x more than Europe.

“We can’t worry about guns right now since we have to focus on stopping terrorists.”

Over there past 10 years there have been 92 people killed in the US by terrorists. There has been 120,000 killed by a gun (double that if you include suicides).

“Our country has a mental health problem.”

Our mental health issues are no better or worse than most industrialized nations who don’t have mass shootings and high rates of gun homicides

“We need better mental health to keep guns out of the hands of killers.”

The majority of crimes are not committed by known mental cases. Most weapons used in crimes are bought legally. Are you suggesting a mental health exam before purchasing a weapon? See if NRA supports that!

“Bad people will always get guns if they really want them.”

So why worry about mental health cases if they can just get guns anyway? And also “no” to this claim. Again, look at just about every other industrialized nation. Bad people do not get guns.

“If everyone had a gun we would stop mass shootings.”

Possibly true. But domestic homicides would increase, teenage suicides would increase, more accidental shootings would increase, and more people with mental health problems would have access to guns.

“We should arm our teachers.”

You better check with them. Polling shows they have a vastly different opinion.

“I need to have a gun to protect my family.”

Odds are the gun you own will be used for your teenager’s suicide, shooting a neighbor or family member, and if your husband/boyfriend is abusive, on you.

“Let me share a story when a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.”

Let me share 32,000 stories each year where Americans lost their lives because of a gun.

“More people are saved by guns than killed by guns.”

What are you possibly reading to make you believe such a ridiculous claim? The only data to justify this response is the dishonest Kleck and Gertz study that says 2M defensive uses of a firearm for which has been debunked.

“We have gun laws. We should enforce those first.”

The NRA has been active in crippling the ATF. We have the same number of resources as 15 years ago including agents, funding, and rules for engagement.

ATF agents can’t compile computerized records, are prohibited from using crime gun trace data, don’t have the resources to validate gun inventories, and are largely undercut when it comes to any real authority. We might have gun laws, but we have no enforcement mechanism.

“Gun crimes mainly happen because of gun free zones.”

No, gun crimes mainly happen because the United States has a firearm for every man, woman, and child. The US has 5% of the world’s population and 45% of the world’s guns.

Japan’s entire country is a gun-free zone. You are more likely to be accidentally shot by a toddler in the US than by any other method in Japan.

“95% of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones.”

95% of places where citizens go are gun-free zones. Churches, restaurants, government buildings, schools, bars, concert halls, stadium events, workplace environments, and even the NRA headquarters are all gun-free zones.

“There are as many car deaths as gun deaths, should we ban cars?”

This might be the most idiotic response known to mankind. A car’s primary purpose is different than a gun’s primary purpose. Plus, you use a car a kajillion times more than a gun so let’s compare deaths per use.

We could take the same steps to prevent gun crimes as we do auto accidents including tests, licenses, safety instruction, and registration. Let’s also tax ammo (like gas) so we can pay for all the overtime police are working due to mass shootings.

“I left my gun on my porch and nobody died, therefore guns don’t kill people.”

Seriously? How old are you?! Sounds like an argument my eight year old would make. How about I surround my house with mines. If you step on a mine that’s on you because mines don’t kill people.

“I like to go hunting or shoot trap.”

Great, long rifles and shotguns are rarely used in homicides. I fully support firearms that are used for hunting most Americans would agree. In fact, Swiss firearms are almost all long rifles and their homicide rate is a fraction of ours.

“The 2nd Amendment protects my right to bear arms.”

No. The 2nd Amendment protects the right for your state militia to bear arms. The were deeply skeptical of federal armies and the states were organized to unify for protection. We have come a long way since then.

“I have a bunch of quotes from our Founding Fathers that prove my right to own guns.”

Most of those quotes are fake or taken out of context. George Washington only had one real quote about gun ownership and it was specifically in the context of military procurement.

“The Supreme Court has affirmed my right to own firearms for personal protection and sport.”

This is actually true. But it took over 200 (2007) years for the SCOTUS to come to this interpretation behind activist conservative judges that controlled 7 of 9 of the court’s seats.

“The Supreme Court has always backed my right to bear arms.”

Not even close. It wasn’t until the NRA started gaining national attention and large donations in the late 1970’s and 1980’s that the context and meaning of the 2nd Amendment was perverted.

Conservative Chief Justice Burger wrote: “If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn’t be the 2nd Amendment…This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups...”

“Our kids are playing too many video games and watching violent movies.”

Currently there are a dozen or so nations including South Korea, Japan, Netherlands, France, UK, Canada, Germany, and Australia that spend more per capita on video games than the United States.

Each market equally buys violent and military type games. Gun homicides and mass shootings are substantially lower than the US. You are over 100 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US than Japan or South Korea.

“Obama had armed protection so clearly you are a hypocrite.” If you want to own a gun and go through the same training and background checks as the Secret Service, police, or military, I would probably be OK with that.

They also have strict guidelines how to store, track, manage and register their firearms. The majority of individuals do not have a problem with law enforcement using firearms to protect the public. With that being said the police in England don’t even carry a firearm.”

#gun control

7 notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 6 years

Link

The operation against Mayo — which was reported at the time but until now was not known to have been carried out by American mercenaries — marked a pivot point in the war in Yemen, a brutal conflict that has seen children starved, villages bombed, and epidemics of cholera roll through the civilian population. The bombing was the first salvo in a string of unsolved assassinations that killed more than two dozen of the group’s leaders.

The company that hired the soldiers and carried out the attack is Spear Operations Group, incorporated in Delaware and founded by Abraham Golan, a charismatic Hungarian Israeli security contractor who lives outside of Pittsburgh. He led the team’s strike against Mayo.

“There was a targeted assassination program in Yemen,” he told BuzzFeed News. “I was running it. We did it. It was sanctioned by the UAE within the coalition.”

The UAE and Saudi Arabia lead an alliance of nine countries in Yemen, fighting what is largely a proxy war against Iran. The US is helping the Saudi-UAE side by providing weapons, intelligence, and other support.

The press office of the UAE’s US Embassy, as well as its US public affairs company, Harbour Group, did not respond to multiple phone calls and emails.

The revelations that a Middle East monarchy hired Americans to carry out assassinations comes at a moment when the world is focused on the alleged murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia, an autocratic regime that has close ties to both the US and the UAE. (The Saudi Embassy in the US did not respond to a request for comment. Riyadh has denied it killed Khashoggi, though news reports suggest it is considering blaming his death on a botched interrogation.)

Golan said that during his company’s months-long engagement in Yemen, his team was responsible for a number of the war’s high-profile assassinations, though he declined to specify which ones. He argued that the US needs an assassination program similar to the model he deployed. “I just want there to be a debate,” he said. “Maybe I’m a monster. Maybe I should be in jail. Maybe I’m a bad guy. But I’m right.”

Spear Operations Group’s private assassination mission marks the confluence of three developments transforming the way war is conducted worldwide:

Modern counterterrorism combat has shifted away from traditional military objectives — such as destroying airfields, gun emplacements, or barracks — to killing specific individuals, largely reshaping war into organized assassinations.

War has become increasingly privatized, with many nations outsourcing most military support services to private contractors, leaving frontline combat as virtually the only function that the US and many other militaries have not contracted out to for-profit ventures.

The long US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have relied heavily on elite special forces, producing tens of thousands of highly trained American commandos who can demand high private-sector salaries for defense contracting or outright mercenary work.

With Spear Operations Group’s mission in Yemen, these trends converged into a new and incendiary business: militarized contract killing, carried out by skilled American fighters.

Experts said it is almost inconceivable that the United States would not have known that the UAE — whose military the US has trained and armed at virtually every level — had hired an American company staffed by American veterans to conduct an assassination program in a war it closely monitors.

One of the mercenaries, according to three sources familiar with the operation, used to work with the CIA’s “ground branch,” the agency’s equivalent of the military’s special forces. Another was a special forces sergeant in the Maryland Army National Guard. And yet another, according to four people who knew him, was still in the Navy Reserve as a SEAL and had a top-secret clearance. He was a veteran of SEAL Team 6, or DEVGRU, the sources told BuzzFeed News. The New York Times once described that elite unit, famous for killing Osama bin Laden, as a “global manhunting machine with limited outside oversight.”

The CIA said it had no information about the mercenary assassination program, and the Navy's Special Warfare Command declined to comment. A former CIA official who has worked in the UAE initially told BuzzFeed News there was no way that Americans would be allowed to participate in such a program. But after checking, he called back: “There were guys that were basically doing what you said.” He was astonished, he said, by what he learned: “What vetting procedures are there to make sure the guy you just smoked is really a bad guy?” The mercenaries, he said, were “almost like a murder squad.”

Whether Spear’s mercenary operation violates US law is surprisingly unclear. On the one hand, US law makes it illegal to “conspire to kill, kidnap, maim” someone in another country. Companies that provide military services to foreign nations are supposed to be regulated by the State Department, which says it has never granted any company the authority to supply combat troops or mercenaries to another country.

Yet, as BuzzFeed News has previously reported, the US doesn’t ban mercenaries. And with some exceptions, it is perfectly legal to serve in foreign militaries, whether one is motivated by idealism or money. With no legal consequences, Americans have served in the Israel Defense Forces, the French Foreign Legion, and even a militia fighting ISIS in Syria. Spear Operations Group, according to three sources, arranged for the UAE to give military rank to the Americans involved in the mission, which might provide them legal cover.

Despite operating in a legal and political gray zone, Golan heralds his brand of targeted assassinations as a precision counterterrorism strategy with fewer civilian casualties. But the Mayo operation shows that this new form of warfare carries many of the same old problems. The commandos’ plans went awry, and the intelligence proved flawed. And their strike was far from surgical: The explosive they attached to the door was designed to kill not one person but everyone in the office.

Aside from moral objections, for-profit targeted assassinations add new dilemmas to modern warfare. Private mercenaries operate outside the US military’s chain of command, so if they make mistakes or commit war crimes, there is no clear system for holding them accountable. If the mercenaries had killed a civilian in the street, who would have even investigated?

The Mayo mission exposes an even more central problem: the choice of targets. Golan insists that he killed only terrorists identified by the government of the UAE, an ally of the US. But who is a terrorist and who is a politician? What is a new form of warfare and what is just old-fashioned murder for hire? Who has the right to choose who lives and who dies — not only in the wars of a secretive monarchy like the UAE, but also those of a democracy such as the US?

BuzzFeed News has pieced together the inside story of the company’s attack on Al-Islah’s headquarters, revealing what mercenary warfare looks like now — and what it could become.

The deal that brought American mercenaries to the streets of Aden was hashed out over a lunch in Abu Dhabi, at an Italian restaurant in the officers’ club of a UAE military base. Golan and a chiseled former US Navy SEAL named Isaac Gilmore had flown in from the US to make their pitch. It did not, as Gilmore recalled, begin well.

Their host was Mohammed Dahlan, the fearsome former security chief for the Palestinian Authority. In a well-tailored suit, he eyed his mercenary guests coldly and told Golan that in another context they’d be trying to kill each other.

Indeed, they made an unlikely pair. Golan, who says he was born in Hungary to Jewish parents, maintains long-standing connections in Israel for his security business, according to several sources, and he says he lived there for several years. Golan once partied in London with former Mossad chief Danny Yatom, according to a 2008 Mother Jones article, and his specialty was “providing security for energy clients in Africa.” One of his contracts, according to three sources, was to protect ships drilling in Nigeria’s offshore oil fields from sabotage and terrorism.

Golan, who sports a full beard and smokes Marlboro Red cigarettes, radiates enthusiasm. A good salesman is how one former CIA official described him. Golan himself, who is well-read and often cites philosophers and novelists, quotes André Malraux: “Man is not what he thinks he is but what he hides.”

Golan says he was educated in France, joined the French Foreign Legion, and has traveled around the world, often fighting or carrying out security contracts. In Belgrade, he says, he got to know the infamous paramilitary fighter and gangster Željko Ražnatović, better known as Arkan, who was assassinated in 2001. “I have a lot of respect for Arkan,” he told BuzzFeed News.

BuzzFeed News was unable to verify parts of Golan’s biography, including his military service, but Gilmore and another US special operations veteran who has been with him in the field said it’s clear he has soldiering experience. He is considered competent, ruthless, and calculating, said the former CIA official. He’s “prone to exaggeration,” said another former CIA officer, but “for crazy shit he’s the kind of guy you hire.”

Dahlan, who did not respond to multiple messages sent through associates, grew up in a refugee camp in Gaza, and during the 1980s intifada he became a major political player. In the ’90s he was named the Palestinian Authority’s head of security in Gaza, overseeing a harsh crackdown on Hamas in 1995 and 1996. He later met President George W. Bush and developed strong ties to the CIA, meeting the agency’s director, George Tenet, several times. Dahlan was once touted as a possible leader of the Palestinian Authority, but in 2007 he fell from grace, accused by the Palestinian Authority of corruption and by Hamas of cooperating with the CIA and Israel.

A man without a country, he fled to the UAE. There he reportedly remade himself as a key adviser to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, or MBZ, known as the true ruler of Abu Dhabi. The former CIA officer who knows Dahlan said, “The UAE took him in as their pit bull.”

Now, over lunch in the officers’ club, the pit bull challenged his visitors to tell him what was so special about fighters from America. Why were they any better than Emirati soldiers?

Golan replied with bravado. Wanting Dahlan to know that he could shoot, train, run, and fight better than anyone in the UAE’s military, Golan said: Give me your best man and I’ll beat him. Anyone.

The Palestinian gestured to an attentive young female aide sitting nearby. She’s my best man, Dahlan said.

The joke released the tension, and the men settled down. Get the spaghetti, recommended Dahlan.

The UAE, with vast wealth but only about 1 million citizens, relies on migrant workers from all over the world to do everything from cleaning its toilets to teaching its university students. Its military is no different, paying lavish sums to eager US defense companies and former generals. The US Department of Defense has approved at least $27 billion in arms sales and defense services to the UAE since 2009.

Retired US Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal once signed up to sit on the board of a UAE military company. Former Navy SEAL and Vice Admiral Robert Harward runs the UAE division of Lockheed Martin. The security executive Erik Prince, now entangled in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference, set up shop there for a time, helping the UAE hire Colombian mercenaries.

And as BuzzFeed News reported earlier this year, the country embeds foreigners in its military and gave the rank of major general to an American lieutenant colonel, Stephen Toumajan, placing him in command of a branch of its armed forces.

The UAE is hardly alone in using defense contractors; in fact, it is the US that helped pioneer the worldwide move toward privatizing the military. The Pentagon pays companies to carry out many traditional functions, from feeding soldiers to maintaining weapons to guarding convoys.

The US draws the line at combat; it does not hire mercenaries to carry out attacks or engage directly in warfare. But that line can get blurry. Private firms provide heavily armed security details to protect diplomats in war zones or intelligence officers in the field. Such contractors can engage in firefights, as they did in Benghazi, Libya, when two contractors died in 2012 defending a CIA post. But, officially, the mission was protection, not warfare.

Outside the US, hiring mercenaries to conduct combat missions is rare, though it has happened. In Nigeria, a strike force reportedly led by longtime South African mercenary Eeben Barlow moved successfully against the Islamist militant group Boko Haram in 2015. A company Barlow founded, Executive Outcomes, was credited with crushing the bloody RUF rebel force in war-torn Sierra Leone in the 1990s.

But over spaghetti with Dahlan, Golan and Gilmore were offering an extraordinary form of mercenary service. This was not providing security details, nor was it even traditional military fighting or counterinsurgency warfare. It was, both Golan and Gilmore say, targeted killing.

Gilmore said he doesn’t remember anyone using the word “assassinations” specifically. But it was clear from that first meeting, he said, that this was not about capturing or detaining Al-Islah’s leadership. “It was very specific that we were targeting,” said Gilmore. Golan said he was explicitly told to help “disrupt and destruct” Al-Islah, which he calls a “political branch of a terrorist organization.”

He and Gilmore promised they could pull together a team with the right skillset, and quickly.

In the weeks after that lunch, they settled on terms. The team would receive $1.5 million a month, Golan and Gilmore told BuzzFeed News. They’d earn bonuses for successful kills — Golan and Gilmore declined to say how much — but they would carry out their first operation at half price to prove what they could do. Later, Spear would also train UAE soldiers in commando tactics.

Golan and Gilmore had another condition: They wanted to be incorporated into the UAE Armed Forces. And they wanted their weapons — and their target list — to come from uniformed military officers. That was “for juridical reasons,” Golan said. “Because if the shit hits the fan,” he explained, the UAE uniform and dog tags would mark “the difference between a mercenary and a military man.”

Dahlan and the UAE government signed off on the deal, Golan and Gilmore said, and Spear Operations Group got to work.

Back in the US, Golan and Gilmore started rounding up ex-soldiers for the first, proof-of-concept job. Spear Operations Group is a small company — nothing like the security behemoths such as Garda World Security or Constellis — but it had a huge supply of talent to choose from.

A little-known consequence of the war on terror, and in particular the 17 combined years of US warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that the number of special operations forces has more than doubled since 9/11, from 33,000 to 70,000. That’s a vast pool of crack soldiers selected, trained, and combat-tested by the most elite units of the US military, such as the Navy SEALs and Army Rangers. Some special operations reservists are known to engage in for-profit soldiering, said a high-level SEAL officer who asked not to be named. “I know a number of them who do this sort of thing,” he said. If the soldiers are not on active duty, he added, they are not obligated to report what they’re doing.

But the options for special operations veterans and reservists aren’t what they were in the early years of the Iraq War. Private security work, mostly protecting US government officials in hostile environments, lacks the excitement of actual combat and is more “like driving Miss Daisy with an M4” rifle, as one former contractor put it. It also doesn’t pay what it used to. While starting rates for elite veterans on high-end security jobs used to be $700 or $800 a day, contractors said, now those rates have dropped to about $500 a day. Golan and Gilmore said they were offering their American fighters $25,000 a month — about $830 a day — plus bonuses, a generous sum in almost any market.

dahlan is a real slick fucker. last i read he was going to replace abbas as head of the PLO under MBS’ decision-making, cause he’s beloved by the gulf states. apparently that didn’t work out. murdering people is what he does best though, so of course he’s pick up work in his area of expertise.

144 notes · View notes

emeraldonix · 5 years

Text

Daenerys and Imperialist America

To preface this connection, I would like to note that it has never been stated by the GRRM or the show writers to my knowledge, but instead just a comparison that I found myself making starting with Daenerys destroying slavery in Slavers’ Bay. She goes around killing all of the masters in order to establish a new regime without slavery.

First she goes to Astapor to purchase an Unsullied army. She offers ships and gold, and when the Masters are unconvinced because she has none of it on hand, she offers a dragon, one of her PRECIOUS CHILDREN, for which they still are unwilling to make a deal. They insult her in their language, thinking she can’t understand, and eventually she loses her temper and decides to burn them and take their army by force. She frees the Unsullied, and a majority of them decide to follow her; some because they love her campaign and message of ending slavery, others because they know no other way and have no family. But let’s remember, she came to Astapor looking to purchase a slave army, and only left with a freed army because the masters turned down her offering of her “child” so she lost her temper and torched them. Yes she saw the suffering of the slaves and felt bad, but ultimately her last words to the masters are not of their evil doings but of their words insulting her. She chooses a council to lead Astapor, which as viewers we have no reason to believe is even a slightly educated decision, and then she leaves, never to look back.

Next she goes to Yunkai, where she lays siege to the city with Daario’s insider knowledge. Eventually the masters surrender their slaves, and after they all hold her up chanting “mother” and send her ego skyrocketing, Daenerys brings them all with her to the third and final city: Meereen. She leaves the masters of Yunkai in charge, this time not even attempting to implement a governmental change.

Along the way to Meereen, there are 163 enslaved children nailed to crosses, pointing in the direction of the city. This is a message to Daenerys from the masters in Meereen that they will punish their slaves for her actions. Once Greyworm and a few unsullied infiltrate the city and encite a revolt, the enslaved people of Meereen butcher the masters in a bloody and chaotic rebellion. As an eye for an eye demonstration, Daenerys nails 163 masters to crosses. This is clearly an act of revenge, and instead of breaking the “wheel”, she is stooping to their level and playing their game of fear and cruelty.

But of course, this was not the end of slavery in Slavers’ Bay. A new tyrant took control of Astapor. The masters in Yunkai began to once again enslave the freed men and women. Revenge killings and acts of violence were carried out in Meereen. Daenerys watched as her well intentioned, poorly planned, and definitely rushed and ill-informed campaign to end slavery fell apart. To quell the rising unrest and after seeing the even worse living conditions of the people after they had been freed from slavery, she agreed to 1-year contracts, which were just another form of endentured servitude. Drogon killed an innocent farm girl. When the masters of Yunkai proposed a compromise where they would allow a council of both freedmen and former Slavers to rule if she reopened the Meereen fighting pits, an important cultural element of the bay. Even her local advisors said this was a good idea and she still refused. It was only after another rise in violence that she grudgingly agreed. At this point she flies off on Drogon and in her absence Yunkai and Astapor reinstate slavery. They go to Meereen to lay siege on the city, and eventually Daenerys and Co. kill them all. Daenerys leaves her boyfriend, a young sellsword general, in charge of a complex socio-political-economic dumpster fire. We never hear about Slavers’ Bay ever again.

Now on to the United States.

While there is a little bit of prior history (that is also a hot mess, to put it nicely), the War on Terror begins September 11, 2001. The attack on the World Trade Center was the moment the United States realized it was not inpenitrable. Thousands tragically lost their lives, and the pain and sorrow is still felt today. The immediate response from the US government was to wage a “War on Terror” against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban controlled government of Afghanistan. No matter how you put it, this response is an eye for an eye act. Violence in response to violence. No one even paused to consider the consequences, or even the alternatives. Within a month the airstrikes begin in the country on training camps and specific targets. Ground troops are soon to follow. By December all of the terrorist “strongholds” have been taken.

Now I want to pause for a moment to talk about these “strongholds”. They are actually cities, with innocent civilians inhabiting them. While there are no accurate numbers because of the chaos that comes with war, civilian deaths from 2001-present from the War on Terror range from 30,000 to upwards of 300,000. It’s the ugly part of war that no one likes to talk about, unless of course it is happening to us. I completely agree that the terrorist attack that claimed thousands of American lives and started this all was a tragedy that should be grieved and never forgotten, but what right do we have to inflict the same pain on another country and call it the “War on Terror” when we are also participating in the same acts of terrorism?

After the Taliban was cast out of power and Al-Qaeda was all but destroyed, the US military took control of the country. After years, they decided it was time to reinstate an Afghani lead government once again and placed the Shiite Muslim minority (10%) in charge. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda were Sunni Muslims, and had carried out many terrible acts against the Shiite minority. When the Shiite minority were given power by the US military, they retaliated. No one interfered. This lead to continued animosity and the eventual rise of ISIS. Rinse and repeat.

Back to my original connection between Daenerys and America, I want to emphasize the eye for an eye mentality that characterize both her anti-slavery campaign and the US lead “War on Terror”. Why do we continue to respond with our gut instinct to retaliate with violence? When has that ever lead to an end to violence? Have we ever tried listening to the complaints of the other side? Have we ever paused to consider the loss of innocent lives because of the actions of a select few? Have we maybe considered that we don’t know their culture any better than they know ours, or that leaving military leaders in charge of crumbling nations where basic human rights have just been violated by those same generals might not be a good idea? Just like Daenerys, despite our intentions (assuming they are good), we rushed into a complicated situation with no solid plan other than death and destruction.

Current estimates in Raqqa, Syria put the US lead airstrike death toll at 1,600, just from 2017 to present. That’s one city. The US is still carrying out airstrikes in Syria. I recognize that this post is very US negative, but I write this hoping that it isn’t too late to stop. Neither side can ever bring back those that we have lost, but we can stop more from dying. We need to “break the wheel”, but we won’t do that with more violence.

What can you do? Write to your representatives. Hold this difficult conversation with friends. Look into the foreign policies of the candidates running in upcoming elections. Donate to charities and organizations helping the civilians in war zones. Educate yourself and others. Do something.

#politics #game of thrones #war on terror #daenerys targaryen #united states #end violence #amnesty

2 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

What Could a Domestic Terrorism Law Do? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/us/domestic-terror-law.html

What Could a Domestic Terrorism Law Do?

After the El Paso shooting, there are calls to give the government more tools to address attacks motivated by white supremacy. But there are questions about how such legislation would work.

By Charlie Savage | Published Aug. 7, 2019 | New York Times | Posted August 7, 2019 7:10 PM ET |

WASHINGTON — The mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso on Saturday and arrest of a man whose white supremacist manifesto railed against a “Hispanic invasion of Texas” have heightened calls for Congress to enact a federal domestic terrorism law.

In a statement on Tuesday, the president of the F.B.I. Agents Association, Brian O’Hare, urged Congress “to make domestic terrorism a federal crime. This would ensure that F.B.I. agents and prosecutors have the best tools to fight domestic terrorism.”

It is not clear, however, whether such a statute would make a practical difference in what the government can already do under existing law. Some civil libertarians have argued that any legislation that could survive a constitutional challenge would be more about sending a symbolic message than creating major and substantive new government powers.

“These proposals tend either to be duplicative of laws that already exist or expansive in ways that violate First Amendment rights of speech and association,” said David Cole, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Here is a breakdown of the legal policy issues surrounding domestic terrorism.

What is the legal difference between domestic and international terrorism?

A federal law defines terrorism as crimes of violence that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government policy. But it distinguishes between “international” terrorism, which must have a foreign or transnational nexus, and “domestic” terrorism, which occurs primarily on American soil.

“Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries” is a federal crime, giving the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors jurisdiction to take the lead. There is no equivalent crime of domestic terrorism, so law enforcement officials deal with such offenses using other laws that do not have “terrorism” in their labels, like the state-level crime of murder.

What difference does that make after an attack?

If a domestic terrorist survives and is prosecuted, federal officials can still sometimes assert jurisdiction. Timothy McVeigh was prosecuted in federal court for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing under a federal law that bars “weapons of mass destruction,” for example.

But terrorist attacks involving guns are likely to be handled differently if a terrorist’s ideology cannot be tied to a foreign power. Dylann Roof, who in 2015 killed nine African-American churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., for example, was charged with murder in a state court.

Sometimes both systems can be used. Robert Bowers has been charged with federal hate crimes for the 2018 attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue, but he also faces state murder charges. And in either type of case, the F.B.I. can work with the local police to investigate.

Is this difference substantive or symbolic?

The fact that under existing law, either type of terrorist will end up serving a long sentence or facing execution raises the question of whether creating a new federal crime of “domestic terrorism” would make any meaningful difference after an attack — beyond determining which set of prosecutors handles a big case — or would instead be largely symbolic.

But Mary McCord, a former senior Justice Department national security official who has long called for enacting a domestic terrorism law, suggested that the symbolic element could make a substantive difference to the country.

Among other things, she said that the government needed to maintain trust with Muslim-American communities so people would sound warnings if they heard something potentially dangerous. Calling Islamist attacks “terrorism” in court, but not doing the same for white supremacist attacks, is a racist double standard that undermines such trust, she argued.

Would changing the law help prevent attacks?

Federal law enforcement officials can seek to imprison people who “provide material support” to foreign terrorist groups — like sending them money or trying to join them — without the risk of waiting to see if they develop plans to personally carry out attacks. Could Congress broadly extend this system to jail people for helping domestic extremist groups?

Probably not, said Mr. Cole, who helped litigate two major cases on the scope and limits of material-support laws. He said the Supreme Court would probably rule that the First Amendment bans the government from making it a crime to provide otherwise lawful support to a domestic organization.

In the first case, a group of Americans challenged the use of a material support law to bar them from providing otherwise lawful legal training to Kurdish and Tamil groups that the government had designated as terrorists. The Supreme Court in 2010 sided against his clients, but its reasoning heavily stressed the foreign nature of the targeted groups.

“We also do not suggest that Congress could extend the same prohibition on material support at issue here to domestic organizations,” the majority opinion said.

Indeed, in the other case, an appeals court ruled in 2011 that the First Amendment barred charging Americans with material support for providing otherwise lawful help to an Oregon-based charity that the government had deemed a terrorist organization for sending funds to foreign terrorists. The ruling emphasized the charity’s domestic ties in reaching that result.

What about stockpiling weapons?

By contrast, Mr. Cole also said courts probably would uphold the use of a material support law to ban a special type of assistance to a domestic terrorist group — where the evidence shows a defendant specifically intended to aid a terrorist attack. But most of the time, he argued, such an act would already be illegal under current law as a matter of conspiracy, aiding and abetting, or attempt.

Still, Ms. McCord has argued that the law could be expanded to fill a particular gap: a potential domestic terrorist who stockpiles weapons and indicates a desire to use them in a future attack, but who has not worked with others or taken a substantial step toward completing the envisioned crime.

She cited the case of Christopher Paul Hasson, a Coast Guard lieutenant who was arrested this year and accused of amassing an arsenal and plotting to murder Democratic lawmakers and journalists in hope of inciting a race war.

Federal prosecutors have charged him with a hodgepodge of drug and firearms offenses that Ms. McCord portrayed as “weak tea.” She argued that Congress should enable prosecutors to more squarely address such a case by making domestic terrorism a crime that can trigger another material support law that covers concealing resources like weapons, “knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out” certain attacks.

What about informants and stings?

Ms. McCord also argued that having domestic terrorism and related weapons-stockpiling charges on the books would give the F.B.I. a stronger basis to investigate people who arouse suspicion that they may pose a risk of politically motivated violence, including by sending informants to see what such suspects say privately.

That is a technique the F.B.I. has frequently used in the post-Sept. 11 era to scrutinize people who appear to harbor sympathy for foreign jihadist groups and Islamist ideology. If such a suspect tells an informant that he would like to carry out a terrorist attack, the bureau runs a sting operation, such as by providing a dummy bomb and arresting him for trying to use it.

While Muslim-American rights advocates and civil libertarians have denounced this tactic as harassment and entrapment, it has continued. But as a matter of political reality, using informants and stings to aggressively investigate people who appear to harbor sympathy for white supremacist ideology would likely elicit a broader uproar over free speech.

It could also entail significant bureaucratic risk, several former officials said. Although the F.B.I. infiltrated and disrupted the Ku Klux Klan and so-called patriot militias in the past, today’s context is different: President Trump himself uses disparaging language about invasions and infestations when discussing immigrants and other minorities, and he and his allies have already targeted the F.B.I. over the Russia investigation.

1 note · View note

tired-pinetree · 6 years

Text

Wrote an essay about how the FBI uses the label “terrorism” and in conclusion

(I’ll post the rest of the essay under a read more, because I think it’s really important for anyone involved in any activism to know this stuff)

((Also much of what I wrote about is applicable to racist and islamophobic profiling, but I focused on “eco terrorism” here because the class I wrote this for was an environmental writing class))

Fire and metal shrapnel bursts from the car. The pipe bomb tears through the car and its two occupants. Judi Bari, the driver, takes the brunt of the force. Her pelvis is crushed, her life bleeding out of her. She and her passenger, fellow activist Darryl Cherney, survive. In just a few hours, however, they’re both arrested in the hospital. The FBI declares them “eco-terrorists,” almost entirely on the fact that two environmental activists were near a bombing. Eleven years later, a jury finally vindicated Cherney and Bari and mandated the FBI and Oakland police pay $4.4 million dollars for civil rights abuses. This verdict came far too late for Bari, who died of cancer five years earlier, still falsely deemed a terrorist. As attorney J. Tony Serra aptly warned, "the jury showed the rest of America that even in the face of brutal terrorism we cannot discard the very civil liberties that make the country great” (Zamora 2002).

Bari and Cherney’s case showcases a problem within the FBI and the justice system as a whole concerning terrorism, especially eco terrorism. Ask any particular person what a terrorist is or looks like, and you would likely get a quick answer. An answer heavily based off of prejudice, yes, but an answer nevertheless. The legal definition, however, is surprisingly ambiguous. This is particularly true following the September 11th attacks, as both the policies and consequences for alleged terrorism has increased even though the term “terrorism” itself has remained vague and even broadened its range.

Before any other analysis can be made, basic definitions and limitations must be determined. Eco terrorism has two general meanings: terrorism committed against the environment, and terrorism committed on behalf of the environment. Eco terrorism in this case will refer to extreme actions performed by environmentalists, and the same will hold for other mentions of eco terrorism in quoted material unless otherwise stated. Moreover, the use of “terrorism” in the phrase “eco terrorism” is not legally technical or a reflection of personal opinion as this phrase is widely used in discussions on this topic.

Before delving into the legal nature of eco terrorism and its consequences, first revisit personal and cultural concepts of terrorism. Picture some of the prevalent threads: masked militia surround and terrorize civilians; video recordings of executions; grimy guerilla fighters hunched in forests preparing an ambush; schools of kids held hostage; buildings bustling with people, bombed into an apocalypse of blood, fire, and dust. These scenes are noteworthy because they aim to hurt and kill people, and are often successful. By contrast, imagine radical environmentalism and “eco terrorism.” Consider some common situations: loud and annoying protests; graffiti, breaking windows, posted propaganda, slashing tires, and other minor vandalisms; sabotaging industrial equipment and property to delay or halt projects; tree huggers chaining themselves to trees and hammering spikes into them to deter chainsaws; releasing hundreds of minks from fur farms; and, in more extreme cases, arson. From a cursory glance, the difference is fairly clear. Although these eco terrorist acts are certainly crimes, they appear to be at a significantly lower magnitude and severity than terrorism.

Determining what is and isn’t terrorism is a harder concept to nail down legally. The precise definition is as follows: “The term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that – (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States” (US Code, Title 18, Code 2331). Essentially, anything potentially violent with a social, economic, or political motivation could be considered terrorism. This is the conventional, pre 9/11 definition of terrorism and is the basic interpretation used by the FBI. Both Robert Mueller, FBI Director in 2005, and James Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief in 2002, have named eco terrorism as a serious threat (Jarboe 2002, Eco-Terror Indictments 2006). Director Mueller stated “Terrorism is terrorism, no matter what the motive […] persons who conduct this kind of activity are going to spend a long time in jail, regardless of their motive” (Eco-Terror Indictments 2006). Therefore, if eco terrorism is to be evaluated independently of its purpose and whatever justification that may provide, as Mueller demands, then an objective look at what separates terrorism from simple crimes is necessary.

Ignoring personal morality and ethics over the goals and tactics of eco-terrorists simplifies the question to a matter of legality and loopholes. Former FBI Domestic Terrorism Chief Jarboe attempts to expand the definition of domestic terrorism to cover criminal violence or threatened violence against individuals or property for the purpose of sending a larger message concerning environmentalism (2002). The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) restates this basic definition while touching on some of the controversial aspects when it comes to the specifics. However, when the FBI and START begin to venture from this base, they begin to contradict themselves and bring in irrelevant information. For example, the FBI has stated radical environmentalism is terrorism in part because it is highly organized, but the FBI also says eco terrorist groups are highly disorganized and barely functions as any sort of structured organization (FBI 2002, FBI 2006, FBI 2008). START also participates in conflicting information as it cites acts outside of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as one of its criteria. However, the IHL doesn’t apply to domestic or eco terrorism because neither qualifies as an armed conflict (START, ICRC 2014). Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a similar document, cannot be used to definitively support either side, though several articles can be interpreted to support or condone eco terrorism (ICRC 2014, UN 1948). As can be seen, terrorism in both name and concept has had an obscurity for years. This lack of clarity has intensified in the years since 9/11. Due to legislature such as the Patriot Act and rhetoric, terrorism qualifications and punishments have expanded, but remained ambiguous. Before moving into these later additions, however, does eco terrorism already qualify as terrorism?

The core of this issue is determining what separates terrorism from ordinary criminal activity. After all, few of the thousands of violent crimes committed each year are considered terrorism, and charges of terrorism carry serious consequences. The FBI and other groups like the ADL argue that radical environmentalists are eco-terrorists due to the economic cost of vandalism, their level of organization and uniform intent, and their violent rhetoric (FBI 2008, ADL). However, others like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), many individuals, and the “eco terrorist” organizations themselves deny this. Steve Vanderheiden, author of a text discussing radical environmentalism, explains in depth that eco terrorism cannot, under the conventional understanding of terrorism, be considered terrorism. Vanderheiden discusses that terrorism is a trend of violence or threat of violence against a specific group of people but where victims are randomly chosen from this group, people are the primary or secondary target of this violence, with the intent to manipulate the social structure or the government. The targets of eco terrorist attacks may be considered as a subgroup, however, targets of eco terrorism are not random and are specifically chosen in response to their actions. In addition, as Vanderheiden points out, the general public is not targeted, only wealthy leaders of companies that damage the environment. Therefore, the widespread terror and coercion against society that characterizing terrorism is absent. Although eco terrorism is, by its nature, motivated toward social, political, or economic change, the intents of one of the most prevalent “eco terrorist” organization, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) specifically states several times that harm against people is to be avoided and is not the intent of their actions (ELF 2001). Following this, eco terrorism has never resulted in the death or serious injury of a person in America, despite its presence since the 1970s (FBI 2008, Vanderheiden 2005, ADL, ELF 2001). Undoubtedly ELF and other eco-terrorists have committed dramatic, and sometimes serious, crimes such as arson, widespread vandalism, and releasing captive animals en mass (FBI 2002). However, no one has been hurt or killed, and these acts of violence have been focused on inanimate objects and economic tools (property, profit, etc.). Can – and should – terrorism be allowed to cover violence towards these nonsentient objects? Paul Watson, captain of the anti-whaling organization Sea Shepherd, argues “We agree with the assessment […] that violence cannot be committed against a non-sentient object. Sea Shepherd sometimes damages equipment used for illegal activities, but we have an unblemished record [in regards to injuries/deaths caused by Sea Shepherd]” (New Zealand Herald 2010). Vanderheiden, along with many people and organizations labeled “eco-terrorists,” agree that violence against people is significant and applicable to the label “terrorism,” whereas vandalism and other forms of violence against inanimate objects should rarely, if ever, be considered terrorism (Vanderheiden 2005, ELF 2001). It’s based off of the simple idea that harm against people is worse than harm against objects. Kidnapping is worse than stealing, murder is worse than vandalism. Equivocating the two as similarly terrorist acts is misleading rhetoric as the two are not comparable.

Due to these key differences, “eco-terrorists” would typically not be considered terrorists. However, the Patriot Act of 2001 and other new policies have changed that. They expanded how and when anti-terrorism resources and procedures can be used while intensifying rhetoric against eco terrorism. The ACLU published the changes made under section 802 of the act. Among them, they found that governmental powers expanded to investigate and prosecute anything with the potential for terrorism (ACLU). Terrorism now covers anything that may pose a danger to human life, regardless of the intensity, likelihood, or conditions of this danger (ACLU). Furthermore, anything that may cause economic damage, either through the loss of profits or the destruction or theft of property, is also terrorism (Vanderheiden 2005). The FBI openly admits to using legislation to widen the definition of terrorism and implement more severe punishments, stating “we’re also taking advantage of the 2006 revision to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which toughened penalties […] and included secondary targets” (FBI 2008). Using this vague justification of potential human harm and financial loss, the government can then investigate individuals and organizations intensely and using the policies created or expanded upon under the Patriot Act (ACLU). Given these new policies, the potential for civil liberty abuse from the FBI is extraordinarily high. These new policies have created three powerful tools the government can use to violate civil rights and coerce terrorism charges: asset seizure, access to highly confidential information, and preemptive prosecution.

Asset seizure is a significant weapon the government uses against alleged terrorists and activists. Seizure of assets allows law enforcement to confiscate all of a person or group’s resources, including money, property, and valuables (ACLU). Without any warning, before any hearing, without ever being charged with a crime, anyone can suddenly find themselves homeless and penniless for months (ACLU). Since these are considered civil cases, not criminal cases, the victim of asset seizure does not have a right to a lawyer if they can’t afford one – and given that all of their resources are currently possessed by the government, they almost certainly cannot afford one. Even if the civil case goes favorably, the government is not required to give much justification about why they appropriated assets and are not liable for any wrongdoing related to it (ACLU). This results in little to no consequences for hasty or false seizures against innocent people. As such, it is a powerful weapon against any person or individual the government doesn’t approve of, regardless of their crimes or lack of crimes (ACLU).

Protection for confidential information is significant because it limits bias and keeps the government from having absolute power and control over the nation. Despite this importance, government is now able to access information that previously was protected under privacy laws. Again, all it takes are vague and subjective terrorism suspicions, and again the FBI doesn’t need to verify the legitimacy of these claims or face consequences for false ones. This information covers academic performance, private medical/health information (such as counseling and abortions), what organizations they are involved in, family income, race, taxpayer information, and other previously confidential information (ACLU). Americans seem to have become relatively desensitized to privacy leaks and government spying, however, releasing this sensitive information quickly leads to coercion and heavily biased cases. Legally improper probes conducted by the FBI into nonviolent organizations such as Greenpeace have already been uncovered (ACLU, Jerry 2010). Nonviolent activists and organizations who have never ventured outside the realm of civil disobedience were arbitrarily placed on terrorist watch lists in an effort to control legal, peaceful activism (Jerry 2010). There is nothing stopping the FBI from repeating this, no consequences, and no real limits to their power.

Underlying these aggressive tactics is preemptive prosecution. Preemptive prosecution is a strategy where people are investigated, charged, and prosecuted on the basis of possible future terrorism and not actual terrorist plots (Downs and Manley, 2014). This larger theme of improperly and illegally charging people with terrorism was uncovered by Project SALAM and the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms (NCPCF), revealing that the vast majority of terrorism arrests and charges have been based on entrapment and preemptive prosecution (Downs and Manley 2014). Their study shows that 72.4% of nearly 400 terrorist convictions were based on this illegal tactic, with 94.2% of cases having strong elements of preemptive prosecution (Downs and Manley 2014). In nearly every case, these “terrorist plots” were lead by an FBI paid infiltrator who incited and planned violence while manipulating others into the plot (Downs and Manley 2014). In essence, the FBI was mostly busting itself for terrorism, while arresting and charging nonviolent activists and minorities with terrorism. The ACLU and other organizations claim that these charges of terrorism and flexible definition of terrorism has been deliberately used by the FBI to attack activists and destabilize activism groups (ACLU). This attitude of exaggerated threat and response is dubbed the Green Scare, in reference to the McCarthyism of the 1950s (Loadenthal 2013). Combining preemptive prosecution and the low requirements to be charged and convicted of terrorism, America’s domestic anti-terrorism effort ends up strengthening authoritarian government control and protecting the profits and interests of companies.

In recent years, the harmful effects of overzealous terrorism labeling is increasingly clear. Vanderheiden states that a terrorist is unbound by moral limitations against harming others, and therefore, eliminating terrorism can follow similarly merciless procedures. This increases the importance of determining who is a terrorist and who is simply a criminal, bystander, victim, or activist. Bari and Cherney are far from the only people to be falsely charged with eco terrorism. Eric McDavid served nine years in jail for allegedly plotting to blow up a dam before key documents suddenly appeared in 2015 proving that McDavid was coerced and entrapped into the plot by a person paid by the FBI to incite acts of terrorism (Kuipers 2015). In other cases, like John Burton Wade, his criminal actions would have not resulted in charges of terrorisms prior to these changes, according to professor of environmental Peter Manus and unnamed governmental officials (Baldwin 2008). Consider your own personal history with activism and organizations. If you have ever participated in anything as innocuous as a boycott or a peaceful protest, or been a member of an organization who has, you may be on a terrorist watchlist or classified as a terrorist without you ever knowing.

Thusly, the simple answer to “is eco terrorism actually terrorism” is yes, technically it falls under terrorism and has been treated as such. However, classifying activism as terrorism is a major threat to human rights and civil liberties. Countless people have suffered under the government’s domestic anti-terrorism policies, and anyone could be next. By their own definitions, the FBI is far more of a terrorist organization than the ELF or any other eco terrorist could be.

References

“Eco-Terror Incitments: ‘Operation Backfire’ Nets 11.” (Jan 20 2006). Federal Bureau of Investigation archive.

“Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the animal rights and environmental movements.” Anti-Defamation league (ADL).

“Hardline warrior in war to save the whale.” (Jan 10 2010) New Zealand Herald.

“How the USA Patriot Act redefines ‘domestic terrorism’.” ACLU.

“New documents show FBI targeting environmental and animal rights groups activities as ‘domestic terrorism’.” (Dec 20 2005). ACLU.

“Putting intel to work against ELF and ALF terrorists.” (June 6 2008). Federal Bureau of Investigation archive.

“What is international humanitarian law?” (Dec 2014) International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Baldwin, Brent (Feb 6 2008). “Wade’s War.” Style.

Downs, Stephen and Manley, Kathy (May 2014, updated 2017). Inventing Terrorists: The Lawfare of Preemptive Prosecution. Project SALAM AND National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). (2001). North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office. ELF.

Jarboe, James F. (Feb 12 2002). Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health “The Threat of Eco-Terrorism.” Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Kuipers, Dean (Jul 30 2015). “Exclusive: tough questions for Feds after they jailed an innocent man for nine years.” Take Part.

Loadenthal, Micheal (Jan 2013). ‘The Green Scare’ & ‘Eco-Terrorism’: The Development of US Counter-Terrorism Strategy Targeting Direct Action Activists. Research Gate.

Markon, Jerry (Sept 20 2010). “FBI probes were improper, Justice says.” Washington Post.

National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism (START). Data Collection and the Definition of Terrorism. Global Terrorism Database.

United Nations General Assembly (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations.

US Code. Title 18. Code 2331.

Zamora, Jim Herron (June 12, 2002). “After 11 years, jury vindicates Earth First pair / FBI, Oakland officers must pay $4.4 million for civil rights abuses.” SF Gate.

#terrorism #eco terrorism #activism #fbi #corruption #post 9/11 bullshit #long post #but it's important #i'm actually kinda proud of this essay #i noticed a few antifa blogs followed me a bit ago #thought i'd give them something relevent to their interests

26 notes · View notes

greek-arete · 5 years

Video

youtube

Some videos concerning the Sri Lanka terrorist attacks

NYT copy paste article after the cut for those who don’t have a NYT subscription (arrested individuals belonged to a little known group called National Thowheeth Jama’ath):

By The New York Times

April 22, 2019

• The government on Monday blamed a little-known radical Islamist group for the devastating Easter Sunday suicide bombings that killed nearly 300 people. Officials said the group, which had not carried out any serious attacks before, had received help from an international terrorist organization.

• Sri Lanka’s security forces were warned at least 10 days before the bombings that the militant group was planning attacks against churches, but apparently took no action against it, indicating a catastrophic intelligence failure. Top government officials say the warning never reached them.

• The Sri Lankan police have arrested 24 people in connection with the explosions at hotels and churches.

• A dusk-to-dawn curfew was implemented for a second night on Monday in Colombo, the capital. And major social media and messaging services, including Facebook and WhatsApp, have been blocked by the government to try to curb the spread of misinformation.

Relatives unloading the coffin on Monday of Sneha Savindi, 11, who was killed in a suicide bombing at St. Sebastian’s Church in Negombo.CreditAdam Dean for The New York Times

Death toll rises to 290

The number killed was lifted significantly overnight, to 290, the police said on Monday, adding that about 500 people had also been wounded in the attacks on sites across the country.

The Sri Lankan tourism minister, John Amaratunga, said that at least 39 foreigners were among the dead. Those countries that have confirmed their citizens were killed include Australia, Britain, China, Japan, Portugal and the United States.

Ruwan Gunasekera, a police spokesman, would not reveal how many people had been killed at each location.

The identities of the victims have started to emerge. These are their stories.

More explosions rocked parts of the country on Monday, and while no new casualties were reported, the blasts racked already strained nerves.

In one case, it appeared that a bomb detonated while the police were trying to defuse or move it, near one of the churches that was hit on Sunday. Smaller blasts were reported that may have resulted from the police intentionally detonating suspicious packages.

This advisory sent by a police official alerted security officials about a threat to churches from a radical Islamist group, National Thowheeth Jama’ath. Government officials have blamed the attack on the group.

A warning went unheeded

Ten days before the bombings, a top Sri Lankan police official warned the security services that a radical Islamist group was planning suicide attacks against churches, but no action was taken against the group. It was unclear what other precautions, if any, the security agencies had taken in response to the threat warnings.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said on Sunday that neither he nor his cabinet ministers had been informed of the warning, highlighting the power struggle between him and President Maithripala Sirisena, who is also the defense minister. Late last year, the feud led, for a time, to there being two officials claiming to be the rightful prime minister.

The apparent intelligence failure and the breakdown of communication within the government are likely to prompt political recriminations and attract attention in investigations into the attacks.

At a news conference on Monday, the health minister, Rajitha Senaratne, said there had been a warning as early as April 4, reiterating that the prime minister and his allies had been “completely blind on the situation.” He noted the lack of cooperation within the government, saying that when the prime minister attempted recently to call a security council meeting, members of the panel refused to attend.

An April 11 letter from the police official not only named the group believed to be planning an attack, National Thowheeth Jama’ath, but also named individual members, and even gave addresses where they could be found.

Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.

The information was supplied by “foreign intelligence,” the letter said, but it did not specify from which country or countries.

“We must look into why adequate precautions were not taken,” Mr. Wickremesinghe said on Sunday.

[Look at images from the devastation of the Easter Sunday attacks, and see how the country is mourning.]

Sri Lanka Bombing Maps: What We Know About the Attack Sites

The attacks struck churches, five-star hotels and other sites in multiple cities.

Who are National Thowheeth Jama’ath?

Officials on Monday said a little-known Islamist group that promotes a terrorist ideology in South Asia was responsible for the attacks.

The group, National Thowheeth Jama’ath, had a reputation for vandalizing Buddhist statues but little history of carrying out terrorist attacks.

Rajitha Senaratne, the health minister, called the group “a local organization” and said the suicide bombers appeared to be Sri Lankan citizens. “All are locals,” he said at a news conference on Monday.

But, he added, “there was an international network without which these attacks could not have succeeded.”

In a news release, Mr. Sirisena, the president, said that, according to Sri Lanka’s intelligence agencies, “there are international terrorist organizations behind these incidents.”

No one has publicly claimed responsibility for the bombings.

A forensic analysis of body parts found at six sites determined that seven suicide bombers conducted attacks at three churches and three hotels, according to The Associated Press. Most attacks were carried out by lone bombers, but two men targeted the Shangri-La Hotel in Colombo. Two other bombings at a guesthouse and at the suspects’ apparent safe house remain under investigation.

Sri Lanka does not have much history of Islamist terrorism. The country is predominantly Buddhist, with significant Hindu, Muslim and Christian minorities.

From 1983 to 2009, separatists from the Tamil ethnic group, which is mostly Hindu, fought a civil war against the government, dominated by the Sinhalese ethnic majority, most of whom are Buddhist.

[Read more about the radical group accused of carrying out the bombings in Sri Lanka.]

Security officers inspected the debris of a car that exploded as the police tried to defuse a bomb near St. Anthony’s Shrine in Colombo on Monday.CreditJewel Samad/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The bombs hinted at a worrying level of expertise

Whoever designed the suicide vests used in the blasts showed considerable competence, a fact that is certain to worry law enforcement agencies, said Scott Stewart, vice president for tactical analysis at Stratfor, a geopolitical consulting firm based in Austin, Tex.

When small, homegrown extremist groups use explosives, they often start with a series of failures. Some bombs fail to detonate completely, and others explode early, late, or not at all.

But in the Sri Lanka attack, it appears that all seven suicide vests detonated and did heavy damage, Mr. Stewart said, indicating skill at making bombs and manually activated detonators, and suggesting access to a large supply of military-grade high explosives.

“You don’t do that by accident, so they must have a fairly decent logistics network and funding,” he added.

But Joshua A. Geltzer, a former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, said he would not be surprised if a small group had been able to stage the attack without direct help.

“There is so, so much instruction and guidance available on the open internet these days, not to mention whatever is circulating on encrypted chat groups, widely available in terrorist circles if not totally public,” he said.

Unexploded bombs, apparently not designed for suicide attacks, were found in other public places in Sri Lanka. That suggests that the bomb maker (or makers) was less expert at detonation using timers or remote control, Mr. Stewart said.

Two men inspect damage from the roof of a restaurant at the Kingsbury Hotel in Colombo on Monday.CreditJewel Samad/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

U.S. warns of additional attacks

The State Department said that terrorist groups “continue plotting possible attacks in Sri Lanka” and raised its travel advisory to warn visitors to the country about potential threats.

It said terrorists could attack “with little or no warning,” and listed several potential targets, including tourist spots, transportation centers, markets, malls, government offices, hotels and places of worship.

The travel advisory level was raised to “exercise increased caution,” the second-lowest of four levels. It had previously been at the lowest level, “exercise normal precautions.”

The advisory gave no specific details about any groups that could be planning attacks or about who might be responsible for Sunday’s violence.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia also raised its advisory level and urged travelers on Monday to “reconsider your need” to go to Sri Lanka.

Personal belongings at St. Sebastian’s Church on Monday.CreditAthit Perawongmetha/Reuters

Government responds with a curfew, a social media blackout, and more

Sri Lankan officials took a series of extraordinary steps in an effort to keep control of their shaken country, aiming to prevent further extremist attacks and retaliatory violence.

Mr. Sirisena, the president, said the government had given additional powers to the police and security forces to detain and interrogate people, and for the second day in a row, a curfew was imposed, from 8 p.m. until 4 a.m.

The government temporarily blocked several networks, including Facebook and Instagram. Users also reported being unable to access the messaging services WhatsApp and Viber.

Though Sunday’s attacks have no known link to social media, Sri Lanka has a troubled history with violence incited on the platforms. The ban was an extraordinary step that reflected growing global concerns about social media.

Mr. Sirisena appointed a three-person panel to investigate the bombings, headed by a Supreme Court justice, Vijith Malalgoda.

The president also directed the authorities to increase security around churches and other potential targets.

Rohingya refugees fleeing Myanmar in 2017.CreditAdam Dean for The New York Times

Religious persecution and conflict rise in Asia

The bombings in Sri Lanka underlined the rise of intolerance and violence across the region, based at least partly on religion and often feeding on government rhetoric.

Perhaps the worst example has been the persecution in Myanmar of the Rohingya Muslim minority by the government and by members of the Buddhist majority, especially since 2016. Thousands of Rohingya have died and hundreds of thousands have fled their homes.

In Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and elsewhere, politicians have increasingly made appeals to sectarian resentment, and tolerated their political allies’ calls for violence.

On Easter Sunday in 2016, a suicide bomber killed more than 70 peoplein a busy park in Lahore, Pakistan. A splinter group of the Taliban claimed responsibility, saying it had specifically targeted Christians.

Last May, suicide bombers struck three churches in Surabaya, Indonesia, killing 28 people, and in January, two bombs ripped through a cathedral in the Philippines, leaving 20 dead. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for both attacks.

Reporting was contributed by Russell Goldman, Austin Ramzy and Sandra E. Garcia.

#sri lanka #easter bombings #suicide bombers #horrible

1 note · View note

purcellsteenberg0 · 2 years

Text

If the USA Share Accuracy Munition Military Technology With The Globe?

This is a new thought experiment, only a question without warning for intellectual thinkers, no other objective needs to be inferred. The question which garners this title is definitely a real one particular, and although with first glance, nearly all military professionals, people and our personal leaders would point out; Hell No! Plus, that would become their final answer, but is it the particular best possible reply? Let's discuss various reasons why this specific question isn't so crazy after most and why a paradigm shift inside the thought process adjoining such a query might be somewhat flawed. Below happen to be 4 reasons why posting advanced weapons technology of this type with other nations' militaries, both adversaries and allies may possibly be a good option: one. ) If our enemies are using smart munitions right now t here will be not as much collateral damage, fewer innocent lives snuffed to no purpose. 2 . ) Significantly less loss of vital facilities which must be repaired following your clash is over to bring stability back to areas which was once considered inside military terms; typically the battlespace. 3. ) It keeps terrorist organizations, rogue countries, and other foes from resorting to WMD - chemical, biological or nuclear weapons being used required. 4. ) That allows nation-states to achieve their personal and military goals without wasting vast amounts of resources in addition to money on ominously expensive military hardware - $100+ Zillion Fighter Planes, Airplane Carriers in excess of many enormous amounts of dollars. We already know precisely why this may not a good idea, and rarely need to including state such causes, but let's carry out it anyway. 1. ) Rogue countries might utilize this technological innovation to target our leadership, military frontrunners or key statistics in our government. 2 . not ) These kinds of technologies might offer way to innovative developments along the same lines of planning and enemies would certainly leverage this technology which they presently do not have to create more ominous weaponry. three or more. ) Why trouble helping your opponent who might use it against your allies. 4. ) Each of our allies will buy these weapon systems from your defense contractors simply because they cannot produce this themselves, thus, come back money to help make on with trade cuts we have, as move such products to them. Do the positives of future battles with fewer casualties, less loss in human life replace with any kind of negatives connected with supplying away these business secrets? Further, due to the fact we cannot keep on a secret who is to say rogue nations, enemies or perhaps even quasi-allies haven't already stolen these kinds of innovation secrets and even intellectual property through us through personal computer cyber tactics currently - or is just not in the close to future anyway?

#how to fix mobile data on android #click here #more info #here #read more #website #get more info #check here #Additional info

0 notes

icontherecord · 7 years

Photo

Judicial Oversight of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by Glenn S. Gerstell, NSA General Counsel

Presented to The Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law and The University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas

September 14, 2017

Good afternoon, and thank you for having me here today. I'd like to start by telling you a story about a former high school teacher in the Middle East. Somewhere along the way, this high school teacher became radicalized and joined a terrorist organization, rising through the ranks to become, at one point, the second-in-command of ISIS. He was known as Hajji Iman.

His transformation from citizen to terrorist landed Hajji Iman among the world's most wanted. The U.S. Treasury Department placed him on a list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists in 2014, and the State Department offered a $7 million dollar reward for information leading to him. As you might expect, his terrorist activities also made him a top focus of NSA's counterterrorism efforts.

The National Security Agency, along with its Intelligence Community partners, spent over two years looking for Hajji Iman. In close collaboration with the Intelligence Community, NSA developed a robust body of knowledge concerning Hajji Iman's personal network and produced intelligence on his associates that included their location. Eventually, NSA and its partners were able to consolidate all of their intelligence to identify the reclusive Hajji Iman and track his movements.

Ultimately, this collaboration enabled U.S. forces to attempt to apprehend Hajji Iman and two of his associates. On March 24, 2016, during the attempt, shots were fired at the U.S. forces' aircraft from Hajji Iman's location. U.S. forces returned fire, killing Hajji Iman and the other associates at the location. Moreover, NSA intelligence also confirmed that Hajji Iman - a key terrorist target - was in fact dead.

The search for Hajji Iman was ultimately successful primarily because of information obtained under one of our surveillance authorities known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Indeed, the foreign intelligence about the activities of Hajji Iman and his associates was the result of electronic surveillance under Section 702, and Section 702 collection also corroborated his ultimate demise.

As this story demonstrates, Section 702 represents one of NSA's most important intelligence surveillance authorities, and it provides tremendous value in the nation's fight against foreign terrorists. In fact, a few years ago, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board reported publicly that more than a quarter of our international terrorism reporting was based in whole or in part on information collected under Section 702. But that's not all it contributes. Among other things, Section 702 also enables collection of information on foreign weapons proliferators and informs our cybersecurity efforts. The statute, however, is scheduled to sunset at the end of this year if it is not reauthorized by Congress. To say that losing this authority would be grave is an understatement; in truth, a failure to reauthorize Section 702 would place the U.S. at a perilous disadvantage, hindering our ability to identify and respond to threats against the nation and our allies.

The theme of this afternoon's conference is "Judicial Accountability for U.S. National Security and Counterterrorism Policies." In keeping with that theme, I'd like to focus today on Section 702 of FISA - one of our best weapons in the fight against terrorism - and the critical role that the judiciary plays in overseeing our activities under that authority. In my opinion - which admittedly, may be biased - intelligence surveillance under Section 702 embodies nearly all of the quintessential issues and challenges that could convene at the crossroads between judicial accountability and national security. For example, Section 702 itself is a relatively new amendment to the FISA statute, with less than a decade of legal and operational history. It was written to accommodate prior developments in technology, but also intended to adapt to future changes by remaining technology neutral. It also provides a detailed blueprint for the oversight role of the judiciary, assigning a level of responsibility to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that is not within the customary "case or controversy" framework and, indeed, that extends beyond the traditional scope of judicial review. Finally, although the targeting of Americans is expressly prohibited by the statute, Section 702's reach implicates the Fourth Amendment privacy protections of U.S. persons.

In using 702 as a practical example of the application of judicial accountability and national security policy, it's obviously important to understand at the outset how and why Congress enacted Section 702. I will describe that process and then briefly describe how the statute operates in practice, including some of its unique requirements, prohibitions, and criticisms. Finally, I will examine the judiciary's vital role in ensuring that our operations under Section 702 meet the needs of our national security mission while also incorporating reasonable protections for the privacy of United States persons.

The Statute's Origins

Section 702's history begins nearly 40 years ago. Consider the communications of the 1970s. Email did not exist, fax machines were not yet ubiquitous, and smart phones were an object of the future. People communicated with their friends and neighbors mostly by telephones that were connected by land lines. International communications, however, were more commonly in the air, such as radio or satellite. When the government monitored international communications, the collection was conducted mainly through surveillance of these "wireless" type communications, which was either done overseas or, if domestic, did not involve compelling a service provider, so there was no need for specific statutory authority. It was in this more limited communications environment that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted by Congress in 1978. FISA's language outlined the contours of a court-authorized process for conducting four specific types of electronic surveillance against foreign powers or their agents operating inside the United States. Its intent was to largely exclude from the statute's scope surveillance on foreign persons located outside the United States, and so Congress drafted FISA to distinguish between collection off of a wire and collection out of the air. Congress understood that, based on the technology of 1978, most surveillance of overseas targets would fall outside of FISA's reach because of the way it defined electronic surveillance.

With the advent of the internet and cellular telephones, the technological landscape completely reversed. Local calls were now mostly in the air, while transmission of international communications shifted from radios and satellites to subsea fiber optic cables. Suddenly, many international communications that would have generally fallen outside the scope of the FISA statute in 1978, when they were carried by radio or satellite, were now potentially included. The 1978 definitions of electronic surveillance hinged in part on the location at which collection occurred. This fact became significant as American internet and communications technology became globally dominant; people around the world started using American email systems and other applications. Our foreign intelligence targets were no exception, as they increasingly gravitated to communications services based in the U.S. As a result, if the government wanted to conduct electronic surveillance on a foreign target who was communicating overseas with another foreign target, it was increasingly the case that that collection potentially fell within FISA's scope as the point of collection was often a service provider here in the U.S. In many such cases, the only way that the government could obtain the foreign intelligence it needed was to get a FISA order. In order to obtain those orders, the government had to prepare the same type of FISA application - a traditional Title I FISA application - that it would submit when the surveillance was targeted at a U.S. person. These traditional Title I FISA applications required the government to demonstrate "probable cause" to believe that the proposed target was a foreign power or agent of a foreign power and that the target was using or about to use the targeted facility (such as a telephone number or email address). As you all know, proving the existence to a federal judge of "probable cause" is hardly a trivial matter.

This unintended and anomalous consequence involving how we treated foreigners proved costly to the government. Despite the foreign nature of the intended targets, in many instances the government was required to meet the same high standard that was in place to protect U.S. persons and persons inside the United States, who are entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. In practice, it simply was not possible for the government to process a lengthy traditional FISA application for each valid foreign target who happened to use a U.S. service provider to conduct his or her activities. The government instead had to focus its limited resources on only a small subset of the highest priority targets, which left many targets of foreign intelligence value outside the reach of our surveillance. In addition, there were cases in which the government simply did not have enough information about a foreign target to put together a traditional FISA application that would meet the high probable cause standard, even though the intended target was a foreigner located overseas and thus not entitled to Fourth Amendment protections.

We were thus faced with a conundrum: part of our mission involves collecting signals intelligence to defend our country from terrorist attacks and other plots, but we were at risk of letting individuals such as Hajji Iman go undetected simply because of an unforeseen byproduct of technological developments that forced the government to afford heightened privacy protections to foreign targets.

Recognizing the impediments created by this change in technology, the Bush administration and Congress addressed the issue by enacting Section 702 as part of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. It was reauthorized again in 2012 with the support of the Obama administration. During both the initial enactment and the first reauthorization, Section 702 enjoyed significant bipartisan support in Congress. Congress's fix enabled the government to target for surveillance foreigners located outside the U.S. with the compelled assistance of U.S. service providers. Rather than requiring the government to submit individual applications for each target, Section 702 instead requires the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to submit to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, annual certifications describing the categories of foreign intelligence that the government is permitted to collect. The statute does not permit us to target foreigners indiscriminately, however. Instead, it demands that surveillance under Section 702 be conducted for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information, and each and every 702 target must fit within the scope of one of our approved certifications.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

It was clear from the outset that Congress anticipated that the judiciary would play a critical role in ensuring that the collection activities carried out under Section 702 remained lawful. Indeed, in a 2008 opinion, the FISC Court of Review best explained the difficult exercise that courts undertake when overseeing national security programs, stating: "Our government is tasked with protecting an interest of utmost significance to the nation - the safety and security of its people. But the Constitution is the cornerstone of our freedoms, and government cannot unilaterally sacrifice constitutional rights on the altar of national security. Thus, in carrying out its national security mission, the government must simultaneously fulfill its constitutional responsibility to provide reasonable protections for the privacy of United States persons. The judiciary's duty is to hold that delicate balance steady and true."

Recognizing the importance of judicial accountability for foreign intelligence surveillance under FISA, Congress designed a specialized court authorized to operate in secret - the FISC - to encourage rigorous oversight of activities conducted under FISA. Even its structure is deliberately assembled to serve that purpose. FISC judges are selected by the Chief Justice to serve for up to seven years, on staggered terms, which guarantees continuity and subject matter expertise on critical issues. In addition, the FISC is required by statute to be composed of judges drawn from at least seven of the U.S. judicial circuits. This statutory makeup ensures that the FISC includes judges from a diversity of backgrounds and geographic regions, rather than a court that might tend toward unanimity of thought or particular judicial sympathies.

The FISC represents the linchpin of Section 702 oversight on behalf of the judiciary, with responsibility for adjudicating all of the government's surveillance applications submitted pursuant to FISA. Even with this specialized court in place, however, Section 702 can also be subject to collateral review by other federal courts. I will return later to this avenue of judicial accountability.

One of the inevitable consequences of the fact that the proceedings of the FISC must of necessity be at the classified level is that the public is denied the ability to see for itself how the judiciary holds the executive branch accountable in this arena. It's thus no surprise that some misperceptions will arise, which will be difficult to correct without resorting to classified information. For example, one oft-repeated criticism of the current FISA statute is that the FISC operates as nothing more than a "rubber stamp" for the government's activities. That could not be further from the truth. As one who has had the privilege of standing before the Chief Judge of the FISC at a hearing on an NSA compliance incident, I can personally attest to that. Each annual Section 702 certification application is reviewed by the FISC to ensure that it meets all statutory and constitutional requirements. Along with each annual certification application, the government must also submit for FISC approval two sets of procedures that it intends to use when conducting 702 collection. The FISC will approve the certifications and the accompanying procedures, thus permitting the government to engage in 702 collection, only when it is satisfied that they are consistent with both statutory and Fourth Amendment requirements.

The first set of procedures, called targeting procedures, is intended to ensure that only valid targets - foreign persons located outside the U.S. - are targeted for foreign intelligence collection. When foreign intelligence is collected on a valid target, however, Section 702 permits the government to collect both sides of that target's communications. Sometimes, this may include communications to or from, or that discuss information about, someone who is not the target of our surveillance. This is often referred to as incidental collection. The second set of procedures, referred to as minimization procedures, is intended to address incidental collection by laying out guidelines for the protection of any U.S. person information that happens to be incidentally acquired in the course of Section 702.

Indeed, one of the primary criticisms of Section 702 has revolved around concerns about the incidental collection of U.S. person information. The court system has proved to be instrumental in shaping the contours of permissible incidental collection during the course of surveillance, both for foreign intelligence and law enforcement purposes. In both the foreign intelligence and criminal contexts, courts have recognized that the identities of all persons who may contact or be contacted by a suspect (or a surveillance target) cannot be known. If the surveillance is otherwise lawful, the mere fact of incidental collection, on its face, does not render an acquisition unlawful. In fact, the Supreme Court reviewed this very circumstance in United States vs. Kahn. Kahn was a criminal case in which law enforcement obtained a Title III wiretap warrant on the home phone lines of Irving Kahn, a suspected gambling bookmaker. On the same day that Kahn called home to discuss gambling wins and losses, his wife Minnie also used their home phone to call a known gambling figure to discuss betting information. Minnie was then indicted along with her husband. The Supreme Court permitted the government to use Minnie's intercepted communications in her prosecution, recognizing that the wiretap warrant included language covering "persons yet unknown." The Court rejected Minnie's argument that the warrant's language amounted to a generalized warrant, because it permitted the acquisition of only those communications concerning particular gambling offenses and it required agents to minimize the interception of any innocent conversations.

Although Kahn involved a Title III criminal wiretap warrant, the underlying principles extend to the national security context. Part of the reason that incidental collection of U.S. person information under Section 702 has been tolerated by courts is due to the extensive procedures that we have in place to ensure that when such information is collected, it is handled appropriately and in a manner that protects the privacy of U.S. persons. It will not surprise you to know that the FISC looked specifically at the constitutionality of incidental collection in the 702 context in its very first opinion on 702 after the statute's enactment in 2008. After reviewing the government's original application for 702 certifications, the court recognized that 702 acquisitions may intrude upon interests protected by the Fourth Amendment to the extent that U.S. persons are parties to communications to or from a target. The FISC reviewed the two sets of targeting and minimization procedures proposed by the government for protecting U.S. persons and found that although the possibility of incidental collection "present[s] a real and non-trivial likelihood of intrusion on Fourth Amendment-protected interests," that possibility did not, by itself, "render the procedures unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Indeed, the FISC acknowledged that "the extent of such intrusion will be less in this context than in cases involving the intentional targeting of persons protected by the Fourth Amendment or otherwise lacking comparable targeting procedures."

Although incidental collection is a good example of the types of issues falling within the scope of judicial review, I can assure you that the FISC looks well beyond just the handling of incidentally collected information when reviewing the government's FISA surveillance activities. The FISC is entitled to call upon the assistance of amici when evaluating a novel or significant interpretation of the law or when it requires outside technical expertise. This amicus provision, which was added to FISA as part of the USA FREEDOM Act amendments in 2015, enables the court to draw upon additional expertise and outside perspectives when evaluating a proposed surveillance activity, thus ensuring that the FISC's oversight remains both robust and knowledgeable. The court has designated a pool of experts in national security to serve as amicus curiae at the court's request. Amici are specifically instructed to provide to the court "legal arguments that advance the protection of individual privacy and civil liberties," "information related to intelligence collection or communications technology," or any other legal arguments relevant to the issue before the court.

The FISC's amicus provisions are more than a mere statutory wink and nod to strong judicial oversight. The court has in fact called upon its amici to assist in evaluating Section 702 activities. In 2015, the FISC appointed an amicus to analyze what the court felt were two novel or significant interpretations of law that arose as part of its review of the government's annual application for 702 certifications. The first issue involved whether queries of 702 collection that are designed to return information concerning U.S. persons are consistent with statutory and constitutional requirements. The second question involved whether there were any statutory or constitutional concerns about preserving information collected under Section 702 for litigation purposes that would otherwise be subject to destruction under the government's minimization procedures. On both issues, the FISC carefully considered the views of the amicus, ultimately concluding that both of the proposed procedures were reasonably tailored to protect the privacy of U.S. persons and thus permissible under both the FISA statute and the constitution.

When it reviews our annual 702 certification applications, the FISC does not limit its inquiry to the four corners of the proposed certifications that we submit. The court instead carefully considers all information that might bear on the lawfulness of the government's Section 702 activities. For example, on an ongoing basis, the government is required to notify the FISC of any compliance incidents that arise while carrying out collection under Section 702. We continue to release (in redacted form) filings that capture many of our extensive interactions with the FISC on Section 702 activities. These filings are concrete examples of the meticulous inquiries that the FISC undertakes when examining electronic surveillance, in an effort to hold that delicate balance between national security and constitutional protections. The releases reflect the numerous hearings, written inquiries, and briefings that occur as the FISC reviews Section 702 activities and dissects areas of concern, including any relevant compliance incidents. These documents demonstrate just how accountable we are to our FISC overseers, and how seriously those judges take their responsibility to scrutinize our FISA surveillance activities.

Some Key FISC Opinions

I'd like to highlight briefly some of the key FISC opinions, both favorable and critical, so that you can get a tangible sense of how this judicial accountability works in practice. In 2008, as I discussed above, the FISC issued its first opinion on the 702 authority shortly after the FISA Amendments Act was passed. That opinion recounts the interactions between the court and the government as the FISC judge worked to fully understand how the government intended to implement its new Section 702 authority. Those interactions included a preliminary review by the court of the government's submissions, meetings with FISC staff to discuss the court's questions on the proposed targeting and minimization procedures, several written government submissions responding to FISC questions, and a hearing before the FISC on the application package. After all of these exchanges, the court ultimately found that the proposed 702 collection, if conducted in compliance with the government's targeting and minimization procedures, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and consistent with the requirements of FISA.

In 2011, however, the court's review of the government's annual 702 certifications entailed other considerations. Though the government originally filed its applications in April 2011, the FISC granted several extensions, spanning until October, to allow time for the government to better explain to the court certain newly described details about its "upstream" 702 collection, which involves the interception of internet communications as they transit the telecommunications backbone. The court ultimately granted in part and denied in part the government's applications, concluding that one aspect of the government's proposed upstream 702 collection was, in some respects, deficient on statutory and constitutional grounds. The discussion did not, however, end with this opinion. Instead, the court allowed the government 30 days to remedy the problematic portion of its collection. By late October, the government had submitted amended minimization procedures that included additional privacy safeguards, and the court concluded that these amended procedures remedied the deficiencies identified in its earlier opinion. The 2011 certification process, while protracted, is, in my view, an oversight success story. The court identified an area of concern and, in turn, the government worked hard to provide the court with technical information so that it could make an informed decision about our proposed activities. In response to the court's reasoned judgment, we tailored our procedures to remedy the perceived deficiencies.

I've already spoken about the court's use of FISA's amicus provisions while reviewing the annual 702 certifications in 2015, but the FISC's 2015 opinion is important for other reasons as well. Notably, although the FISC did approve our 702 certifications and accompanying procedures for 2015, it imposed additional reporting requirements on the government going forward, in a clear expression of its oversight authority. Specifically, the FISC ordered the government to submit three separate reports describing the government's implementation of particular targeting and minimization procedures, and it requested substantive updates, along with a hearing, on four different compliance issues discussed in its opinion.

Most recently, after initially submitting its application for renewal of the 702 certifications in the fall of 2016, the government self-reported to the FISC additional information regarding a previously-identified compliance incident involving our upstream collection under Section 702. In light of its concerns with this information, the FISC extended its time to review the 2016 certifications in order to better understand the scope of the compliance incident and ensure a thorough review. During the extension period, we decided that the most prudent course of action would be to stop conducting the type of upstream collection that was causing the compliance concerns, even though we appreciated that this curtailment would result in some intelligence losses. We accordingly amended the 2016 certifications and accompanying procedures in March of this past year to account for this change in our collection. As is evident in the recently-released opinion, the Court scrutinized the new scope of collection and how our amended procedures applied to that collection, ultimately concluding that the proposed activities were consistent with statutory and constitutional requirements. As in 2015, however, the FISC required additional reports and updates from the government to ensure that it maintains current oversight over our 702 activities. Among other things, we are required to submit written updates every 90 days on our implementation of the changes to our upstream collection activities.

Other Judicial Review

As I noted earlier, judicial scrutiny of Section 702 is not limited to the FISC in connection with its statutorily authorized duty to review FISA surveillance. In certain circumstances, challenges to surveillance programs can be brought in other federal courts across the country. One recent court case is particularly illustrative of the review of Section 702 outside of the FISC, and here is how it commenced:

A few years ago, a young man named Mohamed Mohamud was studying engineering at Oregon State University. He had emigrated to the U.S. from Somalia with his family when he was only three, and he later became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He grew up around Portland, Oregon, enjoying many typical American pursuits like music and the Los Angeles Lakers. In 2008, however, he was involved in an incident at Heathrow Airport in London during which he believed he was racially profiled by airport security. This incident set Mohamud on a path toward radicalization. He began reading jihadist literature and corresponding with other Al-Qaeda supporters. In 2010, he was arrested and indicted for his involvement in a plot to bomb the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in Portland, which was scheduled to take place the day after Thanksgiving. He was eventually found guilty of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

After the verdict but before his sentencing, the government provided Mohamud with a supplemental notice that it had offered into evidence or otherwise used or disclosed during the proceedings information derived from Section 702 collection. After receiving this notice, Mohamud petitioned the court for a new trial, arguing that any 702-derived information should be suppressed because, among other reasons, he claimed that Section 702 violated the Fourth Amendment. The federal district court considered Mohamud's claims before ultimately holding that 702 was constitutional. In so holding, the court found that 702 surveillance does not trigger the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement because any collection of U.S. person information occurring as a result of constitutionally permissible 702 acquisitions occurs only incidentally and, even if it did trigger the warrant requirement, a foreign intelligence exception applies. The court also found that "the government's compelling interest in protecting national security outweighed the intrusion of Section 702 surveillance on an individual's privacy," so the 702 collection at issue in that case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Mohamud appealed the district court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit, where the Circuit Court again looked at the constitutionality of the 702 collection at issue, with particular scrutiny on incidental collection. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the government's surveillance in this case was consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements; even if Mohamud had a Fourth Amendment right to privacy in any incidentally-collected communications, the government's searches were held to be reasonable.

Though it might mark me as a Pollyanna, rather than finding these legal challenges to our programs onerous, I like to consider them encouraging demonstrations of the functionality of our system of checks and balances. Intelligence surveillance is a complex enterprise, and we don't want these types of activities carried out in a vacuum. As is true throughout our government, accountability to the judiciary, whether in closed FISC proceedings or public criminal cases, provides a critical and independent check against the Executive Branch in the national security context. Each time a federal judge takes a hard look at an authority like 702, it offers us a fresh perspective on our activities and affords us another opportunity to either further refine our program or take comfort in judicial validation of the manner in which we have been conducting our surveillance for national security purposes. At the end of the day, either outcome is positive for the American public.

via NSA.gov

#section 702 #FISA #Glenn Gerstell #NSA #survelliance #Foreign Intelligence #speeches and interviews

3 notes · View notes