muß ich einfach mal wieder aufschreiben, wie sehr es nervt, was die Grünen alles so kaputt gemacht haben und im Brustton der Überzeugung weiter machen ...
Die Militarisierung hier im Lande wäre ohne das offensive Eintreten der Grünen kaum ohne so wenig sichtbaren Widerstand geschehen. Exemplarisch, als Grigold - ehemals attac - zu den Grünen ging als EU-Kandidat, und als wesentliche Abgrenzung zu den Linken deren Ablehnung von Bundeswehreinsätzen als Kriterium nannte!
Ja, die EU-Politik: die Grünen halfen, den Lissabonvertrag hierzulande durchzusetzen - genau dieser Vertrag, der uns in der praktischen EU-Politik ständig Scherereien bereitet. Immanent sind die Grünen bei Sozial- und Bildungspolitik immer neoliberaler Mainstream. Kein Wunder wie selbstverständlich der Union Grünen-Koalitionen erscheinen.
Versprechen sind Schall und Rauch: Kooperation Militär/Schulen, Verfassungsschutz an Schulemn usw, Verkehrspolitik, da sind sie ebenso voll auf Lobby-Ebene (Beispiel: Fernbusse zu Lasten der Bahn haben sie mit abgesegnet:nix Ökologie in der Verkehrspolitik). Bei der Durchsetzung "Stuttgart 21", auch ein Musterbeispiel neoliberaler Verkehrspolitik, zeigen sie bayerisches CSU-Ordnungsdenken.
Außenpolitisch sind sie sowieso seit Fischer die Scharfmacher vom Dienst - vom Krieg gegen Jugoslawien bis zur jetzigen Ukraine-Eskalation, die Patriots gegen Syrien mit der Türkei, die NATO-Politik kann manchen Grünen (ok, nicht allen) nicht bösartig genug sein ...
At an 18th-century mansion in England’s countryside last week, current and former spy chiefs from seven countries faced off with representatives from tech giants Apple and Google to discuss government surveillance in the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s leaks.
The three-day conference, which took place behind closed doors and under strict rules about confidentiality, was aimed at debating the line between privacy and security.
Among an extraordinary list of attendees were a host of current or former heads from spy agencies such as the CIA and British electronic surveillance agency Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. Other current or former top spooks from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and Sweden were also in attendance. Google, Apple, and telecommunications company Vodafone sent some of their senior policy and legal staff to the discussions. And a handful of academics and journalists were also present.
According to an event program obtained by The Intercept, questions on the agenda included: “Are we being misled by the term ‘mass surveillance’?”, “Is spying on allies/friends/potential adversaries inevitable if there is a perceived national security interest?”, “Who should authorize intrusive intelligence operations such as interception?”, “What should be the nature of the security relationship between intelligence agencies and private sector providers, especially when they may in any case be cooperating against cyber threats in general?”, and “How much should the press disclose about intelligence activity?”
The list of participants included:From companies:
John McLaughlin, the CIA’s former acting director and deputy director; Jami Miscik, the CIA’s former director of intelligence; Mona Sutphen, member of President Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board and former White House deputy chief of staff; Rachel Brand, member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; George Newcombe, board of visitors, Columbia University law school; David Ignatius, Washington Post columnist and associate editor; Sue Halpern, New York Review of Books contributor.From the U.K.:
Robert Hannigan, current chief of British surveillance agency Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ; Sir David Omand, former GCHQ chief; Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former head of the British parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee; Lord Butler of Brockwell, member of the Intelligence and Security Committee; Dr Jamie Saunders, director of the National Cybercrime Unit at the National Crime Agency; Sir Mark Waller, Intelligence Services Commissioner; Peter Clarke, former head of Counter Terrorism Command at London’s Metropolitan Police; Baroness Neville-Jones, House of Lords special representative to business on cyber security and member of the joint parliamentary committee on national security strategy; John Spellar, member of parliament; Duncan Campbell, investigative journalist; Gordon Corera, BBC security correspondent; Professor Timothy Garton Ash, historian and author; Phillipa McCrostie, global vice chair of transaction advisory services, Ernst & Young.From Europe:
Ernst Uhrlau, former head of the German federal intelligence service, the BND; Christophe Bigot, director of strategy for French surveillance agency Directorate General for External Security; Ingvar Akesson, former director general of Sweden’s surveillance agency, the FRA; Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union’s counter terrorism coordinator; Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, chair of the EU’s Article 29 Working Party, which deals with data protection issues; Dr Guiseppe Busia, secretary general of the Italian data protection authority; Jacob Kohnstamm, chairman of the Dutch data protection authority.From Australia and Canada:
David Irvine, former chief of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation; Richard Fadden, Canadian government national security adviser and deputy minister at the Department of National Defense, former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; Kent Roach, professor of law at the University of Toronto; Jacques Fremont, president, Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission.
The event was chaired by the former British MI6 spy chief Sir John Scarlett and organized by the Ditchley Foundation, which holds several behind-closed-doors conferences every year at its mansion in Oxfordshire (pictured above) in an effort to address “complex issues of international concern.” The discussions are held under what is called the Chatham House Rule, meaning what is said by each attendee during the meetings cannot be publicly revealed, a setup intended to encourage open and frank discussion. The program outlining the conference on surveillance warned participants “not under any circumstances to reveal to any person not present at the conference” details about what particular individuals talked about.
Investigative reporter Duncan Campbell, who attended the event, told The Intercept that it was a “remarkable” gathering that “would have been inconceivable without Snowden,” the National Security Agency whistleblower.
“Away from the fetid heat of political posturing and populist headlines, I heard some unexpected and surprising comments from senior intelligence voices, including that ‘cold winds of transparency’ had arrived and were here to stay,” said Campbell, who has been reporting on British spy agencies over a career spanning four decades.
He added: “Perhaps to many participants’ surprise, there was general agreement across broad divides of opinion that Snowden – love him or hate him – had changed the landscape; and that change towards transparency, or at least ‘translucency’ and providing more information about intelligence activities affecting privacy, was both overdue and necessary.”
One particularly notable attendee was GCHQ chief Hannigan, who stayed only for the first day of the discussions. Hannigan recently took over the top British eavesdropping job, and one of the first things he did in the post was to publicly accuse U.S. tech companies of being “command-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals,” which is not likely to have gone down well with the likes of Google and Apple. (Neither Google nor Apple had responded to requests for comment on this story at time of publication.)
Hannigan may have viewed the event as an opportunity to rein in his rhetoric and attempt to gain the trust of the tech giants. The British spy chief has said U.S. tech companies should provide “greater support” to surveillance agencies and that he wants to see “better arrangements for facilitating lawful investigation by security and law enforcement agencies than we have now.” In the U.S., similar pressure has been exerted on the companies, with federal agencies pushing for greater cooperation on surveillance amid an increased adoption of encryption technology that protects the privacy of communications.
In the aftermath of Snowden revelations showing extensive Internet surveillance perpetrated by British and American spies and their allies, Google and other companies have reportedly become more resistant to government data requests. Google engineers were outraged by some of the disclosures and openly sent a “fuck you” to the surveillance agencies while hardening Google’s security. Meanwhile, Apple has expanded the range of data that’s encrypted by default on iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers, and CEO chief Tim Cook has vowed never to give the government access to Apple servers, stating “we all have a right to privacy.” But the Ditchley event is a sign that, behind the scenes at least, a dialogue is beginning to open up between the tech giants and the spy agencies post-Snowden, and relations may be thawing.
Photo: Graham Barclay/Bloomberg/Getty Images
The post Apple and Google Just Attended a Confidential Spy Summit in a Remote English Mansion appeared first on The Intercept.
Sen. Maria Cantwell engaged in a very public maneuver on the Senate floor Thursday, withholding her vote in favor of the big trade bill until she got assurances that there would be a vote on renewing the Export-Import Bank.
Afterward, explaining the fervency of her support for the Ex-Im Bank, she told such a howler that even the Capitol press corps, not empowered to actually call a senator a liar, made sure to offer readers the opportunity to reach that conclusion on their own.
The Democrat from Washington state, where Boeing is the single largest employer, said her support for the Ex-Im – often called the “Bank of Boeing” because fully $8 billion of the bank’s $12 billion in annual loan guarantees support the international sales of its jetliners – wasn’t inspired by the aerospace giant, but by small businesses in her state, like one in Yakima that exports music stands.
Erica Warner’s story for the Associated Press was headlined “Sen. Cantwell turns Senate divisions on trade to advantage,” and began as follows:
President Barack Obama’s trade bill faced a crucial test vote in the Senate, and Washington state Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell saw an opportunity.
In a tense drama that unfolded in real time on the Senate floor Thursday, Cantwell withheld her vote to move forward on the trade legislation until she received assurances from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that the Senate would vote on renewing the Export-Import Bank.
Ex-Im is a little-known government agency that guarantees loans to help U.S. exporters. One of its major beneficiaries: Boeing Co., which employs 80,000 people in Washington state.
Warner then drily noted Cantwell’s explanation:
But Cantwell said she thought not of Boeing but of a little company in Yakima., Wash., that exports music stands to China as she made her stand in the Senate well.
And she added this kick at the end of the story:
Her moves did not go unnoticed by Boeing, whose executive, James McNerney, was on the Hill Thursday morning to meet with Senate Democratic leaders. Company spokesman Tim Neale said, “She’s been very supportive of us on this issue which we really appreciate.”
The Ex-Im bank has become a target of Tea-party conservatives and other free-market purists who see it, with some justification, as the height of crony capitalism. It will have to shut down on July 1 if Congress doesn’t reauthorize it.
The Ex-Im bank finances about one-third of Boeing deliveries — 123 jetliners in 2013 alone. A recent study found that “An astounding 66 percent of the bank’s portfolio of loan guarantees was awarded to Boeing during FY 2013.”
Here’s a nifty chart:
And the company has hardly been shy in its advocacy. “We have been lobbying a lot on this because it’s a very important issue for us,” Tim Neale, Boeing’s government operations spokesman, told the New York Times. “We know our business, and we know there are customers even in times of good credit availability that need a government loan guarantee.”
In fact, a somewhat sympathetic view of Cantwell is that she is lying because she’s a victim of extortion. Boeing has all but said: “Hate to see anything happen to all those nice high-paying jobs in your state.”
“Most of my engineering and manufacturing jobs are in the United States and I’d like to keep it that way. But without Ex-Im financing, you’d have to start asking the question” about where they should be, a Boeing executive said last month.
It seems to me that Carl Hulse, writing for the New York Times’ political blog, could have taken slightly greater liberties than he did in his write-up. He noted Cantwell’s crucial role in the key vote, “sending the measure over a procedural hurdle and toward likely Senate approval by the weekend.”
Then he noted at the end:
Ms. Cantwell says she realizes that people believe she is advocating for Boeing, but she said she was more driven by smaller businesses in her state such as Manhasset Specialty Company in Yakima, Wash., which wants to expand the export of its music stands.
“People are going to think it is about Boeing, but that company is what I am really fighting for,” she said. “Big business can take care of itself.”
So where did Cantwell come up with this little Yakima music-stand business?
It’s first appearance in the Nexis database came in a Yakima Herald newspaper story dated March 21:
Manhasset Specialty Co. shipped its music stands to more than 20 countries last year, and those exports made up more than a third of the Yakima company’s overall sales.
The shipments went without any complications. However, the company has a safety net should anything go wrong: risk protection through the Export-Import Bank of the United States, or Ex-Im Bank for short. The protection provides coverage when a foreign buyer fails to pay.
Ex-Im allows Manhasset to extend favorable terms for international customers. For example, it can drop requirements for cash in advance or a letter of credit.
“If we weren’t able to offer those terms, our business would be decreased pretty considerably,” General Manager Dan Roberts said.
Even that story, however, offered its readers some key context, pointing out that from 2007 to 2015, “Of the $61 billion used to back exports from Washington state, more than $59 billion went to Boeing.”
I’m not sure exactly how to read this chart, but it looks like Manhassett got something like .0004% of what Boeing did.
And it doesn’t appear that Cantwell’s vote for the trade pact – which most of her fellow Democrats oppose as benefitting multinational corporations, at the expense of American workers — was actually in doubt. Boeing would benefit from that, too. Cantwell announced in April: “I think there is great economic opportunity outside the United States and I support Trade Promotion Authority.”
(This post is from our blog: Unofficial Sources.)
Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
The post Cantwell Delivers Howler to Explain Vote on Trade Bill, Pointed Stenography Ensues appeared first on The Intercept.
Chris Christie took a trip to New Hampshire this week, where he explained it would be a horrendous mistake for Congress to impose new restrictions on the National Security Agency. What he said may sound to you like standard, boring politican-speak, but read it anyway:
We lost a friend of ours in our parish [on September 11, 2001]. My oldest son’s kindergarten teacher lost her brother, who was a New York City firefighter. And my son Andrew’s best friend lost his father that morning in the trade center …
I’m the only person who will come before you and talk to you who has actually used those tools as a prosecutor, used the Patriot Act, used Section 215, had to review those applications and approve them, and brought two major terrorist cases while I was U.S. attorney. Both resulting in convictions, one of them against six radical Islamic terrorists who were planning to attack Fort Dix and our soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. We got the intelligence, we interceded and prevented the attack, and now those six folks are serving their time in federal prison because we did….
The thing that’s demoralizing to me is that I really think there are so many sectors in our country who … have forgotten what 9/11 felt like …
What did it feel like to us? …
You know, you can’t enjoy your civil liberties if you’re in a coffin.
There’s nothing special about that, you’ve heard it a million times before.
But now take a look at this 2002 description of Al Manar, the Lebanese satellite station run by Hezbollah, quoting its news director Hassan Fadlallah. (Hezbollah literally means “Party of God” and has been called the “A-Team of Terrorists” by former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage.)
Al Manar is “trying to keep the people in the mood of suffering,” [said Fadallah] … “In Spite of the Wounds” portrays as heroes men who were wounded fighting Israel in South Lebanon … Al Manar also has a weekly program called “Terrorists” … The show “Terrorists,” he told me, airs vintage footage of what it terms “Zionist crimes” …
So note these similarities:
• Most importantly, Christie and Hezbollah are worried their potential followers may stop focusing on traumatic events of the past. In other words, it’s a bad thing if people no longer feel intense sorrow and fear.
• Specifically, Christie and Hezbollah want us to be scared of religious-based terrorism.
• Both want to associate themselves with heroes who are protecting us from the scary, religious-based terrorism.
When it’s Hezbollah, we can perceive their clumsy, transparent manipulation of listeners’ emotions. We can also see it in Tehran’s huge propaganda murals, the “Walls of Martyrdom,” which constantly remind Iranians of soldiers killed in the “Imposed War” with Iraq in 1980s and imply the dead heroes loved Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei. And in Slobodan Milosevic’s 1989 St. Vitus Day speech, in which he used the 600th anniversary of Serbian defeat at the Battle of Kosovo to demand that Serbs remember how “this unjustly suffering country” had “defended the European culture, religion, and European society” from cruel enemies with a different religion.
When the clumsy, transparent manipulation is being done by our own politicians, though, it can be harder to see. But if you don’t think Lebanese Shiites should trust the leaders of Hezbollah, or Iranians should trust their ayatollahs, you shouldn’t trust Chris Christie. Or these guys:
(This post is from our new blog: Unofficial Sources.)
Photo: Darren McCollester / Getty
The post Chris Christie Uses Rhetorical Strategy Right Out of the Zealot Handbook appeared first on The Intercept.
Von THOMAS EIPELDAUER, 22. Mai 2015 -
Am 17. Mai meldete sich auf dem linken Nachrichtenportal Indymedia eine anonyme Gruppierung unter dem Label "161Boxing" zu Wort, die behauptete "beträchtliche Datenmengen von führenden Nationalisten" sichergestellt zu haben. Die Daten, die den Antifaschisten wohl im Zuge einer Intervention bei dem Leipziger Neonazi Alexander Kurth in die Hände gefallen sind, bestanden zum einen in interner Kommunikation der NPD, zum anderen dokumentierten sie umfangreich die Kommunikation verschiedener Strömungen der Rechten in Sachsen. In Rahmen der zuerst geleakten Dokumente ließ sich etwa nachvollziehen, dass der Leipziger PEGIDA-Ableger LEGIDA logistische Hilfe aus Neonazi-Strukturen bezieht. (1)
Interessanter noch als
At least one small slice of the American public looks forward to the non-stop, sleazy political advertisements set to inundate viewers during the 2016 elections: media executives and their investors.
Peter Liguori, the chief executive of Tribune Company, said earlier this month that the next presidential campaign presents “enormous opportunity” for advertising sales. Speaking at a conference hosted by J.P. Morgan Chase, Liguori, whose company owns television stations and a number of newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, referenced Super PAC spending as a key factor for why he thinks Tribune Co. political advertising revenue will rocket from $115 million in 2012 to about $200 million for the 2016 campaign cycle.
Vince Sadusky, the chief executive of Media General, the parent company of 71 television stations across the country, told investors in February that his company is positioned to benefit from unlimited campaign spending, referencing decisions by the Supreme Court. “We are really looking forward to the 2016 elections with spending on the presidential race alone estimated to surpass $5 billion,” Sadusky said, according to a transcript of his remarks.
In 2012, Les Moonves, president and chief executive of CBS, memorably said, “Super PACs may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS.”
His views appear unchanged. In a February investor call, Moonves predicted “strong growth with the help of political spending,” particularly on television. He added dryly, “looking ahead, the 2016 presidential election is right around the corner and, thank God, the rancor has already begun.”
In recent months, executives from media companies such as Nexstar Broadcasting, Gannett, and E.W. Scripps Co. have told investors that they are expecting a big jump in revenue from the 2016 political ad buys.
Listen to the Tribune Co.’s Liguori’s remarks here:
Listen to CBS News Corp.’s Moonves’s remarks here:
The New York Times and Bloomberg have chronicled the rising political revenue to broadcast media companies, a trend accelerated by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which effectively removed limits on individual, corporate and union spending. A single station in Columbus, Ohio, for example, “grossed about $50 million in advertising [in 2012], of which at least $20 million was attributed to campaign spending,” according to the Times. And the 2016 campaign cycle is expected to be the first time digital advertising alone will reach $1 billion, making big money groups a lucrative source of revenue for online publications.
Media watchdog groups worry that news outlets won’t investigate the special interests buying advertisements if their companies become dependent upon the same groups for revenue. Tim Karr, senior director at Free Press, compared six television markets over a set period and found “a near-complete station blackout on local reporting about the political ads they aired.”
Reliance on political ad spending has already led some media interests to fight against reforms designed to make the American election system cleaner.
For nearly two decades, the National Association of Broadcasters, a lobby group for media corporations, has fought bipartisan efforts to provide free airtime to candidates, a reform advocates say would reduce the moneyed barriers to political entry for candidates.
Such an idea was proposed by President Bill Clinton and was a key plank of the campaign finance reform legislation championed by former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. But the NAB lobbied aggressively to kill the idea, eventually succeeding in stripping it out of the McCain-Feingold bill and pressuring the Federal Communications Commission to back down from pursuing the free airtime rule.
In a 2002 interview on CNN, McCain complained that the NAB is “the most powerful lobby in Washington.” Not only because they spend money on campaign contributions, but because “these are the people that shape the opinion to a large degree of the people who are your constituents,” McCain said.
Retired Sen. Robert G. Torricelli, D-N.J., lamenting “one of the great acts of corporate hypocrisy,” once said “the media that have been so critical of the campaign finance system should be ashamed that their own corporations are paying lobbyists to defeat meaningful reform.”
In more recent years, media companies have attempted to obstruct FCC rules promulgated during the Obama administration to digitize mandatory forms revealing information about political ad buys. Even that minor reform was too much. In addition to the NAB, News Corp., owner of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News; NBC Universal, parent of NBC News and MSNBC; and Allbritton, which owns television stations and Politico, were among the media companies to protest the 2012 rule, according to ProPublica’s Justin Elliott.
In spite of declining television advertising revenue expected this year, credit rating agencies recently gave broadcast companies a sunny two-year outlook. The reason, Carl Salas, Moody’s senior credit officer, told the Los Angeles Times, is that political ad spending is expected to boom next year thanks in large part to the Citizens United decision. “Political advertising revenue defies gravity,” Salas remarked.
(This post is from our blog: Unofficial Sources.)
Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty
The post Media Executives Are Salivating Over Big Money Flooding the 2016 Election Cycle appeared first on The Intercept.
Die Erben der Enterbten -
Von MATTHIAS RUDE, 22. Mai 2015 -
Eine Stadt aus Stein und Eisen. Eine erleuchtete Stadt, in der die Mülleimer von nie gesehenen, nicht einmal erträumten Resten überquellen – eine unerreichbare Stadt. So beschrieb Frantz Fanon in Die Verdammten dieser Erde (1961) die Sicht der Kolonisierten auf Europa. Über Afrika hingegen schrieb er: „Man wird dort irgendwo, irgendwie geboren. Man stirbt dort irgendwie, an irgendwas.“
„Der Anblick aneinander geketteter junger Schwarzer weckt in Afrika unweigerlich böse Erinnerungen; freilich sollten sie diesmal nicht mit Gewalt in den Westen verschleppt, sondern
Americans for Peace, Prosperity and Security — a new group led by former government officials with ties to the military contractors — is expanding into South Carolina as the organization seeks to press presidential candidates to adopt more hawkish positions.
As we reported earlier this month, APPS was launched this year to encourage candidates to embrace “American engagement” abroad on a range of issues the group presents as dangerous threats to national security. The group is led by former Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who served as chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Many of the people on its board work for major military and homeland security corporations.
On Wednesday, APPS announced a new chapter in South Carolina and its intent to sponsor a candidate forum next month.
Jonathan Hoffman, a former border security official in the George W. Bush administration, will serve as the executive director of the South Carolina chapter. Hoffman previously ran for Congress and worked as a consultant to the Chertoff Group, the homeland security-focused consulting firm founded by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.
The South Carolina chapter will be advised by a local board that includes former Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., now an advisor to the a lobbying group representing the shoe industry and Van D. Hipp, Jr., the chairman of a lobbying firm that represents drone-maker General Atomics as well as General Dynamics, L-3 Communications, Northrop Grumman, Leidos, and Raytheon.
The group continues to expand. On Wednesday afternoon in Des Moines, Iowa, former Gov. Rick Perry, R-Tex., who is mulling a presidential bid, appeared at an APPS-hosted event.
(This post is from our blog: Unofficial Sources.)
Photo: Americans for Peace, Prosperity and Security founder Mike Rogers appears at a RAND Corp. event earlier this year, APPS/Facebook
The post Defense-Contractor Group Pushing Presidential Candidates to Be More Hawkish Arrives in S.C. appeared first on The Intercept.