Russland will das erste Atomkraftwerk in Ägypten bauen. Eine entsprechende Absichtserklärung wurde am Dienstag in der ägyptischen Hauptstadt Kairo unterzeichnet. Zugleich werde die Militärkooperation beider Länder gestärkt, kündigte Staatsoberhaupt Abdel Fattah al-Sisi bei einer gemeinsamen Pressekonferenz mit dem russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin im Präsidentenpalast in Kairo an. In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten war Ägypten vor allem mit den USA eng verbündet.
Washington hatte nach dem Sturz des islamistischen Präsidenten Mohammed Mursi durch die Armee 2013 seine Militärhilfe für Ägypten (1,3 Milliarden US-Dollar jährlich) eingeschränkt. Seitdem bemüht sich Kairo um Moskau. Auch im Anti-Terrorkampf wollen Russland und Ägypten enger zusammenarbeiten.
Russland zählt du
SANAA, Yemen—Just weeks after a coup that ousted Yemen’s Western-backed government, the capital of Yemen is a city painted in green, mostly with spray paint.
Green tree trunks, green sidewalks, green walls and even a green Ford F-350 bearing the Houthi slogan, which includes the words “Death to America,” on each side of the iconic American truck, about 340 of which the Pentagon shipped to Yemen over the past few years.
The Houthis are now formally in control in Yemen, which is nearing economic collapse and civil war, but governing the country is another matter. The Houthis need a political deal with other parties, but U.N.-mediated talks have so far foundered, leaving the country in a state of chaos.
Sanaa today looks less like a city governed by new leaders, and more like a neighborhood taken over by a rival gang. The Houthis have placed stickers and placards on storefronts and walls around the city, an intimidation tactic aimed at its growing list of civilian and political opponents, including al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the Houthis’ bitter enemies.
But the most visible change in the capital is the prevalence of green, meant to honor the Islamic prophet’s birthday, which was celebrated Jan. 3 this year. The Houthis, who are members of the Zaydi Shiite sect, associate that color with the life and death of Mohammed.
Parts of Sanaa Old City are barely recognizable: the green, red and white lettering of Houthi slogans runs up and down the picturesque, stone-cut walls, and even a month after the January celebrations, green streamers still crisscross from building to building above gridlocked streets in Houthi-dominated pockets of the city.
“Yemenis never celebrated like this before,” said Ibrahim Al Kathiri, a dentistry student from Dhamar province. “It’s all the Houthis. This was all their idea.”
Some things haven’t changed, however; electricity and fuel are still in short supply, corruption is rampant and political violence continues.
Houthis—and what appear to be some underage teenagers—now man the city’s many checkpoints, dressed in a mix of military uniforms and tribal garb. The Houthis took over the capital and large parts of the country last fall, and after the government of then President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi collapsed in late January, they seized control of virtually all of the state-run institutions.
They have yet to form a new government, however.
Yesterday, Mohammed Albasha, the longtime spokesman for Yemen’s embassy in Washington, D.C. announced on his Twitter feed that he would have to halt writing updates. He told The Intercept in an email that he was “on leave.”
Asked who was responding to press queries, a Yemeni embassy employee answering the phone said, “I don’t know.”
Meanwhile, the power vacuum in Sanaa continues and many of the foreign diplomats are evacuating. The U.S., British and French embassies all announced this week that they would be closing down operations and evacuating staff.
An official at Yemen’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who wished to remain anonymous due to fear of reprisal, said, “all embassies are empty or emptying in Sanaa. Who knows what’s next? We just have to wait. All we can do is wait,” he said.
- Cora Currier contributed to this article from Washington, D.C.
– Photo of Houthis manning a checkpoint in Sanaa: Casey L. Coombs
The post Life in the Emerald City: Houthis Control Yemen, But They Don’t Yet Govern It appeared first on The Intercept.
On January 26, the New York Times claimed that “a CIA drone strike in Yemen. . . . killed three suspected Qaeda fighters on Monday.” How did they know the identity of the dead? As usual, it was in part because “American officials said.” There was not a whiff of skepticism about this claim despite the fact that “a senior American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, declined to confirm the names of the victims” and “a C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.”
That NYT article did cite what it called “a member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” (AQAP), who provided the names of the three victims, one of whom was “Mohammed Toiman al-Jahmi, a Yemeni teenager whose father and brother were previously killed in American drone strikes.” The article added that “the Qaeda member did not know Mr. Jahmi’s age but said he was a member of the terrorist group.”
In fact, as the Guardian reported today, “Mr. Jahmi’s age” was 13 on the day the American drone ended his life. Just months earlier, the Yemeni teenager told that paper that “he lived in constant fear of the ‘death machines’ in the sky that had already killed his father and brother.” It was 2011 when “an unmanned combat drone killed his father and teenage brother as they were out herding the family’s camels.” In the strike two weeks ago, Mohammed was killed along with his brother-in-law and a third man.
Mohammed’s older brother Maqded said he “saw all the bodies completely burned, like charcoal” – undoubtedly quite similar to the way the Jordanian combat pilot looked after he was burned alive last month by ISIS. That’s not an accident: the weapons the U.S. military uses are deliberately designed to incinerate people to death. The missiles shot by their drones are named “Hellfire.” Of his younger, now-deceased 13-year-old brother, Maqded told the Guardian: “He wasn’t a member of al-Qaida. He was a kid.”
There are a few observations worth making about this repugnant episode:
(1) The U.S. media just got done deluging the American public with mournful stories about the Jordanian soldier, Moaz al-Kasasbeh, making him a household name. As is often the case for victims of America’s adversaries, the victim is intensely humanized. The public learns all sorts of details about their lives, hears from their grieving family members, wallows in the tragedy of their death.
By stark contrast, I’d be willing to bet that the name “Mohammed Tuaiman al-Jahmi” is never uttered on mainstream American television. Most Americans, by design, will have no idea that their government just burned a 13-year-old boy to death and then claimed he was a Terrorist. If they do know, the boy will be kept hidden, dehumanized, nameless, without the aspirations or dreams or grieving parents on display for victims of America’s adversaries (just as Americans were swamped with stories about an Iranian-American journalist detained in Iran for two months, Roxana Saberi, while having no idea that their own government imprisoned an Al Jazeera photojournalist, Sami al-Haj, in Guantanamo for seven years without charges).
When I was in Canada last October during two violent attacks – one in northern Quebec and the other in Parliament in Ottawa – both of the soldiers killed were (understandably) the subject of endless, intense media coverage featuring their lives, their dreams and their grieving parents. But I’d bet that the Canadian public was incapable of naming even a single foreign individual killed by their own government over the last decade.
It’s worth considering the extreme propaganda impact that disparity has, the way in which the U.S. media is so eagerly complicit in sustaining ongoing American militarism and violence by disappearing victims of U.S. violence while endlessly heralding the victims of its adversaries.
(2) I have no idea whether this 13-year-old boy was “a member of al-Qaeda,” whatever that might mean for a boy that young. But neither does the New York Times, which is why it’s incredibly irresponsible for media outlets reflexively to claim that those killed by U.S. drone strikes are terrorists.
That’s especially true since the NYT itself previously reported that the Obama administration has re-defined “militant” to mean “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.” In this case, Mohammed did not even qualify for that Orwellian re-definition, yet still got called a terrorist (by both the Obama administration as well as a “member of AQAP,” both of whom are, for different reasons, motivated to make that claim). Whatever else is true, extreme skepticism is required before claiming that the victims of the latest American drone strike are terrorists, but that skepticism is virtually never included.
(3) The next time there’s a violent attack on the west by a Muslim, and journalists immediately declare that Islam is the culprit and set out to demonize those who suggest it might be “blowback,” perhaps this incident can be remembered. Does one really need to blame a radical version of religious dogma to understand why people get really angry when they hear – yet again – that the children of their nation have been extinguished – incinerated – by another American drone?
If it were American teenagers rather than Yemeni ones regularly being burned to death – on American soil rather than Yemeni soil – does it take any effort to understand why there’d be widespread calls for violence against the perpetrators in response? Consider how much American rage and violence was unleashed by a single-day attack on American soil 13 years ago.
In fact, if it were the case that this 13-year-old boy were a “member of AQAP,” is it hard to understand why? Do we need to resort to claims that some primitive, inscrutable religion is to blame, or does this, from the Guardian article, make more sense:
When the Guardian interviewed Mohammed last September, he spoke of his anger towards the US government for killing his father. “They tell us that these drones come from bases in Saudi Arabia and also from bases in the Yemeni seas and America sends them to kill terrorists, but they always kill innocent people. But we don’t know why they are killing us.
“In their eyes, we don’t deserve to live like people in the rest of the world and we don’t have feelings or emotions or cry or feel pain like all the other humans around the world.”
In 2009, the U.S. got caught using cluster bombs in Yemen in an attack that slaughtered 35 women and children. Obama then successfully demanded that the Yemeni journalist who proved that the attack was from the U.S., Abdulelah Haider Shaye, be imprisoned for years. In December, 2013, a U.S. drone strike killed 12 people as they traveled to a wedding.
What’s confounding and irrational and inscrutable isn’t that people react by turning to “radicalism” and violence. It’s that many journalists and officials in western nations seem to think that they can go around for decades invading, occupying, imprisoning without charges and dropping bombs on multiple other countries around the world, regularly killing innocents, including children, and then act shocked and surprised when people in those countries, or who identify with them, want to bring violence back in return. That is a sentiment grounded in deep irrationality, blind nationalism, and primitive tribalism.
Photo: Eric Gay/AP
The post The U.S. Media and the 13-Year-Old Yemeni Boy Burned to Death Last Month by a U.S. Drone appeared first on The Intercept.
In the furor over President Obama’s remarks last week at the National Prayer Breakfast, where he compared the rise of the Islamic State with the history of Christian extremism, it’s been lost that the president was carefully retreating from the idea that the U.S. is engaged in a grand civilizational war against Islam — a longstanding fallacy which many American politicians are apparently loathe to abandon.
After the September 11th attacks in New York and Washington DC, then-President Bush made a memorable rhetorical choice to invoke the Crusades when describing the scope and nature of the coming American military response.
While the implications of such a statement were lost at the time on many Americans, the same was not true abroad. French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine reacted with alarm, saying: “We have to avoid a clash of civilizations at all costs,” and cautioning that “one has to avoid this huge trap, this monstrous trap.”
Fast forward more than a decade and the “monstrous trap” Vedrine warned of has ensnared the United States. After spending trillions of dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of people in the name of a “War on Terror,” the U.S. today remains mired in a seemingly endless cycle of conflict with an expanding array of religiously-influenced militant groups. The “War on Terror,” paradoxically, has resulted in the problem of terrorism becoming more widespread and virulent than ever.
At least part of the reason for this is that many American officials have continued in Bush’s tradition of defining the U.S. conflict with extremist Middle Eastern groups as a grand civilizational and religious battle, thus playing in to the same sharply polarizing narrative those groups seek to promote.
In the immediate aftermath of Bush’s declaration of a new crusade, Osama bin Laden himself cited Bush’s words in an interview as proof that America was a broadly hostile civilization planning to establish hegemony over the Middle East. Today, both Islamic State’s Dabiq magazine and Al Qaeda’s Inspire have regular sections devoted in part to publishing similarly helpful quotes from hostile Western officials.
Even as he has continued many of his predecessor’s worst policies in the war on terror, Obama appears to be aware of the self-defeating dynamic created by grandstanding about civilizational conflict. Speaking in a recent interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, the president said that while he recognizes the stated ideological motivations of many terrorists, he rejects the “notion that somehow that creates a religious war.”
Citing the overwhelming majority of Muslims who reject the actions of groups such Al Qaeda and ISIS, the President warned against providing “victory to terrorist networks by overinflating their importance.” He also described the Middle East and South Asia as “ground zero for needing to win back hearts and minds [of] young people,” and cautioned against using vague terms such as “radical Islam” which could alienate people in these regions even further.
At last week’s prayer breakfast, the president went on to caution attendees against getting on their “high horse” on the topic of religious extremism, and compared groups such as Islamic State with perpetrators of Christian religious violence from the Crusades up through slavery.
These reasonable comments have inflamed those still devoted to the narrative of clashing civilizations, who seem unconcerned about escalating the present conflict even further. Republican presidential hopeful and Fox News personality Mike Huckabee attacked Obama for his alleged hostility to “Christians [and] Jews in Israel,” as well as what he described as an “undying” support for American Muslims. Rep. John Fleming, a Louisiana Republican, explicitly accused Obama of “defending radical Islam” and suggested that he had referred to Islamic State members as “freedom fighters.”
Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, who has repeatedly and explicitly stated that the U.S. is in a “religious war,” has also criticized the President’s refusal to use religious terminology in defining the conflict, characterizing his decision as a conscious denial of reality. Alabama Republican Congressman Mo Brooks, for his part, suggested that Obama’s refusal to use terms like “Islamic terrorism” is likely “an unfortunate byproduct of the days when he was in a Muslim school.”
But in spite of these increasingly unhinged lamentations, Obama’s comparison of Islamic State to Crusaders and slave owners is not only accurate and historically sound, it makes practical sense as well.
Not only does such rhetoric help demonstrate a more rational and humane side of the U.S. to a generation of young Muslims, it also reinforces the message from Muslim leaders and clergy who have condemned terrorist groups for being radically out of step with Islam. Indeed, many who have defected from Islamic State or managed to escape from its prisons have described it as being markedly different from the exemplar of Islamic civilization it purports to be.
“Obama is right to not use terms such as Islamic terrorism, both for pragmatic reasons and also because it is not a very accurate way to describe this phenomenon,” said Arun Kundnani, a professor at New York University and scholar of terrorism and radicalization. “The more we learn about groups like Islamic State and see how out of step they are with mainstream Islamic beliefs, the more it becomes clear that religion for them more operates more as a form of militarized identity politics than as theology. Referring to them in religious instead of political terms gives them a legitimacy they would not otherwise have.”
With extremist groups like Islamic State waging a desperate battle to validate their narrative and claim the mantle of Islam, it’s bizarre to see American politicians essentially weighing in on their side. After over a decade of disastrously mirroring the rhetoric and behavior of extremists, the time has come to take a more reasoned approach.
Photo: AP/Charles Dharapak
The post Obama’s Christian Right Critics Agree with Islamic State appeared first on The Intercept.
The U.S. Government often warns of increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks from adversaries, but it may have actually contributed to those capabilities in the case of Iran.
A top secret National Security Agency document from April 2013 reveals that the U.S. intelligence community is worried that the West’s campaign of aggressive and sophisticated cyberattacks enabled Iran to improve its own capabilities by studying and then replicating those tactics.
The NSA is specifically concerned that Iran’s cyberweapons will become increasingly potent and sophisticated by virtue of learning from the attacks that have been launched against that country. “Iran’s destructive cyber attack against Saudi Aramco in August 2012, during which data was destroyed on tens of thousands of computers, was the first such attack NSA has observed from this adversary,” the NSA document states. “Iran, having been a victim of a similar cyber attack against its own oil industry in April 2012, has demonstrated a clear ability to learn from the capabilities and actions of others.”
The document was provided to The Intercept by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, and was prepared in connection with a planned meeting with Government Communications Headquarters, the British surveillance agency. The document references joint surveillance successes such as “support to policymakers during the multiple rounds of P5 plus 1 negotiations,” referring to the ongoing talks between the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany and Iran to forge an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program.
The document suggests that Iran has become a much more formidable cyberforce by learning from the viruses injected into its systems—attacks which have been linked back to the United States and Israel.
In June 2012, The New York Times reported that from “his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.” As part of that plan, the U.S. and Israel jointly unleashed the Stuxnet virus on Iranian nuclear facilities, but a programming error “allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet.” Israel also deployed a second virus, called Flame, against Iran.
Obama ordered cyberattacks despite his awareness that they would likely unleash a wholly new form of warfare between states, similar to the “first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade,” according to the Times report. Obama “repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons—even under the most careful and limited circumstances—could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks.”
The NSA’s concern of inadvertently aiding Iran’s cyberattack capabilities is striking given the government’s recent warning about the ability of adversaries to develop more advanced viruses. A top official at the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) appeared on 60 Minutes this Sunday and claimed that cyberattacks against the U.S. military are becoming more potent. “The sophistication of the attacks is increasing,” warned Dan Kaufman, director of DARPA’s Information Innovation Office.
The NSA document suggests that offensive cyberattacks on other states do not merely provoke counterattacks—those attacks can teach adversaries how to launch their own. “Iran continues to conduct distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks against numerous U.S. financial institutions, and is currently in the third phase of a series of such attacks that began in August 2012,” the document says. “SIGINT indicates that these attacks are in retaliation to Western activities against Iran’s nuclear sector and that senior officials in the Iranian government are aware of these attacks.”
This would not be the first time the U.S. has inadvertently assisted Iran’s attack capabilities. Last month, former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling was convicted of multiple felony counts for telling New York Times reporter James Risen about an agency program designed to feed Iran false data about nuclear engineering in order to create setbacks, but which instead may have provided useful information the Iranians were able to exploit to advance their nuclear research.
As of 2013, the NSA said that while it had no indications “that Iran plans to conduct such an attack against a U.S. or UK target, we cannot rule out the possibility of such an attack, especially in the face of increased international pressure on the regime.”
The NSA “can’t comment or speculate on the motivations of those who aim to harm the United States or our allies,” a spokesperson for the agency said. “The National Security Agency works with foreign partners to protect our interests and citizens in cyberspace.”
Photo: Iranian Presidents office/AP
Wochenendseminar mit Vorträgen, Diskussionen und Planungsrunde.
Bäuerlicher Widerstand gegen Konzerndominanz
Sie sprechen von Armuts- und Hungerbekämpfung,
meinen aber Wirtschaftsförderung.
2015 findet das Gipfeltreffen der führenden
Industrienationen im bayrischen
Elmau statt. Die G7 fördert den Trend, die
Entwicklungshilfe für die Agrarentwicklung
in Afrika, Asien und Lateinamerika für Kooperationsprojekte
mit der privaten Wirtschaft
zu vergeben. Diese so genannten
PPP-Projekte (Public Private Partnership)
sind der Kern der G7-Initiative „Neue Allianz
für Ernährungssicherung in Afrika“.
Die deutsche Entwicklungspolitik schwimmt
im Kielwasser mit ihrer „German Food
Partnership“ oder mit Minister Gerd Müllers
Steckenpferd, den „Grünen Innovationszentren“
mit. Kritiker sehen darin nicht nur
eine Fehlkonzeption der globalen Landwirtschaft,
Vorschub für Landgrabbing und
Saatgutmonople, sondern auch versteckte
Wirtschaftsförderung für deutsche Unternehmen.
Auf dem Treffen wollen wir diesen
Konzepten nachgehen und eine eigene
Position dazu finden. Wir planen auch eine
bäuerliche Aktion zum G7-Gipfel.
Zum Jahresthema 2015 bietet FIAN 20 Multiplikator*innen eine kostenlose Fortbildung für „Gipfelstürmer*innen“ an. An zwei Wochenenden werden die Inhalte vertieft und Aktionen entwickelt.
Unter der Überschrift Die Gipfelstürmer*innen werden die Teilnehmenden Aktivitäten zur Mobilisierung des Protests in ihren Wohnorten planen und durchführen, aber auch im weiteren Jahresverlauf Veranstaltungen zum Jahresthema durchführen, beispielsweise zum Welternährungstag am 16. Oktober und dem Festival „Stadt.Land.Food“.
Übernachtung und Verpflegung sind für die TeilnehmerInnen beider Seminare kostenlos.
Erstmals in der Geschichte der britischen Geheimdienste hat ein Gericht deren Gebaren in Teilen für illegal erklärt. Der Abhördienst GCHQ habe mit seiner massenhaften Sammlung privater Daten im Internet gegen die europäische Menschenrechtsgesetzgebung verstoßen, urteilte das Geheimdiensttribunal Investigatory Powers Tribunal in einer am Freitag veröffentlichten Entscheidung.
In der nur zweiseitigen Urteilsbegründung heißt es, das Ausspähen elektronischer Kommunikation britischer Bürger durch den GCHQ in Zusammenarbeit mit dem US-Geheimdienst NSA verstoße gegen die Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union.
Die Menschenrechtsorganisation Amnesty International, einer der Kläger, jubelte. Die Regierung sei damit „erschüttert“ worden, sagte Rechtsexpertin Rachel Logan. „Sie hat versucht, mit uns Katz
Die Schweizer Filiale der britischen Großbank HSBC hat Steuerhinterziehern aus aller Welt im Milliarden-Maßstab beim Vermeiden von Zahlungen an die Finanzämter geholfen. Das geht aus vertraulichen Unterlagen der Bank hervor, die mehreren Medien zugespielt und dort ausgewertet wurden. Strafen und Steuernachzahlungen in Höhe von einer Milliarde Euro seien bereits bei Steuerbehörden in nur zwölf von Dutzenden betroffener Länder eingegangen, berichteten Süddeutsche Zeitung sowie die Sender NDR und WDR nach der Auswertung Tausender vertraulicher Dokumente.
HSBC, größte Bank Europas und zweitgrößte der Welt, räumte die Vorwürfe de facto ein. „Die Schweizer Privatbank der HSBC hat 2008 eine radikale Transformation begonnen, um seine
Liebe G7-Aktivist*Innen :)
Zunächst einmal eine Entschuldigung für die Verspätung des Newsletters. Wir hatten in München einiges zu tun die letzten Tage SiKo, Keupstraßenbündnis, die diversen *GIDAs plus das Gerangel um die Campflächen. Umsomehr freuen wir uns natürlich über euer Kommen diese Woche, hiermit ergeht also ganz herzlich die Einladung zur Aktionskonferenz. Näheres gibt’s weiter unten. Der Newsletter ist diesmal auch etwas kürzer als sonst.
Die Aktionskonferenz findet am 14./15.2.2015 zum zweiten Mal im Eine-Welt-Haus (Schwanthalerstraße 80, München) statt. Im Anhang schicken wir euch die vorläufige Tagesordnung mit. Essen gibt es vor Ort in der Weltwirtschaft, wer einen Platz zum Übernachten hat oder anbieten möchte, schreibt bitte an: firstname.lastname@example.org
Die Aktionskonferenz ist zweigeteilt. D.h., am Samstag gibt es Plena und Arbeitskreisphasen, am Sonntag gibt es die Möglichkeit, entweder nach Garmisch-Partenkirchen zu fahren oder in München weiter an der Planung der Proteste zu arbeiten. In Garmisch, genauer in Klais, haben wir eine Kundgebung angemeldet und organisieren eine Pressekonferenz. Für alle, die mitkommen, gibt es natürlich die Möglichkeit, in den umliegenden Bergen auf Entdeckungstour zu gehen :) Jeder der möchte, nehme also dementsprechend Kleidung und besonders wichtig, passendes Schuhwerk, mit.
Es gibt auch dieses Wochenende einiges zu tun und zu besprechen. Finanzen, Organisation im Bündnis, Mobilisierung, Materialien etc. Im Anhang ein Vorschlag für die Tagesordnung am Samstag.
Der AK Camp hat nach dem Infostand am Aktionskonferenzwochenende schon den nächsten Infostand in der Region geplant. Am 21. Februar geht es nach Mittenwald. Dabei brauchen die Genoss*Innen noch Unterstützung. Meldet euch bitte bei ihnen unter email@example.com
Je näher wir an den Sommer kommen, desto mehr Gruppen und Organisationen wollen an den Protesten teilnehmen und mobilisieren. Zwei unserer Aktivist*Innen waren Ende Januar auf einer kleinen Deutschlandtour und haben in verschiedenen Städten über das Bündnis berichtet. Mittlerweile gibt es in Jena, Nürnberg, Stuttgart, Altötting, Berlin und Lübeck Stop-G7-Bündnisse. In Rostock, Köln und Dortmund formieren sich ebenso schon erste Gruppen, auch aus Österreich und der Schweiz kriegen wir Post. An dieser Stelle daher nochmal an alle, die sich vor Ort organisieren wollen: wir können euch email-Adressen sowie email-Verteiler über unsere Homepage zur Verfügung stellen, bitte schreibt dazu an: firstname.lastname@example.org
Wen es interessiert, hier die Webseiten aus Lübeck und Berlin:
Termine werden ab sofort immer auf unserer Homepage eingestellt. Bitte informiert euch dort über Aktionen oder Veranstaltungen in eurer Nähe. Falls ihr etwas wisst, was wir (noch) nicht wissen, einfach Initiative ergreifen. Da wären wir ganz froh darüber :) Einen Terminankündigung wiederhole ich aber dann doch noch:
Montag, 09.02.2015 – 19.00 Uhr, Westendstraße 19, Aktiventreffen München
Falls ihr Fragen habt, stehen wir bereit um euch zu antworten oder weiterzuhelfen. Keine falsche Scheu, wir tun unser Bestes.
Solidarische Grüße aus München,
Aktionsbündnis “Stop G7 Elmau”
Am Wochenende fand die 51. Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz statt -
Von THOMAS EIPELDAUER, 9. Februar 2015 -
Äußerlich war alles wie jedes Jahr Anfang Februar in München. Im Bayerischen Hof versammelt sich die – vor allem – westliche Elite aus Politik, Militär und Rüstungsindustrie, die Innenstadt ist polizeilich abgeriegelt und besetzt, einige tausend Menschen protestieren auf der Straße gegen die Zusammenkunft.
In der Konferenz selbst dürfte allerdings die Lage angespannter sein, als in den Jahren zuvor. Denn das zentrale Thema, wie könnte es anders sein, ist die Ukraine und dort droht vieles aus dem Ruder zu laufen. Im Osten des Landes wird wieder erbittert
Are you, your family or your community at risk of turning to violent extremism? That’s the premise behind a rating system devised by the National Counterterrorism Center, according to a document marked For Official Use Only and obtained by The Intercept.
The document–and the rating system–is part of a wider strategy for Countering Violent Extremism, which calls for local community and religious leaders to work together with law enforcement and other government agencies. The White House has made this approach a centerpiece of its response to terrorist attacks around the world and in the wake of the Paris attacks, announced plans to host an international summit on Countering Violent Extremism on February 18th.
The rating system, part of a 36-page document dated May 2014 and titled “Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts,” suggests that police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as: “Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,” “Talk of Harming Self or Others,” and “Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity).” The ranking system is supposed to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies.
Families are judged on factors such as “Aware[ness] of Each Other’s Activities,” as well as levels of “Parent-Child Bonding,” and communities are rated by access to health care and social services, in addition to “presence of ideologues or recruiters” as potential risk factors.
A low score in any of these categories would indicate a high risk of “susceptibility to engage in violent extremism,” according to the document. It encourages users of the guide to plot the scores on a graph to determine what “interventions” could halt the process of radicalization before it happens.
“The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical and social service employees to rate the communities, individuals and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face,” said Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. German called the criteria used for the ratings “subjective and specious.”
Arun Kundnani, a professor at New York University, said that enlisting communities in the way the administration suggests in the guide, “leads a range of non-policing professionals to cast particular suspicion on Muslim populations and profile them for behaviors that have no real connection to criminality.”
Kundnani also questioned the science behind the rating system. “There’s no evidence to support the idea that terrorism can be substantively correlated with such factors to do with family, identity, and emotional well-being,” he said.
The guide itself notes that the effects of Countering Violent Extremism programs are “not easy to quantify.”
The U.S. government isn’t alone in its attempts to spot youth allegedly at risk of becoming terrorists. The government of France recently issued a widely mocked graphic demonstrating ostensible warning signs of radicalization, which suggested that abrupt diet or lifestyle changes are correlated with proclivities for violent extremism. (White House counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco last April warned parents and community members to look out for “subtle” signs, like “sudden personality changes in their children at home—becoming confrontational.”)
The British government has put forward a plan to begin monitoring signs of radicalization at the pre-school level, and in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, children in France as young as eight years old have been detained and questioned by police for allegedly espousing radical views.
Experts have suggested that intervention by law enforcement or other branches of the government in individuals’ lives, particularly young people, based solely based on the views they express, can potentially criminalize constitutionally protected behavior.
In some cases, as The Intercept has reported, community outreach from law enforcement has also crossed the line into intelligence gathering.
Most of the document is a review of the literature on a variety of approaches to dealing with the threat of radicalization. Examples given include a community policing program in Lewiston, Maine (population 36,000), and Saudi Arabia’s rehabilitation program for former jihadists, including Guantanamo detainees.
Though the White House has insisted that Countering Violent Extremism is not directed at any specific group, the NCTC guide only cites examples drawn from Muslim communities.
“It is obvious that, in practice, [this] would mostly only be applied to Muslim communities,” said Kundnani, the NYU professor.
A public affairs officer for the National Counterterrorism Center declined to answer questions about the rating system, the methodology behind it, or why the document was marked For Official Use Only.
Photo: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images
The post Is Your Child a Terrorist? U.S. Government Questionnaire Rates Families at Risk for Extremism appeared first on The Intercept.
Am gestrigen Samstag, 7. Februar 2015 beteiligten sich in Kiel zeitweise bis zu 500 Menschen an der Demonstration „Solidarität mit dem revolutionären Aufbau in Kurdistan – Weg mit dem Verbot der PKK!“ zu der das Kobanê Solidaritäts-Komitee Kiel unterstützt von 18 Gruppen und Organisationen aus dem norddeutschen Raum aufgerufen hatte. Die Demonstrant_innen sammelten sich ab 14 Uhr zur Auftaktkundgebung auf dem zentralen Asmus-Bremer-Platz und zogen anschließend durch die Kieler Innenstadt mit einer Zwischenkundgebung auf dem Berliner Platz zum Hauptbahnhof, wo die Demo gegen 16.30 Uhr zu Ende ging.