I'm not making a moral argument that they should, just describing that situation that currently exists. There is no way that the USA or other Western countries would allow the Arab nations enough self-determination for their governments to be able to repeat the OPEC oil embargo of 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis Why the growth in US domestic oil production doesn't change this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-oil-boom-is-changing-the-world-in-6-charts/ summarising http://secureenergy.org/Oil2025 I agree that it's shitty for the people who live there.
The people themselves have never really had determination. The Arabs were freed from the turks into the hands of the british and then into the hands of arab royalty who belong to a wahabist cult much like the shinto emperor-centric religion in Japan. Granted the Royalty are not 'Gods' but they are ancestrally superior, you might say. The enforced state religion elevates them and subjugates all the lesser folk/tribes/races- where is the much vaunted 'equality in islam' there? I just read a book about SA a few weeks ago. Very recent, written by a woman who had traveled extensively there (and was treated decently as she was a journalist and high-profile interviewer), I would recommend it but I cannot give a title as I borrowed it from the library and their recent mass paperbacks are only labeled as such and not by title. I thought I had mentioned it here before but cannot find it now. IMO, The oil Embargo was muscle-flexing between elites, with a much stronger soviet union to offer financial backbone. IIRC, a lot of the arab states had Migs to fly around in so there was an element of cold war bargaining in the mix.
Slavery is rife in SA. Many Saudis depend on imported labor for their daily chores. These people are often imprisoned and abused.
The Iranians had actually democratically elected a leader, Mohammed Mossadegh. BP didn't like his policies. So this corporation had its government puppets in the US and UK conspire to overthrow his government and install a more friendly monarch, popularly known as the Shah of Iran. Our "embassies" were used as part and parcel of this crime. Then, of course, we yowled about the sanctity of diplomatic relations and embassies when, for some reason suspicious of embassies, the Iranians later invaded ours and took hostages. If we hadn't toppled their democratically elected leader in 1953, it is entirely likely that Iran would have continued its course to being a modern liberal democracy. But BP's profit margins dictated otherwise.
Obama DOJ’s New Abuse of State-Secrets Privilege Revealed For nine years, the U.S. government refused to let a Stanford PhD student named Rahinah Ibrahim back in the country after putting her on the no-fly list for no apparent reason. For eight years, U.S. government lawyers fought Ibrahim’s request that she be told why. Last April, despite his promise in 2009 to do so only in only the most extreme cases, Attorney General Eric Holder tried to block Ibrahim’s case by asserting the state secrets privilege, declaring under penalty of perjury that the information she wanted “could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security.” Last week, a federal judge publicly revealed the government’s explanation for Ibrahim’s long ordeal: an FBI agent had “checked the wrong box,” resulting in her falling under suspicion as a terrorist. Even when the government found and corrected the error years later, they still refused to allow Ibrahim to return to the country or learn on what grounds she had been banned in the first place. Holder, in his April declaration, restated his own new state secrets policy, that “[t]he Department will not defend an invocation of the privilege in order to: (i) conceal violations of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (ii) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of the United States Government”. Then he did exactly what he had said he wouldn’t do. The bogus national security claims invoked were even more outrageous because they were used to continue the persecution of someone the government knew to be innocent. Ibrahim’s ordeal started on January 2, 2005, when she arrived at San Francisco International Airport to catch a flight to Malaysia for a Stanford-sponsored academic conference. A citizen of Malaysia, she had been living in the United States for four years on a student visa. But when a ticket agent saw her name on the no-fly list, he called the police. Continued - https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/14/ongoing-abuse-state-secrets-privilege/
Defying Threats to Journalism, Jeremy Scahill & Glenn Greenwald Launch New Venture, The Intercept Investigative journalists Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald join us for their first interview upon launching The Intercept, their new digital magazine http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/10/defying_threats_to_journalism_jeremy_scahill
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/miranda-v-sofshd.pdf cross post can a brit fag translate? plz
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/b...n-nsa-surveillance-return-to-the-us.html?_r=0 Home again home again jiggly jig
John Young's take on Glenn Greenwald: http://cryptome.org/2014/05/snowden-op-success.htm 15 May 2014 Snowden's No Place to Hide Operation Success Cryptome's response to a commentator on the Snowden operation as described by Greenwald's No Place to Hide and legions of newsies over a year. No need to gloss this with comsec cosmetics. As you know the most difficult problem of comsec is how to make first contact to set up a secure means between parties not yet able to trust each other. And it is when failure most often occurs. Even face to face suffers this almost insurmountable challenge whether in comsec or more generally spy sec. Fairly common attack is to appear inexperienced and clueless to get the other party to drop guard and try to help the clueless. Snowden surely knows that he could not trust anybody he was contacting, that he would be played and drawn into disclosing himself, yet he did just that to several parties he approached. Also fairly common to resist overtures by expressing doubt and demanding proof. Snowden knew that and had to accept the other parties conditions, all the other parties whipsawed him into compliance. Such as GG's laughable "pact" with Snowden to CYA the Guardian business interests, no different than what WaPo and NYT required. There are enormous gaps, prevarications, illusions and delusions in published accounts of the unfolding Snowden operation, that too, is common comsec, infosec and opsec which Snowden was highly skilled at and faced the dilemma of advising other parties far less skilled technologically but legally and financially superior. This is the Achilles Heel of the operation far from being healed. And spy agencies since day one have failed to avoid it. For us buffs, and moreso for spy agency counterintel, forensic debris abounds from the preparation and execution Greenwald (and others) describes of initial efforts of Snowden outreach, back and forth among parties, exchanges among diversely skilled communicants and their crowds of advisors and helpmates (David Miranda a key advisor to GG, he claims). Greenwald with others exploiting the affair, including all of us consumers and credulous spy buffs, have crafted a satisfying story of this with sufficient slip-ups and fuck-ups to to suspend disbelief to make it seem genuine, in particular by supplying us with "accidental" clues and inadvertent disclosures which have always seduced consumers of fiction, biblical, scientific and above all comsec comedy. To your inquiry but with caution, all the JYA PKs are still valid and remain in use. The JYA PK from 2007 is usable. However, as I previously wrote, we use numerous PKs, most for one time use, even for the same party -- a new key for each transaction. Persistent keys are vulnerable to tracking and metadating profiles of users. Few of our keys are on key servers which cannot be trusted beyond casual purposes. But then comsec cannot be trusted, none of it, OTR, PGP, Tor, Anonymizers, face to face. Lack of trust is expected in comsec, and guarding against suspension of disbelief is obligatory. The Hong Kong ploy for face to face assurance may be seen as a classic sting, first resisted then swallowed whole, or given that appearance in published accounts. The escape to Moscow another fabulosity from spy novel trade. For the spy promotional trade the seduction and entrapment of the Snowden journalist gangs is an amazing success generated the bowels of media-assistance teams of TLA funding boosters. A parallel seduction of Omidyar for lifetime comfort for poor journalists is too, right up there with the fleecing Bezos. How the oligarchs do fall for stings of their own financial and legal rigging of bookmaking.
Anonymous: Why we're PICKETING Glenn Greenwald's book tour Members of hacker collective Anonymous are preparing to picket journalist Glenn Greenwald's book tour – where the journo hopes to promote a tome about his reports on leaked files given to him by ex-National Security Agency sysadmin turned whistleblower Edward Snowden. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/14/anonymous_greenwald_book_tour_boycott_paypal14/
What is never discussed are the indigenous people of Paraguay. They are being wiped out by oil companies just as the US did to the Native Americans
Here's a post about this: https://whyweprotest.net/community/...stic-surveillance.111435/page-71#post-2455552
Retweeted by paypal14 Gabriella Coleman @BiellaColeman May 15 This weekend I'm donate to the #PayPal14 and if the amount I donate is donated by others in the day I will double it https://funds.gofundme.com/index.php?rout mercedes haefer @the_N0 I agree with the protesters in that the leaks should be leaked. I do not feel Greenwald's withholding the leaks is any better than any Retweeted by paypal14 mercedes haefer @the_N0 May 12 So the guy who works for the guy who tried to shutdown wikileaks, doesnt think we should be allowed to see the snowden leaks. makes sense. Retweeted by paypal14 mercedes haefer @the_N0 May 12 The guy who works for the owner of PayPal is saying PayPal isnt in the snowden leaks. But we cant see them. Because security! Retweeted by paypal14 mercedes haefer @the_N0 May 13 Any previous issues with PayPal or Pierre or our restitution takes a backseat to what's going on now. Retweeted by paypal14 mercedes haefer @the_N0 May 13 Now speaking on a personal level and not for my codefendants, I don't want Pierre or Greenwald to pay our restitution. https://twitter.com/paypal_14
Boy! wouldn't it be great if we could get Mercedes Haefer here to join in on this conversation. Maybe Gabi Coleman could be privvy to this also. C'mon girls where are you?
Although there's no mention of Greenwald specifically, there's a related post here: U.S. Military Bans The Intercept | The Intercept http://whyweprotest.net/threads/edw...stic-surveillance.111435/page-76#post-2479196
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...itico-magazines-hit-piece-on-glenn-greenwald/ Problem No. 1: Wimpy, pusillanimous, cowardly headline-and-subhead combo. Problem No. 2: Ignorance of history Problem No. 3: Reductionism And so on. Attacking Greenwald will discredit further leaks from him. Shut down the loudspeaker of information and the information is hidden.
Glenn Greenwald has been a paid spokesperson for CAIR. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/cairs-useful-idiot/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211 http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/how-glenn-greenwald-became-glenn-greenwald
If you think about First Look's Greenwaldian branding, the early struggles are hardly baffling. Greenwald, for all his discipline, fervor and courage, is given to relentless self-promotion unto self-aggrandizement, however much he insists he acts in the interests of the loftiest ideals. For someone who ceaselessly trumpets the monumental importance of his work, it does nonetheless often seem to have a very large component of Greenwald in it. This critical, close brand-identification is to someone who is a one-note scold, always in elevated dungeon, such that repeated exposure tends to be very wearing. Unless you happen to be as hostile to the present administration as Greenwald is, or as fixed in the same manner as he is, exclusively, exhaustively, and humorlessly on the same obsessions. How large a market is there for ceaseless, left-wing harangues whose principle target is a Democratic POTUS of historic stature? The Greenwald persona, around which First Look is built, is not a pleasant one. He is a remorseless, hyper-intelligent advocate for his cause, but he is so overbearing that you wonder if his outrage outlasts any sense of proportion you would otherwise expect in someone so intelligent. You begin to look elsewhere for evidence of objective judgment and find it and find that place more gratifying than being beaten over the head at The Intercept. National security interests are very real, however much they are dismissed by those who have no responsibility for them. Fine judgment about very difficult and necessarily problematic decisions is precisely what is necessary and I have the sense GG would be offended by even the suggestion that there might be a way in which he is wrong. But The Intercept is irritating to read even when I categorically agree with its reporting, Greenwald is often so hostile yet so over-fawning in his awed paeons to Snowden that you have to look elsewhere to have any sense of what it all means. What kind of circulation does this sort of thing have, anyway? #1 Posted by Mark J. McPherson on Mon 11 Aug 2014 at 03:32 PM see thread title
40 years after Watergate the conservatives are still fighting Nixon's battle. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344038/truth-about-bob-woodward-conrad-black
