TBR News December 7, 2016

Dec 07 2016

The Voice of the White House  

Washington, D.C.  December 7, 2016:”A man named Robert Trumbull Crowley died in 2000. Crowley was a retired deputy director of clandestine operations for the CIA and when he left, he brought his files with him. Before he died, he extracted a considerable number of files from the collection and had his son, Gregory U. Crowley, ship these to a revisionist write and friend in Wisconsin. Many of the issues covered are history but most interesting history. Crowley was involved with all manner of high-level governmental plottings, had written two manuscripts, one on the intelligence background to the Vietnam wars and the other on the methodology used by the government to delude not only the American public but also foreign entities. Given the recent releases by WikiLeaks of important documents, perhaps the time has come to publish the more interesting and serious papers from the Crowley papers. One writer, a CIA-connected friend, has denied that Mr. Crowley ever send his documents to anyone else. He claims he took the files from Crowley’s wife, Emily, and he alone has them. No one at Langley wishes to believe that they were picked over by Crowley himself before sending them to a friend and are unquestionably genuine…and explosive. Coming soon.” Fake News Versus No News

How Russia is pilloried while real news about Israel goes unreported

December 6, 2016

by Philip Giraldi

Unz Review

The drama surrounding allegations that the internet is awash with “fake news” is being promoted by the so-called mainstream media which certainly has a lot to answer for when it comes to producing material that does not pass the smell test. Does the name Judith Miller ring any bells? And the squeaks of rage coming from the U.S. Congress over being lied to is also something to behold as the federal government has been acting in collusion with the media to dish up falsehoods designed to start wars since the time of the Spanish-American conflict in 1898, if not before.

The fake news saga is intended to discredit Donald Trump, whom the media hates mostly because they failed to understand either him or the Americans who voted for him in the recent election. You have to blame somebody when you are wrong so you invent “fake news” as the game changer that explains your failure to comprehend simple truths. To accomplish that, the clearly observable evidence that the media was piling on Donald Trump at every opportunity has somehow been deliberately morphed into a narrative that it is Trump who was attacking the media, suggesting that it was all self-defense on the part of the Rachel Maddows of this world, but anyone who viewed even a small portion of the farrago surely will have noted that it was the Republican candidate who was continuously coming under attack from both the right and left of the political-media spectrum.

There are also some secondary narratives being promoted, including a pervasive argument that Hillary Clinton was somehow the victim of the news reporting due specifically to fake stories emanating largely from Moscow in an attempt to not only influence the election but also to subvert America’s democratic institutions. I have observed that if such a truly ridiculous objective were President Vladimir Putin’s desired goal he might as well relax. Our own Democratic and Republican duopoly has already been doing a fine job at subverting democracy by assiduously separating the American people from the elite Establishment that theoretically represents and serves them.

Another side of the mainstream media lament that has been relatively unexplored is what the media chooses not to report. At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S. Instead of seeking a new Cold War, Washington should instead focus on working with Russia to make sure that disagreements over policies in relatively unimportant parts of the world do not escalate into nuclear exchanges. Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the U.S. through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House. Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail.

Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington’s intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill. Neoconservatives are frequently described as ideologues, but the truth is that they are more interested in gaining increased access to money and power than they are in promulgating their own brand of global regime change.

There is, however, another country that has interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America’s legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby that oddly is not subject to the accountability afforded by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 even though it manifestly works on behalf of a foreign government. That country is, of course, Israel.

And that assessment of Israel and what damage it does regarding what most Americans would regard as genuine national interests is most definitely not reported, revealing once again that what is not written is every bit as important as what is. I would note how what has recently happened right in front of us relating to Israel is apparently not considered fit to print and will never appear on any disapproving editorial page. Just this week the Senate unanimously passed an Anti-Semitism Awareness bill and also by a 99 to zero vote renewed and strengthened sanctions against Iran, which could wreck the one year old anti-nuclear weapon proliferation agreement with that country.

The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act is intended to give the Department of Education investigatory authority over “anti-Jewish incidents” on America’s college campuses. Such “incidents” are not limited to religious bigotry, with the examples cited in the bill’s text including criticism of Israel and claiming that the holocaust was “exaggerated.” It is a thinly disguised assault on the Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement, which is non-violent, does not criticize Jews as a religion or ethnicity, and is actually supported by many Jewish American who are concerned about Israel’s apartheid regime.

The Anti-Semitism bill makes Jews and Jewish interests a legally protected class, immune from any criticism. “Free speech” means in practice that you can burn an American flag, sell pornography, attack Christianity in the vilest terms or castigate the government in Washington all you want but criticizing Israel is off limits if you want to avoid falling into the clutches of the legal system. The Act is a major step forward in effectively making any expressed opposition to Israeli actions a hate crime and is similar to punitive legislation that has been enacted in twenty-two states as well as in Canada. It is strongly supported by the Israel Lobby, which quite likely drafted it, and is seeking to use legal challenges to delegitimize and eliminate any opposition to the policies of the state of Israel.

As the Act is clearly intended to restrict First Amendment rights if they are perceived as impacting on broadly defined Jewish sensitivities, it should be opposed on that basis alone, but it is very popular in Congress, which is de facto owned by the Israel Lobby. That the legislation is not being condemned or even discussed in the generally liberal media tells you everything you need to know about the amazing power of one particular unelected and unaccountable lobby in the U.S.

And there is always Iran to worry about. If the United States can successfully avoid a war with Russia, a conflict with the Mullahs could have major consequences even if the all-powerful U.S. military successfully rolls over its Iranian counterpart in less than a week. Iran is physically and in terms of population much larger than Iraq and it has a strong national identity. An attack by Washington would produce a powerful reaction, unleashing terrorist resources and destabilizing an economically and politically important region of the world for years to come. Currently, the nuclear agreement with Iran provides some measure of stability and also pushes backwards any possible program by Tehran to build a weapon. Iran does not threaten the United States, so why walk away from the agreement as some of Trump’s advisors urge? Or violate the agreement’s terms as the U.S. Congress seems to be doing by extending and tightening the sanctions regime with its just passed Iran Sanctions Extension Act? Look no further than the Israel Lobby. Hobbling Iran, a regional competitor, is a possible Israeli interest that should have nothing to do with the United States but yet again the United States government carries the water for the extreme right wing Netanyahu regime.

Israel for its part has welcomed the Trump election by building 500 new and completely illegal settler homes in what was once Arab East Jerusalem. Trump has surrounded himself with advocates for Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s expectation that he will have a free hand in dealing with those pesky Palestinians is probably correct. I would like to think that Donald Trump will unpleasantly surprise him based on actual American rather than Israeli interests but am not optimistic.

Indeed, deference to perceived Israeli interests enforced by the Israel Lobby and media permeates the entire American foreign policy and national security structure. Congressman Keith Ellison who is seeking to become Democratic National Committee Chairman is being called an anti-Semite for “implying U.S. policy in the region [the Middle East] favored Israel at the expense of Muslim-majority countries, remarks ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt described as ‘deeply disturbing and disqualifying.’” Donald Trump and his senior counselor Steve Bannon have also both been called anti-Semites and several other potential GOP appointees have been subjected to the media’s fidelity-to-Israel litmus test.

The recently nominated Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who can hardly be called a moderate when it comes to Iran, has also been labeled an anti-Semite by the usual players. Why? Because in 2013 he told Wolf Blitzer “So we’ve got to work on [peace talks] with a sense of urgency. I paid a military security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and [because of this] moderate Arabs couldn’t be with us because they couldn’t publicly support those who don’t show respect for Arab Palestinians.”

Mattis continued, referring directly to Israeli apartheid: “I’ll tell you, the current situation is unsustainable … We’ve got to find a way to make work the two-state solution that both Democrat and Republican administrations have supported, and the chances are starting to ebb because of the settlements. For example, if I’m Jerusalem and I put 500 Jewish settlers to the east and there’s ten-thousand Arabs already there, and if we draw the border to include them, either [Israel] ceases to be a Jewish state or you say the Arabs don’t get to vote — apartheid. That didn’t work too well the last time I saw that practiced in a country.”

Mattis will no doubt be reminded of his remarks when he is up for Senate confirmation. A predecessor Chuck Hagel was mercilessly grilled by Senators over his reported comment that the “Jewish lobby” intimidates congressmen. But ironically nearly everyone who is not an Israel-firster who is involved in U.S. foreign and security policy knows that aggressive Israeli colonization of the Palestinian West Bank and its siege of Gaza contribute greatly to terrorism against the United States, since Washington is regularly blamed for enabling Netanyahu. When General David Petraeus said pretty much the same thing as Mattis back in 2010 he was forced to “explain” his comments, retract them and then grovel before he was eventually given a pass by the Lobby.

And there is considerable self-censorship related to the alleged sensitivity of “Jewish issues,” not only in the media. I recently attended a conference on the Iraq invasion of 2003 at which the role of Israel manifested through its controlled gaggle of American legislators and bureaucrats as a factor in going to war was not even mentioned. It was as if it would be impolite or, dare I say, anti-Semitic, to do so even though the Israeli role was hardly hidden. Former Bush administration senior official Philip Zelikow has admitted that protecting Israel was the principal reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq and others have speculated that without the persistent neocons’ and Israel’s prodding Washington might not have gone to war at all. That is apparently what then Secretary of State Colin Powell also eventually came around to believe.

So let’s stop talking about what Russia is doing to the United States, which is relatively speaking very little, and start admitting that the lopsided and completely deferential relationship with Israel is the actual central problem in America’s foreign policy. Will the media do that? Not a chance. They would rather obsess about fake news and blame Putin.

Sea ice extent in Arctic and Antarctic reached record lows in November

Almost unprecedented’ event attributed to warm temperatures and winds, with some areas more than 20C (36F) warmer than usual

December 6, 2016

by Oliver Milman

The Guardian

Both the Arctic and Antarctic experienced record lows in sea ice extent in November, with scientists astonished to see Arctic ice actually retreating at a time when the region enters the cold darkness of winter.

Warm temperatures and winds drove record declines in sea ice at both polar regions in November compared to the 38-year satellite record of ice extent for the month. Arctic sea ice extent averaged 9.08m sq km (3.51m sq miles) for November, which is 1.95m sq km (or 753,000 sq miles) below the long-term average from 1981 to 2010 for the month.

Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said that Arctic sea ice extent dipped for a short time in mid-November, an “almost unprecedented” event. Sea ice shrank by around 50,000 sq km (19,300 sq miles) in this period, mainly in the Barents Sea.

This decline, which also occurred to a smaller degree in November 2013, removed an area of ice larger than Denmark from the Arctic at a time when sea ice is usually growing.

“It looks like a triple whammy – a warm ocean, a warm atmosphere, and a wind pattern all working against the ice in the Arctic,” said NSIDC director Mark Serreze.

In Antarctica, the average extent of sea ice in November was 14.54m sq km (5.61m sq miles), which is 1.81m sq km (699,000 sq miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average. This more than doubles the previous record low for the month of November.

Ted Scambos, the lead scientist at NSIDC, said: “Antarctic sea ice really went down the rabbit hole this time.” His colleague Walt Meier, who also works at Nasa, added: “The Arctic has typically been where the most interest lies, but this month, the Antarctic has flipped the script and it is southern sea ice that is surprising us.”

The Arctic’s record low, beating a mark set in 2012, was driven by unusually high temperatures over the Arctic Ocean, persistent winds that pushed ice north and a warm ocean. Areas of the Arctic have reached more than 20C (36F) warmer than usual, with an area of Russian Arctic forecast to be 33C (59F) warmer than normal on Thursday. 2016 is on track to be the warmest year on record globally.

Arctic sea ice usually grows over winter until it hits its maximum annual extent in March. However, this year has been notable for the lack of ice. “Typically sea ice begins to form in the fjords at the beginning of November, but this year there was no ice to be found,” said NSIDC scientist Julienne Stroeve, who assessed ice cover in Svalbard during November.

In the Antarctic air temperatures were 2-4C (3.6-7.2F) warmer than normal in November, with strong westerly winds helping disperse the sea ice pack. Several large bodies of open water have opened up within the sea ice formations around the Amundsen Sea and Ross Sea coasts.

The slump in November sea ice follows a persistent trend in the Arctic, where warming temperatures are causing problems for indigenous communities and wildlife including polar bears and walruses. This summer saw the second smallest ice extent on record, with the Arctic expected to be ice-free during summer within decades.

The loss of reflective sea ice amplifies the warming process by exposing the dark sea, which soaks up more heat which in turn helps melt more ice. The extra heat is also winnowing away the world’s glaciers, leading to sea level rise that places many of the world’s major cities at risk of flooding.

Amnesty: Almost half a million people forcibly displaced in Turkey

At least half a million people in southeast Turkey have been forcibly displaced by violence, large scale destruction and ongoing curfews. A new report has called on Turkish authorities to facilitate their return home.

December 6, 2016

DW

Hundreds of thousands of people have been uprooted in the wake of the fight by Turkish authorities against the Kurdistan Worker’s party (PKK), Amnesty International said on Tuesday in its 31-page report, “Displaced and Dispossessed.”

The rights group focused on the forced displacement of residents in the southeastern town of Diyarbakir’s Sur district, calling on Turkish authorities to take action to enable residents in the region to return to their homes.

‘Less and less hope’

“It’s now a year since the curfew was declared,” Andrew Gardner, Amnesty International’s Turkey expert, told DW. “The longer it goes on, the more families lose hope they will be able to return. And especially with the general situation in the region, with the closure of NGOs, with the replacement of the mayors with trustees, with the closure of media organizations, this environment, this crackdown gives people less and less hope of any positive developments.”

Gardner said they interviewed 26 families and extended families from the historic central district of Sur, who are keen to return to their homes and neighborhoods.

“Sur residents are among an estimated half-million people displaced in the southeast of the country in what appears to be a deliberate policy to displace residents and destroy and rebuild urban areas to ensure security through changes in infrastructure and population transfers,” the report said.

It noted that an estimated 2,360 people have died during the curfew operations, including at least 368 people who were unarmed residents.

Amnesty called on Turkey to address “the lack of access to rights faced by displaced people,” adding that it is the government’s duty to facilitate internally displaced peoples’ return to their homes.

Ongoing conflict

Turkey imposed round-the-clock curfews in its mainly Kurdish southeastern towns as the security forces tried to root out PKK militants.

Clashes between the security forces and the PKK intensified since a ceasefire collapsed last year, destroying a two-year peace process that was meant to end a three-decade conflict.

Authorities have also since sacked and replaced many Kurdish town mayors in the region.

SECRECY NEWS

From the FAS Project on Government Secrecy

Volume 2016, Issue No. 99

December 6, 2016

OVERCLASSIFICATION, DECLASSIFICATION AT ISSUE

The enduring problem of overclassification and the challenge of effective declassification are the subject of two public events this week.

The House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, chaired by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), will hold a hearing on Wednesday, December 7 on “examining the costs of overclassification on transparency and security.” The witnesses include former Information Security Oversight Director Bill Leonard, National Security Archive director Tom Blanton, Scott Amey of the Project on Government Oversight, and myself.

The Public Interest Declassification Board, chaired by Prof. Trevor Morrison, will hold a meeting on Thursday, December 8 to discuss potential changes that could be adopted in a future executive order on classification. More information, including advance copies of several presentations to be made at the meeting, can be found here.

THE FEDERAL ANTI-NEPOTISM LAW, AND MORE FROM CRS

The “disruptive” character of the Trump transition is already keeping the analysts and lawyers at the Congressional Research Service busy.

One new CRS analysis responds to the question of whether the employment of Trump family members in the transition or the Administration would violate the federal law against nepotism, which generally prohibits the hiring of relatives to government jobs. The answer is not crystal clear, for several reasons explained in the new analysis. It may be that an otherwise prohibited appointment would be permitted, for example, if the appointee forgoes compensation. See The Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute: Limits on Appointing, Hiring, and Promoting Relatives, CRS Legal Sidebar, December 1, 2016.

Could President Trump simply withdraw the United States from the international Paris Agreement on climate change? Again, the answer is murky. “Historical practice would appear to suggest that, because the Paris Agreement is an executive agreement, domestic law would allow the President to unilaterally withdraw from the Agreement without approval from the legislative branch.” On the other hand, maybe not. See Can the President Withdraw from the Paris Agreement?, CRS Legal Sidebar, December 5, 2016.

Another CRS brief examines the waiver that would be needed if General (ret.) James Mattis were to serve as Secretary of Defense, a departure from the normal principle of civilian control of the military. “CRS has been able to identify [only] one instance of Congress acting to waive this provision,” namely in response to President Truman’s 1950 nomination of Gen. George C. Marshall to be Secretary of Defense. See Waiver of Statutory Qualifications Relating to Prior Military Service of the Secretary of Defense, CRS Insight, December 1, 2016.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

European Union Efforts to Counter Disinformation, CRS Insight, December 1, 2016

Fidel Castro’s Death: Implications for Cuba and U.S. Policy, CRS Insight, December 2, 2016

Iran Nuclear Agreement, updated December 5, 2016

Internet Sales and State Taxes: Policy Issues, CRS Insight, December 1, 2016

Social Security Primer, updated December 5, 2016

An Introduction to Judicial Review of Federal Agency Action, December 5, 2016

Intercepted telephone conversations between Roosevelt and Churchill

Roosevelt-Churchill Conversation of November 26, 1941

This conversation is taken directly from a German transcript of a trans-Atlantic scrambled telephone conversation initiated by British Prime Minister Winston Spencer-Churchill and American President Franklin Roosevelt. The original was taken down in English and a German translation is in the German State Archives.

The original carbon copy of this, and other historically important German intercepts, came from the private files of Robert T. Crowley, formerly Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Conversation Participants

A=Franklin Roosevelt, Washington

B= Winston Churchill, London

B: I am frightfully sorry to disturb you at this hour, Franklin, but matters of a most vital import have transpired and I felt that I must convey them to you immediately.

A: That’s perfectly all right, Winston. I’m sure you wouldn’t trouble me at this hour for trivial concerns.

B: Let me preface my information with an explanation addressing the reason I have not alluded to these facts earlier. In the first place, until today, the information was not firm. On matters of such gravity, I do not like to indulge in idle chatter. Now, I have in my hands, reports from our agents in Japan as well as the most specific intelligence in the form of the highest level Japanese naval coded messages (conversation broken) for some time now.

A: I felt this is what you were about. How serious is it?

B: It could not be worse, A powerful Japanese task force comprising (composed of) six of their carriers, two battleships and a number of other units to include (including) tankers and cruisers, has sailed yesterday from a secret base in the northern Japanese islands.

A: We both knew this was coming. There are also reports in my hands about a force of some size making up in China and obviously intended to go (move) South.

B: Yes, we have all of that. (Interruption) ..are far more advanced than you in our reading of the Jap naval operations codes. But even without that, their moves are evident. And they will indeed move South but the force I spoke of is not headed South, Franklin, it is headed East..

A: Surely you must be…will you repeat that please?

B: I said to the East. This force is sailing to the East…towards you.

A: Perhaps they set an easterly course to fool any observers and then plan to swing South to support the landings in the southern areas. I have…

B: No, at this moment, their forces are moving across the northern Pacific and I can assure you that their goal is the (conversation broken) fleet in Hawaii. At Pearl Harbor.

A: This is monstrous. Can you tell me…indicate…the nature of your intelligence? (conversation broken) reliable? Without compromising your sources…

B: Yes, I will have to be careful. Our agents in Japan have been reporting on the gradual (conversation broken) units. And these have disappeared from Japanese home waters. We also have highly reliable sources in the Japanese Foreign Service and even the military…

A: How reliable?

B: One of the sources is the individual who supplied us the material on the diplomatic codes that (conversation broken) and a Naval officer whom our service has compromised. You must trust me, Franklin and I cannot be more specific.

A: I accept this.

B: We cannot compromise our code breaking. You understand this. Only myself and a few (conversation broken) not even Hopkins. It will go straight to Moscow and I am not sure we want that.

A: I am still attempting to…the obvious implication is that the Japs are going to do a Port Arthur on us at Pearl Harbor. Do you concur?

B: I do indeed. Unless they add an attack on the Panama Canal to this vile business. I can hardly envision the canal as a primary goal, especially with your fleet lying athwart their lines of communications with Japan. No, if they do strike the canal, they will have to first neutralize (destroy) your fleet (conversation broken).

A: The worse form of treachery. We can prepare our defenses on the islands and give them a warm welcome when they come. It would certainly put some iron up Congress’ ass (asshole).

B: On the other hand, if they did launch a bombing raid, given that the aircraft would only be of the carrier-borne types, how much actual damage could they inflict? And on what target?

A: I think torpedoes would be ruled out at the outset. Pearl is far too shallow to permit a successful torpedo attack. Probably they would drop medium bombs on the ships and then shoot (conversation broken) damage a number of ships and no doubt the Japs would attack our airfields. I could see some damage there but I don’t think either an airfield or a battleship could sink very far. What do your people give you as the actual date of the attack?

B: The actual date given is the eighth of December. That’s a Monday.

A: The fleet is in harbor over the weekend. They often sortie during the week…

B: The Japs are asking (conversation broken) exact dispositions of your ships on a regular basis.

A: But Monday seems odd. Are you certain?

B: It is in the calendar. Monday is the eighth. (conversation broken).

A:…then I will have to reconsider the entire problem. A Japanese attack on us, which would result in war between us…and certainly you as well…would certainly fulfill two of the most important requirements of our policy. Harry has told me repeatedly…and I have more faith in him than I do in the Soviet ambassador…that Stalin is desperate at this point. The Nazis are at the gates of Moscow, his armies are melting away…the government has evacuated and although Harry and Marshall feel that Stalin can hang on and eventually defeat Hitler, their is no saying what could transpire (happen) if the Japs suddenly fell on Stalin’s rear. In spite of all the agreements between them and the Japs dropping Matsuoka, there is still strong anti-Russian sentiment in high Japanese military circles. I think that we have to decide what is more important…keeping Russia in the war to bleed the Nazis dry to their own eventual destruction (conversation broken) supply Stalin with weapons but do not forget, in fact he is your ally, not mine. There are strong isolationist feelings here and there are quite a number of anti-Communists…

B: Fascists…

A: Certainly, but they would do all they could to block any attempt on my part to do more than give some monetary assistance to Stalin.

B: But we too have our major desperations, Franklin. Our shipping upon which our nation depends, is being sunk by the huns faster than we could ever replace (conversation broken) the Japs attack both of us in the Pacific? We could lose Malaya which is our primary source of rubber and tin. And if the Japs get Java and the oil, they could press South to Australia and I have told you repeatedly, we cannot hold (conversation broken) them much but in truth I cannot deliver. We need every man and every ship to fight Hitler in Europe…India too. If the Japs get into Malaya, they can press on virtually unopposed into Burma and then India. Need I tell you of the resultant destruction of our Empire? We cannot survive on this small island, Franklin, (conversation broken) allow the nips (knips?) to attack, you can get your war declaration through your Congress after all. (conversation broken)

A: Not as capable as you are at translating there messages and the army and navy are very jealous of each other. There is so much coming in that everyone is confused. We have no agents in place in Japan and every day dozens of messages are (conversation broken) that contradict each other or are not well translated. I have seen three translations of the same message with three entirely different meanings (conversation broken) address your concern about British holdings in the Pacific…if the Japanese do attack both of us, eventually we will be able to crush them and regain all of the lost territories. As for myself, I will be damned glad to be rid of the Phillipines.(sic)

B: I see this as a gamble (conversation broken) what would your decision be? We cannot procrastinate over this for too long. Eleven or twelve days are all we have. Can we not agree in principle now? I should mention that several advisors have counseled (advised) against informing you of this and allowing it to happen. You see by notifying you where my loyalty lies. Certainly to one who is heart and soul with us against Hitler.

A: I do appreciate your loyalty, Winston. What on the other hand, will happen here if one of our intelligence people is able to intercept, decipher and deliver to me the same information you just gave me? I cannot just ignore it…all of my intelligence people will know about it then. I could not ignore this.

B: But if it were just a vague message then?

A: No, a specific message. I could not just sweep it under the rug like that (conversation broken).

B: Of course not. I think we should matters develop as they will.

A: I think that perhaps I can find a reason to absent (leave) myself from Washington while this crisis develops. What I don’t know can’t hurt me and I too can misunderstand messages, especially at a distance (conversation broken)

B: Completely. My best to you all there.

A: Thank you for your call.

ROOSEVELT TO CHURCHILL

No. 324                                                             July 25.1943

By coincidence I was again at Shangri-la this afternoon when the news from Rome came, but this time it seems to be true? If any overtures come we must he certain of the use of all Italian territory and transportation against the Germans in the north and against the whole Balkan peninsula, as well as use of airfields of all kinds. It is my thought that we should come as close as possible to unconditional surrender followed by good treatment of the Italian populace. But I think also that the “head devil” (Mussolini. Ed) should be surrendered together with his chief partners in crime. In no event should our officers in the field fix on any general terms without your approval and mine. Let me have your thoughts.

CHURCHILL TO ROOSEVELT

No. 382                                                             July 25, 1943

Changes announced in Italy probably portend peace proposals. Let us consult together so as to take joint action. The present stage may only be transition. But anyhow, Hitler will feel very lonely when Mussolini is down and out. No one can be quite sure this may not go farther.

ROOSEVELT/CHURCHILL RADIO TELEPHONE INTERCEPT

July 29, 1943

(Note: There were two such intercepts retrieved from captured German records. This one has not been officially published and came from the personal files of Robert T. Crowley, once Deputy Director of the CIA’s Clandestine Operations Division)

In this conversation ‘A’ stands for America (Roosevelt) and ‘B’ for Britain, (Churchill.)

A: I have some additional thoughts on the Italian situation I wanted to discuss with you. I have thought about our actions concerning Mussolini and his eventual fate. After he has been surrendered to us.

B: You have to catch the fish before you can cook it. I have no doubts he will end up our prisoner unless, of course, they kill him first or he escapes his just rewards by killing himself.

A: And there is also the possibility the Nazis might get to him as well. Where is he now?

B:  The Italians have advised us he is currently under arrest at the Police Headquarters in Rome. They want to move him out directly because it appears that the Germans might suddenly decide to reinforce their numbers in Italy and Rome would be the logical target. They will move him.

A: But they will not release him, say to the Germans? As some kind of quid pro quo.?

B: I think not. The Italians hate the Germans and the court circle is very firmly in our pocket. We can be reasonably certain that Mussolini will end up our captiv

A: Would that be a wise move, Winston? We would be compelled to have a kind of major trial that could drag on for months and even though we control it, lead to problems with the general populace. And I should also note that many Italians here are at least the secret admirers of the creature. That might lead to problems here if we tried him. Of course the outcome would never be in doubt and in the end he would die at the end of a rope.

But in the meantime, these trials, and I am assuming we would have a good sized bag of his miserable cronies also available for trial and execution, could drag on endlessly. I can forsee various negative aspects to this business.

B: Of course there are negative aspects to every business, Franklin. Do you then feel he should not be tried? What would our friends in Italy think about our misplaced generosity? I have the finest relations with certain elements in Italy and to a man, they want the public humiliation and death of Mussolini. Surely we are not at a point in time where such largess is possible. His death would have a salutary effect on the Nazis as well.

A: I don’t disagree with that thesis but from my own point of view, a public trial might have negative connotations on the situation in this country. As I said, there is some sympathy with the creature among the Italian community here and the question would be what sort of reaction would such a trial have on them? I am thinking primarily of the upcoming elections here. The trial would certainly not be over in a week and the closer it would come to the nominations and, eventually, to the elections, the more danger there would be of this alienating the Italians who have some, I feel, significant weight in the balance.

B: I cannot accept that releasing Mussolini could further any of our common ends. At this point in history, I feel a watershed has been passed and the momentum lies with us now. I do not feel that the war will be over immediately but the perception is that we are on a via Triumphalis now, not a via Dolorosa as we have been for so long.

A: I didn’t mean we should release the devil. Not at all. I referred to a public trial. If Mussolini died before such a trial could take place, I think we would be better off in many ways.

ROOSEVELT TO CHURCHILL

No. 331                                                             July 30,1943

Your message No. 383 dated 26 July 1943 expresses generally my thoughts of today on prospects and methods of handling the Italian situation with which we are now confronted.

In the following draft 1 have suggested for consideration certain minor changes, the reasons for which if they are not obvious we can discuss at our next meeting.

It seems highly probable that the fall of Mussolini will involve the overthrow of the Fascist regime and that the new government of the King and Badoglio will seek to negotiate a separate arrangement with the Allies for an armistice. Should this prove to be the case it will be necessary for us to make up our minds first of all upon what we want and secondly upon the measures and conditions required to gain it for us.

At this moment above all others our thoughts must be concentrated upon the supreme aim, namely the destruction of Hitler and Hitlerism. Every military advantage arising out of the surrender of Italy (should that occur) must be sought for this purpose.

The first of these is the control of all Italian territory and transportation against the Germans in the north and against the whole Balkan peninsula as well as the use of airfields of all kinds. This must include the surrender to our garrisons of Sardinia, the Dodecanese, and Corfu as well as of all the naval and air bases in the Italian mainland as soon as they can be taken over.

Secondly and of equal importance the immediate surrender to the Allies of the Italian fleet, or at least its effective demobilization and the disarmament of the Italian air and ground forces to whatever extent we find needful and useful. The surrender of the fleet will liberate powerful British naval forces for service in the Indian Ocean against Japan and will he most agreeable to the United States. Also of equal consequence the immediate surrender or withdrawal to Italy of all Italian forces wherever they may be outside of Italy proper.

Another objective of the highest importance about which there will be passionate feeling in this country and Britain is the immediate liberation of all United Nations’ prisoners of war in Italian hands and the prevention which can in the first instance only be by the Italians of their being transported northwards to Germany. We regard it as a matter of honor and humanity to get our own flesh and blood back as soon as possible and spare them the measureless horrors of incarceration in Germany during the final stages of the war.

The fate of the German troops in Italy and particularly of those south of Rome will probably lead to fighting between the Germans and the Italian army and popu1ation. When we see how this process goes we can take a further view about action to be taken north of Rome. We should however try to get possession a t the earliest moment of a safe and friendly area on which we can base the whole forward air attack upon south and central Germany and of points on both the west coast and east coast railways of Italy as far north as we dare. This is a time to dare.

In our struggle with Hitler and the German army we cannot afford to deny ourselves any assistance that will kill Germans. The fury of the Italian population may now be turned against the German intruders who have as they will feel brought these miseries upon Italy and then come so scantily and grudgingly to her aid. We should stimulate this process in order that the new, liberated anti-Fascist Italy shall afford us at the earliest moment a safe and friendly area on which we can base the whole forward air attack upon south and central Germany.

This air attack is a new advantage of the first order as i t brings the whole of the Mediterranean air forces into action from a direction which turns the entire line of air defenses in the west and which furthermore exposes all those centers of war production which have been increasingly developed to escape air attack from Great Britain. It will become urgent in the highest degree to get agents, commandos. and supplies by sea across the Adriatic into Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia. It must be remembered that there are fifteen German divisions in the Balkan peninsula of which tell are mobile. Nevertheless once we have control of the Italian peninsula and. qf the Adriatic and the Italian armies in the Balkans withdraw or lay down their arms it is by no means unlikely that the Hun will be forced to withdraw northwards to the line of the Sava and Danube, thus liberating Greece and other tortured countries.

We cannot yet measure the effects of Mussolini’s fall and of Italian capitulation upon Bulgaria. Rumania. and Hungary. They may be profound. In connection with this situation the collapse of Italy should fix the moment for putting the strongest pressure on Turkey to act in accordance with the spirit of the alliance and in this Britain and the United States should if possible be joined or at least supported Russia. I believe that in any important negotiations! affecting the Balkans the concurrence of Russia should be obtained if practicable. It is my opinion that an effort to seize the “head devil”, in the early future would prejudice our primary objective which is to get Italy out of the war. We can endeavor to secure the person of the “head devil” and his assistants in due time,” and to then determine their individual degrees of guilt for which “the punishment should fit the crime.”

ROOSEVELT TO CHURCHILL

No. 334                                                                       July 30, 1943

There are same contentious people here who are getting ready to make a row if we seem to recognize the House of Savoy or Badoglio. They are the same element which made such a fuss over North Africa I told the press today that we have to treat with any person or persons in Italy who can best give us first disarmament and second assurance against chaos, and I think also that you and I after an armistice comes could say something about self-determination in Italy at the proper time.

How Iran closed the Mosul ‘horseshoe’ and changed Iraq war

December 7, 2016

by Dominic Evans, Maher Chmaytelli and Patrick Markey

Reuters

BAGHDAD/ERBIL, Iraq-In the early days of the assault on Islamic State in Mosul, Iran successfully pressed Iraq to change its battle plan and seal off the city, an intervention which has since shaped the tortuous course of the conflict, sources briefed on the plan say.

The original campaign strategy called for Iraqi forces to close in around Mosul in a horseshoe formation, blocking three fronts but leaving open the fourth – to the west of the city leading to Islamic State territory in neighboring Syria.

That model, used to recapture several Iraqi cities from the ultra-hardline militants in the last two years, would have left fighters and civilians a clear route of escape and could have made the Mosul battle quicker and simpler.

But Tehran, anxious that retreating fighters would sweep back into Syria just as Iran’s ally President Bashar al-Assad was gaining the upper hand in his country’s five-year civil war, wanted Islamic State crushed and eliminated in Mosul.

The sources say Iran lobbied for Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization fighters to be sent to the western front to seal off the link between Mosul and Raqqa, the two main cities of Islamic State’s self-declared cross-border caliphate.

That link is now broken. For the first time in Iraq’s two-and-half-year, Western-backed drive to defeat Islamic State, several thousand militants have little choice but to fight to the death, and 1 million remaining Mosul citizens have no escape from the front lines creeping ever closer to the city center.

“If you corner your enemy and don’t leave an escape, he will fight till the end,” said a Kurdish official involved in planning the Mosul battle.

“In the west, the initial idea was to have a corridor … but the Hashid (Popular Mobilisation) insisted on closing this loophole to prevent them going to Syria,” he told Reuters.

The battle for Mosul is the biggest in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003. In all, around 100,000 people are fighting on the government side, including Iraqi soldiers and police, “peshmerga” troops of the autonomous Kurdish region and fighters in the Popular Mobilisation units. A U.S.-led international coalition is providing air and ground support.

Iraqi army commanders have repeatedly said that the presence of civilians on the battlefield has complicated and slowed their seven-week-old operation, restricting air strikes and the use of heavy weapons in populated areas.

They considered a change in strategy to allow civilians out, but rejected the idea because they feared that fleeing residents could be massacred by the militants, who have executed civilians to prevent them from escaping other battles. Authorities and aid groups would also struggle to deal with a mass exodus.

KILL BOX

Planning documents drawn up by humanitarian organizations before the campaign, seen by Reuters, show they prepared camps in Kurdish-controlled areas of Syria for around 90,000 refugees expected to head west out of Mosul.

“Iran didn’t agree and insisted that no safe corridor be allowed to Syria,” said a humanitarian worker. “They wanted the whole region west of Mosul to be a kill box.”

Hisham al-Hashemi, an Iraqi analyst on Islamist militants who was briefed on the battle plan in advance, also said it initially envisaged leaving one flank open.

“The first plan had the shape of a horseshoe, allowing for the population and the militants to retreat westward as the main thrust of the offensive came from the east,” he said.

About a week before the launch of the campaign, Lebanese Shi’ite Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, a close ally of Iran, accused the United States of planning to allow Islamic State a way out to Syria.

“The Iraqi army and popular forces must defeat it in Mosul, otherwise, they will be obliged to move to eastern Syria in order to fight the terrorist group,” he said. Hezbollah is fighting in support of Assad in Syria.

Hashid spokesman Karim al-Nuri denied that Tehran was behind the decision to deploy the Shi’ite fighters west of Mosul.

“Iran has no interest here. The majority of these statements are mere analysis – they are simply not true,” he said.

Nevertheless, securing territory west of Mosul by the Iranian-backed militias has other benefits for Iran’s allies, by giving the Shi’ite fighters a launchpad into neighboring Syria to support Assad.

If Islamic State is defeated in Syria and Iraq, Tehran’s allies would gain control of an arc of territory stretching from Iran itself across the Middle East to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast.

RUSSIAN PRESSURE

Iran was not the only country pressing for the escape to be closed west of Mosul. Russia, another powerful Assad ally, also wanted to block any possible movement of militants into Syria, said Hashemi. The Russian defence ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

One of Assad’s biggest enemies, France, was also concerned that hundreds of fighters linked to attacks in Paris and Brussels might escape. The French have contributed ground and air support to the Mosul campaign.

A week after the campaign was launched, French President Francois Hollande said any flow of people out of Mosul would include “terrorists who will try to go further, to Raqqa in particular”.

Still, the battle plan did not foresee closing the road to the west of Mosul until Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi agreed in late October to despatch the Popular Mobilisation militias.

“The government agreed to Iran’s request, thinking that it would take a long time for the Hashid to get to the road to Syria, and during that time the escape route would be open and the battle would still proceed as planned,” Hashemi said.

The Hashid move to cut the western corridor was announced on Oct. 28, 11 days after the start of the wider Mosul campaign. Fighters made swift progress, sweeping up from a base south of Mosul to seal off the western route out of the city.

Abadi “was surprised to see them reaching the road in just a few days,” Hashemi said. “The battle has taken a different shape since then – no food, no fuel is reaching Mosul and Daesh (Islamic State) fighters are bent on fighting to the end.”

IRAQ STRONGHOLD

Once the Iraqi Shi’ite militia advance west of Mosul had begun, Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi told his followers there could be no retreat from the city where he first proclaimed his caliphate in July, 2014.

Those tempted to flee should “know that the value of staying on your land with honor is a thousand times better than the price of retreating with shame,” Baghdadi said in an audio recording released five days after the Shi’ite militias announced they were moving to cut off the last route out.

Since then his fighters have launched hundreds of suicide car bombs, mortar barrages and sniper attacks against the advancing forces, using a network of tunnels under residential areas and using civilians as human shields, Iraqi soldiers say.

A senior U.S. officer in international coalition which is supporting the campaign said that waging war amidst civilians would always be tough, but the Baghdad government was best placed to decide on strategy.

“They’ve got 15 years of war (experience)… I can’t think of anyone more calibrated to make that decision and as a result that why as a coalition we supported the government of Iraq’s decision,” Brigadier General Scott Efflandt, deputy commanding general in the coalition, told Reuters.

“The opening and closing of that corridor, hypothetically, realistically, did not fundamentally change the plans of the battle,” he added. “It changes how we prosecute the fight, but that does not necessarily make it easier or harder.”

But the Kurdish official was less sanguine, saying the battle for Mosul was now “more difficult” and could descend into a long drawn out siege similar to those seen in Syria.

It could “turn Mosul into Aleppo,” he said.

(Reporting by Patrick Markey and Maher Chmaytelli in Erbil and Dominic Evans in Baghdad; additional reporting by John Irish in Paris and Tatiana Ustinova in Moscow; writing by Dominic Evans; editing by Peter Graff)

 Syrian army on verge of major victory in Aleppo

Troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad are about to score one of their biggest victories in the country’s war. Western leaders called for an “immediate” ceasefire as rebels fled from their last stronghold in Aleppo.

December 7, 2016

DW

Leaders from several Western states pushed for an immediate ceasefire in the embattled city of Aleppo on Wednesday as Syrian government troops advanced against the rebels.

“The most urgent goal remains an immediate ceasefire so that the United Nations can bring humanitarian aid to people in East Aleppo,” said the leaders of Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Italy in a statement released in Berlin.

The leaders also accused Russia of obstruction at the UN Security Council and urged the UN to investigate reports that war crimes are being committed in Syria

Rebels proposed an “immediate” five-day truce earlier on Wednesday as they ceded territory they had clung on to since 2012. The opposition forces called for a UN-backed evacuation of 500 civilians, many of whom need urgent medical care. According to German news agency DPA, however, President Assad’s government refused to give in, saying “if they do not leave we will continue our attack.”

Late on Tuesday, the Syrian army and its allies made gains in the embattled city of Aleppo. President Bashar al-Assad’s forces pushed into rebel-held areas of the Old City, essentially driving opposition forces out of their last urban stronghold.

Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said that the opposition groups have lost control of over 80 percent of their enclave in eastern Aleppo. The result, the watchdog said, was that rebels were being forced to fight “a war of attrition,” swearing to never surrender as victory became less and less likely.

Later on Wednesday, SOHR announced that government forces had indeed retaken all of the Old City, but the news has not yet been confirmed by military sources.

Russia, US trade accusations

Assad’s renewed offensive has come under heavy international criticism for the humanitarian crisis it has exacerbated. Tens of thousands of city residents have become trapped between warring factions, with no way to receive much-needed food or medicine.

Yet the Western powers tasked with coming up with a plan for peace in Syria have been mired in disagreements that have stalled the peace process.

“We have been trying to find a way to get to the negotiating table … but Assad has never shown any willingness,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels on Tuesday. The US has also accused Moscow and Beijing of stalling the end of the conflict by refusing to back a UN Security Council measure on Monday that would have called for a seven-day ceasefire.

 American and British Spy Agencies Targeted In-Flight Mobile Phone Use

December 7 2016

by Jacques Follorou, Le Monde

The Intercept

In the trove of documents provided by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden is a treasure. It begins with a riddle: “What do the President of Pakistan, a cigar smuggler, an arms dealer, a counterterrorism target, and a combatting proliferation target have in common? They all used their everyday GSM phone during a flight.”

This riddle appeared in 2010 in SIDtoday, the internal newsletter of the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Directorate, or SID, and it was classified “top secret.” It announced the emergence of a new field of espionage that had not yet been explored: the interception of data from phone calls made on board civil aircraft. In a separate internal document from a year earlier, the NSA reported that 50,000 people had already used their mobile phones in flight as of December 2008, a figure that rose to 100,000 by February 2009. The NSA attributed the increase to “more planes equipped with in-flight GSM capability, less fear that a plane will crash due to making/receiving a call, not as expensive as people thought.” The sky seemed to belong to the agency.

In a 2012 presentation, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, the British equivalent of the NSA, in turn disclosed a program called “Southwinds,” which was used to gather all the cellular activity, voice communication, data, metadata, and content of calls on board commercial aircraft. The document, designated “top secret strap,” one of the highest British classification levels, said the program was still restricted to the regions covered by satellites from British telecommunications provider Inmarsat: Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

The data was collected “in near real time” and an aircraft could be “tracked” every two minutes, according to the presentation. To spy on a telephone, all that was required was that the aircraft be cruising at an altitude above 10,000 feet. Secret aerial stations on the ground could intercept the signal as it transited through a satellite. The simple fact that the telephone was switched on was enough to give away its position; the interception could then be cross-referenced with the list of known passengers on the flight, the flight number, and the airline code to determine the name of the smartphone user.

GCHQ and the NSA used bird names to refer to programs involving the surveillance of in-flight telephone calls; examples include “Thieving Magpie” and “Homing Pigeon,” as we learn from Glenn Greenwald in his 2014 book “No Place to Hide.” Le Monde examined information about the surveillance of aircraft and their passengers around the world between 2005 and 2013, including unpublished documents from the Snowden archives; the evidence demonstrates that from an early date, Air France drew particular attention from the United States and the United Kingdom.

Air France was targeted as early as 2005, as disclosed in an NSA document setting out the broad outline of a program for “worldwide civilian aircraft tracking.” Dated July 5, the 13-page memo provides a chronological, detailed list of the main stages of the program. The document stated that based on a CIA report, some or all “Air France and Air Mexico flights” had been “possible terrorist targets” since late 2003. The legal department of the NSA found “no problem with targeting Air France and Air Mexico flights overseas,” and “when the flights enter U.S. airspace, they should be more than covered by the U.S. air traffic control system.” In February 2005, these same lawyers outlined legal procedures be adopted for such collection.

The naming of Air France as a risk to the U.S. was not just a simple hypothesis by a few NSA technicians. An impressive circle of security and intelligence officials were informed of the purported danger represented by the French company. The 2005 NSA memo was sent to roughly 20 recipients, including the North American Air Defense Command; the CIA; the Department of Homeland Security; the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates satellites for the U.S. government; the Defense Intelligence Agency; and the Air Force chief of staff. This fixation with Air France continued in the years that followed.

Air France first tested the in-flight use of a smartphone on service from Paris to Warsaw on December 17, 2007. As an Air France spokesperson confirmed to Le Monde, “We began early, but since then, we have carried out tests continuously and today, like other companies, we are getting ready to move directly to Wi-Fi on board.” Questioned by Le Monde about the British and American surveillance activities, the company’s response was measured: “We are visibly not the only ones to have been targeted and we know absolutely nothing about these practices.”

In its 2012 presentation, GCHQ observed that 27 companies had already enabled or were about to enable passenger use of mobile phones, particularly in first and business class on long-haul flights. These included British Airways (which only enabled data and SMS functions), Hong Kong Airways, Aeroflot, Etihad, Emirates, Singapore Airways, Turkish Airlines, Cathay Pacific, and Lufthansa. Air France, however, is synonymous with the surveillance of in-flight calls to the extent that the GCHQ presentation used a full-page sketch of one of its planes to illustrate the working of in-flight interception in the presentation.

As an example of their know-how, GCHQ and the NSA provide numerous examples of calls intercepted on board commercial flights. The examples show that data was intercepted on March 23, 2012, at 1:56 p.m. on the UAE airline Etihad’s flight 8271 between JFK and Denver; on an Aeroflot’s Nice-Moscow flight on May 20, 2011, and subsequently that same year; on Qatar Airways flights from Milan to Doha and from Athens to Doha; and from Jeddah to Cairo (Saudi Airlines) and from Paris to Muscat (Oman Air).

Data collection was also conducted against BlackBerrys, according to the presentation, which identified BlackBerry PIN codes and email addresses on an aircraft on January 2, 2012, at 10:23 a.m., but did not include  destination or the airline company. The spoils of war — observed phone uses — are proudly listed in the GCHQ presentation: voice communication, data, SMS, Webmail, Webchat, social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), travel apps, Google Maps, currency converters, media, VOIP, BitTorrent, and Skype. In the course of its intrusion exercises, GCHQ discovered, somewhat to its surprise, that it is not alone in its interest in these in-flight communications. GCHQ notes that the Russian company Aeroflot has set up a system of specific connections for GSM phones on its aircraft “presumably for legal intercept,” as the agency remarks in a technical memo.

Today, approximately 100 companies permit in-flight use of telephones. “Customers now consider it normal, even necessary, to remain connected in flight,” an Air France spokesperson said. Aviation security authorities have all approved the use of GSM phones on board aircraft and the experts estimate that the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 will go down in history as the years of the in-flight mobile phone, in particular with the long-term installation of in-flight Wi-Fi.

This will further extend the scope of espionage by providing a pool of potential targets comprising several hundreds of thousands of people, a level of popularity anticipated by the NSA seven years ago. This implies a population that goes far beyond terrorist targets. The political or economic surveillance of passengers in business or in first class on long-haul flights could be put to many other uses.

There is no limit to surveillance activities and each novelty is a technical challenge to be met. The intelligence services even seem to be slightly jaded. In the 2010 newsletter article, NSA analysts were already thinking further afield. “What’s next, trains? We’ll have to keep watching …”

This article was published today in Le Monde. It is the result of a collaboration with The Intercept and is based on documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. GCHQ responded to Le Monde with a statement that it does not comment on intelligence matters and that its activities are “authorized, necessary and proportionate” and “entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.” NSA said its activities complied with U.S. law and policy and declined to comment further.

Trump takes aim at drug companies: ‘I don’t like what has happened with drug prices’

December 7, 2016

by Carolyn Y. Johnson

The Washington Post

Biotech and pharmaceutical stocks rose after the election, reflecting investor optimism that a Trump presidency would mean less focus on drug prices. Not so fast, president-elect Trump said in his interview for Time ‘Person of the Year.’

“I’m going to bring down drug prices,” Trump told Time in an interview in his dining room after the election. “I don’t like what has happened with drug prices.”

No additional detail about what Trump would do to lower drug prices was available, and his transition team did not immediately respond to requests for more information.

But Adam Fein, president of Pembroke Consulting, a firm focused on pharmaceutical economics, said that what Trump may be doing is sending a signal to the industry.

“Historically, a lot of manufacturers have increased the prices of their products at the beginning of the year,” Fein said. “I think that president-elect Trump is trying to send a message to sort of encourage manufacturers to not take their usual price increases. . . . He may be trying to use his bully pulpit to signal, ‘you should change the system’ — without necessarily saying how he’s going to change the system, or what should be done.”

Pharmaceutical and biotech stocks were down in mid-day trading. The S&P Pharmaceuticals Select Industry Index was down 3.4 percent and the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index was down 4.2 percent at 11:30 a.m.

Some pharmaceutical executives, believing that the drug price debate isn’t likely to recede, have pressed the industry to get in front of the issue to avoid government intervention. Brent Saunders, chief executive of Allergan, wrote a blog post in September vowing to limit drug prices to single-digit percentage price hikes, once a year. Danish diabetes giant Novo Nordisk followed suit with a similar pledge last week.

“We hear from more and more people living with diabetes about the challenges they face affording healthcare, including the medicines we make,” wrote Jakob Riis, Novo Nordisk’s U.S. president. “This has become a responsibility that needs to be shared among all those involved in healthcare and we’re going to do our part.”

President-elect Trump’s unpredictability has already made companies in multiple industries nervous. Drug companies may refrain from big price hikes simply to stay out of his crosshairs, since the pharmaceutical industry — already under intense scrutiny because of price hikes — could be an easy target.

Fein also noted that Trump may have industry tailwinds — drug companies have increasingly begun to talk publicly about pricing and the warped incentives that exist in the current system. List prices are generally recognized as a fiction. Traditionally, list prices do not reflect what anyone in the system pays for a drug — or what drug companies receive — due to a complex system of payments to middlemen and secret rebates and discounts. But as health plans have shifted toward high-deductible plans or coinsurance, patients are being affected by the list prices of drugs, and drug companies have increasingly begun to acknowledge and focus on the problem.

It’s hard to know whether the Trump administration would support other policy levers to rein in drug prices. But a signal may be in his choice of Tom Price to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

In 2007, Price said that allowing Medicare to negotiate on drug prices, for example, was a “solution in search of a problem,” according to the New York Times.

Time magazine names U.S. President-elect Trump Person of the Year

December 7, 2016

Reuters

Time Magazine named U.S. President-elect Donald Trump its person of the year on Wednesday, citing the upheaval in American politics brought about by the New York businessman’s election campaign and victory.

“It’s hard to measure the scale of his disruption,” Time said in its announcement, noting Trump’s career as real estate magnate and reality television star before he won the presidency on Nov. 8.

The Republican president-elect, who will be sworn in on Jan. 20, ran an unconventional and controversial campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton. Time noted that views of him were deeply divided.

“For those who believe this is all for the better, Trump’s victory represents a long-overdue rebuke to an entrenched and arrogant governing class,” the magazine said.

“For those who see it as for the worse, the destruction extends to cherished norms of civility and discourse, a politics poisoned by vile streams of racism, sexism, nativism.”

The magazine said its short list for person of the year included Clinton, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and singer Beyonce.

“It’s a great honor, it means a lot,” Trump told NBC’s “Today” show in an interview shortly after the announcement.

But he rejected Time’s characterization of the country as fractured. The magazine’s cover called him the “president of the divided states of America.”

“I didn’t divide them, they’re divided now,” he told NBC. “We’re going to put it back together.” He added: “I think putting ‘divided’ is snarky.”

Time makes its annual choice based on the impact a person has on world events, for better or for worse. Last year the magazine chose German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Previous winners have ranged from Mahatma Gandhi to Adolf Hitler.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey, Doina Chiacu and Bill Trott; Editing by Alden Bentley and Frances Kerry)

 Golden ‘King Bibi’ statue causes guerrilla-art stir in Israel

December 6, 2016

by Jeffrey Heller

Reuters

A gilded statue of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, dubbed “King Bibi” by its creator, stirred condemnation from Israel’s culture minister and was toppled by an onlooker after a brief public appearance on Tuesday.

Sculptor Itay Zalait told reporters he had placed the four meter (13 foot) tall effigy of Netanyahu on a white pedestal in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square, adjacent to city hall, to test the limits of freedom of expression in Israel.

The Israeli government and artists have been locked in a so-called “culture war” over steps by Culture Minister Miri Regev to withhold state funds from institutions that do not express loyalty to the state.

Posting on Facebook after the guerrilla-art sculpture was erected, Regev called it an “expression of hatred towards Netanyahu”. Tel Aviv municipal officials ordered Zalait to remove the statue and said they would haul it away and fine him if he refused.

Morning commuters gathered to snap photos and debate whether the statue should be seen as mockery of Netanyahu or homage to the right-wing prime minister, now in his fourth term and known by his childhood nickname “Bibi”.

One woman bowed down in jest in front of the figure, which Zalait said took him three months to sculpt.

“In the social media, there have been tens of thousands of comments about ‘King Bibi’,” Zalait said on Army Radio when asked what had inspired him to create the statue.

“I simply made it a reality and put it in its deserved place, the Kings of Israel Square,” he said, referring to the plaza’s name before it was changed to honor Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister assassinated by an ultranationalist Jew during a peace rally there in 1995.

Passer-by Nina Lobel said the portrayal of Netanyahu was “horrendous” and the artist had wanted “to show him as a dictator”.

Shortly after city hall’s deadline for the statue’s removal expired, a man in the crowd pushed “King Bibi” to the ground. It made a soft “clink” as it hit the pavement and the artist, who seemed amused, took it away, still in one piece, on a truck.

Netanyahu and his wife Sara have drawn legal scrutiny and frequent headlines over whether state funds have been used to support what critics decry as their lavish lifestyle.

Both have denied any misuse of taxpayers’ money.

(Writing by Jeffrey Heller; editing by Andrew Roche)

 Internet capable ‘spy’ toys put data protection and child safety at risk

Manufacturers of smart toys “My Friend Cayla” and the “i-QUE” robot have come under fire for subjecting children to “ongoing surveillance.” Bluetooth connections also enable strangers to contact kids through the toys

December 7, 2016

DW

Come December 25, there will no doubt be many a new doll lying under a Christmas tree. Either one that walks, one that talks, or one that cries or laughs. So at 18 inches tall, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed doll – sporting a denim jacket and pink skirt no less – should seem quite harmless.

But according to EU and US consumer watchdogs, “My Friend Cayla” is just one doll among a group of toys that can reportedly “spy” on children and their homes, breaching a whole plethora of privacy and data protection laws in the process.

When connected to a special app via Bluetooth, children can ask the doll questions. The speech is then converted into text and the app searches for a suitable answer on the internet, enabling the toy to respond.

But now the European Consumer Organization (BEUC) and US groups such the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) have filed complaints against manufacturers Mattel and Genesis Toys, targeting so-called “smart toys,” including My Friend Cayla, the i-QUE Intelligent Robot and Hello Barbie.

“By purpose and design, these toys record and collect the private conversations of young children without any limitations on collection, use, or disclosure of this personal information,” EPIC and other US watchdogs said in their complaint.

According to the Norwegian Consumer Council, which researched the smart toys, “anything the child tells the doll is transferred to the US -based company Nuance Communications, who specialize in speech recognition technology.”

The Council also found that the toys subjected children to hidden marketing. Thanks to pre-programmed phrases, smart doll “Cayla” is particularly fond of telling her new playmate how much she loves Disney films. It therefore comes as little coincidence that the app-provider for the doll also has a commercial relationship with Disney.

Potential for misuse

Data protection expert at Intersoft Consulting, Dr. Nils Christian Haag, told DW that the potential for the misuse of these toys is huge.

“As toys develop and use more technology, it’s important that more time is also put into safeguarding these products,” Haag said.

“There must at least be clearer information with these products about which data will be passed on, where it will be sent and what it could be used for,” he added, referring to the complicated and lengthy terms and conditions accompanying toys such as “Cayla.”

Haag reiterated, however, that when using Bluetooth on any device, the potential is always there for hackers to connect.

“The recommendation for smartphones is to turn off your Bluetooth function whenever you don’t need it,” Haag said.

The company “Vivid,” which sells “Cayla” and “i-QUE” in Germany, did not immediately respond to DW’s request to comment on the toy’s current safety protocol. The company’s website states, however, that there are four safety levels “to enable children to play safely.”

Invasion of child privacy

According to the BEUC, data protection isn’t the only thing at risk when using “smart toys.”

Citing the study commissioned by the Norwegian Consumer Council, the BEUC said: “With simple steps, anyone can take control of the toys through a mobile phone. This makes it possible to talk and listen through the toy without having physical access to the toy.”

Luise Schmidt, Head of Culture and Media at the German Aid Organization for Children (Deutsche Kinderhilfswerk), told DW that the “smart toys” leave a huge gap in child safety.

“You don’t have to be an expert to be able to connect to something via Bluetooth,” Schmidt said, adding that the ease leaves the door open to cyber grooming or bullying.

These smart toys also present a violation of privacy, Schmidt said. According to Article 16 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, every minor has the right to privacy. However, with some of the “smart toys,” parents can access the app and listen back to what their child has been saying or asking.

“Children often confide in their toys and dolls,” Schmidt said. “They tell them things that they might not necessarily want to tell their parents.

“So being able to listen back to their conversations is a clear violation of a child’s right to privacy,” she added.

Toys ‘unfit for the market’

Added to the list of problems, is the long-term purpose of the saved voice recordings, which also remains unclear. Schmidt warned, however, that the data risks being used in future to create an entire profile.

“Everything is connected,” she said. “Recordings from the dolls, IP addresses, photos uploaded online by parents – everything could be gathered into one folder,” Schmidt warned. “Whether the child – when they’re older – likes it or not.”

Instead of turning to “Cayla” for life’s answers, Schmidt encouraged parents to always accompany their children when surfing the internet.

“These toys just shouldn’t be on the market,” she said.

No responses yet

Leave a Reply