Tuesday, September 24, 2013

eport: Kennedy assassin was on FBI payroll

Author says Bill O'Reilly 'uncritically repeats the Warren Commission lie'

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
In his bestseller “Killing Kennedy,” author and Fox News host Bill O’Reilly “uncritically repeats the Warren Commission lie” that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy, charges Jerome Corsi, author of the newly released “Who Really Killed Kennedy? 50 Years Later: Stunning New Revelations about the JFK Assassination.”
Corsi, whose new book has overtaken O’Reilly’s on the Amazon list of top sellers about JFK, argues O’Reilly fails to take into account the extensive documentation produced over the last 50 years indicating Oswald was an agent of the federal government with an extensive CIA intelligence file that stretched back to 1957.
O’Reilly, says Corsi, uncritically presents Oswald as a communist-sympathizer who defected to the Soviet Union, without mentioning the documentary record.
Corsi, in his book, presents evidence that Oswald was a double agent in the “false defector program” in which the U.S. government encouraged military troops loyal to the United States to engage in a ruse in which they would defect to the Soviet Union to gain access to the inside operations of the KGB.
Secret details of JFK’s assassination are finally unlocked. Get your autographed copy of “Who Really Killed Kennedy?” by Jerome Corsi now!
O’Reilly also does not mention the evidence that Oswald was being paid by the FBI as an informant in November 1963, prior to the assassination. Corsi says the Warren Commission suppressed the information, concluding Oswald had no affiliation with U.S. intelligence agencies.
Corsi asks: “Was Bill O’Reilly simply unaware of this documentary evidence when he co-authored ‘Killing Kennedy’?”
“Who Really Killed Kennedy,” released last week as the 50th anniversary of the assassination approaches, is bolstered by recently declassified documents that shed new light on the greatest “who-done-it” mystery of the 20th century. Corsi sorted through tens of thousands of documents, all 26 volumes of the Warren Commission’s report, hundreds of books, several films and countless photographs.
Oswald’s CIA file
The documents on the JFK assassination released by the federal government in the past few years show the CIA had an intelligence file on Oswald.
His “201″ CIA file, a personality file, was numbered No. 39-61981, with the “39” denoting an intelligence file, Corsi points out.
The Mary Ferrell Foundation has made public 50,000 pages of documents from Oswald’s CIA file, including a small selection of the pre-assassination file, followed by a huge collection of post-assassination documents pertaining to the Warren Commission and other subsequent investigations of the JFK assassination.
Oswald’s 201 CIA file was opened by Counter Intelligence officer Elizabeth “Ann” Egerter in December 1960.
The pre-assassination part of Oswald’s 201 CIA file shows the CIA followed, step by step, every move Oswald made to return to the United States after “defecting” to the Soviet Union, says Corsi.
As early as October 1960, while the presidential campaign between Nixon and Kennedy was still going on, the Department of State undertook a project to identify and research all Americans who had defected to the Soviet Union, to Soviet bloc nations or to communist China.
At the Department of State’s “Office of Intelligence/Resources and Coordination,” Robert B. Elwood wrote to Richard Bissell, then CIA’s deputy director for plans – the position from which Bissell began planning under the Eisenhower administration the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
The assignment at the State Department fell to Otto F. Otepka, deputy director of the State Department Office of Security. Bissell shipped the file to James Angleton at CIA counter intelligence and to Robert L. Bannerman, the CIA deputy chief of security.
According to former military intelligence officer John Newman in his 1995 book “Oswald and the CIA,” Bannerman said the opening of Oswald’s “201 file” regarding his defection to the Soviet Union “would have all gone through Angleton.” The 201 opening was something on which “we worked very closely with Angleton and his staff,” Bannerman recalled.
At the CIA, Otepka continued to add to Oswald’s 201 file, noting key “red flags,” such as when Oswald applied for and received a U.S. passport on one day’s notice to return to the United States. Oswald also received an extra visa a month and a half before he left Russia, apparently so his Russian wife could accompany him home.
Otepka also added to Oswald’s file, according to Corsi, when he learned Oswald had received a State Department loan that made his return to the U.S. possible financially. There are indications in the file that Attorney General Bobby Kennedy was aware of Oswald and his 201 file a year and a half before the JFK assassination.
The Justice Department evidently intervened with the Dallas Police, asking them not to pursue, investigate or arrest Oswald for allegedly firing a shot at Gen. Edwin Walker in Dallas prior to the Kennedy assassination.
Walker urged the House Select Committee on Investigations to look into the extraordinary intervention that traced back to Bobby Kennedy.
Oswald and the FBI
“As remarkable as it seems, the evidence suggests Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination was on the payroll of the FBI,” says Corsi.
J. Lee Rankin, the general counsel of the Warren Commission, wrote a memo to the file in January 1964 documenting that a reliable source informed him of journalists in Texas who commonly knew Oswald was receiving a monthly check of $200 from the FBI.
In that letter, as reproduced in the archives preserved by the Mary Ferrell Foundation online, Rankin documents that on Jan. 22, 1964, he received a telephone call from Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas, communicating on a confidential basis an allegation that Oswald had been an undercover agent for the FBI since September 1962 and had been paid $200 a month from an account designated as No. 179.
Rankin’s letter further documents that on Jan. 23, 1964, Secret Service Report No. 766 summarized an interview conducted by FBI agent Bertram with Houston Post reporter Alonso H. Hudkins III that read in part:
On December 19, Mr. Hudkins advised that he had just returned from a weekend in Dallas, during which time he talked to Allen Sweatt, Chief Criminal Division, Sheriff’s Office, Dallas. Chief Sweatt mentioned that it was his opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald was being paid $200 a month by the FBI as an informant in connection with their subversive investigation. He furnished the alleged informant number assigned to Oswald by the FBI as “S172.”
Rankin, says Corsi, further affirmed that District Attorney Wade in Dallas and “others of the Texas representatives” stated the rumors that Oswald was an undercover agent were widely held among members of the press in Dallas and that Melvin Belli, attorney for Jack Ruby, was aware of the allegations.
Wade further told Rankin that Oswald was an informant for the CIA, carrying No. 110669.
As documented by the proceedings of the Warren Commission’s executive session Jan. 27, 1964, another document archived online by the Mary Ferrell Foundation, Rankin presented to the commissioners the allegations of Oswald’s connections to the FBI and the CIA.
At that meeting, Rankin made clear his intention to cover up the information when he told the commission, “We do have a dirty rumor that is very bad for the commission, and it is very damaging to the agencies that are involved in it, and it must be wiped out so insofar as it is possible to do so by this commission.”
At the Warren Commission’s executive session on Jan. 27, 1964, commissioner Allen Dulles commented in concluding the discussion of the information Oswald was a paid FBI agent: “I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?”
Corsi contends the Warren Commission suppressed evidence of Oswald’s relationship with the FBI, precisely because the information undermined the commission’s central conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin.
Corsi says the evidence shows Oswald was a patriotic U.S. citizen who earned his employment as a well-trained intelligence operative, with his primary allegiance to the CIA. It could be, Corsi concludes, “a key part of the deep secret the CIA could not afford the U.S. public to know in the aftermath of the JFK assassination when the Warren Report was issued in 1964.”
Note: Media wishing to interview Jerome Corsi, please contact us here.
Secret details of Kennedy’s assassination are finally unlocked. Get your autographed copy of “Who Really Killed Kennedy?” by Jerome Corsi now!

BREAKING: John Kerry Will Sign UN Arms Treaty TOMORROW

September 24 2013
by Dan Cannon
Share This Post
submit to reddit       
The Associated Press is reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry will sign the United Nations Arms Treaty on Wednesday this week.
It is feared and predicted by many gun rights groups and advocates that the treaty, if ratified, could open up the US gun market to international regulation.
According to a letter written by CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gotlieb,
The uncertainty begins in the discussion of small arms. Where will the regulations on our small arms start, and where will they stop? They are even trying to include ammunition regulations in the Arms Trade Treaty! Will the United Nations try to impose international licensing requirements, an international registry, or international?
The last negotiations for an Arms Trade Treaty took place in July 2012, just four months before the Presidential election. Obama did not want to take a big stance for global gun control just months before his re-election but now he has made it clear he is for total gun control. He also told voters he would not be re-visiting negotiations for an Arms Trade treaty but here we are.
Since his re-election it has become clearer than ever what is at the top of his agenda; taking our guns away! The Obama Administration has been exploiting tragedies since the election to push gun control at the city, state, federal, and now GLOBAL level.
Our Senate took a stance before the Presidential election when 51 of them wrote Obama a letter saying they would not support an Arms Trade Treaty. We must let our entire U.S. Senate know we do not support international gun control. They must not ratify this international treaty.
Despite Kerry’s pending signature, don’t panic just yet. The treaty must also be ratified by the Senate, which is unlikely to happen in the immediate future.
In fact, in March, the Senate voted to keep the US out of the arms treaty by a vote of 53-46.
Treaties require a 2/3 majority vote by the Senate in order to be ratified, however, unlike regular bills, treaties do not have to be reintroduced for each session of Congress. This means the treaty could sit in committee until the Senate is more likely to pass it after future elections.
One particularly troubling part of the treaty is the process for amending it. Amending the treaty only requires a 3/4 majority vote of member nations. This means that US gun rights could be in the hands of other nations who take part in the treaty in the future, making the treaty a slippery slope.
As it stands, the treaty does not regulate gun ownership in the United States, but could immediately affect the availability and cost of foreign made guns and ammo if ratified. Also, as mentioned, the amendment process leaves the US open to having new gun control regulations imposed on it by a 3/4 majority vote of member nations.
The treaty will not take effect until at least 50 member nations sign and ratify it.

Liberal Brit calls for UN invasion to disarm America

Liberal Brit calls for UN invasion to disarm America

This is cute in a four year old saying swear words to get attention sort of way.
Without the United States, the United Nations would have trouble disarming a large Boy Scout troop; so it would be hard to see how they could pull this off. Of course, they’re always welcome to come on over and try it if they like as long as they send enough body bags along so that we can send them back where they came from.
That’s America, we say, as news of the latest massacre breaks – last week it was the slaughter of 12 people by Aaron Alexis at Washington DC’s navy yard – and move on. But what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? As citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families – the maiming and killing of children – just as America does in every new civil conflict around the globe.
….Talking to American friends, I always sense a kind of despair that the gun lobby is too powerful to challenge and that nothing will ever change. The same resignation was evident in President Obama’s rather lifeless reaction to the Washington shooting last week. There is absolutely nothing he can do, which underscores the fact that America is in a jam and that international pressure may be one way of reducing the slaughter over the next generation. This has reached the point where it has ceased to be a domestic issue. The world cannot stand idly by.
Quiz: Do you qualify for CAIR’s Islamaphobe list?

Muslim Brotherhood’s World Domination Blueprint

Email This Page
Muslim Brotherhood’s World Domination Blueprint
Unappreciative of Western philosophy, members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood probably never heard an analogy first mentioned by Roman statesman Cicero — “putting the cart before the horse!” For more than two millennia, the phrase has applied to situations of misplaced priorities. In the aftermath of the Egyptian military removing from office the country’s fifth — and first democratically elected — president, Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining an education about the phrase.
From its inception in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has been the subject of persecution due to its commitment to a single goal — transitioning the world into an Islamic empire.
Recognizing Islamism begins at home, the Brotherhood plodded along for more than eight decades under four presidents seeking to achieve the goal in Egypt. Like a race horse heading home, the Muslim Brotherhood’s pace quickened, sensing victory was near with Morsi’s election.
The Muslim Brotherhood saw its gains as “one small step” for Islam and “one giant leap” for Muslimkind.
Not content with small successful steps, it moved to take a giant leap in Egypt. It stumbled and seems headed back to its earlier days of harsh persecution under previous presidents.
A U.S. commercial claims four out of five dentists recommend its product, suggesting the four have superior knowledge to the one who doesn’t. Similarly, four out of five Egyptian presidents have sought to minimize the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence, suggesting they possess superior knowledge as to why it poses a danger — one clearly recognized by the Egyptian military.
That danger was set aside in 2011 by U.S. President Barack Obama, who announced the United States would work with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization seeking America’s long-term demise.
Morsi was the Muslim Brotherhood’s “poster boy,” coming to office because the Brotherhood was the only domestic organization with the infrastructure in place to support a candidate.
While proving inept as president, failing to act upon major domestic problems like the economy, Morsi chose to help the Muslim Brotherhood establish a stranglehold on the people. No attempt was made to lull the people into a false sense of security as Morsi put the cart before the horse, quickly seeking to impose the Muslim Brotherhood’s will upon them. Compared to the former Soviet Union, Morsi sought neither glasnost nor perestroika.
What the Muslim Brotherhood had planned for Egypt extended far beyond those borders.
In the early 1990s, the Brotherhood memorialized its strategy in a secret document — not discovered until 2004 — for spreading Islam’s reach to U.S. borders as well. In a game plan best described as “Shariah creep,” it sought to introduce Islamic law into the United States, gradually getting it to replace rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Sound absurd? We have already seen Shariah applied by U.S. state courts!
The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy mandated Muslims immigrate to the United States, ignoring its “mixing bowl” of cultures concept by non-assimilation. In this way, Muslims remained pure in their efforts to go forth and multiply, gaining more and more influence in the United States.
The idea of a large, non-assimilated Muslim population gaining influence on foreign shores has long been promoted by leaders such as Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan who once said, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes are our helmets, the minarets are our swords and the faithful are our army.”
There is little doubt what role such leaders envision for their “army.”
One example of a state court applying Shariah involved a Muslim husband accused of raping his Muslim wife. Arguing that Shariah allows a husband to forcefully impose himself upon a non-consenting wife, he was found not guilty.
One can only wonder how long it will be before such rationale is applied to Muslim defendants killing a family member, declaring their innocence under the Islamic concept of “honor killings.”
The Muslim Brotherhood game plan involves initially using “peaceful” jihad to impose Shariah, playing on the concept of political correctness to maximize their stature while minimizing U.S. values. Once achieved, having lulled Americans into a false security, “violent” jihad follows.
The Muslim Brotherhood has set up dozens of “front companies” in the United States to launch peaceful jihad. They wave the flag of Islamophobia whenever concerns are raised about rising Islamic influence over-riding valued U.S. principles.
Such flag-waving has enabled one front company to play a role in advising the U.S. military whom it should accept as a religious leader within its ranks — preaching a religion promoting Muslim superiority and death to non-believers.
When New York City ran an ad on buses showing pictures of 16 criminals wanted for terrorist activity, a Muslim Brotherhood front company objected to the image portrayed as all were Muslims. It succeeded in getting the city to remove the ad.
All this leaves one with mixed emotions. The violence demonstrated by the Egyptian military against Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood supporters is worrisome but so, too, is the impact an unfettered Brotherhood would have not only in Egypt but elsewhere as well.
We must recognize the Muslim Brotherhood is the Sunni equivalent of Iran. Just as the Iranian clerics established a secure environment in which to flourish and export violence to spread its Shiite version of Islam, this too remains the Brotherhood’s goal.
There is one big difference, however. Tehran’s clerics were successful because they ensured they operated out of a secured homeland before launching jihad. But the Muslim Brotherhood became so enthralled with initial domestic success, they failed to do the same. It was only the army’s recognition of the Brotherhood’s true intentions that prompted it to decapitate a civilian leadership dedicated to opening wider the door to the Muslim Brotherhood’s increased influence.
The Egyptian army’s actions have taught the Muslim Brotherhood the meaning of putting the cart before the horse. One can only hope it is a lesson from which the Brotherhood never recovers.
Source: Breitbart

Louisiana lawmaker plans Common Core repeal bill for 2014 legislative session

By Ben Velderman
BATON ROUGE, La. – It looks like Louisiana lawmakers will get another chance early next year to withdraw the Pelican State from the latest education fad, known as Common Core.

State Rep. Cameron Henry, a Republican, announced Monday “he will file legislation before the 2014 legislative session urging Gov. Bobby Jindal to halt implementation (of Common Core),” reports NOLA.com.Cameron Henry
Henry believes the nationalized math and English learning standards – which tell schools which concepts they must teach students at each grade level – will eventually lead to the federalization of public education.
In an open letter to Jindal, Henry urged the governor to use his executive power “to withdraw Louisiana from the Common Core State Standard Initiative and PARCC testing” even before the 2014 legislative session begins.
PARCC is one of two federally funded assessment groups that are designing new Common Core-aligned standardized tests that will be given to students beginning in the 2014-15 school year.
In place of the one-size-fits-all Common Core standards, Henry reminded Jindal that “improved standards and testing can best be developed under the direction of Louisiana parents, teachers, and the Louisiana legislature.”
Jindal doesn’t seem likely to follow Henry’s advice, considering the Republican governor has been an outspoken supporter of the Common Core standards since 2010.
Henry may also have trouble convincing his fellow Republicans lawmakers.
NOLA.com reports that an earlier anti-Common Core bill “flamed out on the Senate floor after receiving condemnation from other conservative lawmakers. Support for the (Common Core) education standards was so strong … that senators chose to wipe the bill from the books completely by withdrawing it from the Legislature’s files.”
Henry is already getting flak from state Rep. Steve Carter, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Education.
Carter suggested misinformation was to blame for Henry’s fears that Common Core will give D.C. bureaucrats and lawmakers the opportunity to influence what gets taught in the nation’s K-12 schools.
“The federal government has nothing to do with (Common Core),” Carter told NOLA.com.
That’s a standard defense from Common Core advocates, but it’s not quite true.
The federal government – in the form of the U.S. Department of Education – has used No Child Left Behind waivers and Race to the Top financial grants to pressure states into adopting the nationalized learning standards.
The feds are also reviewing Common Core-aligned test questions that many students will be given in the spring of 2015.
A Jindal spokesman said the governor shares some of Henry’s concerns, but he still supports the new standards.

White House hosts ‘Bisexual Visibility Day’ meeting behind closed doors OBAMA COMES OUT OF THE CLOSET

The White House reportedly held a closed-door roundtable session Monday with members of the bisexual community to celebrate “Bisexual Visibility Day.”
The Obama administration’s Office of Public Engagement quietly touted the event a month ago with select invitations to rights groups around the nation, the Washington Blade reported.
Luigi Ferrer, program and grants development director for the Pridelines Youth Services group in Florida, told the Miami Herald that he received his invitation about a month ago from the administration.
“There really hasn’t been a strong national organization speaking out for bisexuals,” he said. “What that leads to is being left out of important policy conversations. Now we are finally having some of those.”
The meeting was to discuss issues of importance to bisexuals, The Washington Post reported last month.
“It’s a testament to this administration that they are focusing on all elements of the LGBT community and they should be applauded for hosting an event focused on some of the specific issues impacting bisexual people,” Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesman for Human Rights Campaign in Washington, told the Herald.

Email tells feds to make sequester as painful as promised

The White House announced Tuesday that it is canceling tours of the president’s home for the foreseeable future as the sequester spending cuts begin to bite and the administration makes good on its warnings of painful decisions.
Announcement of the decision — made in an email from the White House Visitors Office — came hours after The Washington Times reported on another administration email that seemed to show at least one agency has been instructed to make sure the cuts are as painful as President Obama promised they would be.

In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.
“We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be,” Mr. Brown, in the internal email, said his superiors told him.
Neither Mr. Brown nor the main APHIS office in Washington returned calls seeking comment, but Agriculture Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack, who oversees the agency, told Congress he is trying to give flexibility where he can.
“If we have flexibility, we’re going to try to use it to make sure we use sequester in the most equitable and least disruptive way,” the secretary told Rep. Kristi L. Noem, a South Dakota Republican who grilled Mr. Vilsack about the email. “There are some circumstances, and we’ve talked a lot about the meat inspection, where we do not have that flexibility because there are so few accounts.”
Ms. Noem told Mr. Vilsack that the email made it sound like the administration was sacrificing flexibility in order to justify its earlier dire predictions.
“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that’s been put forward,” the congresswoman told Mr. Vilsack.

Late Tuesday evening, the Agriculture Department issued a statement disputing Mr. Brown’s read of the situation. The department said Mr. Brown had suggested dividing his region’s cuts among a number of states but he was told that idea was already part of their sequester plans.
“The APHIS budget officer explained that USDA is already proposing these steps in order to avoid furloughs. USDA is committed to doing all we can to minimize the impact of sequester [for] our employees and the farmers, ranchers, and rural communities we serve,” the department said in its statement.
The $85 billion in automatic spending cuts began Friday, leaving the White House with tough decisions to make — though it argues its hands are tied by the way the cuts were written into law.
That’s left the administration trying to balance dire predictions with good management.
Last week, immigration officials confirmed they were releasing immigrants awaiting deportation from their detention centers in order to save money, and this week top officials said they were already seeing long lines at airports because of cuts in screenings.
But those decisions are being scrutinized as agencies continue to advertise for job openings and spend on other priorities.
The White House had to fend off questions Tuesday about the Homeland Security Department’s decision to sign a $50 million contract for new uniforms for airport screeners, just days before the sequesters.
All sides in Washington agree there should be a way to lessen some of the impacts of the cuts.
The House will take at least a step toward that Wednesday when it votes on a new spending bill for the rest of fiscal year 2013 that would mitigate at least some of the sequester impacts in the Defense Department.
Senate Democrats are looking to write an even broader bill to rearrange money in several accounts.
Mr. Obama is pushing for the broadest possible deal later this year that would raise taxes and cut entitlement spending in order to restore some of the money trimmed in sequestration.
The White House said he made calls to some key members of Congress to sound them out on the prospects for that kind of deal.
“The president is engaging with lawmakers of both parties and will continue to do so,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters.
For now, though, the cuts remain in place — and that means the end of White House tours.
“Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that White House Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule affected tours,” the White House said in an email to members of Congress.
The decision drew a derisive response from Capitol Hill, where Republicans said the move undercut Mr. Obama’s promises of openness.
Rep. Bill Johnson, Ohio Republican, said President Lincoln managed to keep the White House open during the darkest days of the Civil War, and wondered why Mr. Obama couldn’t do the same.
“If the president is unable to figure out how to keep the White House open to the American people after an 8.2 percent budget cut, then the American people are entitled to some answers from their chief executive as to why.”
The Capitol is facing its own cuts.
At the Capitol, staffers entering the building’s West Front were told Tuesday that the doorway there would be closed as of next week due to sequestration. That entrance is currently limited to credentialed visitors, so it won’t affect the public.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/#ixzz2frzGDo7W
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Snowden: UK government now leaking documents about itself

The NSA whistleblower says: 'I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent'
GCHQ's headquarters on the outskirts of Cheltenham. Photograph: Barry Batchelor/PA
(Updated below)
The Independent this morning published an article - which it repeatedly claims comes from "documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden" - disclosing that "Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies." This is the first time the Independent has published any revelations purportedly from the NSA documents, and it's the type of disclosure which journalists working directly with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have thus far avoided.
That leads to the obvious question: who is the source for this disclosure? Snowden this morning said he wants it to be clear that he was not the source for the Independent, stating:
I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent. The journalists I have worked with have, at my request, been judicious and careful in ensuring that the only things disclosed are what the public should know but that does not place any person in danger. People at all levels of society up to and including the President of the United States have recognized the contribution of these careful disclosures to a necessary public debate, and we are proud of this record.
"It appears that the UK government is now seeking to create an appearance that the Guardian and Washington Post's disclosures are harmful, and they are doing so by intentionally leaking harmful information to The Independent and attributing it to others. The UK government should explain the reasoning behind this decision to disclose information that, were it released by a private citizen, they would argue is a criminal act."
In other words: right as there is a major scandal over the UK's abusive and lawless exploitation of its Terrorism Act - with public opinion against the use of the Terrorism law to detain David Miranda - and right as the UK government is trying to tell a court that there are serious dangers to the public safety from these documents, there suddenly appears exactly the type of disclosure the UK government wants but that has never happened before. That is why Snowden is making clear: despite the Independent's attempt to make it appears that it is so, he is not their source for that disclosure. Who, then, is?
The US government itself has constantly used this tactic: aggressively targeting those who disclose embarrassing or incriminating information about the government in the name of protecting the sanctity of classified information, while simultaneously leaking classified information prolifically when doing so advances their political interests.
One other matter about the Independent article: it strongly suggests that there is some agreement in place to restrict the Guardian's ongoing reporting about the NSA documents. Speaking for myself, let me make one thing clear: I'm not aware of, nor subject to, any agreement that imposes any limitations of any kind on the reporting that I am doing on these documents. I would never agree to any such limitations. As I've made repeatedly clear, bullying tactics of the kind we saw this week will not deter my reporting or the reporting of those I'm working with in any way. I'm working hard on numerous new and significant NSA stories and intend to publish them the moment they are ready.

Related question

For those in the media and elsewhere arguing that the possession and transport of classified information is a crime: does that mean you believe that not only Daniel Ellsberg committed a felony, but also the New York Times reporters and editors did when they received, possessed, copied, transported and published the thousands of pages of top-secret documents known as the Pentagon Papers?
Do you also believe the Washington Post committed felonies when receiving and then publishing top secret information that the Bush administration was maintaining a network for CIA black sites around the world, or when the New York Times revealed in 2005 the top secret program whereby the NSA had created a warrantlesss eavesdropping program aimed at US citizens?
Or is this some newly created standard of criminality that applies only to our NSA reporting? Do media figures who are advocating that possessing or transmitting classified information is a crime really not comprehend the precedent they are setting for investigative journalism?


The Independent's Oliver Wright just tweeted the following:
"For the record: The Independent was not leaked or 'duped' into publishing today's front page story by the Government."
Leaving aside the fact that the Independent article quotes an anonymous "senior Whitehall source", nobody said they were "duped" into publishing anything. The question is: who provided them this document or the information in it? It clearly did not come from Snowden or any of the journalists with whom he has directly worked. The Independent provided no source information whatsoever for their rather significant disclosure of top secret information. Did they see any such documents, and if so, who, generally, provided it to them? I don't mean, obviously, that they should identify their specific source, but at least some information about their basis for these claims, given how significant they are, would be warranted. One would think that they would not have published something like this without either seeing the documents or getting confirmation from someone who has: the class of people who qualify is very small, and includes, most prominently and obviously, the UK government itself.

Exclusive: UK’s secret Mid-East internet surveillance base is revealed in Edward Snowden leaks

Data-gathering operation is part of a £1bn web project still being assembled by GCHQ

Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies, The Independent has learnt.
The station is able to tap into and extract data from the underwater fibre-optic cables passing through the region.
The information is then processed for intelligence and passed to GCHQ in Cheltenham and shared with the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States. The Government claims the station is a key element in the West’s “war on terror” and provides a vital “early warning” system for potential attacks around the world.
The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden. The Guardian newspaper’s reporting on these documents in recent months has sparked a dispute with the Government, with GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives containing the data.
The Middle East installation is regarded as particularly valuable by the British and Americans because it can access submarine cables passing through the region. All of the messages and data passed back and forth on the cables is copied into giant computer storage “buffers” and then sifted for data of special interest.
Information about the project was contained in 50,000 GCHQ documents that Mr Snowden downloaded during 2012. Many of them came from an internal Wikipedia-style information site called GC-Wiki. Unlike the public Wikipedia, GCHQ’s wiki was generally classified Top Secret  or above.
The disclosure comes as the Metropolitan Police announced it was launching a terrorism investigation into material found on the computer of David Miranda, the Brazilian partner of The Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald – who is at the centre of the Snowden controversy.
Edward Snowden (AFP/Getty) Edward Snowden (AFP/Getty)
Scotland Yard said material examined so far from the computer of Mr Miranda was “highly sensitive”, the disclosure of which “could put lives at risk”.
The Independent understands that The Guardian agreed to the Government’s request not to publish any material contained in the Snowden documents that could damage national security.
As well as destroying a computer containing one copy of the Snowden files, the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, agreed to restrict the newspaper’s reporting of the documents.
The Government also demanded that the paper not publish details of how UK telecoms firms, including BT and Vodafone, were secretly collaborating with GCHQ to intercept the vast majority of all internet traffic entering the country. The paper had details of the highly controversial and secret programme for over a month. But it only published information on the scheme – which involved paying the companies to tap into fibre-optic cables entering Britain – after the allegations appeared in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. A Guardian spokeswoman refused to comment on any deal with the Government.
A senior Whitehall source said: “We agreed with The Guardian that our  discussions with them would remain confidential”.
But there are fears in Government that Mr Greenwald – who still has access to the files – could attempt to release damaging information.
He said after the arrest of Mr Miranda: “I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I have many more documents on England’s spy system. I think  they will be sorry for what they did.”
David Miranda, left, with Glenn Greenwald (AP) David Miranda, left, with Glenn Greenwald (AP)
One of the areas of concern in Whitehall is that details of the Middle East spying base which could identify its location could enter the public domain.
The data-gathering operation is part of a £1bn internet project still being assembled by GCHQ. It is part of the surveillance and monitoring system, code-named “Tempora”, whose wider aim is the global interception of digital communications, such as emails and text messages.
Across three sites, communications – including telephone calls – are tracked both by satellite dishes and by tapping into underwater fibre-optic cables.
Access to Middle East traffic has become critical to both US and UK intelligence agencies post-9/11. The Maryland headquarters of the NSA and the Defence Department in Washington have pushed for greater co-operation and technology sharing between US and UK intelligence agencies.
The Middle East station was set up under a warrant signed by the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband, authorising GCHQ to monitor and store for analysis data passing through the network of fibre-optic cables that link up the internet around the world
The certificate authorised GCHQ to collect information about the “political intentions of foreign powers”, terrorism, proliferation, mercenaries and private military companies, and serious financial fraud.
However, the certificates are reissued every six months and can be changed by ministers at will. GCHQ officials are then free to target anyone who is overseas or communicating from overseas without further checks or controls if they think they fall within the terms of a current certificate.
The precise budget for this expensive covert technology is regarded as sensitive by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office.
However, the scale of Middle East operation, and GCHQ’s increasing use of sub-sea technology to intercept communications along high-capacity cables, suggest a substantial investment.
Intelligence sources have denied the aim is a blanket gathering of all communications, insisting the operation is targeted at security, terror and organised crime.

Exclusive: Secretary of State Kerry to sign Arms Trade Treaty - diplomats

Exclusive: Secretary of State Kerry to sign Arms Trade Treaty - diplomats


Nairobi mall attack

Images from the terror in Kenya.  Slideshow 
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks at a luncheon in New York September 23, 2013. REUTERS/Eric Thayer
UNITED NATIONS | Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:35pm EDT
(Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in a move that puts the Obama administration at odds with the powerful American gun lobby, will sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty regulating the $70 billion international conventional arms business, diplomats said on Tuesday.
A senior State Department official said President Barack Obama's administration would notify the U.S. Senate on Tuesday and Kerry would sign the treaty on Wednesday on the sidelines of the annual U.N. General Assembly in New York.
Obama gave a speech to the assembly on Tuesday that focused on Syria, Iran and other Middle East hot spots.
The arms treaty, which requires ratification by the Senate and has been attacked by America's pro-gun National Rifle Association, would help Western countries press to curtail Russian arms sales to Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad's government has been accused of widespread abuses in more than two years of civil war.
Amnesty International Secretary General Salil Shetty called Kerry's decision "a milestone towards ending the flow of conventional arms that fuel atrocities and abuse."
The United States and 86 other signatory nations "must implement the treaty and bring to an end the supply of weapons to countries where they would be used to commit or facilitate genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or other serious human rights violations," Shetty said in a statement.
President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria, whose country has been repeatedly attacked by a cross-border Islamic jihadist militant group called Boko Haram, told the United Nations such rebellions are "sustained by unfettered access by non-state actors to illicit smart arms and light weapons."
"For us in Africa these are the weapons of mass destruction," he said.
The U.N. General Assembly adopted the treaty on April 2 by a vote of 154 for, including the United States, three against, and 23 abstentions. The no votes were cast by Iran, North Korea and Syria, U.N. records showed.
The NRA, which has opposed the treaty from the start, called the April vote a sad day for the United States, the world's No. 1 arms exporter.
Among the NRA's arguments against the treaty are that it undermines American sovereignty and disregards the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to bear arms.
The senior State Department official rejected the NRA's characterization of the treaty, saying the pact's target is "illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents."
"The treaty recognizes and protects the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess and use arms for legitimate purposes," said the official.
"It merely helps other countries create and enforce the kind of strict national export controls the United States has had in place for decades, which haven't diminished one iota the ability of Americans to enjoy their rights under our Constitution."
The U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs has said the treaty would not "interfere with the domestic arms trade and the way a country regulates civilian possession."
"It will prevent human rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied with arms. And it will help keep warlords, pirates, and gangs from acquiring these deadly tools," the U.N. office said on its website.
Frank Januzzi, deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA, called the move "a very significant win for 20 years of human rights activism" by his organization and by Oxfam International, a confederation of groups focused on poverty and injustice.
Januzzi said the treaty could be applied to the conflict in Syria, making arm sales to the government illegal under international law. Russia, Syria's main arms supplier, and China abstained in the April U.N. vote and have not signed the pact.
"This will increase the pressure on Russia to sign. It will increase the pressure on China as well," he said in a telephone interview.
(Additional reporting by Michelle Nichols.; Editing by Xavier Briand and Christopher Wilson)
Press Room
Press Releases

Print this page
Print this page

Senator Graham Press Releases
Date: 06/09/2012

Graham, McCain Statement on Obama Administration's Leaks Investigation

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and John McCain (R-Arizona) made this statement on news Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed two U.S. Attorneys to investigate the leaking of classified information.
Graham and McCain said:
 "There has been appropriate, bipartisan criticism regarding the devastating and orchestrated leaks of classified information involving some of our most sensitive counter-terrorism operations.  These breaches of national security have compromised operations, strained relationships with allies, and put lives at risk.  It is imperative that an independent investigation be conducted where the results could be accepted with a high degree of confidence and without a hint of political considerations.  We are confident the two U.S. Attorneys hand-picked by Attorney General Holder are fine men.  However, if there was ever a situation where we needed an outside special counsel that would enjoy bipartisan acceptance and widespread public trust, it is now.
"There are many capable attorneys who have earned respect from the public and both parties.  We strongly believe a special counsel should be appointed outside Justice Department control and influence.  Someone in the mold of a Bob Bennett who is extremely competent and enjoys bipartisan respect.
"This investigation involves some of the most serious breaches of national security in recent memory and any investigation must be done in a manner free and clear of political considerations.  The recent decision of the Attorney General falls far short of what is needed and is not an adequate substitute for an outside special counsel."

June 2012 Press Releases