|
Post by karl on Jan 13, 2017 14:32:22 GMT -7
Dear J.J. There is little my self may offer in consulation in this regard to your feelings and consternation in this action that occurred so long in past. Although the Israelis payed a great deal of money to the USA Government for the losses incurred by the families of the crew men that lost their lives in that incident. We as mortals have not the ability to rebuild the situation that was then of a crises that had the potential to have been a lost war and over run of Israel and consequent of rape and murder of female inhabitants and whole sale killing the victors would have enjoyed against one of the only advanced societies at that time in that place. Truth of the matter though, a spy ship is what it is, a spy ship gathering information that is not freely given. With this, although in or not in international waters, is subject to being destroyed especially in a conflict zone of contention as was the case of this ship. The USS Liberty is/was in the similar situation as of the USS Maddox whilst caught spying in the gulf of Tonkin in the business of Intelligence gathering which had not been sanctioned by the North Korean Government. And, was consequently dispatched to the bottom. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incidentAt present, as of a fuse that has yet not been lighted, is some similar spy ships in the Black Sea. These as yet have not been silenced nor of international complaint been lodged against the owners of these vessels. But, the similar fate is always in the fog of possibilities. Karl
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Feb 13, 2017 7:42:10 GMT -7
An Alleged Muslim Spy Ring - Is This Why Rex Tillerson Cleaned House?
By Tyler Durden Feb 12, 2017 9:10 PM Shortly after Trump took office, and before Rex Tillerson was even confirmed as Secretary of State [6], a slew of State Department officials were removed from their positions (or were forced to resign) as part of an effort to “clean house” at the State Department. The whole affair was haphazardly covered by the media, especially by Jeff Bezos’s blog [7], which insinuated that the departures were [8] “an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.” Further analysis revealed that the officials were actually removed from their positions [9] shortly after Tillerson visited the State Department office in Foggy Bottom prior to his confirmation: “Any implication that that these four people quit is wrong,” one senior State Department official said. “These people are loyal to the secretary, the President and to the State Department. There is just not any attempt here to dis the President. People are not quitting and running away in disgust. This is the White House cleaning house.” And, just a few weeks after the fact, it appears we know why Tillerson was so quick to purge existing staffers: he just didn’t trust them. It also appears his mistrust was more than justified. On January 29th, United States Special Forces executed an operation inside Yemen, against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), with the aim of gathering intelligence and killing leaders of the group. The raid was planned under the Obama administration, but the decision to execute the raid was “punted” to Trump [10], using the pretext of waiting for a “low loom” (moonless) night to execute the raid with maximum secrecy: While the operation had been proposed, it was never green-lighted. Kahl said Obama felt going the mission would mark a “significant escalation” in Yemen and should be left to the next administration to decide. “Obama … believed this represented a significant escalation of U.S. involvement in Yemen, and therefore … thought the next administration should take a careful look and run a careful process,” he told the WSJ. In addition, defense officials expected the Trump administration to be more willing to approve dangerous missions [11], something that was almost certainly known by any remaining personnel who stayed on after Obama left office: While seemingly indicative of a more aggressive stance by Trump, one official described the raid and new proposal as an outgrowth of earlier Obama-era operations that have pushed al-Qaida militants from their sanctuaries into areas and provided more opportunities for U.S. strikes. “We expect an easier approval cycle [for operations] under this administration,” another defense official said. Navy SEAL William “Ryan” OwensThough the Trump administration attempted to push the raid as a success, at very best, the mission was anything but, resulting in the death of Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens, as well as injuries to three other servicemen. While the commandos did everything necessary to maintain the element of surprise, it appears as though AQAP adversaries on the ground had advance warning of the attack [12]: “Initial reports are always wrong, but it doesn’t appear to be a failure of planning or intelligence,” said the former special forces officer. Almost immediately, the raiding force on the ground took intense fire, according to the briefing paper and a senior military official. Occupants of the targeted house and its compound, along with their guard force, moved to a separate cluster of houses nearby where families, including women and children, were staying. Armed women fired on the U.S. and Emirati forces. “There were a lot of female combatants who were part of this,” said Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, on Monday. “We saw during this operation, as it was taking place, that female fighters ran to pre-established positions — as though they had trained to be ready, and trained to be combatants — and engaged with us.” While most know about the Yemen raid [13], most do not know about the dismissal of the three Aman brothers, Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan. On February 2nd, they were abruptly removed from their positions of managing information technology for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Though they were initially suspected merely of stealing equipment, a connection with the previously-hacked computers of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz [14] (D-FL) revealed something far more sinister [15]: Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism. As Mad World News reported [16], the Aman brothers were hired by the Obama administration, and access to top secret information regarding military operations [15]. The committees they allegedly worked for had access to “the most sensitive and secretive government intelligence, including covert anti-terrorism activity… including the Yemen operation”: The House Oversight Committee The brothers were assigned access to three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs along with dozens of congressmen who employed the suspects on a shared basis. This gave them direct access to our military secrets, like missions carried out by Navy SEAL Team Six. They retained their jobs after Obama left, which is not unheard of since their positions were not seen as political appointments. However, they were fired by Trump’s administration within hours after Navy SEAL William Ryan Owens was killed in Yemen during the top secret raid on Al-Qaeda operatives. So, in case you’ve gotten lost, here’s a recap of the timeline of events: Jan 20 – Trump takes office, and DoD officials are expecting him to be more willing to approve dangerous missions Jan 26 – Rex Tillerson visits State Department headquarters prior to his confirmation, and either terminates or forces the resignation of many existing State Department personnel Jan 29 – The botched Yemen raid is executed, resulting in the death of Navy SEAL Owens Feb 1 – Rex Tillerson is confirmed by President Trump as Secretary of State Feb 2 – The Awan brothers are terminated on suspicion that they accessed congressional computers without permission As Mad World News previously stated, “…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots. The firing of the Awan brothers is linked to the Yemen raid where al-Qaeda knew we were coming, and it tragically ended with Navy SEAL Owens being killed in action.” The mainstream media seemed far more interested in obfuscating the details regarding the Tillerson terminations than they were in covering what could be one of the most dangerous intelligence leaks in years, of which there has been but a peep out of any major news outlet. Captain Joseph R. John (Navy-Ret.) has stated that he believes the Muslim Brotherhood “fifth column” has “infiltrated U.S. Government,” [17] and if he is correct, the Awan brothers could very well be a part of this infiltration. Yet, there as been but a peep of information about the Awan brothers from nearly all major news outlets. Are they in jail? What are they accused of? Does the Trump administration suspect them of leaking details about military operations to terrorist organizations? And most importantly, if so, did these three men directly or indirectly contribute to the death of Owens during the Yemen raid? One thing is for certain – as Politico seemed to take delight in stating [18], “Trying to nail down who the leakers are is like trying to count the cockroaches under the couch.” However, it seems most of the “leaks” are coming from Obama holdovers. Which makes Tillerson’s “cleaning house” look like not just the correct move, it leaves you wondering if he did enough cleaning house. www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-11/alleged-muslim-spy-ring-why-rex-tillerson-cleaned-house
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 13, 2017 10:49:04 GMT -7
J.J. Prejudging the information as provided, it appears the Americans are very careless with supervision and over seeing their intelligence employees as indicated. One of the first indications some thing is not going correctly is of three seporate but alighned situations with employees of which ever department: 1} over excessive debts 2} sudden large bank accounts beyond their salaries and, aquiring or attempting aqusation of information beyound the scope of their positons. For the Awan brothers: Their three mistakes are 1} stealing information 2} selling secret information and 3} getting caught. dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/congress-it-probe-suspects-had-massive-debts-years-of-suspicious-activity/In the first place, have three brothers in one sensative department should have rang the alarm bells is a bit unheard of in that business. For if one goes bad, so goes the rest. It appears by information provided, the new President Trump is not so stupid after all. Karl
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Feb 13, 2017 13:57:04 GMT -7
That is such a supposedly highly detailed account and comes so quickly after events that I rank it tops on the BS and Fake News scale. If it is not then the author has a solid pipeline from inside the Trump administration and to many points within the administration. I can't even grant Trumpers with the incompetence it would take to leak so much top secret information so fast to put this article together. So I rank it as propaganda. Set your BS meter to a high scale for the next four years!
Kai the Suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Feb 14, 2017 7:02:23 GMT -7
A great man has passed - - -
February 12 at 1:00pm ·
In Honor of LTG Hal Moore, who passed away yesterday night at age 94. He was immortalized as a Battalion Commander of the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) during the week-long Battle of Ia Drang. In 2002 Randall Wallace directed the movie "We Were Soldier" based on the book We Were Soldiers Once… And Young (1992) by Lieutenant General (Ret.) Hal Moore and reporter Joseph L. Galloway, both of whom were at the battle.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 14, 2017 11:17:47 GMT -7
I have watched this movie and was totally attentive through out. For a hollywood film, it was highly excellent.
Thank you for presenting and reminder of a very well done film..
Karl
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Apr 7, 2017 8:02:59 GMT -7
100 years after the US got involved in World War 1 — it’s time to acknowledge whyHistory News Network 06 Apr 2017 at 09:23 ET Two United States soldiers run past the remains of two German soldiers toward a bunker. (Wikimedia Commons/Library of Congress)Much media notice is likely to be taken this spring of the fact that a hundred years ago the US declared war on Germany, initiating for the first time ever American participation in a military conflict on European soil. The unprecedented nature of this “great departure” will surely be commented upon. But it is unlikely that many observers will venture beyond what for a long time has been the standard explanation of that involvement. An opportunity for a clearer understanding of the emergence of the US as a world power in the twentieth century will thus be missed. We are usually told that US involvement in the Great War can be explained quite simply. Perhaps not surprisingly the prevailing account fits into a broader, widely accepted and promoted narrative about the US role generally in the modern world. Foreign evils are the root of the matter, and they require that the “indispensable nation” make the world, safe, free, and democratic. In 1917, Germany, by its aggressive use of u-boats to blockade Britain and its allies, forced the US to abandon its neutrality. An idealistic president, Woodrow Wilson, responded by rallying Americans behind a crusade intended not only to punish Berlin, but to save the world from ever having to endure war again. But this explanation is grossly inadequate. To understand what did happen, it helps to keep in mind that American leaders had come, by 1900, well before the war erupted in Europe in 1914, to hold decided views about their nation’s future role in the world. Inspired especially by the stupendous economic growth that America was experiencing, they believed that in the coming decades the US could ascend to a position of international importance comparable to, if not eclipsing, that played by Britain in the nineteenth century. At the same time they believed that the continuance of the kind of international order that London had presided over was vital to their success. They were alarmed by intensifying great power rivalry that might threaten that order and were especially anxious about changes to the political boundaries and commercial frameworks that prevailed throughout Latin America and East Asia. It was believed that both of those vast, underdeveloped regions would see the ascendance of US influence and trade. Out of this concern there emerged the two hallmark foreign policies of America in this period: the (revitalized) Monroe Doctrine and the Open Door Policy. Great power relations increasingly seemed to require attention as well. While Britain was regarded as a rival, many of its policies were seen as working to US advantage. As a result, the two governments drew closer. And, Washington also began to work with London to promote mechanisms for the settlement of international disputes, war being seen as a threat to the status quo. From beginning to end, the official US response to the Great War was dominated by the goal of trying to restore and then put on a more secure foundation the kind of international order American policy makers wanted. Ideologically, they assured themselves that this was a quest in the interest not only of all Americans, but of the entire world. The globe’s most unselfish and responsible statesmen were simply working to ensure that the world would be set up the way it was supposed to be, with (in their racialist thinking) the most adult and civilized people of humanity (themselves) leading the rest toward progress. American involvement in the Great War began right away in 1914 when the war broke out. The Wilson administration wanted the conflict composed, but for the president and his chief adviser, Col. Edward M. House, peace was not an end in itself. It mattered greatly that Germany not undermine Britain and that it be taught a lesson. It was also vital that the settlement ensure against another such upheaval. Toward these ends, the US promoted itself as the only suitable mediator of the conflict and tried to position itself for a place at the peace table. Before the war even began the administration had already floated a rough plan for stabilization. The centerpiece of the plan entailed the US and like-minded big powers coming together to uphold the status quo against potential challengers like Russia and Japan, as well as cooperatively overseeing the future of what Col. House called the earth’s “waste places,” the underdeveloped world. This plan was in fact one of the precursors of Wilson’s League of Nations. When the war began Wilson declared that the United States would steer a neutral path, and it was certainly his preference to stay clear of the fighting. But in the end his attachment to a particular vision for America’s role in the twentieth century world mattered more than peace. Whatever he said in public, he repeatedly tilted toward Britain and its allies, not only because he did not want them to lose, but also because he wanted to make sure that the US would have a leading role (along with Britain) in arranging the postwar world. Thus he acquiesced in Britain’s sweeping maritime measures, which involved the use of its navy and mines to destroy all of Germany’s trade. And House secretly offered to coordinate his peace efforts with London. The same considerations were key to the quite different posture that Wilson assumed toward Germany’s use of submarines. The president threatened war unless Berlin adhered to his views as to how it might behave on the high seas. Wilson continued to try to get the two sides to accept his vision of a proper settlement. But both remained uncooperative. His hope of America becoming a world power without participation in the Great War’s fighting thus in actuality was made hostage to the question of how long Berlin would agree to respect Wilson’s red lines. That question would be answered in 1917, just months after he had won reelection as president behind the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War.” Robert E. Hannigan is Scholar in Residence in the Department of History of Suffolk University. He is the author of The Great War and American Foreign Policy, 1914-24 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017). This article was originally published at History News Network
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Oct 11, 2017 8:20:05 GMT -7
The USA has, by far, the highest per capita gun ownership in the world. Progressives will tell you that this is what makes America the Murder Capitol of Planet Earth.
But we're not, and in this devastatingly effective Firewall, Bill Whittle shows why the center of Gun Nut Nation is in fact one of the safest places in the world.
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Oct 25, 2017 6:04:28 GMT -7
The World Reaps What the Saudis SowBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDMAY 27, 2016 Saudi Arabia has frustrated American policy makers for years. Ostensibly a critical ally, sheltered from its enemies by American arms and aid, the kingdom has spent untold millions promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni Islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the Islamic State. The latest chapter in this long, sorrowful history involves tiny Kosovo. With a population of only 1.8 million people, Kosovo has sent more of its young people per capita than any other country to fight and die in Iraq and Syria. Since 2012, some 314 Kosovars have joined the Islamic State, including two suicide bombers, 44 women and 28 children. Even Belgium, widely seen as a hotbed of extremism after the attacks on Paris and Brussels, lags behind it in the recruitment rankings. As detailed by Carlotta Gall in a recent article in The Times, Kosovo is in this position largely because Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states have spent years developing and funding a network of imams, mosques and secretive associations there. And while there is no evidence that any group gave money directly and explicitly to persuade Kosovars to go to Syria, senior officials in Kosovo told Ms. Gall that extremist clerics and groups have spent heavily to promote radical Islamic thinking among young and vulnerable people. “The issue is they supported thinkers who promote violence and jihad in the name of protecting Islam,” Fatos Makolli, head of Kosovo’s counterterrorism police, told her. The United States and NATO invested heavily in helping Kosovo gain independence from Serbia in 2008 and establish democracy. That Saudi Arabia should be using Kosovo as a breeding ground for extremists, or allowing it to be used as a breeding ground by any Saudi entity or citizen, is a cruel reminder of the contradictory and even duplicitous behavior of America’s partners in the Persian Gulf and helps to explain why its relationships with those countries have become increasingly troubled. Kosovo, rescued from Serbian oppression after months of NATO bombing in 1999, has been known as a tolerant society. For centuries, the Muslim majority has followed the liberal Hanafi version of Islam, which is accepting of others. Since the war, that tradition has been threatened by Saudi-trained imams, their costs paid by Saudi-sponsored charities, preaching the primacy of Shariah law and fostering violent jihad and takfirism, which authorizes the killing of Muslims viewed as heretics. Most Kosovars have resisted such proselytizing, and officials in Kosovo say that support for the United States and the West remains strong. Yet experts point to a number of reasons the country has been fertile ground for recruitment to radical ideology: a large population of young people living in rural poverty with little hope of jobs; corruption and an attendant lack of faith in government; and, according to a 2015 report by the Kosovar Center for Security Studies, an education system that does not encourage critical thinking. It remains unclear why Kosovo’s government, as well as the United States and the United Nations officials who administered postwar Kosovo, did not act sooner. The Americans may have erred in assuming that Kosovo’s moderate religious community would prevent extremism from flourishing. The 9/11 attacks quickly clarified the dangers. Several Saudi organizations in Kosovo were closed, and the Saudi government, which appears to have reduced its aid to Kosovo, now insists that it has imposed strict controls on charities, mosques and clerical teachings. Even so, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have increased funding for Islamic hard-liners in Kosovo. The Sunni Arab states still do not seem to understand the extent to which extreme versions of Islam imperil them as well. Although the Saudi royal family relies on the Wahhabi clerics for their political legitimacy, the Islamic State accuses the monarchy of corrupting the faith to preserve its power. Since 2014, there have been 20 terrorist attacks in the kingdom, many staged by ISIS. The Kosovo government, working with the United States, has acted to combat extremism by adopting new antiterror laws, cracking down on the money laundering that underwrites radical groups and stepping up police investigations. The flow of Kosovo’s citizens heading to fight with the Islamic State apparently has fallen to zero in the last seven months, while the number of Kosovars on the battlefield is down to 140. Yet at least two radical imams continue to preach in Kosovo’s capital, Pristina, and draw crowds of young men. Much work is still to be done to protect the independence and spirit of tolerance that Kosovo worked so hard to achieve. Saudi Arabia will return to moderate, open Islam and 'will destroy extremist ideas', says crown prince Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud also announced the kingdom would do more to tackle extremism
The crown prince of Saudi Arabia has revealed the country will return to moderate, open Islam. Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud also announced the kingdom would do more to tackle extremism today. Speaking at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh he said: "We want to go back to what we were, the moderate Islam that is open to the world, open to all the religions. "We will not waste 30 years of our lives dealing with extremist ideas, we will destroy them today". The conference, which runs until Thursday, aims to show how the country is opening itself up to the modern world and diversifying economically. Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Image: Barcroft Media)
The Kingdom Tower is seen in central Riyadh, Saudia Arabia (Image: Reuters) Prince bin Salman was appointed heir to the throne of Saudi Arabia by his father King Salman earlier this year. The 32-year-old is seen as the face of the modern kingdom and is the driving force behind its long term economic plan to wean itself off dependence on oil by 2030. Last month the ultra-conservative Kingdom issued an order lifting the 60-year ban on women driving. The absolute monarchy was the only in the world where women weren't allowed legally to get behind a wheel but the ban is expected to be officially lifted by next summer. Women in Saudi Arabia are also bound by law to wear a headscarf and require the consent of a male guardian for most legal actions. Recently the country has been opening more areas for women through the government's modernising reforms. But they have sparked tensions with influential clerics upon whose support the ruling family relies. Saudi Arabia is governed under a puritanical form of Sunni Islam known as Wahabism. Extremist versions of Wahabism have been adopted by jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda and Isis and the kingdom has long been accused of not doing enough to tackle extremism. At the conference Prince bin Salman also announced the creation of a new $500 billion city to be built on the border with Jordan and Egypt. 'Neom' will be run using alternative energy and serve as a worldwide technology hub, according to the prince.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Oct 26, 2017 0:42:37 GMT -7
John,
good to see changes in Saudi Arabia since young generation gets into the power. In the interview with Maria Bartiromo, she did not even had a scarf.
+++ Last month the ultra-conservative Kingdom issued an order lifting the 60-year ban on women driving.
The absolute monarchy was the only in the world where women weren't allowed legally to get behind a wheel but the ban is expected to be officially lifted by next summer.
Women in Saudi Arabia are also bound by law to wear a headscarf and require the consent of a male guardian for most legal actions.
Recently the country has been opening more areas for women through the government's modernising reforms.
But they have sparked tensions with influential clerics upon whose support the ruling family relies.+++
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Oct 26, 2017 8:37:26 GMT -7
John, good to see changes in Saudi Arabia since young generation gets into the power. In the interview with Maria Bartiromo, she did not even had a scarf. +++ Last month the ultra-conservative Kingdom issued an order lifting the 60-year ban on women driving.
The absolute monarchy was the only in the world where women weren't allowed legally to get behind a wheel but the ban is expected to be officially lifted by next summer.
Women in Saudi Arabia are also bound by law to wear a headscarf and require the consent of a male guardian for most legal actions.
Recently the country has been opening more areas for women through the government's modernising reforms.
But they have sparked tensions with influential clerics upon whose support the ruling family relies.+++I don't know Jaga. Some how the following: (Saudis want return to moderate Islam - Wahhabi) I see as an 'OXYMORON' .
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Oct 27, 2017 3:58:44 GMT -7
John,
Wahabi is a strict form of Islam, but it is different than ISIS, since ISIS relies on common folks, while Wahabi relies on hierarchical structure, with kings on the top.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Oct 27, 2017 4:21:21 GMT -7
Jaga,
The Wahabi form of Islam has a very bad influence on the Sunni Islam in Europe, USA, Canada and Australia. You have decent, moderate, reasonable and law-abiding Sunni Muslims in Western-Europe, but some of their mosques are infiltrated by the puritanical, fundamentalist, ultra-orthodox, intolerant and extreme Wahhi version of Sunni Islam. The majority of for instance Dutch Moroccan and Turkish Muslims are not Wahhabi Muslims, but a minority of them are influenced by Wahhabism and segregated themselves from the Turkish and Moroccan Sunni Muslim communities. Dutch Turks and Moroccans are worried about the influence of the extremist Wahhabi and Salafist movements, sheikhs, and rich Arab merchants of the Gulf Arab region (Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Saoudi Arabia) who fund Salafist and Wahhabi mosques, imams and groups in Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia.
I am aware of the fact that Moroccan and Turkish intelligence agencies monitor Wahhabi and Salafist elements in the Netherlands next to our own AIVD. The Moroccan authorities are worried about young Moroccan migrants from the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Scandinavia and Germany who go back to Morocco for holiday or family visits. There are Salafists and Wahhabi influenced amongst them. Morocco has a different brand of Islam than Saoudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Yemen. In general you have the same Sunni Islam, but the Saoudi Arabian Wahhabi version of Islam is different than the Turkish or Moroccan Islam, in the sense that the Moroccan branch is belonging to the Maliki school of jurisprudence. The King of Morocco claims his legitimacy as a descendant of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
The strict Wahabi form of Islam has become dominant and very influential in Chechenia, a country which before thad strong Sufi islamic nature.
Cheers, Pieter
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Nov 28, 2017 8:13:31 GMT -7
EU settles dispute over major weedkiller glyphosate 27 November 2017 From the section Europe Crop-spraying in Meteren, northern France: glyphosate can have a big impact on biodiversity EU countries have voted to renew the licence of glyphosate, a widely used weedkiller at the centre of environmental concerns. The proposal at the EU Commission's Appeal Committee received 18 votes in favour and nine against, with one abstention, ending months of deadlock. The Commission says the new five-year licence will be ready before the current one expires on 15 December. However, France plans to ban the use of glyphosate within three years. In a tweet, French President Emmanuel Macron said he had ordered a ban on the use of glyphosate in France "as soon as alternatives are found, and within three years at the latest". Glyphosate is marketed as Roundup by the US agrochemical giant Monsanto. One UN study called the chemical "probably carcinogenic", but other scientists said it was safe to use. The UK was among the states in favour of glyphosate renewal. Germany and Poland were also among them - though they had previously abstained.
France and Belgium were among the states that voted against. Portugal abstained. The EU Commission says the current proposal on the weedkiller "enjoys the broadest possible support by the member states while ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment". Glyphosate was introduced by Monsanto in 1974, but its patent expired in 2000, and now the chemical is sold by various manufacturers. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) says glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans. Monsanto's Roundup, based on glyphosate, has been sold worldwide Critics say widespread use of glyphosate reduces biodiversity, by killing plants that are essential for many insects and other animals. Some countries and regions have banned glyphosate use in public parks and gardens. Its effect on plants is non-selective, meaning it will kill most of them when applied. How does glyphosate work?It is usually mixed with other chemicals that help it get into plants, where it blocks a key enzyme pathway. The disruption prevents plants from making certain proteins needed for their growth. The "shikimate pathway" involves seven enzymes, which enable the plant to form amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The pathway is not found in animals. Some crops, such as soybean, have been genetically modified to resist glyphosate. Farmers spray it on fields before their crops emerge in spring, so the crops do not have to compete with weeds. Some also use it as a pre-harvest treatment to dry out crops and make them easier to harvest. The UK Soil Association says such use is risky, as it can increase glyphosate residues in food. How widespread is it?It is described as the world's most popular weedkiller. In the US, more than 750 products contain it. Glyphosate use worldwide has risen almost 15-fold since 1996, when so-called "Roundup Ready" crops, genetically engineered to resist glyphosate, were introduced. A 2016 study by Environmental Sciences Europe notes growing concern about intensive glyphosate use, because some plants have developed resistance to it - meaning that farmers tend to use even more of the herbicide. Sri Lanka banned use of glyphosate in 2015 - though the tea industry opposes the ban. In 2015 too Colombia stopped aerial spraying of glyphosate - even though it had been used widely to kill illegal coca plants. What is the effect on humans?Glyphosate's toxicity is reckoned to be low, in the concentrations used by farmers, although the UN International Agency for Research on Cancer called it "probably carcinogenic". The European Commission says that besides EFSA, the European Chemicals Agency and other scientific bodies found no link to cancer in humans. The Soil Association says glyphosate traces are regularly found in bread. According to the US National Pesticide Information Center, the chemical mostly passes through the body quickly in urine and faeces.
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Mar 26, 2018 7:15:51 GMT -7
I don't normally post their items, but this one should be scrutinized.
The Cloud Act Is a Sinister Piece of Legislation
The under-the-radar bill threatens the civil liberties and human rights of global activists and US citizens alike.
By Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU Legislative Counsel MARCH 13, 2018 | 4:15 PM
Despite its fluffy sounding name, the recently introduced CLOUD Act is far from harmless. It threatens activists abroad, individuals here in the U.S., and would empower Attorney General Sessions in new disturbing ways. And, now, some members of Congress may be working behind the scenes to sneak it into a gargantuan spending bill that Congress will shortly consider.
This is why the ACLU and over 20 other privacy and human rights organizations have joined together to oppose the bill. Make no mistake, the CLOUD Act represents a dramatic change in our law, and its effects will be felt across the globe.
Today, the information of global activists — such as those that fight for LGBTQ rights, defend religious freedom, or advocate for gender equality are protected from being disclosed by U.S. companies to governments who may seek to do them harm. The CLOUD Act eliminates many of these protections and replaces them with vague assurances, weak standards, and largely unenforceable restrictions.
The bill starts by giving the executive branch dramatically more power than it has today. It would allow Attorney General Sessions to enter into agreements with foreign governments that bypass current law, without any approval from Congress. Under these agreements, foreign governments would be able to get emails and other electronic information without any additional scrutiny by a U.S. judge or official. And, while the attorney general would need to consider a country’s human rights record, he is not prohibited from entering into an agreement with a country that has committed human rights abuses.
That level of discretion alone is concerning. Even more, however, the bill would for the first time allow these foreign governments to wiretap in the U.S. — even in cases where they do not meet Wiretap Act standards. Paradoxically, that would give foreign governments the power to engage in surveillance — which could sweep in the information of Americans communicating with foreigners — that the U.S. itself would not be able to engage in. The bill also provides broad discretion to funnel this information back to the U.S., circumventing the Fourth Amendment. This information could potentially be used by the U.S. to engage in a variety of law enforcement actions.
On top of this, the bill does not require that the Department of Justice or any U.S. government entity review individual requests for information made by foreign governments to ensure that human rights are not being violated. The country of Poland provides a classic example of why this could be a problem, even in a country that some have considered to have a relatively sound human rights record.
According to Freedom House rankings, Poland is rated a one on political rights, the highest rating, and a two out of five on civil liberties. However, in recent months, the Polish government has taken steps to pass laws that restrict speech and, in 2017, the government raided the offices of several human rights groups, seizing documents and computers only a day after women staged a march to protest the country’s abortion laws. The bill would provide no protection against requests in these situations, which wrongly target activists and threaten to undo the progress we have made on global human rights.
The CLOUD Act represents a major change in the law — and a major threat to our freedoms. Congress should not try to sneak it by the American people by hiding it inside of a giant spending bill. There has not been even one minute devoted to considering amendments to this proposal. Congress should robustly debate this bill and take steps to fix its many flaws, instead of trying to pull a fast one on the American people.
|
|