Britain's role in supplying information to an American military "kill list" in Afghanistan is being subjected to legal challenge amid growing international concern over targeted strikes against suspected insurgents and drug traffickers.An Afghan man who lost five relatives in a missile strike started proceedings against the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Ministry of Defence demanding to know details of the UK's participation "in the compilation, review and execution of the list and what form it takes".
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
1More
Elder Abuse Attorney: Abuse in Nursing Homes - 0 views
-
Americans are living longer than in years past as according to the latest census, about 13% of the United States population is age 65 or older unlike in the past 1900 which is 4%. Studies show us that they are extremely vulnerable to abuse and neglect.
4More
shared by Paul Merrell on 12 Aug 12
- No Cached
Britain faces legal challenge over secret US 'kill list' in Afghanistan | World news | ... - 0 views
www.guardian.co.uk/...hallenge-kill-list-afghanistan
war & peace drone attacks international law government secrecy
shared by Paul Merrell on 12 Aug 12
- No Cached
-
-
Soca refused to discuss its intelligence work, but the agency and the MoD said they worked "strictly within the bounds of international law". Its role in the operation to compile a "kill list" was first explained in a report to the US Senate's committee on foreign relations.The report described how a new task force targeting drug traffickers, insurgents and corrupt officials was being set up at Kandahar air field in southern Afghanistan. "The unit will link the US and British military with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency], Britain's Serious and Organised Crime Agency, and police and intelligence agencies from other countries." The 31-page report from 2009 acknowledged the precise rules of engagement were classified.
-
The letters to Soca's director general, Trevor Pearce, and the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, point to the Geneva conventions, which say that persons taking no active part in hostilities are protected from "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds".They also draw on the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has said anyone accompanying an organised group who is not directly involved in hostilities "remains civilian assuming support functions".The legal letters, the first step towards seeking judicial review, say "drug traffickers who merely support the insurgency financially could not legitimately be included in the list" under these principles. The lawyers believe that, even if Isaf had targeted the right man, it may have been unlawful for others to have been killed in the missile strike.
-
Potentially important case brewing in the UK on the legality under international law of U.S. drone strikes that kill or injure non-combatants. Should this result in a Royal Commission of Inquiry, we will likely learn far more about U.S. drone strike policies, because Royal Commission's powers to receive and disclose classified information is far broader than available in U.S. courts or in Congress. E.g., much of what we now know about the Bush Administration's true motives for launching the war in Iraq was disclosed in a Royal Commission Inquiry into the Blair administration's reasons for participation in that war.
2More
Natural Rights and the un-Constitutional Patriot Act: Judge Andrew Napolitano youtube - 2 views
-
Judge Napalatano The Campaign for Liberty Tea Party Group is holding patriotic meetings throughout the USA. Libertarian icon Judge Andrew Napolitano is a frequent and much requested speaker at these meetings. In this speech, the third part of a three part series, the Judge calls out to this generation of patriots to stand up for freedom; to defend liberty. Excellent speech. A fitting conclusion to parts one and two. Many thanks to Frank for this find! -
My experience with Napolitano, as a retired lawyer, is that his present role is as a propagandist, willing to lie to make his central point. I've often caught him saying things about the law that he either knows are false or knows that he lacks sufficient knowledge to claim that one of his legal conclusions is true. (He is, however, a very effective orator.) This speech is no different. His premise is false, that there is no language in the Constitution authorizing a host of general welfare laws. First, we find in the Constitution's Preamble it's statement of purpose: "We the People of the United States, *in Order to* form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, *promote the general Welfare,* and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Note the distinction made between "promote the general Welfare" and the securing of Liberties. So the Constitution has a purpose beyond securing liberties that falls in the category of promoting the general welfare. Next we move on to Article 1 section 8, which itemizes the Powers of the Congress. In that section's first clause we find: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide for the* common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States;" But Napolitano's speech mistakenly brands a host of general welfare laws as abuses of the Commerce Clause, which only supplements the General Welfare Clause in relevant regard. His discussion of the meaning of "regulate" at the time of the Constitution's adoption is irrelevant. The far more pertinent question is what was meant at that time by the term "general Welfare." Napolitano simply ducks that question by ignoring the General Welfare Clause and pretending that it does not exist. That is not principled argument, in my humble opinion. Moral o
2More
shared by Paul Merrell on 14 Jan 14
- No Cached
gulftoday.ae | Pressure mounts over UK's Iraq 'war crimes' - 0 views
gulftoday.ae/...60-40b4-b226-d85d06f8e96c.aspx
war & peace war crimes UK International Criminal Court
shared by Paul Merrell on 14 Jan 14
- No Cached
-
Legal experts from around the world are to join calls for an investigation into whether British politicians and senior military figures should be prosecuted for alleged war crimes in Iraq.An open letter from about a dozen heavyweight figures will increase the pressure on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to launch a formal inquiry into allegations that more than 400 Iraqis were victims of thousands of incidents of mistreatment amounting to “torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”The Independent on Sunday revealed that a 250-page dossier has been submitted to the ICC in The Hague by Public Interest Lawyers and the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights. It will be published in London on Tuesday.Ministers dismissed the need for an investigation, pointing out that the ICC had rejected such a call in 2006. However, the letter from international experts will argue that fewer than 20 cases were known about then and that hundreds of new cases have emerged since.
-
William Schabas, professor of law at Middlesex University, who is co-ordinating the letter, said: “There is fresh evidence that was not there in 2006. A lot more has come to light since then. We think the 2006 decision was wrong and we want the [ICC] Prosecutor to look at it through a different lens.” He believed there was enough evidence to pass the tests for an ICC inquiry to be launched – that there was systematic rather isolated abuse; the scale of the complaints cleared the “gravity” threshold and that the claims had not been properly investigated by the UK. However, the government will argue that these criteria have not been met.The dossier names General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the British Army; Geoff Hoon, the former Defence Secretary and Adam Ingram, the former Armed Forces Minister, who did not respond for requests to comment. The complainants decided to name those responsible for the UK’s strategy in Iraq following the US-led invasion in 2003. But political and defence figures said the ICC was unlikely to hold them responsible for actions “on the ground.”William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said there was no “systematic” torture by troops and individual cases had either already been dealt with by the British authorities or were the subject of inquiries.He told Sky News: “There have been some cases of abuse that have been acknowledged and apologies and compensation have been paid appropriately. But the government has always been clear and the armed forces have been clear that they absolutely reject allegations of systematic abuses by the British armed forces.
4More
How Many Americans Does The N.S.A. Spy On? A Lot of Them : The New Yorker - 0 views
-
but reading the new documents, which include a secret FISA court order that amounts to a gift certificate for one year of warrant-free spying, it becomes clear that many more “United States persons” have their communications monitored, and on much vaguer grounds, than the Obama Administration has acknowledged. “What I can say unequivocally is that, if you are a U.S. person, the N.S.A. cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the N.S.A. cannot target your e-mails,” the President said earlier this week. A 2009 memorandum signed by Eric Holder establishes a broader criteria, referring to people “reasonably believed” to be located abroad. That reasonable belief, as it turns out, can be quite shaky. Among the information that the N.S.A. is told to use includes having had a phone or e-mail connection with a person “associated with a foreign power or foreign territory,” or being in the “‘buddy list’ or address book” of such a person. It won’t be lost on anyone that Americans whose families include recent immigrants will be disproportionately vulnerable to such intrusions. (So, incidentally, will journalists.) The defaults in the analysis are telling: a person
-
whose location is unknown, will not be treated as a United States person unless such person can be positively identified as such, or the nature or circumstances of the person’s give rise to a reasonable belief that such person is a United States person. (The extent to which the N.S.A. can spy on a wide range of foreigners is its own, important discussion.) The criteria also show the interaction of various N.S.A. programs: the Administration has defended the collection of telephony metadata by saying that if it ever produces an interesting match, investigators would have to go to court to get a proper warrant to look more closely. But metadata is mentioned in these documents as a basis for picking a target for the surveillance under what appears to be a blanket FISA order—not an individualized one.
-
And what happens when the N.S.A. realizes that it is reading and listening to an American’s communications? It is supposed to stop, at least until it gets a different kind of FISA order—which, based on what it has already heard, may be all the easier. And if it finds something that is interesting in any one of a half-dozen ways, it can analyze the communications further, and hold on to them for five years. Maybe an American’s e-mails contain “significant foreign intelligence information”; or maybe they don’t, but are “reasonably believed” to contain evidence of a crime. There are a lot of crimes on the books, and the N.S.A. is also allowed to count one it thinks might be “about to be committed.” It can also “disseminate” the information to other agencies, and find out more about the American if it seems that the person might have access to secrets, or be a target of foreigners, or just do business with them. This includes communications between someone under indictment and his or her lawyer—the words can’t be used in a prosecution, but can be to gather intelligence. And what the N.S.A. happens to see can also be used in leak investigations. Does this still seem too narrow, not enough to keep us all safe? The documents note that the private data of Americans that the N.S.A. can hold on to “include electronic communications acquired because of limitations on NSA’S ability to filter communications.” In other words, if it fails to fine-tune its targeting, it can keep what it sweeps up anyway. Also, if the N.S.A. decides on its own that there is an “immediate threat,” it can temporarily put all these minimization procedures aside and figure it out later.
- ...1 more annotation...
-
These documents were classified: they shouldn’t have been. The N.S.A. can look for certain secrets and keep them. But Americans shouldn’t have to listen to the President with an ear for what words like “targeted” really mean. (Even by that standard, the Administration has not been forthright.) We get to know what the rules are—so we, and not just a secret court, can tell when they are being broken.
3More
shared by Paul Merrell on 27 Jan 14
- No Cached
NSA is after industrial spying - Snowden to German TV - RT News - 0 views
rt.com/...n-nsa-industrial-interview-208
surveillance state NSA NSA-targets industry Snowden Germany
shared by Paul Merrell on 27 Jan 14
- No Cached
-
The NSA agency is not preoccupied solely with national security, but also spies on foreign industrial entities in US business interests, former American intelligence contractor, Edward Snowden, has revealed in an interview to German TV. Edward Snowden chose the German ARD broadcaster to make his first TV interview ever since he became a whistleblower. The interview was made in strict secrecy in an unspecified location in Russia, where Snowden is currently living under temporary asylum. “There is no question that the US is engaged in economic spying,” said Snowden. If an industrial giant like Siemens has something that the NSA believes “would be beneficial to the national interests, not the national security, of the United States, they will go after that information and they'll take it,” the whistleblower said, giving an example.
-
The Germans - according to polls – have lost confidence in the US as a trustworthy partner, and the majority of them consider NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden a hero.
-
In order to mend fences, US President Barack Obama made a rare appearance on German TV. On January 18 President Obama told the ZDF TV channel that “As long as I'm president of the United States, the chancellor of Germany will not have to worry about this.” Yet Germany remains skeptical about US promises of discontinuing spying on foreign leaders, and is in the vanguard of a number of European countries aiming to change data privacy rules in the EU. Former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, remains in Russia, where his temporary political asylum status could be extended every year. He has no plans for returning to the US where he would face trial for alleged treason.
5More
CorpWatch : "Alchemy" Investigation Alleges Wall Street Fraud at Standard & P... - 0 views
-
On Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice sued S&P for $5 billion for misleading the Western Federal Corporate Credit Union, the first federally chartered credit union, which collapsed in 2008. Sixteen states have joined the lawsuit while the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission has also launched an investigation. S&P has offered to settle for $100 million instead without admitting any guilt.The lawsuits are based on a special government investigation named “Alchemy” into top ratings provided by S&P for “collateralized debt obligations” (CDOs) composed of sub-prime mortgages. The federal officials allege that analysts knew that the loans were likely to go sour.
-
Two dozen government lawyers spent several years, conducting over 150 interviews, to find out how much the ratings agency knew about the quality of the CDOs. Some of the documents they uncovered were pretty damning.“This market is a wildly spinning top which is going to end badly,” wrote David Tesher, an S&P managing director in an email on December 11, 2006, according to documents released by the government. “Let’s hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters,” another S&P employee wrote four days later, according to documents released by the U.S. Senate."Watch out // Housing market went softer // Cooling down // Strong market is now much weaker // Subprime is boi-ling o-ver // Bringing down the house,” sang an analyst in a parody video of Talking Heads' 1983 song "Burning Down the House" that he recorded for his colleagues in March 2007.
-
“Claims that we deliberately kept ratings high when we knew they should be lower are simply not true. S.&P. has always been committed to serving the interests of investors and all market participants by providing independent opinions on creditworthiness based on available information,” the Wall Street firm said in a statement released to the press.S&P has also tried to claim in court that its ratings are protected under the first amendment to the U.S. constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech. Federal judges have been skeptical like Shira A. Scheindlin, who recently ruled against the argument.
- ...1 more annotation...
-
Other lawsuits have also uncovered evidence that Wall Street firms were aware of the problems with sub-prime loans as far back as 2005, according to documents just released in a New York court under a lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, a major U.S. investment bank, that was brought by the China Development Industrial Bank (CDIB) from Taiwan. The bankers cracked jokes about the quality of the CDO that they sold to the Taiwanese suggesting that it should be called “Subprime Meltdown,” “Hitman,” “Nuclear Holocaust” and “Mike Tyson’s Punchout” or “Shitbag.”
2More
Snowden Used Low-Cost Tool to Best N.S.A. - NYTimes.com - 0 views
-
Intelligence officials investigating how Edward J. Snowden gained access to a huge trove of the country’s most highly classified documents say they have determined that he used inexpensive and widely available software to “scrape” the National Security Agency’s networks, and kept at it even after he was briefly challenged by agency officials.Using “web crawler” software designed to search, index and back up a website, Mr. Snowden “scraped data out of our systems” while he went about his day job, according to a senior intelligence official. “We do not believe this was an individual sitting at a machine and downloading this much material in sequence,” the official said. The process, he added, was “quite automated.”
-
Through his lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, Mr. Snowden did not specifically address the government’s theory of how he obtained the files, saying in a statement: “It’s ironic that officials are giving classified information to journalists in an effort to discredit me for giving classified information to journalists. The difference is that I did so to inform the public about the government’s actions, and they’re doing so to misinform the public about mine.”
3More
shared by Paul Merrell on 08 Feb 14
- No Cached
Forget Metadata ... The NSA Is Spying On EVERYTHING Washington's Blog - 0 views
www.washingtonsblog.com/...ata-nsa-spying-everything.html
surveillance state NSA NSA-targets must-read
shared by Paul Merrell on 08 Feb 14
- No Cached
-
The NSA’s spying on everyone’s metadata can tell them just about everything about us … and it violates our Constitutional right to freedom of association. But people are getting distracted from the big picture by focusing on metadata. As security expert Bruce Schneier wrote yesterday: What frustrates me about all of this — [the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board] report, the president’s speech, and so many other things — is that they focus on the bulk collection of cell phone call records. There’s so much more bulk collection going on — phone calls, e-mails, address books, buddy lists, text messages, cell phone location data, financial documents, calendars, [smartphone apps] etc. — and we really need legislation and court opinions on it all. But because cell phone call records were the first disclosure, they’re what gets the attention. Indeed, Schneier confirmed last October what we’ve been saying for years … don’t get too distracted by the details, because the government is spying on everything:
-
Honestly, I think the details matter less and less. We have to assume that the NSA has EVERYONE who uses electronic communications under CONSTANT surveillance. New details about hows and whys will continue to emerge …but the big picture will remain the same. He’s right. As just one example, there is substantial evidence from top NSA and FBI whistleblowers that the government is recording the content of our calls and emails … word-for-word. So what should we make of the government’s denials that it records content? Given that the government has been caught lying about spying again and again, I’m not sure how much weight we should give to such denials. NSA whistleblower Russ Tice notes: They’re collecting content … word-for-word. *** You can’t trust these people. They lie, and they lie a lot.
-
Personally, I don't think the focus is on metadata because it was the first target exposed. I see it more as a propaganda weapon to divert attention from the other NSA targets. In any event, this page offers a very comprehensive list of the types of data the NSA is collecting, with links to further information on each type.
2More
Obama DOJ's New Abuse of State-Secrets Privilege Revealed - The Intercept - 0 views
-
For nine years, the U.S. government refused to let a Stanford PhD student named Rahinah Ibrahim back in the country after putting her on the no-fly list for no apparent reason. For eight years, U.S. government lawyers fought Ibrahim’s request that she be told why. Last April, despite his promise in 2009 to do so only in only the most extreme cases, Attorney General Eric Holder tried to block Ibrahim’s case by asserting the state secrets privilege, declaring under penalty of perjury that the information she wanted “could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security.” Last week, a federal judge publicly revealed the government’s explanation for Ibrahim’s long ordeal: an FBI agent had “checked the wrong box,” resulting in her falling under suspicion as a terrorist. Even when the government found and corrected the error years later, they still refused to allow Ibrahim to return to the country or learn on what grounds she had been banned in the first place.
-
Holder, in his April declaration, restated his own new state secrets policy, that “[t]he Department will not defend an invocation of the privilege in order to: (i) conceal violations of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (ii) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of the United States Government”. Then he did exactly what he had said he wouldn’t do. The bogus national security claims invoked were even more outrageous because they were used to continue the persecution of someone the government knew to be innocent.
1More
EDITORIAL: Snowden makes a point - Washington Times - 0 views
-
Mr. Snowden’s response cuts to the heart of the matter. “It’s ironic that officials are giving classified information to journalists,” he said through his lawyer, “in an effort to discredit me for giving classified information to journalists. The difference is that I did so to inform the public about the government’s actions, and they’re doing so to misinform the public about mine.”
2More
shared by Paul Merrell on 28 Feb 14
- No Cached
Feds move to keep National Security Agency call data indefinitely - POLITICO.com - 0 views
www.politico.com/...-data-indefinitely-184061.html
surveillance state NSA call-metadata digital preservation
shared by Paul Merrell on 28 Feb 14
- No Cached
-
Citing the need to preserve evidence related to pending lawsuits, the Obama administration is asking for permission to keep data on billions of U.S. phone calls indefinitely instead of destroying it after five years. In a motion filed Tuesday with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Justice Department says the series of lawsuits over the program — including one filed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — create a duty for the government to hang on to the so-called metadata currently in the National Security Agency’s computer systems. “Based upon the issues raised by Plaintiffs in the … lawsuits and the Government’s potential defenses to those claims, the United States must ensure that all potentially relevant evidence is retained which includes the [business record] metadata obtained in bulk from certain telecommunications service providers pursuant to this Court’s production orders,” Justice Department lawyers write in a motion (posted here).
-
The motion was released Wednesday on the court’s public web page. There was no immediate indication of a ruling from the surveillance court. The NSA’s call metadata program is aimed at detecting terrorist plots affecting the U.S., but evidence of the effort’s success is murky. President Barack Obama has proposed ending the NSA’s collection of the data. Officials are considering storing it with the telephone companies themselves, creating a new entity to hold it, or reconstructing the program in some other way. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that U.S. officials were considering making the request submitted on Tuesday.
2More
BBC News - David Miranda loses detention legal battle - 0 views
-
The nine-hour detention at Heathrow Airport of an ex-Guardian journalist's partner has been ruled lawful. David Miranda lives with reporter Glenn Greenwald who has written articles about state surveillance based on leaked documents. At the High Court, Mr Miranda claimed his detention under anti-terrorism laws was unlawful and breached human rights. But judges said it was a "proportionate measure in the circumstances" and in the interests of national security. In his judgement, Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Openshaw, said: "Its objective was not only legitimate, but very pressing."
-
Mr Miranda's lawyers said he had applied for permission to appeal against the decision.
1More
shared by Paul Merrell on 05 Mar 14
- No Cached
UN report identifies 30 drone strikes that require 'public explanation' | The Bureau of... - 0 views
www.thebureauinvestigates.com/...hat-require-public-explanation
war & peace U.S. drone attacks international law report
shared by Paul Merrell on 05 Mar 14
- No Cached
-
A UN counter-terrorism expert has published the second report of his year-long investigation into drone strikes, highlighting 30 strikes where civilians are reported to have been killed. The report, by British lawyer Ben Emmerson QC, identifies 30 attacks between 2006 and 2013 that show sufficient indications of civilian deaths to demand a ‘public explanation of the circumstances and the justification for the use of deadly force’ under international law. Emmerson analysed 37 strikes carried out by the US, UK and Israel in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Gaza, to arrive at a ‘sample’ of strikes that he believes those nations have a legal duty to explain.
1More
Obama Declares a National Emergency: Crimea Self-Determination Constitutes a "Threat To... - 0 views
-
In his March 6 Executive Order, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine,” Obama declares that support for Crimean self-determination constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/06/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-contributing-situation Obama and the lawyers who drafted his executive order did not notice that the way the order is drafted it applies to Obama, to the unelected coup government in Kiev, and to the Washington and EU regimes. The order says that any person “responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly . . . actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine” is subject to having his assets frozen.
3More
shared by Paul Merrell on 20 Mar 14
- No Cached
Feds confirm Bush-era e-mail surveillance - POLITICO.com - 0 views
www.politico.com/...email-surveillance-185283.html
surveillance state NSA Bush-II email digital-privacy
shared by Paul Merrell on 20 Mar 14
- No Cached
-
The U.S. government has acknowledged that it swept up huge volumes of data from emails in the U.S. for several years without any court approval, based solely on the orders of former President George W. Bush. In a court filings on Monday, government lawyers said that the Internet program ran in parallel with a program gathering so-called metadata about telephone calls. The counterterrorism efforts operated under presidential authority before a judge approved them in July 2004, said a 2007 court filing made public Monday by the Justice Department (and posted here.)
-
"After the 9/11 attacks and pursuant to an authorization of the President, [redacted] the NSA [redacted] the bulk collection of non-content information about telephone calls and Internet communications (hereafter 'metadata') activities that enable the NSA to uncover the contacts [redacted] of members or agents of al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist organizations," a senior NSA official wrote in an October 2007 declaration originally filed under seal as part of an effort to defeat litigation about the snooping Bush ordered. "Specifically, the President authorized the the NSA to collect metadata related to Internet communications for the purpose of conducting targeted analysis to track Al Qaeda-related networks. Internet metadata is header/router/addressing information, such as the 'to,' 'from,' 'cc,' and 'bcc' lines, as opposed to the body or 're' lines, of a standard e-mail. Since July 2004, the collection of Internet metadata has been conducted pursuant to an Order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," the still-unidentified official from NSA's Signals Intelligence Directorate continued. The email program was effectively public since June of last year, after contractor Edward Snowden leaked a top-secret National Security Agency inspector general report that described the program.
-
FISC Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's opinion approving the surveillance was officially released in November 2013. However, the date she issued it was redacted. Many surmised that her opinion followed a dust-up in March 2004, when then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey questioned the legality of some aspect of Bush's post-9/11 surveillance programs and refused to reauthorize that portion of the surveillance. Comey's refusal is said to have put the program into turmoil for a period of months, until officials sought and won the order from Kollar-Kotelly blessing the gathering of both the email and telephone metadata. The publicly released version of Kollar-Kotelly's opinion does not discuss the operation of the program during the period before the application for court approval. The filings Monday came in continuing legal wrangling over obligations pending lawsuits may create for the NSA to hang on to aging metadata that it would ordinarily have been required to erase under FISC orders. A federal judge in San Francisco has required that the NSA preserve that data, at least for now, rather than erasing it.
3More
shared by Paul Merrell on 22 Mar 14
- No Cached
Brazil, Mexico, France to back Argentina in bonds case in U.S. court | Reuters - 0 views
www.reuters.com/...rgentina-idUSBREA2K1XP20140321
banksters sovereign-debt-restructurings Argentina litigation
shared by Paul Merrell on 22 Mar 14
- No Cached
-
(Reuters) - Brazil, France and Mexico are expected to file papers in the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday backing Argentina in its legal battle with bondholders who refused to take part in debt restructurings from the country's 2002 default, according to a source familiar with the litigation. Lawyers for the three countries will support Argentina's request that the high court review a court order requiring it to pay $1.33 billion to "holdout" creditors led by hedge funds Aurelius Capital Management and NML Capital Ltd, a unit of billionaire Paul Singer's Elliott Management Corp.France had previously supported Argentina in an unsuccessful attempt last year to obtain Supreme Court review at an earlier stage of the legal fight.
-
The litigation has created concerns about a potential debt crisis. Argentina defaulted on $100 billion more than a decade ago.The case is being closely watched because of its potential impact on future sovereign debt restructurings.
-
Creditors holding about 93 percent of Argentina's bonds agreed to participate in the two previous debt swaps in 2005 and 2010, which gave them 25 to 29 cents on the dollar.The case is Argentina v. NML Capital, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-990.
3More
shared by Paul Merrell on 12 Mar 14
- No Cached
Behind Clash Between C.I.A. and Congress, a Secret Report on Interrogations - NYTimes.com - 0 views
www.nytimes.com/...-report-on-interrogations.html
surveillance state CIA Senate-Intelligence-Committee
shared by Paul Merrell on 12 Mar 14
- No Cached
-
It was early December when the Central Intelligence Agency began to suspect it had suffered what it regarded as an embarrassing computer breach.Investigators for the Senate Intelligence Committee, working in the basement of a C.I.A. facility in Northern Virginia, had obtained an internal agency review summarizing thousands of documents related to the agency’s detention and interrogation program. Parts of the C.I.A. report cast a particularly harsh light on the program, the same program the agency was in the midst of defending in a prolonged dispute with the intelligence committee. What the C.I.A. did next opened a new and even more rancorous chapter in the struggle over how the history of the interrogation program will be written. Agency officials began scouring the digital logs of the computer network used by the Senate staff members to try to learn how and where they got the report. Their search not only raised constitutional questions about the propriety of an intelligence agency investigating its congressional overseers, but has also resulted in two parallel inquiries by the Justice Department — one into the C.I.A. and one into the committee.
-
Each side accuses the other of spying on it, with the Justice Department now playing the uneasy role of arbitrator in the bitter dispute. “It’s always been a dicey proposition to be investigating Congress,” said W. George Jameson, a C.I.A. lawyer for decades. “You don’t do it lightly.”At the center of the dispute is the classified internal C.I.A. review of the detention and interrogation program, a review that Democratic senators believe buttresses the conclusion in the intelligence committee’s 6,300-page report that the program yielded little valuable intelligence.The story of how the internal review became the focal point of an escalating fight is based on interviews with more than a dozen current and former government officials on both sides of the battle. Most of them declined to be identified because of the continuing investigations.
-
More details of the CIA surveillance of the Senate Intelligence Committee that led to the current confrontation.
6More
Corrupt "Secret" Global Trade and Investor Agreements: EU Facilitating Corporate Plunde... - 0 views
-
Since the economic crisis hit Europe, international investors have begun suing EU countries struggling under austerity and recession for a loss of expected profits, using international trade and investment agreements. Speculative investors are claiming more than 1.7 billion Euros in compensation from Greece, Spain and Cyprus in private international tribunals for the impact of measures implemented to deal with economic crises. This is the conclusion from a new report released by the Transnational Institute (TNI) and Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO). The report, ‘Profiting from Crisis – How corporations and lawyers are scavenging profits from Europe’s crisis countries’ (1), exposes a growing wave of corporate lawsuits against Europe’s struggling economies, which could lead to European taxpayers paying out millions of euros in a second major public bailout, this time to speculative investors. These lawsuits provide a warning of the potential high costs of the proposed trade deal between the US and the EU, which has just begun its fourth round of negotiations in Brussels.
-
Pia Eberhardt, trade campaigner with CEO and co-author of the report says: “Speculative investors are already using investment agreements to raid the cash-strapped public treasuries in Europe’s crisis countries. It would be political madness to grant corporations the same excessive rights in the even more far-reaching EU-US trade deal.” The report examines a number of investor disputes launched against Spain, Greece and Cyprus in the wake of the European economic crisis. In most cases, the investors were not long-term investors, but rather invested as the crisis emerged and were therefore fully aware of the risks. They have used the investment agreements as a legal escape route to extract further wealth from crisis countries when their risky investment didn’t pay off.
-
For example, in Greece, Poštová Bank from Slovakia bought Greek debt after the bond value had already been downgraded and was then offered a very generous debt restructuring package, yet sought to extract an even better deal by suing Greece, using the bilateral investment treaty between Slovakia and Greece. In Cyprus, a Greek-listed private equity-style investor, Marfin Investment Group is seeking €823 million in compensation for their lost investments after Cyprus had to nationalise the Laiki Bank as part of an EU debt restructuring agreement. In Spain, 22 companies (at the time of writing), mainly private equity funds, have sued at international tribunals for cuts in subsidies for renewable energy. While the cuts in subsidies have been rightly criticised by environmentalists, only large foreign investors have the ability to sue.
- ...2 more annotations...
-
Growing controversy around the EU-US trade talks has forced the European Commission to temporarily halt negotiations on the investor rights chapter in the proposed transatlantic deal and announce a public consultation on the issue expected to start this month. ‘Investor rights’ is essentially a big business agenda that constitutes little more than a recipe for the further plundering of economies by powerful corporations. This agenda allows big business to bypass democracy and bully sovereign states into instituting policies that trample over ordinary citizens’ rights in the name of even higher profits (2). However, the Commission has already indicated that it does not want to abandon these controversial corporate rights, but rather reform them.
-
This whole scenario is but one more ploy to facilitate what has been the biggest shift of wealth from the poor to the rich in modern history (3). The authors state that it is time to turn a spotlight on the bailout of investors and call for a radical rewrite of today’s global investment regime. In particular, European citizens and concerned politicians should demand the exclusion of investor-state dispute mechanisms from new trade agreements currently under negotiation, such as the proposed EU-US trade deal. A total of 75,000 cross-registered companies with subsidiaries in both the EU and the US could launch investor-state attacks under the proposed transatlantic agreement. Europe’s experience of corporate speculators profiting from crisis should be a salutary warning that corporations’ rights need to be curtailed and peoples’ rights put first.
-
In my lifetime, I have encountered only a single trade agreement, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, that I would have supported had I been given the opportunity, and its mandates have been trashed in their implementation. Beware "trade agreements" in general. They are almost uniformly the tools of banksters seeking greater profits at the expense of non-banksters.