Skip to main content

Home/ Socialism and the End of the American Dream/ Group items matching "non-cooperation" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
5More

OPEC Unlikely to Cut Oil Production, Venezuela's PDVSA Predicts "Difficult Times Ahead"... - 0 views

venezuelanalysis.com/11043 war & peace oil OPEC Russia Venezuela
shared by Paul Merrell on 28 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • negotiations with Mexico, Russia and Saudi Arabia have failed to reach a joint pledge for OPEC nations to cut oil production. Ramirez, who was replaced as president of state-owned oil company PDVSA in September but continues to be Venezuela’s OPEC representative, met his counterparts on Tuesday in Vienna to kickstart the discussion on the plummeting price of oil before Thursday’s hugely significant OPEC summit. Between the United States shale boom and slower economic growth in Europe and China, the price of Venezuelan heavy crude dove from $99 per barrel in June to about $69 last week, prompting Ramirez’s diplomatic tour.
  • OPEC members Venezuela, Iraq, Ecuador, and Nigeria have all advocated for a cut in production as the quickest way to drive market prices back up. Statistics uphold this argument, considering OPEC estimations that global supply will exceed demand by more than 1 million barrels per day (bpd) in the first half of next year. But after Tuesday’s Vienna meeting Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi told reporters that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, had reached a “consensus” not to do so. Al-Naimi believes the twelve-nation OPEC group, of which Saudi Arabia is the largest producer, will follow suit. "We are very confident that OPEC will have a unified position,” he said, in reference to tomorrow’s summit. Meanwhile, Russia’s most influential oil official, state-firm Rosneft’s president Igor Sechin, surprised some and quelled rumors by announcing the largest producing non-OPEC nation had no intention of reducing their output, either. Not even, Sechin said, if oil “falls under $60 a barrel.”
  • The Russian company recently signed a contract with PDVSA for the purchase of 1.6 million tons of petroleum and 9 million tons of derivatives of crude over the next five years. While it makes sense that the GCC prioritize market share over barrel price, to a certain extent, Russian government coffers have already been hard hit by dropping prices, causing Sechin’s comment to raise some eyebrows. Indeed, many analysts claim the oil glut of the early 1980’s (which almost bankrupt Venezuela) contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • However, oil makes up 97 percent of Venezuela’s export earnings, and the market shift has already caused the country a 30 percent loss in foreign income, Maduro said last week. According to Reuters, PDVSA has put the possible sale of U.S. refinery Citgo Petroleum Corp back on the table. People close to the matter have reported that Lazard Ltd, the investment bank hired by PDVSA to explore the sale, has set a late-December deadline for new offers, despite Venezuelan finance minister ruling it out last month. Citgo runs three refineries in the United States, totaling an estimated value of up to $10 billion.
  • Paul Merrell on 28 Nov 14
     
    The headscratcher for me in this article is Russia's position that it will maintain production even if crude oil prices drop below $60 per barrel. The dropping price has delivered a huge hit on the Russian economy already. These factors cause me to wonder if China has pledged funds to help Russia ride out the U.S./GCC assault on oil prices.  
7More

US v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F. 3d 1162 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit ... - 0 views

scholar.google.com/scholar_case surveillance-state 4th Amendment bulk-collection future-investigations
shared by Paul Merrell on 05 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Concluding Thoughts
  • This case well illustrates both the challenges faced by modern law enforcement in retrieving information it needs to pursue and prosecute wrongdoers, and the threat to the privacy of innocent parties from a vigorous criminal investigation. At the time of Tamura, most individuals and enterprises kept records in their file cabinets or similar physical facilities. Today, the same kind of data is usually stored electronically, often far from the premises. Electronic storage facilities intermingle data, making them difficult to retrieve without a thorough understanding of the filing and classification systems used—something that can often only be determined by closely analyzing the data in a controlled environment. Tamura involved a few dozen boxes and was considered a broad seizure; but even inexpensive electronic storage media today can store the equivalent of millions of pages of information. 1176*1176 Wrongdoers and their collaborators have obvious incentives to make data difficult to find, but parties involved in lawful activities may also encrypt or compress data for entirely legitimate reasons: protection of privacy, preservation of privileged communications, warding off industrial espionage or preventing general mischief such as identity theft. Law enforcement today thus has a far more difficult, exacting and sensitive task in pursuing evidence of criminal activities than even in the relatively recent past. The legitimate need to scoop up large quantities of data, and sift through it carefully for concealed or disguised pieces of evidence, is one we've often recognized. See, e.g., United States v. Hill, 459 F.3d 966 (9th Cir.2006).
  • This pressing need of law enforcement for broad authorization to examine electronic records, so persuasively demonstrated in the introduction to the original warrant in this case, see pp. 1167-68 supra, creates a serious risk that every warrant for electronic information will become, in effect, a general warrant, rendering the Fourth Amendment irrelevant. The problem can be stated very simply: There is no way to be sure exactly what an electronic file contains without somehow examining its contents—either by opening it and looking, using specialized forensic software, keyword searching or some other such technique. But electronic files are generally found on media that also contain thousands or millions of other files among which the sought-after data may be stored or concealed. By necessity, government efforts to locate particular files will require examining a great many other files to exclude the possibility that the sought-after data are concealed there. Once a file is examined, however, the government may claim (as it did in this case) that its contents are in plain view and, if incriminating, the government can keep it. Authorization to search some computer files therefore automatically becomes authorization to search all files in the same sub-directory, and all files in an enveloping directory, a neighboring hard drive, a nearby computer or nearby storage media. Where computers are not near each other, but are connected electronically, the original search might justify examining files in computers many miles away, on a theory that incriminating electronic data could have been shuttled and concealed there.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • The advent of fast, cheap networking has made it possible to store information at remote third-party locations, where it is intermingled with that of other users. For example, many people no longer keep their email primarily on their personal computer, and instead use a web-based email provider, which stores their messages along with billions of messages from and to millions of other people. Similar services exist for photographs, slide shows, computer code and many other types of data. As a result, people now have personal data that are stored with that of innumerable strangers. Seizure of, for example, Google's email servers to look for a few incriminating messages could jeopardize the privacy of millions. It's no answer to suggest, as did the majority of the three-judge panel, that people can avoid these hazards by not storing their data electronically. To begin with, the choice about how information is stored is often made by someone other than the individuals whose privacy would be invaded by the search. Most people have no idea whether their doctor, lawyer or accountant maintains records in paper or electronic format, whether they are stored on the premises or on a server farm in Rancho Cucamonga, whether they are commingled with those of many other professionals 1177*1177 or kept entirely separate. Here, for example, the Tracey Directory contained a huge number of drug testing records, not only of the ten players for whom the government had probable cause but hundreds of other professional baseball players, thirteen other sports organizations, three unrelated sporting competitions, and a non-sports business entity—thousands of files in all, reflecting the test results of an unknown number of people, most having no relationship to professional baseball except that they had the bad luck of having their test results stored on the same computer as the baseball players.
  • Second, there are very important benefits to storing data electronically. Being able to back up the data and avoid the loss by fire, flood or earthquake is one of them. Ease of access from remote locations while traveling is another. The ability to swiftly share the data among professionals, such as sending MRIs for examination by a cancer specialist half-way around the world, can mean the difference between death and a full recovery. Electronic storage and transmission of data is no longer a peculiarity or a luxury of the very rich; it's a way of life. Government intrusions into large private databases thus have the potential to expose exceedingly sensitive information about countless individuals not implicated in any criminal activity, who might not even know that the information about them has been seized and thus can do nothing to protect their privacy. It is not surprising, then, that all three of the district judges below were severely troubled by the government's conduct in this case. Judge Mahan, for example, asked "what ever happened to the Fourth Amendment? Was it ... repealed somehow?" Judge Cooper referred to "the image of quickly and skillfully moving the cup so no one can find the pea." And Judge Illston regarded the government's tactics as "unreasonable" and found that they constituted "harassment." Judge Thomas, too, in his panel dissent, expressed frustration with the government's conduct and position, calling it a "breathtaking expansion of the `plain view' doctrine, which clearly has no application to intermingled private electronic data." Comprehensive Drug Testing, 513 F.3d at 1117.
  • Everyone's interests are best served if there are clear rules to follow that strike a fair balance between the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the right of individuals and enterprises to the privacy that is at the heart of the Fourth Amendment. Tamura has provided a workable framework for almost three decades, and might well have sufficed in this case had its teachings been followed. We have updated Tamura to apply to the daunting realities of electronic searches. We recognize the reality that over-seizing is an inherent part of the electronic search process and proceed on the assumption that, when it comes to the seizure of electronic records, this will be far more common than in the days of paper records. This calls for greater vigilance on the part of judicial officers in striking the right balance between the government's interest in law enforcement and the right of individuals to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The process of segregating electronic data that is seizable from that which is not must not become a vehicle for the government to gain access to data which it has no probable cause to collect.
  • Paul Merrell on 05 Dec 14
     
    From a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals en banc ruling in 2010. The Court's holding was that federal investigators had vastly overstepped the boundaries of multiple subpoenas and a search warrant --- and the Fourth Amendment --- by seizing records of a testing laboratory and reviewing them for information not described in the warrant or the subpoenas. At issue in this particular case was the government's use of a warrant that found probable cause to believe that the records contained evidence that steroids had been found in the urine of ten major league baseball players but searched the seized records for urine tests of other baseball players. The Court upheld the lower courts' rulings that the government was required to return all records other than those relevant to the ten players identified in the warrant. (The government had instead used the records of other player's urine tests to issue subpoenas for evidence relevant to those players potential use of steroids.) This decision cuts very heavily against the notion that the Fourth Amendment allows the bulk collection of private information about millions of Americans with or without a warrantor court order on the theory that some of the records *may* later become relevant to a lawful investigation.   Or rephrased, here is the en banc decision of the largest federal court of appeals (as many judges as most other federal appellate courts combined), in direct disagreement with the FISA Court orders allowing bulk collection of telephone records and bulk "incidental" collection of Americans' telephone conversations on the theory that the records *might* become relevant to national security investigations. Yet none of the FISA judges in any of the FISA opinions published thus far even cited, let alone distinguished, this Ninth Circuit en banc decision. Which says a lot of the quality of the legal research performed by the FISA Court judges. However, this precedent is front and center in briefs filed with the Ni
4More

G77+ China, CELAC, UK Politicians Reject US Aggressions on Venezuela UPDATED | venezuel... - 0 views

venezuelanalysis.com/11298 war & peace Venezuela U.S.-foreign-policy coup-attempts G77 China UK CELAC
shared by Paul Merrell on 27 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • The G77+ China and the Community of States of Latin America and the Caribbean (CELAC) are the latest multilateral blocs to join the international outcry against President Obama's executive order in early March labeling Venezuela "an unusual and extraordinary threat". On Wednesday, the organization representing 134 nations of the global South voiced its blanket rejection of the White House decree and called for its immediate repeal in accordance with "international principles of respect for sovereignty and national determination". The group went on to express solidarity with Venezuela, recognizing the Bolivarian nation's contributions to "South-South cooperation". The 33 nations comprising the CELAC also condemned this Thursday the "unilateral coercive measures" taken by the Obama administration, which it described as "contrary to international law", calling for dialogue between the two nations based on "principles of respect for sovereignty and noninterference in the internal affairs of other states". in the internal affairs of other states".
  • The statement by the G77 follows similar proclamations issued by UNASUR, ALBA, and the Non-Aligned Movement last week, which have likewise condemned the Obama administration for its aggressive unilatral actions and urged dialogue between the two nations.
  • The Ecuadorian foreign minister announced yesterday that his nation might skip the upcoming Summit of the Americas in Panama this April in protest over recent U.S. actions.On Wednesday, Ricardo Patiño indicated that President Correa might boycott the summit, which is to be attended by Barack Obama, in response to Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson provocative comments regarding the alleged need for more funds to promote "human rights" in "Venezuela, Ecuador, and Nicaragua.”
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Over 100 top British political leaders from six different parties and diverse political bodies ranging from the House of Parliament to the EU Parliament have signed on to a statement condemning "any U.S. sanctions on Venezuela" and backing the position taken by UNASUR.
6More

M of A - UK Accuses U.S. Of Supporting Terrorists But Sells Out To Saudi Arabia - 0 views

www.moonofalabama.org/...sells-out-to-saudi-arabia.html war & peace Syria U.S.-foreign-policy terrorists™ U.S.-support UK
shared by Paul Merrell on 16 Nov 15 - No Cached
  • On October 30 an international conference on Syria  agreed on a framework for ending the conflict in Syria. The communiqué states: While substantial differences remain among the participants, they reached a mutual understanding on the following: 1) Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and secular character are fundamental. ... 6) Da'esh, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the U.N. Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants, must be defeated.... Ministers will reconvene within two weeks to continue these discussions.” Secretary of State Kerry had already accepted the "secular" point in earlier talks with his Russian colleague. The next meeting this Friday will mainly be about the question of who is a terrorist and must thereby be defeated. Propagandist for the Jihadis call this a "Russian trap".
  • So far the U.S. and its allies have supported various fundamentalist groups who's deeds and proclaimed philosophies surely put them into the same category as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. The British Foreign Minister accuses the U.S. of supporting such terrorist groups and said that this needs to change: The world powers trying to end the civil war in Syria are drawing up a list of "terrorist" groups, Britain said Tuesday, warning that some countries may have to drop support for allies on the ground. "It will require deep breaths on several sides, including the US side," British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond warned, speaking to reporters in Washington. Some of the groups that qualify as terrorists, so Hammond, do get support from the U.S. and it will take a "deep breaths" by the U.S. to refrain from further supporting them. As part of this, Hammond said, the countries backing various factions within the country would have to decide which are moderate enough to be included in the political process and which would be excluded. "I'm not so sure I would write off the possibility of agreeing on who is a terrorist," he said, in remarks at the British embassy the morning after talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry. But he warned that there would be horse trading ahead.
  • Can one "horse trade" who is a terrorist? Is it "moderate enough" to only cut off the heads of prisoners of war instead of burning them alive? How much would that "trade" cost? Hammond seems to believe that a money-for-values deal is possible and needed. Here is his horse trade: On one side the Saudis want the Jihadists they support to be recognized as non-terrorists: "The Saudis are never going to sign up to Ansar al-Sham being categorized as terrorists," he said, citing the example of one Sunni armed group reported to receive outside Arab backing. "So we have to see whether we can reach a pragmatic solution on these areas," Hammond added.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • On the other side Hammond wants to sell more weapons to Saudi Arabia despite its abysmal human rights record: In an interview with Newsnight, Mr Hammond was asked if he would like to see the current £5.4billion of weapons trade with Saudi Arabia increase. He replied: “We’d always like to do more business, more British exports, more British jobs and in this case very high end engineering jobs protected and created by our diplomacy abroad.” So there is the Hammonds "pragmatic solution" - the UK will support the Saudi position on the terrorist groups Ahrar al Shams, which is related to and closely cooperating with al-Qaeda, and the Saudis will buy more British weapons. There is only a slight problem. The framework submitted by the October 30 conference, excerpted above, agreed of the fundamental "secular character" for the Syrian state. But even a now revisionist Ahrar al-Shams insists that Islamic law must the constitutional base of Syria. A state build on Islamic law is certainly not "secular". Unless of course one redefines what secular means. And that is exactly what Hammond, hearing the cash register ringing, now proposes: While Mr. Hammond declined to offer any details on which groups could eventually take part in political negotiations, his comments suggested that the West might be prepared to back Sunni Islamist groups with close ties to allies, including Saudi Arabia. “What we mean by a secular constitution, and what people in the Muslim world will understand by secular will be two different things,” Mr. Hammond said.
  • British orientalism at its finest: The Salafi jihadists of Ahrar al-Shams are not "terrorists" because the Saudis will buy more British weapons. A Syria based on Islamic law will be "secular" because those [censored] Arabs don't even know what that means. Maybe the U.S. should also offer to buy more British weapons? Foreign Minister Hammond would than surely recognize that the terrorists the U.S. supports in Syria are "moderate enough" hardline Islamists to fit his deranged definition of "secular".
  • Paul Merrell on 16 Nov 15
     
    UK accuses U.S. of supporing terrorist groups in Syria. Whoda'thunk? 
5More

M of A - Sistani Orders Turkey Out Of Iraq - Syria Oppo-Conference Fails - 0 views

www.moonofalabama.org/...ria-oppo-conference-fails.html war & peace Iraq Turkey invasion peace-talks Ahrar-al-Sham
shared by Paul Merrell on 14 Dec 15 - No Cached
  • After the U.S. invasion of Iraq the U.S vice consul Paul Bremer tried to install a handpicked Iraqi government.  The top Shia religious authority in Iraq, Grand Ajatollah Sistani, demanded a democratic vote. The issue was thereby decided. There was no way the U.S could have circumvented Sisitani's edict without a massive revolt by the 65% of Iraqis who are Shia and mostly follow his advice. Bremer had to fold. Now Ajatollah Sistani takes position against the Turkish invasion of Iraq: Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, called on the government on Friday to show "no tolerance" of any infringement of the country's sovereignty, after Turkey deployed heavily armed troops to northern Iraq. Sistani's spokesman, Sheikh Abdul Mehdi Karbala'i, did not explicitly name Turkey, but a row over the deployment has badly soured relations between Ankara and Baghdad, which denies having agreed to it. ... "The Iraqi government is responsible for protecting Iraq's sovereignty and must not tolerate and side that infringes upon on it, whatever the justifications and necessities," Karbalai'i said in a weekly sermon. The issue is thereby decided. Turkish troops will have to leave or will have to decisively defeat all Shia of Iraq (and Iran). If Erdogan were smart he would now order the Turkish troops stationed near Mosul to leave Iraq.
  • The Russian President Putin also increased pressure on Turkey: President Vladimir Putin on Friday ordered Russia's armed forces to act in an "extremely tough way" in Syria to protect Russian forces striking Islamic State targets there. "Any targets threatening our (military) group or land infrastructure must be immediately destroyed," Putin said, speaking at a Defence Ministry event. Note to Erdogan: Beware of funny ideas...
  • There was some Syrian opposition conference yesterday in Saudi Arabia were the Saudis tried to bribe everyone to agree on a common position. But the conference failed. Some 116 delegates took part under "international guidance" of their various sponsors. A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda aligned Ahrar al Sham, which closely cooperates with the al-Qaeda entity Jabhat al Nusra in Syria, also took part. No women were present. The conference resulted in the decision to hold another conference. The 116 delegates at the conference decided to select 33 delegates for a conference which would decide on 15 delegates to confer and maybe take part in some negotiations with the Syrian government side. The NYT's Ben Hubbard, who was there, tweeted: Ben Hubbard @NYTBen ...The meeting created yet another new opposition body, a high commission, meant to oversee negotiations. There was debate about how large it should be and what proportion should represent armed groups. Final was 32, changed after meetings to 33. Those 33 now tasked with choosing a 15 person negotiating team. So, yeah, umbrella groups making a new umbrella.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The political demands the conference agreed upon include non-starters for negotiations like the demand that the Syrian President Assad would leave within 6 weeks of the negotiations start. There was also this illuminating word game: Islamist delegates objected to using the word “democracy” in the final statement, so the term “democratic mechanism” was used instead, according to a member of one such group who attended the meeting. The Ahrar al-Sham delegate at the meeting signed the deal while the Ahrar al Sham bigwigs, who took not part, damned the deal and announced they were completely against it. They demand an Islamic State in Syria that would follow their militant Salafi line of believe. Hubbard again: Ben Hubbard ‏@NYTBen Re: @Ahrar_Alsham2. It's main delegate did not walk out. Before meeting ended, members not present released statement announcing withdrawal. The session's moderator said Ahrar delegate was not aware of statement by his group until later, but did sign the final communiqué. Then Ahrar members like @aleesa71 and @a_azraeel complained on Twitter, suggesting a split between military and political leaders.
  • The Saudi and Qatari Wahhabi rulers want Ahrar al Sham to be part of any future solution in Syria. They hired "western" think tanks like Brookings Doha to propagandize that Ahrar is "moderate". But Ahrar can not be "moderate" when it is fighting together with al-Qaeda and kills civilians because they are "unbelievers". It is now in an uncomfortable position. If it takes part in a peace conference with the Syrian government its Jabhat al-Nusra ally will roast it, if it doesn't take part its Saudi and Qartari financiers will fry it. Since the start of the war on Syria no unity has been achieved in the opposition of the Syrian government. The U.S., in form of the CIA head John Brennan, teamed up (again) with al-Qaeda while the State Department tried to sponsor more "moderates". The ensuing chaos continues today. To prevent further blowback from this nonsense strategy will obviously require a change towards a position that supports the Syrian government. It is doubtful that the U.S. is capable of such foresight and flexibility.
2More

US Dismisses Ban on Aircraft Over Syrian Safe Zones -- News from Antiwar.com - 0 views

news.antiwar.com/...ircraft-over-syrian-safe-zones war & peace U.S.-foreign-policy Syria safe-zones
shared by Paul Merrell on 06 May 17 - No Cached
  • A day after the US gave tepid support for the establishment of Syrian safe zones to try to separate combatant forces and reduce the amount of fighting, they appear to have noticed that this might get in their way of their own attacks across the country, and are pledging to ignore the demilitarization of the zones.
  • Back when Turkey and the US were both super keen on the idea of safe zones, a big selling point was the imposition of no-fly zones over the areas, to keep the civilians within getting bombed. This was also a big obstacle, as the US wasn’t totally clear it could do this without declaring war on Russia. With Russia also on board now, that should’ve been easier. Instead, Russia announced that the safe zones, which went into effect overnight, are now officially closed to all warplanes, and US officials are livid at the idea, insisting they have no intention of respecting that. Largely this appears to be a case of the US just being deliberately difficult, as none of the safe zones are in areas US warplanes were operating in the first place. The reality, however, is that the zones are now being used in service of a ceasefire the US never really supported to begin with ,and with the US-backed rebels also objecting about the ceasefire getting in the way of their war, the US will be non-cooperative.
3More

PressTV-Russia, Turkey finalize S-400 missile system deal - 0 views

www.presstv.com/...ussia-Turkey-S400-missile-deal war & peace Russia Turkey NATO S-400
shared by Paul Merrell on 22 Dec 17 - No Cached
  • Russia has finalized an agreement with Turkey on the sale of the S-400 air defense missile system. Vladimir Kozhin, a presidential aide who oversees Russia’s matters of military cooperation, said Thursday that the deal was now finalized and Moscow would begin delivery of the system to Ankara in late 2019. “The first deliveries are likely to begin at the end of 2019, beginning of 2020,” Kozhin said. He said no more issues remained about the deal, which was discussed between Russia's President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the former’s visit to Ankara on December 11. “All aspects have been resolved over the past few days ... All parameters, all technologies, the entire deal has been agreed ... Practically speaking, the contract is entering the phase of realization,” he said.
  • The deal comes as Turkey has been establishing closer relations with Russia after it experienced glitches in its relations with Western governments following a crackdown in the country over the July 2016 coup attempt. The alliance originally reacted skeptically to the decision, saying the system was not compatible with its equipment. However, the Pentagon said recently that Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 system, the most significant deal Ankara has signed with a non-NATO military supplier, was generally “a good idea” as it was inter-operable with the military alliance's other systems. The S-400 is Russia’s latest surface-to-air missile defense batteries. Moscow aims to sell the system to Saudi Arabia, with Kozhin saying Thursday that the deal with Riyadh could also be finalized before the end of the year.
  • Paul Merrell on 22 Dec 17
     
    The second largest military force in NATO acquires the ability to shoot down U.S. warplanes.
« First ‹ Previous 61 - 67 of 67
Showing 20▼ items per page