Human Rights Watch - a Front for the CIA Part 2

Please see my previous post on this matter located here.

Nobel Peace Laureates Slam Human Rights Watch's Refusal to Cut Ties to U.S. Government

Human Rights Watch's affiliation with ex-CIA and NATO officials generates perverse incentives and undermine its reputation for independence

In a May 12 letter published on AlterNet, two Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and over 100 scholars, journalists and human rights activists called on Human Rights Watch to close its revolving door to the U.S. government. On June 3, HRW published a response from executive director Kenneth Roth on its website, arguing that their “concern is misplaced.”

In a June 11 debate on Democracy Now!, HRW Counsel and Spokesman Reed Brody similarly rejected their recommendations. Now, Nobel Laureates Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel join fellow signatories Richard Falk (United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories from 2008-14) and Hans von Sponeck (UN Assistant Secretary General from 1998-2000) in demanding that their proposals be taken seriously, and additionally, that HRW remove former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana from its Board of Directors.

Dear Kenneth Roth,

While we welcome your stated commitment to Human Rights Watch's independence and credibility, we are dismayed by your rejection of our common-sense suggestion for strengthening them: bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as HRW staff, advisors or board members—or, at a bare minimum, mandate lengthy “cooling-off” periods before and after any associate moves between HRW and the foreign-policy divisions of the U.S. government.

Before addressing your letter’s objections to the three instances of HRW’s advocacy that suggest a conflict of interest, we would like to reiterate that they were “limited to only recent history,” and that other cases could have been raised as well. One obvious example of HRW's failure to appropriately criticize U.S. crimes occurred after the 2004 coup d’état against the democratically elected government of Haiti. 

The U.S. government essentially kidnapped Haiti’s president; thousands of people were killed under the ensuing coup regime; and deposed officials of the constitutional government were jailed.

In the face of what were likely the worst human rights abuses of any country in the Western hemisphere at the time, HRW barely lifted a finger. HRW never hosted a press conference criticizing the coup or post-coup atrocities. In contrast to HRW’s appeals to the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Democratic Charter for Venezuela and Cuba, HRW never publicly invoked the Charter in the case of Haiti, even as Articles 20 and 21 afforded multilateral measures “in the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime.” HRW never placed an op-ed about the overthrow in a prominent newspaper. (In 2004 The New York Times alone published at least five HRWopinion pieces and four HRW letters on other subjects.) It is reasonable for outside observers to question whether this lack of response from HRW to such large-scale human rights violations had anything to do with U.S. foreign-policy priorities.

The very existence of such questions regarding HRW’s advocacy should be reason enough to impose sharp restrictions on HRW's close ties to the U.S. government. Given the impact of global perceptions on HRW’s ability to carry out its work, simply the appearance of impropriety can impede HRW’s effectiveness. Closing HRW's revolving door would be an important first step to allaying or preempting concerns that HRW's priorities are compromised.

Concrete evidence of a revolving-door phenomenon between HRW and the U.S. government renders crucially incomplete your admission that “it is true that some served in the US government before or after their involvement with Human Rights Watch.” We provided examples of those who served in the U.S. government both before and after their involvement with HRW, a norm widely recognized to generate perverse incentives and undermine an institution's reputation for independence.

For instance, you may disagree with our view that a former official of the Central Intelligence Agency—one of the world’s greatest institutional human rights violators over the past half-century—has no standing to advise on human rights issues for your organization. Surely you must concede, however, that a conflict of interest was raised when Miguel Díaz, the ex-CIA analyst in question, exploited the eight years of experience and relationships he accumulated within HRW's advisory committee for his subsequent role as the U.S. State Department’s “interlocutor between the intelligence community and non-government experts.”

Your colleague, HRW Counsel and Spokesperson Reed Brody, seemed to misunderstand the nature of our proposal, arguing in a June 11 debate on Democracy Now! that “Miguel Díaz never worked at Human Rights Watch,” and that the organization is “a big tent—we’ve got people on the right; we’ve got people on the left.” In fact, our letter suggested prohibitions or cooling-off periods for “any associate,” including advisory-committee members like Díaz. Secondly, our proposals would not impact political diversity; rather, they would make it more difficult for those previously employed by human rights-abusing organizations like the CIA from adversely influencing HRW’s priorities or damaging HRW’s reputation.

It is important to further clarify our request, as Brody made two mutually irreconcilable claims: that “there is no revolving door,” and that “this revolving-door policy, if we implemented it, would have changed one person at Human Rights Watch.” Both statements are untrue. A cooling-off period, which all HRW associates would accept, would have prevented both Díaz and former HRW Washington director Tom Malinowski from almost immediately entering the U.S. State Department (Malinowski is now Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor), and would have also applied to Nik Steinberg, a senior researcher in HRW’s Americas division as of May 2014.

Just one week after you received our May 12 letter, Mr. Steinberg announced that he was leaving HRW to take a position with U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, which he described as an “extraordinary opportunity.” This is disturbing from a human rights perspective, because Ms. Power’s July 17, 2013 confirmation hearing was riddled with provocative comments, including her evidence-free claim of an Iranian “nuclear weapons program,” her promise to “never apologize for America,” and her commitment to “work tirelessly to defend” Israel. After assuming her post, she advocated in favor of a U.S. strike against Syria in 2013, defending it as “legitimate” while tacitly acknowledging its illegality. She later declared that the United States has “nothing to apologize for” in Afghanistan, despite its record of numerous atrocities. Most recently, Ms. Power engaged in a coordinated media event with Henry Kissinger, whom Mr. Brody once referred to as a war criminal.

HRW’s proximity to Ms. Power damages HRW’s stated independence in light of her declarations that “the United States is the greatest country on Earth,” “the leader in human rights,” and “the leader in human dignity.” Shortly after leaving HRW, Malinowski similarly lauded the “bipartisan consensus for America’s defense of liberty around the world” and the “exceptional” nature of the United States at his own September 24, 2013 confirmation hearing.

Mr. Roth, we are deeply worried that Mr. Steinberg’s announced transition to Ms. Power’s office—a week after your receipt of our letter—is just one of many more revolving-door episodes that will continue to create perverse incentive structures within the organization. How can we expect HRW associates to be completely unafraid to hold human rights violators in the U.S. government accountable for their offenses and crimes when they are hoping to work for some of these very same functionaries immediately upon leaving HRW? That is the question that you must answer, Mr. Roth, in light of the transitions of Malinowski, Díaz and Steinberg to the U.S. State Department.

If you nevertheless object to prohibiting the involvement of U.S. foreign-policy officials at HRW or instituting cooling-off periods for them, we suggest, in parallel, an even narrower proposal: bar the participation at HRW of those who bear a direct responsibility for violating international humanitarian law. Javier Solana, currently a member of HRW's board of directors, served as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Secretary General during its 1999 military campaign in Yugoslavia. NATO's use of cluster munitions and its bombing of civilian targets in Yugoslavia led HRW itself to conclude that the organization “committed violations of international humanitarian law.”

Solana is therefore a poor choice for HRW's board of directors. His removal from your board would signal HRW's good-faith effort to bolster its independence and credibility as an advocate for human rights. When Mr. Brody was asked on Democracy Now! to respond to the argument that “those who bear direct responsibility for human rights violations should not be on the board of directors of an independent human rights organization,” Mr. Brody said, “I would agree with that.” We hope you concur with your colleague.

We will now address in turn your responses to the three cases of problematic HRW advocacy mentioned in our letter:

First, you objected to our concerns over the 2009 statements made by Tom Malinowski as HRW’s Washington director to the LA Times. He contended that “under limited circumstances” there was a “legitimate place” for renditions. You argue that our letter “mistakenly claims he was supporting unlawful CIA renditions,” and that “Malinowski was certainly not endorsing the CIA’s illegal rendition program, which entailed transferring individuals without due process protections to countries where they faced torture.” You further define renditions as simply “the transfer of a person in custody from one jurisdiction to another, which is legal under certain circumstances,” and cite extraditions as a legitimate form of rendition.

We appreciate your attempt to clarify Malinowski’s statement, which at the time provoked public consternation from law professors specializing in constitutional law and international law, such as Darren Hutchinson and Kenneth Anderson. This reaction arose because the LA Times article in question focused exclusively on CIA renditions and President Barack Obama’s executive order, which preserved them through a redefinition that allowed the transfer of suspects on a “short-term, transitory basis.” All CIA renditions, whether long- or short-term, whether they lead to torture or not, deny suspects the right to legal proceedings in which they can challenge their transfer from the country in question. Unlike commonplace extraditions, CIA renditions—extraordinary or otherwise—do not guarantee the detainees’ right to legal counsel or access to the court system of the country where they are seized.

In our previous letter to you, we cited Obama’s “preservation of renditions” as a serious human rights concern, and hyperlinked to a widely cited Open Society Justice Initiative report from 2013 which observed that Obama’s 2009 “executive order did not repudiate extraordinary rendition,” and that “it appears that the Obama administration did not end extraordinary rendition.” In light of this and the fact that the LA Times solely focused on an executive order pertaining to CIA renditions, Malinowski’s comment on their “legitimate place” was troubling and remains so, especially given his now-senior position within the Obama administration. Controversy around the practice persists, as exemplified by the headline of a 2013 Washington Post news article: “Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns.”

Malinowski’s subsequent statement to the LA Times was perhaps even more dubious, for additional reasons. As HRW’s Washington director, he paraphrased the Obama administration’s claim that designing an alternative to “people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured” was “going to take some time,” without questioning whether a gradual approach to ending such abuses was justifiable or even legal. For an organization that operates under the principle that human rights are absolute rights, not rights to be traded away for expediency or other political goals—which is the only way that a credible human rights organization can or should operate—such a statement should be deeply alarming. In fact, the Obama administration did proceed to “take some time,” sustaining the use of such “foreign dungeons” for years—likely up to the present day.

Numerous eye-witness testimonies led to articles by Der Spiegel in 2009 and the BBC in 2010 that reported on torture conducted under Obama’s presidency at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where detainees have had no right to habeas corpus. A 2011 Nationinvestigative piece detailed the conditions of an underground “secret prison” in Somalia used by the CIA, which serves as a destination for U.S.-assisted renditions. U.S. officials are said to conduct joint “debriefings,” or interrogations, at the site. The report’s author, Jeremy Scahill, found that the prisoners were unable to be seen by the Red Cross, and “they are not ever presented with charges.”

We note with interest that none of the HRW reports on rendition that you listed and hyperlinked to in your letter refer to torture, CIA renditions, or long-term detention without due process that have occurred under the Obama administration. While we welcome HRW’s call for criminal investigations regarding Bush-era human rights abuses, it appears that HRW has not advocated for criminal investigations into any of these Obama-era abuses. In fact, two HRW researchers have publicly fretted over the U.S. handover of the Bagram base to the Afghan government due to concerns over Afghanistan’s use of torture, without ever mentioning Obama-era, U.S.-directed torture at the same base. There may be some legitimate reason for HRW’s very different positions regarding the two administrations, but combined with the existence of HRW’s revolving door, they reinforce a reasonable suspicion that Malinowski’s inappropriate comments in 2009 as an HRW employee were influenced by his intention to serve in the Obama administration, and that HRW’s decidedly more muted position today on Obama’s policies is perhaps related to its ties to the administration.

Your second point pertains to our argument that in light of HRW’s 2012 letter to President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela questioning the country’s suitability as a candidate for the UN Human Rights Council, HRW had reason to write a similar letter to President Obama expressing reservations over the U.S. position in the same council. In our previous letter to you, we cited the U.S. record of human rights abuses that include a secret, global assassination program and the illegal detention of individuals at Guantánamo Bay. You have countered by avoiding a discussion of comparative abuses between the two countries, and have instead argued that for HRW, a “central concern on council membership is whether a government takes the council and its special procedures seriously,” and that Venezuela, unlike the United States, does not.

However, under no objective standard was this a “central concern” of the 2012 letter to Chávez signed by your colleagues José Miguel Vivanco and Peggy Hicks that we originally cited. After asserting in their introduction that “Venezuela currently falls far short of acceptable standards” in “promoting and protecting human rights,” Vivanco and Hicks outlined specific “policies and practices of [the Chávez] administration” and argued for their reversal. Their letter then dedicated the next 10 paragraphs to arguing that Venezuela has failed in the areas of judicial independence, media freedom and civil society. Before concluding their letter, Vivanco and Hicks devoted only one paragraph to “cooperation with the Human Rights Council.”

Given the broad scope of the content and priorities of HRW’s letter to Chávez, HRW simply has no tenable justification for its continued support of the U.S. presence on the UN Human Rights Council. Aside from its far grimmer human rights record than Venezuela, “[t]he United States is the only country to vote against all the Council’s resolutions focusing on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories,” admits HRW. “The US rejection of any resolution focusing on Israel and the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] and Israel [sic] exposes its double standards.” HRW’s own finding, coupled with theU.S. role in blocking the implementation of the Council’s recommendations of the Goldstone Report on Israeli war crimes during the Gaza attack of 2008-09, certainly weakens your letter’s claim that “on balance, the United States has played a constructive role at the Human Rights Council.”

It is not too late for HRW to demonstrate its independence from the U.S. government by writing a letter to President Obama outlining the most egregious U.S. human rights violations that should be reversed in order for the country to serve as a credible member of the UN Human Rights Council. HRW’s letter could demand an end to the Obama’sextrajudicial “kill list,” an authoritarian U.S. policy for which a Venezuelan analogue is nonexistent and inconceivable, and the letter could also condemn U.S. intransigence within the Council, particularly toward Palestinian human rights.

Our third and final example questioned HRW’s lack of opposition to Obama’s consideration of a missile strike on Syria in 2013—a violation of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the unilateral “threat or use of force” in international affairs. We appreciate your clarification of HRW’s mandate, “which is to monitor governments’ adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law.” We would urge HRW to consider expanding its purview to adopt the UN Charter as a foundation for its legal determinations due to the inevitable human rights violations that occur as a result of a war of aggression, considered the “supreme international crime” by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

We express our concern, however, that HRW’s stated neutrality on matters of war and peace is compromised by your public statements of questionable judgment. At the height of intense pressure for a U.S. bombing campaign on Syria in late August of 2013, you all but advocated military intervention on social media, while maintaining plausible deniability in the context of a climate of warmongering. A sampling of your tweets include:

• To justify #Syria inaction, top US general trots out age-old ethnic animosities line. Heard that B4? Bosnia. Rwanda. trib.al/qSzrz1N
• Top general suggests US is more interested in a geopolitical partner in #Syria than saving civilians from slaughter. trib.al/WElNRGM
• It took chemical attack to convince Obama/Kerry that Assad isn't interested in negotiated solution!? No more excuses. trib.al/viu2scd
• If the appalling slaughter in #Syria won't get Obama to act, maybe ridicule will: trib.al/gp7HDo1
• If Obama decides to strike #Syria, will he settle for symbolism or do something that will help protect civilians? trib.al/hl6QhA1

Such behavior is unbecoming for the head of a major human rights organization and runs counter to the spirit of HRW's official neutrality toward the impending intervention in Syria. We encourage you to demonstrate greater tact and responsibility in light of the near-inevitability that U.S. missile strikes would have led to violations of international humanitarian law, including the killing, maiming, and displacement of many innocent civilians—as shown by the U.S. bombings of Yugoslavia in 1999, and of Iraq during the 2003 invasion and subsequent years of war.

HRW’s official abstention from endorsing or opposing wars also appeared to be broken by Tom Malinowski’s March 27, 2011 article in The New Republic on NATO’s Libya intervention. The piece was originally titled “Why Isn't Obama Getting Credit For Stopping An Atrocity?” and contended that “NATO acted more quickly [than in Bosnia] to stop atrocities in Kosovo.” In the case of Kosovo, “we could see and feel the difference Clinton and NATO had made.” Malinowski then celebrated NATO’s intervention in Libya as “the most rapid multinational military response to an impending human rights crisis in history” for which “we should be grateful.”

As Washington director for HRW at the time of the article, Malinowski offered no disclosure of his previous responsibilities in foreign-policy speechwriting as the Senior Director of the White House’s National Security Council during Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. Nor did his sanitized portrayal of those actions include his own organization’s inconvenient conclusion that “NATO committed violations of international humanitarian law.” Malinowski’s piece also omitted the clearly unconstitutional nature of Obama’s military intervention in Libya. Furthermore, he excluded evidence that the NATO coalition quickly had moved away from the scope of the civilian-protection mandate provided in UN Resolution 1973 and toward the aim of regime change, which conformed with Obama’s comments weeks prior that “it’s time for Qaddafi to go.” 

More egregiously, the following year—months after your organization’s report, “Unacknowledged Deaths: Civilian Casualties in NATO’s Air Campaign in Libya,” examined eight NATO strikes that killed 72 civilians—Malinowski offered unalloyed praise for the NATO intervention. He argued that “Barack Obama's administration made its most unequivocal stand on behalf of an Arab Spring uprising” in Libya, where the destabilizing consequences of the administration’s support in arming rebel forces continue to be felt. Completely ignoring the issue of civilian deaths at the hands of NATO (confirmed by HRW itself), Malinowski claimed in this October 2, 2012 Foreign Policy article that “recent events have reinforced, not weakened, the rationale for supporting political change in the Arab world.”

Advocacy divorced from HRW’s own empirical findings, unconditionally applauding U.S.-NATO military actions in Libya and endorsing their suitability elsewhere, is a predictable outcome for a former Clinton official who became HRW’s chief lobbyist in Washington, and who may have aspired to a position in the Obama administration as he wrote such statements. However, such advocacy is unhelpful to HRW’s stated concerns over NATO’s airstrikes and its failure “to acknowledge these casualties or to examine how and why they occurred.”

We are heartened, Mr. Roth, by your expressed willingness to “speak out, as we have done” in Kosovo and elsewhere. But HRW’s track record for holding NATO accountable for its violations of international humanitarian law is wholly inadequate. Javier Solana initiated a war in violation of the UN Charter in 1999 and presided over the deliberate NATO bombing of a Serbian television station, a war crime that killed 16 civilians including a make-up artist, a cameraman, an editor, and a program director.

In your May 1999 letter to Solana, which mentioned that bombing, you urged that “these issues be scrutinized promptly and rigorously,” and that “disciplinary or criminal investigations be launched.” NATO implemented none of your suggestions and has held no one to account for that atrocity or for any other crime in Yugoslavia. And yet Solana was awarded a position on HRW’s board in 2011. It is hard to escape the conclusion that HRW’s admonishments of NATO’s behavior are toothless, and that Solana’s subsequent leadership role at HRW signals to former and future NATO leaders who violate international law that they should be undeterred by HRW’s objections and inquiries.

Finally, you responded to our emphasis on HRW’s ties to the United States by mentioning the involvement of former government officials of Mexico, Peru, South Africa, and other countries at HRW. But our focus is HRW’s ties to the foreign-policy divisions of the U.S. government, which, unlike the foreign-policy arms of many of the governments you cite, are continuously engaged in massive human rights abuses. This is a consequence of the status of the United States as the world’s sole military superpower, which frequently violates international law with impunity, and, as in the case of its invasion of Iraq, is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. As a recent poll showed, the rest of the globe sees the United States as “the greatest threat to peace in the world today” by a wide margin, so HRW’s unabashed closeness to that government is understandably viewed as an extremely political decision.

One of us would be delighted to meet with you whenever convenient at your New York offices to discuss these matters further and to personally deliver a petition signed by over 15,500 people so far along with their individual comments in support of the following demand:

The credibility of a global human-rights organization depends on its independence. Human Rights Watch has done important, critical work, but it can do better. It should implement at least a five-year "cooling-off" period before and after its associates move between HRW and the U.S. government's foreign-policy divisions. Human Rights Watch associates should concentrate on protecting human rights. They should not have conflicts of interest with past or future careers in branches of the U.S. government that may themselves be involved in human-rights violations.

We eagerly await your reply, and believe that HRW’s implementation of cooling-off periods for its associates and its removal of Solana from its board of directors will represent valuable first steps toward greater independence. Thank you for engaging with us on issues that we believe are essential to the pursuit of human rights throughout the world.

Sincerely,

Mairead Maguire - Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1977)

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel - Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1980)

Richard Falk - United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (2008-14)

Hans von Sponeck – United Nations Assistant Secretary General (1998-2000)

Keane Bhatt - activist, writer

Human Rights Watch - a Front for the CIA Part 1

Please read the article below.

A few months ago, I posted a link on my Twitter account to Kenneth Roth's current Wikipedia write-up, I compared it to his Wikipedia write-up from the past on the WayBackMachine. What I wanted to show was that Mr. Roth's past write-ups displayed an admission that he worked for the CIA. Kenneth Roth is the executive director of Human Rights Watch. Here is the HRW Twitter account.

Since that Twitter post, they have gone back and edited all his past Wikipedia write-ups in the WayBackMachine! I cannot believe it! It just shows you how closely they are all following me.

In any event, what does this mean --- and why was it so important for them to cover this up?

Well, the obvious reason is they don't care about human rights. I mean, how could they when they are covering up the horrible information that I am releasing about technology. But, just as important ---- they are covering up CIA sponsored international drug and human trafficking. (Also, see here for the link between mind control, drugs, and child prostitution.)  Think about it... with all of the surveillance technology that I am exposing, (see here,) do you honestly think they couldn't stop this?

Of Course They Could! 

Or, at the absolute least, they could make you or the proper authorities aware of it. But they choose not to because they are liars. Their livelihood --- like so many other people who work for intelligence --- depends on deception and the ignorance of the public.

Now read the article below!

========================================================================

Human Rights Watch is Not About Human Rights

By Dave Alpert


Human Rights Watch (HRW) . . . a name that evokes thoughts of an organization that claims to defend and protect the rights of people around the globe.

If that’s the case, how would one explain why HRW’s actions and policies appear to be a reflection and support of U.S. policies, rather than an organization that offers an independent critique of U.S. actions? There is no other country that has violated international laws and human rights more than the U.S. And still, HRW remains silent.

There seems to be a contradiction between HRW’s stated mission and their actual functioning.

An example: In 2009, President Obama announced that the U.S. will continue its “rendition” program, a program in which “terrorist” suspects were kidnapped and sent to allied countries to be interrogated and tortured. Tom Malinowski, one of HRW’s executives stated, “Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place for renditions, and encouraged patience: They want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured,” he said, “but designing that system is going to take some time.” Is he joking . . . HRW justifying rendition and torture?

In 2013, HRW focused its attention on Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, stating that his country was unfit to serve on the UN’s Human Rights Council because it did not meet the acceptable standards of human rights protection.

The U.S. served on the same council, yet HRW accepted that the U.S.’s human rights record was acceptable. After all, all “we” did was invade Iraq and Afghanistan without cause, send drones into Pakistan to fire missiles at suspected terrorists killing hundreds of innocent people, establish weekly meetings of Obama and his military advisors to determine who to kill that week, using drones in any country they chose (“kill list”).

Tom Malinowski who was once the Washington Director of HRW is an interesting person and one whose selection to lead HRW was surprising. He was a speechwriter for Secretary of State Madeline Albright, renowned for her famous response to a question asked by a reporter regarding the deaths of approximately 500,000 Iraqi children during the U.S. blockade of Iraq. The questioner asked, “Was it worth it?” And, Madeline responded, without any hesitation, “Yes, it was.” So much for human rights. Mr. Malinowski also served, from 1994 to 1998, as a speechwriter for Secretary of State Warren Christopher.

During his Senate confirmation hearing for assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor on September 24, 2014, Malinowski promised to “deepen the bipartisan consensus for America’s defense of liberty around the world,” and assured the Foreign Relations Committee that no matter where the U.S. debate on Syria led, “the mere fact that we are having it marks our nation as exceptional.” He also served as senior director on the National Security Council Does anyone continue to see HRW as an independent organization protecting the rights and the dignity of peoples around the world?

Mr. Malinowski is far from being independent of U.S. influence. Instead, he is deeply involved in and part of the U.S. establishment.

The current executive director of HRW is Kenneth Roth.

Under Roth’s leadership, Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived biases and misconstructions.

Over the years, he has been criticized by many progressives for his handling of critical events in Rwanda and in Venezuela.

Further, let us look at who serves on the HRW administration and Board of Directors.

The advisory committee for HRW’s Americas Division has even boasted the presence of a former Central Intelligence Agency official, Miguel Díaz. According to his State Department biography, Díaz served as a CIA analyst and also provided “oversight of U.S. intelligence activities in Latin America.”

Michael Shifter, who also currently serves on HRW’s Americas advisory committee, oversees $4 million a year in programming, financed in part through donations from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the embassies of Canada, Germany, Guatemala, Mexico and Spain, and corporations such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, JPMorgan, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Boeing, and Western Union.

Many HRW board members are simply investment bankers, like board co-chairs Joel Motley of Public Capital Advisors, LLC, and Hassan Elmasry, of Independent Franchise Partners, LLP. HRW Vice Chairman John Studzinski is a senior managing director at the Blackstone Group, a private equity firm founded by Peter G. Peterson, the billionaire who has passionately sought to eviscerate Social Security and Medicare.

Let us not forget George Soros, multi-billionaire, who is a major financial contributor to HRW. Mr Soros’ reputation as a liberal is a good example of what an oxymoron stands for. George Soros is one of the richest men in the world and he didn’t achieve that by worrying about you and me.

Soros recently criticized George W. Bush saying in an article in the Financial Times of London that his administration’s Iraq policies were “fundamentally wrong” and that they are premised on the “false ideology that U.S. might gave it the right to impose its will on the world.” Many of us in the peace movement would say, “He got that right!” We might be inclined to praise him and to believe that this confirms that he really is a man whose motives are honorable—an image, by the way, that he carefully cultivates, especially through various NGOs. In fact, numerous non-profit organizations have received funds from his foundation because they have bought into that perception.

Why then did Soros take issue with George W.? Soros is angry not at Bush’s aims—of expanding Pax Americana and making the world safe for global capitalists like himself—but with the crass and blundering way Bush went about it. Soros stated, “By making U.S. ambitions so clear, the Bush gang has committed the cardinal sin of giving the game away.” The “game” is the domination of countries and their resources throughout the globe.

But let us not continue to be fooled. Soros has established close working relationships with former National Security Director Zbigniew Brzezinski, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, former Israel lobby chief Stephen Solarz, as well as the renowned Bush team players Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

With this roster of people who make up the policy and decision-making folks in the organization (HRW), many of whom have participated in the exploitation and abuse of the human rights of people throughout the world, can we expect that their focus and mission will be to protect the rights of these same people?

Let us not be misled by the title this organization has assumed for itself, its true mission is to help implement U.S. policies through the backdoor and support U.S. interests. It is no different than right-wing, neo-fascist organizations that include words like “freedom” or “democracy” in their titles to give the impression that they are fighting for freedom and democracy.

HRW has attacked Venezuela, Cuba, and Ecuador, all countries that have moved towards a more socialist ideology, for not meeting the standards of human rights in their countries without ever mentioning the U.S.

When the U.S. supported attempted coups in Venezuela, Honduras, Haiti, and Guatemala, HRW remained silent. While African-Americans are being gunned down on a daily basis, HRW has remained silent. While people demonstrating peacefully in the U.S. have been pepper sprayed, HRW has remained silent. While many thousands of people, “illegals,” have been held in detention camps for years, HRW has remained silent. While Americans have been imprisoned for decades for non-violent crimes, HRW has remained silent.

Need I say more?

Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.

The Bronfman Gang: The Royal Family of American Jewry Sam and Edgar Bronfman: “Godfathers” to Al Capone and John McCain

Note: In addition to the article below, I suggest reading this, this and this.  See here and here for a couple recent articles showing the political pull of the Bronfman family on the current prime minister Justin Trudeau and his father Pierre Trudeau. See here for the Zionist takeover of Canada.

=============================================================================

Once described as “the Rothschilds of the New World,” the family Bronfman—although officially based in Canada—certainly constitutes the proverbial “royal family” of the American Jewish establishment, in as much as the family’s influence is solidly entrenched in the United States,
reaching from New York to Hollywood and everything in between. Proteges—directly and indirectly—of the Bronfman family have included multiple powerful and well-known personages ranging from Al Capone to U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Although best known for their control of the Seagram liquor empire, the family controls much, much more. In some respects they personify “the ultimate Jewish success story.” They represent virtually everything that is truly bad—in the classic sense—about Jewish power and influence in America.

And while they may not technically be the wealthiest Jewish family in America, per se—there are others that are much, much richer— the Bronfmans have a certain level of clout and prominence that few other families can claim. After all, of course, Edgar Bronfman—reigning patriarch of the family—is the longtime head of the World Jewish Congress. And that’s a title with clout.

As far back as 1978, Bronfman family biographer Peter Newman, writing in The Bronfman Dynasty, estimated that the aggregate assets held by the various branches of the family totaled some $7 billion. He cited Fortune magazine which declared—at the time—“The Bronfman fortune rivals that of all but a small number of North American families, including some that gathered their strength in the 19th century when taxes had no more impact on wealth than poor boxes.” Since then, of course, the
Bronfmans have increasingly compounded their wealth and their influence has grown proportionally.

Originally, we have been told, the Bronfman clan came as immigrants to Canada under the sponsorship—like many others—of the various Jewish charities under the thumb of Europe’s Rothschild family, the great financial house that has ruled from behind the scenes for generations.

However, the Bronfman empire as we know it today was founded by buccaneering, hard-driving sharp-nosed businessman Sam Bronfman who—along with his brothers—made millions in the liquor business— and many millions more by shipping their liquor into the United States where it was illegally consumed during Prohibition. Thus, the family forged early links with the U.S. crime syndicate headed jointly by Russian-born, New York-based Jew, Meyer Lansky, and his Italian partners, Charles “Lucky” Luciano and Frank Costello.

In fact—and this is probably a dirty little secret better left unsaid— there is hardly a border town in the northern regions of the United States—from Maine to Washington state—where you will not be able to find small family fortunes accumulated by locals who were part of the Bronfman-Lansky liquor smuggling network.

And in the big cities, a “connection” with the Lansky-Bronfman network was a “must” for anyone who wanted to succeed. The truth is that even Chicago’s Italian-American crime prince, Al Capone, owed his rise to power to his Bronfman connection—another little-known fact that has
been largely suppressed.

Despite all the hoopla over Capone’s purported “rule” over Chicago, at no time ever did Capone control more than one-fourth of the rackets in the Windy City. And what’s more, as famed independent crime writer Hank Messick has pointed out in his classic study, Secret File (G. P.
Putnam’s Sons, 1969), Capone—powerful and wealthy though he was— never held a title higher than “capo” (or “captain”)—head of a crew of ten men—in the ranks of the formally organized Italian-American “Mafia” crime network in Chicago.

Another point often forgotten in the legend of “the Mafia” is that Capone, in fact, was only permitted to become a formal member of the Mafia after Italian-American crime bosses in Chicago relaxed Mafia membership rules to permit certain selected non-Sicilians such as Capone to join. (Who was born in Naples on mainland Italy)

If fact, truth be told, Capone was ultimately answering to much bigger, more secretive bosses behind the scenes, who were based “back east”—part of the “elite” group surrounding Russian-born New York based Jewish crime chief Meyer Lansky (who ultimately switched his operations to Miami and, for a brief period—many years later—to Israel).

It was the Lansky group—including Lansky’s Jewish partner Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel and his Italian-born partners, Costello and the legendary Luciano—that sent Capone (a distant Luciano cousin) to Chicago in the first place.

In their notable Lansky biography, Meyer Lansky: Mogul of the Mob (Paddington Press, 1979), written in cooperation with Lansky, Israeli writers Dennis Eisenberg, Uri Dan and Eli Landau fill in some of the missing elements left out by Capone’s biographers. Lansky himself told his Israeli biographers that “It was Bugsy Siegel who knew him well when Capone lived and worked on the Lower East side . . . [He was a] close enough friend of Capone’s to hide him out with
one of his aunts” when Capone got in trouble on a murder charge. To get him out of the line of law enforcement fire, Lansky and company sent the young Capone to Chicago to act as a tough in the gang of Johnny Torrio, another ex-New Yorker who had “gone west” and who was moving to unseat his own uncle, old-time gangster “Big Jim” Colosimo, as leader of the Italian-American Mafia in Chicago.

Essentially, Torrio was Lansky’s Chicago point man and Capone quickly moved up the ranks and became Torrio’s right-hand man. Hank Messick writes that Capone’s positioning “delighted” the
Lansky crowd “because Capone was very much their man. Although Capone eventually became his own master in Chicago, running scores of rackets and criminal operations, his loyalty to his New York friends was so firm that Lansky and [Luciano] knew they could always count on him.”

And it is worth pointing out that Capone’s immediate “boss” in Chicago, Torrio, was also the Chicago contact for the liquor interests of the Canadian-based Bronfman liquor empire which was shipping its
legally produced products over the border for illegal consumption by Prohibition-era American drinkers. Sam Bronfman and his family worked closely with the Lansky syndicate from the beginning. Therefore, the Torrio-Capone link brought the connection full circle.

Meanwhile, Chicago’s ruling boss, Colosimo, was doing nothing to endear himself to either Bronfman or Lansky and Siegel whom he was known to refer to as “dirty Jews.”

Colosimo proclaimed that he couldn’t understand why Luciano dealt so closely with Lansky and Siegel, saying “I sometimes have a suspicion that he must have some Jewish blood in his veins,” a suspicion that—in light of Luciano’s subsequent fate, as we shall see, is highly unlikely.
In addition, Colosimo asserted there was “no future in bootlegging” and showed little interest in patronizing the Bronfman liquor supply.

Colosimo wanted to focus on drugs, prostitution, and loan-sharking. His boycott of Bronfman was cutting into the Lansky syndicate’s profits. Needless to say, when the time was ripe, Lansky (via Torrio and Capone) moved against Colosimo who was gunned down by a New York Jewish gangster sent in to do the job. The biggest wreath at Colosimo’s lavish funeral featured a card that read: “From the sorrowing Jew boys of New York.” Soon enough, the Bronfman liquor came flowing into
Chicago, courtesy of Lansky’s henchman Torrio and his right-hand man, Capone, soon to emerge as the media’s favorite “Mafia” figure.

So when we look at the forces behind even the most notorious Italian- American gangster of the 20th century, we find his roots buried deep within the Bronfman (and Zionist) camp. And that is news in itself. The current head of the Bronfman family is Edgar Bronfman who— aside from his extensive international business dealings—also serves as the longtime president of the World Jewish Congress, from which position he exerts considerable political clout.

Bronfman, of course, was the key player in the recent (and ongoing) effort to extort billions of dollars out of Swiss banks for their alleged involvement in laundering of “Jewish gold” said to be stolen by the Nazis and for having confiscated the wealth of certain Jewish persons from Europe who hid their vast wealth in Swiss banks prior to World War II.

The question as to how this vast wealth was actually accumulated has never been explained by the media, although the involvement of the Bronfman family in the controversy may provide a key to it in part.

It is known that the Bronfmans achieved much of their own initial wealth prior to World War II in the illegal liquor trade, in concert with American crime syndicate figure Meyer Lansky whose operations ranged far and wide, well beyond American shores.

It is also known that Lansky was one of the prime movers, for the crime syndicate, behind the use of Swiss bank accounts for the deposit and laundering of criminal proceeds. Thus, it is quite likely that many of those who were taken into custody and whose bank accounts were confiscated were actually agents of the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate and therefore engaged in criminal activity.

Bronfman’s son, Edgar Jr., is perhaps as equally powerful as his father, although from another venue. The younger Bronfman assumed control of Universal Studios and all of the related entertainment subsidiaries now under the control of the Bronfman empire. A major player in Hollywood and in the music and film production area, Edgar Jr. reportedly bungled a major family investment when he entered the family into partnership with the French-based Vivendi corporation, but no members of the Bronfman family have been seen panhandling on the streets of New York, Beverly Hills or Montreal as of this writing.

The Seagrams company is regularly among the largest political contributors to both of the major American political parties. This is interesting in itself for when, during the 1996 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton was attacking his GOP opponent Bob Dole for accepting contributions
from the tobacco industry, the fact that both major parties were taking sizable contributions from the alcohol industry—in particular, the Bronfman empire—seems to have gone largely without comment.
As distinguished an “American” institution as Du Pont, for example, fell under Bronfman control. In 1981, Du Pont, then the seventh-largest corporation in the United States, was targeted for takeover by the Bronfman family.

Actually, at that point, the Bronfmans already owned 20 percent of Du Pont—a substantial holding in itself, for in the corporate world, even as little as 3 percent ownership of a corporation’s stock gives the owner effective control of a corporation. Although the traditional American name of “Du Pont” continued to appear on the corporate papers and on Du Pont products sold to American consumers, the real power behind the scenes was the Bronfman empire.

In truth, the Du Pont family—although still quite wealthy, having accumulated their financial resources over several generations—had little influence within the corporation that bore the family name.

Ultimately, the Bronfmans officially divested their holdings in Du Pont, but used their resources to expand their wealth and tentacles elsewhere. Today the Bronfmans are very much a recognized part of not only the plutocratic establishment in the United States, but throughout the world. Among other Bronfman holdings over the years were such traditional ally “American” companies as: Campbell Soup, Schlitz Brewing, Colgate-Palmolive, Kellog, Nabisco, Norton Simon, Quaker Oats,
Paramount Pictures and Warrington Products (which made Kodiak boots and Hush Puppies shoes.)

In addition, the Bronfmans also had an interest in the Ernest W. Hahn Company (which then operated 27 regional shopping centers in California and had plans for another 29); and the Trizec Corp., one of the biggest property development companies in North America.

The Bronfmans also hold considerable assets in some “unexpected” and “out of the way” places. For example, the Bronfman controlled Cadillac Fairview corporation—which develops commercial rental properties— developed a shopping center in Hickory, North Carolina and (in 1978) was in the process of setting up two others. Another Bronfman enterprise is the Shannon Mall in Atlanta and the Galleria in Westchester, New York. In addition, a Bronfman subsidiary held options on a shopping
center development in Mississippi and for yet another in Connecticut.

Bronfman companies also controlled industrial parks in and near Los Angeles, office towers in Denver and in San Francisco, and housing developments in Nevada, California, and Florida. The Bronfmans also bought control of the share capital of Houston-based General Homes
Consolidated Cos. Inc., building houses and developing land with operations reaching as far as Mississippi and Alabama.

For many years the family—although this was not well known—contained vast tracts of land in the outer reaches of the Virginia suburbs surrounding Washington, DC, lucrative land that the family, in recent years, has been relinquishing at great profit.

And as reminder: the various United States holdings of the Bronfman family listed here do not constitute anything resembling a complete overview of their portfolio. And none of this reflects even a piddling portion of the Bronfman holdings in Canada alone.

All of this financial clout, taken together, also constitutes significant political power in the various states and locales where the Bronfman influence has taken root. Of particular interest in that regard is the hidden influence of the Bronfman family in the state of Arizona—an outpost viewed in the minds of most Americans as somehow a paradise of cowboys, cactus and wide open spaces, a conservative stronghold independent of the corruption and intrigue found in the big cities like New York, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles. In fact,Arizona ranks right up alongside the great crime capitals and that most unpleasant status can be traced directly to the influence in Arizona of the Bronfman family.

Bronfman family influence in Arizona is so strong that it can be rightly said that the Bronfmans are no less than the “godfathers” behind the political career of America’s best known “reformer”—Arizona Senator John McCain. Here’s the story: In 1976, a crusading Phoenix reporter, Don Bolles, was murdered by a car-bomb after writing a series of stories exposing the organized crime
connections of a wide-ranging number of well-known figures in Arizona, including one Jim Hensley.

Five years later “Honest John” McCain arrived in Arizona as the new husband of Hensley’s daughter, Cindy. “From the moment McCain landed in Phoenix,” according to Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity, “the Hensleys were key sponsors of his political career.” But the fact is, the people behind the Hensley fortune are even more interesting and controversial.

While it is well-known McCain’s father-in-law is the owner of the biggest Anheuser-Busch beer distributor in Arizona—one of the largest beer distributors in the nation—the mainstream media has had nothing to say about the origins of the Hensley fortune that financed McCain’s rise
to power. The Hensley fortune is no more than a regional offshoot of the big time bootlegging and rackets empire of the Bronfman dynasty.

McCain’s father-in-law got his start as a top henchman of one Kemper Marley who, for some forty years until his death in 1990 at age 84, was the undisputed behind-the-scenes political boss of Arizona. But Marley was much more than a machine politician. In fact, he was also the
Lansky crime syndicate’s top man in Arizona, the protege of Lansky lieutenant, Phoenix gambler Gus Greenbaum.

In 1941 Greenbaum had set up the Transamerica Publishing and News Service, which operated a national wire service for bookmakers. In 1946 Greenbaum turned over the day-to-day operations to Marley while Greenbaum focused on building up Lansky-run casinos in Las Vegas,
commuting there from his home in Phoenix. Greenbaum, in fact, was so integral to the Lansky empire that he was the one who took command of Lansky’s Las Vegas interests in 1947 after Lansky ordered the execution of his own longtime friend, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, for skimming mob
profits from the new Flamingo Casino.

Greenbaum and his wife were murdered in a mob “hit” in 1948, their throats cut. The murder set off a series of gangland wars in Phoenix, but Marley survived and prospered. During this time Marley was building up a liquor distribution monopoly in Arizona. According to Marley’s longtime public relations man, Al Lizanitz, it was the Bronfman family that set Marley up in the liquor business. In 1948 some 52 of Marley’s employees (including Jim Hensley) went to jail on federal liquor violations—but not Marley.

The story in Arizona is that Hensley took the fall for Marley and, upon his release from prison, Marley paid back Hensley’s loyalty by setting up him in the beer distribution business. That beer company today, said to be worth some $200 million, is what largely financed John McCain’s political career. The support from the Bronfman-Marley- Hensley network was integral to McCain’s rise to power.

But there’s more. McCain’s father-in-law had also dabbled in the dog racing business and he expanded his family fortune further by selling his dog racing track to an individual connected to the Emprise Corp., run by the Buffalo-based Jacobs family.

The Jacobs family were the leading distributors for Bronfman liquor smuggled into the United States during Prohibition and controlled the “spigot” of Bronfman liquor into the hands of local gangs that were part of the Lansky syndicate. Expanding over the years, buying up horse and dog racing tracks and developing food and drink concessions at sports stadiums, the Jacobs family’s enterprises were once described as being “probably the biggest quasi-legitimate cover for organized crime’s
money-laundering in the United States.”

While John McCain himself cannot be held personally responsible for the sins of his father-in-law, the fact is that this “reformer” owes his political and financial fortunes to the good graces of the biggest names in organized crime. Perhaps it is no wonder that today, the Las Vegas gambling
industry is among McCain’s primary financial benefactors. This brief overview is really just the tip of the iceberg but it does say much about McCain and the political milieu that spawned him, particularly in light of McCain’s front-line position as one of Israel’s leading congressional water-carriers.

And in light of this author’s own rather widely-distributed work on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the book, Final Judgment, which contends that Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, played a major role alongside the CIA in the assassination of President Kennedy, precisely because of JFK’s obstinate opposition to Israel’s drive to build nuclear weapons of mass destruction, it should be noted for the record that the fingerprints of Israel’s wealthy patron, Lansky syndicate figure Sam Bronfman, are found all over the JFK assassination conspiracy.

Not only was Bronfman’s longtime henchman, Louis Bloomfield, chairman of the Mossad-sponsored Permindex corporation (which included among its directors no less than New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw, who was indicted by former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for involvement in the JFK assassination), but new evidence indicates that Dallas mob figure Jack Ruby was actually on the Bronfman payroll, an interesting little detail in and of itself!

In addition, while another Bronfman associate in Dallas, oilman Jack Crichton, hovered around Lee Harvey Oswald’s widow after the JFK assassination, another Bronfman functionary—“super lawyer” John McCloy—served on the Warren Commission. McCloy was a director— and Crichton served as vice president—of the Empire Trust, a financial combine controlled in part by the Bronfman family.
And although Sam Bronfman is best known for his Seagrams liquor empire, what many JFK researchers who point their fingers at the “Texas oil barons” have failed to note is that Sam Bronfman was a Texas oil baron himself, having purchased Texas Pacific Oil in 1963.

As far back as 1949, Allen Dulles, later the CIA director fired by JFK and also a Warren Commission member, served as an attorney involved in the private business ventures of Bronfman’s daughter Phyllis.

For those interested in the entire story, they should refer to Final Judgment, which is now in its 768-page sixth edition, thoroughly documented. The bottom line is that the JFK assassination is unquestionably beyond any doubt that one pivotal event that helped bring Zionist power to untold heights in American life as we know it today. In short, not only do the Bronfmans have the power to make American presidents, but they have the power to break them. And that truly is power. The Bronfmans, by any estimation, do constitute the “first family”—dare we say “the royal family”—of the American Jewish and Zionist establishments.

And revolving, as satellites, around the Bronfman dynasty are a wide-ranging array of other powerful Zionist families which—in turn—have their own satellite families and financial interests.

A good example of how it all works can be found in the case of Mortimer Zuckerman, originally a Boston-based real estate operator. Zuckerman’s early success came through business deals with the Bronfman family, such deals which enabled him to become a substantial power within the Zionist community in his own right. Subsequent owner of such publications as the distinguished Atlantic Monthly and U.S. News and World Report—both important media outlets—and then such less
august but still influential publications like The New York Daily News, Zuckerman ultimately became president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, an influential post indeed.

In later years, however, Zuckerman began “salting” the Zionist community with his own proceeds and gave aid and succor to an up-and-coming young Washington, D.C.-based promoter and entrepreneur, one Daniel Snyder, who—in a few short years—was able to amass enough
capital to grab control of the famed Washington Redskins football team, even from the hands of the son of its longtime and legendary owner, Jack Kent Cooke. So, in the end, of course, it can be said that Snyder is a satellite of Zuckerman who is in turn a satellite of Bronfman whose family, in
the beginning, owed their patronage to the charities of Europe’s famed Rothschild family. It is indeed all very circular.

The truth is that America’s most powerful Zionist families have long worked closely together—in one form or another.

Learning About the Origins of "Homeland Security"

Did Zionist interests have a hand in the creation of Homeland Security?  (By Zionist, I mean Jewish or Gentile individuals who think the Talmudic Jews should have a homeland.)

Even if you don't want to admit that it's origins began with Zionists, (which is very debatable when you know how important Israel is to those in power, and, how important it is that they control the narrative on what is designated as terrorism,) you would have to admit that it is part of what Homeland Security is now.  Just look at this and this to see who is getting most of the funding from Homeland Security.

Now you might ask "So. Big deal. Aren't we against terrorists? " Well, before you can even make that judgment you should learn more about the group that is most likely to be terrorists, don't you think?
To learn more about this, see here, here, here, here, here and here.

As Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."  Who is that? Israel and Jews. See here, here, here, here, here and here.

Also, see how the US and Israel rewrote the history of the UN Resolution that declared Zionism as racism. Also, see this video from Miko Peled about how Zionism is like racism.... and has to go. See here and here for what the Canadian Prime Minister is supporting, which completely goes against the values of Canada. Why does he do this? Is it because he is a racist or ethnocentric? Probably not. It is much more likely that the Zionist lobby is so powerful in Canada that he doesn't have a choice.

(Please note: in some of the examples I provide, they refer to Canada rather than the United States because I am Canadian, but, the policies in both countries are pretty much identical. To learn more about this, click here and scroll to the very bottom of the page.) As an example of this, when Michael Chertoff was head of the DHS,  he made a deal with Israel disguised as the “Maryland/Israel Homeland Security Partnership,” (see here and here,) among other things, one of the goals of this was to target critics of Israel and Zionist political power.  See here, here, here, here and here to learn more about this. On March 23 2008, Canada and Israel signed a Declaration To Cooperate On Public Safety. This Declaration included collaboration with the US Department of Homeland Security now working with Canada concerning “security issues."

In an alarming ‘Gestapo-oriented’ Report by US Homeland Security issued on April 7, 2009, entitled, Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, Department of Homeland Security specifies a new ‘threat’ to America’s security, namely, whom the Department labels: “Anti-Semitic extremists.” The Report, prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division and coordinated with the FBI, was approved by Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, who was Michael Chertoff’s successor. Here is a video Napolitano at the ADL "National Leadership" Conference. See my previous posts here, here ,here and here about the ADL and its corrupting influence on Law Enforcement.

Napolitano, describing a “home-grown threat” to national security, issued a statement on April 20, 2009, defending the Report, saying: “We must protect the country from home-grown terrorism regardless of the ideology that motivates it. The DHS will continue to work with its state and local partners to prevent and protect against the potential threat to the United States associated with any rise in extremist activity.” View Entire Report Here.

The “ideology” that Napolitano is targeting, has been specified in two entries on page 4 of the Report. And that “ideology” is “Anti-Semitism,” This is a deceptive method to destroy freedom of speech and protect a certain group of people in America. Beyond this, please see here and here for the complete list of people they are beginning to look at as "potential threats" and "home-grown terrorists"

As for Homeland Security, let's take a look at when it was set up. It was set up after the September 11, 2001,  terror attacks. In 2002, as Chairman of what was then known as the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Joe Lieberman led the fight to create the new Department known as Homeland Security.  One month after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, he introduced legislation to reorganize the federal government to better protect the American people from terrorism and natural disasters and steered a bipartisan plan through his committee.

After months of opposing the plan, the White House eventually endorsed the concept. Legislation that passed Congress in 2002 created a department incorporating key organizational elements Senator Lieberman advocated. When control of the Senate switched from Republicans to Democrats in June 2001, Lieberman became Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, with oversight responsibilities for a broad range of government activities.

But this goes back even further. IN 1998, FOUR YEARS BEFORE the attack on the World Trade Center, the extremely influential Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) drafted their CFR Commission Report on National Security.

The CFR Commission Report was done in three phases. Phase III finalized the Report in January of 2001. The Report laid out the framework of the US Homeland Security program:

* Phase I, which began in 1998, stressed that mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern. Phase I concluded in September 1999 with the publication of New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century. (Were they modern-day prophets or orchestrator's of “terrorism directed against the US?”)

* Phase II developed a strategy that would deter and defend against terrorist attacks.

* Phase III, which concluded on January 31, 2001, recommended the creation of a new independent National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security.

Phase III also recommended the reforming of government structures and processes to enable the U.S. government to implement an anti-terrorism strategy that would necessitate “departing from the embedded routines of the last half-century and thus require new legislation.”

The stated need for the U.S. “departing from the embedded routines of the last half-century” refers to the final elimination of Constitutional checks and balances and individual state sovereignty. Both federal and state legislators have abrogated their legislative duties to a dictatorial executive - the President and the US Executive Office.

IN THE FINAL HOURS before Congress adjourned in 2006, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act Of 2006. In doing so, the Constitution was violated and the principle of habeas corpus which protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment was thrown to the wind. This Military Commissions Act Of 2006 gives the President absolute power to designate “enemy combatants.” Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act strips those declared an “enemy combatant” of the right to be heard in court to establish his or her innocence as guarded by the Constitutional principle of habeas corpus. This Act violates Article I, Section 9, Of The US Constitution: — “The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

Presently, the suspending of habeas corpus will be applied to “non-citizens.” But once one class of people is deprived of their rights it’s only a matter of time before other groups are also deprived. Moreover, the Act’s “enemy combatant” designation applies to both Americans & foreigners. Thus by establishing Military Tribunals for “enemy combatants” - the Military Commissions Act puts the US Military in control of American citizens.

The truth of the matter is, it is highly unlikely that they are going to come and get you. What they are going to do to you is ruin your life by slandering you, hurting and maiming you, and, potentially even killing you, your family or your animals. All of this will be done using classified technology that allows this to be done in a plausibly deniable methodology. To learn more about this, see here and here. See here for information on Electronic Warfare.

Dennis Kucinich attempted ban on space-based weapons, read more: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2977. 

This new class of weapons is being used on unaware, not informed humans, who of course did not consent to such experimentation. The Nuremberg Code of Conduct for experimentation with human subjects, is part of the Customary Law and the UDHR. The Code lists ten points, which universally have been adopted after the Nuremberg trials of war criminals by the Nuremberg Military Tribunals.

The secret technologies in question are covered by military/agency secrecy orders, mostly obtained under the US Inventions Secrecy Act, 1951. The US Patriot Act, for example, protects governments and connected criminals from criticism and/or detection and prosecution. Under this act anyone whistleblowing or fighting the system on a major concern is arbitrarily deemed to be unpatriotic. They can then be listed (by a senior politician or at the request, through them, of a connected criminal) as a security risk and harassed covertly; using secret technologies. In fact a Department Of Defense Directive, Directive 5240 1-R, 1994, gives open permission for those under surveillance to be used for remote experimentation. It's no coincidence that this particularly undemocratic and evil move was followed in 1996 by a significant increase in the number of satellites deployed for the purpose of civilian surveillance and harassment.

The victims are not openly confronted as that would remove any feigned excuses and leave the perpetrators open to all manner of accusation. Instead the methods used are covert; employing high tech methods to remotely torment and deceive victims without leaving evidence. Often targets are tricked into believing they are having psychic, medical, psychiatric, religious or even alien experiences (which they are not). 

The situation is getting worse not better with more and more secretive, undemocratic legislation being sneaked past the unwary public all the time. State treachery and terrorism are behind it yet it is all hidden under the guise of "the war on terror". For example, the US government just passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, giving the President (and others) the power to target and silence anyone questioning State corruption. When this is done openly in other countries the US is the first to condemn such evil. Yet when they are guilty of the same they do it in secret and no-one dares to criticise them, lest they join the ranks of those they persecute. 

Eg. In the USA over 300,000 NSL's (National Security Letters) have already been issued. These allow the agency targeting of innocent civilians whose objections to corruption / crime in high places have been deliberately skewed or misinterpreted as a threat to powerful people. Once placed in a program people can be abused and experimented on, from a distance (using satellites /radar, high tech' etc). This effectively silences and discredits them while providing agency researchers with guinea pigs for experiments in control, brain function, dreams, health, robotics and much more. Post 9/11, $750 billion per year has been spent on satellite weapons used for human experimentation / targeting. Most of this has found it's way from government coffers to about 80 defense contractors who are also culpable for the crimes against humanity that are addressed on this site.

There is a circular / Catch 22 type problem in that governments use "classified" covers to hide criminal activity (esp. if it is an unconstitutional act) but targets can't prove any of that BECAUSE it has been classified. Executive Order 13526 section 1.7 (covering classified status allocation) specifically says that **"You cannot classify information merely to cover up a crime"**. Even if devices or procedures are classified this also applies to them and information on them when they are being used for criminal purposes. So, in theory, by misusing devices, abusing authority and so on, the administration not only commits crimes but should open up the information relating to that for public scrutiny...(Government of, by and for the people). 

Now Presidents Obama and Bush both signed executive order 13526, so if any of these hidden crimes were to be presented to the US Supreme Court, any current US leader could be impeached as having breached their oath of office...which includes upholding the constitution.

The ECHELON spying system, remote neural monitoring, the use of directed energy weapons and more are all clearly crimes against the people and humanity in general and so by classifying the devices the government and it's leaders are breaching the constitution as well. As with any crime the break in the loop between the acts, investigation, trial and incarceration is the lack of proof. "Classifying" information and calling it a matter of National Security negates the need for the criminals involved to even create excuses for their conduct. The ability of government to classify crime is what must be fought.

Also, the US military is supposed to be prohibited by law from targeting US citizens with PSYOPS within US borders under Executive Order S-1233, DOD directive S-3321.1 and National Security Directive 130. Of course there's no-one to police that especially since Psyops, by their very nature, are difficult to prove.

This is particularly so where the secret weapons discussed on this blog are employed. Also nothing stops agencies, US or allied, from doing that dirty work and hiding it under the National Security carpet. Nonetheless, public discussion of these Psyops crimes is beginning. 

The International Commitee of the Red Cross (ICRC) raised the issue of psychotronic weapons; firstly in 1994, then the 2002 Geneva Forum and then the 2009 5th Symposium on non-lethal weapons. The EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT passed a "Resolution on the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy" - A4-0005/99, January 28th, 1999 which called for "An international convention introducing a global ban on ALL development and deployment of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings"..."It is our conviction that this ban can not be implemented without the global pressure of the informed general public on governments. Our major objective is to get across to the general public the real threat which these weapons represent for human rights and democracy and to apply pressure on the governments and the parliaments around the world to enact legislation which would prohibit the use of these devices to both government AND private organisations as well as individuals". (Plenary sessions / European Parliament, 1999). ]