Click here to show or hide the menubar.

Odious Selfies

A picture named NA-527-Art-SM.jpg

Direct [link] to the mp3 file

ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 527.nashownotes.com

New: Directory Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) nashownotes.com

The No Agenda News Network- noagendanewsnetwork.com

RSS Podcast Feed

Get the No Agenda News App for your iPhone and iPad

Torrents of each episode via BitLove

NEW! BitTorrent Sync

NA_527-Art-BIG

Art By: Dennis Cruise

See All The Art in the Generator

Odious Selfies

Executive Producers: David Bruneff, Big Ass Blond, Ron Schutjens, Dame Francine Hardaway, Dame Janice Kang, Francis & Nancy Mclure, Sir Random Hillbilly, Steven Fettig

Associate Executive Producers: Francis Lambert, Jerry Zak, Colin Sloman

527 Club Members: Big Ass Blond

Become a member of the 528 Club, support the show here

Double Producers Credits:

Garry Whitehead

Sir Dwayne Melancon

Michael Slisinger

Luke From Munich

Sir Dr. Sharkey

James Crossett

Chris Heffley

Symbio Agency

Michael Levin

Daniel Miller

David Foley (Black Baron of Silicon Valley)

Hendrick Smit

Dame Francine Hardaway

Baronetess Janice Kang

Ryan Bemrose

Robert Hegedus

Nicolas Roth

Anonymous

Robert Tennent

Kevin LaCombe

Tobiah Marks

Karen Edwards

Brian Ferguson

Roy Pingel

Brian Newman

Wesley Young

Art By: Dennis Cruise

ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 527.nashownotes.com

New: Directory Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) nashownotes.com

The No Agenda News Network- noagendanewsnetwork.com

RSS Podcast Feed

Get the No Agenda News App for your iPhone and iPad

Torrents of each episode via BitLove

NEW! BitTorrent Sync

Search

PR

VIDEO-CCS Summit Point Am GTO 29 June 2013 - YouTube

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:13

New NACD

ITM!

I've had several people contact me asking for a

Pipelines CD. Apparently that episode had quite an effect on the

shitizens so I made it available as a CD and Podcast.

Ramsey

Happy 4th!

Independence Day (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:08

Patriotic trailer shown in theaters celebrating July 4, 1940

Independence Day is a national holiday marked by patriotic displays. Similar to other summer-themed events, Independence Day celebrations often take place outdoors. Independence Day is a federal holiday, so all non-essential federal institutions (like the postal service and federal courts) are closed on that day. Many politicians make it a point on this day to appear at a public event to praise the nation's heritage, laws, history, society, and people.

Families often celebrate Independence Day by hosting or attending a picnic or barbecue and take advantage of the day off and, in some years, long weekend to gather with relatives. Decorations (e.g., streamers, balloons, and clothing) are generally colored red, white, and blue, the colors of the American flag. Parades are often in the morning, while fireworks displays occur in the evening at such places as parks, fairgrounds, or town squares.

The night before the Fourth was once the focal point of celebrations, marked by raucous gatherings often incorporating bonfires as their centerpiece. In New England, towns competed to build towering pyramids, assembled from hogsheads and barrels and casks. They were lit at nightfall, to usher in the celebration. The highest were in Salem, Massachusetts (on Gallows Hill, the famous site of the execution of 13 women and 6 men for witchcraft in 1692 during the Salem witch trials, where the tradition of bonfires in celebration had persisted), composed of as many as forty tiers of barrels; these are the tallest bonfires ever recorded. The custom flourished in the 19th and 20th centuries, and is still practiced in some New England towns.[19]

Independence Day fireworks are often accompanied by patriotic songs such as the national anthem "The Star-Spangled Banner", "God Bless America", "America the Beautiful", "My Country, 'Tis of Thee", "This Land Is Your Land", "Stars and Stripes Forever", and, regionally, "Yankee Doodle" in northeastern states and "Dixie" in southern states. Some of the lyrics recall images of the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812.

Firework shows are held in many states, and many fireworks are sold for personal use or as an alternative to a public show. Safety concerns have led some states to ban fireworks or limit the sizes and types allowed. Illicit traffic transfers many fireworks from less restrictive states.

A salute of one gun for each state in the United States, called a ''salute to the union,'' is fired on Independence Day at noon by any capable military base.[20]

In 2009, New York City had the largest fireworks display in the country, with over 22 tons of pyrotechnics exploded.[18] Other major displays are in Chicago on Lake Michigan; in San Diego over Mission Bay; in Boston on the Charles River; in St. Louis on the Mississippi River; in San Francisco over the San Francisco Bay; and on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.. During the annual Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival, Detroit, Michigan hosts one of the world's largest fireworks displays, over the Detroit River, to celebrate Independence Day in conjunction with Windsor, Ontario's celebration of Canada Day.

While the official observance always falls on July 4th, participation levels may vary according to which day of the week the 4th falls on. If the holiday falls in the middle of the week, some fireworks displays and celebrations may take place during the weekend for convenience, again, varying by region.

The first week of July is typically one of the busiest American travel periods of the year, as many people utilize the holiday for extended vacation trips.[21]

Weekly Address: Celebrating Independence Day

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: White House.gov Press Office Feed

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:04

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

July 04, 2013

WASHINGTON, DC'--President Obama used his weekly address to commemorate our nation's Independence Day, and to recognize the generations of Americans'-- from farmers to teachers to entrepreneurs'--who worked together to make the United States what it is today. The President also thanked the men and women of the military, who have given so much to defend the United States at home and abroad, and said that we are grateful for their service and sacrifice.

The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online atwww.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 a.m. ET, July 4, 2013.

Remarks of President Barack ObamaWeekly AddressThe White HouseJuly 4, 2013

Hi everybody. I hope you all had a safe and happy Fourth of July, filled with parades, cookouts, fireworks and family reunions.

We celebrated at the White House with a few hundred members of the military and their families. And we took a moment amid the festivities to remember what our Independence Day is all about '' what happened 237 years ago, and what it meant to the world.

On July 4th, 1776, a small band of patriots declared that we were a people created equal '' free to think and worship and live as we please. It was a declaration heard around the world '' that we were no longer colonists, we were Americans, and our destiny would not be determined for us; it would be determined by us.

It was a bold and tremendously brave thing to do. It was also nearly unthinkable. At that time, kings and princes and emperors ruled the world. But those patriots were certain that a better way was possible. And to achieve it '' to win their freedom '' they were willing to lay it all on the line. Their lives. Their fortunes. Their sacred honor.

They fought a revolution. Few would have bet on our side to win. But for the first of many times to come, America proved the doubters wrong.

And now, 237 years later, the United States '' this improbable nation '' is the greatest in the world. A land of liberty and opportunity. A global defender of peace and freedom. A beacon of hope to people everywhere who cherish those ideals.

Generations of Americans made our country what it is today '' farmers and teachers, engineers and laborers, entrepreneurs and elected leaders '' people from all walks of life, from all parts of the world, all pulling in the same direction.

And now we, the people, must make their task our own '' to live up to the words of that Declaration of Independence, and secure liberty and opportunity for our own children, and for future generations.

I want to say a special word of thanks to the men and women of our military, who have played such a vital role in the story of our nation. You have defended us at home and abroad. And you have fought on our nation's behalf to make the world a better, safer place. People in scattered corners of the world are living in peace today, free to write their own futures, because of you. We are grateful for your service and your sacrifice, especially those still serving in harm's way and your families here at home.

So, God bless you all. And may God bless the United States of America.

The Dictionary of the Global War on You (GWOY) | Common Dreams

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:20

In the months after September 11, 2001, it was regularly said that ''everything'' had changed. It's a claim long forgotten, buried in everyday American life. Still, if you think about it, in the decade-plus that followed -- the years of the PATRIOT Act, ''enhanced interrogation techniques,'' ''black sites,'' robot assassination campaigns, extraordinary renditions, the Abu Ghraib photos, the Global War on Terror, and the first cyberwar in history -- much did change in ways that should still stun us. Perhaps nothing changed more than the American national security state, which, spurred on by 9/11 and the open congressional purse strings that followed, grew in ways that would have been alien even at the height of the Cold War, when there was another giant, nuclear-armed imperial power on planet Earth.(Reuters)

Unfortunately, the language we use to describe the world of the national security state is still largely stuck in the pre-9/11 era. No wonder, for example, it's hard to begin to grasp the staggering size and changing nature of the world of secret surveillance that Edward Snowden's recent revelations have allowed us a peek at. If there are no words available to capture the world that is watching us, all of us, we've got a problem.

In ancient China, when a new dynasty came to power, it would perform a ceremony called ''the rectification of names.'' The idea was that the previous dynasty had, in part, fallen because a gap, a chasm, an abyss, had opened between reality and the names available to describe it. Consider this dispatch, then, a first attempt to ''rectify'' American names in the era of the ascendant national -- morphing into global -- security state.

Creating a new dictionary of terms is, of course, an awesome undertaking. From the moment work began, it famously took 71 years for the full 10-volume Oxford English Dictionary to first appear! So we at TomDispatch expect to be at work on our new project for years to come. Here, however, is an initial glimpse at a modest selection of our newly rectified definitions.

The Dictionary of the Global War on You(Preliminary version, July 2, 2013)

Secret: Anything of yours the government takes possession of and classifies.

Classification: The process of declaring just about any document produced by any branch of the U.S. government -- 92 million of them in 2011 -- unfit for unclassified eyes. (This term may, in the near future, be retired once no documents produced within, or captured by, the government and its intelligence agencies can be seen or read by anyone not given special clearance.)

Surveillance: Here's looking at you, kid.

Whistleblower: A homegrown terrorist.

Leak: Information homegrown terrorists slip to journalists to undermine the American way of life and aid and abet the enemy. A recent example would be the National Security Agency (NSA) documents Booz Allen employee Edward Snowden leaked to the media. According to two unnamed U.S. intelligence officials speaking to the Associated Press, ''[M]embers of virtually every terrorist group, including core al-Qaida, are attempting to change how they communicate, based on what they are reading in the media [of Snowden's revelations], to hide from U.S. surveillance.'' A clarification: two anonymous intelligence officials communicating obviously secret material to AP reporter Kimberly Dozier does not qualify as a ''leak,'' but as necessary information for Americans to absorb. In addition, those officials undoubtedly had further secret intelligence indicating that their information, unlike Snowden's, would be read only by Americans and ignored by al-Qaeda-style terrorists who will not change their actions based on it. As a result, this cannot qualify as aiding or abetting the enemy.

Journalist: Someone who aids and abets terrorists, traitors, defectors, and betrayers hidden within our government as they work to accomplish their grand plan to undermine the security of the country.

Source: Someone who tells a journalist what no one, other than the NSA, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and similar outfits, should know (see ''secret''). Such a source will be hunted down and prosecuted to the full extent of the law -- or beyond (see ''Espionage Act''). Fortunately, as Associated Press president Gary Pruitt recently pointed out, thanks to diligent government action, sources are drying up. (''Some of our longtime trusted sources have become nervous and anxious about talking to us, even on stories that aren't about national security. And in some cases, government employees that we once checked in with regularly will no longer speak to us by phone, and some are reluctant to meet in person.'') Someday, they may no longer exist. When an unnamed administration official offers information privately to a journalist, however, he or she is not a source -- just too humble to take credit for feeding us crucial information needed to understand the complex world we live in.

Blood: This is what leakers have on their hands. A leak, embarrassing the national security state, endangers careers (bloody enough) and, by definition, American lives. Thus, Bradley Manning, in releasing classified State Department and U.S. military documents to WikiLeaks, and Edward Snowden, in releasing NSA secrets to the Guardian, the Washington Post, the South China Morning Post, and Der Spiegel have blood on their hands. We know this because top U.S. officials have told us so. Note that it does not matter if no deaths or physical injuries can directly be traced to or attributed to their actions. This is, however, a phrase with very specific and limited application. American political and military officials who launch aggressive wars, allow torture, kidnapping, and abuse, run drone assassination programs, and the like do not have blood on their hands. It is well known that they are bloodless.

Insider Threat Program: The name of an Obama administration initiative to promote patriotism inside the government. Its goal is to encourage federal employees to become more patriotic by picking up on clues that potentially traitorous co-workers might consider leaking classified information to the enemy (see ''journalist''). Government managers, again to promote love of country, are encouraged to crack down on any employees who are found not to have been patriotic enough to report their suspicions about said co-workers. (Words never to be associated with this program: informer, rat, or fink.)

Patriot: Americans are by nature ''patriots.'' If they love their country too well like (to take but one example) former Vice President Dick Cheney, they are ''super-patriots.'' Both of these are good things. Foreigners cannot be patriots. If they exhibit an unseemly love of country, they are ''nationalists.'' If that love goes beyond all bounds, they are ''ultra-nationalists.'' These are both bad things.

Espionage Act: A draconian World War I law focused on aiding and abetting the enemy in wartime that has been used more than twice as often by the Obama administration as by all previous administrations combined. Since 9/11, the United States has, of course, been eternally ''at war,'' which makes the Act handy indeed. Whistleblowers automatically violate the Act when they bring to public's attention information Americans really shouldn't bother their pretty little heads about. It may be what an investigative reporter (call him ''Glenn Greenwald'') violates when he writes stories based on classified information from the national security state not leaked by the White House.

Trust: What you should have in the national security state and the president to do the right thing, no matter how much power they accrue, how many secrets of yours or anybody else's they gather, or what other temptations might exist. Americans can make mistakes, but by their nature (see ''patriots''), with the exception of whistleblowers, they can never mean to do wrong (unlike the Chinese, the Russians, etc.). As the president has pointed out, "Every member of Congress has been briefed on [NSA's] telephone program and the intelligence committees have been briefed on the Internet program, with both approved and reauthorized by bipartisan committees since 2006... If people don't trust Congress and the judiciary then I think we are going to have some problems here.''

Truth: The most important thing on Earth, hence generally classified. It is something that cannot be spoken by national security officials in open session before Congress without putting the American people in danger. As Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has made clear, however, any official offering such public testimony can at least endeavor to speak in ''the least untruthful manner'' possible; that is, in the nearest approximation of truth that remains unclassified in the post-9/11 era.

U.S. Constitution: A revered piece of paper that no one pays much actual attention to any more, especially if it interferes with American safety from terrorism.

Amendments: Retrospectively unnecessary additions to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing a series of things, some of which may now put us in peril (examples: First Amendment,Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment ''due process'' clause). Fortunately, amendments turn out to be easy enough to amend within the national security state itself.

Checks and balances: No longer applicable, except to your bank statement.

The fourth branch of government: Classically, the U.S. had three branches of government (the executive, legislative, and judicial), which were to check and balance one another so that power would never become centralized in a single place unopposed. The Founding Fathers, however, were less farsighted than many give them credit for. They hadn't a clue that a fourth branch of government would arise, dedicated to the centralization of power in an atmosphere of total secrecy: the national (or today global) security state. In the post-9/11 years, it has significantly absorbed the other three branches.

FISA court: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, much strengthened since September 11, 2001, created a FISA ''court'' to oversee the government's covert surveillance activities. A secret ''court'' for the secret world of surveillance, it can, at just about any time, be convened and conducted via cell phone by the NSA or FBI. There is never a defense lawyer present, only the equivalent of a prosecution request. The search warrants that result read more like legislation by an unelected body. All national security requests for such warrants are granted. Its decisions are not made public. In its arcane rules and prosecutorial stance, it bears a greater relationship to the Inquisition courts of Medieval Europe than any other American court. Its motto might be, ''guilty -- there are no innocents.'' We have no word for what it actually is. The activity it performs is still called ''judicial oversight,'' but ''undersight'' would be a more accurate description.

FISA judge: There is, in essence, nothing for a FISA judge to judge. FISA judges never rule against the wishes of the national security state. Hence, a more accurate term for this position might be ''FISA rubberstamp.''

Congressional oversight: When a congressional representative forgets to do something. (Historical note: this phrase once had another meaning, but since 9/11, years in which Congress never heard a wish of the national security state that it didn't grant, no one can quite remember what it was.)

National Security Agency (NSA): A top-secret spy outfit once nicknamed ''No Such Agency'' because its very existence was not acknowledged by the U.S. government. It is now known as ''No Such Agency'' because its work has been outsourced to high-priced high-school dropouts, or ''No Snowden Anywhere'' because it couldn't locate the world's most famous leaker.

American security (or safety): The national security state works hard to offer its citizens a guarantee of safety from the nightmare of terror attacks, which since 9/11 have harmed far more Americans than shark attacks, but not much else that is truly dangerous to the public. For this guarantee, there is, of course, a necessary price to be paid. You, the citizen and taxpayer, must fund your own safety from terrorism (to the tune of trillions of dollars heading into the national security budget) and cede rights that were previously yours. You must, for instance, allow yourself to be ''seen'' in myriad ways by the national security state, must allow for the possibility that you could be assassinated without ''due process'' to keep this country safe, and so on. This is called ''striking a balance'' between American liberty and security. Or as the president put it, "You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience... We're going to have to make some choices as a society... There are trade-offs involved." By the way, in return for your pliancy, this guarantee does not extend to keeping you safe from cars, guns, cigarettes, food-borne diseases, natural disasters of any sort, and so on.

The Global War on You (GWOY): This term, not yet in the language, is designed to replace a post-9/11 Bush administration name, the Global War on Terror (GWOT), sometimes also called World War IV by neocons. GWOT was famously retired by President Obama and his top officials, turning the ongoing global war being fought on distant battlefields and in the shadows into a nameless war. That may, however, change. You are, after all, being called to the colors in a war on... you. Congratulations, son or daughter, Uncle Sam wants you (even if not in the way he used to in your grandparents' day). You, after all, are the central figure in and the key to GWOY and the basis upon which the new global security state will continue to be built.

(C) 2013 TomDispatch

July 4: Show Your Support for the Fourth Amendment | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:17

This Fourth of July, EFF will be demonstrating our commitment to your Constitutional right of privacy from government surveillance by displaying the text of the Fourth Amendment on our website. This demonstration is a visual symbol of our opposition to the illegal and unconstitutional surveillance by the National Security Agency, which the government now admits has been collecting data on millions of ordinary Americans not suspected of any crime. We, along with the Internet Defense League and many other organizations, are showing online solidarity with the Restore the Fourth movement, a nonpartisan, grassroots movement that is planning protests against NSA spying on July 4th in cities across the United States.

We're asking website administrators to join us in this online protest tomorrow. You can do this by displaying the Fourth Amendment on your own site.

To make this as easy as possible, we've created an embeddable code for you to use. Just insert this onto the homepage of your website and you'll automatically be displaying our gorgeous Fourth Amendment graphic.

Here's the embed code:

We also made some light- and dark-colored background images for you to use to decorate your websites on July 4th. Check them out here:

If you are not a website administrator, there are many other ways you can help on July 4th, including:

Signing onto the Stop Watching Us petition (available to people in the US and abroad)Calling your members of Congress '' 1-STOP-323-NSA (1-786-732-3672)Tweeting your support for the campaign using the hashtag #restorethe4thAttending a rally in your area on July 4th. See a list of rallies on Restorethefourth.net. If there is no rally in your area, consider organizing one '' see the Bill of Rights Defense Committee's guide to hosting a successful event.If you're outside the United States, and would like to join us in protesting the American government's surveillance of Internet users worldwide, EFF has an international petition to sign. You could also join our action by quoting from Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on your website, or your country's own protections against unwarranted surveillance

Note about privacy and using an embeddable graphic: Whenever you use code that embeds content from another site, your visitors will load content from that website. In this case, they would load content from EFF.org. Our website administrators would be able to gather general data about the number of times this Restore the Fourth pop up is loaded. However, we use a system we designed called cryptolog to minimize the data we receive about website visitors (see below).

Embedding this code will place a session cookie in your browser to ensure that the image of the Fourth Amendment is only displayed once to website visitors, rather than every time they visit your page. If you'd like to force the image to pop up, you can delete your cookies or restart your browser.

If you do not want to embed an image, you can copy the image to your own server and upload it onto your website without using the embed code. You can find the image here.

Read about cryptolog: https://www.eff.org/policy#cryptolog

Source code of cryptolog: https://git.eff.org/?p=cryptolog.git;a=summary

Read EFF's privacy policy here: https://eff.org/policy

Fight to save famous 'Band of Brothers' parachute regiment who landed behind enemy lines in World War Two and inspired HBO series from sweeping military cuts

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:33

By Associated Press

PUBLISHED: 20:05 EST, 28 June 2013 | UPDATED: 20:07 EST, 28 June 2013

155shares

16

Viewcomments

The 101st Airborne Division is trying to save its illustrious 506th Infantry Regiment, whose origins date to World War II's fabled 'Band of Brothers,' from deactivation under the Army's massive restructuring.

The Army announced this week that at least 12 combat brigades nationwide are to be eliminated by 2017 under sweeping military reductions, among them the 4th Brigade Combat Team at Fort Campbell, Ky.

The long-term reorganization seeks to reduce the Army's size from a high of about 570,000 members at the peak of the Iraq war to 490,000 to shrink spending and reflect the country's current military needs as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end.

History at risk? The flag of Easy Company, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, who were made famous as the 'Band of Brothers' in World War II, inside the museum at Fort Campbell, Ky

Tribute: The exploits of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment inspired Band Of Brothers, the 2001 TV series produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks

The brigade traces its lineage to the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, created in 1942, at Camp Toccoa, Ga.

The 506th was among several parachute regiments created to sneak behind enemy lines in the war.

Nicknamed 'Currahee,' which is a Native American Cherokee term for 'stands alone,' the regiment parachuted into Normandy during the D-Day invasion in 1944 and then later parachuted into Holland.

The regiment raced to liberate Europe amid bouts of fierce fighting in Bastogne, Belgium and then overran Hitler's famed 'Eagle's Nest' in Germany.

The regiment wasn't associated with the 'Band of Brothers' nickname until the book by historian Stephen Ambrose came out in 1992, reigniting interest in the regiment among the public.

The subsequent HBO miniseries produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks about the men of Easy Company won national acclaim, and followed the soldiers from paratrooper training through D-Day and the end of the war.

Fighting forces: American parachutists land between Nice and Marseille, in southern France, in August 1944

Battle: Brig. Gen. Mark Stammer, acting senior commander of the 101st Airborne Division, said the division wants to preserve the regiment's two battalions, along with its flags and its historical legacy

Brig. Gen. Mark Stammer, acting senior commander of the 101st Airborne Division, said the division wants to preserve the regiment's two battalions, along with its flags and its historical legacy.

He said during a news conference Thursday at the post on the Tennessee-Kentucky state line that the regiment's battalions should be transferred to two of the division's three remaining infantry brigades.

The Army's restructuring plan also calls for adding an additional battalion, which is between 600-800 soldiers, to its remaining infantry and armor brigades.

Adding the battalion was a recommendation from commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan who said it would beef up the fighting capabilities of the brigades when they go to war.

If Washington's defense and budget planners approve of such a plan, he said 'the 506th will live, but it will just live in another brigade combat team.'

Following World War II, the regiment was deactivated and reactivated a number of times in its history and moved to other locations as the Army reorganized in the post-war era.

The 506th deployed to the Vietnam War for four years, winning a presidential unit citation for their actions in the A Shau Valley.

The regiment's soldiers served in Iraq for a 2004-2005 stint before the regiment returned to Iraq from late 2005 through 2007 in Baghdad as the new 4th Brigade Combat Team under the 101st Airborne Division. The 4th Brigade is currently on its third deployment to Afghanistan.

'History, heritage and values... those things provide the glue that holds the unit together. You can imagine how powerful it is to say, 'I am member of the Band of Brothers,'' said John O'Brien, the installation historian at Fort Campbell

Brave: American troops of the 17th Airborne Division and British troops of the 6th Guards armored Brigade, after linking up in the vicinity of the Lippe River where they scored a series of rapid victories, reached Munster on April 2 1945

John O'Brien, the installation historian at Fort Campbell, said the regimental flag with its battle streamers carries the history of the unit, marking the battles and campaigns from World War II to recent times.

If the 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment were moved to a new unit, that regimental flag would continue to fly, he said.

'History, heritage and values... those things provide the glue that holds the unit together,' O'Brien said. 'You can imagine how powerful it is to say, 'I am member of the Band of Brothers.''

Jim Martin served in the G Company of the original 506th regiment. At 92, he just returned from a trip to Europe to visit locations, including the coast of France, where he and fellow soldiers fought.

Martin, who lives near Dayton, Ohio, said the Army command needs to exercise care when it makes changes to special units such as the 506th.

'If you disband them, you're not going to get them back very easily.'

He said the regiment's original commander, Col. Robert Sink, wanted his soldiers to stay together from their initial basic training through paratrooper training and on into combat to build trust among the soldiers.

Although he admits he's not one for emotion, he worried that splitting up the regiment's battalions would be disruptive for the soldiers.

Popular: Band Of Brothers won national acclaim, and followed the soldiers of the Easy Company from paratrooper training through D-Day and the end of the war

'The problem with doing that is you lose the unit cohesiveness,' he said. 'Anytime you move around or change, you lose that.'

Sink's daughter Robin Sink McClelland has a mailing list of about 400 veterans and their families to share information about the regiment and its history.

'Everybody feels proud to be a member of the Currahee nation, so anything they can do to keep that going would be good,' she said.

Joe Alexander, 67, of Lenoir City, Tenn., who was a second lieutenant in the regiment during the Vietnam War, said while he understands that the Army needs to cut down its size, he was hoping they would be spared when the Army spread the brigade cuts throughout the country.

'We are competitive and we all want our regiments to be saved,' he said. 'But it does seem like they could have picked another one that had less of a history.'

Share or comment on this article

U.S. on alert for possible fireworks bombs - UPI.com

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 01 Jul 2013 02:58

WASHINGTON, June 29 (UPI) -- Security officials said U.S. police should be on the alert for bombs made from July Fourth fireworks during the upcoming holiday week.

ABC News said the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI sent out a nationwide notice to law enforcement agencies reminding officers and agents a lot of fireworks are sold in July, and some could end up in the wrong hands.

"Recent incidents in the Homeland demonstrate that consumer fireworks -- widely used during the upcoming celebrations -- can be misused by criminals and violent extremists to construct improvised explosive devices," the notice said.

ABC said such notices are routine but the use of homemade bombs in an attack at the Boston Marathon in April may have added new urgency to the potential threat.

The FBI noted the accused Marathon bombers had allegedly considered carrying out their attack in Boston on July Fourth, in an area where a large number of people were present. The suspects allegedly obtained the gunpowder used in the bombs from a legal fireworks retailer in New Hampshire.

War on Ammo

The PJ Tatler >> California Senate Passes Bill Requiring Permit to Buy Ammo

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 04:14

Once again, Sacramento proves that to go really over-the-top, you've got to go to Democrat California:

The California Senate this week approved a collection of bills, including one (SB 53) that would require background checks, permits, and fees for the purchase of ammunition.

All ammunition sales would have to be face-to-face, happening only in the presence of a store clerk; and vendors selling the bullets would have to submit sales records to the California Department of Justice. Those vendors also would need a permit to sell ammunition.

Kira Davis notes that SB 53 also ''requires background checks and a $50 ammo purchase fee.''

It wasn't that long ago that I saw Dick Durbin on one of the Sunday shows, with the stuff-eating grin on his face, joked about taxing bullets until they cost a hundred or a thousand dollars apiece. Which I could find that video, but no one seems to have grabbed it.

So if you think something like this can happen only in California '-- think again.

Stephen Green began blogging at VodkaPundit.com in early 2002, and has served as PJMedia's Denver editor since 2008. He's one of the hosts on PJTV, and one-third of PJTV's Trifecta team with Scott Ott and Bill Whittle. Steve lives with his wife and sons in the hills and woods of Monument, Colorado, where he enjoys the occasional lovely adult beverage.

Egypt / Russia / Chiners

China to join Russia for largest naval drills with foreign partner

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: WTF RLY REPORT

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 06:05

Guardianby Associated Press

A People's Liberation Army sailor. The Chinese and Russian militaries have begun taking part in joint exercises in the past decade. Photograph: Jerome Favre/EPA

China will join Russia later this week for its largest-ever naval drills with a foreign partner, underlining deepening ties between the former cold war rivals along with Beijing's desire for closer links with regional militaries.

China has long been a key customer for Russian military hardware, but only in the last decade have their militaries begun taking part in joint exercises.

China's defence ministry said on Tuesday that its navy would send four destroyers, two guided missile frigates and a support ship for the exercises, which start on Friday in the Sea of Japan and run until 12 July.

The ships departed on Monday from the port of Qingdao, where China's Northern Fleet is based, and headed for the rallying point in Peter the Great Bay near Vladivostok.

''This marks our navy's single biggest deployment of military force in a China-foreign joint exercise,'' the ministry said.

Read More

Adly Mansour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 23:50

Adly Mansour (Arabic: عدÙÙŠ منصÙر'Ž; born 23 December 1945[1]) is the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court[2] and the de-facto interim President of Egypt. He was declared president following the mass protests-fueled 2013 Egyptian coup d'(C)tat, in an announcement made by the military and several secular and religious figures (including Grand Imam of Al Azhar Dr Ahmed El Tayyib, PopeTawadros and Mohammed El Baradei) that the then president Mohammed Morsi had been unseated from office.[3][4][5] Mohammed Morsi refuses to accept this announcement.[citation needed]

Early life and education[edit]Adly Mansour graduated from Cairo University Law School in 1967, earned a postgraduate degree in law in 1969 and a postgraduate degree in management science in 1970 from Cairo University.[1] He later attended France's ‰cole nationale d'administration, graduating in 1977.

Term on Supreme Constitutional Court[edit]Mansour was appointed to the Supreme Constitutional Court in 1992.[6] He later served as the deputy chief justice of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court until 1 July 2013, when he became president of the HCC following his appointment to the position by President Morsi on 19 May.[7]

Acting President of Egypt[edit]On 3 July 2013, Mansour was named interim President of Egypt following the ousting of Mohammed Morsi during the 2013 coup d'(C)tat. His appointment was announced on television by the minister of defense Abdul Fatah Khalil Al-Sisi.[8]

References[edit]PersondataNameMansour, AdlyAlternative namesShort descriptionEgyptian Interim PresidentDate of birth23 December 1945Place of birthDate of deathPlace of death

ElBaradei tops list to head Egypt government: sources

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: The Daily Star >> Live News

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:26

CAIRO: Mohamed ElBaradei, a former U.N. nuclear agency chief, is favourite to head a transitional government in Egypt after the military overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Mursi, military, political and diplomatic sources said on Thursday.

ElBaradei, 71, was mandated by the main alliance of liberal and left-wing parties, the National Salvation Front, and youth groups that led anti-Mursi protests as negotiator with the armed forces and was present when armed forces commander General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi announced the military takeover on Wednesday.

"ElBaradei is our first choice," a source close to the military high command said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.

"He's an international figure, popular with young people and believes in a democracy that would include all political forces. He is also popular among some Islamist groups," the source said.

Political sources said ElBaradei, who won the Nobel peace prize for his work as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), would also be acceptable to Western governments that have bent over backwards to avoid calling the removal of Mursi and his Muslim Brotherhood a military coup.

Political sources said other figures under consideration were veteran ex-prime minister Kamal al-Ganzouri, who headed a transitional government in 2011-12 after the uprising that ousted Hosni Mubarak, and Farouk El-Okdah, a respected former central bank governor.

A decision was likely later on Thursday, the sources said after constitutional court chief Adli Mansour was sworn in earlier in the day as interim head of state.

ElBaradei has long pressed for Egypt to sign a $4.8 billion loan deal with the International Monetary Fund, which Mursi's government initialled last November but never ratified or implemented.

The deal would help kick-start an economy severely battered by the collapse of tourism and foreign investment due to political uncertainty since the 2011 revolution. But it would also mean implementing potentially unpopular cuts in fuel and food subsidies, and tax increases.

Profile: Mohamed ElBaradei - Al Jazeera English

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:54

Profile: Mohamed ElBaradei

Last updated: 9 hours ago

Ex-IAEA chief and Nobel laureate has reemerged as a key mediator in an uprising against yet another Egyptian president.Mohamed ElBaradei, a former head of the UN nuclear watchdog and a Nobel peace laureate, is reemerging as a crucial actor in the Egyptian uprising against the ruling government.

Two years ago he was tasked by several opposition movements including the now-ruling Muslim Brotherhood to negotiate with the Hosni Mubarak government. But now he stands opposed to President Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, saying Morsi has "failed" in leading the nation towards a proper democratic path after the 2011 uprising.

On June 29, the 71-year-old ElBaradei released a video message saying, "The current revolution has erupted so that each one of us lives as human and be treated like human".

The founder of the opposition Dostour Party also called on all Egyptians to participate in nationwide protests to oust Morsi to pave way for early presidential elections. "We allowed Morsi to drive, but he doesn't know how to drive," he said. "The country is decaying and is falling. This is not Egypt and this is not the revolution."

Mediator

ElBaradei already enjoys the strong backing of the June 30 Front, an amalgam of several groups opposing Morsi who believe ElBaradei is "the voice of their demands".

On July 2, the Front - created by the Tamarod ("Rebel") campaign for the purpose of organising mass protests - tasked ElBaradei to speak with the Brotherhood on its behalf. The Front's statement said he was chosen to avoid any fragmentation among the opposition. ElBaradei left Egypt 30 years ago to work for the United Nations. He returned to Cairo in 2010 after resigning from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), receiving an exuberant welcome from supporters who hoped he would stir up Egyptian politics by running for president. Days after retiring from the IAEA, ElBaradei said a decision on entering the 2011 presidential race would depend on guarantees of a fair election.

ElBaradei is widely respected in Egypt and has received the country's highest honour, the Nile Shas, in 2006.

He was born on June 17, 1942, in Cairo, where his attorney father headed the bar association, a position that sometimes put him at odds with then president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Following in his father's footsteps, ElBaradei earned his law degree at the University of Cairo in 1962.

"My father taught me that you have to stand by your principles. He was president of the bar association and was preaching civil liberties and human rights during some of the most repressive years of the Nasser era. I think that's a lesson I remember from him... That you stand up for what you believe in," ElBaradei has said.

Two years after obtaining his law degree, ElBaradei joined the diplomatic service, and was assigned to the Egyptian missions to Geneva and New York, where he earned a doctorate in international law and later taught. He has written that his New York years were among the most formative, helping him to broaden his world view.

Camp David negotiator

As special assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister, ElBaradei served on the negotiating team at the historic Camp David peace talks that led to Egypt's peace treaty and diplomatic relations with Israel.

He began his UN career in 1980, and was sent to Iraq in the wake of the 1991 Gulf war to dismantle Saddam's nuclear programme.

In 1997, he was chosen as head of the IAEA, a role that made him an international household name and led to confrontations with Washington, first over Iraq and later over Iran. When the US claimed that Iraq was buying uranium in Africa, ElBaradei dismissed the evidence before the UN Security Council as fake.

Though he angered Washington by challenging claims that Saddam Hussein was hiding a secret nuclear programme, he was proved right when no nuclear weapons were found after the 2003 US invasion.

In 2005, ElBaradei and the IAEA were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts "to prevent nuclear energy for being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way".

He is married to Aida Elkachef, a kindergarten teacher, and has two children, Laila and Mostafa.

Egypt's interim ruler to be sworn in on Thursday

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: Reuters: World News

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 23:49

CAIRO | Wed Jul 3, 2013 6:49pm EDT

CAIRO (Reuters) - The head of Egypt's supreme constitutional court, Adli Mansour, will be sworn in as interim head of state on Thursday after the armed forces overthrew elected President Mohamed Mursi on Wednesday for failing to listen to mass protests' demands to share power.

The army detailed a roadmap for a return to democratic rule, including the appointment of the interim ruler.

Judge Adli Mansour was born on December 23, 1945 and graduated from Cairo University with a B.A. in law in 1967, before gaining a masters' degree in the same field there in 1969.

He was hired in the state's administrative court in 1970 and stayed there until he became the vice chairman of the court in 1992 before moving to the supreme constitutional court where he served as its first deputy. He was hired as the head of the constitutional court on July 1 by a decree from a top judiciary council that was approved by Mursi.

Obama's Releases First Public Statement On Egypt

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: Zero Hedge

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 23:46

From President Obama:

As I have said since the Egyptian revolution, the United States supports a set of core principles, including opposition to violence, protection of universal human rights, and reform that meets the legitimate aspirations of the people. The United States does not support particular individuals or political parties, but we are committed to the democratic process and respect for the rule of law. Since the current unrest in Egypt began, we have called on all parties to work together to address the legitimate grievances of the Egyptian people, in accordance with the democratic process, and without recourse to violence or the use of force.

The United States is monitoring the very fluid situation in Egypt, and we believe that ultimately the future of Egypt can only be determined by the Egyptian people. Nevertheless, we are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsy and suspend the Egyptian constitution. I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsy and his supporters. Given today's developments, I have also directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the government of Egypt.

The United States continues to believe firmly that the best foundation for lasting stability in Egypt is a democratic political order with participation from all sides and all political parties '' secular and religious, civilian and military. During this uncertain period, we expect the military to ensure that the rights of all Egyptian men and women are protected, including the right to peaceful assembly, due process, and free and fair trials in civilian courts. Moreover, the goal of any political process should be a government that respects the rights of all people, majority and minority; that institutionalizes the checks and balances upon which democracy depends; and that places the interests of the people above party or faction. The voices of all those who have protested peacefully must be heard '' including those who welcomed today's developments, and those who have supported President Morsy. In the interim, I urge all sides to avoid violence and come together to ensure the lasting restoration of Egypt's democracy.

No transition to democracy comes without difficulty, but in the end it must stay true to the will of the people. An honest, capable and representative government is what ordinary Egyptians seek and what they deserve. The longstanding partnership between the United States and Egypt is based on shared interests and values, and we will continue to work with the Egyptian people to ensure that Egypt's transition to democracy succeeds.

* * *

Obama, in Situation Room, meets with national security team to discuss situation in Egypt, via NB

* * *

Meanwhile, in simpler days:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Egypt on Saturday for meetings with its newly elected Islamist president and the chief of its still-dominant military council, declaring that the United States ''supports the full transition to civilian rule with all that entails.''

But after weeks of internal debate across the Obama administration over how to respond to the ongoing struggle between the president and the generals, Mrs. Clinton touched on it only lightly, saying she looked forward to working ''to support the military's return to a purely national security role.''

State Department officials said the meeting itself sent a historic message. Seated in an ornate room in the presidential palace, Mrs. Clinton smiled for cameras and traded pleasantries with President Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist jailed more than once by the American-backed autocracy overthrown 18 months ago. She became the highest ranking United States official to meet Mr. Morsi since he was sworn in two weeks ago as Egypt's first democratically elected president.

* * *

The generals, who seized power last year after the ouster of the strongman Hosni Mubarak, have repeatedly rebuffed American pressure. The new president, Mr. Morsi, and the other leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood still harbor deep doubts about Washington's agenda and have repeatedly surprised American officials in Washington with the accelerating pace of their moves to take power.

Implausibly, some of the Brotherhood's secular opponents have even accused the United States of conspiring with the Islamists to push them to power. By nightfall Saturday, hundreds of protesters had gathered outside Mrs. Clinton's hotel to protest against the claimed conspiracy. Using a transliteration of the Arabic word for the Brotherhood, one sign read: ''If you like the Ikhwan, take them with you!''

''In some ways, all the talk in Washington about what to do in Egypt is incredibly inefficient,'' said Peter Mandaville, a political scientist at George Mason University who until recently advised the State Department on Islamist politics in the region. ''At a time of virtually zero U.S. influence, we don't need to waste so much time figuring out how to try to get the Egyptian people to like us.''

The Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi, meanwhile, remain deeply wary of Washington's goals even after a year of mutual outreach, diplomats say, while Brotherhood leaders appear still convinced American policy makers see Egypt exclusively through the prism of Israel's security.

* * *

''Every bone in the body of the U.S. foreign policy establishment is going to feel more comfortable with the idea that there is still a strong military looking over these guys,'' said Mr. Mandaville, the former State Department adviser, ''and looking out for U.S. interests in Egypt and the region.''

Average:Your rating: NoneAverage: 4(1 vote)

Doug Ross @ Journal: 15 Photos From the Tahrir Square Protests You'll Never See In Legacy Media. #Egypt #Morsi #Obama

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:26

Curiously, a massive wave of anti-Obama sentiment in Egypt has been utterly ignored by vintage media, even though the protests may be the largest in all of human history.Consider the dichotomy: Obama 2011: Mubarak Must Go; Obama Today: 'It's not our job to choose who Egypt's leaders are'.Hat tips: Dancing Czars and BadBlue News.

AFRICOM /CHINERS

Obama's 'Power Africa' Plan Greases Billions In Deals For General Electric - Forbes

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 05:38

Log in with your social account:Or, you can log in or sign up using Forbes.New Posts+3 posts this hourMost PopularCeleb 100: NewcomersListsMost Powerful CelebritiesVideoBusiness Of Glenn BeckFREE Report: 12 Stocks to Sell NowHelp|Connect

|Sign up|Log in

Contracts and Grants | Millennium Challenge Corporation

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:05

Procurements at FedBizOppsThe Millennium Challenge Corporation headquarters awards contracts to complete its mission of helping the world's poorest countries reduce poverty through economic growth. These contracts provide opportunities to work directly with MCC and are governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

Visit FedBizOpps website

MCC's contracts, grants, and procurements are listed on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site.

Business ForecastPublic Law 100-656, Section 501, requires that Federal agencies make available their Business Forecast to the Small Business Administration and to interested businesses. This forecast is for informational and marketing purposes only and does not constitute a specific offer or commitment by the MCC to fund in whole or in part any agency requirements referenced herein. It should be noted that the mission of MCC is to reduce poverty in foreign countries through economic growth. Therefore, the majority of MCC contract requirements are for services and goods to support numerous activities in low income, foreign countries. MCC does have a few, domestic, contracted base operation requirements.

This forecast includes anticipated contract actions that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000. This listing is not all inclusive. It does not include anticipated actions that will be satisfied through calls or task orders against MCC contract vehicles.

Procurement PrinciplesOpen, fair and competitive procedures used in a transparent manner to solicit, award and administer contracts to procure goods, works and services.Solicitations for goods, works and services shall be based upon a clear and accurate description of the goods, works or services to be acquired.Contracts shall be awarded only to responsible suppliers and contractors that have the capability and willingness to perform the contracts in accordance with the terms and conditions of the applicable contracts and on a cost effective and timely basis.No more than a commercially, reasonable price (as determined, for example, by a comparison of price quotations and market prices) shall be paid to procure goods, works and non-consulting servicesSmall ProcurementsMCC has no small procurements posted at this time.

Chinese premier calls for closer cooperation with Uganda

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: Global Times

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:14

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said Wednesday that China is willing to work with Uganda to strengthen friendly cooperation between the two countries.Li, also a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, made the remarks during a meeting with Uganda's Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi at the Great Hall of the People in downtown Beijing.

Li said China and Uganda enjoy a traditional friendship and sound development in bilateral relations.

He noted that Chinese President Xi Jinping and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni reached new agreements regarding developing bilateral ties during the fifth summit of the BRICS, which groups Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

China is willing to work with Uganda to advance bilateral relations as well as party-to-party ties, strengthen cooperation in various fields including infrastructure construction, energy and agriculture, develop new fields for cooperation, and bring benefits to the two peoples, he said.

He pointed out that strengthening unity and cooperation with African countries is an important foundation for China's foreign policy and a long-term and resolute strategic choice of China's.

China will support African countries to enhance their capacity to achieve development themselves, make efforts to convince the international community to further invest in, and pay more attention to, Africa, and make joint efforts to promote peace, development and prosperity in Africa.

Mbabazi, also secretary general of Uganda's ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), congratulated China on its great achievements and voiced hopes of strengthening the partnership with China, enhancing party-to-party communication, expanding pragmatic cooperation in all fields and making greater progress in bilateral ties.

Wang Jiarui, vice chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and head of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee, also attended the meeting.

Putin Endorses Permanent Russian Navy Presence in Mediterranean - Bloomberg

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:16

President Vladimir Putin endorsed a plan by the Russian navy to keep a permanent presence in the Mediterranean Sea, where the Syrian crisis is adding to the region's instability.

Russia's Mediterranean fleet of 16 ships will visit ports in Syria, which hosts the country's only military base outside the former Soviet Union, during a mission that will include missile practise, commander Yuri Zemskoy told Putin via video link during a news conference in Moscow today.

''This is a strategically important region,'' Putin said today at a meeting with military commanders. ''We have our national interests here, linked to the need to maintain national security. Resuming a permanent Russian military naval presence in the Mediterranean sea isn't saber rattling.''

Russia stepped up patrols in the Mediterranean in 2010 amid escalating unrest in Syria. In January, the country held its biggest naval maneuvers in the region in more than two decades. The defense ministry decided to make the fleet a standing force in March, the same month Putin ordered a large-scale unplanned exercise on the Black Sea involving 36 warships and almost 7,000 personnel.

The navy's Mediterranean presence, becoming permanent in for first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, will be modeled on the Soviet fleet stationed in the region during the Cold War to balance U.S. deployment, according to the defense ministry. The force will draw on Russia's Black Sea, Baltic and North Sea fleets.

''The group is ready to respond to unexpected tasks as the situation in the region is changing,'' Zemskoy said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ilya Arkhipov in Moscow at iarkhipov@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Balazs Penz at bpenz@bloomberg.net

China to join Russia in its largest-ever naval drills

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:14

China's amphibious ship Jinggangshan is seen during a coordination training with a hovercraft in waters near south China's Hainan Province, in the South China Sea in March 2013.(Photo: Gao Yi, Xinhua News Agency via AP)

Story HighlightsJuly 5-12 China and Russia will conduct 'Joint Sea-2013' military exercisesThe 2 nations will also hold anti-terror drills July 27-Aug. 15China will take part in the U.S.-organized Rim of the Pacific exercises next yearBEIJING (AP) '-- China will join Russia later this week for its largest-ever naval drills with a foreign partner, underscoring deepening ties between the former Cold War rivals along with Beijing's desire for closer links with regional militaries.

China has long been a key customer for Russian military hardware, but only in the last decade have their militaries begun taking part in joint exercises.

China's Defense Ministry said Tuesday that its navy will send four destroyers, two guided missile frigates, and a support ship for the "Joint Sea-2013" exercises, which start Friday in the Sea of Japan and run through July 12. The ships departed Monday from the port of Qingdao, where China's Northern Fleet is based, headed for the rallying point in Peter the Great Bay near Vladivostok.

"This marks our navy's single biggest deployment of military force in a China-foreign joint exercise," the ministry said.

Gen. Fang Fenghui, the People's Liberation Army chief of the general staff, announced the exercises during a visit to Moscow, where he met with his Russian counterpart, Valery Gerasimov. The two also announced that another round of anti-terrorism joint drills would be held in Russia's Ural Mountain region of Chelyabinsk from July 27 to Aug. 15.

In comments reported by the official Liberation Army Daily, Fang emphasized that outsiders should not consider the exercises threatening.

"The joint drill conducted by the two militaries of China and Russia do not target any third parties. Their aim is to deepen cooperation between the two militaries in the training field, boost capacity in coordinating military activities, and serve the purpose of safeguarding regional security and stability," Fang said.

China began deploying ships to the anti-piracy flotilla off the coast of Somalia in 2008 and in recent years its navy has joined in a series of joint drills in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Chinese land units also have taken part in border security and anti-terrorism exercises organized by the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Cooperation with the U.S. Navy, the predominant maritime force in the region, has been more limited, although China will take part next year in the U.S.-organized multinational Rim of the Pacific exercises, the world's largest maritime exercise.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Syria

International Court of Justice

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 20:50

CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIESIN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)(MERITS)Judgment of 27 June 1986For its judgment on the merits in the case concerning military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua brought by Nicaragua against the United States of America, the Court was composed as follows:

President Nagendra Singh, Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette-Camara, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni, Evensen, Judge ad hoc Colliard

*

* *

OPERATIVE PART OF THE COURT'S JUDGMENT

THE COURT

(1) By eleven votes to four,

Decides that in adjudicating the dispute brought before it by the Application filed by the Republic of Nicaragua on 9 April 1984, the Court is required to apply the "multilateral treaty reservation"contained in proviso (c) to the declaration of acceptance of jurisdiction made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court by the Government of the Untied States of America deposited on 26 August 1946;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Oda, Ago, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Ruda, Elias, Sette-Camara and Ni.

(2) By twelve votes to three,

Rejects the justification of collective self-defence maintained by the United States of America in connection with the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua the subject of this case;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(3) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(4) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(5) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(6) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh, Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(7) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that, by the acts referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of Nicaragua signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh, Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette-Camara, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Schwebel.

(8) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re, Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette Camara, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Oda.

(9) By fourteen votes to one,

Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled "Operaciones sicol"gicas en guerra de guerrillas", and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette Camara, Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Oda.

(10) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has committed acts calculated to deprive of its object and purpose the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(11) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has acted in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(12) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America is under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all such acts as may constitute breaches of the foregoing legal obligations;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(13) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law enumerated above;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judges Oda, Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

(14) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette-Camara, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Schwebel.

(15) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between the Parties, will be settled by the Court, and reserves for this purpose the subsequent procedure in the case;

IN FAVOUR: President Nagendra Singh; Vice-President de Lacharri¨re; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Oda, Ago, Sette Camara, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui, Ni and Evensen; Judgead hoc Colliard;

AGAINST: Judge Schwebel.

(16) Unanimously,

Recalls to both Parties their obligation to seek a solution to their disputes by peaceful means in accordance with international law.

SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT

I. Qualit(C)s (paras. 1 to 17)

II. Background to the dispute (paras. 18-25)

III. The non-appearance of the Respondent and Article 53 of the Statute (paras. 26-31)

The Court recalls that subsequent to the delivery of its Judgment of 26 November 1984 on the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of Nicaragua's Application, the United States decided not to take part in the present phase of the proceedings. This however does not prevent the Court from giving a decision in the case, but it has to do so while respecting the requirements of Article 53 of the Statute, which provides for the situation when one of the parties does not appear. The Court's jurisdiction being established, it has in accordance with Article 53 to satisfy itself that the claim of the party appearing is well founded in fact and law. In this respect the Court recalls certain guiding principles brought out in a number of previous cases, one of which excludes any possibility of a judgment automatically in favour of the party appearing. It also observes that it is valuable for the Court to know the views of the non-appearing party, even if those views are expressed in ways not provided for in the Rules of Court. The principle of the equality of the parties has to remain the basic principle, and the Court has to ensure that the party which declines to appear should not be permitted to profit from its absence.

IV. Justiciability of the dispute (paras. 32-35)

The Court considers it appropriate to deal with a preliminary question. It has been suggested that the questions of the use of force and collective self-defence raised in the case fall outside the limits of the kind of questions the Court can deal with, in other words that they are not justiciable. However, in the first place the Parties have not argued that the present dispute is not a "legal dispute" within the meaning of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, and secondly, the Court considers that the case does not necessarily involve it in evaluation of political or military matters, which would be to overstep proper judicial bounds. Consequently, it is equipped to determine these problems.

V. The significance of the multilateral treaty reservation (paras. 36-56)

The United States declaration of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute contained a reservation excluding from operation of the declaration

"disputes arising under a multilateral treaty, unless (1) all parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the Court, or (2) the United States of America specially agrees to jurisdiction".

In its Judgment of 26 November 1984 the Court found, on the basis of Article 79, paragraph 7, of the Rules of Court, that the objection to jurisdiction based on the reservation raised "a question concerning matters of substance relating to the merits of the case" and that the objection did "not possess, in the circumstances of the case, an exclusively preliminary character". Since it contained both preliminary aspects and other aspects relating to the merits, it had to be dealt with at the stage of the merits.

In order to establish whether its jurisdiction were limited by the effect of the reservation in question, the Court has to ascertain whether any third States, parties to the four multilateral treaties invoked by Nicaragua, and not parties to the proceedings, would be "affected" by the Judgment. Of these treaties, the Court considers it sufficient to examine the position under the United Nations Charter and the Charter of the Organization of American States.

The Court examines the impact of the multilateral treaty reservation on Nicaragua's claim that the United States has used force in breach of the two Charters. The Court examines in particular the case of El Salvador, for whose benefit primarily the United States claims to be exercising the right of collective self-defence which it regards as a justification of its own conduct towards Nicaragua, that right being endorsed by the United Nations Charter (Art. 51) and the OAS Charter (Art. 21). The dispute is to this extent a dispute "arising under" multilateral treaties to which the United States, Nicaragua and El Salvador are Parties. It appears clear to the Court that El Salvador would be "affected" by the Court's decision on the lawfulness of resort by the United States to collective self-defence.

As to Nicaragua's claim that the United States has intervened in its affairs contrary to the OAS Charter (Art. 18) the Court observes that it is impossible to say that a ruling on the alleged breach of the Charter by the United States would not "affect" El Salvador.

Having thus found that El Salvador would be "affected" by the decision that the Court would have to take on the claims of Nicaragua based on violation of the two Charters by the United States, the Court concludes that the jurisdiction conferred on it by the United States declaration does not permit it to entertain these claims. It makes it clear that the effect of the reservation is confined to barring the applicability of these two multilateral treaties as multilateral treaty law, and has no further impact on the sources of international law which Article 38 of the Statute requires the Court to apply, including customary international law.

VI. Establishment of the facts: evidence and methods employed by the Court (paras. 57-74)

The Court has had to determine the facts relevant to the dispute. The difficulty of its task derived from the marked disagreement between the Parties, the non-appearance of the Respondent, the secrecy surrounding certain conduct, and the fact that the conflict is continuing. On this last point, the Court takes the view, in accordance with the general principles as to the judicial process, that the facts to be taken into account should be those occurring up to the close of the oral proceedings on the merits of the case (end of September 1985).

With regard to the production of evidence, the Court indicates how the requirements of its Statute - in particular Article 53 - and the Rules of Court have to be met in the case, on the basis that the Court has freedom in estimating the value of the various elements of evidence. It has not seen fit to order an enquiry under Article 50 of the Statute. With regard to certain documentary material (press articles and various books), the Court has treated these with caution. It regards than not as evidence capable of proving facts, but as material which can nevertheless contribute to corroborating the existence of a fact and be taken into account to show whether certain facts are matters of public knowledge. With regard to statements by representatives of States, sometimes at the highest level, the Court takes the view that such statements are of particular probative value when they acknowledge facts or conduct unfavourable to the State represented by the person who made them. With regard to the evidence of witnesses presented by Nicaragua - five witnesses gave oral evidence and another a written affidavit-one consequence of the absence of the Respondent was that the evidence of the witnesses was not tested by cross-examination. The Court has not treated as evidence any part of the testimony which was a mere expression of opinion as to the probability or otherwise of the existence of a fact not directly known to the witness. With regard in particular to affidavits and sworn statements made by members of a Government, the Court considers that it can certainly retain such parts of this evidence as may be regarded as contrary to the interests or contentions of the State to which the witness has allegiance; for the rest such evidence has to be treated with great reserve.

The Court is also aware of a publication of the United States State Department entitled "Revolution Beyond Our Borders, Sandinista Intervention in Central America" which was not submitted to the Court in any form or manner contemplated by the Statute and Rules of Court. The Court considers that, in view of the special circumstances of this case, it may, within limits, make use of information in that publication.

VII. The facts imputable to the United States (paras. 75 to 125)

1. The Court examines the allegations of Nicaragua that the mining of Nicaraguan ports or waters was carried out by United States military personnel or persons of the nationality of Latin American countries in the pay of the United States. After examining the facts, the Court finds it established that, on a date in late 1983 or early 1984, the President of the United States authorized a United States Government agency to lay mines in Nicaraguan ports, that in early 1984 mines were laid in or close to the ports of El Bluff, Corinto and Puerto Sandino, either in Nicaraguan internal waters or in its territorial sea or both, by persons in the pay and acting on the instructions of that agency, under the supervision and with the logistic support of United States agents; that neither before the laying of the mines, nor subsequently, did the United States Government issue any public and official warning to international shipping of the existence and location of the mines; and that personal and material injury was caused by the explosion of the mines, which also created risks causing a rise in marine insurance rates.

2. Nicaragua attributes to the direct action of United States personnel, or persons in its pay, operations against oil installations, a naval base, etc., listed in paragraph 81 of the Judgment. The Court finds all these incidents, except three, to be established. Although it is not proved that any United States military personnel took a direct part in the operations, United States agents participated in the planning, direction and support. The imputability to the United States of these attacks appears therefore to the Court to be established.

3. Nicaragua complains of infringement of its air space by United States military aircraft. After indicating the evidence available, the Court finds that the only violations of Nicaraguan air space imputable to the United States on the basis of the evidence are high altitude reconnaissance flights and low altitude flights on 7 to 11 November 1984 causing "sonic booms".

With regard to joint military manoeuvres with Honduras carried out by the United States on Honduran territory near the Honduras/Nicaragua frontier, the Court considers that they may be treated as public knowledge and thus sufficiently established.

4. The Court then examines the genesis, development and activities of the contra force, and the role of the United States in relation to it. According to Nicaragua, the United States "conceived, created and organized a mercenary army, the contra force". On the basis of the available information, the Court is not able to satisfy itself that the Respondent State "created" the contra force in Nicaragua, but holds it established that it largely financed, trained, equipped, armed and organized the FDN, one element of the force.

It is claimed by Nicaragua that the United States Government devised the strategy and directed the tactics of the contra force, and provided direct combat support for its military operations. In the light of the evidence and material available to it, the Court is not satisfied that all the operations launched by the contra force, at every stage of the conflict, reflected strategy and tactics solely devised by the United States. It therefore cannot uphold the contention of Nicaragua on this point. The Court however finds it clear that a number of operations were decided and planned, if not actually by the United States advisers, then at least in close collaboration with them, and on the basis of the intelligence and logistic support which the United States was able to offer. It is also established in the Court's view that the support of the United States for the activities of the contras took various forms over the years, such as logistic support the supply of information on the location and movements of the Sandinista troops, the use of sophisticated methods of communication, etc. The evidence does not however warrant a finding that the United States gave direct combat support, if that is taken to mean direct intervention by United States combat forces.

The Court has to determine whether the relationship of the contras to the United States Government was such that it would be right to equate the contras, for legal purposes, with an organ of the United States Government, or as acting on behalf of that Government. The Court considers that the evidence available to it is insufficient to demonstrate the total dependence of the contras on United States aid. A partial dependency, the exact extent of which the Court cannot establish, may be inferred from the fact that the leaders were selected by the United States, and from other factors such as the organisation, training and equipping of the force, planning of operations, the choosing of targets and the operational support provided. There is no clear evidence that the United States actually exercised such a degree of control as to justify treating the contras as acting on its behalf.

5. Having reached the above conclusion, the Court takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, in particular the alleged violations by them of humanitarian law. For the United States to be legally responsible, it would have to be proved that that State had effective control of the operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed.

6. Nicaragua has complained of certain measures of an economic nature taken against it by the Government of the United States, which it regards as an indirect form of intervention in its internal affairs. Economic aid was suspended in January 1981, and terminated in April 1981; the United States acted to oppose or block loans to Nicaragua by international financial bodies; the sugar import quota from Nicaragua was reduced by 90 percent in September 1983; and a total trade embargo on Nicaragua was declared by an executive order of the President of the United States on 1 May 1985.

VIII. The conduct of Nicaragua (paras. 126-171)

The Court has to ascertain, so far as possible, whether the activities of the United States complained of, claimed to have been the exercise of collective self-defence, may be justified by certain facts attributable to Nicaragua.

1. The United States has contended that Nicaragua was actively supporting armed groups operating in certain of the neighbouring countries, particularly in El Salvador, and specifically in the form of the supply of arms, an accusation which Nicaragua has repudiated. The Court first examines the activity of Nicaragua with regard to El Salvador.

Having examined various evidence, and taking account of a number of concordant indications, many of which were provided by Nicaragua itself, from which the Court can reasonably infer the provision of a certain amount of aid from Nicaraguan territory, the Court concludes that support for the armed opposition in El Salvador from Nicaraguan territory was a fact up to the early months of 1981. Subsequently, evidence of military aid from or through Nicaragua remains very weak, despite the deployment by the United States in the region of extensive technical monitoring resources. The Court cannot however conclude that no transport of or traffic in arms existed. It merely takes note that the allegations of arms traffic are not solidly established, and has not been able to satisfy itself that any continuing flow on a significant scale took place after the early months of 1981.

Even supposing it were established that military aid was reaching the armed opposition in El Salvador from the territory of Nicaragua, it skill remains to be proved that such aid is imputable to the authorities of Nicaragua, which has not sought to conceal the possibility of weapons crossing its territory, but denies that this is the result of any deliberate official policy on its part. Having regard to the circumstances characterizing this part of Central America, the Court considers that it is scarcely possible for Nicaragua's responsibility for arms traffic on its territory to be automatically assumed. The Court considers it more consistent with the probabilities to recognize that an activity of that nature, if on a limited scale, may very well be pursued unknown to the territorial government. In any event the evidence is insufficient to satisfy the Court that the Government of Nicaragua was responsible for any flow of arms at either period.

2. The United States has also accused Nicaragua of being responsible for cross-border military attacks on Honduras and Costa Rica. While not as fully informed on the question as it would wish to be, the Court considers as established the fact that certain trans-border military incursions are imputable to the Government of Nicaragua.

3. The Judgment recalls certain events which occurred at the time of the fall of President Somoza, since reliance has been placed on them by the United States to contend that the present Government of Nicaragua is in violation of certain alleged assurances given by its immediate predecessor. The Judgment refers in particular to the "Plan to secure peace" sent on 12 July 1979 by the "Junta of the Government of National Reconstruction" of Nicaragua to the Secretary-General of the OAS, mentioning, inter alia, its "firm intention to establish full observance of human rights in our country" and "to call the first free elections our country has known in this century". The United States considers that it has a special responsibility regarding the implementation of these commitments.

IX. The applicable law: customary international law (paras. 172-182)

The Court has reached the conclusion (section V, in fine) that it has to apply the multilateral treaty reservation in the United States declaration, the consequential exclusion of multilateral treaties being without prejudice either to other treaties or other sources of law enumerated in Article 38 of the Statute. In order to determine the law actually to be applied to the dispute, it has to ascertain the consequences of the exclusion of the applicability of the multilateral treaties for the definition of the content of the customary international law which remains applicable.

The Court, which has already commented briefly on this subject in the jurisdiction phase (I.C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 424 and 425, para. 73), develops its initial remarks. It does not consider that it can be claimed, as the United States does, that all the customary rules which may be invoked have a content exactly identical to that of the rules contained in the treaties which cannot be applied by virtue of the United States reservation. Even if a treaty norm and a customary norm relevant to the present dispute were to have exactly the same content, this would not be a reason for the Court to take the view that the operation of the treaty process must necessarily deprive the customary norm of its separate applicability. Consequently, the Court is in no way bound to uphold customary rules only in so far as they differ from the treaty rules which it is prevented by the United States reservation from applying.

In response to an argument of the United States, the Court considers that the divergence between the content of the customary norms and that of the treaty law norms is not such that a judgment confined to the field of customary international law would not be susceptible of compliance or execution by the parties.

X. The content of the applicable law (paras. 183 to 225)

1. Introduction: general observations (paras. 183-186)

The Court has next to consider what are the rules of customary law applicable to the present dispute. For this purpose it has to consider whether a customary rule exists in the opinio juris of States,and satisfy itself that it is confirmed by practice.

2. The prohibition of the use of force, and the right of self-defence (paras. 187 to 201)

The Court finds that both Parties take the view that the principles as to the use of force incorporated in the United Nations Charter correspond, in essentials, to those found in customary international law. They therefore accept a treaty-law obligation to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (Art. 2, para. 4, of the Charter). The Court has however to be satisfied that there exists in customary law an opinio juris as to the binding character of such abstention. It considers that this opinio juris may be deduced from, inter alia, the attitude of the Parties and of States towards certain General Assembly resolutions, and particularly resolution 2625 (XXV) entitled "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations". Consent to such resolutions is one of the forms of expression of an opinio juris with regard to the principle of non-use of force, regarded as a principle of customary international law, independently of the provisions, especially those of an institutional kind, to which it is subject on the treaty-law plane of the Charter.

The general rule prohibiting force established in customary law allows for certain exceptions. The exception of the right of individual or collective self-defence is also, in the view of States, established in customary law, as is apparent for example from the terms of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which refers to an "inherent right", and from the declaration in resolution 2625 (XXV). The Parties, who consider the existence of this right to be established as a matter of customary international law, agree in holding that whether the response to an attack is lawful depends on the observance of the criteria of the necessity and the proportionality of the measures taken in self-defence.

Whether self-defence be individual or collective, it can only be exercised in response to an "armed attack". In the view of the Court, this is to be understood as meaning not merely action by regular armed forces across an international border, but also the sending by a State of armed bands on to the territory of another State, if such an operation, because of its scale and effects, would have been classified as an armed attack had it been carried out by regular armed forces. The Court quotes the definition of aggression annexed to General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) as expressing customary law in this respect.

The Court does not believe that the concept of "armed attack" includes assistance to rebels in the form of the provision of weapons or logistical or other support. Furthermore, the Court finds that in customary international law, whether of a general kind or that particular to the inter-American legal system, there is no rule permitting the exercise of collective self-defence in the absence of a request by the State which is a victim of the alleged attack, this being additional to the requirement that the State in question should have declared itself to have been attacked.

3. The principle of non-intervention (paras. 202 to 209)

The principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference. Expressions of an opinio juris of States regarding the existence of this principle are numerous. The Court notes that this principle, stated in its own jurisprudence, has been reflected in numerous declarations and resolutions adopted by international organizations and conferences in which the United States and Nicaragua have participated. The text thereof testifies to the acceptance by the United States and Nicaragua of a customary principle which has universal application. As to the content of the principle in customary law, the Court defines the constitutive elements which appear relevant in this case: a prohibited intervention must be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely (for example the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and formulation of foreign policy). Intervention is wrongful when it uses, in regard to such choices, methods of coercion, particularly force, either in the direct form of military action or in the indirect form of support for subversive activities in another State.

With regard to the practice of States, the Court notes that there have been in recent years a number of instances of foreign intervention in one State for the benefit of forces opposed to the government of that State. It concludes that the practice of States does not justify the view that any general right of intervention in support of an opposition within another State exists in contemporary international law; and this is in fact not asserted either by the United States or by Nicaragua.

4. Collective counter-measures in response to conduct not amounting to armed attack (paras. 210 and 211)

The Court then considers the question whether, if one State acts towards another in breach of the principle of non-intervention, a third State may lawfully take action by way of counter-measures which would amount to an intervention in the first State's internal affairs. This would be analogous to the right of self-defence in the case of armed attack, but the act giving rise to the reaction would be less grave, not amounting to armed attack. In the view of the Court, under international law in force today, States do not have a right of "collective" armed response to acts which do not constitute an "armed attack".

5. State sovereignty (paras. 212 to 214)

Turning to the principle of respect for State sovereignty, the Court recalls that the concept of sovereignty, both in treaty-law and in customary international law, extends to the internal waters and territorial sea of every State and to the airspace above its territory. It notes that the laying of mines necessarily affects the sovereignty of the coastal State, and that if the right of access to ports is hindered by the laying of mines by another State, what is infringed is the freedom of communications and of maritime commerce.

6. Humanitarian law (paras. 215 to 220)

The Court observes that the laying of mines in the waters of another State without any warning or notification is not only an unlawful act but also a breach of the principles of humanitarian law underlying the Hague Convention No. VIII of 1907. This consideration leads the Court on to examination of the international humanitarian law applicable to the dispute. Nicaragua has not expressly invoked the provisions of international humanitarian law as such, but has complained of acts committed on its territory which would appear to be breaches thereof. In its submissions it has accused the United States of having killed, wounded and kidnapped citizens of Nicaragua. Since the evidence available is insufficient for the purpose of attributing to the United States the acts committed by the contras, the Court rejects this submission.

The question however remains of the law applicable to the acts of the United States in relation to the activities of the contrast Although Nicaragua has refrained from referring to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, to which Nicaragua and the United States are parties, the Court considers that the rules stated in Article 3, which is common to the four Conventions, applying to armed conflicts of a non-international character, should be applied. The United States is under an obligation to "respect" the Conventions and even to "ensure respect" for them, and thus not to encourage persons or groups engaged in the conflict in Nicaragua to act in violation of the provisions of Article 3. This obligation derives from the general principles of humanitarian law to which the Conventions merely give specific expression.

7. The 1956 treaty (paras. 221 to 225)

In its Judgment of 26 November 1984, the Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to entertain claims concerning the existence of a dispute between the United States and Nicaragua as to the interpretation or application of a number of articles of the treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation signed at Managua on 21 January 1956. It has to determine the meaning of the various relevant provisions, and in particular of Article XXI, paragraphs I (c) and I (d), by which the parties reserved the power to derogate from the other provisions.

XI. Application of the law to the facts (paras. 226 to 282)

Having set out the facts of the case and the rules of international law which appear to be in issue as a result of those facts, the Court has now to appraise the facts in relation to the legal rules applicable, and determine whether there are present any circumstances excluding the unlawfulness of particular acts.

1. The prohibition of the use of force and the right of self-defence (paras. 227 to 238)

Appraising the facts first in the light of the principle of the non-use of force, the Court considers that the laying of mines in early 1984 and certain attacks on Nicaraguan ports, oil installations and naval bases, imputable to the United States constitute infringements of this principle, unless justified by circumstances which exclude their unlawfulness. It also considers that the United States has committed a prima facie violation of the principle by arming and training the contras, unless this can be justified as an exercise of the right of self-defence.

On the other hand, it does not consider that military manoeuvres held by the United States near the Nicaraguan borders, or the supply of funds to the contras, amounts to a use of force.

The Court has to consider whether the acts which it regards as breaches of the principle may be justified by the exercise of the right of collective self-defence, and has therefore to establish whether the circumstances required are present. For this, it would first have to find that Nicaragua engaged in an armed attack against El Salvador, Honduras or Costa Rica, since only such an attack could justify reliance on the right of self-defence. As regards El Salvador, the Court considers that in customary international law the provision of arms to the opposition in another State does not constitute an armed attack on that State. As regards Honduras and Costa Rica, the Court states that, in the absence of sufficient information as to the transborder incursions into the territory of those two States from Nicaragua, it is difficult to decide whether they amount, singly or collectively, to an armed attack by Nicaragua. The Court finds that neither these incursions nor the alleged supply of arms may be relied on as justifying the exercise of the right of collective self-defence.

Secondly, in order to determine whether the United States was justified in exercising self-defence, the Court has to ascertain whether the circumstances required for the exercise of this right of collective self-defence were present, and therefore considers whether the States in question believed that they were the victims of an armed attack by Nicaragua, and requested the assistance of the United States in the exercise of collective self-defence. The Court has seen no evidence that the conduct of those States was consistent with such a situation.

Finally, appraising the United States activity in relation to the criteria of necessity and proportionality, the Court cannot find that the activities in question were undertaken in the light of necessity, and finds that some of them cannot be regarded as satisfying the criterion of proportionality.

Since the plea of collective self-defence advanced by the United States cannot be upheld, it follows that the United States has violated the principle prohibiting recourse to the threat or use of force by the acts referred to in the first paragraph of this section.

2. The principle of non-intervention (paras. 239 to 245)

The Court finds it clearly established that the United States intended, by its support of the contras, to coerce Nicaragua in respect of matters in which each State is permitted to decide freely, and that the intention of the contras themselves was to overthrow the present Government of Nicaragua. It considers that if one State, with a view to the coercion of another State, supports and assists armed bands in that State whose purpose is to overthrow its government, that amounts to an intervention in its internal affairs, whatever the political objective of the State giving support. It therefore finds that the support given by the United States to the military and paramilitary activities of the contras in Nicaragua, by financial support, training, supply of weapons, intelligence and logistic support, constitutes a clear breach of the principle of non-intervention. Humanitarian aid on the other hand cannot be regarded as unlawful intervention. With effect from 1 October 1984, the United States Congress has restricted the use of funds to "humanitarian assistance" to the contrast The Court recalls that if the provision of "humanitarian assistance" is to escape condemnation as an intervention in the internal affairs of another State, it must be limited to the purposes hallowed in the practice of the Red Cross, and above all be given without discrimination.

With regard to the form of indirect intervention which Nicaragua sees in the taking of certain action of an economic nature against it by the United States, the Court is unable to regard such action in the present case as a breach of the customary law principle of non-intervention.

3. Collective counter-measures in response to conduct not amounting to armed attack (paras. 246 to 249)

Having found that intervention in the internal affairs of another State does not produce an entitlement to take collective counter-measures involving the use of force, the Court finds that the acts of which Nicaragua is accused, even assuming them to have been established and imputable to that State, could not justify counter-measures taken by a third State, the United States, and particularly could not justify intervention involving the use of force.

4. State sovereignty (paras. 250 to 253)

The Court finds that the assistance to the contras, the direct attacks on Nicaraguan ports, oil installations, etc., the mining operations in Nicaraguan ports, and the acts of intervention involving the use of force referred to in the Judgment, which are already a breach of the principle of non-use of force, are also an infringement of the principle of respect for territorial sovereignty. This principle is also directly infringed by the unauthorized overflight of Nicaraguan territory. These acts cannot be justified by the activities in El Salvador attributed to Nicaragua; assuming that such activities did in fact occur, they do not bring into effect any right belonging to the United States. The Court also concludes that, in the context of the present proceedings, the laying of mines in or near Nicaraguan ports constitutes an infringement, to Nicaragua's detriment, of the freedom of communications and of maritime commerce.

5. Humanitarian law (paras. 254 to 256)

The Court has found the United States responsible for the failure to give notice of the mining of Nicaraguan ports.

It has also found that, under general principles of humanitarian law, the United States was bound to refrain from encouragement of persons or groups engaged in the conflict in Nicaragua to commit violations of common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. The manual on "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare", for the publication and dissemination of which the United States is responsible, advises certain acts which cannot but be regarded as contrary to that article.

6. Other grounds mentioned in justification of the acts of the United States (paras. 257 to 269)

The United States has linked its support to the contras with alleged breaches by the Government of Nicaragua of certain solemn commitments to the Nicaraguan people, the United States and the OAS. The Court considers whether there is anything in the conduct of Nicaragua which might legally warrant counter-measures by the United States in response to the alleged violations. With reference to the "Plan to secure peace" put forward by the Junta of the Government of National Reconstruction (12 July 1979), the Court is unable to find anything in the documents and communications transmitting the plan from which it can be inferred that any legal undertaking was intended to exist. The Court cannot contemplate the creation of a new rule opening up a right of intervention by one State against another on the ground that the latter has opted for some particular ideology or political system. Furthermore the Respondent has not advanced a legal argument based on an alleged new principle of "ideological intervention".

With regard more specifically to alleged violations of human rights relied on by the United States, the Court considers that the use of force by the United States could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure respect for such rights, normally provided for in the applicable conventions. With regard to the alleged militarization of Nicaragua, also referred to by the United States to justify its activities, the Court observes that in international law there are no rules, other than such rules as may be accepted by the State concerned, by treaty or otherwise, whereby the level of armaments of a sovereign State can be limited, and this principle is valid for all States without exception.

7. The 1956 Treaty (paras. 270 to 282)

The Court turns to the claims of Nicaragua based on the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1956, and the claim that the United States has deprived the Treaty of its object and purpose and emptied it of real content. The Court cannot however entertain these claims unless the conduct complained of is not "measures . . . necessary to protect the essential security interests" of the United States, since Article XXI of the Treaty provides that the Treaty shall not preclude the application of such measures. With regard to the question what activities of the United States might have been such as to deprive the Treaty of its object and purpose, the Court makes a distinction. It is unable to regard all the acts complained of in that light, but considers that there are certain activities which undermine the whole spirit of the agreement. These are the mining of Nicaraguan ports, the direct attacks on ports, oil installations, etc., and the general trade embargo.

The Court also upholds the contention that the mining of the ports is in manifest contradiction with the freedom of navigation and commerce guaranteed by Article XIX of the Treaty. It also concludes that the trade embargo proclaimed on 1 May 1985 is contrary to that article.

The Court therefore finds that the United States is prima facie in breach of an obligation not to deprive the 1956 Treaty of its object and purpose (pacta sunt servanda), and has committed acts in contradiction with the terms of the Treaty. The Court has however to consider whether the exception in Article XXI concerning "measures . . . necessary to protect the essential security interests" of a Party may be invoked to justify the acts complained of. After examining the available material, particularly the Executive Order of President Reagan of 1 May 1985, the Court finds that the mining of Nicaraguan ports, and the direct attacks on ports and oil installations, and the general trade embargo of 1 May 1985, cannot be justified as necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States.

XII. The claim for reparation (paras. 283 to 285)

The Court is requested to adjudge and declare that compensation is due to Nicaragua, the quantum thereof to be fixed subsequently, and to award to Nicaragua the sum of 370.2 million US dollars as an interim award. After satisfying itself that it has jurisdiction to order reparation, the Court considers appropriate the request of Nicaragua for the nature and amount of the reparation to be determined in a subsequent phase of the proceedings. It also considers that there is no provision in the Statute of the Court either specifically empowering it or debarring it from making an interim award of the kind requested. In a cases in which one Party is not appearing, the Court should refrain from any unnecessary act which might prove an obstacle to a negotiated settlement. The Court therefore does not consider that it can accede at this stage to this request by Nicaragua.

XIII. The provisional measures (paras. 286 to 289)

After recalling certain passages in its Order of 10 May 1984, the Court concludes that it is incumbent on each Party not to direct its conduct solely by reference to what it believes to be its rights. Particularly is this so in a situation of armed conflict where no reparation can efface the results of conduct which the Court may rule to have been contrary to international law

XIV. Peaceful settlement of disputes; the Contadora process (paras. 290 to 291)

In the present case the Court has already taken note of the Contadora process, and of the fact that it had been endorsed by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, as well as by Nicaragua and the United States. It recalls to both Parties to the present case the need to co-operate with the Contadora efforts in seeking a definitive and lasting peace in Central America, in accordance with the principle of customary international law that prescribes the peaceful settlement of international disputes, also endorsed by Article 33 of the United Nations Charter.

__________

SUMMARY OF THE OPINIONS APPENDED TOTHE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Separate Opinion of Judge Nagendra Singh,

President

The operative part of paragraph 292 (16) of the Judgment adopted unanimously by the Court which enjoins parties to seek a peaceful solution of their disputes in accordance with international law really rests on the due observance of two basic principles: namely that of non-use of force in inter-State relations and that of non-intervention in the affairs of other States. This in the President's view is the main thrust of the Judgment of the Court rendered with utmost sincerity to serve the best interests of the community.

In fact, the cardinal principle of non-use of force in international relations has been the pivotal point of a time-honoured legal philosophy that has evolved particularly after the two world wars of the current century. The Charter provisions as well as the Latin American Treaty System have not only developed the concept but strengthened it to the extent that it would stand on its own, even if the Charter and the Treaty basis were held inapplicable in this case. The obvious explanation is that the original customary aspect which has evolved with the treaty law development has come now to stay and survive as the existing modern concept of international law, whether customary, because of its origins, or "a general principle of international law recognized by civilized nations". The contribution of the Court has been to emphasize the principle of non-use of force as one belonging to the realm of juscogens and hence as the very cornerstone of the human effort to promote peace in a world torn by strife. Force begets force and aggravates conflicts, embitters relations and endangers peaceful resolution of the dispute.

There is also the key doctrine of non-intervention in the affairs of States which is equally vital for the peace and progress of humanity being essentially needed to promote the healthy existence of the community. The principle of non-intervention is to be treated as a sanctified absolute rule of law.

States must observe both these principles namely that of non-use of force and that of non-intervention in the best interests of peace and order in the community. The Court has rightly held them both as principles of customary international law although sanctified by treaty law, but applicable in this case in the former customary manifestation having been reinvigorated by being further strengthened by the express consent of States particularly the Parties in dispute here. This must indeed have all the weight that law could ever commend in any case.

The decision of the Court is in the result of a collegiate exercise reached after prolonged deliberation and a full exchange of views of no less than fifteen Judges who, working according to the Statute and Rules of the Court, have examined the legal arguments and all the evidence before it. In this, as in all other cases, every care has been taken to strictly observe the procedures prescribed and the decision is upheld by a clear majority. What is more, the binding character of the Judgment under the Statute (Art. 59) is made sacrosanct by a provision of the UN Charter (Art. 94): all Members of the United Nations have undertaken an obligation to comply with the Court's decisions addressed to them and to always respect the validity of the Judgment.

__________

Separate Opinion of Judge Lachs

Judge Lachs begins by drawing attention to the requirements of the Statute in respect of the personal qualities and diversity of origin that must characterize Members of the Court, and deprecates any aspersion upon their independence.

On the substance of the Judgment he would have preferred more attention to be given to foreign assistance to the opposition forces in El Salvador, and different formulae to have been used in various places.

Judge Lachs returns to some aspects of jurisdiction, considering that insufficient weight had previously been given to the forty years that had elapsed before any public objection had been raised against the validity of Nicaragua's acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction. When that validity had been privately questioned in connection with a case in the mid-1950s, action should have been taken by the United Nations: Nicaragua should have been asked to complete any necessary formalities and, if it failed to do so, would have been removed from the list of States subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. The United Nations having taken no action, it was legitimate to view the imperfection as cured by acquiescence over a very long period. The jurisdiction of the Court based on the FCN Treaty of 1956 gave no cause for doubt.

Judge Lachs also deals with the question of the justiciability of the case: the close relationship between legal and political disputes, as between law and politics. International law today covers such wide areas of international relations that only very few domains - for instance, the problem of disarmament, or others, specifically excluded by States - are not justiciable. He specifically instances the case concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran.

Referring to the Court's refusal to grant a hearing to El Salvador at the jurisdictional stage, Judge Lachs states that he has come to view it as a judicial error which does not, however, justify any unrelated conclusions.

The broad confrontation between the Parties should, in Judge Lachs's view, be settled within the framework of the Contadora Plan, in co-operation with all States of the region. The area, torn by conflicts, suffering from under-development for a long time, requires a new approach based on equal consideration of the interests of all concerned in the spirit of good-neighbourly relations.

__________

Separate Opinion of Judge Ruda

The separate Opinion of Judge Ruda deals with four subjects. In the first place, Judge Ruda does not accept the reservation expressed by the United States in the letter dated 18 January 1985 "in respect of any decision by the Court regarding Nicaragua's claims". In Judge Ruda's view, pursuant to Article 94, paragraph I, of the Charter of the United Nations, the Member States of the United Nations have formally accepted the obligation to comply with the Court's decisions.

The second part of the Opinion refers to the Vandenberg Amendment. Judge Ruda voted against the application of the Amendment, for the reasons stated in the separate Opinion which he submitted in 1984.

In the third part, Judge Ruda deals with the question of self-defence. He explains that his conclusions are the same as those reached by the Court, but in his view it is not necessary to enter into all the factual details, because assistance to rebels is not perse a pretext for self-defence from the legal point of view.

The fourth part is devoted to the reasons why Judge Ruda, despite having voted in 1984 against the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation as a basis of the Court's jurisdiction, believes he is bound to vote on the substantive issues submitted to the Court on this subject.

__________

Separate Opinion of Judge Elias

Judge Elias considers that, following the Court's Judgment in the jurisdictional phase, the multilateral treaty reservation attached to the United States declaration accepting jurisdiction under the Optional Clause was left in abeyance and had no further relevance unless El Salvador, Honduras or Costa Rica intervened in the phase on merits and reparation. For the Court to have applied it was therefore incorrect and tantamount to invoking a power to revise its decision on jurisdiction and admissibility on behalf of non-parties to the case.

__________

Separate Opinion of Judge Ago

While subscribing to the Judgment as a whole and approving in particular the position adopted by the Court concerning the United States' multilateral treaty reservation, Judge Ago remains hesitant about certain points. For example, he feels that the Court made a somewhat too hasty finding as to the quasi-identity of substance between customary international law and the law enshrined in certain major multilateral treaties of universal character, and was also somewhat too ready to see the endorsement of certain principles by UN and OAS resolutions as proof of the presence of those principles in the opinio juris of members of the international community. Judge Ago also feels obliged to draw attention to what he views as some partially contradictory aspects of the Court's assessment of the factual and legal situation. He further considers that some passages of the Judgment show a paucity of legal reasoning to support the Court's conclusions as to the imputability of certain acts to the Respondent qua acts giving rise to international responsibility, and would have preferred to see the Court include a more explicit confirmation of its case-law on this subject.

__________

Separate Opinion of Judge Sette-Camara

Judge Sette-Camara fully concurs with the Judgment because he firmly believes that "the non-use of force as well as non-intervention - the latter as a corollary of equality of States and self-determination - are not only cardinal principles of customary international law but could in addition be recognized as peremptory rules of customary international law which impose obligations on all States". His separate opinion deals only with subparagraph (1) of the operative part, against which he has voted. He maintains that the multilateral treaty reservation, appended to the United States 1946 Declaration of Acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the Court according to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, cannot be applied to the present case, since none of the decisions taken in the operative part can in any way "affect" third States, and in particular El Salvador. The case is between Nicaragua and the United States and the binding force of the Court's decision is confined to these two Parties. Judge Sette-Camara recognizes the right of any State making Declarations of Acceptance to append to them whatever reservations it deems fit. However, he contends that the Court is free, and indeed bound, to interpret those reservations. He regrets that the application of the multilateral treaty reservation debarred the Court from resting the Judgment on the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of the Organization of American States, and forced it to resort only to principles of customary international law and the bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1956. He submits that the law applied by the Judgment would be clearer and more precise if the Court had resorted to the specific provisions of the relevant multilateral convention

__________

Separate Opinion of Judge Ni

Judge Ni's primary concern, as expressed in his separate opinion, is with respect to the "multilateral treaty reservation" invoked by the United States. In his view, any acceptance of its applicability entailed (1) the exclusion of the Court from exercising jurisdiction in so far as Nicaragua's claims were based on the multilateral treaties in question, and (2) the preclusion, if the case was on other grounds still in the Court for adjudication of the merits, of the application of such multilateral treaties. In the instant case, however, the United States, while invoking the multilateral treaty reservation to challenge the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court, had in the meantime persistently claimed that the multilateral treaties, which constitute the very basis of its reservation, should alone be applied to the case in dispute. That claim amounted in effect to a negation of its own reservation and, taking into account all the relevant circumstances, ought to have been considered as a waiver of the multilateral treaty reservation. Such being the case, Judge Ni differed from the majority of the Court in that he considered that the rules contained in multilateral treaties, as well as customary international law, should, where appropriate, have been applied to the case.

__________

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Oda

Judge Oda agrees with the Court's recognition of the applicability of the multilateral treaty proviso attached to the United States' 1946 declaration but considers that, having thus decided that the dispute had arisen under a multilateral treaty, it should have ceased to entertain the application of Nicaragua on the basis of that declaration. The Court had been wrong to interpret the exclusion of the dispute by that proviso as merely placing restrictions upon the sources of law to which it was entitled to refer.

Judge Oda further believes that, to the extent that the Nicaraguan claims presupposed the Court's jurisdiction under declarations made pursuant to Article 36 (2) of the Statute, which refers to "legal disputes", they should have been declared non-justiciable, since the dispute was not "legal" within the meaning and intention of that clause or, even if it were, it was not one that the Court could properly entertain: as a political dispute, it was more suitable for resolution by other organs and procedures. Moreover, the facts the Court could elicit by examining the evidence in the absence of the Respondent fell far short of what was needed to show a complete picture.

Judge Oda thus considers that, in so far as the Court could properly entertain the case, it could do so on the basis of Article 36 (1) of the Statute, where the term "all matters specially provided for in . . . treaties . . . in force" gave no such grounds for questioning the "legal" nature of the dispute. The Court could therefore legitimately examine any breach of the concrete terms of the 1956 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation. In Judge Oda's view, the mining of the Nicaraguan ports had constituted such a breach, for which the United States had incurred responsibility.

Judge Oda emphasizes that his negative votes on many counts of the Judgment must not be interpreted as implying that he is opposed to the rules of law concerning the use of force or intervention, of whose violation the United States has been accused, but are merely a logical consequence of his convictions on the subject of jurisdiction under Article 36 (2) of the Statute.

Finally, Judge Oda regrets that the Court has been needlessly precipitate in giving its views on collective self-defence in its first Judgment to broach that subject.

__________

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel

Judge Schwebel dissented from the Court's Judgment on factual and legal grounds. He agreed with the Court in its holdings against the United States for its failure to make known the existence and location of mines laid by it and its causing the publication of a manual advocating acts in violation of the law of war. But Judge Schwebel concluded that the United States essentially acted lawfully in exerting armed pressures against Nicaragua, both directly and through its support of the contras, because Nicaragua's prior and sustained support of armed insurgency in El Salvador was tantamount to an armed attack upon El Salvador against which the United States could react in collective self-defence in El Salvador's support.

Judge Schwebel found that, since 1979, Nicaragua had assisted and persisted in providing large-scale, vital assistance to the insurgents in El Salvador. The delictual acts of Nicaragua had not been confined to providing the Salvadoran rebels with large quantities of arms, munitions and supplies, which of themselves arguably might be seen as not tantamount to armed attack. Nicaragua had also joined with the Salvadoran rebels in the organization, planning and training for their acts of insurgency, and had provided them with command-and-control facilities, bases, communications and sanctuary which enabled the leadership of the Salvadoran rebels to operate from Nicaraguan territory. That scale of assistance, in Judge Schwebel's view, was legally tantamount to an armed attack. Not only was El Salvador entitled to defend itself against that armed attack, it had called upon the United States to assist it in the exercise of collective self-defence. The United States was entitled to do so, through measures overt or covert. Those measures could be exerted not only in El Salvador but against Nicaragua on its own territory.

In Judge Schwebel's view, the Court's conclusion that the Nicaraguan Government was not "responsible for any flow of arms" to the Salvadoran insurgents was not sustained by "judicial or judicious" considerations. The Court had "excluded, discounted and excused the unanswerable evidence of Nicaragua's major and maintained intervention in the Salvadoran insurgency". Nicaragua's intervention in El Salvador in support of the Salvadoran insurgents was, Judge Schwebel held, admitted by the President of Nicaragua, affirmed by Nicaragua's leading witness in the case, and confirmed by a "cornucopia of corroboration".

Even if, contrary to his view, Nicaragua's actions in support of the Salvadoran insurgency were not viewed as tantamount to an armed attack, Judge Schwebel concluded that they undeniably constituted unlawful intervention. But the Court, "remarkably enough", while finding the United States responsible for intervention in Nicaragua, failed to recognize Nicaragua's prior and continuing intervention in El Salvador.

For United States measures in collective self-defence to be lawful, they must be necessary and proportionate. In Judge Schwebel's view, it was doubtful whether the question of necessity in this case was justiciable, because the facts were so indeterminate, depending as they did on whether measures not involving the use of force could succeed in terminating Nicaragua's intervention in El Salvador. But it could reasonably be held that the necessity of those measures was indicated by "persistent Nicaraguan failure to cease armed subversion of El Salvador".

Judge Schwebel held that "the actions of the United States are strikingly proportionate. The Salvadoran rebels, vitally supported by Nicaragua, conduct a rebellion in El Salvador; in collective self-defence, the United States symmetrically supports rebels who conduct a rebellion in Nicaragua. The rebels in El Salvador pervasively attack economic targets of importance in El Salvador; the United States selectively attacks economic targets of military importance" in Nicaragua.

Judge Schwebel maintained that, in contemporary international law, the State which first intervenes with the use of force in another State - as by substantial involvement in the sending of irregulars onto its territory - is, prima facie, the aggressor. Nicaragua's status as prima facie aggressor can only be confirmed upon examination of the facts. "Moreover", Judge Schwebel concluded, "Nicaragua has compounded its delictual behaviour by pressing false testimony on the Court in a deliberate effort to conceal it. Accordingly, on both grounds, Nicaragua does not come before the Court with clean hands. Judgment in its favour thus unwarranted, and would be unwarranted even if it should be concluded - as it should not be - that the responsive actions of the United States were unnecessary or disproportionate."

__________

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sir Robert Jennings

Judge Sir Robert Jennings agreed with the Court that the United States multilateral treaty reservation is valid and must be respected. He was unable to accept the Court's decision that it could, nevertheless, exercise jurisdiction over the case by applying customary law in lieu of the relevant multilateral treaties. Accordingly, whilst able to vote in favour of certain of the Court's findings, he felt compelled to vote against its decisions on the use of force, on intervention, and on the question of self-defence, because in his view the Court was lacking jurisdiction to decide those matters.

Qatar: Powerful Emir to Step Down for His 33-Year-Old Son

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:39

FADI AL-ASSAAD / REUTERSQatar's Emir Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, front right, and his son Crown Prince Sheik Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, front left, attend a final match of the Emir Cup at Khalifa stadium in the Qatari capital of Doha on May 18, 2013

Residents of Qatar can finally stop holding their breath. On Monday evening, the nation's official Qatar News Agency announced that on Tuesday morning Qatar's Emir Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, 61, will address the nation with a long-awaited announcement that he would transfer power to his son, Crown Prince Sheik Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, putting an end to rumors and speculation that have occupied this tiny, petroleum-rich Gulf nation for months.

The announced move is thought to be part of a larger reshuffle in the royal Cabinet that will bring a new generation of younger leaders to the fore '-- Sheik Tamim, at 33, will be the youngest ruler in the region by a good decade and a half (Syria's embattled President Bashar Assad, at 47, is his closest peer). Other projected moves have the indefatigable Prime Minister Sheik Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, 53, who serves as both Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, stepping down in favor of a younger administrator as well, though there is no official succession plan, or names, in place for the premiership. Tuesday has been declared a national holiday in preparation for the coming announcements.

The al-Thani family has ruled Qatar, a vital U.S. ally that is home to a major American military base, for nearly 150 years. The current King deposed his father in 1995 and is widely celebrated as a competent and progressive '-- as progressive as possible in an absolute monarchy, at least '-- leader who has presided over Qatar's growing clout on the world stage. In many ways Crown Prince Tamim, who was declared heir apparent in 2003, leapfrogging his three older brothers, represents a reassuring continuity. For nearly a decade he has been at his father's side, engaging world leaders, representing Qatar at international events and presiding over Qatar's 2030 Vision project, which lays out domestic development goals for the country.

Still, Sheik Tamim will be thrust into the limelight at a pivotal moment for Qatar. For the past several years, the country has gambled big in a bid for regional prominence, leading the charge for regime change in Libya, supporting rebel groups in Syria and hosting envoys of the Afghan Taliban in an attempt to force peace between the rebel group, the Americans and the Afghan government. Doha-based news broadcaster al-Jazeera, with its aggressive reporting on the Arab uprisings, has been the country's calling card, telegraphing the leadership's views on the region even as it purports to be independent.

But Doha's attempt to supplant regional power brokers like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey with a combination of cash, brio and pugnacious foreign policy has somewhat backfired. Countries like Libya, Tunisia and Egypt that once welcomed Qatar's generous financial help in the wake of their revolutions, have grown suspicious of what they see as Qatari support of Islamist groups. Older, more established countries in the Gulf view Qatar as a disruptive upstart, dangerously close to the Muslim Brotherhood. Syria, in particular, could well prove Qatar's downfall. What once looked like a quick success in the mold of previous Arab uprisings has turned into a bloody quagmire. If Assad survives, Qatar's standing in the region, after more than billions of dollars spent on weapons and aid to the rebels, would be irreparably damaged.

To that end, Sheik Tamim's sudden emergence as Emir could be just what Qatar needs to shake off the bad publicity of the past few months. Soon he will be the youngest leader in the Arab world, where 60% of the population is under the age of 25. He is likely to bring a new energy, not just to Qatar but also to a region whose leadership has long been seen as out of touch with the needs of today's youth.

Unlike the playboy scions of other Arab leaders, Sheik Tamim has led a relatively quiet life. Educated in the U.K., first at the prestigious Harrow School, then the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, he quickly returned home to take up positions of responsibility considerably advanced for his young age. As the son of Sheika Mozah bint Nasser al-Missned, the Emir's formidable second wife and head of the Qatar Foundation, Sheik Tamim is likely to bring his mother's progressive social agenda to the fore, focusing on Qatar's human-capital development as much as he does on the country's image in the rest of the world. This will please his domestic audience, which has grumbled over excessive expenditures abroad. With the FIFA World Cup coming to Qatar in 2022, the country has embarked on a massive construction boom. The subsequent influx of foreign workers to build that infrastructure threatens to unbalance the citizen-to-expatriate ratio even further '-- out of a population of nearly 2 million, only an estimated 250,000 are Qatari citizens. Sheik Tamim will need to assure his people that while the complexion of Qatar may change, its core values and traditions will not.

Qatar, as cheerleader to the Arab revolts, occupies a precarious position as an authoritarian state at the forefront of democratic change in a rapidly evolving region. Qatar has yet to hold parliamentary elections, something that the current Emir has promised will take place by the end of 2013. So far no other details about those elections have been made public, though Qataris are holding out hope that tomorrow's announcement might include news of both the new King's inauguration and details of the polls. If Sheik Tamim, as Emir, can anchor his new reign with real, representative elections, he will preside over a country that has finally reconciled its practice with its preaching.

The New Normal: Congress proposes to threaten impeachment if Obama goes to war in Syria

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: Dr. Jones reports

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:12

WASHINGTON, D.C. '' Yesterday, Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) introduced a resolution to prohibit the use of war power against Syria without congressional authorization. H. Con. Res 40 emphasizes that declaring and appropriating funds for war is a power of the legislative '' not executive '' branch. Should the president choose to implement military force against Syria without congressional approval, that decision would constitute an impeachable offense under Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.

''We cannot continue to spend American money and risk American lives overseas without a vote of approval from Congress,'' said Jones. ''For too long, the legislature's responsibility to authorize military force has been overlooked. It is time that we uphold the Constitution, which makes it clear in Article 1, Section 8 that Congress alone holds the power to declare war. A breach of that principle by the president would unquestionably be considered an impeachable offense.''

See the full text of the resolution at the link below.

Burma Chiners

UK: Muslims with Taliban and al-Qaeda flags demonstrate at Sri Lanka and Burma Embassies in London

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 23:15

This is the type of Muslims (in the pictures below) that the UK needs to simply pack up and ship out of the country and ban any further entry or access into the country. It's not more difficult than that to stop evil spreading in the UK or the rest of Europe at this point before it becomes unmanageable. But they refuse to do it.Muslims protest in London outside the Sri Lanka and Burma Embassies against ''genocide'' of Bangladeshi Muslims in Burma, without any admission who started the conflict in the first place. Note the Talbian and al Qaeda flags they use.They have no remorse or admission that Muslims were raping, pillaging and murdering Burmese Buddhists and this conflict has been ongoing for many decades after Muslim violence became a standard feature in the country. They have no protest against Muslim genocide of other people both in Burma and in their own country, Bangladesh where Muslims are committing genocide against Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists. The persecution of non-Muslims is so bad, Bangladesh managed to get on the UNHR list for human rights violations.To view the different Islamic flags flouting around amongst the followers of the Religion of Peace, see this link from a company calling itself Trident Military (P.O. Box 427) in Ambridge Pennsylvania that sells forged police and military uniforms, accessories, supplies and nazi and terrorism flags and memorabilia.Which flag belongs to whom?

The flag of the Khilafa (Caliphate) terrorist movement, that seeks to spread all over the world and reestablish the Caliphate.

(Above) Taliban flags used in Afghanistan. Black Islamic writing on white.Islamic text reads ''I bear witness that there is no deity other than Allah and that Muhammad is his servant and Messenger''. The white flag is referred to as al-liwa', and is also sometimes referred to as the flag of the Caliphate. [keep an eye out for that one across Europe right now]

(Above) Al-Qaeda Flags used all across the Middle East. The black flag is referred to as al-raya.The black flag is a symbol for death, for jihad.

(Above) Islamic terrorist flags used in Chechinya

(Above) The green flag of terrorist organization Hamas (created by the Muslim Brotherhood, whoalso created the initial al Qaeda '' not to be confused with the national Saudi flag with the sword).The green color may also indicate Saudi and Lebanon support and funding of Hamas since the national flag of these countries is green. In addition, most ''palestinians'' come from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and not from Palestine. They never lost any land to ''Jewish occupation''. That's mere militant propaganda churned out endlessly.

(Abive) The flag belonging to the terrorist organization Hezbolla.

(Above) Iraqi and Iranian al Qaeda flag.

(Above) Iranian of the Mahdi Army (Caliphate)

(Above) The Syrian arm of al Qaeda's flag (or as Obama and the EU likes to call them, ''rebels'' and ''freedom fighters'')

(Above) Another al Qaeda flag found amongst the Syrian ''freedom fighters''

(Above) al Qaeda's new logo with the sun symbolizing the the growth, spread and dominion of the extremist arm around the world.

(Above) Flag of The Islamic State of Iraq found in a Sunni village in Diyala province. The Islamic State of Iraq is an al Qaeda front group masquerading as a ''shadow government''.

(Above) Flag of Somali terrorists

.

Muslims with Taliban and al-Qaeda flags demonstrate at Sri Lanka and Burma Embassies in London.

[Note the al-Qaeda slogan and headbands on the women]

LONDON, 5 April 2013. Muslim demonstration against Burmese and Sri Lankan aggression took place at Hyde Park Gardens (Sri Lanka Embassy) and Charles Street (Burmese Embassy) .Women, men and children were present at both protests holding placard against Burmese and Sri Lankan agression. [Note the Taliban flag with their slogan from the Quran printed in black on the white flag]

LONDON, 5 April 2013. Muslim demonstration against Burmese and Sri Lankan aggression took place at Hyde Park Gardens (Sri Lanka Embassy) and Charles Street (Burmese Embassy) after. Protesters were chanting slogans and holding banners.

Members of the EDL showed up at both protests chanting slogans against the muslim groups. The muslim group speaks out against Burmese and Sri Lankan ''aggression''.

A man speaks out against Burmese and Sri Lankan agression at Hyde Park Gardens in front of the Sri Lanka Embassy and in Charles Street at the Burmese Embassy.

Salafi dressed Muslims protest ''genocide'' against Bangladeshi Muslims in Burma, without any admission who started the conflict in the first place. They have no protest against Muslim genocide of other people both in Burma and in their own country, Bangladesh where Muslims are committing genocide against Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists. The persecution of non-Muslims is so bad, Bangladesh managed to get on the UNHR list for human rights violations.

.

(below) EDL protesters counter protests the Muslim's protest:

Members of the EDL showed up at both protests chanting slogans against the muslim groups. The muslim group speaks out against Burmese and Sri Lankan ''aggression''.

LONDON, 5 April 2013. Muslim demonstration against Burmese and Sri Lankan aggression took place at Hyde Park Gardens (Sri Lanka Embassy) and Charles Street (Burmese Embassy). Members of the EDL showed up at both protests chanting slogans against them

LONDON, 5 April 2013. Muslim demonstration against Burmese and Sri Lankan aggression took place at Hyde Park Gardens (Sri Lanka Embassy) and Charles Street (Burmese Embassy). Members of the EDL showed up at both protests chanting slogans against them

Spy vs Spy

BBC News - 'Master key' to Android phones uncovered

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:48

4 July 2013Last updated at06:12 ETA "master key" that could give cyber-thieves unfettered access to almost any Android phone has been discovered by security research firm BlueBox.

The bug could be exploited to let an attacker do what they want to a phone including stealing data, eavesdropping or using it to send junk messages.

The loophole has been present in every version of the Android operating system released since 2009.

Google said it currently had no comment to make on BlueBox's discovery.

Writing on the BlueBox blog, Jeff Forristal, said the implications of the discovery were "huge".

The bug emerges because of the way Android handles cryptographic verification of the programs installed on the phone.

Android uses the cryptographic signature as a way to check that an app or program is legitimate and to ensure it has not been tampered with. Mr Forristal and his colleagues have found a method of tricking the way Android checks these signatures so malicious changes to apps go unnoticed.

Any app or program written to exploit the bug would enjoy the same access to a phone that the legitimate version of that application enjoyed.

"It can essentially take over the normal functioning of the phone and control any function thereof," wrote Mr Forristal. BlueBox reported finding the bug to Google in February. Mr Forristal is planning to reveal more information about the problem at the Black Hat hacker conference being held in August this year.

The danger from the loophole remains theoretical because, as yet, there is no evidence that it is being exploited by cyber-thieves.

One other hurdle is that in order to catch out Android users, malicious hackers would have to get their booby-trapped version of a legitimate application on to the Google Play store, said security expert Dan Wallach in an interview with Ars Technica.

Motorola Is Listening - Projects - Beneath the Waves

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:00

Home > Projects > Motorola Is Listening

Motorola Is Listening

article by Ben Lincoln

In June of 2013, I made an interesting discovery about the Android phone (a Motorola Droid X2) which I was using at the time: it was silently sending a considerable amount of sensitive information to Motorola, and to compound the problem, a great deal of it was over an unencrypted HTTP channel.

If you're in a hurry, you can skip straight to the Analysis - email, ActiveSync, and social networking section - that's where the most sensitive information (e.g. email/social network account passwords) is discussed.

Update 2 (2013-07-02 @ 08:03) - potential device security concern

I realized this morning that there may be a more significant problem. See Potential (untested) device security concern, below.

Update 1 (2013-07-02 @ 05:30) - Android, the Droid X2, and Blur

This article has gotten a lot more attention than I expected.

A clarification I'd like to make (because there seems to be a lot of confusion about this) is that the Droid X2 does not use Motorola's "Blur"/"MotoBlur" user interface. That's one of the reasons I picked that model specifically back in 2011 - it seemed to be running something very close to the stock version of Android.

The email client, web browser, text-messaging app, and so on look like the ones that were included on the G1 I had previously, which is about as close to "stock Android" as you can get with a carrier-installed OS. Based on my research, it seems that they've all been modified to silently send data to and/or through the Blur web-service back-end, but there's no indication to the user that this is the case unless they do the sort of network capture that I did. There is no prompt to create or use a Blur user ID - the phone uses a randomly-generated Blur account for all of the behind-the-scenes activity described below.

I would be very interested in trying this same test with more recent Motorola phones, because there's definitely the perception out there that Blur has been phased out, and I think it's much more likely that it's just the UI on their phones that's been changed, as opposed to removing the underlying Blur functionality.

If you're still unsure why I think this is a problem, ask yourself this: if you bought a desktop PC running Windows, then discovered two years later that the hardware manufacturer had installed modified versions of standard Windows software like Outlook Express and Internet Explorer which - without any indication to the user - sent your passwords to, and routed other traffic through servers owned by the PC manufacturer instead of connecting directly to the actual websites and mail servers, would you be OK with it? If not, then why are you when it's a phone instead of a desktop PC?

Technical notes

The screenshots and other data in this article are more heavily-redacted than I would prefer in the interest of full disclosure and supporting evidence. There are several reasons for this:

There is a considerable amount of binary, hex-encoded, and base64-encoded data mixed in with the traffic. As I have not performed a full reverse-engineering of the data, it's hard for me to know if any of these values are actually sensitive at this time, or in the future when someone more thoroughly decodes the protocol.My employer reminds its employees that publicly identifying themselves as employees of that organization conveys certain responsibilities upon them. I do not speak for my employer, so all information that would indicate who that employer is has been removed.I would rather not expose my personal information more than Motorola has already.Discovery

I was using my personal phone at work to do some testing related to Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync. In order to monitor the traffic, I had configured my phone to proxy all HTTP and HTTPS traffic through Burp Suite Professional - an intercepting proxy that we use for penetration testing - so that I could easily view the contents of the ActiveSync communication.

Looking through the proxy history, I saw frequent HTTP connections to ws-cloud112-blur.svcmot.com mixed in with the expected ActiveSync connections.

ActiveSync Configuration Information ActiveSync configuration information being sent to Motorola's Blur service.

As of 22 June, 2013, svcmot.com is a domain owned by Motorola, or more specifically:

Motorola Trademark Holdings, LLC

600 North US Highway 45 Attn: Law Department

Libertyville IL 60048

US

internic@motorola.com +1.8475765000 Fax: +1.8475234348

I was quickly able to determine that the connections to Motorola were triggered every time I updated the ActiveSync configuration on my phone, and that the unencrypted HTTP traffic contained the following data:

The DNS name of the ActiveSync server (only sent when the configuration is first created).The domain name and user ID I specified for authentication.The full email address of the account.The name of the connection.As I looked through more of the proxy history, I could see less-frequent connections in which larger chunks of data were sent - for example, a list of all the application shortcuts and widgets on my phone's home screen(s).

Analysis - email, ActiveSync, and social networking

I decided to try setting up each of the other account types that the system would allow me to, and find out what was captured.

Facebook and Twitter

For both of these services, the email address and password for the account are sent to Motorola. Both services support a mechanism (oAuth) explicitly intended to make this unnecessary, but Motorola does not use that more-secure mechanism. The password is only sent over HTTPS, so at least it can't be easily intercepted by most third parties.

Most subsequent connectivity to both services (other than downloading images) is proxied through Motorola's system on the internet using unencrypted HTTP, so Motorola and anyone running a network capture can easily see who your friends/contacts are (including your friends' email addresses), what posts you're reading and writing, and so on. They'll also get a list of which images you're viewing, even though the actual image download comes directly from the source.

Facebook and Twitter data sent to Motorola's Blur service You know your software is trustworthy and has nothing to hide when it has a function called "silent signon".

Photobucket and Picasa

For both services, email address and password are sent to Motorola over HTTPS.

For Photobucket, username and image URLs are sent over unencrypted HTTP.

For Picasa, email address, display name, friend information, and image URLs are sent over unencrypted HTTP.

During my testing of Photobucket, the photo was uploaded through Motorola's system (over HTTPS). I was not able to successfully upload a photo to Picasa, although it appeared that the same would have been true for that service.

Photobucket and Picasa data sent to Motorola's Blur service

Photo uploads (to Facebook, Photobucket, etc.)

When uploading images, the uploaded image passes through Motorola's Blur servers, and at least some of the time is uploaded with its EXIF data intact. EXIF data is where things like GPS coordinates are stored.

The full path of the original image on the device is also sent to Motorola. For example, /mnt/sdcard/dcim/Camera/2013-06-20_09-00-00_000.jpg. Android devices name phone-camera images using the time they were taken with millisecond resolution, which can almost certainly be used as a unique device identifier for your phone (how many other people were taking a picture at exactly that millisecond?), assuming you leave the original photo on your phone.

Data sent to Motorola's Blur service when uploading photos

Youtube

Email address and password are sent to Motorola over HTTPS.

Email address is also sent to Motorola over unencrypted HTTP, along with some other data that I haven't deciphered.

I didn't have time to create and upload a video, so I'm not sure what else might be sent.

Youtube data sent to Motorola's Blur service

Exchange ActiveSync

Domain name, username, email address, and name of the connection are sent over unencrypted HTTP. When a new connection is created, the Exchange ActiveSync server's DNS name is also sent.

Exchange ActiveSync data sent to Motorola's Blur service

IMAP/POP3 email

Email address, inbound/outbound server names, and the name of the connection are sent over unencrypted HTTP. There is a lot of other encoded/encrypted data included which I haven't deciphered.

IMAP account data sent to Motorola's Blur service One of the few screenshots I can leave some of the important details visible in - in this case, because the account in question is already on every spam list in the world.

Yahoo Mail

Email address is sent over unencrypted HTTP. This type of account seems to be handled in at least sort of the correct way by Motorola's software, in that a request is made for an access token, and as far as I can tell, the actual account password is never sent to Motorola.

Photobucket and Picasa data sent to Motorola's Blur service

Flickr

Similar to the Yahoo Mail results, but actually one step better - an explicit Flickr prompt appears indicating what permissions Motorola's system is asking for on behalf of the user.

Flickr The Flickr integration behaves the way every other part of Motorola's Blur service should.

GMail/Google

Interestingly, no data seemed to be sent to Motorola about this type of account. Unfortunately, if anyone adds a Youtube or Picasa account, they've sent their GMail/Google+ credentials to Motorola anyway.

Also interestingly, while testing Picasa and/or Youtube integration, Motorola's methods of authenticating actually tripped Google's suspicious activity alarm. Looking up the source IP in ARIN confirmed the connection was coming from Motorola.

Google: on guard against suspicious vendors

Firefox sync

No data seems to pass through Motorola's servers.

News / RSS

RSS feeds that are subscribed to using the built-in News application are proxied through Motorola's servers over unencrypted HTTP.

Photobucket and Picasa data sent to Motorola's Blur service

Other data

Every few minutes, my phone sends Motorola a detailed description of my home screen/workspace configuration - all of the shortcuts and widgets I have on it.

Home screen configuration and other data sent to Motorola's Blur service "Universal account IDs"? Is that why I only see some data sent the very first time I configure a particular account on my phone?

Analysis - "check-in" data

As I was looking through the data I've already mentioned, I noticed chunks of "check-in" data which was a binary upload, and I thought I'd see if it was in some sort of standard compressed format. As it turns out, it is - the 0x1F8B highlighted below is the header for a block of gzip-compressed data.

GZip compressed-data header embedded in check-in data

What is contained in this data are essentially debug-level log entries from the device. The battery drain and bandwidth use from having the phone set up like this must be unbelievable.

Most of the data that's uploaded is harmless or low-risk on its own - use statistics, and so on. However, this is another mechanism by which Motorola's servers are collecting information like account names/email addresses, and the sheer volume and variety of other data makes me concerned that Motorola's staff apparently care so much about how I'm using my phone. If this were a corporate-owned device, I would expect the owning corporation to have this level of system data collection enabled, but it concerns me that it's being silently collected from my personal device, and that there is no way to disable it.

Information that is definitely being collected

The IMEI and IMSI of the phone. These are referred to as MEID and MIN in the phone's UI and on the label in the battery compartment, but IMEI and IMSI in the logs. I believe these two values are all that's needed to clone a phone, if someone were to intercept the traffic.The phone number of the phone, and carrier information (e.g. Verizon).The barcode from inside the battery compartment.Applications included with the device as well as installed by the user.Statistics about how those applications are used (e.g. how much data each one has sent and received).Phone call and text message statistics. For example, how many calls have been received or missed.Bluetooth device pairing and unpairing, including detailed information about those devices.Email addresses/usernames for accounts configured on the device.Contact statistics (e.g. how many contacts are synced from Google, how many Facebook users are friends of the account I've configured on the device).Device-level event logs (these are sent to Google as well by a Google-developed checkin mechanism).Debugging/troubleshooting information about most activities the phone engages in.Signal strengths statistics and data use for each type of radio included in the device. For example, bytes sent/received via 3G versus wifi.Stack memory and register dumps related to applications which have crashed.For Exchange ActiveSync setup, the server name and email address, as well as the details of the security policy enforced by that EAS server.

Information that may be being collected

The terms-of-use/privacy policy for the Blur service (whether you know you're using it or not) explicitly specify that location information (e.g. GPS coordinates) may be collected (see Speaking of that privacy policy..., below). I have not seen this in the data I've intercepted. This may be due to it being represented in a non-obvious format, or it may only be collected under certain conditions, or it may only be collected by newer devices than my 2-year-old Droid X2.

While I have no conclusive evidence, I did notice while adding and removing accounts from my phone that the account ID number for a newly-added account is always higher than that for any accounts that existed previously on the device, even if those accounts have been deleted. This implies to me that Motorola's Blur service may be storing information about the accounts I've "deleted" even though they're no longer visible to me. This seems even more likely given the references in the communication to "universalAccountIds" and "knownAccountIds" referenced by GUID/UUID-like values.

Check-in data being sent to MotorolaThe "sync app ID" information will become more important in the section about XMPP. The system panic messge has all of the regular boot information as well as the reason for the OS auto-reboot (in my case, apparently there is a problem with the modem).

Analysis - Jabber / XMPP stream communication

In some of the check-in logs, I saw entries that read e.g.:

XMPPConnection: Preparing to connect user XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to service: jabber-cloud112-blur.svcmot.com on host: jabber-cloud112-blur.svcmot.com and port: 5222

XMPPConnectionManager I:onConfigurationUpdate: entered

XMPPConnectionManager I:onConfigurationUpdate: exiting

WSBase I:mother told us it's okay to retry the waiting requests: 0

NormalAsyncConnection I:Connected local addr: 192.168.253.10/192.168.253.10:60737 to remote addr: jabber-cloud112-blur.svcmot.com/69.10.176.46:5222

TLSStateManager I:org.apache.harmony.nio.internal.SocketChannelImpl@XXXXXXXX: Wrote out 212 bytes of data with 0 bytes remaining.

TLSStateManager I:org.apache.harmony.nio.internal.SocketChannelImpl@XXXXXXXX: Read 202 bytes into buffer

TLSStateManager I:org.apache.harmony.nio.internal.SocketChannelImpl@XXXXXXXX: Read 262 bytes into buffer

TLSStateManager I:org.apache.harmony.nio.internal.SocketChannelImpl@XXXXXXXX: Wrote out 78 bytes of data with 0 bytes remaining.

TLSStateManager I:org.apache.harmony.nio.internal.SocketChannelImpl@XXXXXXXX: Read 1448 bytes into buffer

TLSStateManager I:org.apache.harmony.nio.internal.SocketChannelImpl@XXXXXXXX: Read 2896 bytes into buffer

XMPPConnection I:Finished connecting user XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to service: jabber-cloud112-blur.svcmot.com on host: jabber-cloud112-blur.svcmot.com and port: 5222

By running a network capture, I was able to confirm that my phone was regularly attempting this type of connection. However, it was encrypted using TLS, so I couldn't see the content of the communication at first.

The existence of this mechanism made me extremely curious. Why did Motorola need yet another communication channel for my phone to talk to them over? Why were they using a protocol intended for instant messaging/chat? The whole thing sounded very much like a botnet (which often use IRC in this way) to me.

Intercepting these communications ended up being much more work than I expected. XMPP is an XML-based protocol, and cannot be proxied by an HTTP/HTTPS proxy, so using Burp Suite or ZAP was out. My first thought was to use Mallory, an intercepting transparent proxy that I learned about in the outstanding SANS SEC 642 class back in the March of 2013. Mallory is a relatively new tool, and is somewhat finnicky to get set up, but I learned a lot doing so. Unfortunately, XMPP is not a protocol that Mallory can intercept as of this writing.

The VM that I built to run Mallory on still proved useful in this case, as I was eventually able to hack together a custom XMPP man-in-the-middle exploit and view the contents of the traffic. If you'd like to know more about the details, they're in the Steps to reproduce - XMPP communication channel section further down this page.

This channel is at least part of the Motorola Blur command-and-control mechanism. I haven't seen enough distinct traffic pass through it to have a good idea of the full extent of its capabilities, but I know that:

The XMPP/Jabber protocol is re-purposed for command-and-control use. For example, certain types of message are sent using the field normally used for "presence" status in IM.The values exchanged in the presence fields appear to be very short (five-character) base64-encoded binary data, followed by a dash, and then a sequence number. For example, 4eTO3-52, Ugs6j-10, or t2bcA-0. The base64 value appears to be selected at boot. The sequence number is incremented differently based on criteria I don't understand (yet), but the most common step I've seen is +4.As long as the channel is open, the phone will check in with Motorola every nine minutes.At least one type of Motorola-to-phone command exists: a trigger to update software by ID number.At least three such ID numbers exist: 31, 40, and 70 (see the table below). Each of these trigger an HTTP post request to the blur-services-1.0/ws/sync API method seen in the previous section, and the same IDs are logged in the check-in data.The stream token and username passed to the service are the "blurid" value (represented as a decimal number) which shows up in various places in the other traffic between the phone and Motorola.2BlurSettingsSyncHandlerUnknownJSONNo5BlurSetupSyncHandlerUnverified - called when a new type of sync needs to be added?gpbYes10BlurContactsSyncHandlerSyncs contact information (e.g. Google account contacts)gpbNo20SNMailSyncHandlerUnverified - probably syncs private messages from social networking sitesgpbNo31StatusSyncHandlerSyncs current status/most-recent-post information from social networking sitesgpbYes40BlurSNFriendsSyncHandlerSyncs friend information from social networking sitesgpbYes50NewsRetrievalServiceSyncs news feeds set up in the built-in Motorola appgpbYes60AdminFlunkySyncHandlerUnverified - sounds like some sort of remote-support functionalitygpbNo70FeedReceiverServiceUnknowngpbYes80SNCommentsSyncHandlerSyncs status/comment information from social networking sitesgpbYesThe "gpb" data format is how that type of binary encoding is referred to internally by the client logs. I believe it is similar (possibly identical) to Google's "protocol buffer" system.

Here is an example session, including the SYNC APP command being sent by the server. Traffic from the client is represented in red. Traffic from the server is coloured blue.

[Communication after this point takes place over the encrypted channel which the client and server have negotiated.]

45036001055212771-d052e26d5bbb5b4adce7965e3e248a331765623714BlurDevice

{"Sync":{"APP":[{"d":"sync_app_id: 31\n","q":0}]}}

XMPP communication channelA few examples of the sync operations triggered by the XMPP communication channel.

While I have seen very little sensitive data being sent as a result of this mechanism, Motorola's privacy policy/terms-of-service related to this system makes me more concerned. There is literally no reason I can think of that I would want my phone to check in with Motorola every nine minutes to see if Motorola has any new instructions for it to execute. Is there some sort of remote-control capability intended for use by support staff? I know there is a device-location and remote wipe function, because those are advertised as features of Blur (apparently even if you didn't explicitly sign up for Blur).

Speaking of that privacy policy...

I honestly can't remember if I explicitly agreed to any sort of EULA when I originally set up my phone. There are numerous "terms of service" and "privacy policy" documents on the Motorola website which all seem designed to look superficially identical, but this one in particular (the one for the actual "Motorola Mobile Services" system (AKA "Blur")) has a lot of content I really don't like, and which is not present in the other, similar documents on their site that are much easier to find. For example, it specifically mentions capturing social networking credentials, as well as uploading GPS coordinates from customers' phones to Motorola.

It is specific to "Motorola Mobile Services", and I know I didn't explicitly sign up for that type of account (which is probably why my phone is using a randomly-generated username and password to connect). I also know that even if I was presented with a lengthy statement which included statements about storing social media credentials, that happened when I originally bought the phone (about two years ago). Should I not have been at least reminded of this when I went to add a social networking account for the first time? Or at a bare minimum, should my phone not let me view any document I allegedly agreed to? The only reason I know of that particular TOS is because I found it referenced in a Motorola forum discussion about privacy concerns.

In any case, here are some interesting excerpts from that document (as of 22 June, 2013). All bold emphasis is mine. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Using the MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES software and services (MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES) constitutes your acceptance of the terms of the Agreement without modification. If you do not accept the terms of the Agreement, then you may not use MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES.

Motorola collects and uses certain information about you and your mobile device ... (1) your device's unique serial number ... (5) when your device experiences a software crash ... (1) use of hardware functions like the accelerometer, GPS, wireless antennas, and touchscreen; (2) wireless carrier and network information; (3) use of accessories like headsets and docks; (4) data usage ... Personal Information such as: (1) your email and social network account credentials; (2) user settings and preferences; (3) your email and social network contacts; (4) your mobile phone number; and (5) the performance of applications installed on your device. ... MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES will never collect the specific content of your communications or copies of your files.

The document makes a promise that the content of communications are not collected, but I have screenshots and raw data that show Facebook and Twitter messages as well as photos passing through their servers.

The agreement specifies "when your device experiences a software crash", not "memory dumps taken at the time of a software crash", which are what is actually collected.

Motorola takes privacy protection seriously.

MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES only collects personal information, social network profile data, and information about websites you visit if you create a MotoCast ID, use the preinstalled web browser and/or MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES applications and widgets like Messaging, Gallery, Music Player, Social Networking and Social Status. If you use non-Motorola applications for email, social networking, sharing content with your friends, and web browsing, then MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES will not collect this information. Even if you decline to use the preinstalled browser or the MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES applications and widgets, your device will continue to collect information about the performance of your mobile device and how you use your mobile device unless you choose to opt out.

In non-Motorola builds of Android, most/all of those components are still present, but none of them send data to Motorola. Some people might think it was extremely deceptive to add data collection to those components but not make user-visible changes to them that mentioned this. Oh, and of course the OS is still collecting massive amounts of data even if you don't use the modified basic Android functionality.

MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES only collects and uses information about the location of your mobile device if you have enabled one or more location-based services, such as your device's GPS antenna, Google Location Services, or a carrier-provided location service. If you turn these features off in your mobile device's settings, MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES will not record the location of your mobile device.

So what you're saying is that all I have to do to prevent Motorola from tracking my physical location is disable core functionality on my device and leave it off permanently? Awesome! Thanks so much!

The security of your information is important to Motorola.

When MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES transmits information from your mobile device to Motorola, MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES encrypts the transmission of that information using secure socket layer technology (SSL).

Except when it doesn't, which is most of the time.

However, no data stored on a mobile device or transmitted over a wireless or interactive network can ever be 100 percent secure, and many of the communications you make using MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES will be accessible to third parties. You should therefore be cautious when submitting any personally identifiable information using MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES, and you understand that you are using MOTOROLA MOBILE SERVICES at your own risk.

As a global company, Motorola has international sites and users all over the world. The personal information you provide may be transmitted, used, stored, and otherwise processed outside of the country where you submitted that information, including jurisdictions that may not have data privacy laws that provide equivalent protection to such laws in your home country.

You may not ... interfere with anyone's ... enjoyment of the Services

Uh oh.

That document does mention that anyone who wants to opt-out can email privacy@motorola.com. If you have any luck with that, please let me know.

Why this is a problem

While I'm sure there are a few people out there who don't mind a major multinational corporation collecting this sort of detailed tracking information related to where their phone has been and how it's been used, I believe most people would at least like to be asked about participating in this type of activity, and be given an option to turn it off.

I can think of many ways that Motorola, unethical employees of Motorola, or unauthorized third parties could misuse this enormous treasure trove of information. But the biggest question on my mind is this: now that it is known that Motorola is collecting this data, can it be subpoenaed in criminal or civil cases against owners of Motorola phones? That seems like an enormous can of worms, even in comparison to the possibilities for identity theft that Motorola's system provides for.

How secure is Motorola's Blur web service against attack? I'd be really interested to test this myself, but made no attempt to do so because I don't have permission and Motorola doesn't appear to have a "white hat"/"bug bounty" programme. It would be a tempting target for technically-skilled criminals, due to the large volume of Facebook, Twitter, and Google usernames and passwords stored in it.

The fact that the phone actively polls Motorola for new instructions to execute and then follows those instructions without informing its owner opens all of these phones up to automated takeover by anyone who can obtain a signing SSL certificate issued by one of the authorities in the trusted CA store on those phones. Some people may consider this far-fetched, but consider that certificates of that type have been mistakenly issued in the past, and the root certificate for at least one of the CA's responsible for that type of mistake (TURKTRUST) were installed on my phone at the factory.

Potential (untested) device security concern

I didn't make the connection until two days after posting the original version of this article, but I believe there is an even-more-significant problem with the way my device is behaving:

As discussed above, although the command-and-control and some of the device-to-Motorola communication take place over encrypted channels, most of the communication (at least in terms of number of connections to Motorola) is over unencrypted HTTP. That communication is triggered by commands sent over the (encrypted) XMPP channel.

Let me say that again, in a slightly different way:

Commands are being received over a trusted, encrypted channel, but those commands order the device to perform actions across an untrusted, unencrypted channel.

Theoretically, this should mean that it's possible to interfere with the unencrypted channel without having to compromise the encrypted channel at all. The only reason I can think of that this wouldn't work would be if Motorola's developers had used some sort of signing mechanism for the unencrypted HTTP traffic.

If no such additional protection exists, then it should be possible to set up a transparent proxy which forwards on SSL communication to Motorola without attempting to intercept it, while modifying or replacing the contents of the unencrypted HTTP communication. At a minimum (again, assuming there is no additional protection of the HTTP data) this should allow things like RSS feed and social media content to be changed before it reaches the user's phone.

If all of this actually works (and this is a big "if"), and such a transparent proxy is combined with e.g. Jasager, then an attacker could set up the Jasager wireless AP in a public place and simply wait for owners of Motorola devices to pass through the area. Anyone whose device received a sync command (over the encrypted XMPP channel) of the type that allowed the (currently theoretical) attack would have their device (or at least data on that device) automatically compromised.

My guess is that someone is already working on this (e.g. for causing grief for attendees at DefCon or Black Hat), but I thought I'd mention it in case no one else had made the same connection yet.

Again, this is entirely theoretical at this point. If I can find conclusive evidence either way, I'll make another update to this article.

Is there anything good to be found here?

Motorola does appear to be using reasonably-strong authentication for the oAuth login to their system - the username seems to be a combination of the IMEI and a random number (16 digits long, in the case of my phone's username), and the password is a 160-bit value represented as a hex string. This would be essentially impossible to attack via brute-force if the value really is random. Due to its length, I'm concerned it's a hash of a fixed attribute of the phone, but that's just a hunch. The non-oAuth components (e.g. XMPP) use the Blur ID as the username, and that is all over the place, e.g. in virtually every URL (HTTP and HTTPS) that the client accesses on the Blur servers.

When uploading images to social networking sites, the Motorola software on the phone sometimes strips the EXIF tags (including geolocation tags) before uploading the image to Motorola. So at least they can't always use that as another method for determining your location.

Finally, both the XMPP and HTTPS client components of the software do validate that the certificates used for encrypted communication were issued by authorities the phone is configured to trust. If the certificate presented to either component is not trusted, then no encrypted channel is established, and data which would be sent over it is queued until a trusted connection can be made. If someone wants to perform a man-in-the-middle attack, they're going to need to get their root CA cert loaded on the target phones, or obtain a signing cert issued by a trusted authority (e.g. TURKTRUST).

At least their software checks SSL cert validity

Has anyone else discovered this?

In January of 2012, a participant in a Motorola pre-release test discovered that Motorola was performing device-tracking after a Motorola support representative mentioned that the tester had reset his phone "21 times", and a forum moderator directed him to the special, hard-to-find Motorola privacy policy discussed above.

To my knowledge, this article is the first disclosure of anything like the full extent of the data Motorola collects.

What I am going to do as a result of this discovery

As of 23 June 2013, I've removed my ActiveSync configuration from the phone, because I can't guarantee that proprietary corporate information isn't being funneled through Motorola's servers. I know that some information (like the name of our ActiveSync server, our domain name, and a few examples of our account-naming conventions) is, but I don't have time to exhaustively test to see what else is being sent their way, or to do that every time the phone updates its configuration.I've also deleted the IMAP configuration that connected to my personal email, and have installed K-9 Mail as a temporary workaround.I'm going to figure out how to root this phone and install a "clean" version of Android. That will mean I can't use ActiveSync (my employer doesn't allow rooted phones to connect), which means a major reason I use my phone will disappear, but better that than risk sending their data to Motorola.I'll assume that other manufacturers and carriers have their own equivalent of this - recall the Carrier IQ revelation from 2011.Which other models of Motorola device do this?

Right now, I have only tested my Droid X2. If you have a Motorola device and are technically-inclined, the steps to reproduce my testing are in the section below. If you get results either way and would like me to include them here, please get in touch with me using the Contact form. Please include the model of your device, the results of your testing, and your name/nickname/handle/URL/etc. if you'd like to be identified.

Steps to reproduce - HTTP/HTTPS data capture

There are a number of approaches that can be used to reproduce the results in this article. This is the method that I used. Of course, the same testing can be performed in order to validate that non-Motorola devices are or are not behaving this way.

Important: I strongly recommend that you do not modify in any way the data your phone sends to Motorola. I also strongly recommend that you do not actively probe, scan, or test in any way the Blur web service. The instructions on this page are intended to provide a means of passively observing the traffic to Motorola in order to understand what your phone may be doing without your knowledge or consent.

Connect a wireless access point to a PC which has at least two NICs.Use Windows Internet Connection Sharing to give internet access to the wireless AP and its clients.Set up an intercepting proxy on the PC. I used Burp Suite Professional for the first part of my testing, then switched to OWASP ZAP (which is free) for the rest, since I used a personal system for that phase. Make sure the proxy is accessible on at least one non-loopback address so that other devices can proxy through it.Configure a Motorola Android device to connect to the wireless AP, and to use the intercepting proxy for their web traffic (in the properties for that wireless connection).Install the root signing certificate for the intercepting proxy on the Motorola Android device. This allows the intercepting proxy to view HTTPS traffic as well as unencrypted HTTP.Power the Motorola Android device off, then back on. This seems to be necessary to cause all applications to recognize the new trusted certificate, and will also let you intercept the oAuth negotiation with Motorola./li>Configure and use anything in the Account section of the device.Use the built-in Social Networking application.Take a picture and use the Share function to upload it to one or more photo-sharing services.Leave the device on for long enough that it sends other system data to Motorola automatically.Steps to reproduce - check-in data decompression

If you'd like to decompress one of these gzipped data packages, there are also a number of approaches available, but this is the one I used:

Export the raw (binary) request from your intercepting proxy's proxy history. In ZAP, right-click on the history entry and choose Save Raw -> Request -> Body. In Burp Suite, right-click on the history entry and choose Save Item, then uncheck the Base64-encode requests and responses box before saving. Note: you cannot use the bulk export feature of either tool for this step to work - both of them have a quirk in which exporting individual requests preserves binary data, but exporting in bulk corrupts binary data by converting a number of values to 0x3F (maybe it's some Java library that does that when exporting as ASCII?).Open the exported data in a hex editor (I use WinHex). Remove everything up to the first 0x1F8B in the file. See example screenshot below.Save the modified version (I added a .gz extension for clarity). See example screenshot below.Decompress the resulting file using e.g. the Linux gzip -d command, or e.g. 7-zip.Open the decompressed file in a text editor that correctly interprets Unix-style line breaks (I used Notepad++, partly because it shows unprintable characters in a useful way, and there is some binary data mixed in with the text in these files).Examine the data your phone is sending to Motorola.Manually removing extra data so the file will be recognized as gzipped

Steps to reproduce - XMPP communication channel

This section requires more technical skill and time to replicate than the other two. Right now, it assumes that you have access to a Linux system that is set up with two network interfaces and which can be easily configured to forward all network traffic from the first interface to the second using iptables. If you have a system that is set up to run Mallory successfully already (even though you won't be using Mallory itself here), that would be ideal. I am preparing a detailed ground-up build document and will release that shortly.

In the meantime, assuming you have such a system and some experience using this sort of thing, download XMPPPeek and you should have the tool you need.

Generate an SSL server certificate and private key (in PEM format) with the common name of *.svcmot.com. I made all of the elements of my forged cert match the real one as closely as possible, but I don't know how important this is other than the common name.Load the CA cert you signed the *.svcmot.com cert with onto your Motorola Android device. Again, I used a CA cert that matched the human-readable elements of the one used by the real server, but I don't know how important that is in this specific case.You may need to explicitly install the forged *.svcmot.com cert onto your Motorola Android device as well.Run the shell script from the XMPPPeek page to cause all traffic from the internal interface to be forwarded to the external interface, with the exception of traffic with a destination port of 5222, which should be routed to the port that XMPPPeek will be listening on.Start XMPPPeek and wait for your phone to connect.I used a VirtualBox VM with a virtual NIC which was connected for internet access, and a USB NIC which I connected to an old wireless access point. So my phone connected to that AP, which connected through the man-in-the-middle system, which connected to the actual internet connection. I configured the phone to also proxy web traffic through OWASP ZAP so that I could match up the XMPP traffic with its HTTP and HTTPS counterparts.

Related Articles:XMPPPeek

U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement - NYTimes.com

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 16:21

WASHINGTON '-- Leslie James Pickering noticed something odd in his mail last September: A handwritten card, apparently delivered by mistake, with instructions for postal workers to pay special attention to the letters and packages sent to his home.

''Show all mail to supv'' '-- supervisor '-- ''for copying prior to going out on the street,'' read the card. It included Mr. Pickering's name, address and the type of mail that needed to be monitored. The word ''confidential'' was highlighted in green.

''It was a bit of a shock to see it,'' said Mr. Pickering, who owns a small bookstore in Buffalo. More than a decade ago, he was a spokesman for the Earth Liberation Front, a radical environmental group labeled eco-terrorists by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Postal officials subsequently confirmed they were indeed tracking Mr. Pickering's mail but told him nothing else.

As the world focuses on the high-tech spying of the National Security Agency, the misplaced card offers a rare glimpse inside the seemingly low-tech but prevalent snooping of the United States Postal Service.

Mr. Pickering was targeted by a longtime surveillance system called mail covers, but that is only a forerunner of a vastly more expansive effort, the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, in which Postal Service computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States '-- about 160 billion pieces last year. It is not known how long the government saves the images.

Together, the two programs show that snail mail is subject to the same kind of scrutiny that the National Security Agency has given to telephone calls and e-mail.

The mail covers program, used to monitor Mr. Pickering, is more than a century old but is still considered a powerful tool. At the request of law enforcement officials, postal workers record information from the outside of letters and parcels before they are delivered. (Actually opening the mail requires a warrant.) The information is sent to whatever law enforcement agency asked for it. Tens of thousands of pieces of mail each year undergo this scrutiny.

The Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program was created after the anthrax attacks in late 2001 that killed five people, including two postal workers. Highly secret, it seeped into public view last month when the F.B.I. cited it in its investigation of ricin-laced letters sent to President Obama and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. It enables the Postal Service to retroactively track mail correspondence at the request of law enforcement. No one disputes that it is sweeping.

''In the past, mail covers were used when you had a reason to suspect someone of a crime,'' said Mark D. Rasch, the former director of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, who worked on several fraud cases using mail covers. ''Now it seems to be 'Let's record everyone's mail so in the future we might go back and see who you were communicating with.' Essentially you've added mail covers on millions of Americans.''

Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert and an author, said whether it was a postal worker taking down information or a computer taking images, the program was still an invasion of privacy.

''Basically they are doing the same thing as the other programs, collecting the information on the outside of your mail, the metadata, if you will, of names, addresses, return addresses and postmark locations, which gives the government a pretty good map of your contacts, even if they aren't reading the contents,'' he said.

But law enforcement officials said mail covers and the automatic mail tracking program are invaluable, even in an era of smartphones and e-mail.

In a criminal complaint filed June 7 in Federal District Court in Eastern Texas, the F. B. Isaid a postal investigator tracing the ricin letters was able to narrow the search to Shannon Guess Richardson, an actress in New Boston, Tex., by examining information from the front and back images of 60 pieces of mail scanned immediately before and after the tainted letters sent to Mr. Obama and Mr. Bloomberg showing return addresses near her home. Ms. Richardson had originally accused her husband of mailing the letters, but investigators determined that he was at work during the time they were mailed.

In 2007, the F.B.I., the Internal Revenue Service and the local police in Charlotte, N.C., used information gleaned from the mail cover program to arrest Sallie Wamsley-Saxon and her husband, Donald, charging both with running a prostitution ring that took in $3 million over six years. Prosecutors said it was one of the largest and most successful such operations in the country. Investigators also used mail covers to help track banking activity and other businesses the couple operated under different names.

Other agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, have used mail covers to track drug smugglers and Medicare fraud.

''It's a treasure trove of information,'' said James J. Wedick, a former F.B.I. agent who spent 34 years at the agency and who said he used mail covers in a number of investigations, including one that led to the prosecution of several elected officials in California on corruption charges. ''Looking at just the outside of letters and other mail, I can see who you bank with, who you communicate with '-- all kinds of useful information that gives investigators leads that they can then follow up on with a subpoena.''

But, he said: ''It can be easily abused because it's so easy to use and you don't have to go through a judge to get the information. You just fill out a form.''

For mail cover requests, law enforcement agencies simply submit a letter to the Postal Service, which can grant or deny a request without judicial review. Law enforcement officials say the Postal Service rarely denies a request. In other government surveillance program, such as wiretaps, a federal judge must sign off on the requests.

The mail cover surveillance requests are granted for about 30 days, and can be extended for up to 120 days. There are two kinds of mail covers: those related to criminal activity and those requested to protect national security. The criminal activity requests average 15,000 to 20,000 per year, said law enforcement officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from discussing the requests. The number of requests for antiterrorism mail covers has not been made public.

Law enforcement officials need warrants to open the mail, although President George W. Bush asserted in a signing statement in 2007 that the federal government had the authority to open mail without warrants in emergencies or foreign intelligence cases.

Court challenges to mail covers have generally failed because judges have ruled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for information contained on the outside of a letter. Officials in both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, in fact, have used the mail-cover court rulings to justify the N.S.A.'s surveillance programs, saying the electronic monitoring amounts to the same thing as a mail cover. Congress briefly conducted hearings on mail cover programs in 1976, but has not revisited the issue.

The program has led to sporadic reports of abuse. In May 2012, Mary Rose Wilcox, a Maricopa County supervisor, was awarded nearly $1 million by a federal judge after winning a lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his immigration raids in Arizona, who, among other things, obtained mail covers from the Postal Service to track her mail. The judge called the investigation into Ms. Wilcox politically motivated because she had been a frequent critic of Mr. Arpaio, objecting to what she considered the targeting of Hispanics in his immigration sweeps. The case is being appealed.

In the mid-1970s the Church Committee, a Senate panel that documented C.I.A. abuses, faulted a program created in the 1950s in New York that used mail covers to trace and sometimes open mail going to the Soviet Union from the United States.

A suit brought in 1973 by a high school student in New Jersey, whose letter to the Socialist Workers Party was traced by the F.B.I. as part of an investigation into the group, led to a rebuke from a federal judge.

Postal officials refused to discuss either mail covers or the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program.

Mr. Pickering says he suspects that the F. B. Irequested the mail cover to monitor his mail because a former associate said the bureau had called with questions about him. Last month, he filed a lawsuit against the Postal Service, the F.B.I. and other agencies, saying they were improperly withholding information.

A spokeswoman for the F. B. Iin Buffalo declined to comment.

Mr. Pickering said that although he was arrested two dozen times for acts of civil disobedience and convicted of a handful of misdemeanors, he was never involved in the arson attacks the Earth Liberation Front carried out. He said he became tired of focusing only on environmental activism and moved back to Buffalo to finish college, open his bookstore, Burning Books, and start a family.

''I'm no terrorist,'' he said. ''I'm an activist.''

Mr. Pickering has written books sympathetic to the liberation front, but he said his political views and past association should not make him the target of a federal investigation. ''I'm just a guy who runs a bookstore and has a wife and a kid,'' he said.

Post-Transplant and Off Drugs, H.I.V. Patients Are Apparently Virus-Free

Google's Chrome finally embraces Do Not Track, but with a warning | ZDNet

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 20:34

Summary: DNT was already supported by browsers from Microsoft, Mozilla and Apple, and now it's a feature of Chrome as well. But people turning on the feature in Google's browser are warned that many websites will still collect their data to serve ads.

Google has become the last major browser vendor to embrace the Do Not Track standard, with the release of Chrome 23 on Tuesday.

Do Not Track (DNT) is an option in browsers and other internet-connected systems that lets users tell websites they don't want to be tracked as they surf the web. It is already found in Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari and iOS 6, but Google '-- a company for whom web tracking is a core business '-- had until this week been the big holdout.

The new version of Chrome was revealed on Tuesday in a blog post from Google engineer Ami Fischman, who warned that, when it comes to DNT, results may vary.

"The effectiveness of such requests is dependent on how websites and services respond, so Google is working with others on a common way to respond to these requests in the future," she wrote.

Indeed, the meaning of DNT is the subject of intense debate across much of the tech industry. Although the type of tracking it is intended to block is generally the handiwork of marketing and advertising firms, those self-same companies have been trying to argue that DNT should ignore their tracking systems.

Last month, EU digital commissioner Neelie Kroes expressed frustration at what she called "the watering down of the standard". She said DNT had to "build on the principle of informed consent, giving people control over their information".

Chrome updatesAs for Google, those enabling DNT in Chrome now will see a warning message that states: "Many websites will still collect and use your browsing data '-- for example to improve security, to provide content, services, ads and recommendations on their websites and to generate reporting statistics."

DNT was not the only new feature in Chrome 23, as the update also makes it far easier to view and control a specific website's permissions. Where users previously had to turn to settings pages if they wanted to know what a webpage was trying to do with geolocation, camera access and pop-ups, this information is now viewable simply by clicking on the page or lock icon next to the URL.

Fischman's blog post also praised Chrome's use of GPU acceleration for video. GPUs are less power-hungry than CPUs, and the engineer noted that laptop charges in Google's tests "lasted 25 percent longer when GPU-accelerated video decoding was enabled".

SnowJob

Russian femme fatale Anna Chapman proposes to Edward Snowden on Twitter | Mail Online

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:36

The former Russian lady spy who was kicked out of the U.S. in 2010 gave fellow informant, NSA leaker Snowden, a social media shout out WednesdayChapman bears a slight resemblance to Snowden ex Lindsay MillsBy Joshua Gardner

PUBLISHED: 19:45 EST, 3 July 2013 | UPDATED: 04:30 EST, 4 July 2013

153shares

62

Viewcomments

Former Russian spy Anna Chapman has proposed marriage to NSA leaker on the lam Edward Snowden via Twitter.

The flame-haired femme fatale was short and sweet: 'Snowden, will you marry me?!'

The tweet came just as the world began to wonder if Edward Snowden was still in Chapman's country of Russia'--where he's been holed up in a Moscow airport for days'--or if he'd managed to sneak aboard the flight of Bolivian President Evo Morales headed for South America.

Scroll down for video

Perfectly matched: Russian spy turned fashionista Anna Chapman has asked NSA leaker Ed Snowden to marry her, via a tweet Wednesday

Latin America, specifically Venezuala, is thought to be Snowden's last hope for asylum after withdrawing his petition to Russia Tuesday.

Since her own espionage controversy'--along with nine others accused of spying in 2010'--Chapman has led a busy life.

She was immediately catapulted into the limelight as her pictures were splashed around the world.

The daughter of a senior KGB agent has become a celebrity in Russia since she returned in the summer of 2010.

Sexy spy Anna Chapman in her steamy Maxim photoshoot

Ladies man: 'I like my girlish figure that attracts girls,' a younger Snowden once wrote. That figure attracted a pole-dancing lady friend in Hawaii named Lindsay Mills

She has previously appeared on the catwalk at Russian Fashion Week in Moscow clothed in a skin-tight leather ensemble.

She has also modeled, edited a magazine, given lectures and now runs a foundation.

Last year she appeared on the catwalk in the Mediterranean city of Antalya, a top Turkish vacation destination.

The controversial temptress has made many tongues wag since her name was first splashed across the front page of magazines and websites worldwide.

But Snowden, at least in his pre-international controversy days, claims to have elicited some leering himself.

His type? Lindsay Mills was Edward Snowden's girlfriend before he fled U.S. authorities. She bears some resemblance to Anna Chapman

Similar: Chapman looked not unlike Snowden's heartbroken ex Lindsay Mills on a Moscow red carpet recently. Now she may be after him herself

Edward Snowden's 'girlfriend' Lindsay Mills' sexy poledance

'I like my girlish figure that attracts girls,' he wrote as an 18-year-old.

That figure later won Snowden an attractive pole-dancing lady friend in Hawaii, Lindsay Mills.

And though Mills may not be a globetrotting diplomat's daughter, if you look at her in just the right light she does resemble Chapman.

Hopefully for Anna, that means she's Snowden's type.

Share or comment on this article

Snowden Releases A Statement'...Probably Not'...

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: Weasel Zippers

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 22:49

Maybe just a little too close to Assange, almost as though Assange or his lover, Sarah Harrison, wrote it'...

Via WaPo:

Within minutes of Edward Snowden releasing his first statement after eight days of silence, published on Wikileaks' website, a number of journalists and others noticed something strange.

The language in the statement, between accusations that the Obama administration was employing ''political aggression'' and feared ''an informed, angry public,'' seemed to betray a tinge of non-American English. It was this line that first jumped out: ''For decades the United States of America have been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum.'' As Slate's Farhad Manjoo pointed out on Twitter, Americans refer to the United States as singular, rather than plural: one would expect Snowden, an American, to write ''the United States of America has been.''

Alone, that wouldn't seem to say much. But there were other details, such as the date on the letter, appended as ''1st July 2013'" rather than the typical American style. But maybe most eyebrow-raising of all is the statement's fiery tone and dramatic cadence. ''Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum,'' the statement reads, a far cry from the straightforward, plainspoken voice Snowden has used in all other public comments.

The statement's tone and word choice seems conspicuously similar to that of Julian Assange, the Australian and Wikileaks chief who has developed a reputation for his extremely distinctive writing style.

Keep reading'...

The one I saw was this as well:

''Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right.''

That is also an odd construction for a 29 year old American; we would say ''stop me FROM exercising a basic right''.

Of course, once this began to be questioned, WikiLeaks amended the statement to change the most egregious error re: the use of the plural with ''United States of America''.

If he isn't writing his own statements, one has to wonder about who is really running the show here, and what his condition is.

Statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: Dprogram.net

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:23

July 3rd, 2013

(Wikileaks) '' One week ago I left Hong Kong after it became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat for revealing the truth. My continued liberty has been owed to the efforts of friends new and old, family, and others who I have never met and probably never will. I trusted them with my life and they returned that trust with a faith in me for which I will always be thankful.

On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic ''wheeling and dealing'' over my case. Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.

This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me.

For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum.

In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised '-- and it should be.

I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many.

Edward Joseph Snowden

Monday 1st July 2013

Source: Wikileaks

Tags: edward snowden, Moscow, statement, wikileaksThis entry was posted on Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 at 8:02 am and is filed under Dictatorship, Education/Mind Control, Fascism, Martial Law/Police State, NWO, Russia. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Bolivia complains to UN after Evo Morales' plane 'kidnapped'

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: The Guardian World News

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 23:58

Bolivia's president Evo Morales at Schwechat airport, near Vienna, where his plane was diverted. Photograph: Helmut Fohringer /AFP

Bolivia filed a complaint at the United Nations on Wednesday over what it called the kidnapping of its president, Evo Morales, whose plane was diverted to Vienna amid suspicions that it was carrying the surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The country's ambassador to the UN, Sacha Llorenti, said the enforced rerouting to Austria was an act of aggression and a violation of international law. The US admitted that it had been in contact with other nations over potential flights by Snowden.

"We will demand appropriate explanations from those countries that submitted to North American imperialism and briefly put President Morales in such a helpless situation," Llorenti told the state radio Patria Nueva. Bolivia's vice-president, Alvaro Garc­a Linera, said Morales was "kidnapped by imperialism".

South American nations accused the United States of being behind the extraordinary manoeuvring, furious at what they regarded as the humiliation of Morales. In Washington, the state department would not comment on the Morales flight but conceded that it discussed the issue of flights by Snowden with other nations.

"We have been in contact with a range of countries that had a chance of having Snowden land or travel through their country but I am not going to outline what those countries were or when this [contact] happened," said spokeswoman Jan Psaki.

The diplomatic crisis may have been set off by a remark by Morales during a television interview in Russia, where he had been attending an energy conference. Morales said that he sympathised with Snowden, who is believed to be holed up in the transit area of Sheremetyevo airport, and hinted that Bolivia might accept an asylum petition. "If there were a request, of course we would be willing to debate and consider the idea," Morales told RT Actualidad, the Spanish-language service of the Russian broadcaster RT.

Later that day, soon after Morales was bound for La Paz, Spain, Italy, France and Portugal refused to allow the presidential jet to fly through their airspace over suspicions that Snowden was on board, according to the Bolivian government's account.

The Bolivian foreign minister, David Choquehuanca, said France and Portugal were the first to cancel air permits. "They say it was due to technical issues, but after getting explanations from some authorities we found that there appeared to be some unfounded suspicions that Mr Snowden was on the plane. We don't know who invented this lie. We want to denounce to the international community this injustice with the plane of Evo Morales," Choquehuanca said.

Diverted from their planned route, pilots feared they would not be able to complete their journey. The plane was eventually cleared to land in Vienna, where Morales was forced to spend 13 hours in humiliating limbo while officials worked to resolve the dispute.

It later took off after Austrian officials said Snowden was not on board. But it was unclear whether any officials in Vienna had searched the plane. Austria's deputy chancellor, Michael Spindelegger, said Morales "agreed to a voluntary inspection". But the Bolivian defence minister, Ruben Saavedra, later said Morales had refused entry to the inspectors, and that they had only got as far as the door of the aircraft.

In Bolivia, the treatment of the president stirred up patriotic and anti-imperialist sentiment. Several labour and indigenous organisations planned a welcome rally for the president on his arrival in La Paz on Wednesday evening.

The Argentinian president, Cristina Fernndez de Kirchner, attacked the "vestiges of colonialism" in a speech in Buenos Aires. "We believe this constitutes not only the humiliation of a sister nation but of all South America," she said. An emergency meeting of the Union of South American Nations was expected to be convened on Thursday.

It was widely assumed in South America that Washington was responsible for the presidential plane being refused air permissions. Earlier in the week, the state department said it hoped Snowden would be returned to the US to face charges of espionage and theft after a string of other countries said they would not accept his applications for asylum.

Speaking before the developments in Vienna, the state department rejected claims made by Snowden on Monday that the US had bullied other potential hosts, such as Ecuador, into withdrawing their offer of asylum. The US says it has only impressed upon possible host countries the seriousness of the crimes with which Snowden had been charged.

Draft:The Most Wanted Leaks of 2009-sort - Wikileaks

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:13

From WikileaksSomewhat sorted entries of the most-wanted list. Work in progress, TODO: Add brief, entity and date for each entry.

[edit]AustriaAustrian e-Voting system used in students elections.E-Mail traffic between Josef Pr¶ll and Christian Konrad.Date: ???Brief: E-Mail traffic between minister of finance Josef Pr¶ll and Christian Konrad, who is advocate general of Raiffeisen bank.Entity: Josef Pr¶ll (josef.proell@bmf.gv.at)Entity: Christian KonradE-Mail traffic of Anton Mahdalik with Michael H¤upl and/or Michael LudwigDate: ???Brief: E-Mail traffic of FP– delegate Anton Mahdalik with viennese mayor Michael H¤upl and/or deputy mayor Michael Ludwig containing threats when renting municipal ground to the viennese trailor park ("Wagenplatz Wien").Entity: Anton Mahdalik (toni.mahdalik@fpoe.at)Entity: Michael H¤upl (michael.haeupl@wien.gv.at)[edit]AustraliaACMA URL blacklistDate: 19 March 2009 and laterBrief: Versions of the ACMA URL blacklist newer than 19 March 2009. WikiLeaks previously released three versions of the list, two of which included WikiLeaks or its subpages.Entity: Australian Communications and Media AuthorityCensorship technology in AustraliaDate: 2009Entity: Australian Communications and Media AuthorityEntity: Enex TestlabsEntity: Watchdog NZEntity: [www.iwf.org.uk Internet Watch Foundation]Entity: Exetel ISPBrief: Full details of filtering hardware/software vendors participating in government-sponsored ISP-level censorship technology trials, including (but not limited to):Any and all communications between filter vendors and government departments prior to, during, and after the trialsAny and all transactions, contracts, and other financial arrangements involving filter vendorsDetails:URL blacklist(s) used during above trials. Alleged (by government) to be ACMA URL blacklist.Full statistical breakdown of results of above trials (in the event that Enex Testlabs do not make them publicly available).URL blacklist as used by Watchdog NZ during private censorship technology trial by ISP Exetel in May 2009. Alleged (by Watchdog) to have been IWF list (see United Kingdom).Full statistical breakdown of results of Watchdog/Exetel's censorship technology trial - Exetel's official response seems lacking.Annual NSW Police testBrief: Written exam NSW police officers must take annually before they can be issued with Tasers.Entity: NSW Police[edit]BahrainDocuments regarding changes to country's demography.Brief: Documents disclosing the number of citizenships that have been granted in the last few years, in an effort to change the country's demography. See Political naturalisation[1].Golden Shield ProjectBrief: A list of URLs and keywords censored filtered by the Golden Shield Project (Great Firewall of China). WikiLeaks has previously released related information, for example, watch lists, policies and several thousand URLs for CCTV and Baidu, but not for general http filtering.Entity: Ministry of public securityGenocide Olympics campaignDate: 28th March 2007Brief: Policy options on Darfur formulated in response to the so-called Genocide Olympics campaign led by American actress, Mia Farrow, and notes of meetings in 2007 between Stephen Spielberg and Chinese Foreign Ministry officials prior to Spielberg's resignation as Artistic Director of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.[edit]ColombiaSurveillance of citizens and organisationsBrief: The DAS (Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad) is reported to have surveilled a wide array of public officials, private citizens, and organizations. Documents wanted: contracts to supply software for internet surveillance to Colombian policy agencies and details of the software supplied.Entity: DAS[edit]FinlandTiitisen ListaBrief: The so called Tiitisen Lista, the list of 18 persons claimed to have been in active contact with East German security services (Stasi). The list was received from the West German intelligence services (BND) in 1990 and since classified by the order of President Koivisto as adviced by the head of the Finnish Security Police (Suojelupoliisi), Seppo Tiitinen. It is rumoured that several current or former top Finnish politicians appear on the list.Entity: StasiEntity: KoivistoEntity: Suojelupoliisi[edit]FranceNicholas Sarkozy' health reportBrief: The Monthly Health Report of President Nicolas Sarkozy, as promised by himself during the last presidential elections.[edit]GermanyCensorship in GermanyDetails:The censorship filter list for the proposed national, mandatory censorship system. The list will be compiled by German federal criminal police BKA and distributed to internet service providers.The contents of the contract between the BKA and some ISPs that has already been signed, but is kept secret due to "public safety" and copyright concerns (see http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=b4fa8af8).The List of Media Harmful to Young People (the censorship system already in place). The "virtual media" part of this list is distributed to search engine providers and is illegal to publish. It probably could be reverse engineered using the differences between google.com and google.de search results. Also, if you want to know if a specific medium is on the list, you can send an enquiry to liste@bundespruefstelle.de ("Bundespr¼fstelle" is the agency responsible for keeping the list).Entity: Bundespr¼fstelleEntity: BKAPolitician's Stasi filesThe Stasi files of Federal Chancellor Angela Dorothea Merkel (maiden name Kasner) and other leading politicians, which are known to exist, but withheld from publicOperation GladioBrief: The Stasi files relating to operation Gladio / stay behind organisations in relation to right-wing terrorism in Germany, as per a parliamentary request by the Green party.Atlas Der WutBrief: The so called "Atlas der Wut", a document about the risk of riots in different german regions. The list is said to be updated regulary and was first written in 2005.The list of NPD party members[edit]GreeceThe Athens Affair

Brief: Documents related to the Athens phone tapping affair that have yet to be released (including those from countries other than Greece) Context[edit]GuatemalaPlan Victoria 82, Plan Sofia and Plan Fermeza 83Brief: All documents on Plan Victoria 82, Plan Sofia and Plan Firmeza 83.Detail:Within the process of trying to bring military personal involved in human rights violations and massacres that happen during the civil war in Guatemala to justice, the military have been required to declassify many war documents. In a case, that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Guatemala, the Court dictated a sentence that confirmed the obligation of the Ministry of Defense of Guatemala to hand over the official documentation of four specific military operations: Campana Sofia 82, Victoria 82, Firmeza 83 and Operacion Ixil. The Supreme Court sentence indicated that the archives had to be declassified.These military operations were carried out in the 80s. According to the CEH, Historical Clarification Commission of Guatemala final report contained in "Guatemala: Memory of Silence", these military operations resulted in massacres and severe human rights violations.The Minister of Defense Abraham Valenzuela only delivered partial information about plans Victoria 82 and Firmeza 83, two of the four requested plans. He indicated that he had no knowledge of the other two plans before he became Minister of Defense and that he ignores where the documentation could be. He stated that he could not deliver the complete plans "Victoria 82" y "Firmeza 83" because certain information was considered state secret and a concern of national security."Plan Sofia", a derivative of "Plan Victoria 82", was of special concern to human rights activists; this plan was conceived in July 1982, four months after General Efrain Rios Montt came into power.The CEH archivesBrief: Final report of United Nations' Historical Clarification Commission (CEH) into the killing of 200,000 Mayan people and the involvement of the US government and American corporations. The report official sources (military interviews, campaign plans, etc) are kept secret by the UN in NYC.Detail:The United Nations' Historical Clarification Commission (CEH) for Guatemala issued a report where the US government and several American corporations were accused of complicity in the genocide of nearly 200,000 Mayan people during Guatemala?s bloody 36-year civil war. The final 3,600-page CEH report clearly places the blame for most of the 200,000 deaths on the "racist" policy of the Guatemalan government and holds the country?s military and paramilitary forces responsible for the actual killings, tortures and disappearances.However, it accuses the US of directly and indirectly supporting a "fratricidal confrontation" by providing sustained training, arms and financial aidThe report is based on the testimony of 9,200 people from all sides of the conflict and other documents*, classified and Secret, protected in the UN headquarters in NYC. The CEH investigated 42,000 human rights violations, 29,000 of which resulted in deaths or disappearances and therefore, the documents under UN custody are fundamental for the prosecution of those responsible of the crimes.Goldcorp affairBrief: * Documents on Canadian corporation named Goldcorp with a mining operation in Guatemala, especially information on where the Gold they extract is processed and who is buying the gold (we think it might be a Swiss company).Detail: A Canadian corporation named Goldcorp has a mining operation in Guatemala with poor environmental conditions and harming health of many workers and a community as a whole. Where the Gold they extract is processed? Who is buying the gold (we think it might be a Swiss company)?Italian censorship listBrief: The full Italian censorship, of which Wikileaks currently only has a subset.Reports on high level corruption in Kibaki governmentBrief: The international investigative firm Kroll associates produced at least four reports on high level Kenyan corruption after first term of the Kibaki government. A draft version of one of the reports The looting of Kenya, was previously published by WikiLeaks. The reports were given to selected members of President Kibaki's cabinet at the time and are likely still held by http://www.kroll.com.uk/, notably lead investigator Andrew Marshall.Entity: President KibakiEntity: KrollArrangements with the Sudanese governmentBrief: Documents indicating arrangements with the Sudanese government to grant land in Darfur to Arab settlers from Libya (Civilians and adminisrators on the gruond in Darfur indicate this has been taking place).[edit]MadagascarBoth sides of the political conflict in Madagascar are crying fouls about the deals made by their counterparts with foreign entities. The release of the official documents with respect to contract negotiations about:

Oil exploitation in the region of Bemolanga ( South of Madagascar) by Total & othersan obvious one but the proposed final contract before rejection of the land deal with Daewoo Logistics.The recent agreement with Saudi investment group on staple products and proposed $2 billion USD investment.The revised mining exploitation agreement with Sheritt in Ambatovy and Rio Tinto in Fort-Dauphin.Least but not last, the complete list of current political prisoners and the charges against them.Arrangements with the Sudanese governmentBrief: Documents indicating arrangements with the Sudanese government to grant land in Darfur to Arab settlers from Mali (Civilians and adminisrators on the gruond in Darfur indicate this has been taking place).[edit]M(C)xicoAgreements between USA and Peter HerlihyBrief: Zapotec indigenous people demand transparency from U.S. Scholar and full disclosure of all the agreements between U.S. Government and their agencies and U.S. geography scholar Peter Herlihy, especially confidential agreements with Foreign Military Studies Office. Prof. Herlihy failed to mention that he received funding from the Foreign Military Studies Office of the U.S. Armed Forces on the research of "M(C)xico Ind­gena" project. Mexico Indigena Project forms part of the Bowman Expeditions, a more extensive geographic research project backed and financed by the FMSO, among other institutions. The FMSO inputs information into a global database that forms an integral part of the Human Terrain System (HTS), a United States Army counterinsurgency strategy designed by Foreign Military Studies Office and applied within indigenous communities, among others.Entity: FMSOEntity: Peter HerlihyRuta Maya 2002 Isuzu ChallengeBrief: Documents to unveil the real purpose of "Ruta Maya 2002 Isuzu Challenge". The convoy was commanded by Ben Nun Avihu, Israeli militar and Moshe Savir, geography expert and around 50 tourists in 40 Isuzu Jeep. Some communities linked the incursion with biopiracy. The terrain they explored is controled by the EZLN.Entity: Ben Nun AvihuEntity: Moshe SavirEntity: EZLNCorruption around FOBAPROABrief: Documents related with the fraud and corruption around FOBAPROA (Fondo Bancario de Protecci"n al Ahorro).Entity: FOBAPROA 12Financial operations before crisisDocuments of financial operations just before the financial crisis of 1994 (some say the government knew before that the crisis was coming and took advantage of the information protecting their interests).World Bank creditBrief: Documents related with the World Bank credit and application of the budget to combat swine flu.Entity: World BankRenault programBrief: Documents related with the technology currently used in cellphones in Mexico to implement the RENAUT program Information about the security technology used to protect data collected from users.Plan MeridaBrief: Documents related to the transparency of Plan MeridaArrangements with the Sudanese governmentBrief: Documents indicating arrangements with the Sudanese government to grant land in Darfur to Arab settlers from Niger (Civilians and adminisrators on the gruond in Darfur indicate this has been taking place).[edit]NorwayCourt case between Lyse Tele and SimonsenBrief: The secret verdict in the court case between the ISP Lyse Tele and the law firm Simonsen, decided the 5th of May 2009, where Simonsen demanded Lyse Tele disclose the identity information of a file sharer suspected of uploading a copy of the movie Max Manus to the file-sharing community.Entity: Lyse TeleEntity: Simonsen[edit]Puerto RicoFBI surveillance of Puerto Rico citizensBrief: The FBI has not yet finished declassifying all the secret files related to surveillance of Puerto Rican individuals and organizations from the 1930-70's http://www.pr-secretfiles.net/index.html (not to mention, large sections of the files are blacked out by the FBI). In addition, there are thousands of secret files produced by Puerto Rican police that were only briefly made available to individuals themselves, and have now been closed off to the public. These documents provide evidence of quite a significant spying and intimidation operation by the United States and local police against leftists and independence movement leaders.Entity: FBI[edit]RwandaFinancial aid for Laurant NkundaBrief: Documentation of financial assistance given by the Rwandan government to General Laurant Nkunda for operations in the DRC.Entity: Laurent Nkunda[edit]RussiaVRYAN crisis documentationBrief: Documents related to the VRYAN crisis, especially political documents, analyses of intelligence, and specific steps taken. Information on the mindset of the Politburo, as well as intelligence services, and what exactly they feared, and how credible they believed their fear to be.Maps for Kremlin and military hideoutsBrief: Maps, floor plans, and blueprints of Mount Yamantaw and Kosvinsky Mountain.Technology analysisBrief: Technical plans, manuals, and blueprints for the SS-27 Sickle B (Topol-M), along with the Bulava.Brief: Documents relating to nuclear warplans of the Soviet Union and Russia.Brief: Documents relating to orbital weapons systems, and whether the Soviets ever deployed them (or still deploy them) such as orbital HANE devices.Brief: A list and description of the various agents prepared by the various Soviet and Russian bioweapons programs. Indications of whether they developed recombinant DNA based agents, and what those are specifically. Weaponization of agents, including re-entry vehicle mounting. Doctrine for use, including deniable use. Vaccines and treatments for affected personnel.[edit]SloveniaTaped conversations between Slovenian opposition leader and Croatian PMBrief: Taped conversations between Slovenian opposition leader Janez Jansa and Croatian prime minister Ivo Sanader, recorded by Slovenian intelligence service SOVA.Date: Summer 2004Entity: Janez JansaEntity: Ivo SanaderEntity: SOVAMali caseBrief: Documents indicating arrangements with the Sudanese government to grant land in Darfur to Arab settlers from Mali (Civilians and adminisrators on the gruond in Darfur indicate this has been taking place).Libya caseBrief: Documents indicating arrangements with the Sudanese government to grant land in Darfur to Arab settlers from Libya (Civilians and adminisrators on the gruond in Darfur indicate this has been taking place).Niger caseBrief: Documents indicating arrangements with the Sudanese government to grant land in Darfur to Arab settlers from Niger (Civilians and adminisrators on the gruond in Darfur indicate this has been taking place).Assasination of Mehdi Ben BarkaBrief: All the documents related to the assasination, in 1965, of Mehdi Ben Barka still held in France, USA, Israel and Morocco. In 1976, thanks to the Freedom of information Act, the US governement recognized that the CIA had about 1800 classified documents about his assassination. Theses documents are still classified.[edit]Switzerland[edit]SwazilandExpense accounts of King Mswati, the Queen Mother and the King's wives.Memos from Ministry of Defense or PoliceBrief: Intelligence memos from the Ministry of Defence or Police about the pro-democracy organization, PUDEMO.Entity: PudemoEntity: Ministry of Defense[edit]Trinidad and TobagoCommission of Enquiry reportsBrief: The Report on the Commission of Enquiry into the construction of the new Piarco Airport. This identified corrupt practices in the spending of public funds. The Commission's report was delivered in August 2003. Nearly 6 years later, its findings have not been made public.Brief: Report of the findings of the current Commission of Enquiry into the local construction sectorEntity: Commission EnquiryEntity: Piarco airportCaroni Bridge collapseBrief: The Report on the Caroni Bridge Collapse. A man was killed when a bridge collapsed a few years ago; again the public has not been made aware of the report's findings.Date: 2nd August 2008Waterfront Development ProjectBrief: A copy of the contract for the billion-dollar Waterfront Development Project.Entity: ?udecott?Scholarships sponsored by Ministry of CultureBrief: List of recipients and amounts of scholarships sponsored by Ministry of Culture for study abroad.Entity: Ministry of CultureDetail:As far as Trinidad and Tobago goes, our government tends to pay lip service to the principles of transparency and accountability. For instance, there is a Freedom of Information Act which, by law, allows the public to seek information from government departments. But quite often, when such attempts are made by the citizenry, the government bars full disclosure. Depending on how important a piece of information is to Joe Public, he may actually have to turn to the courts to "force" the government to reveal facts that should be disclosed voluntarily. Following are a few examples of documents that should be made public, but have not been:The Report on the Commission of Enquiry into the construction of the new Piarco Airport This identified corrupt practices in the spending of public funds. The Commission's report was delivered in August 2003. Nearly 6 years later, its findings have not been made public.The Report on the Caroni Bridge Collapse. A man was killed when a bridge collapsed a few years ago; again the public has not been made aware of the report's findings.The Opposition recently brought up in Parliament the issue of taxpayers' money being used to pay attorneys by state. Although the public has a right to know how much of its funds were used in paying said attorneys, the Attorney General refused to disclose the sums, saying it would be an invasion of the lawyers' privacy.The same goes for a recent request in Parliament, whereby *the Minister of Planning and Development was asked to produce a copy of the contract for the billion-dollar Waterfront Development Project*. The Minister's response was that she could not produce said contract for public discussion because there was a confidentiality clause contained therein (for a project being built with public funds).The Ministry of Culture recently awarded scholarships for students to study abroad - when asked in Parliament to disclose the list of recipients and the dollar value of the scholarships, the response was that this was private information.[edit]UgandaUgandan profit-sharing agreements with oil companies in south-western UgandaBrief: The government of Uganda has recently signed a number of profit-sharing agreements with several oil companies that are conducting explorations in southwestern Uganda. Releasing these documents would be a major step in increased transparency with respect to the country's emerging oil industry.[edit]United KingdomCensorship in UKBrief: List of current and expired D-NoticesEntity: dnoticeBrief: secret gag orders, injunctions and legal threats sent to UK newspapersEntity: legal contact addresses at the Guardian, Daily Mail, Times, Independent, Evening Standard, etc.Brief: Censorship list for the United Kingdom's "voluntary" filter system. Known to be held by The Internet Watch Foundation. Companies and their subsidiaries which are currently being supplied with the IWF list. Most ISP's in the UK have a copy of the IP's on the list.Entity: The Internet Watch FoundationRoger Hollis surveillanceBrief: UK Government documentation into the investigation of Roger Hollis, head of MI5 between 1956 and 1965, including the report by Lord Trend, into the serious but apparently unproven allegations of being a Russian Spy.Entity: MI5Wythenshawe intelligence centreBrief: Documents detailing the information stored and collected by the Wythenshawe intelligence centre. [2]Police surveillance on climate change protestorsBrief: A copy of the police intelligence handed to E.ON about climate change protestors. [3]Entity: E.ONAllan Cappelow murderBrief: Documents revealing why the trial of Wang Yam, who was convicted of killing Allan Chappelow, was held in camera, the first UK murder trial ever heard behind closed doors without access by press or public[4]Nationalisation of Northern Rock and Bradford & BringleyBrief: The proper reasons for nationalisation of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, and the subsequent sale of the latter's savings buisiness to Santander.Brief: Records of events during the twelve months leading up to the nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley.Brief: Information regarding the valuation process to determine compensation for fromer shareholders of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, that is, the information the independent valuer uses to determine the final value of the comapanies.Entity: B&BEntity: Northern RockHBOS takeoverBrief: Copies of government minutes of meetings between Gordon Brown and/or Alistair Darling and representatives of Lloyds Bank relating to the proposed takeover of HBOS.Investigation into Daveport LyonsBrief: Documents from Solicitors Regulation Authority's investigation into Davenport Lyons threatening letters related to filesharing.[edit]United NationsSecurity Council and DarfurBrief: Requests to the Security Council in 2003 that the Security Council look at what was happening in Darfur, and any notes of discussions leading to the decision not to look at the situation.Date: 2003Entity: UN Security Council[edit]United StatesImportant bulk databases

IntellipediaBrief: Classified intelligence community site as of 11/1/2008, including article history.opensource.govBrief: The complete CIA Open Source Center analytical database. The database is extensive, unclassified, non-public, but relatively accessible to certain outsiders after jumping through hoops. Despite its name, you need to be government official to gain access to it.Entity: opensource.govFederal politics

The missing five million White House emails--possibly no longer in existence.Chenney and Rumsfeld ArchivesThe White House visitor's listMinutes or notes for VP Cheney's Energy Conference.The 1141 pages of ACTA background documents not released to the EFF by the US Trade Representative (see [5])A list of all Whitehouse and senior federal government employees holding dual citizenship and the countries they represent.Military and Intelligence

The SIOPOPLAN/CONPLAN 8022, 2003 revision.OPLAN/CONPLAN 8044, 2007 revision.CIA detainee interrogation videos. While the CIA claims to have destroyed 92 of the videos, others are known to remain.The US "Black Budget", from inception to present, with line items, hopefully annotated and explained.Detainee abuse photos withheld by the Obama administration.Wiretapping program led by NSABrief: Correspondence between the National Security Agency and American telecom companies such as AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest, regarding the warrantless wiretapping program. Correspondence involving telecoms who cooperated with the NSA (e.g. AT&T) may give different information than telecoms who refused (e.g. Qwest), but both types would better shed light on the NSA's program. The existence of this correspondence is well documented in the media, for example that Qwest's lawyers refused to cooperate because the FISA Court had not signed off on it.Entity: NSAEntity: QwestEntity: AT&TEntity: VerizonUnredacted copy of Dept of Justice's Office of Inspector General's "A Review of the FBI' s Actions Connection With Allegations Raised By Contract Linguist Sibel Edmonds" July 1, 2004 (redacted version here http://www.wbez.org/FILES/sibel.pdf )Camp Delta (Guantanamo) Standard Operating Procedure 2005-2009.Iraq US Army Rules of Engagement 2007-2009 (SECRET).Unredacted Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in US Custody, 20 Nov 2008.Memorandum between the CIA and the Department of State detailing any constraints on Darfur policy caused by actual or anticipated Sudanese government cooperation on counter-terrorism, including CIA request to USUN that Salah Gosh be removed from the UN Panel of Experts list of those recommended for sanction. See: http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=10205Department of State and CIA contributions to the Obama Administration's 2009 Sudan Policy Review, in particular with respect to: a) Whether to support the ICC arrest warrant against Sudanese President Bashir; b) whether to take a confrontational or an appeasement approach to the Sudanese government on the issue of Darfur.Camp Delta (Guantanamo) Standard Operating Procedure 2005-2009.Camp Delta (Guantanamo) Interrogation Standard Operating Procedure 2003-2009.Correspondence between the National Security Agency and American telecom companies such as AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest, regarding the warrantless wiretapping program. Correspondence involving telecoms who cooperated with the NSA (e.g. AT&T) may give different information than telecoms who refused (e.g. Qwest), but both types would better shed light on the NSA's program. The existence of this correspondence is well documented in the media, for example that Qwest's lawyers refused to cooperate because the FISA Court had not signed off on it.Iraq and Afhanistan US Army Rules of Engagement 2007-2009 (SECRET).CIA/DIA/NGA/NSA analyses of the VRYAN crisis of 1983.Technical specifications of the KH-11 and follow-on satellites with similar capabilities.The contents of the Football, and how they changed over the years during the different Administrations.What Pollard stole and gave to the Mossad, the full text.US psychological profiles and political analyses of Soviet leaders.Documents relating to orbital weapons systems, and whether the US ever deployed them (or still deploy them) such as orbital HANE devices.Information about the PAN satellite and the agency responsible for it http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0905/26milspace/Commander Directed Report of Investigation Concerning an Unauthorized Transfer of Nuclear Warheads Between Minot AFB, North Dakota and Barksdale AFB, Louisiana - 30 August 2007 (S//FRD//MR)Investigation into the Shipment of Sensitive Missile Components to Taiwan (ADM Donald Report) - 22 May 2008 (S//FRD//NOFORN)Air Force Comprehensive Assessment of Nuclear Sustainment (CANS) - July 2008 (S//FRD//NOFORN)General Order Number One issued by commanders in Iraq and AfghanistanReports about Colombian 'falsos positives'Unredacted copy of Dept of Justice's Office of Inspector General's "A Review of the FBI' s Actions Connection With Allegations Raised By Contract Linguist Sibel Edmonds" July 1, 2004 (redacted version here http://www.wbez.org/FILES/sibel.pdf )All secret annexes for, attachments to, unredacted versions of, and documents implicitly or explicitly referenced in the following documents, which may be partially available in unclassified form:National Security Presidential Directive 51, "National Continuity Policy", May 9, 2007, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20Federal Preparedness Circular 65, "Federal Executive Branch Continuity of Operations (COOP)", July 26, 1999Federal Response Plan [FEMA 9230.1-PL], April 1999Presidential Decision Directive 67, "Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations", October 21, 1998Presidential Decision Directive 63, "Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)", May 22, 1998Presidential Decision Directive 62, "Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas", May 22, 1998FPC 65 Federal Response Planning Guidance 01-94, "Continuity of Operations (COOP)", December 4, 1994PDD 67 National Security Directive 69, "Enduring Constitutional Government", June 2, 1992FPC 65 Federal Preparedness Circular 61, "Emergency Succession to Key Positions of the Federal Departments and Agencies", August 2, 1991Federal Preparedness Circular 62, "Delegation of Authorities for Emergency Situations", August 1, 1991Federal Preparedness Circular 60, "Continuity of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government at the Headquarters Level During National Security Emergencies", November 20,1990National Security Directive 37, "Enduring Constitutional Government", April 18, 1990Executive Order 12656, "Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities", November 18, 1988Executive Order 12472, "Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Functions", April 3, 1984NSD 69 NSDD 55, "Enduring National Leadership" September 14, 1982Executive Order 12148, "Federal Emergency Management", July 20, 1979A list of the actual facilities in the Federal Relocation Arc, as of the present time, along with their locations.Blueprints, maps, and floor plans of MWEOC.Blueprints, maps, and floor plans of Site R (Raven Rock).Blueprints and floor plans of all unmentioned facilities in the Federal Relocation Arc, including historical ones.Banking

The complete list of identities of the 52,000 wealthy American clients suspected of hiding $15 billion at UBS to avoid taxes, including the names of any elected or appointed government or former government officials.The complete details of Goldman, Sachs & Co.'s counterparty exposure to AIG prior to the Federal bailout of AIG in September, 2008.Environment

Monsanto's internal evaluations of GMO products including safety and pollen drift.Media

The Editorial Guidelines for Fox NewsEmails relating to suppressed GQ Magazine article on Putin's rise by Scott Anderson mentioned at [6]Religion

Mormons Church recordsWith recent leak of 1999/2006 Church Handbook of Instructions, pertinent documents and covertly photographed artifacts in the vault at Church Office building or subsidy in Salt Lake City, Utah which expose and negate Mormon Church's claim of divinity and its monopoly on "truth." I.e. the concealed remnants of diaries and letters written by former early Mormon apostle William McLellin [7]. McLellin diary and documents was the main point of interest for convicted double murderer/bomber Mark Hofmann's planned forgery attempt to deceive Mormon leaders to obtain in fraud by deception monetary reward to suppress truth of early Mormon history unfavorable to current Mormon religion. For more info, [8].Documents of Mormon Church's billion-dollar investment in City Creek Mall and Condominium in SLC, which may put Mormon Church's IRS tax-exempt status in jeopardy if there is verification of the allegation the Church used tithe and offering monetary contributions by the members to fund the project under the umbrella of tax-exempted religious freedom.Mormon Church leadership's involvement in politics, such as correspondence to ecclesiastical subordinates (bishopric) on policy and attitude towards same-sex civil rights & other sensitive issues relevant and concerning to the leaders. As well as recorded correspondences between Mormon members of Utah legislation and Church leaders on sensitive political issuItalic textes for legislation purposes which may contravene the separation of church and state.Uncovered film or audio recording featuring the play with the actor portraying Protestant minister encouraged by Satan/Lucifer (portrayed by actor) to spread false doctrines to attack all religions outside of Mormon religion as "abominable" which was exhibited for qualified "temple recommend" audiences in all of the existing temples prior to removal in 1990 (almost like leaked Scientology orientation video) [9].Unearthed secret audio or video recording inside Mormon temple with the temple members swearing "blood oath" before removal in 1990. [10]Documented Church leaders' and lay clergy's cover-up of physical/sexual abuse and rape of minors by missionaries and members without reporting to law enforcement in some cases [11].Older editions of Church Handbooks of Instructions from the first edition up [12] for comparison to recent leaked 1968 (truncated), 1999 and 2006 editions.[edit]VaticanVatican's documents on nazi Germany[edit]International organizationsAlliance BaseBrief: Documents regarding the founding and operation of Alliance Base.

Snowden: An exercise in disinformation '' Kent Freedom Movement

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 02:19

Stuart J. Hooper21st Century Wire

Over the past week, many have embraced Edward Snowden as a 'hero', including a vast majority of people who purport to be in the 'alternative media' '' all of whom would usually question what the mainstream news corporations present to them.

Numerous questions and concerns have been raised, albeit by a vocal minority, about the reality of what Snowden represents. Those who would usually be the ones to join this vocal minority in search for real answers, namely the aforementioned majority of alternative media personalities, appear to have been duped into jumping onto the latest staged bandwagon hero, along with large numbers of a na¯ve general public.

Edward Snowden's leaks and scandals can be explained as a highly sophisticated, disinformation project of the highest order. Disinformation being defined as false information deliberately, and covertly, spread in order to influence public opinion (Merriam-Webster, 2013).

Historian Dr. Webster Tarpley (2013) has already noted that in 1620 a Venetian intelligence official recommended 'saying something good about a person or institution while pretending to say something bad'. Tarpley provides the example of 'criticizing a bloody dictator for beating his dog '' the real dimensions of his crimes are thus totally underplayed'. So, we should be against the bloody dictator beating his dog, but ought to be more concerned with the more substantial crimes the 'bloody dictator' is known for. The scandals provided by Snowden are of an equivalent standard to the example of the dictator beating a dog. While we should be against unwarranted spying, this new scandal looks to distract us from the greater, and significantly more important, context of global affairs that are currently focused on Syria.

Snowden can be described here as an actor in a 'limited hangout' operation. Limited hangouts are described as when an intelligence agency resorts 'to admitting, sometimes even volunteering, some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case' (Marchetti, 1978). This coincides with the first of Tarpley's (2013) three conceptual identifiers for a limited hangout operation '' the revelation of little information that is actually new. Simply put, Snowden has told us that the NSA is spying on emails and telephone calls (Drury and Robinson, 2013), along with revelations that international super powers spy on one another (Chen, 2013). While this may be shocking to some, these revelations can hardly be detailed as 'new' or 'ground-breaking'. Snowden has simply provided a name, PRISM, for what has already been understood to be going on for some time. This is somewhat similar to how Julian Assange of Wikileaks rose to fame after providing the graphic video for an already acknowledged incident. These new slivers of information can, however, be particularly impactful as Marchetti (1978) notes, 'the public is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further'. Not pursuing Snowden further may have disastrous consequences for world peace and security.

For the press, it all makes perfect sense on the surface, and the surface is where the press operates. A deeper look, however, reveals the full picture'...

The second conceptual identifier Tarpley (2013) provides for recognising a limited hangout operation is that the actors involved, Snowden and Assange for example, will become 'instant media darlings'. A na¯ve view would suggest that this occurs due to the magnitude of information the person is presenting. Reality would show that when providing a critique of controversial issues that truly matter to the 'Wall Street centered US ruling class' (Tarpley, 2013), such a 9/11, that these critics are slandered, attacked and denigrated. It is also interesting to note that these limited hangout actors have themselves participated in the attacking of 9/11 truth activists. Assange has provided the most scolding attack stating 'I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11' (Bell, 2010). Glenn Greenwald, who brought Snowden forward, is not interested in veering from the official 9/11 story and instead focuses on 'blowback' being the cause of terrorism (Greenwald, 2013). Norman Solomon, a former U.S. State Department asset who is now supporting Snowden, 'was notorious ten years ago as a determined enemy of 9/11 truth' (Tarpley, 2013). The magnitude of the 9/11 issue is reflected in the authoritative status of those who question the official story such as: Andreas von B¼low, the former secretary of state for the German Federal Ministry of Defence, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former president of Iran. It must be asked why these 'whistle-blowers' seem so vehemently opposed to the issue of questioning the biggest elephant in the room per say '' 9/11, and why they never have any new information to reveal regarding the event. They all appear to agree with the establishment, that they proclaim to be fighting against, on what is arguable the most important and controversial event in recent history; which provides much cause for concern.

These concerns are somewhat amplified when the characteristics of Snowden are looked at in detail. Naomi Wolf (2013) has stated that during his interview he looked like 'someone who had learned his talking points' and his message promoted fears that an oppressive government would want to instil in other would-be whistle-blowers; such as the idea that you will lose everything by standing up against it, in effect, demonstrating the omnipotent capacity of said government. Doubts have also been raised about whether Snowden had the ability to wiretap the president and shut down the NSA in a few hours, as he has claimed (Rappoport, 2013). These claims might be attributed to Snowden's apparent narcissistic tendencies, most evident in modelling photographs and an online biography of his that have now been published (Reilly, 2013). Snowden is known to have enlisted in the U.S. Army in May 2004 where he wanted to fight for freedom in a Special Forces unit. Tarpley (2013) states that this 'shift from militarist to civil libertarian remains unexplained and highly suspicious', a conclusion that is substantiated by the other added character concerns.

One can also judge a man by the company he keeps and in Snowden's case that means Wikileaks (Shane and Savage, 2013). Before shooting into mainstream fame, Wikileaks received an endorsement from Cass Sunstein suggesting that 'they have immense potential' (Sunstein, 2007). This should be of immediate concern to anyone looking for legitimacy in leaked information, as Sunstein is the author of a 2008 paper where he advocated the 'main policy idea' and 'promising tactic' of using 'cognitive infiltration' to disrupt and break up 'ideological and epistemological complexes' that investigate and promote anti-government conspiracy theories. He notes that 'direct government rebuttals'...will prove ineffective' and therefore external government 'allies' will need to be used (Sunstein, 2008). Assange appears to fit perfectly into the role of an external government 'ally'. His attack on 9/11 conspiracy theories, as documented earlier, appears to be an example of Sunstein's 'cognitive infiltration' tactic in action as the information he 'leaks' looks to distract from greater areas of inquiry. Now that the organization is said to be working with Snowden, more questions of his legitimacy are inevitably raised. It's also worth noting that the founder of Cryptome and mentor of Assange, John Young, denounced Wikileaks in 2007 as a CIA front (Tarpley, 2013).

Tarpley's third and final identifier for a limited hangout operation is when they are used to prepare large covert operations, which in the case of Snowden would be to advance an attack on Syria. This is evident from a number of key points. The first being that Snowden's initial revelations came on the same day that Qusayr, a crucial rebel stronghold, fell to the Syrian army; enraging British and French imperialist warmongers. Here we must remember the critical contextual point that Obama has refrained from an all out attack on Syria; something that those in London and Paris have been pushing for heavily over the past few months. Snowden's revelations triggered what Tarpley (2013) described as 'a firestorm of criticism' specifically aimed at Obama. The LondonGuardian does not only publish the new 'scandal' that caused this uproar, but they also like to point out how it is causing damage to Obama by putting his approval rating at 'its lowest point since last November's election' and has caused a 'collapse in trust' (Enten, 2013). Attacking Obama pushes him to a point where he must conform to the will of the establishment, to attack Syria outright, or be ousted.

For further evidence of The Guardian's push for war in Syria, we can find an article titled 'A Political Ploy: The Guardian Editors Swallow US Claims On Syrian WMD' (Edwards, 2013). It documents the stunning comments from Guardian editors including: 'that use (of Chemical Weapons) is an outrage and is against international agreements. It adds to the charge sheet against the Assad regime'. The article's author states that these are 'among the most shocking comments we have ever seen in the Guardian', that they 'endorse the latest claims on Syria' and that 'the Guardian editors are on-message, on-side and boosting war propaganda'. We can now understand why The Guardian would use Snowden to attack Obama as a means to fulfil the agenda, which they support, of a more open war against Syria.

IMAGE: The international press campaign against the Assad regime is currently in its second year.

It is possible to provide a real world example for another limited hangout operation that has prepared similar attacks by looking to none other than Wikileaks. As an organisation, they have never destroyed the career of a British, American or Israeli politician, but instead a laundry list of people that 'bears a striking resemblance to the CIA enemies' list' (Tarpley, 2013). Their attack against Assad of Syria, through a somewhat pathetic email-sex scandal (Taher and Slater, 2012), should make it immediately clear whose interests they represent: the same ones who also control the direction of The Guardian. With both The Guardian and Wikileaks supporting Snowden, we can almost be certain of whose interests he too represents: those who are aiming for war. Therefore, the armies of dupes currently attacking Obama for what Snowden has revealed, many of who should know better, are in actual fact facilitating the establishment's agenda for a wider war in Syria by weakening the anti-open war president.

While this is in no way seeks to aggrandise or apologise for Obama, the fact that he has not initiated a wider war in Syria must be recognised as a positive policy direction. We can see a similar direction during the attack on Libya where Obama officials refused to call the attack a 'war', they instead insisted on calling it 'kinetic military action' (York, 2011). To add to this anti-open war course, Obama's actions against Iran do not include bombing runs and tactical nuclear strikes, but instead, methods of economic warfare that look to make Iran's currency, the Rial, useless (Klimasinska and Katz, 2013). Articles are now emerging stating that 'Obama needs to act now on Syria' from those who clearly understand what Snowden represents: the manufactured opportunity to fulfil the agenda of war with Syria. They state that 'lives have been lost, and battlefield gains the insurgents enjoyed six months ago have been squandered' thanks to Obama not acting sooner (Doran and O'Hanlon, 2013). Are we really going to allow this new limited hangout operation to bring us into another war?

It is disappointing that so many are unable to understand the complexities of the disinformation, and limited hangout capacity, that Snowden symbolizes. But what is more worrying is the fact that many should simply know better when it comes to such matters. What is particularly interesting is how it was broadcast that Ed Snowden had been a supporter of, and donor to, libertarian Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign. The use of the name 'Ron Paul' appears to be an indispensable tool for ensnaring the support of the libertarian audience, an audience that is substantial in both physical size and influence particularly in the alternative media. Do libertarians have an almost childlike trust in anyone who supports Ron Paul? Would they allow this to blind themselves from the reality of a situation? It appears so, and also that the cunning minds behind the Snowden limited hangout are well aware of this. To what degree could this phenomenon be truly exploited? This is surely the question on the minds of those with nefarious intentions for future disinformation and limited hangout campaigns.

While we must be against warrantless spying, we must recognise the wider global context in which such scandals are presented to us. Remember the analogy of the brutal dictator beating the dog. This new limited hangout operation must be exposed as such in order to alleviate pressure on Obama, who is evidently attempting to maintain his Peace-Prize-Winner image. Hopefully, that can reverse the current trend of forcing both him, and the world, into yet another unnecessary conflict. Snowden is, at best, a fool who was deceived into his current position. At worst, he may be said to be a double agent who is fully aware of the wider consequences of his 'leaks'. Interestingly enough, Snowden recently came out and stated that Britain's 'GCHQ (the NSA of the UK) is worse than the US' (McDermott, 2013). Is this an attempt to shake the claims that Snowden is in fact a British sponsored limited hangout agent? Possibly. It would appear, therefore, as if we are on the right track. Following this line of enquiry may not only pull us away from war, but also remove many people from a state of what can currently only be termed as terminal na¯vet(C) or gullibility.

Author Stuart J Hooper can be followed here'...

http://twitter.com/StuartJHooper

http://youtube.com/StuartJHooper

References

Bell, M. (2010) 'Wanted by the CIA: Julian Assange '' Wikileaks founder' in Belfast Telegraph:http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/features/wanted-by-the-cia-julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-28548843.html

Chen, T. (2013) 'Snowden Alleges U.S. Hacking in China' in The Wall Street Journal:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578562483284884530.html

Doran, M. and O'Hanlon, M. (2013) 'Obama needs to act now on Syria: Column' in USA Today:http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/23/michael-doran-and-michael-ohanlon-on-syria-column/2450419/

Drury, I. and Robinson, M. (2013) 'US senators demand 'traitor' NSA whistleblower be extradited from Hong Kong to face trial in America after he reveals why he exposed online spy scandal' in Daily Mail Online:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338534/Edward-Snowden-speaks-NSA-contractor-leaked-details-surveillance-scheme-reveals-himself.html

Edwards, D. (2013) 'A Political Ploy'? The Guardian Editors Swallow US Claims On Syrian WMD' in Global Research:http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-political-ploy-the-guardian-editors-swallow-us-claims-on-syrian-wmd/5339614

Enten, H. J. (2013) 'Obama's approval takes a hit over NSA leaks' in The Guardian:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/obama-approval-hit-nsa-leaks

Greenwald, G. (2013) 'Andrew Sullivan, terrorism, and the art of distortion' in The Guardian:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/25/andrew-sullivan-distortion-terrorism-woolwich

Klimasinska, K. and Katz, I. (2013) 'Useless Rial Is U.S. Goal in New Iran Sanctions, Treasury Says' in Bloomberg:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-06/useless-rial-is-u-s-goal-in-new-iran-sanctions-treasury-says.html

Marchetti, V. (1978) The Spotlight

McDermott, K. (2013) ''GCHQ is worse than US', says whistleblower Edward Snowden as he claims British spies are collecting huge amounts of data from internet and phone calls' in Daily Mail Online:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346310/GCHQ-worse-US-says-whistleblower-Edward-Snowden-claims-British-spies-collecting-huge-amounts-data-internet-phone-calls.html

Merriam-Webster (2013) 'Disinformation' in Merriam-Webster:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation

Rappoport, J. (2013) 'NSA scandal: the deepest secret of the Ed Snowden operation' in Jon Rappoport's Blog:http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/nsa-scandal-the-deepest-secret-of-the-ed-snowden-operation/

Reilly, J. (2013) 'Whistleblower Edward Snowden smuggled out secrets with an everyday thumb drive banned from NSA offices' in Daily Mail Online:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341451/Whistleblower-Edward-Snowden-smuggled-secrets-everyday-thumb-drive-banned-NSA-offices.html

Shane, S. and Savage, C. (2013) 'WikiLeaks Says It Is Working to Negotiate Asylum in Iceland for Snowden' in The New York Times:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/world/europe/wikileaks-says-it-is-working-to-negotiate-asylum-in-iceland-for-snowden.html?_r=2&

Sunstein, C. (2007) 'A Brave New Wikiworld' in Washington Post:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301596.html

Sunstein, C and Vermeule, A. (2008) 'Conspiracy Theories' in Harvard University Law School'¨Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series

Taher, A. and Slater, R. (2012) 'Assad's mystery woman who 'loves him' is getting PhD from top UK university thanks to Syrian despot's sponsorship, leaked emails reveal' in Daily Mail Online:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170368/Wikileaks-Emails-reveal-Assad-mystery-woman-UK-university.html

Tarpley, W. G. (2013) 'How to identify CIA limited hangout op?' in Press TV:http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/18/309609/how-to-identify-cia-limited-hangout-op/

Wolf, N. (2013) 'My Creeping Concern that the NSA Leaker Edward Snowden is not who he Purports to be'...' in Global Research:http://www.globalresearch.ca/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be/5339161

York, B. (2011) 'White House: Libya Fight is Not War, It's Kinetic Military Action' in Fox News:http://nation.foxnews.com/libya-war/2011/03/23/white-house-libya-fight-not-war-its-kinetic-military-action

Source

21stcenturywire.com/2013/06/25/snowden-an-exercise-in-disinformation/http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/06/25/snowden-an-exercise-in-disinformation/

Germans Loved Obama. Now We Don't Trust Him. - NYTimes.com

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:46

BERLIN '-- IN May 2010, I received a brown envelope. In it was a CD with an encrypted file containing six months of my life. Six months of metadata, stored by my cellphone provider, T-Mobile. This list of metadata contained 35,830 records. That's 35,830 times my phone company knew if, where and when I was surfing the Web, calling or texting.

The truth is that phone companies have this data on every customer. I got mine because, in 2009, I filed a suit against T-Mobile for the release of all the data on me that had been gathered and stored. The reason this information had been preserved for six months was because of Germany's implementation of a 2006 European Union directive.

All of this data had to be kept so that law enforcement agencies could gain access to it. That meant that the metadata of 80 million Germans was being stored, without any concrete suspicions and without cause.

This ''preventive measure'' was met with huge opposition in Germany. Lawyers, journalists, doctors, unions and civil liberties activists started to protest. In 2008, almost 35,000 people signed on to a constitutional challenge to the law. In Berlin, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest data retention. In the end, the Constitutional Court ruled that the implementation of the European Union directive was, in fact, unconstitutional.

In Germany, whenever the government begins to infringe on individual freedom, society stands up. Given our history, we Germans are not willing to trade in our liberty for potentially better security. Germans have experienced firsthand what happens when the government knows too much about someone. In the past 80 years, Germans have felt the betrayal of neighbors who informed for the Gestapo and the fear that best friends might be potential informants for the Stasi. Homes were tapped. Millions were monitored.

Although these two dictatorships, Nazi and Communist, are gone and we now live in a unified and stable democracy, we have not forgotten what happens when secret police or intelligence agencies disregard privacy. It is an integral part of our history and gives young and old alike a critical perspective on state surveillance systems.

When Wolfgang Sch¤uble, the interior minister from 2005 to 2009, pushed for the implementation of the data-retention law, Germans remembered the Stasi's blatant disregard for privacy, as portrayed in the 2006 film ''The Lives of Others.'' They recalled their visits to the Hohensch¶nhausen district of Berlin, the site of the former Stasi detention center.

They were reminded of the stories of their grandparents, about the fear-mongering agents in the Gestapo. This is why Mr. Sch¤uble's portrait was often tagged provocatively with the phrase ''Stasi 2.0.''

Lots of young Germans have a commitment not only to fight against fascism but also to stand up for their own individual freedom. Germans of all ages want to live freely without having to worry about being monitored by private companies or the government, especially in the digital sphere.

That was my motivation for publishing the metadata I received from T-Mobile. Together with Zeit Online, the online edition of the weekly German newspaper Die Zeit, I published an infographic of six months of my life for all to see. With these 35,830 pieces of data, you can follow my travels across Germany, you can see when I went to sleep and woke up, a trail further enriched with public information from my social networking sites: six months of my life viewable for everybody to see what exactly is possible with ''just metadata.''

Three weeks ago, when the news broke about the National Security Agency's collection of metadata in the United States, I knew exactly what it meant. My records revealed the movements of a single individual; now imagine if you had access to millions of similar data sets. You could easily draw maps, tracing communication and movement. You could see which individuals, families or groups were communicating with one another. You could identify any social group and determine its major actors.

All of this is possible without knowing the specific content of a conversation, just technical information '-- the sender and recipient, the time and duration of the call and the geolocation data.

With Edward J. Snowden's important revelations fresh in our minds, Germans were eager to hear President Obama's recent speech in Berlin. But the Barack Obama who spoke in front of the Brandenburg Gate to a few thousand people on June 19 looked a lot different from the one who spoke in front of the Siegess¤ule in July 2008 in front of more than 200,000 people, who had gathered in the heart of Berlin to listen to Mr. Obama, then running for president. His political agenda as a candidate was a breath of fresh air compared with that of George W. Bush. Mr. Obama aimed to close the Guantnamo Bay detention camp, end mass surveillance in the so-called war on terror and defend individual freedom.

But the senator who promised to shut Guantnamo is now a second-term president who is still fighting for its closure. And the events of the past few weeks concerning the collection of metadata and private e-mail and social-media content have made many Germans further question Mr. Obama's proclaimed commitment to the individual freedoms we hold dear.

DURING Mr. Obama's presidency, no American political debate has received as much attention in Germany as the N.S.A. Prism program. People are beginning to second-guess the belief that digital communication stays private. It changes both our perception of communication and our trust in Mr. Obama.

Even as a Green Party politician, I wasn't impressed with Mr. Obama's focus on fighting global warming. While his renewed enthusiasm is appreciated, it served as a distraction from the criticism he is currently facing for allowing invasive state surveillance. He cannot simply change the subject.

His speech caused many Germans to question whether Americans actually share our understanding of the right balance between liberty and security. In the past, we celebrated the fact that both countries valued this balance, and there was huge solidarity with America after 9/11.

But the policy decisions of the Bush administration after the attacks '-- from waterboarding to Guantnamo '-- appalled Germans. We were shocked to see this mutual understanding disappear. Now we are not sure where Mr. Obama stands.

When courts and judges negotiate secretly, when direct data transfers occur without limits, when huge data storage rather than targeted pursuit of individuals becomes the norm, all sense of proportionality and accountability is lost.

While our respective security services still need to collaborate on both sides of the Atlantic to pursue and prevent organized crime and terrorism, it must be done in a way that strengthens civil liberties and does not reduce them. Although we would like to believe in the Mr. Obama we once knew, the trust and credibility he enjoyed in Germany have been undermined. The challenge we face is to once again find shared values, so that trust between our countries is restored.

Perhaps instead of including a quote from James Madison in his speech, arguing that ''No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare,'' Mr. Obama should have been reminded of the quote from another founding father, Benjamin Franklin, when he said, ''They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

Malte Spitz is a member of the German Green Party's executive committee and a candidate for the Bundestag in the September national election.

Text of letter to Edward Snowden from his father and father's attorney

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: Hacker News

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 22:56

Here is the text of the open letter Lon Snowden, along with his attorney, Bruce Fein, wrote to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. The letter was provided to The Associated Press.

July 2, 2013

Edward Joseph Snowden

Moscow

Dear Edward:

I, Bruce Fein, am writing this letter in collaboration with your father in response to the Statement you issued yesterday in Moscow.

Thomas Paine, the voice of the American Revolution, trumpeted that a patriot saves his country from his government.

What you have done and are doing has awakened congressional oversight of the intelligence community from deep slumber; and, has already provoked the introduction of remedial legislation in Congress to curtail spying abuses under section 215 of the Patriot Act and section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. You have forced onto the national agenda the question of whether the American people prefer the right to be left alone from government snooping absent probable cause to believe crime is afoot to vassalage in hopes of a risk-free existence. You are a modern day Paul Revere summoning the American people to confront the growing danger of tyranny and one branch government.

In contrast to your actions, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper responded last March as follows to an unambiguous question raised by Senator Ron Wyden:

''Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?'' Clapper testified, ''No sir, it does not.'' Wyden asked for clarification, and Clapper hedged: ''Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.''

Director Clapper later defended his stupendous mendacity to the Senator as the least untruthful answer possible. President Obama has not publicly rebuked the Director for frustrating the right of the people to know what their government is doing and to force changes if necessary through peaceful democratic processes. That is the meaning of government by the consent of the governed. ''We the people'' are sovereign under the U.S. Constitution, and government officials are entrusted with stewardship (not destruction) of our liberties.

We leave it to the American people to decide whether you or Director Clapper is the superior patriot.

The history of civilization is a history of brave men and women refusing to bow to government wrongdoing or injustice, and exalting knowledge, virtue, wisdom, and selflessness over creature comforts as the North Star of life. We believe your actions fall within that honorable tradition, a conviction we believe is shared by many.

As regards your reduction to de facto statelessness occasioned by the Executive Branch to penalize your alleged violations of the Espionage Act, the United States Supreme Court lectured in Trop v. Dulles (1958): ''The civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanimity that statelessness is not to be imposed as punishment for crime.''

We think you would agree that the final end of the state is to make men and women free to develop their faculties, not to seek planetary domination through force, violence or spying. All Americans should have a fair opportunity to pursue their ambitions. Politics should not be a football game with winners and losers featuring juvenile taunts over fumbles or missteps.

Irrespective of life's vicissitudes, we will be unflagging in efforts to educate the American people about the impending ruination of the Constitution and the rule of law unless they abandon their complacency or indifference. Your actions are making our challenge easier.

We encourage you to engage us in regular exchanges of ideas or thoughts about approaches to curing or mitigating the hugely suboptimal political culture of the United States. Nothing less is required to pay homage to Valley Forge, Cemetery Ridge, Omaha Beach, and other places of great sacrifice.

Very truly yours,

Bruce Fein

Counsel for Lon Snowden

Lon Snowden

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Bruce Fein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global H.Q. - Lichfield & Associates

Pro-US hacker 'The Jester' takes aim at nations helping Snowden.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: WT news feed

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 21:21

The self-described patriot hacker known as ''The Jester'' says he'll carry out cyber attacks on countries considering granting asylum to Edward Snowden.

Beginning early Monday, The Jester hacked into several government websites in Ecuador as reports circulated that Snowden, who divulged secrets on the National Security Agency's spying programs, could be headed there. With Venezuela emerging as a possible landing spot for Snowden, The Jester told FoxNews.com he could turn his attention to that South American country.

''These are enemies and that's how I will be treating them, and anyone who facilitates them,'' The Jester told FoxNews.com in an online interview.

''These are enemies and I that's how I will be treating them, and anyone who facilitates them."

- "The Jester," self-described "hacker for good"

The Jester launched denial of service attacks on a website hosting Ecuador's tourism ministry and on another that hosts the country's stock market home page. While in communication with FoxNews.com, he appeared to be taking the sites on and offline. When Ecuador abruptly reversed its stance and said it would not harbor Snowden, The Jester told FoxNews.com he would restore the sites. Within minutes, they were back online.

The Jester's real identity is not known, but he has hacked into various jihadist websites, taking down Internet forums where terrorists and wannabes gather online. He calls himself a ''hacker for good,'' and he told FoxNews.com that he sees people like Snowden and Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks mastermind who has also disseminated government secrets, as similarly dangerous to U.S. interests.

''As jihadis groom Muslims online to commit acts against us, so [Julian Assange] grooms government personnel like [Army private and accused leaker Bradley] Manning and Snowden to do his dirty work,'' the Jester told FoxNews.com.

Snowden is believed to be hiding in a Moscow airport and has applied to at least 21 countries for asylum. With Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Moscow, there is speculation Snowden could fly back to Carracas with him.

The Jester's computer is on display in exhibit at the International Spy Museum in Washington. The museum's website describes him as a force against leakers and terrorists:

''The mysterious real-life hacktivist known only as Th3J35T3R (THE JESTER) shuts down websites he opposes,'' the website states. ''Once he has successfully disabled targets such as Wikileaks or radical Islamist sites, he triumphantly tweets 'TANGO DOWN.'''

The latest hack attacks by The Jester are not his first targeting Wikileaks or its associates. In 2010, he knocked Wikileaks' servers offline when it was dumping State Department cables.

Neither the NSA nor the State Department responded to FoxNews.com's requests for comment.

Glenn Greenwald: New Bombshell Coming

AL CIAEDA

Documents Show Dead Al-Qaeda Leader Anwar Al-Awlaki Paid Thousands For Hookers While In America'...

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: Weasel Zippers

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 21:12

This was around the time the Pentagon invited him to speak claiming he was a ''moderate'' Muslim cleric.

Via Fox News:

On the eve of an infamous presentation Anwar al-Awlaki gave at the Pentagon in 2002, the Al Qaeda operative was busy preparing '-- with a prostitute he paid $400 for at a Washington hotel.

It was one of more than a half-dozen liaisons Awlaki had with prostitutes between late 2001 and early 2002, while he was under FBI surveillance, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and reviewed exclusively by Fox News.

The documents shed new light on the double life the American-born Awlaki was leading, while living in the Washington area and working as an imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Va.

In the years before he became publicly associated with Al Qaeda and was targeted for death by the U.S. government, Awlaki was by turns welcomed and investigated by different arms of the government '-- not just over his radical ties, but his predilection for prostitutes.

Yet there is no indication he was ever brought up on charges, leading Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton to question why the cleric seemed to have a ''protected status.''

One document obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, was a June 2002 memo from FBI Assistant Director Pasquale D'Amuro detailing Awlaki's encounters with prostitutes in the D.C. area. The memo appeared to propose charges against him, claiming he spent $2,320 on seven different occasions between Nov. 5, 2001, and Feb. 4, 2002.

It described in detail an interview with the ''escort'' who saw him on Feb. 4, the day before he was scheduled to have lunch at the Pentagon as an invited guest. [...]

He paid $400 for sex, the memo said. He was described by the escort as ''very polite.'' Awlaki, who has a record with prostitutes '-- he was booked in San Diego on charges of soliciting prostitutes in the late '90s '-- also told the escort that he likes to use escort services when he travels to Florida, according to the memo.

The memo described in graphic detail the services rendered for Awlaki during that period. One prostitute described a December 2001 encounter where Awlaki paid $300, in order to watch ''as she engaged in erotic behavior and stimulated herself.''

Adam's Email

Clapper Performative

Hey,

During the 'ask Adam' on episode 526 (approx 55 mins in)

the guy asks:>So, what I wanted to see is, if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question... does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.

and Clapper responds

>No, Sir.

So the answer as to why he isn't charged for perjury is because he didn't lie.

I read this as:

>Can you give me an answer to this question?

>No.

I can't BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE you missed this one.

Cheers,

Michael Wildman

NZ

AJ Disinfo vs Pamela Gellar

Hello Adam,

I have been wanting to ask your opinion on this issue. as you may be aware of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer both of whom are anti-Muslim extremists were recently banned for this same reason. Michael Savage has been banned for some time because of his extreme views. So this leads me to my question and that is if the UK bans people with extreme views then why did they just let Alex Jones go over there and invade Bilderberg. i mean you cant really get more extreme than AJ and his bullhorn. So this seems odd to me and makes me question AJ is he a phony or something and that's why they let him in? there has to be a reason why the other 3 got banned and he didn't?

well anyways would love to hear you and JCD talk about this on NA sometime.

thanks

Timothy L. Whited

Shot Spotter Email

From Producer Kevin

I installed these things in one of those cities, they are open mics

essentially that connect back to a server at city hall over a 2 wire

telephone line, so yes the mic is open all the time and if it can hear

a gun shot it can hear a conversation.

One thing this company does is go around and go to people's houses and

ask them to put them on their houses. I literally installed these

things on people's roof's, chimney's, light poles, pretty much

anywhere they could get a copper line.

Just thought I would share.

Justin on Generals

Adam,

I love what you said on the show about the ridiculous number for General Officers in the military. As a junior officer in the Army I spend upwards of 20% of my personal pay on things like pens, pencils, notebooks, and printer paper so my Soldiers can function on a day to day basis, and I am sure the GO's don't spend a like of their personal pay just to keep their job. Instead they roll around with their personal chauffeurs in a government owned and fueled vehicles. I get it, perks come with the job, but we, the military, are also accountable to the American public and the money they put into our pockets.

- justin

Performatives

National Intelligence Director Apologizes for Lying to Congress

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: Dprogram.net

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:27

July 3rd, 2013

(USNewsWorldReport) '' The director of National Intelligence apologized in June to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee for lying during a hearing, according to a letter published on the DNI website on Tuesday.

Director James Clapper appeared before the committee in March, where Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked him specifically if NSA spies on millions of Americans. Clapper answered, ''No.''

Since then, Edward Snowden reportedly leaked government documents that unveiled a secretive government program that did precisely what Wyden suggested in collecting meta data for cell phone and internet records of hundreds of millions of Americans.

Clapper says the intricacy of Wyden's question '' asking for a clarification of ''hundreds of millions of dossiers on people'' '' combined with a need to preserve classified information prompted him to give the wrong answer.

''My response was clearly erroneous '' for which I apologize,'' he wrote in the letter to committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. ''While my staff acknowledged the error to Sen. Wyden's staff soon after the hearing, I can now openly correct it because the existence of the metadata collection program has been declassified.''

Full article here

Tags: lying to congress, national intelligence directorThis entry was posted on Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 at 8:25 am and is filed under Dictatorship, Education/Mind Control, Fascism, Martial Law/Police State, NWO, Politics/Corrupt. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Obama Nation

Breaking: Guess Who Else Is In South Africa? Reggie Love! | Weasel Zippers

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 01 Jul 2013 02:44

On June 26th, Reggie Love tweeted after the Supreme Court decision in the DOMA case, supporting ''love'', whoever the two lovers happened to be:

Now today he is in South Africa, where Barack Obama is also visiting.

Love is apparently in the air in South Africa'...

Long-awaited GMD Missile Intercept Test Scheduled for Friday

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: Global Security Newswire Daily News

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:56

A long awaited, critical test of the primary U.S. defense interceptor against long-range ballistic missile attacks is scheduled for Friday, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency announced.

The trial flight of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element will involve a Ground-Based Interceptor equipped with the first-generation exoatmospheric kill vehicle. A second-generation EKV component was used in two unsuccessful GBI tests in 2010. The GBI missile will be fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California against a ballistic missile target launched from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean.

A successful January flight test of the GBI missile with a modified EKV component set the stage for Friday's tests, giving the Pentagon enough confidence that technical problems with the troublesome "hit-to-kill" warhead had been fixed.

As a result of the two failed intercept trials in 2010, "this test is the most significant demonstration of the Ground-Based Interceptors and its fire-control system in the history of the program," Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance Chairman Riki Ellison was quoted by Bloomberg as saying.

U.S. military chiefs "responsible for the defense of the United States will base their confidence [in the GBI system] on the result of this test," he said.

An intercept trial that would utilize the second-generation EKV component is slated for later in 2013. If that test fulfills its parameters, it would set the stage for the augmentation around 2017 of the GMD system with 14 new GBI missiles. There are presently 30 silo-based interceptors tipped with the older-generation EKV warhead fielded in Alaska and California.

Our Mission | Ex-vegans

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 07:09

Our Mission.

If you're no longer vegan, you're going on the list.The spirits of the billions murdered have risen to deliver: The Vegan Sellout List '' an online directory of those who have regressed from moral consistency to moral depravity.

The Vegan Sellout List is our answer to the epidemic of vegan sellouts '' those who are aware of the suffering caused by meat, dairy, egg, fur, and leather production, yet choose to look away while the animals suffer.

Selling out veganism is a trend on the upswing, bringing with it swarms of haughty, nose-turning carnists uttering nonsensical buzzwords re: veganism being ''privileged'', or ''trendy'', critiquing themselves into ethical degeneracy and paleo-terrorism.

To those who have regressed from veganism, yet display symptoms of a soul not fully blackened to it's core, we ask you to remind yourself why you were what you were:

Meet Your Meat

And if that fails to stir your conscience, we ask that you go here and follow the directions closely.

What is this?The Vegan Sellout List is 100% user-submitted. Click the ''Submit'' tab, enter all known information for an ex-vegan, and submit the entry. We will review and post all entries deemed to have merit.

The guidelines.Please don't double post names. If you don't know if a name is listed already, look it up. Please do not post names that fall under the following categories:

Was never veganPretended to be vegan''Was vegan for 3 days then sold out.''SOMEONE WHO IS STILL VEGAN.If the person has a vegan/activist project they can be identified with (band, book, activist history, etc), or other notable associations, please mention.

If the person was a vocal vegan who has moved post-selling out, please list the location the person was commonly acknowledged to be vegan in.

Please only enter relevant material in the description box. Focus on FACTS, not opinions or rumors.

If you have questions, or noticed a mistake with your post, please submit feedback to the list.

Cable News Ratings for Monday, July 1, 2013

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: TVbytheNumbers

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 21:11

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for July 1, 2013

P2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)Total DayFNC 1,128 219 446CNN 491 181 230MSNBC 395 118 178CNBC 155 46 85FBN 51 10 28HLN 498 199 278PrimetimeP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNC 1,870 263 607CNN 696 254 372MSNBC 735 202 344CNBC 232 99 131FBN 49 7 19HLN 733 314 414NetMorning programs (6-9 AM)P2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCFOX & Friends 1,077 256 476CNNNew Day 243 100 125MSNBCMorning Joe 376 123 167CNBCSquawk Box 120 30 70HLNMorning Express w/ Meade 264 139 192Net5PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCFIVE, THE 2,139 358 829CNNSituation Room 700 228 267MSNBCMARTIN BASHIR 617 179 284CNBCFAST MONEY 186 28 83HLNEVENING EXPRESS 548 208 291Net6PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCSPECIAL RPT W/BRET BAIER 1,829 267 610CNNSituation Room 534 158 206MSNBCPOLITICS NATION 639 174 263CNBCMad Money 172 42 78HLNEVENING EXPRESS 663 292 369Net7PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCThe Fox Report W/S.SMITH 1,540 229 528CNNN WORD 612 218 290MSNBCHARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS 686 152 267CNBCKudlow Report 117 14 34HLNJANE VELEZ-MITCHELL 832 364 491Net8PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCTHE OREILLY FACTOR 2,574 328 803CNNAnderson Cooper 360 624 204 312MSNBCALL IN W/ CHRIS HAYES 632 146 276CNBCCAR CHASERS, THE 113 37 54HLNNancy Grace 754 330 472Net9PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCHannity 1,572 211 504CNNPIERS MORGAN LIVE 698 223 364MSNBCRachel Maddow Show 869 246 414CNBCFILTHY RICH 267 120 150HLNDr. Drew ON CALL 757 330 424Net10PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCON THE RECORD W/GRETA 1,456 250 514CNNAnderson Cooper 360 765 335 440MSNBCLast Word W/ L. ODONNELL 704 215 343CNBCAMERICAN GREED 316 140 188HLNHLN AFTER DARK 687 281 347Net11PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCTHE OREILLY FACTOR 1,190 297 506CNNAnderson Cooper 360 463 231 243MSNBCALL IN W/ CHRIS HAYES 410 145 192CNBCMad Money 113 60 78HLNNancy Grace 559 237 286-For other days cable news ratings click here.

P2+ = viewers over the age of 2

(25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing

(35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing

Prime Time = 8-11pm

LIVE+SD: The number that watched a program either while it was broadcast OR watched via DVR on the same day [through 3AM the next day] the program was broadcast. For more information see Numbers 101.

Scratch = when a show's audience fails to meet minimum Nielsen reporting levels. For more information go here.

Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of July, 2012)

CNN/HLN: 99.727 million HHs

CNBC: 97.497 million HHs

FNC: 97.981 million HHs

MSNBC: 95.526 million HHs

Fox Business: 68.407 million HHs

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: (C)2013 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

Hyde Amendment

Harris v. McRae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:20

Harris v. McRaeSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued April 21, 1980Decided June 30, 1980Full case nameHarris, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Cora McRae, et al.Citations448 U.S.297 (more)100 S. Ct. 2671; 65 L. Ed. 2d 784; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 145

Prior historyMcRae v. Califano, 491 F. Supp. 630 (E.D.N.Y. 1980)Subsequent historyPetition for rehearing denied September 17, 1981HoldingStates that participated in Medicaid were not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable as a result of the Hyde Amendment. The funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment did not violate either the Fifth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.Court membershipCase opinionsMajorityStewart, joined by Burger, White, Powell, RehnquistConcurrenceWhiteDissentBrennan, joined by Marshall, BlackmunDissentMarshallDissentBlackmunDissentStevensHarris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that States that participated in Medicaid were not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable as a result of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted the use of federal funds for abortion. The Court also held that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment did not violate either the Fifth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Background[edit]In 1965 Congress amended Title XIX of the Social Security Act to create the Medicaid program. Medicaid is a voluntary program which provides federal funds to those states that choose to provide reimbursement for certain medical expenses for the indigent.[2]

In September, 1976, Congress began, either by amendment to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or by joint resolution, to ban the use of federal funds to reimburse the cost of abortions under Medicaid.[3] Initially, the only exception was where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. These restrictions became known as the Hyde Amendment, named for the measure's original sponsor, Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde. The language of the 1980 Hyde Amendment provided,

''[None] of the funds provided by this joint resolution shall be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term; or except for such medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape or incest when such rape or incest has been reported promptly to a law enforcement agency or public health service.[4]''In 1976, following passage of the original Hyde Amendment, an action was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Amendment's restrictions.[5] Plaintiffs were Cora McRae, a New York Medicaid recipient then in the first trimester of a pregnancy that she wished to abort, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., which operated hospitals providing abortion services, officers of the Women's Division of the Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, and the Women's Division itself.[6] McRae sought to bring the action as a class action, on behalf of other similarly situated women.[6] The district court granted the class certification motion, and also permitted Senators James Buckley and Jesse Helms and Congressman Hyde to intervene as defendants.[6]

The district court granted the injunction on January 15, 1980, finding that the Hyde Amendments violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause and the First Amendment's Establishment clause.[7]

Supreme Court decision[edit]Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Burger, Justice White, Justice Powell, and Justice Rehnquist joined. Justice White wrote an opinion concurring the judgment. Justice Brennan wrote a dissent, in which Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun joined. Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun also authored separate dissents, as did Justice Stevens.

The Court held that states participating in the Medicaid program were not obligated to fund medically necessary abortions under Title XIX. The Court found that a woman's freedom of choice did not carry with it "a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices." The Court ruled that because the Equal Protection Clause was not a source of substantive rights and because poverty did not qualify as a "suspect classification," the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Finally, the Court held that the coincidence of the funding restrictions of the statute with tenets of the Roman Catholic Church did not constitute an establishment of religion.

See also[edit]References[edit]^448 U.S. 297 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.^448 U.S. at 301^448 U.S. at 302^Pub. L. 96-123, § 109, 93 Stat. 926^McRae v. Mathews, 421 F. Supp. 533 (E.D.N.Y. 1976)^ abc448 U.S. at 303^McRae v. Califano, 491 F. Supp. 630

Abortion pill RU486 among new drugs to be listed on PBS | World news | guardian.co.uk

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 21:28

The minister for health, Tanya Plibersek. The Global Mail. Photograph: Mike Bowers

Federal health minister Tanya Plibersek says drugs to treat skin cancer, as well as the controversial abortion pill RU486, will be listed on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS).

Plibersek said the taxpayer-funded PBS would also include a drug to treat prostate cancer and a new generation oral anticoagulant medicine for the prevention of strokes.

Speaking only briefly on the abortion medication, Plibersek said Australian women have had limited access to the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, which are used in combination to terminate a pregnancy of up to seven weeks gestation.

"By offering this different option at a very difficult time in a woman's life, I hope that we are giving more choice in what are often extraordinarily difficult circumstances," the minister said at Cancer Australia in Sydney on Sunday.

She added that scores of millions of women in more than 40 countries have had access to the abortion drugs for several years.

The expansion of access to medical terminations would prove "particularly important" to women living in rural and regional Australia, who have had to travel long distances and be away from family and friends to undergo surgery, Plibersek said.

Cancer drugs due for inclusion on the PBS from August offer new hope for patients who previously could not afford the costly treatments, Plibersek said.

Skin cancer drug ipilimumab costs $110,000 a year for private patients but with a PBS listing comes within the reach of more than 100,000 people.

Late-stage prostate cancer drug abiraterone and breast cancer medication vinorelbine are also additions to the PBS, in a move that will cost taxpayers $430 million over the next four years.

"The exciting thing about these new treatments is that they will extend the life of patients with melanoma, with prostrate cancer, with breast cancer," Plibersek said.

"If we didn't subsidise these medicines through the PBS they would be out of the reach of most Australians."

The government will also put up $450 million over the coming four years for the PBS inclusion of anti-stroke medication rivaroxaban."It's a drug that will be used by patients who have been on warfarin in the past," Plibersek said.

Consider 'The Source': Crisis Pregnancy Center Transforms Into Women's Health Program Provider: If Planned Parenthood's out, are CPCs in? - News Blog - The Austin Chronicle

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 20:10

If Planned Parenthood is pushed out of the Women's Health Program, will transformed CPCs be ushered in?

Photo by Jana Birchum

As the state rolls out its revised Texas Women's Health Program, a central question remains: how to find enough providers to serve the nearly 111,000 women currently enrolled in the program. The current numbers suggest real trouble '' but if one Houston-based crisis pregnancy center and Gov. Rick Perry have their way, providers will be made available.

Indeed, being a part of the WHP is a goal for Cynthia Wenz, CEO of The Source for Women in Houston, a CPC that's in the midst of transforming itself into a women's health center. It's a transformation that Gov. Perry supports. "The Source for Women clinics, in fact, will be a part of Texas' own Women's Health Program, and Planned Parenthood will not be," Perry said in a speech delivered to supporters of The Source at a ribbon-cutting ceremony this week in Houston. Whether The Source will also help to transform the provider base for the Texas WHP remains to be seen.

At issue in part is the state's banning of Planned Parenthood clinics from the program. Although the PP clinics in the WHP do not provide abortions, the state considers them "affiliates" of those non-WHP PP clinics that do provide abortion care. When the federal government, which originally provided 90% of the WHP funding, concluded that excluding PP clinics would violate federal law, Perry decided that the state would remake the WHP as a state-run program, keep the ban on PP, and find a way to come up with the $30-plus million in funding previously provided by the feds.

To be eligible for the WHP, a woman cannot be pregnant, and in 2010, PP clinics provided care to nearly 50% of all WHP clients.

According to new analysis done by the Center for Public Policy Priorities, that remained true in state fiscal year 2011, when PP clinics accounted for 47% of all WHP claims coming from providers that are required each year to certify their eligibility to provide WHP services (hospitals and labs aren't required to do this). Even more troubling is that it isn't just PP clinics that will be leaving the WHP. This year providers were asked to certify eligibility for the program by May 1 '' including confirming that they are not affiliated with an abortion provider. In addition to the 28 PP clinics that did not recertify this spring, 71 other providers '' including federally qualified health centers, physicians, and family planning clinics '' also failed to recertify for the program, according to the CPPP analysis. All together, those 99 providers handled roughly 61% of all WHP claims filed in 2011.

More globally, although 1,928 providers recertified for the program this spring, just 515 actually provided services in 2011, accounting for the remaining 39% of paid claims. (The 1,928 excludes labs and hospitals, neither of which are required to certify.)

If the current proposed rules for the WHP are accepted by the state, providers and advocates for the program fear that number could shrink even more, thanks to the inclusion of a "gag rule" that would forbid doctors from any discussion of abortion with their patients. As written, the rule would even forbid doctors from providing information about abortion to their clients who are not enrolled in the WHP. It is a proposed rule that lawmakers, policy analysts, advocates, and doctors alike have told the state health agencies is a major problem because it conflicts directly with medical ethics.

If doctors are forced to choose between adherence to fundamental medical ethics and participation in the WHP, a program that provides basic reproductive health and family-planning care to low-income women, the WHP stands to lose. "We strongly oppose any interference into a physician's ability to use his or her medical judgment as to the information that is in the best interest of his or her patient," Texas Medical Association President Michael Speer and Texas District of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Chair Lisa Hollier wrote in comments to the Department of State Health Services on behalf of their organizations and the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, and the Texas Pediatric Society, which together represent more than 47,000 doctors and medical students. "Because of the proposed rules, we are very concerned about the future viability of this important program. If adopted as proposed, the rules will undoubtedly dramatically decrease the number of physicians willing to participate in the [Texas WHP].''

How the doctors' response '' and the new numbers '' might affect the proposed gag rule remains uncertain. "We're looking at potential changes to address those concerns," Health and Human Services Commission spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman wrote in an email. "We hope to have any revisions ready by early October." Even if the gag rule is eliminated, will there be enough providers willing to agree to the state's terms? Indeed, it appears there may be a major new player '' at least in Houston.

Meet the new The Source for Women, a longtime CPC that is in the midst of remaking itself into a "pregnancy medical clinic," that proposes to be a federal Medicaid-eligible provider and will step into the Texas WHP to provide well-woman checks and other reproductive health services.

The Source CEO Wenz is a former accountant, event planner, and general manager in television post-production. On the phone from Houston, her excitement about the new direction for The Source is palpable. Moving into reproductive health care makes good business sense, she said. When Planned Parenthood moved into its large new digs in Houston, she said, The Source had a choice: stick with the old-model CPC, an entity often criticized for providing questionable counseling advice without providing any medical services, or become a direct player in women's health care. The choice, she said, was obvious. "Let's just talk business," she said, and forget about politics and abortion. If she were the head of Blockbuster, she said, and Netflix arrived on the scene, the question would be, "how do we make our business model sustainable?"

According to Wenz, The Source for Women will now have nurse practitioners on staff, and will provide pap smears, sexually-transmitted disease testing and treatment (treatment for STDs is not currently part of the WHP, but Wenz said The Source will treat those diseases). Exactly what types of birth control will be provided, she said, has not yet been decided. "Our goal,'' she said, ''is to serve our demographic," low-income women, and that demographic needs birth control. However, The Source will not provide anything it considers an abortifacient '' including emergency contraception. According to unspecified ''medical standards,'' Wenz said, that's what EC is '' although there is plenty of scientific dispute with that position.

What about birth control pills? That hasn't yet been decided. Wenz said only that The Source is "absolutely addressing the birth control issue," and that its board is in the process of determining the parameters of its "prescriptive authority."

And can The Source meet with HHSC approval? A provider would not be required to provide an entire list of services just to be eligible for Texas WHP funding, HHSC's Goodman wrote in an email. (And, under the current rules, emergency contraception is not covered by WHP, which is a program designed to provide basic preventative health services, as a means of preventing unwanted pregnancy.) However '' and it's a major condition '' all providers must be enrolled in the federal Medicaid program. Wenz said The Source is in the middle of doing just that. In fact, she said The Source has been moving toward becoming an eligible provider since she took the helm in 2009.

While The Source may be devising a new mission, it isn't abandoning its heritage. The list of services the group provides may have expanded '' its website earlier this week included a note that it does not provide "reproductive health care services," "birth control," "pap smears," or "mammograms" '' The Source intends to continue drawing dollars from the state as a participant in the Alternatives to Abortion program.

That program, created by budget rider in 2005, moved money from the traditional family-planning budget to fund CPCs in order to "promote childbirth." Initially funded with a $5 million biennial allocation, lawmakers in each subsequent session have increased the A2A budget, even as it has drastically cut funding for women's health care. In fiscal year 2011, The Source received just under $85,000 in state A2A funds, to provide "counseling" and various classes, including on childbirth and pregnancy. For the first quarter of FY 2012, the group billed for nearly $29,000 in A2A funds. The Source will continue to be a part of that program, said Wenz. The A2A makes up just a small portion of their funding, provided by "six revenue streams," she said. "It is a small percentage [of funding], but you bet, [I'll take] every revenue stream I can."

Among those supporting The Source's makeover is Perry, who on Tuesday spoke at the group's ribbon-cutting ceremony. "Here in Texas, we've worked hard to strengthen our abortion laws, empower families, and protect our children's future," reads the text of Perry's speech. "We've banned the use of your tax dollars for abortion procedures in Texas, and expanded that ban to include those affiliated with abortion providers in the case of our Women's Health Program," he continued. "We've stood strong '... and proclaimed the truth that protecting the rights of abortion providers and protecting women's health are not the same thing. The Source for Women clinics, in fact, will be a part of Texas' own Women's Health Program, and Planned Parenthood will not be."

abortion procedure codes

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:51

%PDF-1.5 %½½½½ 282 0 obj endobj 290 0 obj stream h½bbd``b`½½½@½½`Nl1@½+ $½$^½c`bd\ d100 ½3l½ `=½½ endstream endobj startxref 0 %%EOF 299 0 obj stream h½b```f``½``b`Psb½g@~½3ǁMs½O½a½n½h½½h½ð‘--²A1½2P½½½½½RV@b½½qB 9 ½½½½`{y½½½e`½q½½b½`_S½ endstream endobj 283 0 obj endobj 284 0 obj endobj 285 0 obj stream h½½V[o½0½+~½½½Kb;½½ImYa½&R1½i½ mD½T½'m½½½½½@½N|n½||½),½½ ½2DS½"%ZÅF½½E½½Z ½)½ID%½½Jd½½½½d2Î>>b k]½½½½½½1½e½{^u½½y½n½ OF½½#½½½z..g½½l½T{[½l½w?th]½½½½w½C½rU½En½m½wr½EQ+D %x½o?½j½½½½/z½Q$½V½C½Ó...V½qsw}$Xb|½BL½½æ›²½3j˼zk,½½½f}4n½½ln½½j½X½C½½½½N>SyU.F½*½*6_toE$½xm½UM½½ZÔ'½½L½D½yZ/½eY½½UY½½½½i½vj½½[½Ñ°½½Q}½Sn#½8½½½\w½½½t½Zw×'½7½½EQ½b=i½#I½"½bQ½3½m

perry letter

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:39

%PDF-1.5 %½½½½ 9 0 obj endobj 22 0 obj stream h½bbd`b`½bb`db`½½eL½½b}@½H½½^ ]½½½&½½L½3½½30½2 ½ endstream endobj startxref 0 %%EOF 24 0 obj stream h½b``½f``Rb½½_P#½0p4 ½qC1½2½t½^-½½½o2>g½½$½½½½5½,c,ÔŒ½½ d endstream endobj 10 0 obj endobj 11 0 obj endobj 12 0 obj stream h½22V0P½½½wJ,Nu½½+½½H½)K-½LN½w½K½O½½K½½½s½+νK½J*R½C½½!½½i½½0½½ endstream endobj 13 0 obj stream H½½U½½0½½+t½Zif4½½6YzI½½C½Ð…½½½½½ol½u½½D=½{o½(½½½½t>=?v½N½s½½Ø†½½ÑŸO½½½½J>g½½q9½½5w矯½~7½w½v½½f½i½:v½½5½}½.½ÌžÕ¥½½½½oÍ—DR½½@½½_Pz½½½2½½½Dx½R½AÄž½P½½$Y½½½+½K½½½½½½:½3[½2Ù£|½½F'½K½aDj'½D½ ½½c½4½)½½½½½B½½Q½½½j~½½½v½3½t½½½½+½½½`i½s½>(iÊ´d6h5½½$½G½½ /q½:½ ½½JK½½g½$ÑW½7½½½I½½8z&½½;i½ãŒ½dr½½Ë¤½1[-½½½^kݲ4t̖ȁ%½½½9e^U#į\½½½9½½½½½½>L½\{½½ML½½Rs½j½½PM½Qh̲½+N½9½KG½n½Da½6½½½ ½½½½½½a½%½y:"½½'½*j½½j½½½½½ ½J½O4wN½V½½½½b½6½½½gHtX;a½Ð e½½\O½ ½½½f½Õ‹½½zq1Ó[½%½z~½½½c)½½v½½½pY½Ìc½½E½½u]Z½½½Ur½o½VV ½½ %j½}½+½½BR½½3e½to½2½½z{½na ½î‡‰½z½½~½S½½_½x½M=½]½P½(½8fg½½½ 0-2½½ endstream endobj 14 0 obj stream H½½UA½½0½½½@]½½H X(½½yC½½k½½½c½98½p½c½½.½~½cG.p½I½½½y½½|½hw½½}½dw½_½½½Ò°4a½r½knX½½½I-½½½;½½Sb/½ê(C)½½½.½OH:ά½½½!½.½½½f½#p½m#½½qAl\½R½½½KÈ"½@½2½½.½AB]N½^ɉ½*½½Vl½8½!M ½K½K /dF½½×'½\? ½½+½WØ"8N40½½7]½½½X1½Î--½½>Õ'jytU;½RCZ½a½k½½½|½½½`½l½½UYX½ßŽ½½½Z½y½jGh½)½½½:½Q ½Ï•½½>½\½½0t0J-½½½s½½ u-½½>½2/X=½+½E| n½Y½½½Þ¨o½½½½r@ ~½½Çª½½Xz=½{^6L=_½½@KQ½½d+½4c$½]½H½B½6Éž½½½-½½w½½½½5Ùm½½½½X½g#Y½8½R7½½-½}ORZp½P½S½ ½E½½3×¹½ ½½kSÝ‚½j+#½½½Ê­]}½½0½ ½* endstream endobj 18 0 obj stream H½½U9½½0½½½i½Vm9½½½½½½Oݽ½H6LM0j5½&½Oi>.½^x½½'D½Y½Ë†½z½9(½G½-½5Vu½½½6½½Da½M"½½3½½?½½½*½½@½½iE½½½½xv½½½½tT=½½½½½P½ ½dZ82>½½j½½½½Y%½j½½' ;½Ò½½½8Us½q½'½½MJ½ÓŠ½½½½Pw=Ä(5Ųm½½½I½G®ÆšBI½N½gO嬽½½~½½½b½½½j½½NO½½!gd>½c½1½^%½g½½ kh!½Eq½q'&½&5E^½u½l½Z\4½S½p½½T0½m½½½BJÔ¥½,E½h½H½½&$½\½½½\1½½½½½y!½G¾"6_m½½½Aul½½½½*f\ZP9½½½½>½½½bqs½½:½½½Î‘'u½½½j½Ap.½Õ²g½½5.½½e½G\L½½½}rj½½½½R½½3½½#m½½½½½:½2½C½!½3½½m½ ½L½p×;z;q^o½z½½H½½½½J>½½, ½v½½íŽ¸_u½Q0P½½½&½½½$½}S½D½½½Î±'½½X½½r½½4=:|½½½½½½½.½Ü'4½3½½)½½ì¯½1½z*½½?½y½3>o!½`½xq endstream endobj 21 0 obj stream ½Ê8½#½½8½#Ⱥ.½½½#½½.½#½6½#½GtE½u-½½T½½h½DDDDDDDDDDDDN½½!j-DB0½"]G½½mGB4F½h½hDG½$½DDDDDDDE+½e½F½th½½½0½½ %u½}#½½½½½0½½t]E½t]E½t]F½mF½&hD½H½g%GÑ´mE½t]Dt_/½t&½HL"½ ½DDDDDDDDDDDDFZ½F½B6½DDDDDDDDe½½½E½aE½½]G½½F!>½½n½½½DiE½½½(G½½½½½½½B""""#Q½o½½½½!G½½)½½SJ#-½½9½(½½K5eG½½Q½½Q½\½G½½f½½½@ҏ½½)½%J?½ò½ ?½5 >½`½½ 㯗0½ ½½½M½½½Ø…O½:½L/½#q_A?=½½½_F½v½l½½Ç½½½)½)½½ ½½½½!؍3do½½½½½V½½½½½½o½?½½½½½½½½Ú°½5 a½–hx½½bmdjPA½½`½½ ½N½C½e½½8½C½½@½1½½G½M½P`½½n½½>½½½X½½½½jt½.½½½½Aɏ½$悇½½K½½Dj\ ½mT½½½6½½91½½DG"u½9½ _#½?½½½½,x½Ä‡½½½½½½NXp½½½hp½}&½½½½v^/½½½F½½½½½½½½½½½Mm½HYM½½½½½j½½ ½JY½½½Ô½Q½½]kdt_.½½,½½,-&""5y ½½aZ½c½r½z'½½;,j½?½½_H"½½_½!S-½½½D&½½V½r½½½NT( x2>G½½x½] ½½Ó´v½M½½½½½½(Jy½rÍ­Y%½½½½½8hd½~"8½·½L½½E>½np½y½$½myg½F½½JP_½½8½½½½/½½½½%½½Bi½½sDvS½T½½Lx2½.½½½"""0XDT½r½½%C½l½K;-B½DZlx@½A½½T/½½aÊ‚½½½½8½½½½uD½#tR½½< >]½}8HZ½½½½x*ꇅ½R1½½g`½:½a½½V[DÈŠ½½½ ½&½ ½½vZ½½h;½½'aT½Q|Pv ½3½N½G½½-½A0½G`a½D½Wo;0½l-½½½Z{½½&½l½$F9½½8½ ½ ½ !½½}+(½½½½½Z&½'½a`½½I½(½!;+O½>#L`½A½D]½½"½EMA½9½½½1'½½{GjK½@½"a½½w½½I½ZG½2½l½½½½,'Q!hXg½½Ö½{z$9ܽ½½L($HCtE½½l*}½M½½`½½QCjd½½½ ½GDt_/½½½p½Xdt_0½7ؽ½*3>k@½½)½½q½½v½zUi6 ½8½\%Ga½½½"""½#½ ½"0½$j4½½;*oAS½v½ C[½½½½½½Gc2½BM½½6½½Ç‚M½ ½VÝ•½Ø¤½½J!½A½½M½;,M½½;m½A½Q½Ç¾½Q½G8½D½½½½½½%½b!½½ ½;V½½l ]$½½}c`½h½A½4^½|2G½½Ú--½½AS½½ ½r;½½½½kM½U½V½`½½½U6!½½½K½tj½A2½M"½J½½*½½½½½8I×¾½9@e½p½½_½d&½½½Ö¹&½ZcV½6#}wb)Ø·½d0½½½v½r½*#½½"H½D½E[½C½M½[½È½½`½½$½E½p½½½½Ð‹½C Õ¶½½½C{_½M0n w½½½ua:A½3½q½Bɧm.½fUL;;0½U½L"i½uU½Z^½H}½ r7Ta½½½½½m1!H ½d|½½I½*l2:v½+½½½½0E½½½½6tS½½½9NT9C½#½SxL½m}">*½ ½V½Dx½½AF½½½½½;½½½0½gÚ›½½½½n½O½p½~!½;EЊA½}C½Gn½½DK;½m&½m½ ½½½½½n½"½½½½½ -½½½½3h0D;rr+½½|!| ½½Y'½--Xp½ÍE½`½&½m½D4½b7=Q½‚#½v1X ½½8½Ú;½_:*l½ {½½,!. qDá...&½&R½GX½½#½½v$ ½½~½+)½J½p½×ºHD1½Å>*½½i^½½1L½Ä½½½e½`½½½ i3A9½[½6½½½A½½& Ø...`W½K½j½xm½½&}½½JÝ…i½`½½T½*½p'½½k½îµ¶½½Zݨn½G½½½½t½6½n)½!½½`½CO½w\½4_"½a½q½0½½½Gc½½n½½)4>½_Lci 0½½½½½L½½ K(½[½½"gv½½n½[½½rQ½)½½½½½W½ -W~A½½½x0½½½½ ½n½"½m½½½½Ê‚½½*6½½#½G½½½El½½ioT½½½½½½s½½½R½K͸½0dn!½K½½*½½Ò½½V ½ ½7½½T½#½ ½`½½½P½½#½vm½½½ÌŽ½i½½hA½½xaDD|½½i_e½7½½½b/½[D ½E½½m† ½}½½E½½GXA½½èŠ½'Q½½½½j½½$½Ga|.> ½?½½½½½½D[+:O!½½DG[m½½½½Ú¯T½½"½%kDEz½n½½½f*JÜ9½½½½P½½]4D ½ ½½½.½½Q½sP½9½6½½Z#½t½Wت~"=½½%)½@½!0DK}A½Ø'½½B".>½½ ½R1½9½½S½½@_½_b½|½½½A ½Ì‰0½!½½½S½km½>Ôº½½½½9½pË£½.P½a½!½bI½½H½P½½u½½½Z½½.½½½jz+Xx½½½ Cd½J½a½T8½#½=X`½& ½ a½½a!½$ws½F½½dc½½xaÖš½½ a½>½A9 )½½0½½½½>q'½½m½½½½é¬½A½+r[!½w½f4½Ôp½P½½½½½N½½ ½½½0u½½ ½½X½ ½½N½½e-+½½Ê‚½½dR@½p½½ 0a½I7t½J`½½E½½h6½Ë J½½]½½;½½u½½A½½#½;0½#½*)½½½½½½½½\T½r½½T½f;½t ȃ½½i0½i;0½i&½½½½+i½½ ½m½jvh!½"½/½!½½½G½?½½½OI½½7½i½6½j½½½T½½½½½.(6½A½ H½I½½½VJQ½m+½–½+Ge½,2½½o½½#8A½½A½i1½½Y"½_Q½"½3½X:y½t=½½½½½RKp½j½1½'½h1Dg ½½^½Ì±½×±ghKOjv"½w½½½A½½o[#½½t]½^½`½+"½ ½D½@½(v½½½^½;lb""½5½E& z½[H3½½½½½½½M½i½v4½ ½½½½Z½½;I½½ ½(½8ZYDb½Û…½8N½A½Õ‘5m'½C½XD½½n½Dã'¬½½½ ½½½½0½½fl0½½h½½½%`½MÞ–½½v3>½X=HzQ½½@½½DjvOa6i½G½H½½l½-½½½k[+cE½v½Bm'½ ᥸½m½ O½½DGhe½]½½½}m½U½½/[½$½½½½½;½[½n½½½½½Z½el QSȪ½`½ Dbb";A½½n½½Úš½o½A½ 5FUox0awv½nÝ…½PQKDz½½Òµ½A½;R½}½A½½½P½Pç²'½)½½½"#½½½½½ZZÞ¬1½O½½ADDD[{½Æ.;½½½½½E½½½qІ½]u] ½)ZgsGco½4½Q½8"꼉½!½Z½b(D7]½½½!_3½B9NO r½Ks½JA½½@½½½ç¬½½½}½½ ½k؆½½½0½i½=q½""½½W½½½tmE½|½7axq½~½ J½X½½î¯½½[z½DDE½t½.½½½U½l0½Æ§s½½½½½n½ ½½'eC½½[½Þš½½M½DGW9½-½½=½a;½Ýp½a½F½½½0Wt½!&½4g)½½w½Fî¤'½(½YP½½½½""½½½\½Ë½1½½m½"莛 9N½½u½½½5½9c½.½½7½½½½½½OB½p½j§_½½{t½½2½M3½ß ½ZB>½½½^]Û‘½-½½Ú\r1½½q½t½½v½½½l½½½G½;æ—XB½½½Ë†5h1½½½½èŽ‹½,/I½½#½I½½O½½½½½"">½.½gV½"*½v½FG½½DG½½;½`½!½U^½JD½tÒ§{½qb½X½G]½A½½L½0½ E½"1½½½½½½½½½*½fNP 5b""½½Rc½½½#^½;½'eBI½½l.½½½Rk½k½Ê½½½A*½½½+½D½½½2½}½/aeAP} ½'LU½]=1m½F½Üª½"o½$"½½U½e:½G½è—Dx½½I½½½½½e½½½N½\ ½Ä‰½aX$½b""6½-½]@½B2½a8½D½½½½Ú½½½L6v`((½½½½""½r½>ԁz½Ô½@½}½|½q½½q½F e4½a½½½#½!@½½½½$tƽʪ"#j(½½½(HDF½Zjiɹ½½½oM*I½½½½Ë®y0½i+½½r½½½-S½#½-½½Èƒ½ ½9Ç•Ó‰½Ë...P½½Px½U½L½c½w*½½½½6}½pDf½½½"½½d½m]w½½½½½½½)kM½@½h½r½½4Pg½z!]Ê®½l½½,!oߥ½½½½'½½z½½6½M l½hfq ½/½½>½½KN ½T½"s%Y½]A=L½ZA8pB#½!l½6Nˆ½K½½91½ ½&½qW½½`½gidT½½½)½Å°½½z}-'½½P½½V½½½A½5½$½½N½ ½_½"½o½½e½*ëŒ+3p½T½½½k½½X½½"P½½B=k"½3½J½½A½rk`½ ½½½½½`½½U½39PT½D½½T½/½½kLϲ½c½½.½~½cG.p½I½½½y½½|½hw½½}½dw½_½½½Ò°4a½r½knX½½½I-½½½;½½Sb/½ê(C)½½½.½OH:ά½½½!½.½½½f½#p½m#½½qAl\½R½½½KÈ"½@½2½½.½AB]N½^ɉ½*½½Vl½8½!M ½K½K /dF½½×'½\? ½½+½WØ"8N40½½7]½½½X1½Î--½½>Õ'jytU;½RCZ½a½k½½½|½½½`½l½½UYX½ßŽ½½½Z½y½jGh½)½½½:½Q ½Ï•½½>½\½½0t0J-½½½s½½ u-½½>½2/X=½+½E| n½Y½½½Þ¨o½½½½r@ ~½½Çª½½Xz=½{^6L=_½½@KQ½½d+½4c$½]½H½B½6Éž½½½-½½w½½½½5Ùm½½½½X½g#Y½8½R7½½-½}ORZp½P½S½ ½E½½3×¹½ ½½kSÝ‚½j+#½½½Ê­]}½½0½ ½* endstream endobj 18 0 obj stream H½½U9½½0½½½i½Vm9½½½½½½Oݽ½H6LM0j5½&½Oi>.½^x½½'D½Y½Ë†½z½9(½G½-½5Vu½½½6½½Da½M"½½3½½?½½½*½½@½½iE½½½½xv½½½½tT=½½½½½P½ ½dZ82>½½j½½½½Y%½j½½' ;½Ò½½½8Us½q½'½½MJ½ÓŠ½½½½Pw=Ä(5Ųm½½½I½G®ÆšBI½N½gO嬽½½~½½½b½½½j½½NO½½!gd>½c½1½^%½g½½ kh!½Eq½q'&½&5E^½u½l½Z\4½S½p½½T0½m½½½BJÔ¥½,E½h½H½½&$½\½½½\1½½½½½y!½G¾"6_m½½½Aul½½½½*f\ZP9½½½½>½½½bqs½½:½½½Î‘'u½½½j½Ap.½Õ²g½½5.½½e½G\L½½½}rj½½½½R½½3½½#m½½½½½:½2½C½!½3½½m½ ½L½p×;z;q^o½z½½H½½½½J>½½, ½v½½íŽ¸_u½Q0P½½½&½½½$½}S½D½½½Î±'½½X½½r½½4=:|½½½½½½½.½Ü'4½3½½)½½ì¯½1½z*½½?½y½3>o!½`½xq endstream endobj 21 0 obj stream ½Ê8½#½½8½#Ⱥ.½½½#½½.½#½6½#½GtE½u-½½T½½h½DDDDDDDDDDDDN½½!j-DB0½"]G½½mGB4F½h½hDG½$½DDDDDDDE+½e½F½th½½½0½½ %u½}#½½½½½0½½t]E½t]E½t]F½mF½&hD½H½g%GÑ´mE½t]Dt_/½t&½HL"½ ½DDDDDDDDDDDDFZ½F½B6½DDDDDDDDe½½½E½aE½½]G½½F!>½½n½½½DiE½½½(G½½½½½½½B""""#Q½o½½½½!G½½)½½SJ#-½½9½(½½K5eG½½Q½½Q½\½G½½f½½½@ҏ½½)½%J?½ò½ ?½5 >½`½½ 㯗0½ ½½½M½½½Ø…O½:½L/½#q_A?=½½½_F½v½l½½Ç½½½)½)½½ ½½½½!؍3do½½½½½V½½½½½½o½?½½½½½½½½Ú°½5 a½–hx½½bmdjPA½½`½½ ½N½C½e½½8½C½½@½1½½G½M½P`½½n½½>½½½X½½½½jt½.½½½½Aɏ½$悇½½K½½Dj\ ½mT½½½6½½91½½DG"u½9½ _#½?½½½½,x½Ä‡½½½½½½NXp½½½hp½}&½½½½v^/½½½F½½½½½½½½½½½Mm½HYM½½½½½j½½ ½JY½½½Ô½Q½½]kdt_.½½,½½,-&""5y ½½aZ½c½r½z'½½;,j½?½½_H"½½_½!S-½½½D&½½V½r½½½NT( x2>G½½x½] ½½Ó´v½M½½½½½½(Jy½rÍ­Y%½½½½½8hd½~"8½·½L½½E>½np½y½$½myg½F½½JP_½½8½½½½/½½½½%½½Bi½½sDvS½T½½Lx2½.½½½"""0XDT½r½½%C½l½K;-B½DZlx@½A½½T/½½aÊ‚½½½½8½½½½uD½#tR½½< >]½}8HZ½½½½x*ꇅ½R1½½g`½:½a½½V[DÈŠ½½½ ½&½ ½½vZ½½h;½½'aT½Q|Pv ½3½N½G½½-½A0½G`a½D½Wo;0½l-½½½Z{½½&½l½$F9½½8½ ½ ½ !½½}+(½½½½½Z&½'½a`½½I½(½!;+O½>#L`½A½D]½½"½EMA½9½½½1'½½{GjK½@½"a½½w½½I½ZG½2½l½½½½,'Q!hXg½½Ö½{z$9ܽ½½L($HCtE½½l*}½M½½`½½QCjd½½½ ½GDt_/½½½p½Xdt_0½7ؽ½*3>k@½½)½½q½½v½zUi6 ½8½\%Ga½½½"""½#½ ½"0½$j4½½;*oAS½v½ C[½½½½½½Gc2½BM½½6½½Ç‚M½ ½VÝ•½Ø¤½½J!½A½½M½;,M½½;m½A½Q½Ç¾½Q½G8½D½½½½½½%½b!½½ ½;V½½l ]$½½}c`½h½A½4^½|2G½½Ú--½½AS½½ ½r;½½½½kM½U½V½`½½½U6!½½½K½tj½A2½M"½J½½*½½½½½8I×¾½9@e½p½½_½d&½½½Ö¹&½ZcV½6#}wb)Ø·½d0½½½v½r½*#½½"H½D½E[½C½M½[½È½½`½½$½E½p½½½½Ð‹½C Õ¶½½½C{_½M0n w½½½ua:A½3½q½Bɧm.½fUL;;0½U½L"i½uU½Z^½H}½ r7Ta½½½½½m1!H ½d|½½I½*l2:v½+½½½½0E½½½½6tS½½½9NT9C½#½SxL½m}">*½ ½V½Dx½½AF½½½½½;½½½0½gÚ›½½½½n½O½p½~!½;EЊA½}C½Gn½½DK;½m&½m½ ½½½½½n½"½½½½½ -½½½½3h0D;rr+½½|!| ½½Y'½--Xp½ÍE½`½&½m½D4½b7=Q½‚#½v1X ½½8½Ú;½_:*l½ {½½,!. qDá...&½&R½GX½½#½½v$ ½½~½+)½J½p½×ºHD1½Å>*½½i^½½1L½Ä½½½e½`½½½ i3A9½[½6½½½A½½& Ø...`W½K½j½xm½½&}½½JÝ…i½`½½T½*½p'½½k½îµ¶½½Zݨn½G½½½½t½6½n)½!½½`½CO½w\½4_"½a½q½0½½½Gc½½n½½)4>½_Lci 0½½½½½L½½ K(½[½½"gv½½n½[½½rQ½)½½½½½W½ -W~A½½½x0½½½½ ½n½"½m½½½½Ê‚½½*6½½#½G½½½El½½ioT½½½½½½s½½½R½K͸½0dn!½K½½*½½Ò½½V ½ ½7½½T½#½ ½`½½½P½½#½vm½½½ÌŽ½i½½hA½½xaDD|½½i_e½7½½½b/½[D ½E½½m† ½}½½E½½GXA½½èŠ½'Q½½½½j½½$½Ga|.> ½?½½½½½½D[+:O!½½DG[m½½½½Ú¯T½½"½%kDEz½n½½½f*JÜ9½½½½P½½]4D ½ ½½½.½½Q½sP½9½6½½Z#½t½Wت~"=½½%)½@½!0DK}A½Ø'½½B".>½½ ½R1½9½½S½½@_½_b½|½½½A ½Ì‰0½!½½½S½km½>Ôº½½½½9½pË£½.P½a½!½bI½½H½P½½u½½½Z½½.½½½jz+Xx½½½ Cd½J½a½T8½#½=X`½& ½ a½½a!½$ws½F½½dc½½xaÖš½½ a½>½A9 )½½0½½½½>q'½½m½½½½é¬½A½+r[!½w½f4½Ôp½P½½½½½N½½ ½½½0u½½ ½½X½ ½½N½½e-+½½Ê‚½½dR@½p½½ 0a½I7t½J`½½E½½h6½Ë J½½]½½;½½u½½A½½#½;0½#½*)½½½½½½½½\T½r½½T½f;½t ȃ½½i0½i;0½i&½½½½+i½½ ½m½jvh!½"½/½!½½½G½?½½½OI½½7½i½6½j½½½T½½½½½.(6½A½ H½I½½½VJQ½m+½–½+Ge½,2½½o½½#8A½½A½i1½½Y"½_Q½"½3½X:y½t=½½½½½RKp½j½1½'½h1Dg ½½^½Ì±½×±ghKOjv"½w½½½A½½o[#½½t]½^½`½+"½ ½D½@½(v½½½^½;lb""½5½E& z½[H3½½½½½½½M½i½v4½ ½½½½Z½½;I½½ ½(½8ZYDb½Û…½8N½A½Õ‘5m'½C½XD½½n½Dã'¬½½½ ½½½½0½½fl0½½h½½½%`½MÞ–½½v3>½X=HzQ½½@½½DjvOa6i½G½H½½l½-½½½k[+cE½v½Bm'½ ᥸½m½ O½½DGhe½]½½½}m½U½½/[½$½½½½½;½[½n½½½½½Z½el QSȪ½`½ Dbb";A½½n½½Úš½o½A½ 5FUox0awv½nÝ…½PQKDz½½Òµ½A½;R½}½A½½½P½Pç²'½)½½½"#½½½½½ZZÞ¬1½O½½ADDD[{½Æ.;½½½½½E½½½qІ½]u] ½)ZgsGco½4½Q½8"꼉½!½Z½b(D7]½½½!_3½B9NO r½Ks½JA½½@½½½ç¬½½½}½½ ½k؆½½½0½i½=q½""½½W½½½tmE½|½7axq½~½ J½X½½î¯½½[z½DDE½t½.½½½U½l0½Æ§s½½½½½n½ ½½'eC½½[½Þš½½M½DGW9½-½½=½a;½Ýp½a½F½½½0Wt½!&½4g)½½w½Fî¤'½(½YP½½½½""½½½\½Ë½1½½m½"莛 9N½½u½½½5½9c½.½½7½½½½½½OB½p½j§_½½{t½½2½M3½ß ½ZB>½½½^]Û‘½-½½Ú\r1½½q½t½½v½½½l½½½G½;æ—XB½½½Ë†5h1½½½½èŽ‹½,/I½½#½I½½O½½½½½"">½.½gV½"*½v½FG½½DG½½;½`½!½U^½JD½tÒ§{½qb½X½G]½A½½L½0½ E½"1½½½½½½½½½*½fNP 5b""½½Rc½½½#^½;½'eBI½½l.½½½Rk½k½Ê½½½A*½½½+½D½½½2½}½/aeAP} ½'LU½]=1m½F½Üª½"o½$"½½U½e:½G½è—Dx½½I½½½½½e½½½N½\ ½Ä‰½aX$½b""6½-½]@½B2½a8½D½½½½Ú½½½L6v`((½½½½""½r½>ԁz½Ô½@½}½|½q½½q½F e4½a½½½#½!@½½½½$tƽʪ"#j(½½½(HDF½Zjiɹ½½½oM*I½½½½Ë®y0½i+½½r½½½-S½#½-½½Èƒ½ ½9Ç•Ó‰½Ë...P½½Px½U½L½c½w*½½½½6}½pDf½½½"½½d½m]w½½½½½½½)kM½@½h½r½½4Pg½z!]Ê®½l½½,!oߥ½½½½'½½z½½6½M l½hfq ½/½½>½½KN ½T½"s%Y½]A=L½ZA8pB#½!l½6Nˆ½K½½91½ ½&½qW½½`½gidT½½½)½Å°½½z}-'½½P½½V½½½A½5½$½½N½ ½_½"½o½½e½*ëŒ+3p½T½½½k½½X½½"P½½B=k"½3½J½½A½rk`½ ½½½½½`½½U½39PT½D½½T½/½½kLϲ

Executive Order 13535-- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion | The White House

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:28

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 24, 2010

EXECUTIVE ORDER

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (Public Law 111-148), I hereby order as follows:

Section. 1. Policy. Following the recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this order is to establish a comprehensive, Government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors -- Federal officials, State officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers -- are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, section 508(d)(1) of Public Law 111-8) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management.

Sec. 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires State health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this order, a model set of segregation guidelines for State health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that States should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to State health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Sec. 3. Community Health Center Program. The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using Federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or Presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,March 24, 2010.

DOMA, the Hyde Amendment, and the Missouri Compromise: Windsor as the Reversal of Harris v. McRae and Renewal of Dred-Scott Federalism | Online Library of Law and Liberty

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:19

Jun 30, 2013by David Upham/

Filed Under: DOMA, Dred Scott, Due Process, Federalism, Harris v. McRae, Hyde Amendment, Windsor v. United States

Some conservative commentators have decried the Windsor case as the new Roe v. Wade. As to legal doctrine, however, the case looks more like a reversal of Harris v. McRae, the Supreme Court decision (barely) upholding the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment. Further, the case looks like a vindication of the concurring federalist arguments once offered by Justices Catron and Campbell in Dred Scott.

Both Harris and Windsor involved a constitutional challenge, under the Fifth Amendment, to a federal law that affected a due-process right the Court had recently created: the right to abortion, created in Roe v. Wade, and the right to consensual acts of ''intimacy,'' created in Lawrence v. Texas. Both of those cases were the alleged progeny of the prior due-process cases supporting certain unenumerated, non-economic rights: from Meyer v. Nebraska to Pierce v. Society of Sisters to Griswold v. Connecticut.

In both cases, the federal law involved not criminal prohibition but the distribution of federal benefits in a selective manner that arguably disfavored the exercise of these rights. Moreover, in both cases, the laws were proposed by Republicans, many of whom denied there was any such ''right,'' for such rights were actually wrongs. In both cases, then, there was some moral disapprobation involved (though probably far more in the case of the Hyde Amendment, for inflammatory words like ''murder'' were used). In both cases, conversely, the laws were signed by Democratic presidents who affirmed the existence of the alleged constitutional rights, but who believed the federal government did not need to subsidize these rights equally with alternatives.

Both cases involved, in turn, a disagreement as to the meaning of central terms. Opponents of the Hyde Amendment argued that abortion was a ''medical'' procedure, like any other, and opponents of DOMA argued that a committed, formal same-sex union was a ''marriage'' like any other. Understandably, opponents of both statutes concluded that the laws arbitrarily discriminated between different medical procedures or marriages, and consequently discriminated unconstitutionally against persons who wanted or needed to fully enjoy the disfavored medical procedure or marriage.

In response, proponents of both the Hyde Amendment and DOMA tended to reply on alternative definitions of ''medicine'' and ''marriage'' that were both traditional and teleological. ''Medicine'' seemed to involve not just the physician's skill but also the purpose of health. Therefore, abortion was not medicine, insofar as abortion neither cured nor treated any known illness, and had a 100% mortality rate. Marriage likewise involved not just an agreement, but an agreement for the purpose of reproducing and educating offspring. Same-sex relationships, then, could not be marriages; indeed, the custodial rights arising from such ''marriages'' would make it less likely that children would be raised by their natural parents.

Both cases were decided by a sharply divided, 5-4 Court. And in both cases, the usual swing justice wrote the opinion. In Harris it was Powell; in Windsor it was Kennedy''who had replaced Powell in 1987.

But in sharp contrast, Powell had not been the author of Roe, while Kennedy was the author of Lawrence. (Blackmun, the author of Roe, was in dissent in Harris). Powell voted to restrain Roe, while Kennedy voted to expand Lawrence.

Furthermore, in Windsor, the swing justice-author had, as a helpmate to his due-process claim, a peculiar federalism argument last heard (to my knowledge) in Dred Scott: the United States is required to adopt the definition of a right (like ''property'' or ''marriage'') whenever one of the states has adopted that definition. In their concurring opinions, Justices Campbell and Catron had argued that Congress was bound to respect and protect as ''property'' whatever any state law had designated as such. One state's definition of ''property'' must be ''property'' in the common national territories.[1] Similarly, in Windsor, one state's ''marriage'' must be ''marriage'' in the common national scheme of taxation and expenditure.

But when Harris was decided, federalism had been on an indefinite sabbatical since 1937.

Windsor thus represents for Lawrence what the dissent in Harris would have been for Roe. And it represents a revival of the federalism championed in Dred Scott. Going forward, then, it is reasonable to conclude that the progeny of Windsor will include not only challenges to state DOMAs, but also challenges to Harris, based on the renewed argument the abortion is a ''medical procedure,'' and that the federal governments must treat all such medical procedures equally, much as that government must now treat all ''marriages'' equally, and once had to treat all ''property'' equally.

[1] Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393, 517 (1857) (Campbell, J., concurring) (''The question then arises, whether Congress, which can exercise no jurisdiction over the relations of master and slave within the limits of the Union, and is bound to recognise and respect the rights and relations that validly exist under the Constitutions and laws of the States, can deny the exercise of those rights, and prohibit the continuance of those relations, within the Territories'.... And, in my opinion, that clause confers no power upon Congress to dissolve the relations of the master and slave on the domain of the United States, either within or without any of the States'') (emphasis added). Id. at 527 (Catron, J., concurring) (''If the slaveholder is prohibited from going to the Territory with his slaves, who are parts of his family in name and in fact, it will follow that men owning lawful property in their own States, carrying with them the equality of their State to enjoy the common property, may be told, you cannot come here with your slaves, and he will be held out at the border. By this subterfuge, owners of slave property, to the amount of thousand of millions, might be almost as effectually excluded from removing into the Territory of Louisiana north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, as if the law declared that owners of slaves, as a class, should be excluded, even if their slaves were left behind.'')

Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:32

By: Mark J. Mazur

'‹Over the pastseveral months, the Administration has been engaging in a dialogue withbusinesses - many of which already provide health coverage for their workers - aboutthe new employer and insurer reporting requirements under the Affordable CareAct (ACA). We have heard concerns aboutthe complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement themeffectively. We recognize that the vastmajority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already providehealth insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy forothers to do so. We have listened toyour feedback. And we are takingaction. TheAdministration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before theACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. This is designed to meet two goals. First, it will allow us to consider ways tosimplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt healthcoverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making healthcoverage affordable and accessible for their employees. Within the next week, we will publish formalguidance describing this transition. Justlike the Administration's effort to turn the initial 21-page application forhealth insurance into a three-page application, we are working hard to adaptand to be flexible about reporting requirements as we implement the law.

Here is someadditional detail. The ACA includesinformation reporting (under section 6055) by insurers, self-insuringemployers, and other parties that provide health coverage. It also requires information reporting (undersection 6056) by certain employers with respect to the health coverage offeredto their full-time employees. We expectto publish proposed rules implementing these provisions this summer, after adialogue with stakeholders - including those responsible employers that alreadyprovide their full-time work force with coverage far exceeding the minimumemployer shared responsibility requirements - in an effort to minimize thereporting, consistent with effective implementation of the law.

Once theserules have been issued, the Administration will work with employers, insurers,and other reporting entities to strongly encourage them to voluntarilyimplement this information reporting in 2014, in preparation for the fullapplication of the provisions in 2015. Real-world testing of reporting systems in 2014 will contribute to asmoother transition to full implementation in 2015.

We recognizethat this transition relief will make it impractical to determine whichemployers owe shared responsibility payments (under section 4980H) for2014. Accordingly, we are extending thistransition relief to the employer shared responsibility payments. These payments will not apply for 2014. Any employer shared responsibility paymentswill not apply until 2015.

During this 2014transition period, we strongly encourage employers to maintain or expand healthcoverage. Also, our actions today do notaffect employees' access to the premium tax credits available under the ACA(nor any other provision of the ACA).'‹

Mark J. Mazur is the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

'‹'‹

White House Announces It Will Delay Implementation of This Important Obamacare Provision | TheBlaze.com

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:31

The White House will delay the implementation of the so-called ''employer mandate'' until at least 2015, well after the 2014 midterm elections, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday.

President Barack Obama's landmark health care law includes a provision that would require employers with a staff greater than 50 to provide their employees with health insurance.

However, with today's announcement, businesses don't need to worry about being fined or penalized until after the midterm elections.

''The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin,'' the Treasury announcement reads.

Delaying the employer mandate, the announcement explains, will supposedly serve two goals.

''First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law,'' Treasury explains.

''Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees,'' it adds.

Treasury promises that it will publish ''formal guidance'' next week explaining its plan for the transition.

''Over the past several months, the Administration has been engaging in a dialogue with businesses '-- many of which already provide health coverage for their workers '-- about the new employer and insurer reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA),'' the press release reads.

''We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively. We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so.

''We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action,'' it adds.

The infamous ''individual mandate,'' the portion of the bill that requires Americans sign on to government health care or face a fine, still stands.

''

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image Getty Images. This post has been updated.

Monsantooo

Monsanto Now Owns Mercenaries Blackwater Newly Named 'Academi' | Natural Revolution

Link to Article

Archived Version

Mon, 01 Jul 2013 02:48

A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services or Academi) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State ''security services,'' that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.

Many military and former CIA officers work for Blackwater or related companies created to divert attention from their bad reputation and make more profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training '' for other governments, banks and multinational corporations. According to Scahill, business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, are channeled through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share Blackwater.

One of them, Cofer Black, known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA, was the one who made contact with Monsanto in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence, entering into the contract with the company to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant.

Contacted by Scahill, the Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, but later confirmed to The Nation that they had hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009, according to Monsanto only to keep track of ''public disclosure'' of its opponents. He also said that Total Intelligence was a ''totally separate entity from Blackwater.''

However, Scahill has copies of emails from Cofer Black after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become ''Monsanto's intelligence arm,'' spying on activists and other actions, including ''our people to legally integrate these groups.'' Total Intelligence Monsanto paid $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009.

No wonder that a company engaged in the ''science of death'' as Monsanto, which has been dedicated from the outset to produce toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds, is associated with another company of thugs.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of ''philanthropy.'' Another association that is not surprising.It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed.

There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of ''market competition'' of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.

Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really ''donating'' anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their ''donations'' finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.

Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the ''Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa'' (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.

Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.

Contributing sources for this article:

USDA to Boost Rural Electric Grid Efficiency and Reliability in 8 States

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:38

This is an excerpt from EERE Network News, a weekly electronic newsletter.

May 22, 2013The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on April 29 announced funding for four rural electric projects in eight states'--Colorado, Georgia, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wyoming. The announcement touts more than $126 million in loans to upgrade rural electric infrastructure, including more than $20 million in Smart Grid funding, used to increase access to information to better manage electricity use. Since 2011, USDA has supported Smart Grid investments totaling nearly $500 million.

One of the rural electric cooperatives that will receive funding is Colorado's Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., which serves 44 consumer-owned distribution cooperatives in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Wyoming. It is receiving a $73 million loan to upgrade generation and transmission facilities, improve 50 miles of transmission lines, and build a substation. The loan amount includes more than $18 million for Smart Grid projects. See the USDA press release.

Article source: http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=19310

Tags: alternative energy, alternative fuel, atlanta, energy, fuel, gas, power, renewable energy, solar, solar energy, wind, wind power

Monsanto Acquires Rights to the Sun | HASTAC

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:37

BREAKING NEWS:

MONSANTO ACQUIRES RIGHTS TO THE SUN

CREVE COEUR, MISSOURI, June 30 '-- in a ground-breaking move, Monsanto, a multi-national biotechnology corporation, acquired rights to the sun in a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision, led by Clarence Thomas, was hailed by Monsanto President and CEO Hugh Grant as ''good news for food producers, food consumers, and the future of humanity.''

Monsanto is known worldwide for its Roundup brand, an herbicide that works in conjunction with genetically engineered seeds.

The decision allows solar energy used by Monsanto-crop farmland '-- including solar panels, wind turbines and the like '-- to be taxed at a rate of 10% per kilowatt hour. Approved in an unprecedented three months, the law will go into effect January 1, 2013. Companies, organizations and individuals currently using Roundup products will receive one free year of sunlight before the 10% tithe is active.

According to the new regulation, any action to ''store, reuse or redirect'' sunlight will be a prosecutable offense unless authorized by Monsanto. Failure to comply with the law may result in a visit by Monsanto's secretive ''Watt'' Police. Monsanto typically uses lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits to bring compliance. ''We feed the world,'' Grant says, ''anyone caught stealing sunlight from us is stealing food from the mouths of millions.''

Sunlight, which most life on earth relies on, provides warmth, photosynthesis for plant life, and is used widely on beaches.

Opponents such as Greenpeace and ''Sunshine for All,'' a crowdsourced Facebook movement, vow to fight the ruling. ''First they patent life, then they insert genes into our food supply, now they're hijacking the sun. Monsanto seeks world domination and the Supreme Court is enabling them. Shame on you, Supreme Court,'' says Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo.

Darryl Benjamindarryl@kafkaturtle.com

MEMC Electronic Materials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:34

MEMC Electronic Materials changed its name to SunEdison on May 30, 2013 to reflect the company's focus on solar energy.[2] The company is a United States manufacturer of silicon wafers for the semiconductor industry as well as solar wafers and Silvantis(R) Solar PV Modules. Originally established in 1959 as the Monsanto Electronic Materials Company, a business unit of Monsanto Company, the company is based in St. Peters, Missouri. The company solar energy headquarters is located in Belmont, California with offices throughout the world.

Ahmad Chatila is the current President and Chief Executive Officer of MEMC. Mr. Chatila was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of Directors of MEMC on March 2, 2009.[3]

History[edit]Foundation[edit]Monsanto Electronic Materials Company (MEMC) was established on August 6, 1959, as part of the U.S.-based multinational corporation Monsanto. In the same year MEMC started the production of 19-mm silicon wafers in St. Charles County, Missouri. As one of the first corporations to produce semiconductor wafers, MEMC is considered a pioneer in this field, its innovations becoming industry standard for years. MEMC used the Czochralski process, developed Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) and started production of 1,5-inch-wafers. In 1966 MEMC installed the first reactors for production of EPI-wafers and develops zero-dislocation-crystal-growing.

Expansion[edit]During the 1970s, MEMC opened a production plant in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Step by step, diameters of wafers were increased to 5 inches. In 1981 MEMC constructed a production and R&D-facility in Japan, specifically in Utsunomiya, as the first non-Japanese corporation. Three years later, the production of 200 mm wafers was started by MEMC on economic scale, with the corporation taking on a pioneering role again.[4]

Change of ownership[edit]High price pressure from Japanese competition led to an ever increasing pressure on MEMC during the 1980s. Despite increasing revenues MEMC had to account for losses for several years, leading to the decision of Monsanto to sell the company. In 1989 MEMC was bought by Dynamite Nobel Silicons (DNS), a subsidy of the German H¼ls AG, which itself is part of the German VEBA AG. DNS already operated silicon wafer plants in Meran and Novara, Italy and integrated them within the new MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. H¼ls supported the new subsidy with 50 million USD, mainly used for research and development. MEMC started the production of granular polysilicon in 1991 and as the first company produces 300 mm wafers on a commercial scale in 1991. Four years later MEMC acquired production capacities for granular polysilicon in Pasadena, Texas.

Trading of MEMCs stock at the New York Stock Exchange started after an initial public offering in 1995. VEBA converted part of its stock into 440 million USD, but retained the majority voting rights in the corporation. The cyclical downturn in the semiconductor business hit MEMC hard. In 1998 the company reported a loss of 316 million USD with revenues of 759 million USD. A significant improvement in turnover and earnings figures was achieved in the following years.

In June 2000 VEBA AG, still holding 72% of MEMC, was merged with VIAG to form the new E.ON AG. E.ON wanted to focus on its core businesses and assigns Merrill Lynch to sell MEMC. Merrill was unable to find a buyer until MEMC announced that it was on the verge of illiquidity in the middle of the year. Finally E.ON is able to agree on a deal with the private-equity-company Texas Pacific Group (TPG). MEMC was sold for a symbolic dollar and 150 million USD in credit lines.[5][6][7]

By restructuring the debt of MEMC TPG was able to raise its share on the company. TPG conducts cost-cutting measures and cut the number of employees from 7,000 to 4,000. In addition it convinced customers that MEMC will stay in business. The market share of MEMC rises again and by 2002 MEMC reported positive earning figures.

After a significant improvement of key figures, in 2005 TPG reduced its share on MEMC to 34% through a secondary offering. The revenue of this transaction is more than 750 million USD, none of them going to the coffers of MEMC.[8]

Solar market entry[edit]With the boom of the photovoltaic industry MEMC was able to agree on several long-term contracts for delivery of solar wafers. Starting in 2006 a volume of several billion USD is contracted, e.g. with Suntech Power,[9][10] Tainergy Tech,[11]Gintech Energy[12] or Conergy.

Based on high spot prices these contracts not only guaranteed high delivery volumes at fixed prices, but MEMC was also able to collect significant prepayments. Already in the middle of 2008 the significant drop in prices for solar wafers led to disputes over those long term agreements. MEMC had to cut the deal with Conergy with a volume of 8 billion USD in half. Despite that, Conergy applied to the courts to declare the contract invalid and void. Only in 2010 did both companies agree to renegotiate the deal out of court. MEMC had to agree on a reduction of the sales volume to less than one billion USD as the original contractual conditions would place Conergy in an economic position it could not survive.[13][14]

Recent developments[edit]In 2009 MEMC and Q-Cells'--specialized on construction and operation of photovoltaic plants'--found a joint venture to erect a photovoltaic plant with 50 MWp in StraŸkirchen, Bavaria. Both partners invested 100 million USD each, in return for a 50% ownership on the project. As planned, the plant was sold to an alternative energy fund of Nordcapital after operations started at the beginning of 2010.[15][16]

At the end of 2009 MEMC bought SunEdison, a North-American company planning large-scale photovoltaic projects, and financing, constructing and operating them. SunEdison is the largest operator of solar power plants in North America. The company was taken over for 200 million USD, 70 per cent thereof paid in shares of MEMC, 30% in cash. An additional 90 million USD was to be paid depending on target achievement in 2010.[17][18]

MEMC acquired the California-based solar tech company Solaicx mid-2010. By paying 76 million USD, MEMC got access to the continuous crystal pulling technology of Solaicx, which enabled the production of cheap mono-crystalline solar wafers.[19]

In February 2011 Samsung Fine Chemicals and MEMC announced a 50/50-Joint Venture to build a polysilicon production plant in Ulsan, South-Korea. The plant will have an initial capacity of 10,000 tons per annum.[20]

December 2011 MEMC announced restructuring measures to react on a cyclical downturn in its semiconductor business and a slump in the whole supply chain of photovoltaic modules. A headcount reduction of 1,300 employees (18% of the workforce) and a reduction of capacity for polysilicon and solar wafers was announced. Restructuring charges of 1 billion USD, 180 million USD thereof cash costs was announced.[21]

Business segments[edit]Since the acquisition of SunEdison MEMC has had three reporting segments.

Solar Materials: MEMC produces Polysilicon in purities usable in the solar and semiconductor industry in Pasadena, (Texas)) and Merano, (Italy). Production capacities equal 10,000 tons per annum, an expansion to 12,500 by the end of 2011 was announced. The material is mainly used for their own following production steps, sales to the spot market occurred between 2006 and 2009. Apart from opportunistic sales of silanes the segment sells mainly solar wafers. As their own productions capacities of 600 MW were not sufficient, MEMC also had tolling partners to produce these wafers.SunEdison offers customers access to solar power without financing the individual projects generating the power. SunEdison collects capital from investors and uses it to construct photovoltaic plants (installing MEMC Solar Wafers in some cases). The plants are operated by SunEdison after construction. Investors receive a cash flow from sold solar power, including subsidies from governmental organizations. The solar power is sold to commercial, government, and utility customers.Production facilities[edit]LocationProductsOwnershipChonan, Koreapolished wafers80% MEMC, 20% SamsungHsinchu, Taiwanpolished and epitaxial wafersMEMCKuala Lumpur, Malaysiapolished wafersMEMCMeran, Italymono-crystals, polysiliconMEMCNovara, Italypolished and epitaxial wafersMEMCPasadena, Texas, USAgranular polysilicon, monosilanes, SiF4 gasesMEMCSt. Peters, Missouri, USA100''300 mm wafersMEMCUtsunomiya, Japan125''300 mm wafersMEMCReferences[edit]External links[edit]

Bank$ters

HSBC wins OK of record $1.92 billion money-laundering settlement | Reuters

Link to Article

Archived Version

Wed, 03 Jul 2013 06:07

People sit in an outdoor coffee shop in front of an HSBC bank branch in Valletta May 8, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Darrin Zammit Lupi

By Jonathan Stempel

Tue Jul 2, 2013 7:15pm EDT

(Reuters) - A federal judge has approved HSBC Holdings Plc's (HSBA.L)(HBC.N) record $1.92 billion settlement with federal and state investigators of charges that it flouted rules designed to stop money laundering and thwart transactions with countries under U.S. sanctions.

While noting "heavy public criticism" of the settlement, which enabled HSBC to escape criminal prosecution, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn, New York, called the decision to approve the accord "easy, for it accomplishes a great deal."

Gleeson ruled on Monday after more than six months of review, rejecting arguments by the U.S. government and HSBC that federal judges lacked "inherent authority" over the approval or implementation of so-called "deferred prosecution agreements."

The settlement, announced December 11, 2012, included a $1.256 billion forfeiture and $665 million in civil fines.

It resolved charges accusing HSBC of having degenerated into a "preferred financial institution" for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, money launderers and other wrongdoers through what the U.S. Department of Justice called "stunning failures of oversight."

HSBC acknowledged compliance lapses, including a failure to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program, and conducting transactions on behalf of customers in Burma, Cuba, Iran, Libya and Sudan, which were all subject to U.S. sanctions.

As part of the settlement, HSBC agreed to tie executive bonuses to meeting compliance standards, improve the internal sharing of information, and retain a compliance monitor.

The latter role is being filled by Michael Cherkasky, a former prosecutor for the Manhattan district attorney and former chairman of the New York State Commission on Public Integrity.

JUDGE "NOT A POTTED PLANT"

HSBC's $1.92 billion payout was the largest U.S. penalty against a bank, topping a $780 million penalty imposed in 2009 against Swiss bank UBS AG (UBSN.VX)(UBS.N) for aiding tax evasion.

A spokesman, Rob Sherman, said HSBC has since 2011 taken "extensive" steps to help thwart financial crime.

"While we are making good progress, there is much more to do," he said.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch in Brooklyn declined to comment.

The deferred prosecution agreement, known as a DPA, lasts for five years, and prosecutors may indict the bank if it violates the terms.

Gleeson said "much of what might have been accomplished by a criminal conviction has been agreed to in the DPA," whose administration he will supervise.

He noted having received requests from the public to reject the agreement because it did not hold HSBC criminally liable. He also read numerous editorials and columns suggesting, as one put it, that HSBC was "too big to indict."

Gleeson, nonetheless, said "significant deference" was owed to the Obama administration in deciding not to press an indictment.

"A pending federal criminal case is not window dressing. Nor is the court, to borrow a famous phrase, a potted plant," he wrote. "As long as the government asks the court to keep this criminal case on its docket, the court retains the authority to ensure that the implementation of the DPA remains within the bounds of lawfulness and respects the integrity of this court."

The case is U.S. v. HSBC Bank USA NA et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 12-cr-00763.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Brett Wolf; Editing by Jan Paschal)

Link thisShare thisDigg thisEmailReprints

James Comey - From HSBC to FBI Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EU: Banks colluded over derivatives

Link to Article

Archived Version

Source: BBC News - Europe

Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:04

1 July 2013Last updated at09:48 ETThe world's biggest investment banks colluded to stop competition in a profitable derivatives business according to EU authorities.

Between 2006 and 2009 Deutsche Borse and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange tried to enter the credit derivatives business, but were denied licences to offer trading in the products.

EU competition officials say that big banks were behind that refusal.

If the exchanges had been successful, banks may have lost out on business.

The report focuses on one particular financial product, the credit default swap (CDS), which is dominated by "over-the-counter" trading - trading provided directly by the big banks, instead of via a financial exchange.

CDS are used by companies and investors to protect themselves against potential losses from a debt going bad, or to speculate on the probability of a company or government going bust.

They were much talked about during the European debt crisis when bailouts caused steep losses for holders of Greek debt.

They were also accused of helping to propagate the 2008 financial crisis, particular when the large insurance company AIG, a major writer of CDS contracts, almost went bust.

Following the financial crisis, regulators in the US and Europe have been seeking to move trading of derivatives onto exchanges in order to reduce the risk of counterparties failing to pay out, and to increase transparency.

UnacceptableIn its preliminary conclusion the European Commission named 13 of the world's biggest investment banks including, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank and Barclays.

It has also named the industry association for derivatives itself, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (Isda), which comprises all of the major banks, as well as financial data firm Markit.

Isda sets the legal standards for CDS, and determines when contracts should pay out and by how much.

"It would be unacceptable if banks collectively blocked exchanges, to protect their revenues from over-the-counter trading of credit derivatives," EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said.

The banks can now examine the findings and prepare a response.

If the authorities are not persuaded by their defence, the Commission can impose a fine of 10% of the company's annual turnover.

Shut Up Slave!

COD-abrade - Google Search

a¬…brade--

/...ôÀàbrŸÅd/

Verb

Scrape or wear away by friction or erosion.

Synonyms

scrape - graze

GVS

Disable Severe Weather and Presidential Alerts on Verizon Galaxy S III '' xda-developers

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 01:48

Got yourself a Galaxy S III on Verizon and getting annoyed by all those presidential alerts and those about severe weather? No one really wants to wake up at 4 in the morning because of a potential flood 50 miles away. Fortunately, you can now disable all of these.

The severe weather alerts can be disabled from the options provided in the stock ROM itself, as pointed out by XDA Forum Member Inous in this forum thread. Just open the stock Messaging app and from its menu, select 'Emergency Alerts'. Once there, just uncheck all the alerts that you don't want, and you're done.

Unfortunately, there is no built-in option to disable the presidential alerts, as they are buried in the settings file for the messaging app. However, you can just disable the stock Messaging app as you would disable any other stock application (Settings -> Applications -> All -> Messaging, and tapping 'Disable'). However, if you do this, you should consider loading another texting app such as Handcent or Go SMS to replace the missing functionality.

If you would rather stick with your stock messaging app and still disable the presidential alerts, you can do that'--as long as your phone is rooted. The method of doing so was shared with us thanks to XDA Forum Member blazera in this thread.

___________________[Join us August 9-11, 2013 in beautiful Miami, FL for XDA:DevCon. Read here to find out more.]Google+

2TTH

Mark Udall: I tried to expose NSA program

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 01:45

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) says he ''did everything short of leaking classified information'' to bring attention to the National Security Administration's seizure of Americans' phone records.

''I did everything in my power to bring attention'' to the program, he told the Denver Post.

Udall alluded to the program's existence earlier this year as Congress debated reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on the Senate floor, tying up a vote on reauthorizing the law for several days. During the debate, Feinstein and Chambliss, among others, angrily defended the program, saying it would be necessary to continue effective counterterrorism operations.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder last year, Udall and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said, ''We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of .'‰.'‰. these secret court opinions. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows.

In an interview with the Plum Line, Udall's cousin, Sen. Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, said it was hard to even have a public evaluation or debate over the surveillance because we know so little about it. But he called the blanket order ''deeply disturbing.''

Body of Mark Udall's Brother Found In Wyoming | The World's Greatest Deliberative Body

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 01:45

By Meredith ShinerPosted at 8:58 p.m. on July 3, 2013

The body of James ''Randy'' Udall, brother of Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., was found in Wyoming Wednesday, ending a six-day search mission by local authorities.

Randy Udall had been hiking the Wind River Range, which he had traversed several times before, when he did not report back home as expected last week. Udall, an environmentalist, was the son of the late longtime Arizona Rep. Morris Udall and cousin of Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.

On Wednesday evening, the Udall family issued a statement confirming Randy's death and thanking the local authorities who had combed a hundreds-of-miles-wide area to find him.

''It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of our beloved Randy. Randy's body was discovered today by the heroic search and rescue team that worked for days to locate him in a remote area of the Wind River Range of Wyoming,'' the statement read. ''Our family is extremely grateful to Sublette County Sheriff Dave Lankford, his staff, Tip Top Search and Rescue, the United States Forest Service, Wyoming Air National Guard, and all others involved for their tireless efforts over the past several days. Although an autopsy is forthcoming, it appears he died of natural causes.

''Randy left this earth doing what he loved most: hiking in his most favorite mountain range in the world. He appeared to be on the obscure, off-trail route that he had proposed to his family. The entire Udall family is touched beyond words by the tremendous outpouring of support from people around the country. Randy's passing is a reminder to all of us to live every day to its fullest, just as he did.''

Udall was 61 years old.

Solar Gas Scam

BLOOM ENERGY-In tax break request, Weatherford promotes cleaner non-combustion energy | SaintPetersBlog

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 04 Jul 2013 01:50

Writing for the Orlando Sentinel, Jason Garcia describes what he considered an ''usual, late-night meeting'' in which Speaker Will Weatherford engineered a tax break for a California company that had hired Southern Strategies to do its legislative bidding '-- yet digging in a little deeper on the nature and purpose of this tax break reveals nothing sketchy or uncommon, but instead reflects a move toward consistent tax policy in the promotion of cleaner energy.

The tax break, seen here as three short lines within Section 212.08, Florida Statutes, would exempt from sales tax the purchase of natural gas used to generate electricity in non-combustion fuel cells.

Seem unusual? Ill-placed? Not quite.

A read of this statute reveals a laundry list of related exemptions, all of which suggest the appropriate inclusion of fuels for non-combustion cells.

Currently exempt from sales tax: all fuels used by utilities in the generation of electric power or energy for sale; the transmission or wheeling of electricity; the purchase of equipment necessary in the production of electrical or steam energy resulting from the burning of boiler fuels; boiler fuels, when purchased for use as a combustible fuel; the purchases of natural gas, residual oil, recycled oil, waste oil, solid waste material, coal, sulfur, wood, wood residues or wood bark used in the manufacturing, compounding or production process; the sales of utilities to households, including oil, kerosene, liquefied petroleum gas, coal, wood, and other fuel products; and finally, materials used in the distribution of biodiesel, ethanol, and other renewable fuels up to $1 million in tax each state fiscal year.

In contrast to the above methods of energy production, non-combustion fuel cells are a nascent technology with a promising future in which energy could be generated with reduced emissions.

Bloom Energy, the California company who signed on with Southern Strategies, has a track record in developing these technologies and sells its cleaner energy to Wal-Mart, Google, AT&T and others already.

''We believe in developing alternative energy here in Florida,'' said Weatherford as quoted in Garcia's post. ''These tax incentives will help our state remain competitive with other states in the development of fuel cell technology.''

Weatherford's request to exempt fuels used for non-combustion cells serves to put this cleaner energy alternative on more even footing with other forms of energy production.

At an estimated cost to the state of just $100,000 per year, this seems like a gamble well worth taking.

Apple Plans Nevada Solar Farm in Clean Energy Push - CNBC

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 13:04

Published: Tuesday, 2 Jul 2013 | 7:11 AM ETSource: Solar City | Facebook

Apple said it plans to build a new solar farm with NV Energy for power supply to its new data center in Reno, Nev., a major step towards its goal of having its data centers run on renewable energy.

Apple and other technology companies such as Amazon.com and Microsoft, that build and run computer server farms have come under criticism for their high consumption of electricity and other resources.

These data centers cater to an explosion in Internet traffic, streaming content through mobile devices and hosting of services to corporations.

(Read More: Apple Still Growing and Has Value: Fund Managers)

Call of the Day: Apple Upgrade to Strong Buy

The Fast Money traders have the play on Disney, Tesla, and Best Buy. And Tavis McCourt defends his Apple upgrade and $600 price target.

The new solar farm will provide power to Sierra Pacific Power's electric grid that serves Apple's data center and when completed will generate about hours 43.5 million kilowatt of clean energy a year, Apple said in a statement.

Apple already runs its largest data center in the U.S. on solar power. The center in Maiden, N.C., produces 167 million kilowatt hours, the power equivalent of 17,600 homes for one year, from a 100-acre solar farm and fuel cell installations provided by Silicon Valley startup Bloom Energy.

(Read More: Apple Stock Now a 'Strong Buy': Analyst)

Apple said it plans to build a new solar farm with NV Energy for power supply to its new data center in Reno, Nev., a major step towards its goal of having its data centers run on renewable energy.

NRS: CHAPTER 701B - RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

Link to Article

Archived Version

Tue, 02 Jul 2013 13:08

[Rev. 1/16/2013 11:48:38 AM--2012R2]

CHAPTER 701B - RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS INCENTIVE PROGRAM

General Provisions

NRS'‚701B.010½½½½½½½ Applicability. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.020½½½½½½½ Definitions. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.030½½½½½½½ ½Applicant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.040½½½½½½½ ½Category½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.050½½½½½½½ ½Commission½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.055½½½½½½½ ½Distributed generation system½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.060½½½½½½½ ½Institution of higher education½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.070½½½½½½½ ½Owned, leased or occupied½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.080½½½½½½½ ½Participant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.090½½½½½½½ ½Person½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.100½½½½½½½ ½Program year½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.110½½½½½½½ ½Public and other property½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.120½½½½½½½ ½Public entity½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.130½½½½½½½ ½School property½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.140½½½½½½½ ½Small business½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.150½½½½½½½ ½Solar energy system½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.160½½½½½½½ ½Solar Program½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.180½½½½½½½ ½Utility½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

Administration of Program

NRS'‚701B.200½½½½½½½ Regulations: Establishment of incentives and requirements for utility½s annual plan; exceptions; recovery of costs by utility. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.210½½½½½½½ Regulations: Establishment of qualifications and requirements for participation; form and content of utility½s master application. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.220½½½½½½½ Regulations: Establishment of incentives for participation. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.230½½½½½½½ Duty of utility to file annual plan; review and approval of annual plan by Commission; recovery of costs by utility. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.240½½½½½½½ Creation of Solar Program; categories of participation; eligibility requirements. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.250½½½½½½½ Application to participate; review of application by utility. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.255½½½½½½½ Procedure for selection and notification of participants; authorization to install and energize solar energy system; submission of incentive claim form; determination of amount of incentive; withdrawal of participant; forfeiture of incentive. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.260½½½½½½½ Capacity allocated to each category; reallocation of capacity; limitations on incentives. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.265½½½½½½½ Installation of solar energy system deemed public work under certain circumstances. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.280½½½½½½½ Participation in net metering. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.290½½½½½½½ Issuance of portfolio energy credits. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

SOLAR THERMAL SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

General Provisions

NRS'‚701B.300½½½½½½½ Definitions.

NRS'‚701B.303½½½½½½½ ½Category½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.306½½½½½½½ ½Commission½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.309½½½½½½½ ½Demonstration Program½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.312½½½½½½½ ½Institution of higher education½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.315½½½½½½½ ½Participant½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.318½½½½½½½ ½Person½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.321½½½½½½½ ½Public and other property½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.324½½½½½½½ ½School property½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.327½½½½½½½ ½Small business½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.330½½½½½½½ ½Solar thermal system½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.333½½½½½½½ ½Utility½ defined.

Administration of Program

NRS'‚701B.336½½½½½½½ Establishment of Demonstration Program; categories of participation; eligibility requirements; notification of participants; regulations.

NRS'‚701B.339½½½½½½½ Recovery of costs by utility.

NRS'‚701B.342½½½½½½½ Regulations: Establishment of program milestones and rebate program for participants.

NRS'‚701B.345½½½½½½½ Withdrawal of participant for noncompliance; forfeiture of rebates.

RENEWABLE ENERGY SCHOOL PILOT PROGRAM

NRS'‚701B.350½½½½½½½ Creation; regulations; conditions and limitations; reports.

WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

General Provisions

NRS'‚701B.400½½½½½½½ Short title. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.410½½½½½½½ Definitions. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.420½½½½½½½ ½Agricultural property½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.430½½½½½½½ ½Applicant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.440½½½½½½½ ½Category½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.450½½½½½½½ ½Commission½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.460½½½½½½½ ½Institution of higher education½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.470½½½½½½½ ½Participant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.480½½½½½½½ ½Person½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.490½½½½½½½ ½Program year½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.500½½½½½½½ ½Public property½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.510½½½½½½½ ½School property½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.520½½½½½½½ ½Small business½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.540½½½½½½½ ½Utility½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.550½½½½½½½ ½Wind Demonstration Program½ or ½Program½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.560½½½½½½½ ½Wind energy system½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

Administration of Program

NRS'‚701B.580½½½½½½½ Creation of Program; categories of participation; eligibility requirements. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.590½½½½½½½ Regulations. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.600½½½½½½½ Duty of utility to administer Program according to annual plan; recovery of costs by utility. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.610½½½½½½½ Duty of utility to file annual plan; review and approval of annual plan by Commission. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.615½½½½½½½ Procedure for selection and notification of participants; authorization to install and energize wind energy system; submission of incentive claim form; determination of amount of incentive; withdrawal of participant; forfeiture of incentive. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.625½½½½½½½ Installation of wind energy system deemed public work under certain circumstances. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.640½½½½½½½ Issuance of portfolio energy credits. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.650½½½½½½½ Participation in net metering. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

WATERPOWER ENERGY SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

General Provisions

NRS'‚701B.700½½½½½½½ Short title. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.710½½½½½½½ Definitions. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.720½½½½½½½ ½Applicant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.730½½½½½½½ ½Commission½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.740½½½½½½½ ½Participant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.750½½½½½½½ ½Person½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.760½½½½½½½ ½Program year½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.780½½½½½½½ ½Utility½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.790½½½½½½½ ½Waterpower½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.800½½½½½½½ ½Waterpower energy system½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.810½½½½½½½ ½Waterpower Demonstration Program½ or ½Program½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

Administration of Program

NRS'‚701B.820½½½½½½½ Creation of Program; categories of participation; eligibility requirements; regulations establishing qualifications of applicant. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.830½½½½½½½ Duty of utility to administer Program. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.840½½½½½½½ Regulations. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.850½½½½½½½ Duty of utility to file annual plan; review of annual plan by Commission. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.860½½½½½½½ Recovery of costs by utility. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.865½½½½½½½ Procedure for selection and notification of participants; authorization to construct waterpower energy system; submission of incentive claim form and supporting information; determination of amount of incentive; withdrawal of participant; forfeiture of incentive. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.870½½½½½½½ Issuance of portfolio energy credits. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.880½½½½½½½ Participation in net metering. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

GREEN JOBS INITIATIVE

General Provisions

NRS'‚701B.900½½½½½½½ Short title.

NRS'‚701B.903½½½½½½½ Definitions.

NRS'‚701B.906½½½½½½½ ½Department½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.909½½½½½½½ ½Division½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.912½½½½½½½ ½Renewable energy½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.915½½½½½½½ ½Retrofitting½ defined.

NRS'‚701B.918½½½½½½½ ½Weatherization½ defined.

Administration of Initiative

NRS'‚701B.921½½½½½½½ Establishment of contractual relationships with nonprofit collaboratives; requirements relating to job training, career development and apprenticeship programs; requests for proposals and contracts; funding; reports to Interim Finance Committee.

NRS'‚701B.924½½½½½½½ Determination of projects for weatherization and retrofitting; criteria for prioritizing and selecting projects; requests for proposals and contracts; reports to Interim Finance Committee. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

NRS'‚701B.924½½½½½½½ Determination of projects for weatherization and retrofitting; criteria for prioritizing and selecting projects; requests for proposals and contracts; reports to Interim Finance Committee. [Effective January 1, 2022.]

_________

SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS INCENTIVE PROGRAM

General Provisions

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.010'‚'‚Applicability. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚The provisions of NRS 701B.010 to 701B.290, inclusive, apply to the Solar Energy Systems Incentive Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.020'‚'‚Definitions. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚As used in NRS 701B.010 to 701B.290, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in NRS 701B.030 to 701B.180, inclusive, have the meanings ascribed to them in those sections.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; A 2009, 1382; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.030'‚'‚½Applicant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Applicant½ means a person who is applying to participate in the Solar Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.040'‚'‚½Category½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Category½ means one of the categories of participation in the Solar Program as set forth in NRS 701B.240.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.050'‚'‚½Commission½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Commission½ means the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.055'‚'‚½Distributed generation system½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Distributed generation system½ means a system or facility for the generation of electricity:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚That uses solar energy to generate electricity;

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚That is located on the property of a customer of an electric utility;

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚That is connected on the customer½s side of the electricity meter;

½½½½½ 4.'‚'‚That provides electricity primarily to offset customer load on that property; and

½½½½½ 5.'‚'‚The excess generation from which is periodically exported to the grid in accordance with the provisions governing net metering systems used by customer-generators pursuant to NRS 704.766 to 704.775, inclusive.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 1379; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.060'‚'‚½Institution of higher education½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Institution of higher education½ means:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚A university, college or community college which is privately owned or which is part of the Nevada System of Higher Education; or

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚A postsecondary educational institution, as defined in NRS 394.099, or any other institution of higher education.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.070'‚'‚½Owned, leased or occupied½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Owned, leased or occupied½ includes, without limitation, any real property, building or facilities which are owned, leased or occupied under a deed, lease, contract, license, permit, grant, patent or any other type of legal authorization.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.080'‚'‚½Participant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Participant½ means a person who has been selected by a utility to participate in the Solar Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; A 2009, 1382; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.090'‚'‚½Person½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Person½ includes, without limitation, a public entity.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.100'‚'‚½Program year½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Program year½ means the period of July 1 to June 30 of the following year.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.110'‚'‚½Public and other property½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚½Public and other property½ means any real property, building or facilities which are owned, leased or occupied by:

½½½½½ (a)'‚A public entity;

½½½½½ (b)'‚A nonprofit organization that is recognized as exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. ½ 501(c)(3), as amended; or

½½½½½ (c)'‚A corporation for public benefit as defined in NRS 82.021.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The term includes, without limitation, any real property, building or facilities which are owned, leased or occupied by:

½½½½½ (a)'‚A church; or

½½½½½ (b)'‚A benevolent, fraternal or charitable lodge, society or association.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚The term does not include school property.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2968; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.120'‚'‚½Public entity½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Public entity½ means a department, agency or instrumentality of the State or any of its political subdivisions.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2969; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.130'‚'‚½School property½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½School property½ means any real property, building or facilities which are owned, leased or occupied by:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚A public school as defined in NRS 385.007;

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚A private school as defined in NRS 394.103; or

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚An institution of higher education.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2969; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.140'‚'‚½Small business½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Small business½ means a business conducted for profit which employs 500 or fewer full-time or part-time employees.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2969; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.150'‚'‚½Solar energy system½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Solar energy system½ means a facility or energy system that uses photovoltaic cells and solar energy to generate electricity.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2969; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.160'‚'‚½Solar Program½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Solar Program½ means the Solar Energy Systems Incentive Program created by NRS 701B.240.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2969; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.180'‚'‚½Utility½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Utility½ means a public utility that supplies electricity in this State.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2969; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

Administration of Program

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.200'‚'‚Regulations: Establishment of incentives and requirements for utility½s annual plan; exceptions; recovery of costs by utility. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚The Commission shall adopt regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of NRS 701B.010 to 701B.290, inclusive, including, without limitation, regulations that:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚Establish the type of incentives available to participants in the Solar Program and the level or amount of those incentives, except that the level or amount of an incentive available in a particular program year must not be based upon whether the incentive is for unused capacity reallocated from a past program year pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of NRS 701B.260. The regulations must provide that the level or amount of the incentives must decline over time as the cost of solar energy systems and distributed generation systems decline.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚Establish the requirements for a utility½s annual plan for carrying out and administering the Solar Program. A utility½s annual plan must include, without limitation:

½½½½½ (a)'‚A detailed plan for advertising the Solar Program;

½½½½½ (b)'‚A detailed budget and schedule for carrying out and administering the Solar Program;

½½½½½ (c)'‚A detailed account of administrative processes and forms that will be used to carry out and administer the Solar Program, including, without limitation, a description of the application process and copies of all applications and any other forms that are necessary to apply for and participate in the Solar Program;

½½½½½ (d)'‚A detailed account of the procedures that will be used for inspection and verification of a participant½s solar energy system and compliance with the Solar Program;

½½½½½ (e)'‚A detailed account of training and educational activities that will be used to carry out and administer the Solar Program; and

½½½½½ (f)'‚Any other information required by the Commission.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚Authorize a utility to recover the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out and administering the installation of distributed generation systems pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 701B.260.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2969; A 2009, 1383; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.210'‚'‚Regulations: Establishment of qualifications and requirements for participation; form and content of utility½s master application. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚The Commission shall adopt regulations that establish:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚The qualifications and requirements an applicant must meet to be eligible to participate in each applicable category of:

½½½½½ (a)'‚School property;

½½½½½ (b)'‚Public and other property; and

½½½½½ (c)'‚Private residential property and small business property; and

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The form and content of the master application.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2969; A 2009, 1383; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.220'‚'‚Regulations: Establishment of incentives for participation. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚In adopting regulations for the Solar Program, the Commission shall adopt regulations establishing an incentive for participation in the Solar Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2972; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.230'‚'‚Duty of utility to file annual plan; review and approval of annual plan by Commission; recovery of costs by utility. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚Each year on or before the date established by the Commission, a utility shall file with the Commission its annual plan for carrying out and administering the Solar Program within its service area for a program year.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The Commission shall:

½½½½½ (a)'‚Review each annual plan filed by a utility for compliance with the requirements established by regulation of the Commission; and

½½½½½ (b)'‚Approve each annual plan with such modifications and upon such terms and conditions as the Commission finds necessary or appropriate to facilitate the Solar Program.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚A utility shall carry out and administer the Solar Program within its service area in accordance with the utility½s annual plan as approved by the Commission.

½½½½½ 4.'‚'‚A utility may recover its reasonable and prudent costs, including, without limitation, customer incentives, that are associated with carrying out and administering the Solar Program within its service area by seeking recovery of those costs in an appropriate proceeding before the Commission pursuant to NRS 704.110.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2969; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.240'‚'‚Creation of Solar Program; categories of participation; eligibility requirements. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚The Solar Energy Systems Incentive Program is hereby created.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The Solar Program must have three categories as follows:

½½½½½ (a)'‚School property;

½½½½½ (b)'‚Public and other property; and

½½½½½ (c)'‚Private residential property and small business property.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚To be eligible to participate in the Solar Program, a person must:

½½½½½ (a)'‚Meet the qualifications established by the Commission pursuant to NRS 701B.210;

½½½½½ (b)'‚Submit an application to a utility and be selected by the Commission for inclusion in the Solar Program pursuant to NRS 701B.250 and 701B.255;

½½½½½ (c)'‚When installing the solar energy system, use an installer who has been issued a classification C-2 license with the appropriate subclassification by the State Contractors½ Board pursuant to the regulations adopted by the Board; and

½½½½½ (d)'‚If the person will be participating in the Solar Program in the category of school property or public and other property, provide for the public display of the solar energy system, including, without limitation, providing for public demonstrations of the solar energy system and for hands-on experience of the solar energy system by the public.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2970; A 2009, 1383; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.250'‚'‚Application to participate; review of application by utility. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚If an applicant desires to participate in the Solar Program, the applicant must submit an application to a utility.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚A utility shall review each application submitted pursuant to subsection 1 to ensure that the applicant meets the qualifications and requirements to be eligible to participate in the Solar Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2970; A 2009, 1384; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.255'‚'‚Procedure for selection and notification of participants; authorization to install and energize solar energy system; submission of incentive claim form; determination of amount of incentive; withdrawal of participant; forfeiture of incentive. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚After reviewing an application submitted pursuant to NRS 701B.250 and ensuring that the applicant meets the qualifications and requirements to be eligible to participate in the Solar Program, a utility may select the applicant for participation in the Solar Program.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚Not later than 30 days after the date on which the utility selects an applicant, the utility shall provide written notice of the selection to the applicant.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚After the utility selects an applicant to participate in the Solar Program, the utility may approve the solar energy system proposed by the applicant. Upon the utility½s approval of the solar energy system:

½½½½½ (a)'‚The utility shall provide to the applicant notice of the approval and the amount of incentive for which the solar energy system is eligible; and

½½½½½ (b)'‚The applicant may install and energize the solar energy system.

½½½½½ 4.'‚'‚Upon the completion of the installation and energizing of the solar energy system, the participant must submit to the utility an incentive claim form and any supporting information, including, without limitation, a verification of the cost of the project and a calculation of the expected system output.

½½½½½ 5.'‚'‚Upon receipt of the incentive claim form and verification that the solar energy system is properly connected, the utility shall issue an incentive payment to the participant.

½½½½½ 6.'‚'‚The amount of the incentive for which an applicant is eligible must be determined on the date on which the applicant is selected for participation in the Solar Program, except that an applicant forfeits eligibility for that amount of incentive if the applicant withdraws from participation in the Solar Program or does not complete the installation of the solar energy system within 12 months after the date on which the applicant is selected for participation in the Solar Program. An applicant who forfeits eligibility for the incentive for which the applicant was originally determined to be eligible may become eligible for an incentive only on the date on which the applicant completes the installation of the solar energy system, and the amount of the incentive for which such an applicant is eligible must be determined on the date on which the applicant completes the installation of the solar energy system.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 1380; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.260'‚'‚Capacity allocated to each category; reallocation of capacity; limitations on incentives. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Commission may approve, for:

½½½½½ (a)'‚The program year beginning July 1, 2009, solar energy systems:

½½½½½½½½½½½½ (1)'‚Totaling 2,000 kilowatts of capacity for school property;

½½½½½½½½½½½½ (2)'‚Totaling 760 kilowatts of capacity for public and other property; and

½½½½½½½½½½½½ (3)'‚Totaling 1,000 kilowatts of capacity for private residential property and small business property; and

½½½½½ (b)'‚Each program year for the period beginning July 1, 2010, and ending on June 30, 2021, an additional 9 percent of the sum of the total allocated capacities of all the categories described in paragraph (a) which must be approved for distributed generation systems.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚If the capacity allocated to any category for a program year is not fully subscribed by participants in that category, the Commission may, in any combination it deems appropriate:

½½½½½ (a)'‚Reallocate any of the unused capacity in that category to any of the other categories; or

½½½½½ (b)'‚Reallocate any of the unused capacity in that category to future program years within the same category.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚To promote the installation of solar energy systems on as many school properties as possible, the Commission may not approve for use in the Solar Program a solar energy system having a generating capacity of more than 50 kilowatts if the solar energy system is or will be installed on school property on or after July 1, 2007, unless the Commission determines that approval of a solar energy system with a greater generating capacity is more practicable for a particular school property.

½½½½½ 4.'‚'‚The Commission shall not authorize the payment of an incentive for the installation of a solar energy system or distributed generation system if:

½½½½½ (a)'‚For the period beginning July 1, 2010, and ending June 30, 2013, inclusive, the payment of the incentive would cause the total amount of incentives paid by a utility for the installation of solar energy systems and distributed generation systems to exceed $78,260,000; and

½½½½½ (b)'‚For the period beginning July 1, 2010, and ending June 30, 2021, the payment of the incentive would cause the total amount of incentives paid by a utility for the installation of solar energy systems and distributed generation systems to exceed $255,270,000.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2971; A 2009, 1384; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.265'‚'‚Installation of solar energy system deemed public work under certain circumstances. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚The installation of a solar energy system on property owned or occupied by a public body pursuant to NRS 701B.010 to 701B.290, inclusive, shall be deemed to be a public work for the purposes of chapters 338 and 341 of NRS, regardless of whether the installation of the solar energy system is financed in whole or in part by public money.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The amount of any incentive issued by a utility relating to the installation of a solar energy system on property owned or occupied by a public body may not be used to reduce the cost of the project to an amount which would exempt the project from the requirements of NRS 338.020 to 338.090, inclusive.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚As used in this section, ½public body½ means the State or a county, city, town, school district or any public agency of this State or its political subdivisions.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 1380; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.280'‚'‚Participation in net metering. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚If a solar energy system used by a participant in the Solar Program meets the requirements of NRS 704.766 to 704.775, inclusive, the participant is entitled to participate in net metering pursuant to the provisions of NRS 704.766 to 704.775, inclusive.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2972; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.290'‚'‚Issuance of portfolio energy credits. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚After a participant installs a solar energy system included in the Solar Program, the Commission shall issue portfolio energy credits for use within the system of portfolio energy credits adopted by the Commission pursuant to NRS 704.7821 and 704.78213.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The Commission shall designate the portfolio energy credits issued pursuant to this section as portfolio energy credits generated, acquired or saved from solar renewable energy systems for the purposes of the portfolio standard.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚All portfolio energy credits issued for a solar energy system installed pursuant to the Solar Program must be assigned to and become the property of the utility administering the Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2972; A 2009, 991; R 2011, 2563, effective January 1, 2022)

SOLAR THERMAL SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

General Provisions

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.300'‚'‚Definitions.'‚'‚As used in NRS 701B.300 to 701B.345, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in NRS 701B.303 to 701B.333, inclusive, have the meanings ascribed to them in those sections.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.303'‚'‚½Category½ defined.'‚'‚½Category½ means one of the categories of participants in the Demonstration Program as set forth in NRS 701B.336.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.306'‚'‚½Commission½ defined.'‚'‚½Commission½ means the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.309'‚'‚½Demonstration Program½ defined.'‚'‚½Demonstration Program½ means the Solar Thermal Systems Demonstration Program established by the Commission pursuant to NRS 701B.336.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.312'‚'‚½Institution of higher education½ defined.'‚'‚½Institution of higher education½ means:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚A university, college or community college which is privately owned or which is part of the Nevada System of Higher Education; or

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚A postsecondary educational institution, as defined in NRS 394.099, or any other institution of higher education.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.315'‚'‚½Participant½ defined.'‚'‚½Participant½ means a person who has been approved by a utility pursuant to NRS 701B.336 to participate in the Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.318'‚'‚½Person½ defined.'‚'‚½Person½ includes a government, governmental agency or political subdivision of a government.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.321'‚'‚½Public and other property½ defined.

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚½Public and other property½ means any real property, building or facility which is owned, leased or occupied by:

½½½½½ (a)'‚A public entity;

½½½½½ (b)'‚A nonprofit organization that is recognized as exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. ½ 501(c)(3), as amended; or

½½½½½ (c)'‚A corporation for public benefit as defined in NRS 82.021.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The term includes, without limitation, any real property, building or facility which is owned, leased or occupied by:

½½½½½ (a)'‚A church; or

½½½½½ (b)'‚A benevolent, fraternal or charitable lodge, society or organization.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚The term does not include school property.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.324'‚'‚½School property½ defined.'‚'‚½School property½ means any real property, building or facility which is owned, leased or occupied by:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚A public school as defined in NRS 385.007;

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚A private school as defined in NRS 394.103; or

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚An institution of higher education.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.327'‚'‚½Small business½ defined.'‚'‚½Small business½ means a business conducted for profit which employs 500 or fewer full-time or part-time employees.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.330'‚'‚½Solar thermal system½ defined.'‚'‚½Solar thermal system½ means a system of related components that uses solar energy to heat water or air and is designed to work as an integral package such that the system is not complete without one of its related components.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2263)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.333'‚'‚½Utility½ defined.'‚'‚½Utility½ means a public utility that supplies natural gas in this State.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2264)

Administration of Program

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.336'‚'‚Establishment of Demonstration Program; categories of participation; eligibility requirements; notification of participants; regulations.

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚The Commission shall establish the Solar Thermal Systems Demonstration Program to carry out the intent of the Legislature to promote the installation of at least 3,000 solar thermal systems in homes, businesses, schools and other governmental buildings throughout this State by 2019.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The Demonstration Program must have four categories of participants as follows:

½½½½½ (a)'‚School property;

½½½½½ (b)'‚Public and other property;

½½½½½ (c)'‚Private residential property; and

½½½½½ (d)'‚Small business property.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚To be eligible to participate in the Demonstration Program, a person must:

½½½½½ (a)'‚Apply to a utility on a form prescribed by the Commission;

½½½½½ (b)'‚Meet the qualifications established pursuant to subsection 5 and be approved by the utility;

½½½½½ (c)'‚When installing a solar thermal system, use an installer who has been issued the appropriate license by the State Contractors½ Board; and

½½½½½ (d)'‚If the person participates in the category of school property or public and other property, provide for the public display of the solar thermal system, including, without limitation, providing for public demonstrations of the solar thermal system and for hands-on experience of the solar thermal system by the public.

½½½½½ 4.'‚'‚The utility shall notify each applicant who is approved to participate in the Demonstration Program not later than 10 days after the approval.

½½½½½ 5.'‚'‚The Commission shall adopt regulations which must include, without limitation, provisions which:

½½½½½ (a)'‚Establish the qualifications an applicant must meet to qualify to participate in the Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ (b)'‚Establish specifications for the design, installation, energy output and displacement standards of the solar thermal systems that qualify for the Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ (c)'‚Require that the components of any solar thermal system be new and unused.

½½½½½ (d)'‚Require that any solar thermal collector have a warranty against defects and undue degradation of not less than 10 years.

½½½½½ (e)'‚Require that a solar thermal system be installed in a building which is connected to the existing distribution system of a utility in this State.

½½½½½ (f)'‚Require that a solar thermal system be installed in conformity with the manufacturer½s specifications and all applicable codes and standards.

½½½½½ (g)'‚Establish siting and installation requirements for solar thermal systems to ensure efficient and appropriate installation and to promote maximized performance of such systems.

½½½½½ 6.'‚'‚As used in this section, ½applicant½ means a person who applies to the utility to participate in the Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2264; A 2011, 1020)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.339'‚'‚Recovery of costs by utility.'‚'‚A utility may recover its reasonable and prudent costs, including, without limitation, customer incentives, that are associated with carrying out and administering the Demonstration Program within its service area by seeking recovery of those costs in an appropriate proceeding before the Commission pursuant to NRS 704.110.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2265)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.342'‚'‚Regulations: Establishment of program milestones and rebate program for participants.

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚The Commission shall adopt regulations establishing program milestones and a rebate program for a participant who installs a solar thermal system. The rebates provided by a utility pursuant to this section must:

½½½½½ (a)'‚Decline over time as the program milestones are reached;

½½½½½ (b)'‚Be structured to reduce the cost of solar thermal systems; and

½½½½½ (c)'‚Be based on the actual energy savings or predicted energy savings of the solar thermal system as determined by the Commission.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The regulations must require that to be eligible for a rebate pursuant to the Demonstration Program, a solar thermal system must have received an OG-100 or OG-300 performance certification from the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation or any other performance certification approved by the Commission.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚In determining the amount of the rebates provided through the Demonstration Program, the Commission shall consider any federal tax credits and other incentives available to participants.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2265; A 2011, 1021)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.345'‚'‚Withdrawal of participant for noncompliance; forfeiture of rebates.

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a utility determines that a participant has not complied with the requirements for participation in the Demonstration Program, the utility shall, after notice, withdraw the participant from the Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The utility may, without notice, withdraw from the Demonstration Program:

½½½½½ (a)'‚A participant in the category of private residential property and small business property if the participant does not complete the installation of a solar thermal system within 12 months after the date the participant receives notice of approval to participate in the Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ (b)'‚A participant in the category of school property or public and other property if the participant does not complete the installation of a solar thermal system within 30 months after the date the participant receives notice of approval to participate in the Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚A participant who is withdrawn from the Demonstration Program pursuant to subsection 2 forfeits any rebates provided by NRS 701B.300 to 701B.345, inclusive.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 2265)

RENEWABLE ENERGY SCHOOL PILOT PROGRAM

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.350'‚'‚Creation; regulations; conditions and limitations; reports.

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚The Renewable Energy School Pilot Program is hereby created. The goal of the Program is to encourage the development of and determine the feasibility for the integration of renewable energy systems on school properties.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The Commission shall adopt regulations for the Program. Such regulations shall include, but not be limited to:

½½½½½ (a)'‚A time frame for implementation of the Program;

½½½½½ (b)'‚The allowed renewable energy systems and combinations of such renewable energy systems on school property;

½½½½½ (c)'‚The amount of capacity that may be installed at each school property that participates in the Program;

½½½½½ (d)'‚A process by which a school district may apply for participation in the Program;

½½½½½ (e)'‚Requirements for participation by a school district;

½½½½½ (f)'‚The type of transactions allowed between a renewable energy system generator, a school district and a utility;

½½½½½ (g)'‚Incentives which may be provided to a school district or school property to encourage participation; and

½½½½½ (h)'‚Such other parameters as determined by the Commission and are consistent with the development of renewable energy systems at school properties.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚The Program shall be limited to 10 school properties. Not more than 6 school properties from any one school district may participate in the Program.

½½½½½ 4.'‚'‚The Commission shall adopt the regulations necessary to implement the Program not later than March 1, 2008.

½½½½½ 5.'‚'‚The Commission shall prepare a report detailing the results of the Program and shall submit the report to the Legislature by December 1, 2008.

½½½½½ 6.'‚'‚As used in this section:

½½½½½ (a)'‚½Commission½ means the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.

½½½½½ (b)'‚½Owned, leased or occupied½ includes, without limitation, any real property, building or facilities which are owned, leased or occupied under a deed, lease, contract, license, permit, grant, patent or any other type of legal authorization.

½½½½½ (c)'‚½Renewable energy system½ has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 704.7815.

½½½½½ (d)'‚½School district½ has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 395.0075.

½½½½½ (e)'‚½School property½ means any real property, building or facilities which are owned, leased or occupied by a public school as defined in NRS 385.007.

½½½½½ (f)'‚½Utility½ has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 701B.180.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2972)

WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

General Provisions

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.400'‚'‚Short title. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚NRS 701B.400 to 701B.650, inclusive, may be cited as the Wind Energy Systems Demonstration Program Act.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2992; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.410'‚'‚Definitions. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚As used in NRS 701B.400 to 701B.650, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in NRS 701B.420 to 701B.560, inclusive, have the meanings ascribed to them in those sections.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2992; A 2009, 1385; 2011, 2562, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.420'‚'‚½Agricultural property½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Agricultural property½ means any real property employed for an agricultural use as defined in NRS 361A.030.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2992; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.430'‚'‚½Applicant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Applicant½ means a person who is applying to participate in the Wind Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2992; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.440'‚'‚½Category½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Category½ means one of the categories of participation in the Wind Demonstration Program as set forth in NRS 701B.580.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.450'‚'‚½Commission½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Commission½ means the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.460'‚'‚½Institution of higher education½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Institution of higher education½ means:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚A university, college or community college which is privately owned or which is part of the Nevada System of Higher Education; or

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚A postsecondary educational institution, as defined in NRS 394.099, or any other institution of higher education.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.470'‚'‚½Participant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Participant½ means a person who has been selected by a utility to participate in the Wind Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2009, 1386; 2011, 2562, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.480'‚'‚½Person½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Person½ includes, without limitation, a governmental entity.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.490'‚'‚½Program year½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Program year½ means the period of July 1 to June 30 of the following year.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.500'‚'‚½Public property½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Public property½ means any real property, building or facilities owned, leased or occupied by:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚A department, agency or instrumentality of the State or any of its political subdivisions which is used for the transaction of public or quasi-public business; or

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚A nonprofit organization that is recognized as exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. ½ 501(c)(3), as amended, or a corporation for public benefit as defined in NRS 82.021.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.510'‚'‚½School property½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½School property½ means any real property, building or facilities owned, leased or occupied by:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚A public school as defined in NRS 385.007;

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚A private school as defined in NRS 394.103; or

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚An institution of higher education.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.520'‚'‚½Small business½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Small business½ means a business conducted for profit which employs 500 or fewer full-time or part-time employees.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.540'‚'‚½Utility½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Utility½ means a public utility that supplies electricity in this State.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.550'‚'‚½Wind Demonstration Program½ or ½Program½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Wind Demonstration Program½ or ½Program½ means the Wind Energy Systems Demonstration Program created by NRS 701B.580.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.560'‚'‚½Wind energy system½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Wind energy system½ means a facility or energy system for the generation of electricity that uses wind energy to generate electricity.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2011, 2562)

Administration of Program

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.580'‚'‚Creation of Program; categories of participation; eligibility requirements. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚The Wind Energy Systems Demonstration Program is hereby created.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The Program must have four categories as follows:

½½½½½ (a)'‚School property;

½½½½½ (b)'‚Other public property;

½½½½½ (c)'‚Private residential property and small business property; and

½½½½½ (d)'‚Agricultural property.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚To be eligible to participate in the Program, a person must:

½½½½½ (a)'‚Meet the qualifications established by the Commission pursuant to NRS 701B.590;

½½½½½ (b)'‚When installing the wind energy system, use an installer who has been issued a classification C-2 license with the appropriate subclassification by the State Contractors½ Board pursuant to the regulations adopted by the Board; and

½½½½½ (c)'‚If the person will be participating in the Program in the category of school property or other public property, provide for the public display of the wind energy system, including, without limitation, providing for public demonstrations of the wind energy system and for hands-on experience of the wind energy system by the public.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2993; A 2009, 1386; 2011, 2562, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.590'‚'‚Regulations. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚The Commission shall adopt regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the Wind Energy Systems Demonstration Program Act, including, without limitation, regulations that establish:

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚The capacity goals for the Program, which must be designed to meet the goal of the Legislature of the installation of not less than 5 megawatts of wind energy systems in this State by 2012 and the goals for each category of the Program.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚A system of incentives that are based on rebates that decline as the capacity goals for the Program and the goals for each category of the Program are met. The rebates must be based on predicted energy savings.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚The procedure for claiming incentives, including, without limitation, the form and content of the incentive claim form.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2994; A 2009, 1386; 2011, 2562, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.600'‚'‚Duty of utility to administer Program according to annual plan; recovery of costs by utility. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚Each utility shall carry out and administer the Wind Demonstration Program within its service area in accordance with its annual plan as approved by the Commission pursuant to NRS 701B.610.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚A utility may recover its reasonable and prudent costs, including, without limitation, customer incentives, that are associated with carrying out and administering the Program within its service area by seeking recovery of those costs in an appropriate proceeding before the Commission pursuant to NRS 704.110.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2994; A 2011, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.610'‚'‚Duty of utility to file annual plan; review and approval of annual plan by Commission. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚On or before February 1, 2008, and on or before February 1 of each year thereafter, each utility shall file with the Commission its annual plan for carrying out and administering the Wind Demonstration Program within its service area for the following program year.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚On or before July 1, 2008, and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter, the Commission shall:

½½½½½ (a)'‚Review the annual plan filed by each utility for compliance with the requirements established by regulation; and

½½½½½ (b)'‚Approve the annual plan with such modifications and upon such terms and conditions as the Commission finds necessary or appropriate to facilitate the Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2994; A 2009, 1387; 2011, 2562, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.615'‚'‚Procedure for selection and notification of participants; authorization to install and energize wind energy system; submission of incentive claim form; determination of amount of incentive; withdrawal of participant; forfeiture of incentive. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚An applicant who wishes to participate in the Wind Demonstration Program must submit an application to a utility.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚After reviewing an application submitted pursuant to subsection 1 and ensuring that the applicant meets the qualifications and requirements to be eligible to participate in the Program, a utility may select the applicant for participation in the Program.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚Not later than 30 days after the date on which the utility selects an applicant, the utility shall provide written notice of the selection to the applicant.

½½½½½ 4.'‚'‚After the utility selects an applicant to participate in the Program, the utility may approve the wind energy system proposed by the applicant. Upon the utility½s approval of the wind energy system:

½½½½½ (a)'‚The utility shall provide to the applicant notice of the approval and the amount of incentive for which the wind energy system is eligible; and

½½½½½ (b)'‚The applicant may install and energize the wind energy system.

½½½½½ 5.'‚'‚Upon the completion of the installation and energizing of the wind energy system, the participant must submit to the utility an incentive claim form and any supporting information, including, without limitation, a verification of the cost of the project and a calculation of the expected system output.

½½½½½ 6.'‚'‚Upon receipt of the incentive claim form and verification that the wind energy system is properly connected, the utility shall issue an incentive payment to the participant.

½½½½½ 7.'‚'‚The amount of the incentive for which an applicant is eligible must be determined on the date on which the applicant is selected for participation in the Wind Demonstration Program, except that an applicant forfeits eligibility for that amount of incentive if the applicant withdraws from participation in the Program or does not complete the installation of the wind energy system within 12 months after the date on which the applicant is selected for participation in the Program. An applicant who forfeits eligibility for the incentive for which the applicant was originally determined to be eligible may become eligible for an incentive only on the date on which the applicant completes the installation of the wind energy system, and the amount of the incentive for which such an applicant is eligible must be determined on the date on which the applicant completes the installation of the wind energy system.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 1381; A 2011, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.625'‚'‚Installation of wind energy system deemed public work under certain circumstances. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚The installation of a wind energy system on property owned or occupied by a public body pursuant to NRS 701B.400 to 701B.650, inclusive, shall be deemed to be a public work for the purposes of chapters 338 and 341 of NRS, regardless of whether the installation of the wind energy system is financed in whole or in part by public money.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚The amount of any incentive issued by a utility relating to the installation of a wind energy system on property owned or occupied by a public body may not be used to reduce the cost of the project to an amount which would exempt the project from the requirements of NRS 338.020 to 338.090, inclusive.

½½½½½ 3.'‚'‚As used in this section, ½public body½ means the State or a county, city, town, school district or any public agency of this State or its political subdivisions.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2009, 1381; A 2011, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.640'‚'‚Issuance of portfolio energy credits. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]

½½½½½ 1.'‚'‚After a participant installs a wind energy system included in the Wind Demonstration Program, the Commission shall issue portfolio energy credits for use within the system of portfolio energy credits adopted by the Commission pursuant to NRS 704.7821 and 704.78213 equal to the actual or estimated kilowatt-hour production of the wind energy system.

½½½½½ 2.'‚'‚All portfolio energy credits issued for a wind energy system installed pursuant to the Wind Demonstration Program must be assigned to and become the property of the utility administering the Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2996; A 2009, 992; 2011, 2562, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.650'‚'‚Participation in net metering. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚If a wind energy system used by a participant in the Wind Demonstration Program meets the requirements of NRS 704.766 to 704.775, inclusive, the participant is entitled to participate in net metering pursuant to the provisions of NRS 704.766 to 704.775, inclusive.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2996; A 2011, 2562)

WATERPOWER ENERGY SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

General Provisions

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.700'‚'‚Short title. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚NRS 701B.700 to 701B.880, inclusive, may be cited as the Waterpower Energy Systems Demonstration Program Act.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2996; A 2009, 1388; 2011, 1944, 2562, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.710'‚'‚Definitions. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚As used in NRS 701B.700 to 701B.880, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in NRS 701B.720 to 701B.810, inclusive, have the meanings ascribed to them in those sections.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2996; A 2009, 1388; 2011, 1944, 2562, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.720'‚'‚½Applicant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Applicant½ means a person who is applying to participate in the Waterpower Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2996; A 2011, 1944, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.730'‚'‚½Commission½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Commission½ means the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2996; A 2011, 1944, 2562)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.740'‚'‚½Participant½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Participant½ means a person who has been selected by a utility to participate in the Waterpower Demonstration Program.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2997; A 2009, 1388; 2011, 1944, 2562, 2563)

½½½½½ NRS'‚701B.750'‚'‚½Person½ defined. [Effective through December 31, 2021.]'‚'‚½Person½ includes, without limitation, a public entity.

½½½½½ (Added to NRS by 2007, 2997; A 2011, 1944, 2562)