The UNRWA and The Red Cross (ICRC) had to suspend movements inside Gaza after IDF strikes on UN and ICRC staff, vehicles, and facilities #gaza
Summary. On January 8, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) decided to suspend movements inside Gaza following several security incidents involving IDF strikes on UN and ICRC staff, vehicles, and facilities. UNRWA and ICRC will continue some operations in Gaza that do not require IDF coordination. On January 9, UNRWA Deputy Commissioner General Filippo Grandi told RefCoord that UNRWA will resume movement inside Gaza only with “full guarantees” from the GOI that staff can move safely. ICRC is
Strong bond … David Hicks with his father Terry this year. Photo: Janie Barrett
‘Know that if I make a deal it will be against my will. I just couldn’t hold out any longer. Unless the deal involves me coming straight home.’ - David Hicks predicts his future in 2004, in a never-before-published letter to his father, Terry. Natalie O’Brien reports.
DAVID HICKS was desperate, lonely and scared he would never get out of Guantanamo Bay unless he confessed to crimes he did not commit. The Americans were playing mind games with him. He was forced to make decisions about his future while chained to the floor of a cell. He was coerced into signing a ”plea guilty” form with ”al Qaida written all over it” in the belief it would be his ticket home.
Despite his predicament, Hicks believed he had a friend in Guantanamo - a guard named Albert Melise. It was to him, in April 2004, Hicks entrusted a long, handwritten letter to his father, Terry, in the hope it would get to him uncensored and reveal publicly the pressure he was under to falsely confess to war crimes.
Advertisement: Story continues below
But Terry Hicks never received the letter. Melise, believing it was too risky to send, kept it.
Now, seven years later, that never-before-seen letter has surfaced as Hicks prepares for his first day in court. He is defending an action by the federal government to seize, as proceeds of crime, the royalties from his book Guantanamo: My Journey.
Hicks was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by the Northern Alliance and handed over to US forces before being sent to Guantanamo Bay as an enemy combatant. He was a confessed terrorism supporter who received military training in Afghanistan and met Osama bin Laden. He says he now deeply regrets those decisions.
Three years later he was charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. He was committed to face trial before a military commission. Before any trial could proceed, the military commission system was declared unlawful. With a new commission set up, in early 2007, Hicks faced fresh charges and was committed to face trial.
But in March 2007 he struck a bargain and pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism in the new commission, which was later disbanded by the US President, Barack Obama, who said it did not establish a legitimate legal framework.
Under the deal, Hicks was sent back to Australia in May that year to serve nine months’ jail in Adelaide, gagged from speaking to the media for a year - effectively banning him from speaking until after the federal election in 2007.
Just what was going on behind the scenes during that time is clear from the letter that Melise - who has since left the military - gave to US journalist Jason Leopold from the publication Truthout during an interview about Guantanamo Bay this year.
Melise revealed the existence of the letter and said he never posted it because ”I was worried that if someone found out I mailed it,
I would have been arrested”.
The candid six-page letter documents the psychological torture of Hicks and how he eventually buckled under the pressure, saying he was ”weak”.
Melise has backed up Hicks’s claims of being mentally tortured. He told Leopold that Hicks’s physical torture had stopped by the time he arrived at Camp Echo but not the pyschological torture.
”He cut deals so [the torture] would stop,” Melise said. ”David is one of those people who was easily manipulated [into making false confessions]. He was an easy target for the interrogators. They knew they could break him mentally and physically, and they did.”
The letter begins with an acknowledgement of how Hicks believed Melise (whom he doesn’t name in the letter) helped him stay sane.
”If you receive this letter it is due to the goodness of somebody who I now feel I owe my life too. This letter is very important because it’s the first and probably only time I will be able to tell you the truth of my situation.
”Before I start I want you to know that the negative things I am going to say about people has nothing to do with the MP’s that are watching me. Some of them are marvellous people who have taken risks to help improve my day to day living. It’s because of such people that I have kept my sanity and still have some strenght left.
”In the early days before I made it to Cuba I received some harsh treatment in transportation including mild beatings (about 4). One lasted for 10 hours I went to camp x-ray, camp delta and now Im in camp echo. I have allways cooperated with interrogaters. For two years they had control of my life in the camps. If you talk and just agree with what their saying they give you real food, books and other special privileges. If not they can make your life hell. Im [sic] angry these days at myself for being so weak during these last two years. But I’ve always been so desperate to get out and to try to live the best I can while I am here.”
Hicks describes how, the year before, in 2003, the Americans asked him to sign a form, saying that if he did he would be moved to a better place and then within months he would be sent home.
”The form was a plea guilty form. It had al Qaida written all over it. It was a very bad form. Being so desperate (and weak) I didn’t care.
I just signed it,” Hicks wrote.
But he wrote that, after he signed, he realised it was a test to see how desperate he was. Hicks wrote that they did the same thing to a lot of the detainees at Gitmo but the British detainees who had refused to sign the forms had been sent home.
”They had done the same as me or more and yet I remain. They continue to keep me living in desperate conditions so I’ll make desperate decisions. Because I’ve signed once before they’re confident that I’ll sign again, if I suffer long enough.”
At first Hicks describes how they wanted him to plead guilty to being part of al-Qaeda and to do 10 years’ prison. Then, he writes, they changed their tune, dropping the charges of terrorism and conspiracy, instead trying to convince him to plead guilty to ”aiding the enemy and attempted murder meaning I went to the front lines bearing arms but didn’t have the opportunity to use them. Al Qaida name is still in the charge.”
Hicks writes that they are trying to bribe him with ”small bullshit things” to sign the new forms.
”On the other hand their saying don’t try to fight us in court. Just sign the form. If I sign the form
I can go first (quickly) but if I decided to fight them I’ll be pushed down the list, maybe about 2 years. I am writing this in April. They say by signing it I will probably start hearings in May. If I don’t sign it they are going to further threaten me.
I think their next step will be to put me in camp 5. A very bad place with complete isolation. They know this is my worst nightmare. If I end up there
I will probably lose my sanity or crack and sign their bullshit forms. Thats what they want. Thier [sic] next threats after this will be to accuse me of outrageous crimes. Being a member of al Qaida, conspiracy with them such as preparing to kill hundreds of civilians etc. They may even go public with it. I believe they are playing a game of bluff with me. They don’t want to take me to court because surely they know they won’t get away with such nonsense. But they have brain washed me into thinking that they can get away with whatever they want. Maybe they can?”
Hicks tells his father he wants to research and choose his own lawyers and he ”should not be made to make major decisions while being chained to the floor which is how I always am when speaking to lawyers”.
In the letter, Hicks talks about how he was being pressured to drop his Australian lawyer, Stephen Kenny.
”The American lawyers are telling me that Steve is not capable of this job and I should get rid of him and take a new Australian lawyer that they choose for me.”
Stephen Kenny confirmed to The Sun-Herald last week that the US lawyers told him the Australian government would not negotiate while he was on the team. ”I was told it was political,” Kenny said.
Hicks writes that if he makes a deal it will be against his will and says that he if tries to fight them it will be hard for him.
”And no matter what they accuse me of you know that I haven’t committed crimes. But I was a soldier. No different to the guards around me …
”As you can see dad, I feel really alone and I’m scared of being f—-ed over by the government. It makes me angry how they lie and get away with it. I feel that my only chance of justice will come from outside sources such as public awareness of whats happening here behind closed doors. Why is the government being so secretive. What are they ashamed of.”
Hicks finishes the letter by saying he is disappointed in the Australian government and the lack of help it gave to him.
”If I commited a crime I can be man enough to accept the consequences but I shouldn’t have to admit to things I haven’t done or listen to these people falsely accuse me. We can’t let them get away with it. Especially if a shonky court is allowed to prosecute me with false crime. But it seems to be thier intentions. How do we stop it?
I could go on about all the small things that happen.”
Statement by Julian Assange on the reported destruction of WikiLeaks source material by Daniel Domscheit-Berg
Statement by Julian Assange on the reported destruction of WikiLeaks source material by Daniel Domscheit-Berg
Sat Aug 20 23:25:00 2011 GMT
WikiLeaks does not record or retain source identifying information, however the claimed destruction of documents entrusted to WikiLeaks between January 2010 and August 2010 demands the revelation of inside information so sources can make their own risk assessments.
Early in 2010, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, (then “Daniel Berg”, “Daniel Schmitt”) (born 1978), who was responsible for keeping selected WikiLeaks backups, met and entered into a relationship with Anke Domscheit-Berg (then, “Anke Domscheit”) (born 1968) who described her job title as “Director Government Relations” for Microsoft, Germany.
DDB told me that ADB’s role was to interface with the German government on behalf of Microsoft. He was proud that he had been to a party at the German ministry of the interior, as ADB’s consort, and that ADB was on intimate terms with senior figures in the German government and bureaucracy.
DDB told me that he had moved into ADBs house in Berlin, without any counter-intelligence cover, going so far as to place his legal name on a street visible mail box and the interior door and that he would work from this location.
At this point WikiLeaks issued a policy directive that DDB not be permitted contact with source material.
ADB and DDB officially married within a few weeks and changed their surnames to “Domscheit-Berg”.
DDB secretly, and in clear violation of WikiLeaks internal security directives, recorded internal WikiLeaks encrypted “chat” conversations. He initially publicly denied having done so, but attempted to place many of these recordings into his ghostwritten book, most of which were rejected by his publishers’ lawyers as violations of german privacy law. Others he secretly conveyed to hostile media, such as Wired magazine, which had been involved in the arrest and persecution of US intelligence analyst Bradley Manning.
His book, “Inside WikiLeaks”, contains many proven malicious libels and breaches of WikiLeaks security policies. The book is promoted throughout U.S. military book stores, by the U.S. military.
After DDB’s suspension in August 2010, he managed, through guile, to convince a German WikiLeaks system administrator, who was an old associate of DDB’s, to obtain the keys and data for a large quantity of then pending WikiLeaks whistleblower disclosures.
In the last year there has been publicly declared task forces or investigations into WikiLeaks by the CIA, the Pentagon, the FBI, the Department of State, the DoJ, ASIO, ASIS, and the AFP (the last has now been publicly cancelled, finding that no Australian laws have been broken). Many other agencies, such as the NSA have also been involved, but not publicly declared.
I have received a warning from a current Western intelligence officer that DDB has been in contact with the FBI, on more than one occasion, and that the information from this contact was “helpful”. I do not know if DDB was complicit with the reported contact.
David House, of the Bradley Manning Support Network, stated publicly, and repeatedly, that U.S. investigative authorities attempted to bribe him to become an informant and infiltrate WikiLeaks activities.
I have been told that the girlfriend of a Berlin-based Israeli intelligence officer attended the wedding of ADB and DDB. This may not be significant.
I have received intelligence from current Western intelligence officer, that Anke Domscheit Berg, personally, came into contact with the CIA during her time working for the McKinsey & Company consulting group. This was a direct, volunteered statement of fact and warning, and not a statement of speculation. I do not know if ADB was complicit in the reported contact.
Review the Charges Facing Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Founder - e-petitions
Responsible department: Home Office
The accusations against Mr. Assange (he has yet to be officially charged with any crime) do not fall inside the realms of illegality under British law; many legal minds have dubbed them trivial and, more importantly, a waste of the court’s time. The original case was dropped within 24 hours whilst Mr. Assange was still in Sweden, proving also that even if seen through Swedish eyes the charges have no legal substance. The continuation of the prosecution (and resulting persecution) of a man who has done nothing wrong under the laws of the country which imprisons him is unacceptable and must be reviewed impartially by the British government. The British government should review the accusations against Mr. Assange and come to a decision as to whether or not his continued prosecution is necessary - all of this without intervention from Sweden, which already dropped the case while it was in its hands and whose input is therefore considerably less relevant.
Indonesia: Military Documents Reveal Unlawful Spying in Papua | Human Rights Watch
(New York) – Internal military documents that recently came to light expose the Indonesian military’s surveillance of peaceful activists, politicians, and clergy in the easternmost province of Papua, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch urged the Indonesian government to order the military to cease the unlawful monitoring immediately, and to ensure that civilian authorities retain responsibility for basic law enforcement.
The approximately 500 pages of documents, dated 2006 to 2009, include detailed reports of military surveillance of civilians and provide military perspectives on social and political issues in the area. Most are fromIndonesia’s Special Forces (Komando Pasukan Khusus, or Kopassus) and the Cenderawasih military command in Jayapura, the provincial capital. They range from internal briefings, presentations, teaching tools, and intelligence products such as daily and quarterly Kopassus reports, to a paper on the status of Papua under international law. A separate document that came to light recently describes a surveillance operation in 2011, indicating that such surveillance continues.
“The Kopassus documents show the deep military paranoia in Papua that conflates peaceful political expression with criminal activity,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It’s outrageous in a modern democratic country like Indonesia that activists, clergy, students, and politicians are the targets of military surveillance.”
Do NOT remove all the benefits of convicted London rioters. - e-petitions #LondonRiots
Do NOT remove all the benefits of convicted London rioters.
Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions
Petitioners accept that it would be counter-productive to remove all benefits for those convicted of felony in the London riots. Petitioners accept that, with the root cause of the riots being mainly financial in nature, making those involved even poorer will do nothing to help the current situation, or prevent similar acts occurring again in future. Petitioners accept that removing benefits will likely increase the amount of homelessness and potential for crime. Petitioners accept that those who are actually convicted will likely be punished effectively anyway, without creating the further social tension and unrest that a cessation of all benefits would generate.
Anonymous Dumps Nearly 5GB of Brazilian Government Data to ThePirateBay
The quantity is large, but that might be what you would expect for a data dump with such large claims. Anonymous has posted a 4.73GB archive to BitTorrent filesharing website ThePirateBay claiming to expose corruption between the FBI, Brazilian ISPs and the government of Brazil.
The release can be found on a Tor website. Some might note that this is a slight change in release tactics. In previous releases, announcements like this were made via site’s like PasteBin. Not this one, it seems. The release notes state the following:
So groups of people in positions of unaccountable power naturally resort to violence, do they? Not according to research conducted in a BBC experiment.
The photographs from Abu Ghraib prison showing Americans abusing Iraqi prisoners make us recoil and lead us to distance ourselves from their horror and brutality. Surely those who commit such acts are not like us? Surely the perpetrators must be twisted or disturbed in some way? They must be monsters. We ourselves would never condone or contribute to such events.
Sadly, 50 years of social psychological research indicates that such comforting thoughts are deluded. A series of major studies have shown that even well-adjusted people, when divided into groups and placed in competition against each other, can become abusive and violent.
Most notoriously, the 1971 Stanford prison experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo and colleagues, seemingly showed that young students who were assigned to the role of guard quickly became sadistically abusive to the students assigned to the role of prisoners.
Combined with lessons from history, the disturbing implication of such research is that evil is not the preserve of a small minority of exceptional individuals. We all have the capacity to behave in evil ways. This idea was famously developed by Hannah Arendt whose observations of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, led her to remark that what was most frightening was just how mild and ordinary he looked. His evil was disarmingly banal.
In order to explain events in Iraq, one might go further and conclude that the torturers were victims of circumstances, that they lost their moral compass in the group and did things they would normally abhor. Indeed, using Zimbardo’s findings as evidence, this is precisely what some people do conclude. But this is bad psychology and it is bad ethics.
It is bad psychology because it suggests we can explain human behaviour without needing to scrutinize the wider culture in which it is located. It is bad ethics because it absolves everyone from any responsibility for events - the perpetrators, ourselves as constituents of the wider society, and the leaders of that society.
In the situation of Abu Ghraib, some reports have indicated that the guards were following orders from intelligence officers and interrogators in order to soften up the prisoners for interrogation.
If that is true, then clearly the culture in which these soldiers were immersed was one in which they were encouraged to see and treat Iraqis as subhuman. Other army units almost certainly had a very different culture and this provides a second explanation of why some people in some units may have tortured, but others did not.
Perhaps the best evidence that such factors were at play is the fact that the pictures were taken at all. Reminiscent of the postcards that lynch mobs circulated to advertise their activities, the torture was done proudly and with a grotesque sense of fun.
Those in the photos wanted others to know what they had done, presumably believing that the audience would approve. This sense of approval is very important, since there is ample evidence that people are more likely to act on any inclinations to behave in obnoxious ways when they sense - correctly or incorrectly - that they have broader support.
So where did the soldiers in Iraq get that sense from? This takes us to a critical influence on group behaviour: leadership. In the studies, leadership - the way in which experimenters either overtly or tacitly endorsed particular forms of action - was crucial to the way participants behaved.
Thus one reason why the guards in our own research for the BBC did not behave as brutally as those in the Stanford study, was that we did not instruct them to behave in this way.
Zimbardo, in contrast, told his participants: “You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me - and they’ll have no privacy…. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness”.
In light of this point it is interesting to ask what messages were being provided by fellow and, more critically, senior officers in the units where torture took place? Did those who didn’t approve fail to speak out for fear of being seen as weak or disloyal? Did senior officers who knew what was going on turn a blind eye or else simply file away reports of misbehaviour?
All these things happened after the My Lai massacre, and in many ways the responses to an atrocity tell us most about how it can happen in the first place. They tell us how murderers and torturers can begin to believe that they will not be held to account for what they do, or even that their actions are something praiseworthy. The more they perceive that torture has the thumbs up, the more they will give it a thumbs up themselves.
So how do we prevent these kinds of episodes? One answer is to ensure that people are always made aware of their other moral commitments and their accountability to others. Whatever the pressures within their military group, their ties to others must never be broken. Total and secret institutions, where people are isolated from contact with all others are breeding grounds for atrocity. Similarly, there are great dangers in contracting out security functions to private contractors which lack fully developed structures of public accountability.
Another answer is to look at the culture of our institutions and the role of leaders in framing that culture. Bad leadership can permit torture in two ways. Sometimes leaders can actively promote oppressive values. This is akin to what happened in Zimbardo’s study and may be the case in certain military intelligence units. But sometimes leaders can simply fail to promote anything and hence create a vacuum of power.
Our own findings indicated that where such a vacuum exists, people are more likely to accept any clear line of action which is vigorously proposed. Often, then, tyranny follows from powerlessness rather than power. In either case, the failure of leaders to champion clear humane and democratic values is part of the problem.
But it is not enough to consider leadership in the military. One must look more widely at the messages and the values provided in the community at large. That means that we must address the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment in our society. A culture where we have got used to pictures of Iraqi prisoners semi-naked, chained and humiliated can create a climate in which torturers see themselves as heroes rather than villains.
Again, for such a culture to thrive it is not necessary for everyone to embrace such sentiments, it is sufficient simply for those who would oppose them to feel muted and out-of-step with societal norms.
And we must also look at political leadership. When administration officials talk about cleaning out “rats’ nests” of Iraqi dissidents, it likens Iraqis to vermin. Note, for example, that just before the Rwandan genocide, Hutu extremists started referring to Tutsi’s as “cockroaches”.
Such use of language again creates a climate in which perpetrators of atrocity can maintain the illusion that they are nobly doing what others know must be done. The torturers in Iraq may or may not have been following direct orders from their leaders, but they were almost certainly allowed to feel that they were behaving as good followers.
So if we want to understand why torture occurs, it is important to consider the psychology of individuals, of groups, and of society. Groups do indeed affect the behaviour of individuals and can lead them to do things they never anticipated. But how any given group affects our behaviour depends upon the norms and values of that specific group.
Evil can become banal, but so can humanism. The choice is not denied to us by human nature but rests in our own hands. Hence, we need a psychological analysis that addresses the values and beliefs that we, our institutions, and our leaders promote. These create the conditions in which would-be torturers feel either emboldened or unable to act.
We need an analysis that makes us accept rather than avoid our responsibilities. Above all, we need a psychology which does not distance us from torture but which requires us to look closely at the ways in which we and those who lead us are implicated in a society which makes barbarity possible.
Alex Haslam is a professor of psychology at University of Exeter and editor of the European Journal of Social Psychology. Stephen Reicher is a professor of psychology at University of St Andrews, past editor of the British Journal of Social Psychology and a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
_ _ __ .__ __| || |__ _____ _____/ |_|__| ______ ____ ____ #anonymous \ __ / \__ \ / \ __\ |/ ___// __ \_/ ___\ #antisec | || | / __ \| | \ | | |\___ \ ___/\ \___ #lulzsec /_ ~~ _\ (____ /___| /__| |__/____ |\___ \ \___ | #voice |_||_| \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ #freebrazil ################################################################################ # ANTISEC LEAKS “OPERATION SATIAGRAHA” EVIDENCE EXPOSING HIGH-LEVEL CORRUPTION # ################################################################################ On the same day that dozens of Brazilian government officials were arrested on corruption charges, and the communications ministry proposing to ban independent internet access providers, we are releasing a cache of evidence revealing government coverup of a corruption investigation involving the CIA, the Brazilian telecom industry, and multiple US corporations. Protógenes Queiroz led Operation Satiagraha, an investigation of the Brazilian Federal Police. The investigation looked into money laundering, misuse of public funds, and corruption. The investigation took place for nearly four years from 2004 until 2008. Satiagraha resulted in the arrest of several investors, bankers and bank directors. The most noted figure in the investigation was Daniel Dantas, a Brazilian banker, financier, and founder of Opportunity Asset Management. The group lead an international private sector partnership that bought out a significant chunk of Brazilian telecoms. Quirozez was removed from the operation, as he did not tell his superiors of Secret Service involvement. He was also investigated for collaborating with the Brazilian Secret Service with the use of illegal wire taps. The full files were never released in the investigation, and many of the implications were thus never pursued due to the high corruption within the Brazilian Government. These files containing the evidence collected from Operation Satiagraha, an operation that went to the heart of exposing the level of corruption with corporations involved with the Brazilian Government centering around Daniel Dantas and Kroll, a multi-national corporation with ties to former CIA agents, evidence that has remained unreleased to date. Though in an interview Protegenese Quirozez tried to expose the possiblity of a government oppressor’s involvement in attempt to take down the government, this is not the case, and just shows the government has fear in what these files truly can bring onto them. These files have been obtained by an anonymous team, and are now here for all the public to see. We do not stand for government or parties. We stand for freedom, of people and information. We are releasing them to spread information, to allow the people to be heard and to know the corruption in their government. We are releasing them to bring power to the voice of the people of Brazil. We are releasing them to end the corruption that exists, and truly make those who are being oppressed free. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We Do Not Forget. We Do Not Forgive. Expect us. ################################################################################ Protógenes Queiroz encarregado da Operação Satiagraha, uma investigação da Polícia Federal do Brasil. A investigação teve contato com lavagem de dinheiro, desvio de verbas públicas e corrupção.A investigação aconteceu por quato anos, de 2004 a 2008. Satiagraha resultou na prisão de muitos investidores, banqueiros e diretores de bancos. A maior figura na investigação foi Daniel Dantas, um banqueiro brasium banqueiro brasileiro e fincanciador, fundador do Opportunity Asset Management. O grupo que liderou a parceria de setores privados internacionais que resultou na compra de uma parte significativa de empresas de telefonia brasileiras. Queiroz foi removido da operação por não ter informado seus superiores do envolvimento do Serviço Secreto. Ele também foi investigado por colaborar com o Serviço Secreto Brasileiro através do uso de grampos telefônicos ilegais. Os arquivos completos nunca foram revelados e muitas das informações nunca foram divulgadas pelo alto nível de corrupção dentro do Governo do Brasil. Esses arquivos contêm evidências reunidas pela Operação Satiagraha, uma operação que foi fundo na exposição do nível de corrupção envolvendo o Governo brasileiro e grandes Corporações, centralizadas em torno de Daniel Dantas e Kroll, uma corporação multinacional que tem ligações com ex-agentes da CIA , que permaneceram desconhecidas até hoje. Apesar de Protógenes Queiroz ter dito, em uma entrevista ((http://www.conversaafiada.com.br/audio/2011/08/08/protogenes-identifica- advogado-e-jornalista-da-gravacao/) após tomar conhecimento do vazamento dos documentos obtidos por Anonymous, que havia a possibilidade do envolvimento de opositores do governo na ação, numa tentativa de acelerar um golpe de Estado, este não é o caso e só mostra que o governo está temeroso em relação ao que esses arquivos podem significar. Esses arquivos foram obtidos pela equipe Anonymous, e estão aqui agora para que todo público veja a verdadeira corrupção no Brasil. Nós não apoiamos governos ou partidos. Nós lutamos pela liberdade, das pessoas e da informação. Estamos divulgando esses arquivos para espalhar a informação e permitir que as pessoas sejam ouvidas e saibam da corrupção em seu governo.Nós os estamos revelando para dar poder à voz do povo brasileiro. Nós estamos divulgando para acabar com a corrupção que existe, e para libertar aqueles que vêm sendo oprimidos. Nós somos Anonymous. Nós somos Legião. Nós não esquecemos. Nós não perdoamos. Nos Aguardem ################################################################################ [*] BitCoin donations to: 18NHixaoQekQJ3y52aBGJJwgBWX9X3myYR [*] BROWSE THE FILES: http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.onion/br (if you are on tor) http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br (if you aren’t on tor) http://satiagrahaleaks.org/leaks/ (original HTTP mirror) ################################################################################ Significant files to look at first: [*] How the Privatization Scheme Works http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/758/Export/1805.doc [*] People Involved with the operation http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/758/Export/1798.doc [*] List of Investors http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/758/Export/1812.dochttp://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/758/Export/3744.doc [*] Who has money on Oportunity - American banks http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/948/Export/159348.pdf BARCLAYS 5.000.000,00 5,000,000.00 SANTANDER 1.000.000,00 1,000,000.00 MORGAN SWAP (UNIQ 1.550.000,00 1,550,000.00 MORGAN FUTURES (UNIQUE) 4.080.853,53 4,080,853.53 DEUTSCHE BANK NDF 508.127,02 508,127.02 6.303.494,93 6,303,494.93 UBS FUTURES 13.360.555,83 13,360,555.83 UBS DUBLIN 235.336,07 235,336.07 BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN 65.769.898,19 65,769,898.19 GOLDMAN & SACHS, INC 1.252.112,88 1,252,112.88 UBS (UNIQUE) 7.552.995,03 7,552,995.03 BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN (522,49) (522.49) BROWN BROTHERS (EURO) 1.160.818,86 1,160,818.86 [*] NAJI Speaks about 50 milion euros, his conections with the Saudi Arabian king, Page 5 on report: http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/948/Export/158529.dochttp://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/948/Export/160085.wav [*] Envolvment with the actual president Dilma R HUMBERTO e LUIZ EDUARDO says in the dialog information about a possible agreement that is being made between CITIBANK and GRUPO OPPORTUNITY. With the creation of one “Supertele” with the fusion of operations Oi-telemar, telemig, brasiltelecom e amazonia celular, possible with the authorization of the president of republic (viel decret, see that this fusion are ilegal) and the resources BNDS, the necessity of the reunion of President DIlma Russef [*] Proof of BNDES Involvment (Brazilian Bank of Development) http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/758/Export/4117.doc [*] Document to the Supreme Court of New York about Brasil Telecom http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/948/Export/159528.pdfhttp://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/758/Export/2894.wav [*] Report of Dantas successfully being contacted by a journalist, and expediting a news article in good favor of him to be written through bribery http://4aclu6ka6s7gz6st.tor2web.org/br/758/Export/5850.doc Analysis: Humberto Jos�ˆ Rocha Braz is with Guilherme Henrique Martins SODRE people DANIEL V. Dantas hired by their companies, for espionage work, influence peddling, “planting” false news in the media and making a false dossier (often the contents of the dossier is reported in the media casting doubt organizations, journalists, or state institutions). DANTAS always talks with them in code, in this case, Dante is afraid that there is some research being conducted against him and asks to leave GOMES (codenamed Luiz Eduardo Greenhalgh)
V for Vendetta Author Alan Moore Supports Bradley Manning | PINKtank
Today Alan Moore, the world-renowned author of V for Vendetta and Watchmen, released a statement in support of Bradley Manning. This isn’t your average nominal celebrity endorsement. Moore keeps a famously low profile and very rarely gives interviews; his words are much more a call to action – and an urgent one at that – than a “statement.”
As Moore sees it, “what is presently on trial here is Western culture itself.” PFC Bradley Manning’s trial is not just about Bradley, the US military, or even Obama’s larger attack on WikiLeaks supporters and whistle-blowers. Bradley’s secretive, punitive, unlawful pre-trial detention is symptomatic of no less than an international crisis.
CODEPINK draws attention to the larger repercussions of silencing the truth, sending the message that ‘we are all Bradley Manning’ and that his fight is our fight. We have stood in solidarity with Bradley Manning wearing his face, prison jumpsuits, and even – when he was forced to stand naked at attention in prison – nothing at all.
It’s fitting that Moore, a master of words and ideas, would be compelled to speak out against Bradley’s mistreatment and the larger attack on civil liberties it represents. In Moore’s words, “if we do not protest in the strongest terms about what is being done in our name, then we become complicit. There is no third option.”
URGENT: Video statement from the sieged people of IDLEB, SYRIA. #ramadanmassacre #mar15 #Idleb
This video from came in from Idleb, Syria, yesterday. The small city of Idleb has been surrounded by 70 tanks. The Syrian Army has put the bodies of 50 dead soldiers in the Idleb Hospital. As the video says, they know the citizens there will be blamed as violent gang members and terrorists responsible for the deaths of these soldiers - soldiers who were likely killed for refusing to shoot on unarmed civilians.
What the people there don’t know is that the representatives of UN Security Council India, Brazil S. Africa arrive on a ‘fact finding’ mission for UN Security Council today.
Please help get this video as much attention as possible. Retweet it and reblog it. It’s going to be hard with the London riots getting most of the attention but if we succeed we can actually save lives here, because this will be used as an excuse for yet another massacre.
8/8/2011 An important statement by the sieged people of IDLEB, SYRIA
“When you cut facilities, slash jobs, abuse power, discriminate, drive people into deeper poverty and shoot people dead whilst refusing to provide answers or justice, the people will rise up and express their anger and frustration if you refuse to hear their cries. A riot is the language of the unheard.”—Martin Luther King Jr
US officials led a far-reaching international campaign aimed at keeping former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide exiled in South Africa, rendering him a virtual prisoner there for the last seven years, according to secret US State Department cables.
“A former guard termed a ringleader in the physical abuse and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was released from prison Saturday.”— the CNN Wire Staff.. (via wavesfadingwords)
Who is Mercedes Renee Haefer and how did she inspire a campaign against Paypal « 100gf | Politics and Computers
A new campaign by Anonymous to encourage people to shut their Paypal accounts is believed to have been a big success, leading an estimated 20,000 (so far) to quit the popular payment processor. But how did a Journalism student named Mercedes Renee Haefer manage to accidentally inspire such a campaign?
Haefer is one of a number of people accused of involvement in a mass DDOS attack on the Paypal website last year. She now faces up to 15 years in jail and a $500,000 fine, and many groups – not only Anonymous but also civil liberties groups – are complaining that this is overly harsh.
There’s no word so far from Mercedes Renee Haefer herself about the campaign to hit Paypal where it hurts. And so far, although Paypal parent company eBay experienced a modest drop on Wednesday, there are few signs that the company is really going to be punished so hard that it rethinks its overall approach.
WikiLeaks: Bush, Obama Passed on Sanctioning Syrian Insiders | Common Dreams
WASHINGTON — Two U.S. administrations declined in recent years to place sanctions on Syrian officials who now are involved in that country’s harsh crackdown on dissidents, despite the officials’ involvement in crushing internal opposition previously, according to secret State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks.
The struggle continues … demonstrators shout slogans against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in front of the Syrian Embassy in Turkey. (Photo: Reuters) In one instance, the top diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus asked the State Department in 2007 to impose sanctions on Ali Mamluk, the chief of intelligence for Syrian President Bashar Assad.
"The role of the organization he heads in suppressing internal dissent is publicly known in Syria and stating as much in our statement would resonate well here," wrote Michael Corbin, the embassy’s charge d’affaires.
But no action was taken against Mamluk until this April, after security forces had killed scores of civilians in the Syrian town of Deraa in protests that have since spread to much of the country.
In the same cable, Corbin opposed sanctions for Mohammad Suleiman, who at the time was a special Assad adviser for arms procurement and strategic weapons. Corbin argued that Suleiman’s activities weren’t well-known enough that the Treasury Department could impose the sanctions without revealing classified information.
"His activities are not widely known, which will make it difficult to obtain unclassified material" needed for the Treasury Department to cite when sanctioning Suleiman, Corbin wrote.
Suleiman never was sanctioned. On Aug. 1, 2008, a sniper killed him in the Syrian coastal town of Tartous. Syria blamed Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency but offered no proof. A secret cable dated April 9, 2009, offers another possibility: that Suleiman was killed because he had $80 million in cash in the basement of one of his homes, which investigators who were looking into his slaying later found.
How to deal with Assad’s inner circle clearly has been a difficult problem for the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, according to the cables, part of the vast trove of State Department communications that WikiLeaks has shared with McClatchy and other news organizations.
Despite suggestions as long ago as 2006 that Assad was falling short on promises to open his country’s political system, neither administration was willing to take firm action against his closest advisers, though such sanctions — which would have prohibited U.S. citizens and companies from doing business with them — often were discussed, the cables show.
That same ambiguity exists today, with the Obama administration refusing to call for Assad to leave office, even as the White House regularly denounces the harsh crackdown in which as many as 1,600 people are thought to have died. The most recent White House statement came Sunday, after Syrian troops moved into the restive city of Hama and killed an estimated 75 people.
A Jan. 4, 2006, confidential cable from the previous charge d’affaires in Damascus, Stephen Seche, spelled out why the Bush administration was reluctant to target Assad’s inner circle.
"Most Syrians we talk to believe that President Assad still represents their best hope for change without instability. It is their fear of instability that stops the majority of Syrians from pushing harder for internal change," Seche wrote.
The hesitancy to pressure Assad’s inner circle as a way to bring political change to Syria that’s reflected in the cables recalls the conflict between how officials today describe the Libyan regime of Moammar Gadhafi and the way Gadhafi’s regime was portrayed in diplomatic cables before the current uprising in that country.
As McClatchy outlined in a story in April, those cables often portrayed Gadhafi’s regime as moving toward greater openness and described Gadhafi’s son Saif as one of the main proponents of greater respect for human rights. The International Criminal Court indicted Saif Gadhafi on war crimes charges in June, along with his father.
Corbin raised the issue of sanctions in several cables, including one classified secret and dated Jan. 24, 2008, in which he suggested that the U.S. target four men who make and move money for Assad.
The four included Assad’s father-in-law, Fawas Arkhas; financier Zufair Sahloul, who was said to be able to “move $10 million anywhere in the world in 24 hours”; and Assad’s uncle and financial adviser Mohammad Makhlouf. The U.S. still has made no move to sanction them, although the European Union sanctioned Makhlouf on Tuesday.
The fourth person Corbin suggested the U.S. move against was Nabil al Kuzbari, whom Corbin identified as an Assad confidant who ran investment schemes on behalf of Syria’s top business families. The U.S. moved to sanction him only this May.
Despite its refusal to move in some cases, the Bush administration did impose sanctions on some Assad confidants, including Assad’s cousin and economic power broker Rami Makhlouf, after the embassy in Damascus suggested that they be targeted.
A secret cable sent Jan. 31, 2008, described Rami Makhlouf as the “poster boy” of corruption, squeezing out legitimate businesses and benefiting from his family ties to make money in banking, the power sector and cellular-phone service contracting. Sanctions were imposed the next month.
The Bush administration in November 2007 sanctioned his brother Hafiz, a colonel and head of intelligence in Damascus, for Syria’s meddling in Lebanon. In May, the Obama administration modified his sanction to include his alleged role in stifling dissent in Syria.
But to date, the United States hasn’t sanctioned the family patriarch, Mohammad Makhlouf.
The Bush administration also imposed sanctions on Assad’s brother-in-law, Asif Shawkat, in January 2006. Shawkat, who’s married to Assad’s sister Bushra, headed Syrian intelligence at the time, but he fell from grace after the death of Lebanese terrorist mastermind Imad Mugniyah, whom the U.S. sought for killing Navy diver Robert Stethem during the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jet.
A car bomb blew Mugniyah to pieces on Feb. 12, 2008, in Damascus. A secret cable dated April 14, 2008, suggested that Assad stripped Shawkat of some of his power in response to the assassination, which proved embarrassing since Syria had denied for years that Mugniyah was in the country.
Theories abound about who killed Mugniyah and why, ranging from Shawkat, whose office was near the bomb site, to Assad’s violent brother Mahir. Known as the family enforcer, Mahir Assad escaped sanction until late April, when the Obama administration targeted him through an executive order.
In a secret cable from Paris, dated Sept. 12, 2008, the U.S. Embassy cites a French security adviser as saying that Mahir Assad, described as “a bit of a wild man and determined to increase his power,” may have killed Suleiman and possibly Mugniyah. The motive was effectively doing away with headaches from people who “knew too much” about the activities of the Assad family.
Another secret cable — from Damascus on June 3, 2009 — paints an unflattering portrait of the Western-educated leader of Syria. The memo was sent as the Obama administration considered ways the U.S. government could engage Assad and take a less hostile tack.
"Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is neither as shrewd nor as long-winded as his father but he, too, prefers to engage diplomatically on a level of abstraction that seems designed to frustrate any direct challenge to Syria’s behavior," noted the cable, sent by a new charge d’affaires, Maura Connelly. "Bashar’s vanity represents another Achilles heel: the degree to which USG visitors add to his consequence to some degree affects the prospects for a successful meeting."
The cable suggested that playing to Assad’s “intellectual pretensions is one stratagem for gaining his confidence and acquiescence; it may be time-consuming but could well produce results.”
If U.S. diplomats under Obama sought to butter up Assad, the Bush administration tried a hostile approach designed to keep him diplomatically off balance.
A Dec. 13, 2006, secret cable from Damascus by charge d’affaires William Roebuck suggested that the diplomats try to sully Assad’s international image since he was preoccupied with how the outside world viewed him.
"Actions that cause Bashar to lose balance and increase his insecurity are in our interest because his inexperience and his regime’s extremely small decision-making circle make him prone to diplomatic stumbles that can weaken him domestically and regionally," the cable said. "While the consequences of his mistakes are hard to predict and the benefits may vary, if we are prepared to move quickly to take advantage of opportunities that may open up, we may directly impact regime behavior where it matters — Bashar and his inner circle."
Yet, as the documents show, both administrations chose not to sanction much of his inner circle until the Arab Spring spread this year to Syria. The Obama administration and European allies haven’t yet declared Assad an illegitimate leader who must go, as they did with Libya’s Gadhafi.
The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and released exclusively by The Daily Telegraph, partly confirm the Chinese government’s account of the early hours of June 4, 1989, which has always insisted that soldiers did not massacre demonstrators inside Tiananmen Square.
Instead, the cables show that Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters outside the centre of Beijing, as they fought their way towards the square from the west of the city.
Three cables were sent from the US embassy on June 3, in the hours leading up to the suppression, as diplomats realised that the final showdown between the protesters and soldiers was looming.
The cables described the “10,000 to 15,000 helmeted armed troops” moving into the city, some of whom were “carrying automatic weapons”.
Meanwhile, “elite airborne troops” and “tank units” were said to be moving up from the south.