Experts: Free Speech on Campus in Constant Crisis – Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

June 15, 2017 | :

WASHINGTON The American Association of University Professors, with the help of the Newseum Institute, held a symposium where two groups of panelists were asked whether they believe freedom of speech and the press is in a crisis and is being threatened.

John Wilson, co-editor of AAUPs Academe Blog, summarized the prevailing sentiment at the event, saying, The fact is free speech has always been in crisis.

Newseum CEO Jeffrey Herbst

Gene Policinski, chief operating officer at the Newseum, served as the moderator on the first panel of experts comprised of Wilson; Jeffrey Herbst, Newseum CEO and former president of Colgate University; and Catherine Ross, professor of law at George Washington University.

Ross, honing in on freedom of political speech in higher education, said administrators need to allow offensive and hateful speech, even if they dont agree with it. The First Amendment protects even intentional hate speech, she said.

When discussing a teachers role in educating students, Ross added, Whether K-12 or college you cannot tell a court OK, I silenced speech, but I did it to protect someone else from hurt feelings.

Wilson went on to say that administrators hold the power of maintaining freedom of speech, not the students. He explained that those with money or power have the ability to and often do influence colleges and universities and the speakers or lecturers that school administrators invite to campus.

Wilson then spoke out against the idea that millennials deserve the title snowflakes they so often receive on campuses across the nation for fighting hateful speech. Those darn kids are not destroying free speech in America, he said.

Related: Female Faculty Putting Productivity in Writing

Herbst pointed out, in response to a question from the moderator, Its not an issue, as big as it is, that colleges and universities can address by themselves. Its a societal issue.

In the second panel on freedom of the press on college campuses, Frank LaMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center; Hank Reichman, vice president of AAUP; and Courtney Rozen, editor-in-chief of The Eagle at American University, tackled questions from Policinski.

Reichman first agreed with Wilsons assessment, then went further by saying, The crisis of the student media is, I think, significantly worse than it has been in other times.

To buttress his point, he quoted the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, drafted and approved by AAUP almost 50 years ago in comparison to todays climate: Student publications and the student press are valuable aids in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus.

LaMonte spoke out on administrators shutting down students freedom of speech. He referred to a recent ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court that supported the action against Central Lakes Community College nursing student Craig Keefe. The student vented his anger with a fellow classmate on Facebook and was expelled as a result.

LaMonte claims this restricts students speech, citing the law, if an offender steps outside the boundaries of accepted professional standards, he or she is no longer protected by the First Amendment on a public college campus.

LaMonte cited the ruling as an example of the government overstepping its authority and used it as a segue into his discontent with many colleges claiming the right to prohibit students from standing alone for interviews with either campus or other newspapers and media outlets.

Related: Regents Approve Albany State, Darton State Merger

Rozen then recounted the experience of one of her predecessors as editor with the gag rule for athletes at American University. As a swim team member, a reporter could not interview her own teammates and peers without the presence of the coach or athletic director.

At the end of the event, the panelists agreed that significant advancement is needed in order to protect freedom of speech and press on campuses.

Excerpt from:

Experts: Free Speech on Campus in Constant Crisis - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

Locals pick sides in ‘free speech, hate speech’ debate – Boulder Weekly

Free speech? Hate speech? Both? Neither?

Depending on who you talk to, all of the above were on display on Saturday, June 3 in downtown Boulder in front of the County Courthouse, where roughly 30 members of Proud Boys Colorado and the groups supporters held a Free Speech Rally.

Penned in behind two rows of metal fences erected by the Boulder Police Department, the free speech ralliers waved American, Dont Tread On Me and Trump flags. They also held signs reading Muh Feelings! and Working Class Against AntiFa. Outside the fences, a far larger crowd of around 250 gathered, made up of those protesting the Proud Boys, those voicing their support, and others just curious about what was going on.

The scene was loud and chaotic, with people yelling, chanting, beating buckets and drums, and setting off smoke bombs. About 25 members of the Boulder Police Department and other law enforcement agencies were on the scene, including some in riot gear who brandished pepper spray and what appeared to be pepper ball guns, which shoot projectiles filled with a powdered form of pepper spray.

One protester was arrested for throwing a firecracker and several more were detained by police per media accounts.

Who are the Proud Boys?

The organizer of the rally, Proud Boys Colorado, is a chapter of the national Proud Boys organization, which was formed in 2016 by writer, comedian and co-founder of Vice Media, Gavin McInnes. According to Proud Boy Magazine, the Proud Boys are a fraternal organization of Western chauvinists who will no longer apologize for creating the modern world.

J, a Proud Boys Colorado member from Denver, defines Western chauvinism as being prideful [of] the great things that have been achieved through Western culture. For instance, J points out that its Western countries that have led the charge when it comes to gay rights.

Proud Boys support some traditionally right-wing positions such as minimal government, closed borders and gun rights, while also championing libertarian views like opposition to the drug war and taking a stand against political correctness.

Despite their political stances, Proud Boy Vince Hubbard of Elizabeth says, Were more like the Shriners or the Knights of Columbus than a political organization. We are mostly about cracking cold ones with the boys.

While not a member of Proud Boys, Denver resident Martin Meyers, 27, joined the group behind the barricades to advocate for the promotion of liberty, for people to be able to say what they want.

Dressed in a Trump T-shirt, Jennifer Archer, 31, from Louisville, stood with the Proud Boys to show solidarity for free speech and to express her concerns about illegal immigration.

Mingling with the larger crowd outside the fences in a Make America Great Again hat, G, a 27-year-old Boulderite, says he supports the right to free speech, and voted for Trump as a gigantic middle finger to [Washington,] D.C. He says he voted for Barack Obama in previous elections for the same reason.

Tyler, 27, from Denver, attended the rally in support of allowing people to say what they want. He sees this and similar free speech events popping up across the U.S. as a backlash to events in Berkeley, California, in February and April, where protests from the political left some of which turned violent compelled conservative speakers Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos to cancel speaking engagements.

Sticks and stones

Though the rally was billed as promoting free speech, not everyone buys that claim.

A flyer circulated by the Peoples Protection League and the Front Range Socialist Party maintained that groups such as the Proud Boys use free speech to conceal their intentions to people who do not know who they are or know about their violent goals.

Free speech is code for the normalization of far right organizing and violence in public discourse, read the flyer.

I do not think hate speech should be free speech, says B, a 30-year-old resident of Longmont and member of AntiFa, a loosely knit international movement opposed to fascism. Like a dozen or so other protesters at the rally, B dressed in black with a bandana covering the lower half of his face to hide his identity.

AntiFa tends to be comprised of leftist anarchists who often view themselves as the polar opposite of white nationalists, white supremacist or alt-right groups.

If you read the Constitution, free speech is what the government will or will not allow, it has nothing to do with people versus people, says B. Even if it is free speech, we dont have to stand out here and take it.

Kyle Newbrough, 23, from Boulder, believes the concept of hate speech is all too often used to silence opposing viewpoints. You cant say that just because I say something that makes you feel bad, that thats illegal.

Thomas, 23, of Denver agrees, adding that, Words arent hurtful, actions are hurtful.

Yet the Peoples Protection League and the Front Range Socialist Party have a different take, with their flyer insisting that speech is inseparable from action and organization.

I think that they have a right to be here, says Kaila Spencer, 27, from Boulder. While not a supporter of the Proud Boys, she says, freedom of speech is allowed for everyone. But once that starts to harm other people

Dialogue lacking

In one sense, those opposed to the Proud Boys and their supporters communicating their message accomplished their goal, in that it was nearly impossible for attendees to hear them over the noise of protesters. While this was a relief to some in the crowd, a number of locals were disappointed that they didnt get a chance to listen to what the organizers had to say.

Eighty-five-year-old retired Boulder high school teacher, Jacqui Goeldner, has lived in Boulder for 50 years. As a Bernie Sanders supporter, she assumes her politics dont align much with the Proud Boys. Still, she wanted to find out what they stood for in hopes of starting some sort of dialogue. This was an opportunity for communication, she says. An opportunity that we missed.

Boulders David Rosdeitcher, aka street performer Zip Code Man, says that while his own politics are not on the spectrum, hes curious about the Proud Boys take on things. They have a point of view and you might be surprised that you might agree with them.

If Rosdeitcher had his way, hed take these police blockades away and get representatives from this group to speak and this group to speak.

Tanya, in her mid-40s, lives in the Boulder area and says shed like the Proud Boys to be given the opportunity to speak so as to expose their agenda. Once they show what they are to the town, she says, more people are going to reject them.

Racist?

Do the Proud Boys have a Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and/or fascist bent or not?

The Peoples Protection League and Front Range Socialist Party flyer contended that groups such as the Proud Boys organize in order to spread their hateful ideology and incite violence with their thinly veiled white-supremacist views.

Recently in Colorado Springs, the Colorado Springs Anti-Fascists hung up flyers with the name, address and photo of a member of Proud Boys Colorado under the heading Our Neighbor is a Fascist.

The poster read, We cant say decisively that [the individual] holds racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, or misogynist views, but he has chosen to affiliate himself with an organization that does, and should be considered a danger to the community.

Ethan Au Green, 37, of Boulder, thinks the Proud Boys and their supporters are a mix of Nazis, fascists, white supremacists and Trump supporters. I dont know if they all share the same identity, but they surely keep company with each other, which implicates them all with the worst noxious ideologies present in their group.

Yet the Proud Boys say their support for Western chauvinism is about culture, not race, which is why they have adopted anti-racism as one of their main tenets.

We arent racists. Period, says Proud Boy Vince Hubbard. If we were racists, we wouldnt have people from other races in our group.

Proud Boy J adds that, we have had tons of people contact us looking to join up with our group, many of [whom] are minorities who heard about the rally through some of the lies being pushed about it.

A handful of individuals thought to espouse pro-fascist and white-supremacist views did attend the rally, one of whom wore a Proud to Be a Fascist T-shirt. A YouTube video is circulating of a Proud Boy confronting this individual, saying, As Proud Boys we do not believe in fascism. We do not appreciate you coming out here. If I wouldve known you were coming out here, I wouldve told the police not to let you up here.

Minutes after the confrontation, the Proud Boys disbanded the rally. Proud Boy supporter Jennifer Archer admits that the arrival of these folks was the reason organizers ended the rally early. We dont want to be associated with that kind of thing, she says.

Conflicting ideologies

Asked whether he supports violence against the Proud Boys, AntiFa member B says, I actually do.

Their ideology is violence. Against my family, against other families, against my neighbors and my community, says B. So I dont think we should just sit around and wait.

The new political spectrum is freedom to authoritarianism, says Proud Boy supporter Martin Meyers. He says AntiFa and other anti-fascist groups lean heavy towards authoritarianism, because they want people to be controlled. Thats really their ultimate goal. They want their ideology to impose itself on everyone else, while we want people to be free to do what they want.

While concerned about racism in the community, Boulder resident C.T. Hutt, 34, is neither a proponent of Proud Boys nor AntiFa. Standing quietly by himself throughout much of the rally, he says he was there simply to keep calm and bear witness.

Hutt doesnt believe violence will accomplish anything worthwhile for either side, but will only exacerbate the conflict. Anger, he says, breeds anger.

The views of those behind the barriers and those protesting in front of them make it clear that in the era of Trump, free speech is up for debate. An increasing number of folks on the left seem unwilling to view speech they perceive to be masking hate and discrimination as protected. And those on the right claim that it is most often the left these days who use violence to impose censorship on the political speech of those who see themselves as pro-white or pro-American rather than anti anyone else.

And lastly, there are those of all political stripes who still believe free speech is more important than anything that might be said and allowing all viewpoints, no matter how repugnant to others, is always better than forcing silence on anyone.

Hate speech is controversial because the line our words must cross to be considered such is drawn in a different place by each of us. Hate speech to one group is simply patriotic free speech to another.

What is certain is that limiting anyones speech today will nearly always lead to someone elses speech being limited tomorrow. Thanks to the current political environment, that is a lesson Boulder County residents will be learning one way or another over the next few years.

Read this article:

Locals pick sides in 'free speech, hate speech' debate - Boulder Weekly

Friday’s letters: Victory for freedom of speech – Tampabay.com

'Docs vs. Glocks' battle ends quietly | June 13

A victory for freedom of speech

Once again, the courts have rescued the people of Florida from the extremism of their own Legislature. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Gov. Rick Scott let the deadline pass to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court the decision striking down the gag order on doctors in the infamous "Docs vs. Glocks" case.

Whether this was an intentional decision to throw in the towel on this dangerous and unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech or simply neglect, we don't know. But any threat to strip a doctor of his or her license for talking to patients about the safe storage of guns in the home has been removed.

The ACLU worked for six years on behalf of more than a half-dozen medical, pediatric and children's rights organizations in support of the doctors who courageously challenged the state's effort to gag their discussions with patients about gun safety and especially keeping guns out of the reach of children.

Yes, there is a constitutional right to own a gun. But our Legislature was conned into swallowing the fiction that talking about guns and gun safety somehow threatened this constitutional right.

What is important now is that every doctor in Florida knows that the First Amendment right guaranteeing freedom of speech once again provides protection for the medical community to honor its mission to protect the health and lives of patients. And this includes counseling patients who own guns to ensure that they are safely stored to prevent suicides and out of the reach of children to prevent tragic accidental shootings.

One of the many reasons that this case was so important is that Florida became a test case. If the courts didn't stand up for the free speech of doctors, you could be sure that the NRA would have had this dangerous law introduced in every state legislature. But the strong affirmation of free speech by the federal appeals court hopefully ends this deadly threat here.

Howard Simon, executive director, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Miami

Cuba progress reversal feared | June 2

Cuba policy needs rethink

As Americans wait for President Donald Trump to announce his new Cuba policy today, U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor urged the president to consider that expanded engagement would benefit the American people, the Cuban people and small businesses on both sides of the Florida Straits. The Tampa Democrat is oblivious to the facts.

With the monthly salary for an average Cuban set at $30, it is difficult to imagine how increased trade would benefit U.S. businesses. With a socialist economy determined to severely regulate the flow of capital to its citizens, it's impossible to envision the Cuban government allowing the birth of a middle class. With the Cuban authorities giving asylum to New Jersey cop-killer JoAnne Chesimard, it is unthinkable to extend an olive branch to those who don't respect American lives.

Since U.S. flights to Cuba were authorized in August 2016, American Airlines, Fort Lauderdale-based Silver Airways and Frontier have canceled or reduced their flights to the Caribbean island. And, after a year, Carnival is ending its Fathom line sailings to Cuba. "If American can't earn the profit that it requires from these routes, they're going to cut back on the flying. It's as simple as that," said Henry Harteveldt, the founder of the travel consultancy Atmosphere Research Group.

With the arrival of American tourists, the demand for rooms increased jacking up hotel prices to as high as $500 a night. Increased visitor numbers have also generated periodic shortages of beer and bottled water. Moreover, the Cuban authorities do not recognize the U.S. nationality of Cuban-born U.S. citizens and require them to procure Cuban passports thus creating an added expense for these travelers. All these inconveniences have tempered the demand for repeat visits.

President Barack Obama's Cuba opening was a one-sided gift to the Cuban government. Freedom-loving Americans await the unveiling of a Trump Cuba policy that would be a gift to Cuban and American citizens and businesses. My hope is that the president's policy will undo some of the one-sided concessions that Obama granted the Cuban authorities and demand an improvement in human rights.

Jorge E. Ponce, Trinity

Saving history, saving a nation | May 28, commentary

Understand our past

I don't often agree with Peggy Noonan's viewpoints, but this article was not only informative but spot-on. A nation that does not value its history has no soul. A sad testimony to this fact is that the victors of war write the history books.

Throughout my education, history was more than just memorizing dates; it was a written pictorial that gave me the unique gift of living vicariously through legendary, illustrious men and women so I could cherish their accomplishments within the context of their era. More importantly, it gave me an insight into their humanity.

Noonan's article adeptly dramatizes the need to change our school curriculums so that they represent an honest reflection of our past. Those who have no knowledge of history are destined to repeat it, and they are the poorer for it.

John Helleis, Spring Hill

My wife was a talented professional, not a racist | June 13, commentary

Officials let principal down

The Pinellas County School Board, administration heads and the superintendent definitely failed to support this wonderful educator.

They falsely said race is never considered when setting up class lists. Having been a teacher in Pinellas for 30 years, I know this is not true. Our county used to bus children to schools based on racial percentages. There has been talk of going back to that.

This poor principal was sacrificed so that county leaders did not have to deal with negative press and protesters. Shame on our school leaders. Shame on the person who leaked this information out of context to the press, and shame on the press for printing it!

Frances Glisson-Doyle, St. Petersburg

Friday's letters: Victory for freedom of speech 06/15/17 [Last modified: Thursday, June 15, 2017 5:41pm] Photo reprints | Article reprints

More here:

Friday's letters: Victory for freedom of speech - Tampabay.com

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Preserve history, freedom of speech – MDJOnline.com

EDITOR:

I enjoyed your article about this museum (Battle brews over Confederate flags at Nash Farm museum in Hampton), but I am disturbed that in 2017 the concern about Confederate flags would close a museum.

The flags in and around this museum and others like it do not worry me; its history. The saying, lest we forget, has special meaning to me, maybe a bit more than to others as Im Jewish and we take that comment very seriously.

There is a strong history in our time, remembering the slave camps of the Egyptian Pharaohs and the death camps of the Nazis where I lost many family members; fortunately not all.

Im also offended as a 90 percent disabled veteran who served 25 years on active duty to assure Americas freedoms, such as freedom of speech.

Howard May

Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Master Sergeant, U.S. Air Force (Retired)

Milton

Read the original:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Preserve history, freedom of speech - MDJOnline.com

My Turn: Respecting Mother – Concord Monitor

We Two Together pulls at me, drawing me in deeper and deeper, a visual manifestation of recent thoughts and feelings.

We Two Together is a sculpture by Michael Alfano, currently on exhibit overlooking a lush garden pond outside the Mill Brook Gallery and Sculpture Garden in Concord. The sculpture depicts two lovers, joined as one, surrounded, in turn, by the greater whole of natures embrace.

We Two Together resonates with me in the same frequency as an ecstasy poem I recently read by the Sufi poet, Rumi:

Your Love lifts my Soul from the body to the Sky

And you lift me up out of the two worlds.

I want your Sun to reach my raindrops,

So your heat can raise my Soul upward like a cloud.

It also brought to mind a provoking piece by Paul Kingsnorth in the current issue of Orion Magazine, suggesting we deal with climate change by awakening our sense of the sacred and practicing a new animism. His thoughts correspond with my own thinking.

I was converted to the notion that our Earth is a living, breathing organism since the 1960s, after first viewing that iconic photograph from space of our heavenly blue spaceship Earth, and later read James Lovelocks Gaia Hypothesis, which outlines how all of us as living beings interact with our inorganic surroundings to create a self-regulating system a giant living organism maintaining and perpetuating ideal conditions for life.

That notion still fills me with awe; it blows my socks off.

To my way of thinking, indigenous folks around the world have been right all along: The Earth is a living being; she is our Mother.

I am struck by that same soaring sense of awe when I view We Two Together. Not surprisingly, I have diametrically opposed feelings toward both our government officials and mainstream consumer society, which laugh at the idea of a living earth and sadly, as a secondary result, pooh-pooh the threat of climate change.

Who can deny, in our technological society, we take the Earth for granted, treating her like an inert object either a storehouse of commodities to be used and discarded or as a scenic background prop to our lives, as if we were staging a movie.

Increasingly, however, in this age of man-made climate change, we pollute at our own peril. While more of us perceive the danger, most offer as solutions only new government regulations or technical fixes. But, like the domestic abusers we are, I fear we will continue to defile the Earth until we recognize her sacred nature.

We have no choice but to change. The question is, will it be in time? Our survival along with that of most life forms on the planet depends on us stepping up in time to reclaim our primal forbearers reverence for our home.

Kingsnorth, in his essay, is not sure if we need a new religion, but he makes a powerful case for a renewal of the sacred to re-awaken in us a sense of awe and wonder for something bigger than us.

What could that something greater be? There is no need to theorize about it. What is greater than us is the Earth itself life and we are folded into it, a small part of it, and we have work to do. We need a new animism, a new pantheism, a new way of telling the oldest of stories. We could do worse than to return to the notion of the planet as the mother that birthed us. Those old stories have plenty to say about the fate of people who dont respect their mothers.

In the spirit of Rumi, poetic teller of the oldest of stories, we must reclaim our Earth for who she really is: a living, breathing body, our beloved other. She is our Mother, supporting and cradling us, the source of all life.

(Jean Stimmell is a semi-retired psychotherapist living with the two women in his life, Russet the artist and Coco the Plott hound, in Northwood. He blogs at jeanstimmell.blogspot.com.)

Visit link:

My Turn: Respecting Mother - Concord Monitor

Atheism, Women’s Rights, and Human Rights with Marie Alena Castle Q&A Session 1 – The Good Men Project (blog)

Marie Alena Castle is the communications director for Atheists for Human Rights.

She was raised Roman Catholicbut became an atheist. She has been important to atheism, Minnesota Atheists, The Moral Atheist,National Organization of Women, andwrote Culture Wars: The Threat to Your Family and Your Freedom (2013). She has a lifetime of knowledge and activist experience, which I wanted to explore and crystallise in an educational series. Here are the results.

Scott Jacobsen: You have a lifetime of experience in atheism, womens rights, and human rights. Of course, you were raised a Catholic, but this changed over the course of life. In fact, you have raised a number of children who became atheists themselves, and have been deeply involved in the issues on the political left around womens rights and human rights.

To start this series, what has been the major impediment to the progress of womens rights in the United States over the last 17 years?

Marie Alena Castle: Its actually at least the last 40 years. In the U.S., control of women is no longer about the right to vote or pursue careers. Those battles have been won. What is left is the religious rights last stand: womens right to abortion and the ultimate control over their own bodies. An anti-women legislative agenda began and has been going on ever since the Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v Wade decision.

Almost immediately, the U.S. Catholic Bishops established a Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities that reached down to every Catholic parish in the country. The bishops recruited Catholic academics, journalists, and political commentators to disseminate pro-life propaganda. They drew in Protestant fundamentalists and provided them with leaders such as Jerry Falwell. They organized to get pro-life politicians elected at every political level and eventually took over the Republican party.

I was there and watched it happen. We, Democratic feminists, worked almost non-stop to prevent a similar takeover of the Democratic party and, thankfully, were successful. The pro-life campaign has never stopped. Over a thousand bills have been, and are, proposed at the state and federal level to restrict womens access to contraceptives and abortion, as well as advantageous reproductive technologies that dont conform to irrational religious doctrines.

(Stephen Mumford has documented this in full detail in his book, The Life and Death of NSSM 200, which describes how the Catholic Church prevented any action on a Nixon-era national security memorandum that warned of the dangers of overpopulation and advocated the accessibility of contraceptives and abortion.)

Jacobsen: Who do you consider the most important womens rights and human rights activist in American history?

Castle: No contest. Its Margaret Sanger, hands down. Many people have spoken out and worked for womens rights throughout history, not just American history. But Sanger got us birth control. Without that, women remain slaves to natures reproductive mandate and can do little beyond producing and raising children.

This is often claimed to be a noble task. True enough. However, it always reminds me of the biblical story of Moses, who had the noble task of leading his people to the Promised Land, but because of some vague offense against Yahweh, he was condemned to see that Promised Land only from afar and never go there himself.

Women have raised children over the ages and have led them to the Promised Land of scientific achievements, Noble Prize Awards, academic honours, and so many others. But they and their daughters have seen that Promised Land only from afar and almost never allowed to go their themselves.

Sanger opened a path to that Promised Land by fighting to make contraceptives legal and available. The ability to control the time and circumstances of ones childbearing has made the fight for womens rights achievable in practical not just philosophical terms. She founded Planned Parenthood and we see how threatening that has been to the theocratic religious right. They cant seem to pass or try to pass enough laws to hinder womens ability to control their own bodies.

As for human rights in general, a good argument can be made that by freeing women half of the human population we free up everyone. As Robert Ingersoll said, There will never be a generation of great men until there has been a generation of free women.

Jacobsen: What is one of the more egregious public perceptions of atheists by the mainstream of the religious in America?

Castle: Its that atheists have no moral compass and therefore cannot be trusted to behave in a civilized manner. No one ever comes up with any evidence for that. Most people in prison identify themselves as religious. Studies that rank levels of prejudice for racism, sexism, and homophobia show nonbelievers at the lowest end of the graph generally below 10% and evangelicals at the very highest almost off the chart.

Ive had religious people tell me it is religious beliefs that keep people, including themselves, from committing violent crimes. I tell them I hope they hang onto their beliefs because otherwise, they would be a threat to public safety. As physicist Steven Weinberg said, Good people will do good and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, that takes religion. I have known good and evil atheists and good and evil religionists, but the only time I have seen a good person do evil, it was due to a religious belief.

I have also observed that liberal religionists generally share the same humanitarian values as most atheists, but to have that moral sense they had to abandon traditional religious beliefs. There is a lot of evil in religious doctrines. The 10 Commandments are almost totally evil. Read them and the descriptions of the penalties that follow. Read the part about what you are to sacrifice to Yahweh the firstborn of your livestock, your firstborn son Yup, thats what it says.

So they include dont kill, steal or bear false witness. There is nothing new about that. Its common civic virtue any community needs to function effectively. So religion promises a blissful afterlife. Ever stop to think what that might be like, forever and ever and ever and ever and ever? People believe that!? I so hope theyre wrong.

Jacobsen: Your life speaks to the convergence of atheism, womens rights, and human rights activism. How do these, in your own mind, weave into a single activist thread? What is the smallest thing American citizens, and youth, can do to become involved in this fabric?

Castle: We all are what we are. Im an activist because I cant help myself. Its who I am. Others would rather hang by their thumbs than do what I do. They like to get out in the yard and do gardening. You couldnt pay me enough or threaten me enough to get me to do that. We should just try to be honest and compassionate and cut everyone some slack as long as no one is getting hurt. Live and let live.

We are a fragile species, making the best of our short life spans, stuck here on this hunk of rock circling a ball of flaming gas that could eject a solar flare at any time that wipes us out. Life is, as Shakespeare said, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Just accept that. Its reality. Just be decent and helpful and try not to hurt anyone. If thats the limit of your activism, its still pretty good.

If you think it would be great to be able to do more and to be politically active but that is just not in your DNA, then settle for the next best thing: Find a political activist whose views you agree with and vote the way they tell you. That is the smallest thing you can do. If you did not vote in the last election you made yourself part of the problem and you see what we got. From now on, try to be part of the solution.

Previously published on Conatus News

Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Read the rest here:

Atheism, Women's Rights, and Human Rights with Marie Alena Castle Q&A Session 1 - The Good Men Project (blog)

An Essential College Atheist Reading List – Uloop News

College is the period in your life after adolescence and before adulthood where you truly discover who you are as an individual. Experimentation with drugs and ones sexuality are interestingbut far more profound and lasting is experimentation with new ideas. One such idea you should at least read up on is atheism.

Atheism is a philosophical movement that has existed for thousands of years, spreading across many borders and cultures over the course of time. Simply put, atheism is the rejection of belief in any god or supernatural dimension. Any variation on that simple premise qualifies as atheism: there are hard atheists (also called anti-theists), who state with firm belief that a god certainly doesnt exist, and there are also soft atheists who reject the notion of a god but remain open to the possibility. Some atheists still consider themselves spiritual, but separate contemplative practices like meditation from any kind of faith system.

Generally speaking, many atheists put heavy emphasis on the power of science and philosophy on our everyday lives, and assert the superiority of such a position over religious belief. Many books have been published to this effect, putting forward arguments against religion and belief in the supernatural. In this list, we explore 10 such works that offer an absolutely essential view of the arguments associated with atheism. Whether youre a skeptic yourself, a firm believer, or havent made up your mind yet, this list will provide the most helpful material available for understanding the minds of those who doubt.

10. Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell

The classic pamphlet by mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell that declares boldly: I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.

In it, Russell goes through the numerous reasons he finds the Christian religion, as well as religion generally, to be unconvincing in the extreme. Our narrator argues that to be a Christian, one must overcome the historical difficulties surrounding the life of Jesus and the authorship of the Bible something he contends is impossible to an impartial reader of the texts.

9. God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

Moved into action by what he saw as the creeping threat of theocracy in the world, the late journalist and literary critic treats his reader to a multifaceted critique of organized religion of every form, from Judaism and Christianity to Buddhism and Hinduism. Writing with profound wit and eloquence, Hitchens examines the texts and history of all the major faith traditions, showing explicitly where each allied itself with tribal violence and regressive thinking. Especially powerful is his exploration of how little humanity knew of science in the days when these religions came into existence, and how laden with obvious mythology each of them is. A thoroughly engaging read.

8. Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett

A philosopher and behavioral scientist at Tufts University, Dennett makes the case that religious belief must be treated as a proper scientific hypothesis that can either be supported or refuted (a topic which will appear later in this list). Dennett traces the development of religious thinking through evolutionary biology and social psychology, showing the thoroughly natural foundations for its claims. In true philosophical fashion, the last part of the book dismantles the idea that morality is derived from supernatural beliefs.

7. The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins

Evolutionary biologist and former Oxford professor Richard Dawkins lays out the factors that influenced the evolution of life on this planet and shows how it eventually culminated in Homo sapiens. In so doing, he demonstrates how the mechanism of natural selection requires no intervening god to guide the process.

The crucial point Dawkins makes here is that while we cant prove that a god didnt intervene in human evolution, whats important is that such a being is unnecessary; that is, we can understand nature in the exact same way if we abandon the notion that we are the center of the cosmos. This is summed up by one of the books most lyrical passages:

Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no minds eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

6. God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger

In this New York Times bestseller, physicist Victor Stenger proposes the idea of God as a scientific hypothesis like any other: an idea open to consideration and debate, and therefore thoughtful criticism and refutation. Like the earlier entry by Daniel Dennett, Stenger contends that if a god really does exist, then his (or her) presence must be measurable in some way by science.

However, whereas Dennett focused on the philosophical and cognitive underpinnings of belief, our author here focuses on the observable claims made by the faithful. Evidence of intelligent design in biology, the efficacy of prayer in medicine, signs of salvation in human behavioral psychology, the existence of an immaterial soul in physiology, and discoveries in physics that may point toward divine creation are all examined and systematically refuted. A wonderful resource for those skeptics wanting to debate with believers head-on.

5. The Atheist Universe by David Mills

An excellent primer to give as a gift to those who are considering atheism, Mills does a fine job of setting fire to the straw-men presented by theologians and laypeople alike. Written in concise, straightforward language, the author tends to shun the complicated arguments used by professional philosophers and scientists.

Mills clarifies the facts surrounding the classic questions like, How did the universe begin?, and Is there any meaning to life without religion? for those who are just beginning to ask these questions. This entry is especially profound because of its scope and accessible language that nearly anyone can follow.

4. Why There is No God by Armin Navabi

This entry is styled along a Q&A format; it offers a typical point in defense of religion or in criticism of unbelief and then responds to the point with a straightforward and concise answer. Much like the previous entry, this one gets props for being accessible to a larger audience. Lets face it with the trappings of modern college life, most people dont have the time or energy to read some massive title. For those who want fast clarification on tough topics, this one is the way to go.

3. The End of Faith by Sam Harris

Provoked into action by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris argues that, in the age of nuclear weapons and targeted missile strikes, humanity must abandon religious barbarism if we are to move beyond this century. As he says, the worst fear of any sane individual in the 21st century needs to be the possibility of a state possessing weapons of mass destruction, with the psychological equivalent of Osama bin Laden at its head. Harris makes an interesting caseand treads fearlessly into deep philosophical waters in this scathing critique of human tribalism.

2. The Portable Atheist by Various

If your goal is to understand the actual ideas of unbelievers, look no further. A massive anthology containing essays from unbelievers like Einstein, Darwin, Marx, Hume, Orwell, Twain, Sagan, Spinoza, and Lucretius, as well as more modern writers like Penn Jillette, Salman Rushdie, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, this anthology is packed with memorable essays and profound ideas.

To add to its appeal, the whole collection has been selected and edited by Christopher Hitchens, the wit and prose of whom know no end. It also doesnt hurt that this anthology is a veritable gold-mine of memorable quotes, among them: All logical arguments can be defeated by the simple refusal to reason logically from the physicist Steven Weinberg, and Who wishes that there was a permanent, unalterable celestial despotism that subjected us to continual surveillance and could convict us of thought-crime, and who regarded us as its private property even after we died? from the eloquent editor of this collection.

1. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

So rarely does a work achieve such a level of name-recognition among those who were never its intended audience. In its heyday, Dawkins attempt to convert believers to atheism resulted in the publishing of more than a dozen books responding to the claims presented. It landed him on news programs and in the pages of magazines and newspapers to take up the mantle of atheism in formal debate. Any proper list of atheist writings would not be complete without this iconic book, which has slowly become a symbol of rebellion from authority.

pixabay.com

View original post here:

An Essential College Atheist Reading List - Uloop News

NATO: Seeking Russias Destruction Since 1949

In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand one inch eastwards towards Russia. Baker told Gorbachev: Look, if you remove your [300,000] troops [from east Germany] and allow unification of Germany in NATO, NATO will not expand one inch to the east.

In the following year, the USSR officially dissolved itself. Its own defensive military alliance (commonly known as the Warsaw Pact) had already shut down. The Cold War was over.

So why hasnt NATO also dissolved, but instead expanded relentlessly, surrounding European Russia? Why isnt this a central question for discussion and debate in this country?

NATO: A Cold War Anti-Russian Alliance

Some challenge the claim that Bushs pledge was ever given, although Baker repeated it publicly in Russia. Or they argue that it was never put in writing, hence legally inconsequential. Or they argue that any promise made to the leadership of the Soviet Union, which went out of existence in 1991, is inapplicable to subsequent U.S.-Russian relations. But its clear that the U.S. has, to the consternation of the Russian leadership, sustained a posture of confrontation with its Cold War foe principally taking the form of NATO expansion. This expansion hardly receives comment in the U.S. mass media, which treats the entry of a new nation into NATO much as it does the admission of a new state into the UNas though this was altogether natural and unproblematic.

But recall the basic history. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in April 4, 1949, initially consisting of the U.S., Canada, U.K., France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Portugal, as a military alliance against the Soviet Union, and principally the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

It was formed just four years after the Soviets stormed Berlin, defeating the Nazis. (As you know, Germany invaded Russia six months before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor; the U.S. and USSR were World War II allies versus the fascists; the key victories in the European warMoscow, Stalingrad, Kurskwere Soviet victories over the Nazis; that U.S. soldiers only crossed the Rhine on March 22 as the Red Army was closing in on Berlin, taking the city between April 16 and May 2 at a cost of some 80,000 Soviet dead. If you dont know these things, youve been denied a proper education.)

In the four-year interim between Hitlers suicide and the formation of NATO, the two great victors of the war had divided Europe into spheres of influence. The neighboring Soviet Union had contributed disproportionately to the fascist defeat: over eight million military and over 12 million civilians dead, as compared to the far-off U.S., with losses of around 186,000 dead in the European theater and 106,000 in the Pacific.

It might seem strange that the lesser hero in this instance (in this epochal conflict against fascism) gets all the goodies in the battles aftermath: the U.S. created a bloc including Britain, France, Italy, most of Germany, the Low Countries, Portugal, and most of Scandinavia, while the Soviets asserted hegemonyor tried toover their generally less affluent client states. But the Soviets were not in any case interested primarily in drawing the richest nations into their fold; were that the case, they would not have withdrawn their troops from Austria in 1955.

Rather Russia, which had historically been invaded many times from the westfrom Sweden, Lithuania, Poland, France, and Germany multiple timeswanted preeminently to secure its western border. To insure the establishment of friendly regimes, it organized elections in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and elsewhere. (These had approximately as much legitimacy as elections held under U.S. occupation in Iraq or Afghanistan in later years, or at any point in Latin America). They brought the Eastern European peoples republics into existence.

The U.S. and British grumbled about the geopolitical advances of their wartime ally. In March 1946 former British Prime Minister Churchill while visiting the U.S. alluded to an iron curtain falling across Europe. (Perhaps he was unwittingly using the expression that Josef Goebbels had used just thirteen months earlier. The German propaganda minister had told a newspaper that if the German people lay down their weapons, the Sovietswould occupy all of EuropeAn iron curtain would fall over this enormous territory) Very scary.

But the U.S. was working hard at the time to consolidate its own bloc in Europe. In May 1947 the U.S. CIA forced the Italian and French governments to purge Communist members of cabinets formed after electoral successes the previous year. (The U.S. had enormous clout, bought through the $ 13 billion Marshall Plan begun in April 1947, designed to revive European capitalism and diminish the Marxist appeal.)

The CIA station chief in Rome later boasted that without the CIA, which funded a Red Scare campaign and fomented violent, even fatal clashes at events, the Communist Party would surely have won the [Italian] elections in 1948. (Anyone who thinks Soviets rigged elections while the U.S. facilitated fair ones as a matter of principle is hopelessly nave.)

Meanwhilebefore the establishment of NATO in April 1949the U.S. and Britain had been fighting a war in Greece since 1946 on behalf of the monarchists against the communist-led forces that had been the backbone of the anti-fascist movement during the World War II. The Communists had widespread support and may well have won the civil war if the Soviets had only supported them. But observing the understanding about spheres of influence agreed to at Yalta and Potsdam, Stalin refused appeals for Soviet aid from the Greek (and Yugoslav) Communists. The Greek partisans surrendered in Oct. 1949, six months after the formation of NATO. (But NATO was in fact not deployed in this military intervention in Greece, seen as the first Cold War U.S. military operation under thebroadly anticommunistTruman Doctrine.)

Just a month after NATO was formed, the pro-U.S. leaders in west Germany unilaterally announced the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany. (The pro-Soviet German Democratic Republic was declared only six months later. As in Korea, the Soviets promoted reunification of occupied sectors. But the U.S. was intent on establishing client states, and dividing nations if necessary to stem Soviet inroads. This was also the case with Vietnam.)

Four months after the creation of NATO the Soviets conducted their first successful nuclear test. The Cold War was underway in earnest.

NATO was thus formed to aggressively confront the USSR and exploit fears of a supposed threat of a westward Soviet strike (to impose the Soviet social system on unwilling peoples). That threat never materialized, of course.The Soviets cordoned off East Berlin from the west by the Berlin Wall in 1961 to prevent embarrassing mass flight. But they never invaded West Germany, or provoked any clash with a NATO nation throughout the Cold War. (Indeed, in light of the carnage visited on Europe since 1989, from civil wars in the Balkans and Caucasus to terrorist bombings in London, Madrid and Paris to the neo-fascist-led putsch in Ukraine last year, the Cold War appears in retrospect as a long period of relative peace and prosperity on the continent.)

Comparing U.S. and Russian/Soviet Aggression during the Cold War

NATO expanded in 1952, enlisting the now-pacified Greece and its historical rival, Turkey. In 1955 it brought the Federal Republic of Germany into the fold. Only thenin May 1956, seven years after the formation of NATOdid the Soviets establish, in response, their own defensive military alliance. The Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance (Warsaw Pact) included a mere eight nations (to NATOs 15): the USSR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Albania.

Warsaw Pact forces were deployed only once during the Cold War, to crush the reform movement in Czechoslovakia in 1968. (They were not used during the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, occurring five months after the founding of the alliance. That operation was performed by Soviet troops and loyalist Hungarian forces.) The Czechoslovakian intervention occasioned Albanias withdrawal from the pact, while Romania protested it and refused to contribute troops. Thus practically speaking, the Warsaw Pact was down to six members to NATOs 15. The western alliance expanded to 16 when Spain joined in 1982.

Between 1945 and 1991 (when the Warsaw Pact and the USSR both dissolved themselves), the U.S. had engaged in three major wars (in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf); invaded Grenada and Panama; and intervened militarily in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Haiti and other countries.

During that same period, the Soviets invaded eastern European nations twice (Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968), basically to maintain the status quo. Elsewhere, there was a brief border conflict with China in 1969 that killed around 150 soldiers on both sides. And the Soviets of course invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to shore up the secular regime faced with Islamist opposition. Thats about it. Actually, if you compare it to the U.S. record, a pretty paltry record of aggression for a superpower.

That Islamist opposition in Afghanistan, as we know, morphed into the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the group founded in Iraq by one-time bin Laden rival Abu Musab al-Zarqawi thats now called ISIL or the Islamic State. Referred toalmost affectionatelyby the U.S. press in the 1980s as the Mujahadeen (those engaged in jihad), these religious militants were lionized at the time as anti-communist holy warriors by Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski told the president six months before the Soviets sent in troops that by backing the jihadis the U.S. could induce a Soviet military intervention. The U.S., he declared, had the opportunity of giving the USSR its Vietnam War and could now bleed the Soviets as they had bled the U.S. in Vietnam.

(Linger for a moment on the morality here. The Soviets had helped the Vietnamese fight an unpopular, U.S.-backed regime and confront the horrors of the U.S. assault on their country. Nowto get back, as Brzezinski out itthe U.S. could help extreme Islamists whose minds are in the Middle Ages to induce Soviet intervention, so as to kill conscript Soviet boys and prevent the advent of modernity.)

The anti-Soviet jihadis were welcomed to the White House by President Ronald Reagan during a visit in 1985. Reagan, perhaps already showing the signs of Alzheimers disease, trumpeted them as the moral equivaent of Americas founding fathers. This is when the great bulk of U.S. (CIA) aid to the Mujahadeen was going into the coffers of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a vicious warlord now aligned with the Taliban. One of many former U.S. assets (Saddam Hussein included) who had a falling-out with the boss, he was the target of at least one failed CIA drone strike in 2002.

Thus the Soviets one and only protracted military conflict during the Cold War, lasting from December 1979 to February 1989 and costing some 14,000 Soviet lives, was a conflict with what U.S. pundits have taken to calling Islamist terrorism.

The Soviets were surely not facing anticommunists pining for freedom as this might be conceptualized in some modern ideology. The enemy included tribal leaders and clerics who objected to any changes in the status of girls and women, in particular their dress, and submission to patriarchal authority in such matters as marriage.

The would-be Soviet-backed revolutionaries faced religious fanatics ignorant about womens medical needs, hostile to the very idea of public clinics, and opposed to womens education, (In fact the Soviets were able to raise the literacy rate for women during the 1980sa feat not matched by the new occupiers since 2001but this was mainly due to the fact that they maintained control over Kabul, where women could not only get schooling but walk around without a headscarf.)

Those days ended when the Soviet-installed regime of Mohammad Najibullah was toppled by Northern Alliance forces in April 1992. Things only became worse. Civil war between the Pastun Hekmatyar and his Tajik rivals immediately broke out and Hekmatyars forces brutally bombarded the capitalsomething that hadnt happened during the worst days of the Soviet period.

As civil war deepened, the Taliban emerged, presenting itself as a morally upright, Sharia-based leadership. Acquiring a large social base, it took Kabul in September 1996. Among its first acts was to seize Najibullah, who had taken refuge in the UN compound in the city three years earlier, castrate him, and hang him publicly, denying him a proper Muslim burial.

Just as the neocons were crowing about the triumph of capitalism over communism, and the supposed end of history, the Frankensteins monster of Islamism reared up its ugly head. There were no tears shed in western capitals for Najibullah. But the Taliban were viewed with concern and distaste and the UN seat remained with the former Northern Alliance regime controlling just 10% of the country.

How the Cold War Encouraged Radical Islam

Surely the U.S.which had packed up and left after the Soviet withdrawl, leaving the Pakistanis with a massive refugee problem and Afghanistan in a state of chaoshad bled the Soviets, and anyone daring to ally with them. And surely this experience contributed to the realization of Brzezinskis fondest wish: the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But it also produced Islamist terrorism, big time, while the U.S.having once organized the recruitment and training of legions of jihadis from throughout the Muslim world to bleed the Sovietswas and is now obliged to deal with blow-back, and in its responses invariably invites more terror.

Is it not obvious that U.S. military actions against its various terrorist targets in the Greater Middle East, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya have greatly swelled the ranks of al-Qaeda branches as well as ISIL?

And does not the course of events in Afghanistanwhere the Kabul government remains paralyzed and inept, warlords govern the provincial cities, the Supreme Court sentences people to death for religious offenses, much of the countryside has been conceded to the Talibs and the militants are making inroads in the northconvince you that the U.S. should not have thrown in its lot with the jihadis versus the Soviet-backed secular forces thirty-five years ago?

In a 1998 interview by Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn Brzezinski was asked if he regretted having given arms and advice to future [Islamist] terrorists.

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isnt a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

In other words, winning the contest with Russiableeding it to collapsewas more important than any risk of promoting militant Islamic fundamentalism. It is apparent that that mentality lingers, when, even in the post-9/11 world, some State Department officials would rather see Damascus fall to ISIL than be defended by Russians in support of a secular regime.

NATO to the Rescue in the Post-Cold War World

Since the fall of the USSR, and the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact, what has NATO been up to? First of all, it moved to fill a power vacuum in the Balkans. Yugoslavia was falling apart. It had been neutral throughout the Cold War, a member of neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact. As governments fell throughout Eastern Europe, secessionist movements in the multiethnic republic produced widespread conflict. U.S. Secretary of State Baker worried that the breakup of Yugoslavias breakup would produce regional instability and opposed the independence of Slovenia.

But the German foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, and Chancellor Helmut Kohlflushed with pride at Germanys reunification and intent on playing a more powerful role in the worldpressed for Yugoslavias dismantling. (There was a deep German historical interest in this country. Nazi Germany had occupied Slovenia from 1941 to 1945, establishing a 21,000-strong Slovene Home Guard and planting businesses. Germany is now by far Slovenias number one trading partner.) Kohls line won out.

Yugoslavia, which had been a model of interethnic harmony, became torn by ethnic strife in the 1990s. In Croatia, Croatians fought ethnic Serbs backed by the Yugoslav Peoples Army; in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs quarreled over how to divide the land. In Serbia itself, the withdrawal of autonomy of the provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina produced outrage among ethnic Albanians. In 1995 images of emaciated Bosniak men and boys in Serb-constructed prison camps were widely publicized in the world media as Bill Clinton resolved not to let Rwanda (read: genocide!) happen again. Not on his watch. America would save the day.

Or rather: NATO would save the day! Far from being less relevant after the Cold War, NATO, Clinton claimed, was the onlyinternational force capable of handling this kind of challenge. And thus NATO bombed, and bombedfor the first time ever, in real waruntil the Bosnian Serbs pleaded for mercy. The present configuration of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a dysfunctional federation including a Serbian mini-republic, was dictated by U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher and his deputy Richard Holbrooke at the meeting in Dayton, Ohio in November 1995.

Russia, the traditional ally of the Serbs, was obliged to watch passively as the U.S. and NATO remapped the former Yugoslavia. Russia was itself in the 1990s, under the drunken buffoon Boris Yeltsin, a total mess. The economy was nose-diving; despair prevailed; male longevity had plummeted. The new polity was anything but stable. During the Constitutional Crisis of September-October 1993, the president had even ordered the army to bombard the parliament building to force the legislators to heed his decree to disband. In the grip of corrupt oligarchs and Wild West capitalism, Russians were disillusioned and demoralized.

Then came further insults from the west. During Yeltsins last year, in March 1999, the U.S. welcomed three more nations into: Czechoslovakia (later the Czech Republic and Slovakia), Hungary, and Poland. These had been the most powerful Warsaw Pact countries aside from the USSR and East Germany. This was the first expansion of NATO since 1982 (when Spain had joined) and understandably upset the Kremlin. What possible reason is there to expand NATO now? the Russians asked, only to be assured that NATO was not against anybody.

The Senate had voted to extend membership to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1998. At that time, George Kennanthe famous U.S. diplomat whod developed the cold war strategy of containment of the Soviet Unionwas asked to comment.

I think it is the beginning of a new cold war, averred the 94-year-old Kennan. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expansion advocates] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians arebut this is just wrong.

NATO Versus Serbia

In that same month of March 1999, NATO (including its three new members) began bombing the Serbian capital of Belgrade, the first time since World War II that a European capital was subjected to bombardment. The official reason was that Serbian state forces had been abusing the Albanians of Kosovo province; diplomacy had failed; and NATO intervention was needed to put things right. This rationale was accompanied by grossly exaggerated reports of Serbian security forces killings of Kosovars, supposedly amounting to genocide.

This was largely nonsense. The U.S. had demanded at the conference in Rambouillet, France, that Serbia withdraw its forces from Kosovo and restore autonomy to the province. Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic had agreed. But the U.S. also demanded that Belgrade accept NATO forces throughout the entire territory of Yugoslaviasomething no leader of a sovereign state could accept. Belgrade refused, backed by Russia.

A senior State Department official (likely U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) boasted to reporters that at Rambouillet we intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. . . . The Serbs needed a little bombing to see reason.Henry Kissinger (no peacenik) told the press in June: The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, and excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that an angelic Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form.

The U.S. had obtained UN approval for the NATO strikes on Bosnia-Herzegovina four years before. But it did not seek it this time, or try to organize a UN force to address the Kosovo problem. In effect, it insisted that NATO be recognized as the representative of the international community.

It was outrageous. Still, U.S. public opinion was largely persuaded that the Serbs had failed to negotiate peace in good faith and so deserved the bombing cheered on by the press, in particular CNNs senior international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, a State Department insider who kept telling her viewers, Milosevic continues to thumb his nose at the international communitybecause hed refused a bullying NATO ultimatum that even Kissinger identified as a provocation!

After the mass slaughter of Kosovars became a reality (as NATO bombs began to fall on Kosovo), and after two and a half months of bombing focused on Belgrade, a Russian-brokered deal ended the fighting. Belgrade was able to avoid the NATO occupation that it had earlier refused. (In other words, NATO had achieved nothing that the Serbs hadnt already conceded in Rambouillet!)

As the ceasefire went into effect on June 21, a column of about 30 armored vehicles carrying 250 Russian troops moved from peacekeeping duties in Bosnia to establish control over Kosovos Pristina Airport. (Just a little reminder that Russia, too, had a role to play in the region.)

This took U.S. NATO commander Wesley Clark by surprise. He ordered that British and French paratroopers be flown in to seize the airport but the British General Sir Mike Jackson wisely balked. Im not going to have my soldiers start World War III, he declared.

I think it likely this dramatic last minute gesture at the airport was urged by the up-and-coming Vladimir Putin, a Yeltsin advisor soon to be appointed vice-president and then Yeltsins successor beginning in December 1999. Putin was to prove a much more strident foe of NATO expansion than his embarrassing predecessor.

Cooperation Meets with Provocation

Still, recall how two years laterafter 9/11, 2001, when the U.S. invoking the NATO charter called upon its NATO allies to engage in war in AfghanistanPutin offered to allow the alliance to transport war material to Afghanistan through Russian territory. (In 2012 Foreign Minister Lavrov offered NATO the use of a base in Ulyanovsk to transport equipment out of Afghanistan.) This Afghan invasion was only the third actual deployment of NATO forces in war, after Bosnia and Serbia, and Moscow accepted it matter-of-factly. It even muted its concerns when the U.S. established military bases in the former Soviet Central Republics of Uzbekistan and Kirghizia.

But in 2004, NATO expanded againto include Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all of which had been part of the USSR itself and which border Russia. At the same time Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia were admitted, along with Slovakia, which had become separate from the Czech Republic. Russians again asked, Why?

In 2007 the U.S. began negotiating with the Poles to install a NATO missile defense complex in Poland, with a radar system in the Czech Republic. Supposedly this was to shoot down any Iranian missiles directed towards Europe in the future! But Moscow was furious, accusing the U.S. of wanting to launch another arms race. Due largely to anti-militarist sentiment among the Poles and Czechs, these plans were shelved in 2009. But they could be revived at any time.

In 2008, then, the U.S. recognized its dependency Kosovo, now hosting the largest U.S. Army base (Camp Bondsteel) outside the U.S., as an independent country. Although the U.S. had insisted up to this point that it recognized Kosovo as a province of Serbia (and perhaps even understood its profound significance as the heartland of Serbian Orthodoxy), it now (through Condoleezza Rice) proclaimed Kosovo a sui generis (one of a kind) phenomenon. So forget about international law; it just doesnt apply.

In this same year of 2008, NATO announced boldly that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO. ThereuponGeorgias comical President Mikheil Saakasvili bombarded Tskhinvali, capital of the self-declared Republic of South Ossetia that had resisted integration into the current Republic of Georgia since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. In this instance Russia defended South Ossetia, invading Georgia. It then recognized the independence, both of South Ossetia and of the Republic of Abkhazia, from Georgia. (This may be seen as a tit-for-tat response to the U.S.s decision to recognize Kosovos independence from Serbia six months earlier.)

It was a six-day war, resulting in about 280 military fatalities (including 100 on the South Ossetian-Russian side) and about 400 civilian deaths. And there has been no Russian war since. Crimea was not invaded last year but simply seized by Russian forces in place, with general popular support. And theres little evidence that the regular Russian military is confronting Ukrainian state forces; ethnic Russians are doing so, receiving no doubt support from cousins across the historically changeable border. But the charge of a Russian invasion of Ukraine is a State Department talking pointpropaganda automatically parroted by the official press sock-puppet pundits, not a contemporary reality.

Georgias Saakasvili perhaps expected the U.S. to have his back as he provoked Moscow in August 2008. But while he received firm support from Sen. John McCain, who declared We are all Georgians now, he received little help from the George W. Bush State Department wary of provoking World War III. Georgia was not yet a NATO member able to cite the NATO charters mutual defense clause

Saakasvili left office in 2010 and is now under indictment by the Georgian courts for abuses in office. After a brief stint at the Fletcher School of International Law and Diplomacy in 2014, he acquired Ukrainian citizenshiplosing his Georgian citizenship as a resultand (as one of many examples of how crazy the current Kiev leadership including Yatsenyev and Poroshenko can be) was appointed governor of Odessa last May!

Given the debacle of 2008, countries such as Germany are unlikely to accept Georgian admission any time soon. They do not see much benefit in provoking Russia by endlessly expanding the Cold War defensive alliance. Still, Croatia and Albania were added to NATO in 2009, in the first year of the Obama administrationjust in time to participate in NATOs fourth war, against Libya.

Again there was no reason for a war. Colonel Gadhafy had been downright cordial towards western regimes since 2003, and closely cooperated with the CIA against Islamist terrorism. But when the Arab Spring swept the region in 2011, some western leaders (headed by French president Nicolas Sarkozy, but including the always hawkish Hillary Clinton) convinced themselves that Gadhafys fall was imminent, and so it would be best to assist the opposition in deposing him and thus get into the good graces of any successors.

The UN Security Council approved a resolution to establish a no-fly zone for the protection of civilians from Gadhafys supposedly genocidal troops. But what NATO unleashed was something quite different: a war on Gadhafy, which led to his brutal murder and to the horrible chaos that has reigned since in Libya, now a reliable base for al-Qaeda and ISIL. Russia and China both protested, as the war was still underway, that NATO had distorted the meaning of the UN resolution. Its unlikely that the two Security Council permanent members will be fooled again into such cooperation.

We can therefore add the failed state of Libya to the dysfunctional states of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Afghanistan, to our list of NATO achievements since 1991. To sum up: Since the collapse of the USSR, the U.S. and some allies (usually in their capacity as NATO allies) have waged war on Bosnian Serbs, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, while striking targets in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere with impunity. Russia has gone to war precisely once: for eight days in August 2008, against Georgia.

And yet every pundit on mainstream TV news tells you with a straight face that Putins the one who invades countries.

What Is the Point of NATO Expansion?

So while NATO has expanded in membership, it has showing a growing proclivity to go to war, from Central Asia to North Africa. One must wonder, what is the point?

The putative point in 1949 was the defense of Western Europe against some posited Soviet invasion. That rationale is still used; when NATO supporters today speak in favor of the inclusion of Lithuania, for example, they may state that, if Lithuania had remained outside the alliancethe Russians would surely have invaded by now on the pretext of defending ethnic Russians rights, etc.

There is in fact precious little evidence for Russian ambitions, or Putins own ambitions, to recreate the tsarist empire or Soviet Union. (Putin complained just a few days ago, We dont want the USSR back but no one believes us. Hes also opined that people who feel no nostalgia for the Soviet Unionas most citizens of the former USSR young enough to remember it say they dohave no heart, while those who want to restore it have no brains.)

As NATO expanded inexorably between 1999 and 2009, Russia responded not with threats but with calm indignation.

Putins remarks about the dissolution of the Soviet Union being a geopolitical tragedy, and his occasional words addressing the language and other rights of Russians in former SSRs, do not constitute militarist threats. As always the neocons cherry-pick a phrase here and there as they try to depict Putin as (yet) another Hitler. In fact the Russians have, relatively speaking, been voices of reason in recent years, Alarmed at the consequences of U.S. actions in the Middle East, they have sought to restrain U.S. imperialism while challenging Islamist terrorism.

In August 2013 Obama threatened to attack Syria, ostensibly to punish the regime for using chemical weapons against its people. (The original accusation has been discredited by Seymour Hersh among others.) Deft intervention by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and the refusal of the British House of Commons to support an attack (insuring it would not, like the Iraq War, win general NATO endorsement), and domestic opposition all helped avert another U.S. war in the Middle East.

But its as though hawks in the State Department, resentful at Russias success in protecting its Syrian ally from Gadhafys fate, and miffed at its continued ability to maintain air and naval facilities on the Syrian coast, were redoubling their efforts to provoke Russia. How better to do this than by interfering in Ukraine, which had not only been part of the Soviet Union but part of the Russian state from 1654 and indeed was the core of the original Kievan Rus in the tenth century?

NATO had been courting Ukraine since 1994five years before the alliance expanded to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Kiev signed the NATO Membership Action Plan in 2008 when Viktor Yushchenko was president, but this was placed on hold when Viktor Yanukovych was elected in 2010. Enjoying the solid support of the Russian-speaking east, Yanukovich won what international observers called a free and fair election.

Yanukovich did not want Ukraine to join NATO: he wanted a neutral Ukraine maintaining the traditional close relationship between the Ukraine and Russia. This infuriated Victoria Nuland, the head of the Eurasia desk at the State Department, who has made it her lifes project to pull Ukraine into NATO. This would be NATOs ultimate prize in eastern Europe: a country of 44 million well-educated people, the size of France, strategically located on the Black Sea historically dominated by the Russian Black Sea Fleet. An ethnically divided country, with a generally pro-Russian and Russian-speaking east, and a more western-oriented Ukrainian-speaking west with an unusually vigorous and fiercely anti-Russian neofascist movementjust there waiting to be used.

Nuland, a former Cheney aide whose neocon worldview drew Hillary Clintons favorable attention, resulting in her promotion, is the wife of neocon pundit and Iraq War cheerleader Robert Kagan. (Kagan was a founding member of the notorious Project for a New American Century think tank.) The couple represents two wings of incessant neocon plotting: those who work to destroy Russia, and those who work to destroy the Middle East, consciously using lies to confuse the masses about their real goals.

At the National Press Club in December 2013, Nuland boasted that the U.S. (through such NGOs as the National Endowment for Democracy) had spent $ 5 billion in Ukraine in order to support Ukraines European aspirations. This deliberately vague formulation is supposed to refer to U.S. support for Kievs admission into the European Union. The case the U.S. built against Yanukovich was not that he rejected NATO membership; that is never mentioned at all. She built the case on Yanukovichs supposed betrayal of his peoples pro-EU aspirations in having first initialed, and then rejected, an association agreement with the trading bloc, fearing it would mean a Greek-style austerity regime imposed on the country from without.

From November 2013 crowds gathered in Kievs Maidan to protest (among other things) Yanukovichs change of heart about EU membership. The U.S. State Department embraced their cause. One might ask why, when the EU constitutes a competing trading bloc, the U.S. should be so interested in promoting any countrys membership in it. What difference does it make to you and me whether Ukraine has closer economic ties to Russia than to the EU?

The dirty little secret here is that the U.S. goal has merely been to use the cause of joining Europe to draw Ukraine into NATO, which could be depicted as the next natural step in Ukraines geopolitical realignment.

Building on popular contempt for Yanukovich for his corruption, but also working with politicians known to favor NATO admission and the expulsion of Russian naval forces from the Crimean base theyve had since the 1780s, and also including neo-fascist forces who hate Russia but also loath the EU, Nuland and her team including the ubiquitous John McCain popped up at the Maidan passing out cookies and encouraging the crowd to bring down the president.

It worked, of course. On Feb. 22, within a day of signing a European-mediated agreement for government reforms and new election, and thinking the situation defused, Yanukovich was forced to flee for his life. The neofascist forces of Svoboda and the RightSector served as storm troops toppling the regime. Nulands Machiavellian maneuverings had triumphed; a neocon Jew had cleverly deployed open anti-Semites to bring down a regime and plant a pro-NATO one in its place.

It seemed as though, after 14 years of expansion, NATO might soon be able to welcome a huge new member into its ranks, complete the encirclement of Russia and, booting out the Russian fleet, turn the Black Sea into a NATO lake.

Alas for the neocons and liberal interventioniststhe new regime of Nulands chosen Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his Svoboda Party allies immediately alienated the eastern Russian-speaking population, which remains up in arms making the country ungovernable, even as its economy collapses; and the notion of expelling the Russians from Sevastopol has become unimaginable.

But what do NATO planners want? Where is all the expansion and reckless provocation heading?

Russia: an Existential Threat?

First of all, the NATO advocates, however often they repeat that Were not against Russia, this isnt about Russia, do indeed posit an enduring Russian threat. Thus General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, the most senior British officer in NATO, stated last February that Russia poses an obvious existential threat to our whole being. Gen. Joseph Votel, head of the U.S. Special Operations Command told the Aspen Security Forum in July that Russia could pose an existential threat to the United States.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) warned Obama to sign a military appropriations bill because Russia poses an existential threat to the U.S. Philanthropist George Soros (who likes to finance color revolutions) wrote in the New York review of Books in October that Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence.

These are wild, stupid words coming from highly placed figures. Isnt it obvious that Russia is the one being surrounded, pressured and threatened? That its military budget is a fraction of the U.S.s, its global military presence miniscule in relation to the U.S. footprint?

But anyone watching the U.S. presidential candidates debatesand who can perceive the prevalence of paranoia about Russia, the unthinking acceptance of the Putin as Hitler theme, and the obligatory expression of determination to make America more strongcan understand why the expansion of NATO is so horribly dangerous.

People who do not think rationally or whose minds are twisted by arrogance can look at the maps of NATO expansion and think proudly, This is how it should be! Why would anyone question the need for nations to protect themselves by allying with the United States? Its alliances like NATO that preserve peace and stability in the world.

Read the original:

NATO: Seeking Russias Destruction Since 1949

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) | Council on …

Introduction

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a cornerstone of transatlantic security during the Cold War, has significantly recast its role in the past twenty years. Founded in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet aggression, NATO has evolved to confront threats ranging from piracy off the Horn of Africa to maritime security in the Mediterranean. But Russian actions in recent years, particularly its 2014 intervention in Ukraine, have refocused the alliance's attention on the continent. Recent developments have also exposed unresolved tensions over NATO's expansion into the former Soviet sphere.

After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, Western leaders intensely debated the future direction of the transatlantic alliance. President Bill Clinton's administration favored expanding NATO to both extend its security umbrella to the east and consolidate democratic gains in the former Soviet bloc. On the other hand, some U.S. officials wished to peel back the Pentagon's commitments in Europe with the fading of the Soviet threat.

European members were also split on the issue. London feared NATOs expansion would dilute the alliance, while Paris believed it would give NATO too much influence. Many in France hoped to integrate former Soviet states via European institutions. There was also concern about alienating Russia.

For the White House, the decision held larger meaning. [President Clinton] considered NATO enlargement a litmus test of whether the U.S. would remain internationally engaged and defeat the isolationist and unilateralist sentiments that were emerging, wrote Ronald D. Asmus, one of the intellectual architects of NATO expansion, inOpening NATO's Door.

In his first trip to Europe as president, in January 1994, Clinton announced that NATO enlargement was no longer a question of whether but when and how.Just days before, alliance leaders approved the launch of thePartnership for Peace, a program designed to strengthen ties with Central and Eastern European countries, including many former Soviet republics like Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine.

Many defense planners also felt that a postCold War vision for NATO needed to look beyond collective defenseArticle V of theNorth Atlantic Treatystates that an armed attack against one or more [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them alland focus on confronting acute instability outside its membership. The common denominator of all the new security problems in Europe is that they all lie beyond NATO's current borders, said Senator Richard Lugar (RIN) in a1993 speech.

The breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and the onset of ethnic conflict tested the alliance on this point almost immediately. What began as a mission to impose a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina evolved into a bombing campaign on Bosnian Serb forces that many military analysts say was essential to ending the conflict. It was duringOperation Deny Flight[PDF] in April 1994 that NATO conducted its first combat operations in its forty-year history, shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft.

In 2017, NATO pursues several missions: security assistance in Afghanistan; peacekeeping in Kosovo; maritime security patrols in the Mediterranean; support for African Union forces in Somalia; and policing the skies over eastern Europe.

Headquartered in Brussels, NATO is a consensus-based alliance, where decisions must reflect the membership's collective will. However, individual states or subgroups of allies may initiate action outside NATO auspices. For instance, France, the UK, and the United States began policing a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone in Libya in early 2011 and within days transferred command of the operation to NATO (once Turkish concerns had been allayed). Member states are not required to participate in every NATO operation. For instance, Germany and Poland declined to contribute directly to the campaign in Libya.

NATO's military structure is divided between two strategic commands: the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, located near Mons, Belgium; and the Allied Command Transformation, located in Norfolk, Virginia. TheSupreme Allied Commander Europeoversees all NATO military operations and is always a U.S. flag or general officer (currently Army General Curtis M. Scaparrotti). Although the alliance has an integrated command, most forces remain under their respective national authorities until NATO operations commence.

NATO's secretary-general (currently Norway'sJens Stoltenberg) serves a four-year term as chief administrator and international envoy. TheNorth Atlantic Councilis the alliance's principal political body, composed of high-level delegates from each member state.

The primary financial contribution made by member states is the cost of deploying their respective armed forces for NATO-led operations. These expenses are not part of theformal NATO budget, which funds alliance infrastructure including civilian and military headquarters. In 2015, NATO members collectively spent more than$890 billion on defense[PDF]. The United States accounted for more than 70 percent of this, up from about half during the Cold War.

NATO members have committed to spending 2 percent of their annual GDP on defense, but by 2016 just five out of the twenty-eight members met this thresholdthe United States (3.6), Greece (2.4), the United Kingdom (2.2), Estonia (2.2), and Poland (2). U.S. officials have regularly criticized European members for cutting their defense budgets, but the Trump administration has taken a more assertive approach, suggesting the United States may reexamine its treaty obligations if the status quo persists. If your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense,U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattistold counterparts in Brussels in February 2016.

NATO invoked its collective defense provision (Article V) for the first time following the September 11 attacks on the United States, perpetrated by the al-Qaeda terrorist network based in Afghanistan. Shortly after U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban regime in Kabul, theUN Security Council authorizedan International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to support the new Afghan government. NATO formally assumed command of ISAF in 2003, marking its first operational commitment beyond Europe. The fact the alliance was used in Afghanistan "was revolutionary," said NATO expertStanley Sloanin a CFR interview. It was proof the allies have adapted [NATO] to dramatically different tasks than what was anticipated during the Cold War.

But some critics questioned NATO's battlefield cohesion. While allies agreed on the central goals of the missionthe stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistansome members restricted their forces from participating in counterinsurgency and other missions, a practice known as national caveats. Troops from Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, and the United States saw some of the heaviest fighting and bore the most casualties, stirring resentments among alliance states. NATO commanded more than 130,000 troops from more than fifty alliance and partner countries at the height of its commitment in Afghanistan. After thirteen years of war, ISAF completed its mission in December 2014.

In early 2015, NATO and more than a dozen partner countries began anoncombat support missionof about thirteen thousand troops (roughly half are U.S.) to provide training, funding, and other assistance to the Afghan government.

Moscow has viewed NATO's postCold War expansion into Central and Eastern Europe with great concern. Many current and former Russian leaders believe the alliance's inroads into the former Soviet sphere are a betrayal ofalleged guaranteesto not expand eastward after Germanys reunification in 1990although some U.S. officials involved in these discussions dispute this pledge.

Most Western leaders knew the risks of enlargement. If there is a long-term danger in keeping NATO as it is, there is immediate danger in changing it too rapidly. Swift expansion of NATO eastward could make aneo-imperialist Russiaa self-fulfilling prophecy, wrote Secretary of State Warren Christopher in theWashington Postin January 1994.

Over the years, NATO and Russia took significant steps toward reconciliation, particularly with their signing of the1997 Founding Act, which established an official forum forbilateral discussions. But a persistent lack of trust has plagued relations.

NATO's Bucharest Summit in the spring of 2008 deepened suspicions. While the alliance delayed Membership Action Plans for Ukraine and Georgia, it vowed to support their full membership down the road, despite repeated warnings from Moscow of political and military consequences. Russia's invasion of Georgia that summer was a clear signal of Moscow's intentions to protect what it sees as its sphere of influence, experts say.

Russia's annexation of Crimea and destabilization of eastern Ukraine in 20142017 have poisoned relations with NATO for the foreseeable future. We clearly face thegravest threat to European securitysince the end of the Cold War, said NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen after Russia's intervention in March 2014. Weeks later, NATO suspended all civilian and military cooperation with Moscow.

In an address honoring theannexation of Crimea, President Vladimir Putin expounded Russia's deep-seated grievances with the alliance. They have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact. This happened with NATO's expansion to the East, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders, he told Russia's parliament. In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous [Western] policy of containment, led in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, continues today.

Incongressional testimony[PDF] in March 2017, General Scaparrotti said a resurgent Russia has turned from partner to antagonist, and has remained one of the top security challenges in Europe. Moscow continued to flex its military muscles in the region, he said, sending its sole aircraft carrier on its first-ever combat deployment, moving nuclear-capable missiles into Kaliningrad, and conducting significant operations in Ukraine and Syria. Meanwhile, Moscow pursued malign activities short of war, including misinformation and hacking campaigns against European member states, he said. The Kremlin has denied allegations it attempted to interfere in U.S. and European elections.

Ahead of a NATO summit in May 2017, Montenegro was expected to become the twenty-ninth member of the alliance, the first since Albania and Croatia joined in 2009. In a statement on the former Yugoslav republics accession, theWhite House notedto other NATO hopefuls that the door to membership in the Euro-Atlantic community of nations remains open and that countries in the Western Balkans are free to choose their own future and select their own partners without outside interference or intimidation. The Kremlin has warned thatNATOs eastward expansioncannot but result in retaliatory actions.

Another perennial point of contention has been NATO'sballistic missile defense shield, which is being deployed across Europe in several phases. The United States, which developed the technology, has said the system is only designed to guard against limited missile attacks, particularly from Iran. However, the Kremlin says the technology could be updated and may eventuallytip the strategic balancetoward the West.

Fears of further Russian aggression have prompted alliance leaders to reinforce defenses on its eastern flank. Since its Wales Summit in 2014, NATO has ramped up military exercises and opened new command centers in eight member states: Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. The outposts, which are modestly staffed, are intended to support a newrapid reaction forceof about twenty thousand, including five thousand ground troops. In a major emergency, NATO military planners say that a multinational force of about forty thousand can be marshaled. At the Warsaw Summit in 2016, allies agreed to rotate four battalions (about four thousand troops) through Poland and the Baltic states. The United States has added an Army armored brigade to the two it has in the region, under its European Reassurance Initiative.

Meanwhile, NATO members, particularly Denmark, Germany, the UK, and the United States have increased air patrols over Poland and the Baltics. In 2015, NATO jets scrambled tointerceptRussian warplanesviolating allied airspace some four hundred times. In 2016 this number doubled, alliance officials said.

NATO members have also boosted direct security collaboration with Ukraine, an alliance partner since 1994. But as a nonmember, Ukraine remains outside of NATO's defense perimeter, and there are clear limits on how far it can be brought into institutional structures. The UK and the United States sent modest detachments of troops to train Ukrainian personnel in 2015, but the United States has refrained from providing Kiev with lethal weapons to help counter the Russia-backed insurgency out of fear this would escalate the conflict.

In the longer term, some defense analysts believe the alliance should consider advancing membership toFinland and Sweden, two Partnership for Peace countries with a history of avoiding military alignment. Both countries have welcomed greater military cooperation with NATO following Russias intervention in Ukraine. (Nordic peers Denmark, Iceland, and Norway are charter NATO members.)

Continued here:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) | Council on ...

Lawmaker warns: Some NATO allies still using Russian equipment – Washington Examiner

A House Republican lawmaker said Thursday that some members of the NATO alliance are still dependent on Russia for military equipment for their air and ground forces, which is makes it harder for the U.S. to count on them as allies.

"We have not weaned them off," Rep. Paul Cook, a retired Marine Corps colonel, said of those countries during a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing.

The California Republican said the use of "Soviet-style" equipment is a complicating factor for U.S. policy. It leaves the eastern European NATO allies vulnerable to Russian aggression, in addition to complicating their efforts to fulfill President Trump's demand that they increase military spending.

"They still have to go back to the new Russia for those things that they have [had] for years and until they become a total member of NATO in terms of our military equipment and everything else, I think it diminishes their capability as a true ally," Cook told Pentagon and State Department officials during the hearing.

Cook urged the Trump administration to sell eastern European allies American military equipment that can replace the Russian weapons systems. "It doesn't seem like a big priority, and yet, countries there, they've been with us and everything else, but we expect them to come to the fight when and if the Russians come across," he said.

The allies have to want to make such deals, though. "I am seeing on my travels a desire to move away from Russian equipment and into NATO standard type equipment," Vice Admiral Joseph Rixey, director of the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, told Cook. "We are prepared to execute if requested."

The prevalence of Russian military equipment among some U.S. allies also hampered efforts to impose new sanctions again Russia in response to its aggression in Syria and Ukraine, and cyberattacks against the Democratic party in 2016.

"We're looking long and hard about allies that have Russian equipment," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told the Washington Examiner about a new Russia sanctions bill that passed the Senate today. "I think they negotiated a pretty good compromise ... what we're trying to do is make sure we don't undermine our allies but also go after [Russian President Vladimir] Putin."

See the article here:

Lawmaker warns: Some NATO allies still using Russian equipment - Washington Examiner

NATO – News: Norway strengthens scientific cooperation with NATO … – NATO HQ (press release)

Scientists and experts from Norway and NATO partner countries discussed opportunities for practical cooperation to address common emerging security challenges during a Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme Information Day held in Oslo on 14 June 2017. Successful cooperation between Norway and NATOs SPS Programme included activities in the areas of Women, Peace and Security and unexploded ordnance (UXO) detection.

Organised in cooperation with the Norwegian Delegation to NATO and the Norwegian Research Council, the SPS Information Day provided an opportunity to exchange on possibilities for capacity-building and research cooperation with partners in defence and advanced technologies such as cyber defence, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) technology and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) defence.

Norway has traditionally been a strong partner in the SPS programme, said Rune Resaland, Head of Department for Security Policy and the High North, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the period from 2000 until 2014, Norwegian researchers participated in more than 60 SPS projects. Currently, there is only one project with Norwegian involvement in the SPS. We hope that the SPS Information Day can contribute to more interest for SPS in Norway and sow the seeds for projects between Norwegian researchers and international partners in the future.

Human and social aspects of security, including civil-military relations, counter-terrorism and the Women, Peace and Security issues were a focus of discussions. Norway recently conducted an SPS research workshop aimed at sharing good practices for handling gender-related complaints in the armed forces, co-organised by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). Experts dealing with gender-related harassment and discrimination engaged in a frank and open discussion and exchanged best practices. Their work resulted in the publication entitled Gender and Complaints Mechanisms Handbook to prevent and respond to gender-related discrimination.

Norway is also working with Ukraine on an SPS multi-year project to develop a 3D mine detector. This project complements other SPS efforts in support of humanitarian demining and forms part of NATOs Comprehensive Assistance Package for Ukraine that was endorsed at the Warsaw Summit last year, says Dr Jamie Shea, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges. Together, these countries aim to design a state-of-the-art digital ground penetrating radar system which will detect dangerous targets such as mines, improvised explosive devices and explosive remnants of war. The device will provide a visual 3D image and automatically recognise the type of the detected object in up to three meters depth. Ultimately, the technology will allow faster, cheaper and safer clearance of former conflict zones and help to avoid victims among civilians and the military.

Go here to read the rest:

NATO - News: Norway strengthens scientific cooperation with NATO ... - NATO HQ (press release)

NATO staff members teach VB students about different cultures – WAVY-TV


WAVY-TV
NATO staff members teach VB students about different cultures
WAVY-TV
(WAVY) Surrounded by little hands and waving flags from countries all over the world, Lieutenant Colonel Jens Assum was one of nine NATO Allied Command Transformation (ACT) members who visited Holland Elementary School on Wednesday. Assum ...

Continue reading here:

NATO staff members teach VB students about different cultures - WAVY-TV

Nato supersonic jets and massive military vehicles storm a beach in … – The Sun

Some 6,000 troops from 14 countries are taking part in the alliances Baltops (Baltic Operations) exercise in Poland and Germany this month

SUPERSONIC bombers have spearheaded an amphibious assault as part of a massive Nato military exercise on Russias doorstep.

Some 6,000 troops from 14 countries are taking part in the alliances Baltops (Baltic Operations) exercise in the Batlic Sea this month.

Rex Features

Rex Features

Rex Features

Rex Features

Rex Features

Dramatic pictures show troops storming a beach in Ustka, Poland, yesterday.

Soldiers and vehicles charged ashore as aircraft whizzed by overhead in a terrifying display of force.

The manoeuvres began in Szczecin, Poland, on June 1, and will end in Kiel, Germany, tomorrow.

The aim of the exercise which is taking place in Russias backyard is for Nato and its allies to strengthen cooperation.

US Navy Vice Admiral Christopher Grady said: What we want to do is practice and demonstrate the ability to deliver sea control and power projection at and from the sea.

Baltops involves troops from Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the UK, the US, Finland and Sweden.

Rex Features

Rex Features

Rex Features

Rex Features

Alamy

Alamy

Some 50 ships and submarines and over 50 aircraft were also present for the drills including B-1 and B-52 bombers, and F-16 fighter jets.

US Navy Commander Edward Chandler said: This exercise is a great opportunity for the United States, Nato allies and partners to practice air and maritime integration.

Baltops is not a new event, and has been taking place since 1972.

Rex Features

Alamy

Rex Features

EPA

Rex Features

Grady added: Weve maintained a consistent level of participation over the last couple of years.

Its a very large exercise with a lot of moving parts and the participants will provide that realistic and challenging training were looking for.

The exercise comes after US B-52 bombers were intercepted over the Baltic by Russian fighter jets.

SU-27s were deployed to head off the aircraft, which the US says were flying in international airspace at the time.

Alamy

Alamy

Rex Features

EPA

Rex Features

The Baltic has been a source of tension between Nato and Russia in recent times, with both sides building up their military presence in the region.

Baltic States like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania fear they could be next on Vladimir Putins hit-list after Russias invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

Just last month, Russia announced it was planning to beef up its Baltic fleet with new warships and fighter jets.

According to an analyst writing for state-owned Sputnik News, the deployment is in response to aggressive manoeuvres by Nato powers.

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.uk or call 0207 782 4368

More here:

Nato supersonic jets and massive military vehicles storm a beach in ... - The Sun

Susan Collins Says Russia Had ‘Truly Provocative’ Reaction to Montenegro Joining NATO – Maine Public

Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says shes alarmed over Russian reaction to NATOs newest member, a country with close military ties to Maine: Montenegro.

The Maine National Guard has a longtime state partnership with Montenegro, and actually helped them get ready for ascension into NATO something Im very proud of, she says.

The Balkan country, part of the former Yugoslavia, became the 29th member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on June 5.

Speaking at an Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Collins told Defense Secretary James Mattis that shes concerned by Russian statements indicating possible retaliation.

Thats truly provocative language and I just want to encourage you to keep sending the right signals to our NATO allies, she says.

Currently, the 2018 budget calls for $4.8 billion and $9 million for the European Reassurance Initiative and the State Partnership Program, respectively.

Maines guard unit has been partnered with Montenegro since 2006.

See more here:

Susan Collins Says Russia Had 'Truly Provocative' Reaction to Montenegro Joining NATO - Maine Public

‘Australia is a highly valued, reliable and respected Partner’, says Chairman of the NATO Military Committee – NATO HQ (press release)

General Petr Pavel, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee visited Sydney and Canberra while in Australia 9 to 14 June 2017. During his visit, the Chairman met with Mr. Brendan Sargeant, Acting Secretary of the Department of Defence; Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, the Chief of the Australian Defence Force; Vice Admiral David Johnston, Chief of Joint Operations; Major General Gavan Reynolds, Australias Military Representative to NATO; Commodore Luke Charles-Jones, Acting Australian Fleet Commander; Captain Ashley Papp, Commanding Officer of HMAS Canberra; The Honourable Dr. Brendan Nelson, Director of the Australian War Memorial; and Major General Simone Wilkie, Commander of the Australian Defence College. General Pavel also attended a meeting of the Special Chiefs of Service Committee.

After meeting with Vice Admiral David Johnston, Chief of Joint Operations, the Chairman received briefings on the current Australian Operations and Missions and toured the Joint Operations Command Headquarters. General Pavel remarked on the professionalism of the Australian Armed Forces and their ability to plug in quickly to both NATO-led and multinational Operations and Missions. We can learn from each other, share best practices, develop common standards and reinforce each others efforts to all our benefits. I have the utmost respect for the Australian Defence Forces who contribute to peacekeeping and multinational operations and missions in their region but also around the world because they strongly believe it is the "right thing to do"' stated the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.

Discussions with Acting Secretary of the Department of Defence, Mr. Brendan Sargeant and Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin focused on the current security challenges and the benefits of working together to find global solutions to shared threats. While attending the Special Chiefs of Service Committee, General Pavel took the opportunity to thank Australia for its continued commitment to the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission to train, assist and advise the Afghan Armed Forces and Institutions. You have played a significant role in Afghanistan and your service men and women do a magnificent job. We should continue to build on our shared experiences, stressed General Pavel.

During his visit to the Australian War Memorial, the Chairman met with The Honourable Dr. Brendan Nelson, Director of the Australian War Memorial and toured the Commemorative Area. Participating in the Last Post Ceremony with Air Chief Marshal Binskin, General Pavel paid his respects and laid a wreath at the base of the Pool of Reflection in honour of all the Australian fallen who have given their lives in service, protecting freedom, peace and security.

Visiting the Australian Defence College, General Pavel was greeted by Major General Simone Wilkie, Commander of the Defence College. After delivering a speech on NATO's Strategic Challenges, the Chairman held a Question and Answer session with the students. He stressed the interconnectivity of current security challenges and the need to continue to work together to find common solutions.

Concluding his visit to Australia, the Chairman visited Fleet Headquarters where he met with Commodore Luke Charles-Jones, Acting Australian Fleet Commander. Discussions focused on the need to protect global commons, increase interoperability and preparedness. Touring the flagship HMAS Canberra, General Pavel received a guided tour from Captain Ashley Papp, Commanding Officer, as well as a briefing on the ship's capabilities.

Continued here:

'Australia is a highly valued, reliable and respected Partner', says Chairman of the NATO Military Committee - NATO HQ (press release)

Ukraine’s NSDC Secretary meets with NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment – Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynov held a meeting with NATO Assistant Secretary General Camille Grand.

This has been reported by the press service of the NSDC.

During the meeting, the interlocutors discussed Russia's hybrid aggression against Ukraine, the issues of cooperation with NATO countries in military and technical sphere and cybersecurity, as well as the transition of the security and defense sector of Ukraine to the NATO standards and of its military-industrial complex.

"NATO demonstrates unity regarding Russia's actions, which are extremely dangerous to world order, Camille Grand said.

Grand also added that NATO does not ignore the topic of the annexation of Crimea by Russia and events in the east of Ukraine. "NATO considers Ukraine one of the most important partners and is very optimistic about the prospects of our cooperation, he stressed.

iy

The rest is here:

Ukraine's NSDC Secretary meets with NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

Global surveillance disclosures (2013present) – Wikipedia

Ongoing news reports in the international media have revealed operational details about the United States National Security Agency (NSA) and its international partners' global surveillance[1] of foreign nationals and U.S. citizens. The reports mostly emanate from a cache of top secret documents leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, which he obtained whilst working for Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the largest contractors for defense and intelligence in the United States.[2] In addition to a trove of U.S. federal documents, Snowden's cache reportedly contains thousands of Australian, British and Canadian intelligence files that he had accessed via the exclusive "Five Eyes" network. In June 2013, the first of Snowden's documents were published simultaneously by The Washington Post and The Guardian, attracting considerable public attention.[3] The disclosure continued throughout 2013, and a small portion of the estimated full cache of documents was later published by other media outlets worldwide, most notably The New York Times (United States), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Der Spiegel (Germany), O Globo (Brazil), Le Monde (France), L'espresso (Italy), NRC Handelsblad (the Netherlands), Dagbladet (Norway), El Pas (Spain), and Sveriges Television (Sweden).[4]

These media reports have shed light on the implications of several secret treaties signed by members of the UKUSA community in their efforts to implement global surveillance. For example, Der Spiegel revealed how the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) transfers "massive amounts of intercepted data to the NSA",[5] while Swedish Television revealed the National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA) provided the NSA with data from its cable collection, under a secret treaty signed in 1954 for bilateral cooperation on surveillance.[6] Other security and intelligence agencies involved in the practice of global surveillance include those in Australia (ASD), Britain (GCHQ), Canada (CSEC), Denmark (PET), France (DGSE), Germany (BND), Italy (AISE), the Netherlands (AIVD), Norway (NIS), Spain (CNI), Switzerland (NDB), Singapore (SID) as well as Israel (ISNU), which receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens that is shared by the NSA.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

On June 14, 2013, United States prosecutors charged Edward Snowden with espionage and theft of government property.[15] In late July 2013, he was granted a one-year temporary asylum by the Russian government,[16] contributing to a deterioration of RussiaUnited States relations.[17][18] On August 6, 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama made a public appearance on national television where he told Americans that "We don't have a domestic spying program" and that "There is no spying on Americans".[19] Towards the end of October 2013, the British Prime Minister David Cameron warned The Guardian not to publish any more leaks, or it will receive a DA-Notice.[20] In November 2013, a criminal investigation of the disclosure was being undertaken by Britain's Metropolitan Police Service.[21] In December 2013, The Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said: "We have published I think 26 documents so far out of the 58,000 we've seen."[22]

The extent to which the media reports have responsibly informed the public is disputed. In January 2014, Obama said that "the sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light"[23] and critics such as Sean Wilentz have noted that many of the Snowden documents released do not concern domestic surveillance.[24] In its first assessment of these disclosures, the Pentagon concluded that Snowden committed the biggest "theft" of U.S. secrets in the history of the United States.[25] Sir David Omand, a former director of GCHQ, described Snowden's disclosure as the "most catastrophic loss to British intelligence ever".[26]

Barton Gellman, a Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist who led The Washington Post's coverage of Snowden's disclosures, summarized the leaks as follows:

"Taken together, the revelations have brought to light a global surveillance system that cast off many of its historical restraints after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Secret legal authorities empowered the NSA to sweep in the telephone, Internet and location records of whole populations."

The disclosure revealed specific details of the NSA's close cooperation with U.S. federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)[28][29] and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[30][31] in addition to the agency's previously undisclosed financial payments to numerous commercial partners and telecommunications companies,[32][33][34] as well as its previously undisclosed relationships with international partners such as Britain,[35][36] France[12][37] Germany,[5][38] and its secret treaties with foreign governments that were recently established for sharing intercepted data of each other's citizens.[7][39][40][41] The disclosures were made public over the course of several months since June 2013, by the press in several nations from the trove leaked by the former NSA contractor Edward J. Snowden,[42] who obtained the trove while working for Booz Allen Hamilton.[2]

George Brandis, the current Attorney-General of Australia, asserted that Snowden's disclosure is the "most serious setback for Western intelligence since the Second World War."[43]

As of December 2013[update], global surveillance programs include:

The NSA was also getting data directly from telecommunications companies codenamed Artifice, Lithium, Serenade, SteelKnight, and X. The real identities of the companies behind these codenames were not included in the Snowden document dump because they were protected as Exceptionally Controlled Information which prevents wide circulation even to those (like Snowden) who otherwise have the necessary security clearance.[65][66]

Although the exact size of Snowden's disclosure remains unknown, the following estimates have been put up by various government officials:

As a contractor of the NSA, Snowden was granted access to U.S. government documents along with top secret documents of several allied governments, via the exclusive Five Eyes network.[69] Snowden claims that he is currently not in physical possession of any of these documents, after having surrendered all copies to the journalists he met in Hong Kong.[70]

According to his lawyer, Snowden has pledged not to release any documents while in Russia, leaving the responsibility for further disclosures solely to journalists.[71] As of 2014, the following news outlets have accessed some of the documents provided by Snowden: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Channel 4, Der Spiegel, El Pais, El Mundo, L'espresso, Le Monde, NBC, NRC Handelsblad, Dagbladet, O Globo, South China Morning Post, Sddeutsche Zeitung, Sveriges Television, The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

In the 1970s, NSA analyst Perry Fellwock (under the pseudonym "Winslow Peck") revealed the existence of the UKUSA Agreement, which forms the basis of the ECHELON network, whose existence was revealed in 1988 by Lockheed employee Margaret Newsham.[72][73] Months before the September 11 attacks and during its aftermath, further details of the global surveillance apparatus were provided by various individuals such as the former MI5 official David Shayler and the journalist James Bamford,[74][75] who were followed by:

In the aftermath of Snowden's revelations, The Pentagon concluded that Snowden committed the biggest theft of U.S. secrets in the history of the United States.[25] In Australia, the coalition government described the leaks as the most damaging blow dealt to Australian intelligence in history.[43] Sir David Omand, a former director of GCHQ, described Snowden's disclosure as the "most catastrophic loss to British intelligence ever".[26]

In April 2012, NSA contractor Edward Snowden began downloading documents.[87] That year, Snowden had made his first contact with journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian and he contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in January 2013.[88][89]

In May 2013, Snowden went on temporary leave from his position at the NSA, citing the pretext of receiving treatment for his epilepsy. Towards the end of May, he traveled to Hong Kong.[90][91] Greenwald, Poitras and the Guardian's defence and intelligence correspondent Ewen MacAskill flew to Hong Kong to meet Snowden.

After the U.S.-based editor of The Guardian, Janine Gibson, held several meetings in New York City, it was decided that Greenwald, Poitras and the Guardian's defence and intelligence correspondent Ewen MacAskill would fly to Hong Kong to meet Snowden. On June 5, in the first media report based on the leaked material,[92]The Guardian exposed a top secret court order showing that the NSA had collected phone records from over 120 million Verizon subscribers.[93] Under the order, the numbers of both parties on a call, as well as the location data, unique identifiers, time of call, and duration of call were handed over to the FBI, which turned over the records to the NSA.[93] According to The Wall Street Journal, the Verizon order is part of a controversial data program, which seeks to stockpile records on all calls made in the U.S., but does not collect information directly from T-Mobile US and Verizon Wireless, in part because of their foreign ownership ties.[94]

On June 6, 2013, the second media disclosure, the revelation of the PRISM surveillance program (which collects the e-mail, voice, text and video chats of foreigners and an unknown number of Americans from Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Apple and other tech giants),[95][96][97][98] was published simultaneously by The Guardian and The Washington Post.[86][99]

Der Spiegel revealed NSA spying on multiple diplomatic missions of the European Union (EU) and the United Nations Headquarters in New York.[100][101] During specific episodes within a four-year period, the NSA hacked several Chinese mobile-phone companies,[102] the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Tsinghua University in Beijing,[103] and the Asian fiber-optic network operator Pacnet.[104] Only Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK are explicitly exempted from NSA attacks, whose main target in the EU is Germany.[105] A method of bugging encrypted fax machines used at an EU embassy is codenamed Dropmire.[106]

During the 2009 G-20 London summit, the British intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) intercepted the communications of foreign diplomats.[107] In addition, GCHQ has been intercepting and storing mass quantities of fiber-optic traffic via Tempora.[108] Two principal components of Tempora are called "Mastering the Internet" (MTI) and "Global Telecoms Exploitation".[109] The data is preserved for three days while metadata is kept for thirty days.[110] Data collected by GCHQ under Tempora is shared with the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States.[109]

From 2001 to 2011, the NSA collected vast amounts of metadata records detailing the email and internet usage of Americans via Stellar Wind,[111] which was later terminated due to operational and resource constraints. It was subsequently replaced by newer surveillance programs such as ShellTrumpet, which "processed its one trillionth metadata record" by the end of December 2012.[112]

The NSA follows specific procedures to target non-U.S. persons[113] and to minimize data collection from U.S. persons.[114] These court-approved policies allow the NSA to:[115][116]

According to Boundless Informant, over 97 billion pieces of intelligence were collected over a 30-day period ending in March 2013. Out of all 97 billion sets of information, about 3 billion data sets originated from U.S. computer networks[117] and around 500 million metadata records were collected from German networks.[118]

In August 2013, it was revealed that the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) of Germany transfers massive amounts of metadata records to the NSA.[119]

Der Spiegel disclosed that Germany is the most targeted country of the 27 members of the European Union due to the NSA systematic monitoring and storage of Germany's telephone and Internet connection data. According to the magazine the NSA stores data from around half a billion communications connections in Germany each month. This data includes telephone calls, emails, mobile-phone text messages and chat transcripts.[120]

The NSA gained massive amounts of information captured from the monitored data traffic in Europe. For example, in December 2013, the NSA gathered on an average day metadata from some 15 million telephone connections and 10 million Internet datasets. The NSA also monitored the European Commission in Brussels and monitored EU diplomatic Facilities in Washington and at the United Nations by placing bugs in offices as well as infiltrating computer networks.[121]

The U.S. government made as part of its UPSTREAM data collection program deals with companies to ensure that it had access to and hence the capability to surveil undersea fiber-optic cables which deliver e-mails, Web pages, other electronic communications and phone calls from one continent to another at the speed of light.[122][123]

According to the Brazilian newspaper O Globo, the NSA spied on millions of emails and calls of Brazilian citizens,[124][125] while Australia and New Zealand have been involved in the joint operation of the NSA's global analytical system XKeyscore.[126][127] Among the numerous allied facilities contributing to XKeyscore are four installations in Australia and one in New Zealand:

O Globo released an NSA document titled "Primary FORNSAT Collection Operations", which revealed the specific locations and codenames of the FORNSAT intercept stations in 2002.[128]

According to Edward Snowden, the NSA has established secret intelligence partnerships with many Western governments.[127] The Foreign Affairs Directorate (FAD) of the NSA is responsible for these partnerships, which, according to Snowden, are organized such that foreign governments can "insulate their political leaders" from public outrage in the event that these global surveillance partnerships are leaked.[129]

In an interview published by Der Spiegel, Snowden accused the NSA of being "in bed together with the Germans".[130] The NSA granted the German intelligence agencies BND (foreign intelligence) and BfV (domestic intelligence) access to its controversial XKeyscore system.[131] In return, the BND turned over copies of two systems named Mira4 and Veras, reported to exceed the NSA's SIGINT capabilities in certain areas.[5] Every day, massive amounts of metadata records are collected by the BND and transferred to the NSA via the Bad Aibling Station near Munich, Germany.[5] In December 2012 alone, the BND handed over 500 million metadata records to the NSA.[132][133]

In a document dated January 2013, the NSA acknowledged the efforts of the BND to undermine privacy laws:

"The BND has been working to influence the German government to relax interpretation of the privacy laws to provide greater opportunities of intelligence sharing".[133]

According to an NSA document dated April 2013, Germany has now become the NSA's "most prolific partner".[133] Under a section of a separate document leaked by Snowden titled "Success Stories", the NSA acknowledged the efforts of the German government to expand the BND's international data sharing with partners:

"The German government modifies its interpretation of the G-10 privacy law to afford the BND more flexibility in sharing protected information with foreign partners."[50]

In addition, the German government was well aware of the PRISM surveillance program long before Edward Snowden made details public. According to Angela Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert, there are two separate PRISM programs one is used by the NSA and the other is used by NATO forces in Afghanistan.[134] The two programs are "not identical".[134]

The Guardian revealed further details of the NSA's XKeyscore tool, which allows government analysts to search through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals without prior authorization.[135][136][137] Microsoft "developed a surveillance capability to deal" with the interception of encrypted chats on Outlook.com, within five months after the service went into testing. NSA had access to Outlook.com emails because "Prism collects this data prior to encryption."[47]

In addition, Microsoft worked with the FBI to enable the NSA to gain access to its cloud storage service SkyDrive. An internal NSA document dating from August 3, 2012 described the PRISM surveillance program as a "team sport".[47]

Even if there is no reason to suspect U.S. citizens of wrongdoing, the CIA's National Counterterrorism Center is allowed to examine federal government files for possible criminal behavior. Previously the NTC was barred to do so, unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.[138]

Snowden also confirmed that Stuxnet was cooperatively developed by the United States and Israel.[139] In a report unrelated to Edward Snowden, the French newspaper Le Monde revealed that France's DGSE was also undertaking mass surveillance, which it described as "illegal and outside any serious control".[140][141]

Documents leaked by Edward Snowden that were seen by Sddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and Norddeutscher Rundfunk revealed that several telecom operators have played a key role in helping the British intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) tap into worldwide fiber-optic communications. The telecom operators are:

Each of them were assigned a particular area of the international fiber-optic network for which they were individually responsible. The following networks have been infiltrated by GCHQ: TAT-14 (Europe-USA), Atlantic Crossing 1 (Europe-USA), Circe South (France-UK), Circe North (The Netherlands-UK), Flag Atlantic-1, Flag Europa-Asia, SEA-ME-WE 3 (Southeast Asia-Middle East-Western Europe), SEA-ME-WE 4 (Southeast Asia-Middle East-Western Europe), Solas (Ireland-UK), UK-France 3, UK-Netherlands 14, ULYSSES (Europe-UK), Yellow (UK-USA) and Pan European Crossing.[143]

Telecommunication companies who participated were "forced" to do so and had "no choice in the matter".[143] Some of the companies were subsequently paid by GCHQ for their participation in the infiltration of the cables.[143] According to the SZ, GCHQ has access to the majority of internet and telephone communications flowing throughout Europe, can listen to phone calls, read emails and text messages, see which websites internet users from all around the world are visiting. It can also retain and analyse nearly the entire European internet traffic.[143]

GCHQ is collecting all data transmitted to and from the United Kingdom and Northern Europe via the undersea fibre optic telecommunications cable SEA-ME-WE 3. The Security and Intelligence Division (SID) of Singapore co-operates with Australia in accessing and sharing communications carried by the SEA-ME-WE-3 cable. The Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) is also in a partnership with British, American and Singaporean intelligence agencies to tap undersea fibre optic telecommunications cables that link Asia, the Middle East and Europe and carry much of Australia's international phone and internet traffic.[144]

The U.S. runs a top-secret surveillance program known as the Special Collection Service (SCS), which is based in over 80 U.S. consulates and embassies worldwide.[146] The NSA hacked the United Nations' video conferencing system in Summer 2012 in violation of a UN agreement.[146]

The NSA is not just intercepting the communications of Americans who are in direct contact with foreigners targeted overseas, but also searching the contents of vast amounts of e-mail and text communications into and out of the country by Americans who mention information about foreigners under surveillance.[147] It also spied on the Al Jazeera and gained access to its internal communications systems.[148]

The NSA has built a surveillance network that has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic.[149][150][151] U.S. Law-enforcement agencies use tools used by computer hackers to gather information on suspects.[152][153] An internal NSA audit from May 2012 identified 2776 incidents i.e. violations of the rules or court orders for surveillance of Americans and foreign targets in the U.S. in the period from April 2011 through March 2012, while U.S. officials stressed that any mistakes are not intentional.[154][155][156][157][158][159][160]

The FISA Court that is supposed to provide critical oversight of the U.S. government's vast spying programs has limited ability to do so and it must trust the government to report when it improperly spies on Americans.[161] A legal opinion declassified on August 21, 2013, revealed that the NSA intercepted for three years as many as 56,000 electronic communications a year of Americans not suspected of having links to terrorism, before FISA court that oversees surveillance found the operation unconstitutional in 2011.[162][163][164][165][166] Under the Corporate Partner Access project, major U.S. telecommunications providers receive hundreds of millions of dollars each year from the NSA.[167] Voluntary cooperation between the NSA and the providers of global communications took off during the 1970s under the cover name BLARNEY.[167]

A letter drafted by the Obama administration specifically to inform Congress of the government's mass collection of Americans' telephone communications data was withheld from lawmakers by leaders of the House Intelligence Committee in the months before a key vote affecting the future of the program.[168][169]

The NSA paid GCHQ over 100 Million between 2009 and 2012, in exchange for these funds GCHQ "must pull its weight and be seen to pull its weight." Documents referenced in the article explain that the weaker British laws regarding spying are "a selling point" for the NSA. GCHQ is also developing the technology to "exploit any mobile phone at any time."[170] The NSA has under a legal authority a secret backdoor into its databases gathered from large Internet companies enabling it to search for U.S. citizens' email and phone calls without a warrant.[171][172]

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board urged the U.S. intelligence chiefs to draft stronger US surveillance guidelines on domestic spying after finding that several of those guidelines have not been updated up to 30 years.[173][174] U.S. intelligence analysts have deliberately broken rules designed to prevent them from spying on Americans by choosing to ignore so-called "minimisation procedures" aimed at protecting privacy[175][176] and used the NSA's agency's enormous eavesdropping power to spy on love interests.[177]

After the U.S. Foreign Secret Intelligence Court ruled in October 2011 that some of the NSA's activities were unconstitutional, the agency paid millions of dollars to major internet companies to cover extra costs incurred in their involvement with the PRISM surveillance program.[178]

"Mastering the Internet" (MTI) is part of the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP) of the British government that involves the insertion of thousands of DPI (deep packet inspection) "black boxes" at various internet service providers, as revealed by the British media in 2009.[179]

In 2013, it was further revealed that the NSA had made a 17.2 million financial contribution to the project, which is capable of vacuuming signals from up to 200 fibre-optic cables at all physical points of entry into Great Britain.[180]

The Guardian and The New York Times reported on secret documents leaked by Snowden showing that the NSA has been in "collaboration with technology companies" as part of "an aggressive, multipronged effort" to weaken the encryption used in commercial software, and GCHQ has a team dedicated to cracking "Hotmail, Google, Yahoo and Facebook" traffic.[181][182][183][184][185][186]

Germany's domestic security agency Bundesverfassungsschutz (BfV) systematically transfers the personal data of German residents to the NSA, CIA and seven other members of the United States Intelligence Community, in exchange for information and espionage software.[187][188][189] Israel, Sweden and Italy are also cooperating with American and British intelligence agencies. Under a secret treaty codenamed "Lustre", French intelligence agencies transferred millions of metadata records to the NSA.[63][64][190][191]

The Obama Administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases. The searches take place under a surveillance program Congress authorized in 2008 under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the target must be a foreigner "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States, and the court must approve the targeting procedures in an order good for one year. But a warrant for each target would thus no longer be required. That means that communications with Americans could be picked up without a court first determining that there is probable cause that the people they were talking to were terrorists, spies or "foreign powers." The FISC extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years with an extension possible for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes. Both measures were done without public debate or any specific authority from Congress.[192]

A special branch of the NSA called "Follow the Money" (FTM) monitors international payments, banking and credit card transactions and later stores the collected data in the NSA's own financial databank "Tracfin".[193] The NSA monitored the communications of Brazil's president Dilma Rousseff and her top aides.[194] The agency also spied on Brazil's oil firm Petrobras as well as French diplomats, and gained access to the private network of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France and the SWIFT network.[195]

In the United States, the NSA uses the analysis of phone call and e-mail logs of American citizens to create sophisticated graphs of their social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information.[196] The NSA routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about U.S. citizens.[7][197]

In an effort codenamed GENIE, computer specialists can control foreign computer networks using "covert implants," a form of remotely transmitted malware on tens of thousands of devices annually.[198][199][200][201] As worldwide sales of smartphones began exceeding those of feature phones, the NSA decided to take advantage of the smartphone boom. This is particularly advantageous because the smartphone combines a myriad of data that would interest an intelligence agency, such as social contacts, user behavior, interests, location, photos and credit card numbers and passwords.[202]

An internal NSA report from 2010 stated that the spread of the smartphone has been occurring "extremely rapidly"developments that "certainly complicate traditional target analysis."[202] According to the document, the NSA has set up task forces assigned to several smartphone manufacturers and operating systems, including Apple Inc.'s iPhone and iOS operating system, as well as Google's Android mobile operating system.[202] Similarly, Britain's GCHQ assigned a team to study and crack the BlackBerry.[202]

Under the heading "iPhone capability", the document notes that there are smaller NSA programs, known as "scripts", that can perform surveillance on 38 different features of the iOS 3 and iOS 4 operating systems. These include the mapping feature, voicemail and photos, as well as Google Earth, Facebook and Yahoo! Messenger.[202]

On September 9, 2013, an internal NSA presentation on iPhone Location Services was published by Der Spiegel. One slide shows scenes from Apple's 1984-themed television commercial alongside the words "Who knew in 1984..."; another shows Steve Jobs holding an iPhone, with the text "...that this would be big brother..."; and a third shows happy consumers with their iPhones, completing the question with "...and the zombies would be paying customers?"[203]

On October 4, 2013, The Washington Post and The Guardian jointly reported that the NSA and GCHQ had made repeated attempts to spy on anonymous Internet users who have been communicating in secret via the anonymity network Tor. Several of these surveillance operations involved the implantation of malicious code into the computers of Tor users who visit particular websites. The NSA and GCHQ had partly succeeded in blocking access to the anonymous network, diverting Tor users to insecure channels. The government agencies were also able to uncover the identity of some anonymous Internet users.[204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212]

The Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) has been using a program called Olympia to map the communications of Brazil's Mines and Energy Ministry by targeting the metadata of phone calls and emails to and from the ministry.[213][214]

The Australian Federal Government knew about the PRISM surveillance program months before Edward Snowden made details public.[215][216]

The NSA gathered hundreds of millions of contact lists from personal e-mail and instant messaging accounts around the world. The agency did not target individuals. Instead it collected contact lists in large numbers that amount to a sizable fraction of the worlds e-mail and instant messaging accounts. Analysis of that data enables the agency to search for hidden connections and to map relationships within a much smaller universe of foreign intelligence targets.[217][218][219][220]

The NSA monitored the public email account of former Mexican president Felipe Caldern (thus gaining access to the communications of high-ranking cabinet members), the emails of several high-ranking members of Mexico's security forces and text and the mobile phone communication of current Mexican president Enrique Pea Nieto.[221][222] The NSA tries to gather cellular and landline phone numbersoften obtained from American diplomatsfor as many foreign officials as possible. The contents of the phone calls are stored in computer databases that can regularly be searched using keywords.[223][224]

The NSA has been monitoring telephone conversations of 35 world leaders.[225] The U.S. government's first public acknowledgment that it tapped the phones of world leaders was reported on October 28, 2013, by the Wall Street Journal after an internal U.S. government review turned up NSA monitoring of some 35 world leaders.[226]GCHQ has tried to keep its mass surveillance program a secret because it feared a "damaging public debate" on the scale of its activities which could lead to legal challenges against them.[227]

The Guardian revealed that the NSA had been monitoring telephone conversations of 35 world leaders after being given the numbers by an official in another U.S. government department. A confidential memo revealed that the NSA encouraged senior officials in such Departments as the White House, State and The Pentagon, to share their "Rolodexes" so the agency could add the telephone numbers of leading foreign politicians to their surveillance systems. Reacting to the news, German leader Angela Merkel, arriving in Brussels for an EU summit, accused the U.S. of a breach of trust, saying: "We need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany."[225] The NSA collected in 2010 data on ordinary Americans' cellphone locations, but later discontinued it because it had no "operational value."[228]

Under Britain's MUSCULAR programme, the NSA and GCHQ have secretly broken into the main communications links that connect Yahoo and Google data centers around the world and thereby gained the ability to collect metadata and content at will from hundreds of millions of user accounts.[229][230][231][232][233]

The mobile phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel might have been tapped by U.S. intelligence.[234][235][236][237][238][239][240] According to the Spiegel this monitoring goes back to 2002[241][242][243] and ended in the summer of 2013,[226] while The New York Times reported that Germany has evidence that the NSA's surveillance of Merkel began during George W. Bush's tenure.[244] After learning from Der Spiegel magazine that the NSA has been listening in to her personal mobile phone, Merkel compared the snooping practices of the NSA with those of the Stasi.[245] It was reported in March 2014, by Der Spiegel that Merkel had also been placed on an NSA surveillance list alongside 122 other world leaders.[246]

On October 31, 2013, Hans-Christian Strbele, a member of the German Bundestag, met Snowden in Moscow and revealed the former intelligence contractor's readiness to brief the German government on NSA spying.[247]

A highly sensitive signals intelligence collection program known as Stateroom involves the interception of radio, telecommunications and internet traffic. It is operated out of the diplomatic missions of the Five Eyes (Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, United States) in numerous locations around the world. The program conducted at U.S. diplomatic missions is run in concert by the U.S. intelligence agencies NSA and CIA in a joint venture group called "Special Collection Service" (SCS), whose members work undercover in shielded areas of the American Embassies and Consulates, where they are officially accredited as diplomats and as such enjoy special privileges. Under diplomatic protection, they are able to look and listen unhindered. The SCS for example used the American Embassy near the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin to monitor communications in Germany's government district with its parliament and the seat of the government.[240][248][249][250]

Under the Stateroom surveillance programme, Australia operates clandestine surveillance facilities to intercept phone calls and data across much of Asia.[249][251]

In France, the NSA targeted people belonging to the worlds of business, politics or French state administration. The NSA monitored and recorded the content of telephone communications and the history of the connections of each target i.e. the metadata.[252][253] The actual surveillance operation was performed by French intelligence agencies on behalf of the NSA.[63][254] The cooperation between France and the NSA was confirmed by the Director of the NSA, Keith B. Alexander, who asserted that foreign intelligence services collected phone records in "war zones" and "other areas outside their borders" and provided them to the NSA.[255]

The French newspaper Le Monde also disclosed new PRISM and Upstream slides (See Page 4, 7 and 8) coming from the "PRISM/US-984XN Overview" presentation.[256]

In Spain, the NSA intercepted the telephone conversations, text messages and emails of millions of Spaniards, and spied on members of the Spanish government.[257] Between December 10, 2012 and January 8, 2013, the NSA collected metadata on 60 million telephone calls in Spain.[258]

According to documents leaked by Snowden, the surveillance of Spanish citizens was jointly conducted by the NSA and the intelligence agencies of Spain.[259][260]

The New York Times reported that the NSA carries out an eavesdropping effort, dubbed Operation Dreadnought, against the Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. During his 2009 visit to Iranian Kurdistan, the agency collaborated with GCHQ and the U.S.'s National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, collecting radio transmissions between aircraft and airports, examining Khamenei's convoy with satellite imagery, and enumerating military radar stations. According to the story, an objective of the operation is "communications fingerprinting": the ability to distinguish Khamenei's communications from those of other people in Iran.[261]

The same story revealed an operation code-named Ironavenger, in which the NSA intercepted e-mails sent between a country allied with the United States and the government of "an adversary". The ally was conducting a spear-phishing attack: its e-mails contained malware. The NSA gathered documents and login credentials belonging to the enemy country, along with knowledge of the ally's capabilities for attacking computers.[261]

According to the British newspaper The Independent, the British intelligence agency GCHQ maintains a listening post on the roof of the British Embassy in Berlin that is capable of intercepting mobile phone calls, wi-fi data and long-distance communications all over the German capital, including adjacent government buildings such as the Reichstag (seat of the German parliament) and the Chancellery (seat of Germany's head of government) clustered around the Brandenburg Gate.[262]

Operating under the code-name "Quantum Insert", GCHQ set up a fake website masquerading as LinkedIn, a social website used for professional networking, as part of its efforts to install surveillance software on the computers of the telecommunications operator Belgacom.[263][264][265] In addition, the headquarters of the oil cartel OPEC were infiltrated by GCHQ as well as the NSA, which bugged the computers of nine OPEC employees and monitored the General Secretary of OPEC.[263]

For more than three years GCHQ has been using an automated monitoring system code-named "Royal Concierge" to infiltrate the reservation systems of at least 350 upscale hotels in many different parts of the world in order to target, search and analyze reservations to detect diplomats and government officials.[266] First tested in 2010, the aim of the "Royal Concierge" is to track down the travel plans of diplomats, and it is often supplemented with surveillance methods related to human intelligence (HUMINT). Other covert operations include the wiretapping of room telephones and fax machines used in targeted hotels as well as the monitoring of computers hooked up to the hotel network.[266]

In November 2013, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Guardian revealed that the Australian Signals Directorate (DSD) had attempted to listen to the private phone calls of the president of Indonesia and his wife. The Indonesian foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, confirmed that he and the president had contacted the ambassador in Canberra. Natalegawa said any tapping of Indonesian politicians' personal phones "violates every single decent and legal instrument I can think ofnational in Indonesia, national in Australia, international as well".[267]

Other high-ranking Indonesian politicians targeted by the DSD include:

Carrying the title "3G impact and update", a classified presentation leaked by Snowden revealed the attempts of the ASD/DSD to keep up to pace with the rollout of 3G technology in Indonesia and across Southeast Asia. The ASD/DSD motto placed at the bottom of each page reads: "Reveal their secretsprotect our own."[268]

Under a secret deal approved by British intelligence officials, the NSA has been storing and analyzing the internet and email records of UK citizens since 2007. The NSA also proposed in 2005 a procedure for spying on the citizens of the UK and other Five-Eyes nations alliance, even where the partner government has explicitly denied the U.S. permission to do so. Under the proposal, partner countries must neither be informed about this particular type of surveillance, nor the procedure of doing so.[39]

Towards the end of November, The New York Times released an internal NSA report outlining the agency's efforts to expand its surveillance abilities.[269] The five-page document asserts that the law of the United States has not kept up with the needs of the NSA to conduct mass surveillance in the "golden age" of signals intelligence, but there are grounds for optimism because, in the NSA's own words:

"The culture of compliance, which has allowed the American people to entrust NSA with extraordinary authorities, will not be compromised in the face of so many demands, even as we aggressively pursue legal authorities..."[270]

The report, titled "SIGINT Strategy 20122016", also said that the U.S. will try to influence the "global commercial encryption market" through "commercial relationships", and emphasized the need to "revolutionize" the analysis of its vast data collection to "radically increase operational impact".[269]

On November 23, 2013, the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported that the Netherlands was targeted by U.S. intelligence agencies in the immediate aftermath of World War II. This period of surveillance lasted from 1946 to 1968, and also included the interception of the communications of other European countries including Belgium, France, West Germany and Norway.[271] The Dutch Newspaper also reported that NSA infected more than 50,000 computer networks worldwide, often covertly, with malicious spy software, sometimes in cooperation with local authorities, designed to steal sensitive information.[42][272]

LARGE CABLE20 major points of accesses, many of them located within the United States

According to the classified documents leaked by Snowden, the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), formerly known as the Defence Signals Directorate, had offered to share intelligence information it had collected with the other intelligence agencies of the UKUSA Agreement. Data shared with foreign countries include "bulk, unselected, unminimised metadata" it had collected. The ASD provided such information on the condition that no Australian citizens were targeted. At the time the ASD assessed that "unintentional collection [of metadata of Australian nationals] is not viewed as a significant issue". If a target was later identified as being an Australian national, the ASD was required to be contacted to ensure that a warrant could be sought. Consideration was given as to whether "medical, legal or religious information" would be automatically treated differently to other types of data, however a decision was made that each agency would make such determinations on a case-by-case basis.[273] Leaked material does not specify where the ASD had collected the intelligence information from, however Section 7(a) of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (Commonwealth) states that the ASD's role is "...to obtain intelligence about the capabilities, intentions or activities of people or organisations outside Australia...".[274] As such, it is possible ASD's metadata intelligence holdings was focused on foreign intelligence collection and was within the bounds of Australian law.

The Washington Post revealed that the NSA has been tracking the locations of mobile phones from all over the world by tapping into the cables that connect mobile networks globally and that serve U.S. cellphones as well as foreign ones. In the process of doing so, the NSA collects more than five billion records of phone locations on a daily basis. This enables NSA analysts to map cellphone owners' relationships by correlating their patterns of movement over time with thousands or millions of other phone users who cross their paths.[275][276][277][278][279][280][281][282]

The Washington Post also reported that both GCHQ and the NSA make use of location data and advertising tracking files generated through normal internet browsing (with cookies operated by Google, known as "Pref") to pinpoint targets for government hacking and to bolster surveillance.[283][284][285]

The Norwegian Intelligence Service (NIS), which cooperates with the NSA, has gained access to Russian targets in the Kola Peninsula and other civilian targets. In general, the NIS provides information to the NSA about "Politicians", "Energy" and "Armament".[286] A top secret memo of the NSA lists the following years as milestones of the NorwayUnited States of America SIGINT agreement, or NORUS Agreement:

The NSA considers the NIS to be one of its most reliable partners. Both agencies also cooperate to crack the encryption systems of mutual targets. According to the NSA, Norway has made no objections to its requests from the NIS.[287]

On December 5, Sveriges Television reported the National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA) has been conducting a clandestine surveillance operation in Sweden, targeting the internal politics of Russia. The operation was conducted on behalf of the NSA, receiving data handed over to it by the FRA.[288][289] The Swedish-American surveillance operation also targeted Russian energy interests as well as the Baltic states.[290] As part of the UKUSA Agreement, a secret treaty was signed in 1954 by Sweden with the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, regarding collaboration and intelligence sharing.[291]

See the original post:

Global surveillance disclosures (2013present) - Wikipedia

Posted in NSA

The Internet Browser NSA Doesnt Want You To Use | Off The …

Theres a free method of searching the Internet thats so anonymous and secure the National Security Agency wants to destroy it. Its called TOR or the Onion Router, and documents obtained by The Guardian indicate that both the NSA and its British partner GCHQ have been unable to crack TOR.

An NSA analyst described TOR as the king of high-secure, low latency internet anonymity.

So what is TOR and how can you use it? Basically, TOR is a network that bounces your searches and communications all over the Internet via several different computers making them hard to track. You access TOR using a special browser or an app.

The NSA has had such a hard time trying to crack TOR that it actually created a top secret presentation called TOR Stinks. TOR Stinks was among the documents leaked by Edward Snowden to the Guardian. Its author wrote: We will never be able to de-anonymyze all TOR users all the time. That means the NSA will never be able to identify all TOR users.

How TOR works

The most interesting thing about TOR is that it was developed by the US government, specifically the State Department and the Defense Department. The idea was to create a secret and secure means of communication for spies and dissidents.

John Eidsmoe rights the faulty historical record and brings us back to the roots that made America great . . .

TOR works by creating an encrypted packet of Internet traffic that is bounced through a number of nodes or servers. TOR users use a special Firefox web browser that sends all of the traffic through the TOR network. This is hard to track because it isnt moving through normal channels.

A TOR user in Nebraska might have her Internet traffic routed through a node in Manitoba and another Node in Great Britain which would confuse a person trying to locate her. It isnt perfect but its a pretty good way of covering your tracks online.

A good way to think of TOR is as another secret Internet inside the Internet. Its currently used by spies, dissidents, journalists and special operations soldiers such as those in Delta Force. These are called Darknets and theyre often used by criminals as well as the government.

The NSA has made a number of efforts to crack TOR. Its tried to insert malicious code into TORs browser bundle. The NSA had been using a hole in Firefox to infiltrate TOR but thats recently been plugged.

How to use TOR

Using TOR is easy; just visit the TOR website. The site has several downloadable tools that can help protect your anonymity online. These include:

The TOR website is a great resource that provides connections to a wide variety of excellent tools for thwarting surveillance efforts. If youre serious about anonymity online, it is the place to begin.

It appears there is an effective and low-cost method that enables the average person to avoid most surveillance. That method was created with our tax dollars, and another government agency is using our tax dollars in an attempt to destroy it. It is possible for average people to frustrate the NSA with TOR.

Here is the original post:

The Internet Browser NSA Doesnt Want You To Use | Off The ...

Posted in NSA

Trump Tried to Convince NSA Chief to Absolve Him of Any Russian Collusion: Report – Newsweek

A recent National Security Agency memo documents a phone call in whichU.S. President Donald Trump pressures agency chief Admiral Mike Rogers to state publicly that there is no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia, say reports.

The memo was written by Rick Ledgett, the former deputy director of the NSA, sources familiar with the memo told The Wall Street Journal. Ledgett stepped down from his job this spring.

The memo said Trump questioned the American intelligence community findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. American intelligence agencies issued a report early this year that found Russian intelligence agencies hacked the countrys political parties and worked to sway the election to Trump.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

The Russia investigations special counsel Robert Mueller plans to interview Ledgett as part of his investigation into Russias efforts to manipulate the 2016 vote, a source toldWSJ. Mueller is also probing whether Trump himself obstructed justice when he fired former FBI Director James Comey on May 9, according to TheWashington Post.

A memo drawn up by a National Security Agency deputy reportedly records Trump pressuring NSA Director Mike Rogers to influence Russia investigation. Joshua Roberts/Reuters

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice, Trump tweeted Thursday. You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political historyled by some very bad and conflicted people! he wrote.

Read more: Trump asked intelligence chiefs to intervene in Comeys Russia investigation: report

Comey testified a week ago that Trump had pressured him to let go an investigation into fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn after Flynn misled Vice President Mike Pence about contacthe had had with Russian officials.

Comey also testified that Trump asked him to deny publicly that the president was being investigated by the FBI. Comey said that at the time Trump was not being investigated, but he demurred from Trumps request because he would have to correct his statement publiclyif the facts changed.

On March 20, Comey testified that his investigation into Russian interference was looking at whether Trumps campaign colluded with the foreign power. British intelligence agencies first picked up contactbetween Trumps campaign members and associates in 2015.

Two current and two former officials told The Washington Post that in March Trump asked Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

During testimony to the Senate intelligence committee on June 7, neither Coats nor Rogers would answer many specific questions, but both said they did not feel pressure. Coats testified that he never felt pressure to intervene in the Russia investigation.

In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believed to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate, Rogers said. And to the best of my recollection...I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.

More here:

Trump Tried to Convince NSA Chief to Absolve Him of Any Russian Collusion: Report - Newsweek

Posted in NSA

Mystery Company Told NSA Spies: Get a Warrant or Get Lost – Daily Beast

An unknown U.S. technology company secretly refused to comply with the National Security Agencys most cherished surveillance authority, a newly declassified document shows.

Instead, the companynot identified in a highly unusual order from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courttold the NSA, in effect: get a warrant or get lost.

Its the first known time that a company did not comply with the NSAs exercise of its powers under a highly controversial legal authority known as Section 702. Section 702, which is the subject of a white-knuckle fight in Congress over its reauthorization before expiration in December, is the legal underpinning of the NSAs infamous PRISM program, which takes vast quantities of user communications from participating companies.

According to the heavily redacted court ruling, the unnamed company appears to have resisted PRISM, on the grounds that cooperation would implicate its own First and Fourth Amendment rights. It told the worlds most powerful surveillance agency to come back with a warrant.

A warrant is necessary, the company contended, for all surveillance conducted on the servers of a U.S.-based provider, regardless of whether the target of surveillance is a U.S. person or a non-U.S. person, and regardless of where that person is located when they use the service, because the communications of U.S. persons will be collected as part of such surveillance.

In other words, the company argued, the NSAs Section 702 powers inevitably violate the Fourth Amendment, since industrial-strength surveillance ostensibly focused on foreigners will inevitably collect communications from Americans. The companys solution: a warrant, please.

The contention so alarmed Barack Obama administrations that it asked the Court to order the companys compliance the first time, surveillance experts said, the government is known to have clashed with a service provider over an assertion of its Section 702 powers.

Noncompliance with secret, warrantless government surveillance has a real price. The only other confirmed time in which a provider has resisted the NSA came in 2007, when Yahoo rebuffed the governments demand for customer data under the precursor to Section 702, known as the Protect America Act. Documents declassified in 2014 showed that the government threatened Yahoo with a $250,000 for every day of noncompliance. Yahoo ultimately began cooperation with PRISM in March 2008 after losing secret-court appeals.

The FISA Court did not view the 2014 case any more favorably.

Judge Rosemary Collyer sided with the NSA on every particular. Collyer found that the NSAs internal procedures about focusing its 702 collection targets on non-Americans reasonably believed to be overseas despite the fact that Americans communications data is nevertheless incidentally collected in the process obviated the companys resistance.

Collyer called the tech firms fears of unreasonable surveillance arguendo, writing, the mere fact that there is some potential for error is not a sufficient reason to invalidate the surveillance. Without a showing of misconduct by the government, she found, a presumption of regularity applies. That would be a hard burden for a tech firm to meet, considering the issue was secret surveillance.

However, her FISA Court colleague John Bates had already found in 2011 that the NSA had surpassed the limits of its mass data collection as it had described the procedures to the court. And in 2016, two years after the now-revealed surveillance fight, the NSA revealed to the court that it had violated the revamped post-2011 rules it agreed to with the court. The judge who signed off on modified rules for 702 collection was, ironically, Collyer, in a ruling savaged by independent journalist Marcy Wheeler.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

Ashley Gorski, an attorney with the ACLU which acquired the document in a freedom-of-information lawsuit took issue with Collyers fateful 2014 finding that the NSA was owed the benefit of the doubt.

Given the litany of NSA compliance violations known to the [FISA Court] even back in 2014, the courts insistence that a presumption of regularity should apply to the NSAs spying is deeply problematic, Gorski said.

This challenge to the governments warrantless spying under Section 702 underscores just how controversial this mass surveillance program really is, and why it must be significantly reformed. The anonymous tech company that brought this challenge should be commended for defending its users privacy, and other companies must do the same by fighting for critical reforms in the courts and in Congress.

Link:

Mystery Company Told NSA Spies: Get a Warrant or Get Lost - Daily Beast

Posted in NSA