What will life be like in Afghanistan after Nato? - BBC News
Nato forces will complete their pullout from Afghanistan after 13 years of conflict in days. A spate of recent attacks targeting westerners has now added to the general sense of insecurity...
By: BBC News
Read more here:
What will life be like in Afghanistan after Nato? - BBC News - Video
Ukrainian NATO bid #39;poses threat to EU security #39;: Russian FM Lavrov warns of Kremlin response
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said Moscow would view Ukraine #39;s membership to NATO as a direct military threat. He added that the US and EU was using Kyiv #39;s prospective bid...
By: UKRAINE TODAY
Link:
Russias new military doctrine lists NATO, US as major foreign threats
Russia has adopted an updated version of its military doctrine, which reflects the emergence of new threats against its national security. NATO military buildup and American Prompt Global Strike...
By: RT
See the article here:
Russias new military doctrine lists NATO, US as major foreign threats - Video
Russia #39;s new military doctrine names NATO build-up as main threat
Russian President Vladimir Putin has approved a revised military doctrine that names NATO #39;s military build-up near Russia #39;s border as its main military threat. NATO said it had evidence that...
By: euronews (in English)
See more here:
Russia's new military doctrine names NATO build-up as main threat - Video
Moscow Russia identified NATO as the nation's No. 1 military threat and raised the possibility of a broader use of precision conventional weapons to deter foreign aggression under a new military doctrine signed by President Vladimir Putin on Friday.
NATO flatly denied it is a threat to Russia, and accused Moscow of undermining European security.
The new doctrine, which comes amid tensions over Ukraine, reflected the Kremlin's readiness to take a stronger posture in response to what it sees as U.S.-led efforts to isolate and weaken Russia.
The paper maintains the provisions of the previous, 2010 edition of the military doctrine regarding the use of nuclear weapons.
It says Russia could employ nuclear weapons in retaliation for the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, and also in the case of aggression involving conventional weapons that "threatens the very existence" of the Russian state.
But for the first time, the new doctrine says Russia could use precision weapons "as part of strategic deterrent measures." The document does not spell out when and how Moscow could resort to such weapons.
Examples of precision conventional weapons include ground-to-ground missiles, air- and submarine-launched cruise missiles, guided bombs and artillery shells.
Among other things, the paper mentions the need to protect Russia's interests in the Arctic, where the global competition for its vast oil and other resources has been heating up as the Arctic ice melts.
Russia has relied heavily on its nuclear deterrent and lagged far behind the U.S. and its NATO allies in the development of precision conventional weapons. However, it has recently sped up its military modernization, buying large numbers of new weapons and boosting military drills. It has also sharply increased air patrols over the Baltics.
Earlier this month, Russia flexed its muscle by airlifting state-of-the art Iskander missiles to its westernmost Kaliningrad exclave bordering NATO members Poland and Lithuania. The missiles were pulled back to their home base after the drills, but the deployment clearly served as a demonstration of the military's readiness to quickly raise the ante in a crisis.
See the original post here:
MOSCOW Russia identified NATO as the nations No. 1 military threat and raised the possibility of a broader use of precision conventional weapons to deter foreign aggression under a new military doctrine signed by President Vladimir Putin on Friday.
NATO flatly denied it is a threat to Russia, and accused Moscow of undermining European security.
The new doctrine, which comes amid tensions over Ukraine, reflects the Kremlins readiness to take a stronger posture in response to what it sees as U.S.-led efforts to isolate and weaken Russia.
The paper maintains the provisions of the previous, 2010 edition of the military doctrine regarding the use of nuclear weapons.
It says Russia could employ nuclear weapons in retaliation for the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, and also in the case of aggression involving conventional weapons that threatens the very existence of the Russian state.
But for the first time, the new doctrine says Russia could use precision weapons as part of strategic deterrent measures. The document does not spell out when and how Moscow could resort to using such weapons.
Examples of precision conventional weapons include ground-to-ground missiles, air- and submarine-launched cruise missiles, guided bombs and artillery shells.
Among other things, the paper mentions the need to protect Russias interests in the Arctic, where the global competition for its vast oil and other resources has been heating up as the Arctic ice melts.
Russia has relied heavily on its nuclear deterrent and lagged far behind the U.S. and its NATO allies in the development of precision conventional weapons. However, it has recently sped up its military modernization, buying large numbers of new weapons and boosting military drills. It has also sharply increased air patrols over the Baltic Sea region.
Earlier this month, Russia flexed its muscles by airlifting state-of-the art Iskander missiles to its westernmost Kaliningrad exclave bordering NATO members Poland and Lithuania. The missiles were pulled back to their home base after the drills, but the deployment clearly served as a demonstration of the militarys readiness to quickly raise the ante in a crisis.
See the rest here:
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday signed into law a new defense doctrine that identifies NATO as the chief threat to Russian security and claims the right to use nuclear weapons to counter any aggression that "threatens the very existence" of Russia.
The revisions to the 2010 defense mission statement were few but appeared intended to put further pressure on the United States and the Western military alliance to cease courting Ukraine as an economic and strategic ally.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has moved forces closer to Russia's borders in response to the Kremlin's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region in March and its dramatically increased challenges of the alliance's airspace and maritime borders. NATO officials report that the number of aerial and maritime intrusions by Russian fighter jets in the Baltic Sea area has more than tripled this year over last.
The new defense doctrine cites NATO troop deployments and induction of former Soviet-allied states as the top threat to Russian security. It also deems the developing Prompt Global Strike program of the United States as hostile. The precision weapons system is being designed to be able to strike anywhere in the world so swiftly that the target has too little time to respond.
The new doctrine also mentions NATO missile defense plans as destabilizing and for the first time identifies a priority for Russia to protect its natural resource and maritime interests in the Arctic Sea.
Russia needed to update its defense doctrine to address "the emergence of hotbeds of interethnic and interreligious tensions, the operations of militarized international radical groupings and foreign private military companies in the areas adjoining the borders of the Russian Federation and its allies," the 29-page document posted on the Kremlin website [link in Russian] reads.
It also cited the rise in "territorial contradictions and a growth of separatism/extremism" as pressures on Russian security.
The amendments were approved by the Russian Security Council on Dec. 19 and signed Friday by Putin, the Kremlin website reported.
Among the security threats it identifies in the doctrine is "the creation and deployment of global strategic antiballistic missile systems that undermine the established global stability and balance of power in nuclear missile capabilities."
The doctrine makes clear that Russia considers NATO expansion into the realm of Soviet-era influence to be aggressive. The document accuses the Western alliance of having adopted "global functions realized with violation of international law."
See the original post:
Russia revises military doctrine to name NATO as chief threat
Wearing World War II-era uniform of the Red Army troops, Russian soldiers take part in the military parade on the Red Square in Moscow on November 7, 2014. KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP/Getty Images
MOSCOW - Russia named NATO's military buildup near its border as the main military threat and raised the possibility of using precision conventional weapons as a "strategic deterrent," according to the nation's new military doctrine signed by President Vladimir Putin Friday.
NATO flatly denied it was a threat to Russia, and accused Russia of undermining European security.
The new doctrine, which comes amid Russia-West tensions over Ukraine, maintains the provisions of the previous, 2010 edition of the military doctrine regarding the use of nuclear weapons.
It says Russia could use nuclear weapons in retaliation to the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression involving conventional weapons that "threatens the very existence" of the Russian state.
But for the first time, the new doctrine says that Russia could use precision weapons "as part of strategic deterrent measures," without spelling out when and how Moscow could resort to them.
The doctrine placed "a buildup of NATO military potential and its empowerment with global functions implemented in violation of international law, the expansion of NATO's military infrastructure to the Russian borders" on top of military threats to Russia.
It pointed that that the deployment of foreign military forces on the territory of Russia's neighbors could be used for "political and military pressure."
NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu responded by saying in a statement that the alliance "poses no threat to Russia or to any nation."
"Any steps taken by NATO to ensure the security of its members are clearly defensive in nature, proportionate and in compliance with international law," she said. "In fact, it is Russia's actions, including currently in Ukraine, which are breaking international law and undermining European security."
See the article here:
NSA Waits Until Christmas Eve to Reveal a Decade #39;s Worth of Its Mistakes
The National Security Agency went all out on a Christmas gift this year: a decade #39;s worth of declassified documents on the unauthorized surveillance of Americans. Turns out it #39;s the NSA that...
By: WochitGeneralNews
Read more from the original source:
NSA Waits Until Christmas Eve to Reveal a Decade's Worth of Its Mistakes - Video
A few hours before Christmas Eve, the National Security Agency released more than a decades worth of damning reports on its website. The reports, which had been submitted by the NSA to the Presidents Intelligence Oversight Board from 2001 to 2013, purport to cover any activity that could be considered unlawful or contrary to government policy. They included incidents in which individual employees abused their security clearances to target a current or former romantic partner as well as dozens of breaches that resulted from overly broad database queries, along with a lack of rigor in determining whether a foreign intelligence target had entered the United States or held US citizenship or permanent resident status. There were also numerous breaches related to poor data security.
In the documents, which were released in response to a FOIA lawsuit brought by the ACLU, NSA analysts are revealed to be all-too-human bumblers, mistakenly searching on their own information, improperly using colleagues credentials, sending highly classified information to the wrong printer, and mistyping email addresses.
There is no evidence in the reports of systematic lawbreakingnot a surprise considering the reports author. Instead, the NSA attributes most of its lapses to unintentional human error or technical mistakes. In a handful of cases, the agency points out, investigations have led to discipline or administrative action. Even so, the reports raise serious questions about the NSAs ability to protect the vast amount of personal data that is vacuumed up by its surveillance apparatus.
Courtesy: Cory Grenier
I became interested in the NSA spying program almost a decade ago when I learned about a large order AT&T had placed for Narus Semantic Traffic Analyzers. The equipment made it possible to inspect Internet traffic in real time, which made it a great tool for spying. A source had told me that the analyzers had been deployed in secret rooms around the country on behalf of the NSA. I looked into the story, but ultimately my editors chose not to pursue it. Even if I could prove it, they werent sure anyone would be interested in the specific details of how telecoms like AT&T were cooperating with the NSA. It was an era of limited newsroom resources, and we had other stories to pursue.
There was also a key question that I wasnt sure I could answer even if I confirmed my tip. Had any Americans been hurt by NSA spying? This is a concern that comes up again and again. Its raised by judges presiding over lawsuits brought by public advocates and civil libertarians. The lack of an affirmative answer is used to justify ongoing surveillance.
Yet, we still dont know if any individual has been hurt or what potential exists for someone to be hurt in the future. A lot depends on what the NSA does with information it collects on those it refers to as US Persons, or USPs, and most of that information is withheld from the public. The NSA claims it takes great pains to comply with the U.S. Constitution, as well as U.S. laws and regulations. The Christmas Eve reports are interesting because they showed where the agency, in its own opinion, has fallen short.
The agencys reports, which emphasize incidents in which US persons were improperly targeted, dont appear at first to correlate with a cache of 160,000 intercepted communications that the Washington Post obtained via Edward Snowden. The Post reporters claimed ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted by theNational Security Agency. The story, published in July, raised new questions about the collateral harm to privacy from NSA surveillance.
Read the original:
After something of a disastrous 2014 as far as public relations goes, the NSA chose Christmas Eve to release a pile of incriminating reports forced out into the open by a Freedom of Information request from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The heavily redacted documents reveal evidence of illegal surveillance and staff errors, and the National Security Agency itself admits that analysts deliberately ignored restrictions on their authority to spy on Americans multiple times in the past decade.
The ACLU say the released reports show the potential dangers of the NSAs surveillance policies and the ease with which data can be misused. The government conducts sweeping surveillance under this authority surveillance that increasingly puts Americans data in the hands of the NSA, Patrick C. Toomey, staff attorney with the ACLUs National Security Project, told Bloomberg. Despite that fact, this spying is conducted almost entirely in secret and without legislative or judicial oversight.
Related:NSAs Auroragold program spies on carriers to break into cell networks
The ACLU is calling for greater oversight for all three branches of government, originally filing the suit to bring to light the implications of an intelligence gathering executive order first issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Since then, it has undergone a variety of modifications, and gives the NSA the ability to gather information about U.S. citizens as a consequence of overseas data monitoring. By law, the agency cannot deliberately intercept messages from Americans, but these messages are often hauled in together with communications captured outside the country
For the NSAs part, it says that any data it shouldnt have is deleted as soon as its spotted. In its executive summary, the agency goes on to say that where illegal spying occurred it was largely due to a mistake on the part of one of its analysts rather than deliberate rule-breaking: The vast majority of compliance incidents involve unintentional technical or human error, reads the summary. NSA goes to great lengths to ensure compliance with the Constitution, laws and regulations.
One 2012 case, for example, shows an NSA analyst searching through her spouses personal telephone directory without his knowledge to obtain names and telephone numbers for targeting; that analyst has been advised to cease her activities, says the report. In another case an analyst mistakenly requested surveillance of himself rather than an individual identified through a foreign intelligence target report.
In another incident from 2012 an analyst ordered surveillance on a U.S. organization that he wasnt authorized to carry out. The analyst incorrectly believed that he was authorized to query [the data] due to a potential threat, reads the report, though nothing came of the surveillance. Any potential violations of NSA regulations are required to be reported to an oversight board as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and its reports to the latter office from 2001 to 2013 that have now been made public.
More here:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- The National Security Administration released a report on a decade's worth of privacy violations -- on Christmas Eve.
The agency posted the report to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union. It includes redacted reports to the president's Intelligence Oversight Board from the fourth quarter of 2001, when surveillance increased because of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, to the second quarter of 2013.
The breaches include deliberate misuse of NSA surveillance capabilities by staffers who wanted to spy on spouses or lovers. But the agency said most violations of privacy were the result of unintentional mistakes.
In a statement, the NSA said the dozen or so cases of deliberate violations had been reported to the board and the Justice Department. There are also instances of data on U.S. citizens being stored on unsecured computers and of data that was supposed to be destroyed being kept.
"These materials show, over a sustained period of time, the depth and rigor of NSA's commitment to compliance," the statement said. "By emphasizing accountability across all levels of the enterprise, and transparently reporting errors and violations to outside oversight authorities, NSA protects privacy and civil liberties while safeguarding the nation and our allies."
Patrick Toomey, a lawyer with the ACLU's National Security Project, said the reports show "an urgent need for greater oversight by all three branches of government."
Related UPI Stories
2014 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI's prior written consent.
Photos: The Year in Review
Notable deaths of 2014
Excerpt from:
NSA releases report on privacy violations -- on Christmas Eve
In response to an ACLU lawsuit, the agency on Christmas Eve releases heavily redacted reports detailing privacy violations between 2001 and 2013.
Grassroots groups fly an airship over an NSA data center in June to protest its mass surveillance program. Greenpeace
The National Security Administration gave its critics a Christmas gift this year: a treasure trove of reports on the agency's spying wrongdoings.
Though hardly a gift of the heart -- the NSA released the heavily redacted reports Christmas Eve in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit from the ACLU -- the reports do detail privacy violations that took place amid an overly broad surveillance net cast after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The quarterly and annual reports, filed with the president's Intelligence Oversight Board, cover NSA activities from 2001 to 2013. They cite examples of information on Americans being emailed to unauthorized recipients, stored in unsecured computers and retained after it was supposed to be destroyed, according to Bloomberg, which first noticed the reports as others awaited Santa's arrival.
The NSA maintains that the majority of the compliance incidents "involve unintentional technical or human error" and that in the "very few cases" involving intentional misuse, a thorough investigation was completed and reported, and appropriate disciplinary action was taken.
"By emphasizing accountability across all levels of the enterprise, and transparently reporting errors and violations to outside oversight authorities, NSA protects privacy and civil liberties while safeguarding the nation and our allies," the agency said in a statement.
In one example of intentional misuse, highlighted by Bloomberg, an analyst reported in 2012 that "during the past two or three years, she had searched her spouse's personal telephone directory without his knowledge to obtain names and telephone numbers for targeting." In a 2009 incident, a "US Army sergeant used an NSA system 'to target his wife,' also a soldier," according to The Wall Street Journal. That led to a reduction in his rank to specialist.
Much of the NSA's mission stems from a 1981 executive order that legalized the surveillance of foreigners living outside of the US. The agency's actions have come under increased scrutiny following the leak of documents in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Some of those pointed to alleged surveillance violations similar in nature to ones the NSA detailed in its Wednesday release.
Patrick Toomey, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said the new documents "shed more light on how these spying activities impact Americans, and how the NSA has misused the information it collects. They show an urgent need for greater oversight by all three branches of government."
Read the original here:
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (PRWEB) December 26, 2014
Last week, the US Supreme Court delivered another blow to 4th Amendment civil liberties. In Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. __ (2014), the Court, for the first time, allowed the police to benefit from not knowing the law. Federal criminal defense attorney Hope Lefeber explains the ruling and discusses its implications.
According to court documents, Heiens car was stopped after a North Carolina patrol car noticed the car only had one working brake light. Believing two working brake lights were required, the officer pulled the car over and ultimately discovered cocaine inside. Petitioner was charged with attempted trafficking in North Carolina state court. Petitioner moved to suppress the search because state law only required vehicles to have one working brake-light. He alleged, therefore, that the officer stopped him for conduct that was fully legal. The trial court denied the motion. (Docket No. 13-604, Nicholas Brady Heien, Petitioner v. North Carolina). Heien then pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking, while reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
On appeal the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed. After careful analysis of the North Carolina statute governing brake lights, the Court of Appeals concluded the stop violated the Fourth Amendment, explaining that "an officer's mistaken belief that a defendant has committed a traffic violation is not an objectively reasonable justification for a traffic stop". The Court of Appeals then held that evidence from the search had to be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court of North Carolina then reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the officer's mistake of law was objectively reasonable, and, therefore, the search was justified and constitutional.
The United States Supreme Court affirmed. The Court had long accepted that an officers mistake of fact would not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 183-86 (1990). The Court had little difficulty in extending the same courtesy to an officers mistake of lawas long as it was a reasonable mistake. To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them fair leeway for enforcing the law in the communitys protection. As such, the majority held that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can indeed provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment to justify a traffic stop based upon that understanding.
Ms. Lefeber explains that this is an extraordinary intrusion into our Fourth Amendment rights, as a police officer can now justify a stop and search in any case and it no longer matters whether the person stopped violated any law, let alone a traffic violation.
Visit link:
CHEYENNE - A federal judge earlier this month dismissed part of a claim filed by a local man who was shot by police in 2011.
The claim, filed in September, said Matthew Carabajal's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable seizures and excessive force protections were violated during the incident.
Carabajal's minor son, who was an infant in the car with him when shots were fired, also was named as a plaintiff.
The lawsuit names the city of Cheyenne and its police department as defendants along with officers Pat Johnson, Joshua Thornton, Matthew Colson and Michael Sutton in their individual capacities.
The defendants in October filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl granted part of the defendants' motion on Dec. 15 and denied the rest.
The judge dismissed without prejudice Carabajal's claim against the city, an alternative claim alleging 14th Amendment violations and all claims filed on behalf of his son.
Dismissing the claims without prejudice means they could be refiled at a later date.
The defense had argued that the claim as it related to Carabajal's son should be dismissed because he was not injured or deprived of any constitutionally protected right.
Carabajal's response to the motion to dismiss, filed last month, noted the alternative 14th Amendment claim, which was dismissed, was included in the lawsuit "for precautionary purposes only ... in case, for some reason, the court dismisses plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims."
See the original post:
Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment Fire-Resistant Gun Safe, 59x36x25-Inch Quick Review
Visit http://scopes24.com/B00CSITFQM.html The Second Amendment Gun Safes from Blue Dot Safes offer a rare combination of quality, protection and beauty. Safe...
By: Jamal Crowford
Continued here:
Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment Fire-Resistant Gun Safe, 59x36x25-Inch Quick Review - Video
The Fundamentals of Marksmanship Safety
A Second Amendment University film on the fundamentals of marksmanship safety. If you caught yourself staring at my super duper sweet shirt a few times durin...
By: Second Amendment Giveaways
Follow this link:
Living Without The First Amendment (B1 -- Paige W., Caleb K., Emily H.)
By: cgmsbmcgurk
See more here:
Living Without The First Amendment (B1 -- Paige W., Caleb K., & Emily H.) - Video
ACLU sues KCPS for punishing students in silent protest
The Kansas City School District is facing a lawsuit, accused of violating a student #39;s First Amendment rights. Read more at http://m.kshb.com/1HsmqNl.
By: 41 Action News
View post:
ACLU sues KCPS for punishing students in silent protest - Video
Holly Jolly Xmas by Dustin Owens The First Amendment
No matter what your faith, have a happy holidays. Please subscribe, and find us around the web. facebook.com/DustinOwensandtheFirstAmendment twitter.com/Pork...
By: Dustin Owens
Read the original post:
Holly Jolly Xmas by Dustin Owens & The First Amendment - Video