Geen evolutie en ecolutie zonder revolutie!

Albert Einstein:

Twee dingen zijn oneindig: het universum en de menselijke domheid. Maar van het universum ben ik niet zeker.
Posts tonen met het label Glenn Greenwald. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Glenn Greenwald. Alle posts tonen

dinsdag 9 maart 2021

Een tweede oorlog tegen terreur ligt op de loer, terwijl een film de 'oorlogsmisdaden' van de eerste laat zien

Glenn Greeenwald schrijft over het feit dat een tweede oorlog tegen terreur op til is, nu gericht tegen de binnenlandse terreur in de VS, echter gegarandeerd dat er al generaals zijn en topgraaiers van de geheime diensten, die proberen om dit om te vormen tegen de 'buitenlandse terreur......' (zoals de nazi's het woord terreur al gebruikten als ze het hadden over verzetsdaden, ook in het buitenland.......) Al zal men in de nabije toekomst de wat men in de VS extreem linkse sites noemt, van het internet bannen, zoals Brasscheck TV nu al bijna geen door YouTube 'geserveerde' video meer kan weergeven in haar berichten of je krijgt te lezen dat men 'dit adres niet vertrouwt', of je nog maar even wilt kijken, echter wat je ook doet: je krijgt de video niet te zien..... (een enkele uitzondering daar gelaten)

Kortom links (althans wat men in de VS politiek 'links' noemt) zal worden gecensureerd en dan krijg je zo'n video bijvoorbeeld niet meer te zien en met 'een beetje geluk' wordt je account verwijderd dan wel geblokkeerd....... Benieuwd of men ook zo hard achter rechts aangaat en dan heb je het over extreem rechts, je weet wel de figuren die zich lieten opjutten om het Capitol te bestormen. De vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden: uiteraard worden deelnemers van die bestorming strafrechtelijke vervolgd, anders zouden er 'South Park rellen' uitbreken over de hele VS.... Maar reken gerust dat men na een eerste 'opwinding' onder het volk, extreem rechts weer snel 'links' zal laten liggen...... Met 'links' bedoel ik uiteraard niet het spreekwoordelijke links van zojuist, maar allen die uit overtuigende redenen werken aan een betere wereld, een wereld waar iedereen gelukkig kan zijn en niet alleen de kleine minderheid die de 'zaakjes prima voor elkaar heeft', een wereld ook waar men werkelijk probeert de klimaatverandering af te remmen en de luchtvervuiling daadwerkelijk zo snel mogelijk probeert uit te bannen.... (zo behoort de Nederlandse luchtkwaliteit tot de slechtste van de EU, waardoor jaarlijks rond de 18.000 mensen [het echte cijfer], niet maanden maar jaren eerder overlijden en dat in verreweg het grootste aantal gevallen na een akelig ziekbed....) Tja, als je je inzet voor een wereld die ook voor komende generaties leefbaar moet blijven, word je al snel als links neergezet.....

Maar terug naar het onderwerp: deze tweede oorlog tegen terreur zal naar schatting nog veel meer mensen schaden en de de dood injagen.....

In de film het verhaal van Mohemedou Slahi, een man die het slachtoffer werd in de eerste oorlog tegen terreur, hij zat 14 jaar gevangen, niet alleen in Guantanamo Bay maar ook in de geheime CIA gevangenissen over de wereld en als in Guantanamo werd hij daar vreselijk werd gemarteld.... (maar ja zijn daarin nog gradaties te ontdekken? vast wel....) Obama beloofde bij zijn aantreden de gevangenen van Guantanmo Bay vrij te laten tegen wie geen zaak was, echter zijn administratie en daarmee hijzelf ging in tegen de vrijspraak van Slahi, zodat hij nog langer moest vastzitten.... Slahi is nooit veroordeeld en toch is hij ondanks dat hij in 2016 vrij kwam nog steeds een gevangene, daar hij Mauritanië niet mag verlaten van de VS, een voorwaarde voor zijn vrijlating, daardoor kan Slahi o.a. zijn zoon niet bezoeken die in Duitsl;and woont..... Ach ja de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld.....

Onlangs had ik nog een bericht over Ahmed Rabbani die nog steeds volkomen onterecht gevangen zit in Guantanamo Bay*, deze mensen, voor het overgrote deel niet eens veroordeeld, moeten vrijgelaten worden en liever gisteren dan vandaag, zijn ze in de VS nu helemaal gek geworden???? (nogmaals: de vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden....) Slahi heeft nog een opmerkelijke gelijkenis met Rabbani: ook hij koestert verder geen wrok tegen de VS (ik kan me dat niet voorstellen na zoveel ellende, het geeft nogmaals aan dat de VS willekeurig mensen heeft ontvoerd, niet zelden na tipgeld te hebben betaald aan schoften die zogenaamde terroristen aangaven en dat is dan weer een vergelijking met het kopgeld dat de nazi-Duitse bezetter betaalde voor het verklikken van o.a. Joden.......)

Zoals gezegd de VS is de grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld en is alleen deze eeuw al verantwoordelijk voor de moord op 5 miljoen mensen en weet je wat? Die massamoord begon met de 'terreuraanval' op de Twin Towers in New York en ja dat is intussen 20 jaar geleden...... Een aanval die overduidelijk is georganiseerd door de CIA, NSA en hoogstwaarschijnlijk met hulp van de Israëlische Mossad, deze torens en WTC gebouw 7 kunnen onmogelijk door hitte zijn neergegaan, zoals intussen een groot aantal deskundigen hebben verklaard, zoveel en overtuigend dat de figuren die dit af durven doen als de door de CIA uitgevonden term 'complottheorie', zichzelf volkomen belachelijk maken......

Lees het ontluisterende artikel hieronder, geschreven door Glenn Geenwald en zie de video's en houd in de toekomst je ogen open en je camera of smartphone bij de hand (en zet je GPS uit!!)!! Geeft het door, voor je het weet ben jij slachtoffer van de heksenjacht 2021, of die nog een paar jaar op zich laat wachten........ Je kent het devies: mensen die nadenken zijn uitermate lastig (voor de autoriteiten.....) en nee bij rechts zijn maar weinig mensen te vinden die echt zelf kunnen denken...... Vandaar ook het succes van fascistische partijen of bewegingen als resp. FVD en de PVV......

VIDEO: With a Second War on Terror Looming, a New Film Explores the Grave Abuses of the First

Imprisoned without charges for fourteen years in Guantánamo, Mohamedou Slahi is a symbol of humans' impulse to abuse power and their capacity for redemption.

SYSTEM UPDATE interview with Mohamedou Slahi from his home in Mauritania, March 6, 2021

Mohamedou Slahi is an extraordinary person with a harrowing past and a remarkable, still-unfolding story. The interview I conducted with him on Saturday, which can be viewed below, is one I sincerely hope you will watch. He has much to say that the world should hear, and, with a new War on Terror likely to be launched in the U.S., his story is particularly timely now.

Known as the author of the best-selling Guantánamo Diary — a memoir he wrote during his fourteen years in captivity in the U.S. prison camp at Guantánamo — he is now the primary character of a new Hollywood feature film about his life, The Mauritanian. The first eight years of Slahi’s imprisonment included multiple forms of abuse in four different countries and separation from everything he knew, but it afforded no charges, trials, or opportunities to refute or even learn of the accusations against him.


The film stars Jodie Foster, Benedict Cumberbatch and Shailene Woodley, while Slahi is played by the French-Algerian actor Tahar Rahim. Foster last week won a Golden Globe award for her role as Nancy Hollander, Slahi’s lawyer who worked for years, for free, to secure his right simply to have a court evaluate the evidence which the U.S. Government believed justified his due-process-free, indefinite imprisonment. Cumberbatch plays Slahi’s military prosecutor whose friend died on 9/11 when the American Airlines passenger jet he was piloting was hijacked and flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

Slahi’s story is fascinating unto itself but, with a second War on Terror looming, bears particular relevance now. No matter your views on the post-9/11 War on Terror — ranging from “it was necessary to take the gloves off and dispense with all limits in order to win this war against an unprecedented evil and existential threat” to “the U.S. gravely overreacted and mirrored the worst abuses of what it claimed it was fighting” to anything in between — it cannot be disputed that limitless power was placed in the hands of the U.S. Government to imprison, to monitor, to surveil, to kidnap and to kill anyone it wanted, anywhere in the world, with no checks. And like most authorities vested in the state in the name of some emergency, these powers were said to be temporary but, almost twenty years later, show no signs of going anywhere. They are now embedded in the woodwork of U.S. political life.

What happened to Slahi is a vivid embodiment of how humans will inevitably abuse power when it is wielded without safeguards or limits. In November, 2001, Slahi was attending a party with his mother and other relatives in his home country of Mauritania, the U.S.-aligned nation in Northwest Africa plagued for years by dictatorships and military coups. Police arrived and told him they needed to question him. That was the last time he would ever see his mother.

After two weeks of intense interrogation about his ties to Islamic radicals, Slahi was flown in chains and shackles to Jordan, the U.S.-controlled oil monarchy where he had never visited and with which he had no ties. For the next eight months, he was interrogated on a daily basis by Jordanian and U.S. operatives, including CIA agents. The Jordanians frequently used classic torture techniques to extract information when their CIA bosses assessed that he was not being forthcoming. After eight months, the Jordanians concluded that he was not affiliated with any extremist groups and had no more information to provide, but the Americans, still reeling from the 9/11 attack, were not convinced.

He was told he would return to Mauritania but quickly realized that was a lie as he was placed in full-body shackles, chains and a jumpsuit. This time, he was flown to the notorious U.S. military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, home to thousands of prisoners detained indefinitely by the Bush and Obama administrations with no charges or human rights protections. After two weeks of brutal daily interrogations, Slahi was told that he was being taken to a U.S. military base in Guantánamo.

Because the camp had opened only after Slahi was first detained in Mauritania, he had no idea what Guantánamo was. But, he told me, he was so happy and relieved to hear he was being taken to the U.S. because “the U.S. is where you get legal rights and there is a functioning court system.” Upon hearing the news, he thought his nightmare, now almost a year long, was about to end. In fact, it was only beginning, and was about to get far darker than he could have imagined.

Flown to the floating island prison in the middle of the Caribbean, thousands of miles away from his home, Slahi, though in American custody on a U.S. military base, was in a place which the U.S. Government had decreed was not the United States at all. It was a no-man’s land, free of any law or authority other than the unconstrained will of U.S. political leaders. Shortly after his arrival, the Bush administration — guided by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Attorney General John Ashcroft — authorized the use of multiple forms of torture that it and the U.S. press euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

It is not in dispute, because official U.S. Government documents acknowledge it, that Slahi, along with dozens of others, was subjected to these techniques over and over. They included prolonged sleep deprivation, beatings and stress positions, a mock execution, and sexual humiliation and assault.

When he arrived at the camp, he spoke Arabic, German and French, and then quickly learned English from his captors and interrogators. His refuge from his hopelessness was the book he wrote, which he authored in English. Completed in 2005, it was taken from him by camp guards and not permitted to be published until ten years later, when it became a global bestseller while Slahi was still consigned to a cage, convicted of nothing and with no idea of when, if ever, he would be freed.


Throughout his ordeal, all Slahi wanted, as any human would, was the opportunity to be told of the charges against him and presented with the evidence corroborating the accusations. But the U.S. government’s decree that Guantánamo was foreign soil and thus free of constitutional constraints enabled them to imprison people indefinitely with no due process of any kind. A bipartisan law enacted by Congress in 2006 called “the Military Commissions Act” fortified the Bush administration’s position by barring federal courts from reviewing any petitions brought by War on Terror detainees to have the validity of their imprisonment legally evaluated.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court — by a 5-4 majority in Boumediene v. Bushruled that the Guantánamo military base was under U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution thus governed what the U.S. Government could and could not do there. As a result, detainees such as Slahi finally earned the right to petition federal courts for release on the ground that they were being wrongfully imprisoned, based on the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus.

Unlike prior prisoner of war camps, filled with uniformed soldiers arrested on a battlefield, Slahi, like so many War on Terror detainees, was arrested at home, far from any war zone, as part of a “war” that was widely recognized from the start would likely be eternal and where the “battlefield” was designated as the entire planet. Whatever one’s views of the War on Terror, indefinite imprisonment under such circumstances was fundamentally different from the traditional prisoner-of-war framework. Empowering a government to detain, kidnap and imprison anyone it wants from anywhere in the world obviously presents a whole new set of potential abuses.

In 2010 — eight full years after he was first arrested and imprisoned at the behest of the U.S. Government — Slahi was finally able to have his day in court. In a meticulous review of the allegations and evidence presented against him by the Obama DOJ, federal judge James Robertson concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant his ongoing detention. A major part of the ruling was the U.S. Government’s own acknowledgement that many of the statements on which it was relying were ones it extracted from Slahi under torture:

There is ample evidence in this record that Slahi was subjected to extensive and severe mistreatment at Guantanamo from mid-June 2003 to September 2003…. The government acknowledges that Slahi's abusive treatment could diminish the reliability of some of his statements.

The huge irony of the government’s allegations that he was affiliated with al-Qaida was that much of the case against him was based on his decision to go to Afghanistan in 1990 to fight with the Mujahideen. For more than a decade — including when Slahi went — the U.S. Government was one of the prime allies and sponsors of this fighting force, using it as a proxy army against the invading Soviet army in Afghanistan and then, after the Soviet withdrawal, to topple the communist government it left in place. Underscoring this irony is that one of the first military guards at Guantánamo with whom Slahi interacted was stationed at the same Mujahideen training camp in Afghanistan where Slahi was first assigned upon his arrival there.

When he decided to join the Mujahideen, Slahi was in West Germany, where he had been given a scholarship to study engineering due to his excelling academically as a teenager in Mauritania. When I asked him what motivated him to leave his studies at the age of 21 to go fight in Afghanistan, he explained that at the time the Mujahideen was considered “cool” throughout the west, the way for young Muslim men to fight against Soviet and imperialist domination. Indeed, throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton officials, as well as right-wing members of Congress, frequently heralded the Mujahideen as heroic “freedom fighters,” and were regarded by the west as important allies.


That this association of Slahi’s from ten years earlier became the foundation of the U.S. Government’s accusation that he was an anti-American terrorist who must be imprisoned indefinitely highlighted the absurdity of U.S. foreign policy and its arbitrary ability overnight to declare freedom fighters to be terrorists, or allies to be monstrous enemies, and vice-versa (similar to how Saddam’s “gassing of his own people” became the 2002 mantra to justify regime change and war even though Saddam’s chemical assault on the Kurds occurred when he was a close U.S. ally).

Slahi terminated his relationship with the Mujahideen when he left Afghanistan in 1992, but various associations that he maintained, as well a two-month stay in Canada in 1999, were used by the U.S. Government to claim that he was still working on behalf of “jihadists.” But the court found the evidence woefully inadequate to justify the allegations:

A habeas court may not permit a man to be held indefinitely upon suspicion, or because of the government's prediction that he may do unlawful acts in the future - any more than a habeas court may rely upon its prediction that a man will not be dangerous in the future and order his release if he was lawfully detained in the first place. The question, upon which the government had the burden of proof, was whether, at the time of his capture, Slahi was a "part of" al-Qaida. On the record before me, I cannot find that he was.

Despite that resounding 2010 judicial exoneration, Slahi did not leave Guantánamo until six years later, in 2016. In part that was because President Obama — who so flamboyantly campaigned in 2008 on the promise to close the camp — instead had his Justice Department appeal the ruling in Slahi’s favor in order to keep him encaged. The appellate court then ruled in favor of the Obama DOJ, concluding that there were flaws in the process. The court ordered a new habeas corpus review, but it never came. Instead, a Pentagon review board concluded six years later, in 2016, that he could be safely released.


Even when he finally left the camp, after fourteen years in due-process-free captivity, Slahi was not fully free. The U.S. conditioned his release on the agreement of the compliant regime in Mauritania that it would seize his passport and not permit him to travel outside the country. As a result, almost twenty years after his multi-nation nightmare began, his liberty is still radically restricted despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime. His mother died while he was imprisoned, and he has a young son in Germany who he cannot travel to see.

My interview with Slahi, who I have found to be a fascinating person since I first spoke with him several years ago, can be seen below. It is part of the SYSTEM UPDATE YouTube program I launched last year but put on hiatus while I built this platform. At the start of the video, I spent roughly fifteen minutes discussing my reaction to the discussion I had with him and the reasons I find his perspective so important, so the interview itself begins at roughly the 15:00 mark.

For reasons I cannot quite fathom, Slahi has managed to avoid a life filled with bitterness, rage and a desire for vengeance over what was done to him. He has started a family and re-created his life as a father, a novelist, and an evangelist for humanitarianism and peace in a way that is genuine, profound and inspiring: everything but banal and contrived. Judge for yourself by listening to him. Among other things, he established contact with an American guard he had seen almost every day in the early years of his Guantánamo detention and then befriended, and invited him to Mauritania where the two had an unlikely but remarkable reunion.

I believe as a general proposition that the more the world hears from Slahi, the better (you can follow him on Twitter here). But particularly now, with Democrats and their neocon allies who spawned the first War on Terror eplicitly plotting how to launch a second one, this time with a domestic focus, it is more important than ever to understand in the most visceral ways possible how arbitrary power of this kind ends up at least as dangerous and destructive as the enemy invoked to justify their adoption in the first place. 

 


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

* Zie: 'Guantanamo Bay gevangene (onschuldig) schrijft brief aan VS president Biden'

Zie ook: 'Guantanamo Bay, de schande van de VS, 10 jaar na de belofte deze illegale gevangenis te sluiten

'VS schendt mensenrechten op vreselijke manier: VN eist vrijlating van een gemartelde Guantanamo Bay gevangene'

'VS martelde en martelt 'gewoon' door op Guantanamo Bay en ook hier geen actie van Internationaal Strafhof (ICC)........'

'De roep om censuur na de stormloop op het Capitol zal ook links keihard treffen' (en zie de links in dat bericht, o.a. over de afbraak van burgerrechten door de Coronacrisis)

'Guantanamo Bay, de schande van de VS, 10 jaar na de belofte deze illegale gevangenis te sluiten'

'9/11: de teller voor het aantal door VS/NAVO gedode mensen staat intussen op meer dan 2,5 miljoen' (en zie de links in dat bericht naar meer artikelen over 9/11) (de 2,5 miljoen vermoorde mensen vormen een oud cijfer dat na onderzoek intussen is bijgesteld naar 5 miljoen.....)

'BBC met uiterst hypocriete anti-Taliban propaganda' (en zie de links in dat bericht naar artikelen over westerse 'moordpartijen' in Afghanistan)

'Brett Kavanaugh heeft lak aan internationaal recht en mensenrechten, dus ook aan seksueel geweld tegen vrouwen.......'

'Roemenië en Litouwen faciliteerden geheime CIA gevangenis.........'

'VS wordt eindelijk aangeklaagd voor oorlogsmisdaden bij Internationaal Strafhof (ICC)' (maar helaas.....)

En wat betreft de oorlog tegen terreur (war on terror) zie o.a.: 'VS belastingbetalers geven per dag $ 250 miljoen uit aan 'oorlog tegen terreur.....' Daarom moeten wij meer uitgeven aan defensie...........' (!!!!)

Voor meer berichten over de oorlog tegen terreur (war on terror), klik op dat label, direct onder dit bericht.

maandag 1 februari 2021

De VS oorlog tegen 'landelijk terrorisme' is een definitieve stap naar een volledige politiestaat.......

De enorme hysterie in de VS na de bestorming van Capitol Hill en het Capitol, gevoed met angst door vooral de reguliere media, is het laatste instrument voor Joe Biden en z'n psychopathische administratie om maatregelen door te voeren die een eind zullen maken aan burgerrechten als:

  • vrijheid van meningsuiting

  • het recht om te demonstreren

  • het recht om fout overheidsbeleid te weerleggen

  • het recht om jezelf te verdedigen (een omkering van bewijslast, je bent zonder meer schuldig en probeer maar te bewijzen dat dit niet zo is, althans als je die kans al krijgt.....)

  • het recht op verantwoording en transparantie van de overheid

  • het recht op privacy (al is daar al praktisch niets van over)

  • het recht op een onafhankelijke pers (die is al lang ter grave gedragen en de reguliere [afhankelijke] media roepen zelfs om censuur op de sociale media en de rest van het net, censuur die zelfs al wordt toegepast, óók in ons land.....)

  • het recht op vereniging (wat hier zwaar geweld wordt aangedaan met de Coronamaatregelen...)

  • het recht op lichamelijke integriteit

  • het recht op een representatieve volksvertegenwoordiging

Al deze zaken hadden in de VS al 'aan glans verloren' door het aannemen van de Patriot Act na de aanslagen van 11 september 2001 (9/11), een wet die al in 1995 werd opgesteld door de huidige president Joe Biden, onder de naam: 'Omnibus Counterterrorism Act.....' 'Patriot Act II' ofwel de: Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act (DTPA), die de Biden administratie voorbereidt, is de definitieve oorlogsverklaring, niet aan landelijke terreur, maar aan iedere VS burger en aan het laatste restje democratie in dat middels een genocide gestolen land).

Het is duidelijk dat deze nieuwe 'War on Terror' niet alleen een oorlog is die iedere VS burger kan treffen, maar die zoals gezegd definitief een eind zal maken aan de al meer dan waardeloze democratie is zoals de VS die nu nog kent.....

Volgens Michael McGarrity, opperhoofdsmeerpijp van de FBI afdeling van contraterrorisme, ziet de FBI 'huiselijk terrorisme' in de volgende 4 zaken: 

  • raciaal gemotiveerd gewelddadig extremisme 

  • anti regerings/autoriteit extremisme

  • dierenrechten en milieu extremisme 

  • abortus extremisme

Ofwel als je gezichtspunten onderschrijft die tegengesteld zijn aan wat de regering of andere autoriteiten (als de FBI, NSA of andere geheime diensten >> de VS heeft er meer dan 25) voorstaan, kan je worden aangemerkt als een 'binnenlandse terrorist' en als zodanig worden behandeld (dat geldt dan bijvoorbeeld voor Black Lives Matter [BLM] activisten....)..... Moet je nagaan: dan is de VS de eerste die altijd met een beschuldigende (vieze hypocriete) vinger wijst naar landen waar men hetzelfde omgaat met deze zaken.....

De VS heeft al organisaties opgetuigd die 'misdaden' ('misdaden' als dierenactivisme) moeten voorkomen, dit gebeurt middels 78 fusion centra, die zaken verbinden op federaal niveau (FBI, justitie), regionaal en lokaal gebied, maar ook middels centra die data verzamelen, met hulp van: -gedragswetenschappers, -bedrijven, -de sociale media (Facebook, Twitter enz.) en -'gemeenschapsorganisatoren', dit alles ondersteund met de nieuwste technieken, uiteraard ook op het gebied van kunstmatige intelligentie, gezichtsherkenning, biometrie (identificatiemethoden op basis van unieke lichaamskenmerken) en gedragsepigenetica (met wie men kan zien welke ervaringen tijdens het leven het genetische beeld verouderen)....... Met name die nieuwe technieken vromen een groot gevaar voor alle burgerrechten, daar controle van de massa's tegenwoordig steeds makkelijker wordt, neem alle camera's in steden en dorpen, het 'live scannen' van internetverkeer en ga nog maar een half uur door.......

De Coronacrisis is als olie op het vuur van antidemocratische maatregelen en ook de rest van het westen moet oppassen niet als makke schapen achter de VS aan te lopen en maatregelen van de VS over te nemen, maatregelen die ook hier de democratie volkomen zullen uithollen (immers vergeet niet dat de andere westerse landen maar wat graag antidemocratische maatregelen uit de VS overnemen, niet in de laatste plaats daar deze het regeren [per decreet] vergemakkelijken en totale controle van het volk mogelijk maken, waarbij de reguliere media grote propagandisten zijn van dergelijke maatregelen, zoals ze ook voor censuur zijn op de sociale media en zelfs op het hele internet......

Lees het volgende uitstekende artikel van John en Nisha Whitehead, met bijdragen van o.a. Glenn Greenwald, een artikel dat ik overnam van Information Clearing House (ICH):

The Government’s War on Domestic Terrorism Is a Trap

 

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead

This is an issue that all Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don’t have to guess about where this goes or how this ends. What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? [The proposed legislation could create] a very dangerous undermining of our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution, and a targeting of almost half of the country.Tulsi Gabbard, former Congresswoman

January 31, 2021 "Information Clearing House" - This is how it begins.

We are moving fast down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts.

In the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, “domestic terrorism” has become the new poster child for expanding the government’s powers at the expense of civil liberties.

Of course, “domestic terrorist” is just the latest bull’s eye phrase, to be used interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist,” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”

Watch and see: we are all about to become enemies of the state.

In a déjà vu mirroring of the legislative fall-out from 9/11, and the ensuing build-up of the security state, there is a growing demand in certain sectors for the government to be given expanded powers to root out “domestic” terrorism, the Constitution be damned.

If this is a test of Joe Biden’s worthiness to head up the American police state, he seems ready.

As part of his inaugural address, President Biden pledged to confront and defeat “a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism.” Biden has also asked the Director of National Intelligence to work with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in carrying out a “comprehensive threat assessment” of domestic terrorism. And then to keep the parallels going, there is the proposed Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021, introduced after the Jan. 6 riots, which aims to equip the government with “the tools to identify, monitor and thwart” those who could become radicalized to violence.

Don’t blink or you’ll miss the sleight of hand.

This is the tricky part of the Deep State’s con game that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.

It follows the same pattern as every other convenient “crisis” used by the government as an excuse to expand its powers at the citizenry’s expense and at the expense of our freedoms.

As investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald warns:

The last two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and rhetoric in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’ that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that began nearly twenty years ago. This New War on Terror—one that is domestic in name from the start and carries the explicit purpose of fighting ‘extremists’ and ‘domestic terrorists’ among American citizens on U.S. soil—presents the whole slew of historically familiar dangers when governments, exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the power to control information, debate, opinion, activism and protests.”

Greenwald is referring to the USA Patriot Act, passed almost 20 years ago, which paved the way for the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.

Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since Sept. 11, 2001.

Some members of Congress get it.

In a letter opposing expansion of national security powers, a handful congressional representatives urged their colleagues not to repeat the mistakes of the past:

While many may find comfort in increased national security powers in the wake of this attack, we must emphasize that we have been here before and we have seen where that road leads. Our history is littered with examples of initiatives sold as being necessary to fight extremism that quickly devolve into tools used for the mass violation of the human and civil rights of the American people… To expand the government’s national security powers once again at the expense of the human and civil rights of the American people would only serve to further undermine our democracy, not protect it.”

Cue the Emergency State, the government’s Machiavellian version of crisis management that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.

This is the power grab hiding in plain sight, obscured by the political machinations of the self-righteous elite. This is how the government continues to exploit crises and use them as opportunities for power grabs under the guise of national security. Indeed, this is exactly how the government added red flag gun laws, precrime surveillance, fusion centers, threat assessments, mental health assessments, involuntary confinement to its arsenal of weaponized powers.

The objective is not to make America safe again. That has never been the government’s aim.

Greenwald explains:

Why would such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be criminalized by new ‘domestic terrorism’ laws that are not already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly because—just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror laws—their real aim is to criminalize that which should not be criminalized: speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling coalition.”

So you see, the issue is not whether Donald Trump or Roger Stone or MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell deserve to be banned from Twitter, even if they’re believed to be spouting misinformation, hateful ideas, or fomenting discontent.

Rather, we should be asking whether any corporation or government agency or entity representing a fusion of the two should have the power to muzzle, silence, censor, regulate, control and altogether eradicate so-called “dangerous” or “extremist” ideas.

This unilateral power to muzzle free speech represents a far greater danger than any so-called right- or left-wing extremist might pose.

The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

Yet where many go wrong is in assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or challenging the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal.

Eventually, all you will really need to do is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, question government authority, or generally live in the United States.

The groundwork has already been laid.

The trap is set.

All that is needed is the right bait.

With the help of automated eyes and ears, a growing arsenal of high-tech software, hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior sensing software, government agents have been busily spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state.

It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

What’s more, the technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you communicate. Computers by way of AI (artificial intelligence) now do the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks, all of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used against you someday at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

For instance, police in major American cities have been using predictive policing technology that allows them to identify individuals—or groups of individuals—most likely to commit a crime in a given community. Those individuals are then put on notice that their movements and activities will be closely monitored and any criminal activity (by them or their associates) will result in harsh penalties. 

In other words, the burden of proof is reversed: you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

Dig beneath the surface of this kind of surveillance/police state, however, and you will find that the real purpose of pre-crime is not safety but control.

Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

According to one FBI latest report, you might also be classified as a domestic terrorism threat if you espouse conspiracy theories, especially if you “attempt to explain events or circumstances as the result of a group of actors working in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others” and are “usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events.”

Additionally, according to Michael C. McGarrity, the FBI’s assistant director of the counterterrorism division, the bureau now “classifies domestic terrorism threats into four main categories: racially motivated violent extremism, anti-government/anti-authority extremism, animal rights/environmental extremism, and abortion extremism.”

In other words, if you dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s, you may well be suspected of being a domestic terrorist and treated accordingly.

Again, where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.

In much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect, the government’s anti-extremism program renders otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.

In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, or appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom.

Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

You will be tracked wherever you go.

You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the corporate sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

If you’re not scared yet, you should be.

Connect the dots.

Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA*, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones and balloons that are beginning to blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify so-called criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.

There’s always a price to pay for standing up to the powers-that-be.

Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, you don’t even have to be a dissident to get flagged by the government for surveillance, censorship and detention.

All you really need to be is a citizen of the American police state.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

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

* NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act.

Zie ook: 'De laatste beslissing van Trump t.a.v. Jemen gaat wat betreft schunnig handelen mijlen verder dan de Capitol Hill rel en zal niet worden teruggedraaid door Biden'

'A Domestic Terrorism Law? War on Dissent Will Proceed Full Speed Ahead' (een ICH artikel geschreven door Philip Giraldi)

'Trumpisme en fascisme eindig je niet met censuur en andere autoritaire maatregelen, maar door de condities te veranderen die e.e.a. mogelijk hebben gemaakt' (en zie de links in dat bericht)

'Joe Biden belazert het volk en de rel op Capitol Hill leidt tot Patriot Act II: totale controle op het volk, ofwel de vorming van een totale politiestaat'

'De roep om censuur na de stormloop op het Capitol zal ook links keihard treffen

'Rellen op Capitol Hill: burgeroorlog in VS dichterbij dan de laatste 155 jaar en de roep om censuur klinkt harder dan ooit

'Edward Snowden over Silicon Valley censuur en andere zaken die de persvrijheid en de vrijheid in het algemeen in gevaar brengen

'Om ons thuis, de planeet, te redden moeten we de westerse oorlogsmachine stilleggen

En terzijde: 'American Psychosis' (een kort artikel en korte video op ICH met Chris Hedges)

zondag 31 januari 2021

VS 'geheime' manipulaties en spionage in Brazilië.

Op 4 juli 2015 werd middels informatie van Edward Snowden bekend gemaakt dat de VS de toenmalige president Dilma Rousseff en 29 leden van haar regering bespioneerde, dit door de NSA, terwijl de FBI al werkte in het Lava Jato onderzoek...... Het 'Lavo Jato'* of in Engels: 'Car Wash' onderzoek was een onderzoek naar corruptie en witwasserij, waarbij hoge ambtenaren, de top van oliemaatschappij Petrobras en politici waren betrokken.

Het smerige in dit onderzoek was wel dat men dit onderzoek ook misbruikte met de opzet om de socialisten die middels Rousseff en Lula da Silva aan de macht waren gekomen zo zwart te maken dat ze in de volgende verkiezingen een overwinning konden vergeten..... Rousseff werd in feite door een straatsgreep afgezet (onder regie van de CIA en NSA)...... Onder groot protest werd Lula da Silva gearresteerd en gevangengezet, zodat hij niet aan de verkiezingen kon deelnemen, pas in 2019 werd Lula vrijgelaten daar men niet anders kon dan toegeven dat hij niets met het Lavo Jato schandaal te maken had....... Al probeert de fascistische regering Bolsonaro hem alsnog weer achter de tralies te krijgen........

Cartoon van Carlos Latuff

Ondanks dat de FBI haar boekje in Brazilië ver te buiten ging, heeft men dit geheim gehouden voor de bevolking...... Eén en ander blijkt uit een 'gelekt gesprek' tussen openbaar aanklager Vlademir Aras en Deltan Dallagnol, de leider van het Lava Jato onderzoek, waarbij Aras Dallagnon voorhoudt dat men wat betreft de FBI niet verder kan gaan dan afgesproken en juridisch toegelaten, waarop Dallagnol zegt dat ze door moeten gaan omdat het allemaal zo lang duurt en de regering niet weet wat er gaande is, de afgevaardigde kan niet weten wat we doen......... (uiteraard gelul, Temer in feite aangedragen door de VS als interim president nadat Rousseff was afgezet, wist natuurlijk dondersgoed wat er speelde...; Ap)

Het voorgaande is te lezen in een interview met Bob Fernadez, een gelauwerde journalist die veel onderzoek heeft gedaan naar de invloed van de VS op de politiek in Brazilië en dat al een aantal decennia, waarbij hij o.a. openbaarde hoe de CIA, FBI en DEA (en NSA) opereerden in Brazilië (en daar de zaken naar de hand van de VS wisten te zetten, Ap) Het is trouwens wel zeker dat de VS niet nog steeds bezig is in Brazilië de boel naar haar hand te zetten.......

Moet je nagaan: de VS is nu bezig westerse landen (waaronder ik ook de Latijns-Amerikaanse landen versta) te bestoken met anti-Chinese propaganda, daar dit land in tegenstelling tot de VS wel betaalt voor de grondstoffen die het nodig heeft en daarvoor zelfs infrastructuur aanlegt en niet alleen infrastructuur ten behoeve van een project waar China baat bij heeft, terwijl de geschiedenis (ook de recente) laat zien dat de VS vooral grondstoffen steelt door politici en ambtenaren om te kopen en daarbij volkomen schijt heeft aan de gevolgen voor de plaatselijke bevolkingen........Sterker nog: als de VS wordt tergengewerkt door een regering organiseert de CIA een opstand en als de bewuste regering daar niet mee weg is te krijgen, wordt het leger van dat land gepolst voor een staatsgreep, mocht zelfs dat niet werken is de kans groot dat de VS het land binnenvalt en dat het liefst middels een false falg operatie**, die ingrijpen moet 'rechtvaardigen...'

Lees het volgende artikel en zie hoe de VS haar klauwen uitslaat naar landen waar het niets te zoeken heeft en tegelijkertijd landen als Rusland, China en Iran van deze zaken beschuldigt, zonder daar ooit bewijs voor te kunnen leveren....... Het artikel verscheen eerst op Brasil Wire, ik nam het over van Information Clearing House, onder het artikel kan je klikken voor een 'Dutch vertaling':

US Intelligence Penetration of Brazil: an Interview with Bob Fernandes

By Brian Mier

On July 4, 2015, Brazil learned, through Edward Snowden, that President Dilma Rousseff and 29 members of her government were being spied on by the NSA. At that time, FBI agents were already working inside the Lava Jato investigation.

 

January 27, 2021 "Information Clearing House" - Bob Fernandes is a veteran journalist from Bahia. During his 43 year career he has worked at some of the most important newspapers and magazines in Brazil, including Folha de Sao Paulo and Istoe, covering issues such as the election of Bill Clinton and wars in Angola and Somalia. In 1994 he helped found the weekly news magazine Carta Capital and served as its Editor in Chief until 2004. During this period, he wrote over 100 cover stories, including an award-winning series of 8 investigative reports about CIA, FBI, and DEA operations in Brazil and another cover story which led to the resignation of Brazilian Federal Police Director Vicente Chelotti. For the last 15 years he worked extensively in TV as a news anchor for GNT and TV Cultura. Currently he hosts a show on Bahia State Public Television and maintains a youtube channel which has over 200,000 subscribers. In September, 2020, I interviewed him briefly about FBI and DOJ involvement in the Lava Jato investigation for the Redfish Documentary, Dismantling Brazil: Bolsonaro’s Neoliberal Agenda. The following is the full interview transcript.

How did the US get involved in the coup against Dilma Rousseff and the election season political imprisonment of Lula?

On July 4, 2015, Brazil learned, through Edward Snowden, that President Dilma Rousseff and 29 members of her government were being spied on by the NSA. At that time, FBI agents were already working inside the Lava Jato investigation. They were working far beyond the agreement that exists. There was a legal agreement, but their involvement went far beyond that. There were 18 agents, apparently, including the FBI Anti-corruption director for Latin America, Leslie Backschies – just to give you an idea of the size of this. So at the same time that Brazil learned about the NSA espionage that was being done on Petrobras, the president of the republic and 29 members of her government, 18 FBI agents were regularly meeting with the Lava Jato task force and carrying out activities far beyond what was authorized in the partnership agreement. There is a leaked conversation between Prosecutor Vlademir Aras from the Federal Public Prosecutors Office with Deltan Dallagnol, who was the Lava Jato task force leader, in which he says, “look, we have to respect the agreement, we can’t go beyond it”. And Dallagnol says, “no, let’s go ahead because it will take so long – the government can’t know about this, the Executive can’t know what we are doing.” It is impossible to be any more clear than this.

This information was leaked by the Intercept during its so-called Vaza Jato investigation. It leaked all the documentation that shows this. More recently, the investigative journalism site Apublica also published information about the presence and the amplification of the FBI in Brazil. In 2017 there was a meeting in São Paulo that Leslie was in, along with other FBI agents and Brazilian businessmen, with Brazilian government representatives to discuss corruption in Brazil and the press were barred from attending. Imagine if this had happened in the United States or in Germany or anywhere else. So this is the current scenario, remembering that in 2014 there was already US wire tapping in Brazil and that Leslie Backschies started working in Brazil in 2012.

How long has the FBI been active in Brazil? Can you talk a bit about your investigative work in the 1990s for Carta Capital?

During the end of the Fernando Henrique Cardoso administration, during the last few years of his government until the time Lula took power, the Brazilian Federal Police did not have enough funding to properly operate. At this time, we published and leaked documents that proved that the DEA, the American anti-drug agency, paid for individual Federal Police agents to conduct drug trafficking investigations through direct deposits into their personal bank accounts. We published documents proving this – legal receipts. I also published articles, with backing documentation, that showed that the CIA was working out of the main Federal Police station’s anti-terrorism unit. In order to work in this unit for the Federal Police at the time, you had to go to Washington and take lie detector tests in hotels -not in Langley – during which they would ask things like, ‘are you corrupt? Are you a homosexual?”

At the time we published the names of many of the agents who went there and years later we published an internal document from the Federal Police that proved all of this. So for you to act inside the main interception base of the Federal Police, you had to take a lie detector test administered by the CIA. It was part of a shared information partnership between the Federal Police and the CIA. This unit was built inside the Federal Police during the Sarney government with money from the US State Department, and its first 20 automobiles came from the CIA in Paraguay. This was all published and nobody ever denied it there is documentation proving it. So this story about US collaboration didn’t start with Lava Jato – it goes back decades. What we have now is a deepening, a widening, it’s a free for all now. Now, with Brazil delivering the Alcantara rocket launching base to the United States, with Embraer sold off and then given back by the Americans, it is now something that is much more in the open. Unfortunately, as Brazil is continental in size and focused in on itself, there is no habit of looking at the outside world, not even at its neighbors. Brazilians don’t think this is important, they don’t pay attention to or understand the meaning of this. Brazilians, in their great majority, do not care or understand what this means. They don’t understand what it means for the Federal Police to have an operation… Brazil had 15 Federal Police bases which operated within the shared information regime with the CIA. Imagine this in any other country.. But here, nobody gave it a second thought.

Dismantling Brazil: Bolsonaro's Neoliberal Agenda



Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

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

*  Het Lavo Jato, ofwel autowasserij onderzoek werd zo genoemd daar de smerige deals werden gemaakt in benzinestations met een autowasserij. 

** Een false flag operatie: de VS organiseert een aanval op haar troepen of marine schepen, of een grote aanslag op het volk van het begeerde land en schuift deze in de schoenen van de VS onwelgevallige regering, zodat de VS een aanval kan beginnen 'gelegitimeerd' door die false flag operatie, voorbeelden te over...... Overigens kan de VS ook liegen over een regering, als zou deze (in het geval van Irak) massavernietigingswapens hebben, ongelofelijk dat westerse landen zich deze smerige leugens op de mouw lieten spelden en hebben meegewerkt aan de illegale oorlog tegen dat land, waarbij een enorme massaslachting werd aangericht, waarbij tot nu toe bijna 2 miljoen mensen werden vermoord.......

Zie ook: 'Bolsonaro (pres. Brazilië) bedreigt journalist Glenn Greenwald met gevangenisstraf vanwege publiceren gelekte gesprekken

'Bolsonaro (president Brazilië) geeft groen licht voor verdergaande genocide op oorspronkelijke volkeren

'Glenn Greenwald vervolgd voor het brengen van de waarheid en zijn seksuele geaardheid'

'Jair Bolsonaro (president Brazilië) heeft nauwe banden met fascistische paramilitaire doodseskaders'

'Bolsonaro wint Braziliaanse verkiezingen >> weer zijn we een fascistisch geleid land 'rijker...''

'Bolsonaro, de fascistische nieuwe president van Brazilië, werd volgens Avaaz en fake news brengers als de NYT gekozen door manipulatie via WhatsApp'

'Braziliaanse verkiezingen: democratie versus (neo-) fascisme, ook een groot gevaar in Europa'

'Lula da Silva slachtoffer van juridische lastercampagne........'

'To See the Real Story in Brazil, Look at Who Is Being Installed as President — and Finance Chiefs' (artikel van Glenn Greenwald)

'VS betrokken bij afzetting Braziliaanse president Rousseff........'

'Temer, interim-president Brazilië heft ministerie van cultuur op......'

'Dilma Rousseff afgezet, CIA coup gelukt........'

'Washington Launches Its Attack Against BRICS'

'Brazil Is Engulfed by Ruling Class Corruption — and a Dangerous Subversion of Democracy'

'The Empire of Chaos Strikes Back'

'Brazil: Dilma – Don’t Let Go! Open Letter to President Dilma Rousseff'