I got a horrible suspicion…

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  • 3
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares

I got a horrible suspicion: the persons – subjects of the FBI COINTELPRO, who were brought into the psychotic or quasi-psychotic state by these technics, are picked up after that by the hostile intelligence services (the Russians are the prime suspects, of course) and somehow recruited or pushed to commit mass murders. This scenario might imply some degree of cooperation, or “collusion” between the FBI (most likely the moles) and these hostile services. Would the FBI be willing to investigate this hypothesis in honest? I very much doubt it: they are not even willing to acknowledge that the various instances of the mass killings, although without apparent or discernable motivation in the overwhelming majority of cases, might be the product of the hostile intelligence activities. FBI, I think that you should acknowledge this, and you should investigate this hypothesis in honest. It is the well-known fact that FBI tends to minimize or to deny the problems if it cannot understand, explain, or solve them. “In fact, the agency has blundered many terrorism investigations and thus jeopardized the security of Americans.”

Michael Novakhov 

12.13.17


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  • 3
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    3
    Shares
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

5:19 AM 11/13/2017 – A “freak accident” or the premeditated act for the sake of sending the symbolic message?

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  • 1
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    1
    Share

Stairwell collapse –

A “freak accident” or the premeditated act for the sake of sending the symbolic message?

Interpretation:

San Diego: Son, die e (и – and) go

Barrio Logan community: Barry (? Barrack Obama), I owe, (you,) low gun (? A reference to sanctions against Russia introduced by Pres. Obama)

Etc.

This “accident” should be thoroughly investigated, and it might provide the clues for the understanding of the similar accidents in the past (recall the falls of balconies, for example), and most likely in the future. 

Michael Novakhov

11.13.17

Mike Nova’s Shared NewsLinks
PBS NewsHour Weekend full episode Nov. 12, 2017
James B. Comey, called a liar and leaker by Trump, tweets a quote about truth and justice – The Washington Post
Trump voters were motivated by racism, not economic anxiety : The Massachusetts Daily Collegian
Bulgaria’s Richest Man or Mafia Kingpin? Possibly Both | Provocateurs
How Spains Fight Against Gangsters Revealed Russian Power Networks
17 Signs of Trump Team Collusion with Russia – PlanetSave.com
7:10 PM 11/12/2017 Trump Backs U.S. Intelligence
VOA Newscasts – November 12, 2017
PBS NewsHour Weekend full episode Nov. 12, 2017 – YouTube
Trump travels to Vietnam and shakes hands with Putin – YouTube
Donald Trump: Former Top Intelligence Chiefs: Trump Being ‘Played’ By Putin
1:58 PM 11/12/2017 Ex-Intel Heads Respond As Trump Muddles
Just Security: Who in Their Right Mind Would Believe Putin?
organized crime and intelligence – Google News: Lincoln’s spy: How Pinkerton laid the foundation for the CIA and FBI – Salon
Ex-Intel Heads Respond As Trump Muddles Message On Russian Influence In Election : The Two-Way : NPR
putin won US 2016 election – Google News: Ex-Intel Heads Respond As Trump Muddles Message On Russian Influence In Election – NPR
putin won US 2016 election – Google News: Clapper: Downplaying Russia threat a ‘peril’ to US – CNN
Mueller Immediately Closes Investigation After Hearing Putin Proclaim His Innocence – The New Yorker (satire)
Saved Stories – 1. Trump: Ex-intelligence chiefs: Trump is being played by Putin and US is in ‘peril’
trump authoritarianism – Google News: Russia’s mark: A dangerous fool for a president – Washington Post
medvedev – Google Search
Modi, Trump, Shinzo, Medvedev reach Manila
Trump’s Taxes Have Probably Already Been Hacked – WIRED

 

Mike Nova’s Shared NewsLinks
children staircase – Google Search
mikenova shared this story from children staircase – Google News.

Story image for children staircase from KRIS Corpus Christi News

KRIS Corpus Christi News

Multiple children injured after stairway collapse at Vault PK

CBS 8 San DiegoNov 11, 2017
SAN DIEGO (NEWS 8) – Multiple children were injured Saturday night after a stairwell collapse at Vault PK. Witnesses told News 8 a staircase …
More than 20 children hurt after staircase collapses
KRIS Corpus Christi News14 hours ago
Stairwell Collapse At San Diego Indoor Gym Leaves 21 Kids Hurt
<a href=”http://Patch.com” rel=”nofollow”>Patch.com</a>20 hours ago
Authorities investigating stairwell collapse at San Diego gym that …
Highly CitedLos Angeles TimesNov 11, 2017
Dozens of children injured in stairwell collapse in Barrio Logan
Highly CitedThe San Diego Union-TribuneNov 11, 2017

Media image for children staircase from Washington Post

Washington Post

Media image for children staircase from Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles Times

Media image for children staircase from The San Diego Union-Tribune

The San Diego Union-Tribune

Media image for children staircase from Patch.com

Patch.com

Media image for children staircase from Mirror.co.uk

Mirror.co.uk

Media image for children staircase from The San Diego Union-Tribune

The San Diego Union-Tribune
Authorities investigating stairwell collapse at San Diego gym that injured nearly two dozen children
mikenova shared this story .

San Diego building inspectors are still trying to determine how a stairwell at an indoor gym in the Barrio Logan community collapsed Saturday night, injuring more than two dozen people, most of whom were children.

The incident occurred about 7:40 p.m. at Vault PK on Main Street near Sigsbee Street, a large warehouse that shares space with a paintball facility and Crossfit gym, officials said. Vault PK specializes in parkour, a physically demanding sport that requires athletes to navigate military-style obstacle courses.

The accident occurred in the midst of an open gym night for ages 5 to 14, according to the gym’s website.

Twenty-one children and two adults, ages 72 and 46, were taken to various hospitals with moderate to minor injuries. Three or four of the victims suffered spinal injuries when a 10-by-30-foot wooden platform collapsed on them, said San Diego Fire-Rescue Deputy Chief Steve Wright.

“It could have been much worse,” he said.

The patients were taken to Rady Children’s Hospital, Scripps Mercy, Sharp and UC San Diego Medical Center, Wright said. There were additional people with minor injuries who left on their own, rather than by ambulance, he said.

Zachary Smith, who was there with his son for a birthday party, said he was standing on the platform, which he described as a viewing area, along with about 30 others, when the staircase below collapsed, causing the platform to topple. He fell onto a young girl but neither was seriously hurt, he said. Smith’s son was also on the platform at the time but suffered only minor scrapes.

“It was a freak accident,” Smith said, adding that he believes it could have been avoided because the structure did not appear to be built to hold such weight.

Smith said the collapse sparked chaos with parents scrambling to find their children amid the debris.

One parent who did not provide his name said the stairwell collapsed after so many children were running up and down to get pizza. Many parents were likely using a Groupon that had been offered for the evening’s open gym, he said.

His 11-year-old son was not injured. He said he thought 40 to 50 people would show up for the evening “but there were probably three times that.”

Joe Saari said that when he and his wife dropped off their two children for a few hours, there were 100 to 150 kids at the warehouse, which includes trampolines and bouncy houses. The couple were heading back home to Chula Vista when one of their children called and said there had been an accident.

His kids suffered minor scrapes, Saari said.

A woman said her 13-year-old son was unhurt but “devastated” by the traumatic scene. She said she went inside to get him out and saw one child with blood all over his face.

At Total Combat Paintball, which shares the facility with the gym, the day began normally before the accident.

“It was business as usual until we heard a loud boom come from the gym, at which point our staff and some customers ran over to the gym to help any way we could,” the company said in a statement.

An hour after the incident, the street around the warehouse was lined with ambulances and fire trucks, some leaving with victims inside and yet still more emergency vehicles arriving. One woman stood on the sidewalk, holding an ice pack over one eye while she talked on her cellphone.

Children huddled nearby in groups, some with parents. San Diego police corralled the children and matched them up with parents as they arrived.

City building inspectors were on the scene Sunday to investigate the cause of the collapse.

pauline.repard@sduniontribune.com

kristina.davis@sduniontribune.com


UPDATES:

3:20 p.m.: This article was updated with more comments from witnesses and fire officials.

9 a.m., Nov. 12: This article was updated with new comments from witnesses and fire officials.

11:05 p.m.: This article was updated with new information from San Diego fire officials.

10:30 p.m.: This article was updated with new information from San Diego fire officials.

This article was originally posted at 9:15 p.m. on Nov. 11

PBS NewsHour Weekend full episode Nov. 12, 2017
mikenova shared this story from Trump’s YouTube Videos.

From: Trump
Duration: 24:55

On this edition for Sunday, Nov. 12, President Trump arrives in the Philippines, his last stop on a five-nation Asia tour. Also, researchers in Hawaii, already a state leader in renewable energy, are using ocean waves to make electricity. Megan Thompson anchors from New York.

James B. Comey, called a liar and leaker by Trump, tweets a quote about truth and justice – The Washington Post
mikenova shared this story .

Former FBI director James B. Comey has been somewhat active on Twitter over the past month, mostly tweeting nature photos and avoiding anything blatantly political.

In one of his latest tweets, he quoted a sermon from the late English Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon about the difference between a truth and a lie: “If you want truth to go around the world you must hire an express train to pull it; but if you want a lie to go around the world, it will fly; it is light as a feather and a breath will carry it.”

Trump voters were motivated by racism, not economic anxiety : The Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  • 1
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    1
    Share
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

10:09 AM 11/10/2017 – Question: Our American Dilemma: Is it a Gun Control or a Mental Health Problem? – HuffPost | Answer: Neither. These are the hostile “special intelligence operations”, as a part of the overall package of measures to control, destroy, and to finally conquer America.

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Question: Our American Dilemma: Is it a Gun Control or a Mental Health Problem? – HuffPost 

Answer: Neither. These are the hostile “special intelligence operations”, as a part of the overall package of measures to control, destroy, and to finally conquer America.

These operations are most likely conducted by the Russians, in collaboration with the other players, most prominently the Russian Mafia. The roles of the Germans (as the strategic and directing brains behind this affair) and the others should also be considered. – M.N. 

The Root Causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. – by Michael Novakhov

__________________________

Our American Dilemma: Is it a Gun Control or a Mental Health Problem? – HuffPost

1 Share

Washington Free Beacon
Our American Dilemma: Is it a Gun Control or a Mental Health Problem?
HuffPost
The reason this “either or” debate goes on says something about the mental health of the nation related to guns. Put simply, in general, we the people are schizoid and in a state of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the issue of guns and gun control.
Trump says extreme vetting on guns wouldn’t stop mass shootingsCNBC
Media Misrepresent Trump Reversal of Obama-Era Mental Health Gun RegulationWashington Free Beacon
Trump sticks to stand on guns after Texas, Las Vegas carnageNewsday
Philly.com
all 533 news articles »

Papadopoulos lied to FBI out of loyalty to Trump: report | TheHill

1 Share
Papadopoulos lied to FBI out of loyalty to Trump: report
© Instagram/realdonaldtrump

George Papadopoulos reportedly lied to FBI agents out of loyalty to President Trump, according to ABC News, citing a source “with direct knowledge” of the special council’s Russia investigation.

Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy aide on the Trump campaign, pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his contacts with Russian nationals during the campaign. According to the court documents, Papadopoulos offered to set up a meeting between Trump and Vladimir Putin during the campaign.

Trump: U.S. Will No Longer Tolerate Trade Abuses

1 Share

“When the United States enters into a trading relationship with other countries or other peoples, we will from now on expect that our partners will faithfully follow the rules.”

Mueller Probes Flynn’s Role in Alleged Plan to Deliver Cleric to Turkey – Wall Street Journal

1 Share

Wall Street Journal

Special Counsel Mueller is investigating allegations that Michael Flynn was involved in a plot to kidnap an enemy of … – The Week Magazine

1 Share
Special Counsel Mueller is investigating allegations that Michael Flynn was involved in a plot to kidnap an enemy of …
The Week Magazine
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is probing allegations that President Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, was involved in a deal to earn $15 million from the successful kidnapping of Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen from the United 

The Early Edition: November 10, 2017 

1 Share

Before the start of business, Just Security provides a curated summary of up-to-the-minute developments at home and abroad. Here’s today’s news.

TRUMP ASIA TRIP

President Trump employed a mix of flattery and tough talk when meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing yesterday during his tour of Asia, the talks focused on the U.S.-China trade relationship and the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson saying that the strong personal rapport between Trump and Xi allowed the two leaders to communicate more effectively, especially when discussing the Pyongyang regime. Jeremy Page, Michael C. Bender and Chun Han Wong report at the Wall Street Journal.

The U.S. and China could “probably” solve all of the world’s problems, Trump said yesterday, notably toning down his criticisms of Beijing. Jill Colvin and Jonathan Lemire report at the AP.

Trump arrived in Vietnam today for the Asian-Pacific Economic Forum (A.P.E.C.), amid improved relations between U.S. and Vietnam, partly due to Vietnam’s desire for the U.S. to counter China’s influence in the region. Hannah Beech explains at the New York Times.

Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will not hold a formal meeting at the A.P.E.C. summit today, but it is “possible and likely” that the two leaders would “bump into each other,” the White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters on Air Force One today. Ali Vitali reports at NBC News.

Trump was “more conciliatory than confrontational” when meeting with Xi, taking a softer approach on the North Korean threat and China’s role in the crisis, thanking Xi for his efforts but calling on him to put more pressure on the Pyongyang regime. Jonathan Lemire provides an analysis at the AP.

There was “nothing but pleasantries and soothing tones” when Trump and Xi met in Beijing, however the question remains what each leader gained and what was lost. Emily Rauhala and Simon Denyer provide an analysis at the Washington Post.

The relationship between the U.S. and the Philippines has been strained as the Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has moved closer to China, on the other hand, the U.S. has been improving relations with Vietnam and this is a relationship that Trump can exploit. Jamie Tarabay provides an analysis at CNN.

SAUDI-LEBANON RELATIONS

There have been growing fears that the recently resigned Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri is being held in Saudi Arabia following his resignation from the Saudi capital of Riyadh on Saturday, the speculation has fueled concerns that Lebanon would be the battleground for the escalating Saudi-Iran tensions as Hariri blamed Iran and its Hezbollah allies for creating a “state within a state” – Hariri’s speech mirroring the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s combative rhetoric. Louisa Loveluck and Kareem Fahim report at the Washington Post.

Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun told Saudi Arabia’s envoy today that Hariri must return to Lebanon and explain why he tendered his resignation from Riyadh. Tom Perry and Sarah Dadouch report at Reuters.

Lebanese government officials have said that they haven’t heard from Hariri since he left for Saudi Arabia last week, Hariri’s decision to resign left the Lebanese government and the nation stunned and the resignation occurred in the context of Saudi Arabia’s contention that Hezbollah acts as a proxy of Iran and has true control of Lebanon. Zeina Karam and Bassem Mroue report at the AP.

A source close to Hariri claimed that Saudi Arabia ordered Hariri to resign and have put him under house arrest, another source claimed that Saudi Arabia have been controlling and limiting his movement. Laila Bassam and Tom Perry report at Reuters.

Hariri’s resignation shows that “Iran is taking over Lebanon. Hezbollah is taking over Lebanon,” Israel’s Intelligence Minister Israel Katz said yesterday, saying that the time is now appropriate for a diplomatic offensive against Iran and Hezbollah at the U.N., he also dismissed allegations that Saudi Arabia forced Hariri to resign. Josef Federman reports at the AP.

The State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert refused to elaborate on Hariri’s status in Saudi Arabia when asked yesterday to describe the meetings between Hariri and the U.S. charge d’affaires in Riyadh, meanwhile Russia’s ambassador to Lebanon threatened to refer Hariri’s case to the U.N. Security Council if the “ambiguity” continues. Al Jazeera reports.

Saudi Arabia yesterday ordered its citizens to leave Lebanon, raising concerns of further instability and possible war as Lebanon is seemingly caught in the middle of the Saudi-Iran rivalry. Anne Barnard reports at the New York Times.

Kuwait and Bahrain have also ordered their citizens to leave Lebanon, the AP reports.

SAUDI-IRAN RIVALRY

“We would like to see sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism and sanctions on Iran for violating the ballistic missile resolutions of the United Nations,” the Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said yesterday, referring to Saturday’s firing of a ballistic missile by Iranian-backed Yemeni Houthi rebels at the Saudi capital of Riyadh. When asked whether Saudi Arabia were heading for a direct confrontation with Iran, al-Jubeir responded “we hope not.” Hadley Gamble and Sam Meredith report at CNBC.

The French President Emmanuel Macron made a surprise visit to Saudi Arabia last night to talk with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Macron blamed Iran for a ballistic missile launch saying that it was “obviously” an Iranian missile, but adding that it was important for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal to be maintained in the interests of global and regional stability. Jon Gambrell reports at the AP.

Macron also discussed the status of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who resigned from the Saudi capital of Riyadh on Saturday and cited threats to his life and Iran and Hezbollah’s destructive role in Lebanon as reasons for his decision. Macron said that all Lebanese officials should be able to live freely and without threats. The BBC reports.

There is no end in sight for the war in Yemen as the Saudi-led coalition continue their campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels and initiatives to bring about peace remain elusive. Brian Rohan provides an overview of the situation in the context of the Saudi-Iran rivalry at the AP.

The Trump administration has chosen to back Saudi Arabia and has been hostile to Iran, in particular the 2015 nuclear deal and Iran’s support for the militant faction of Lebanon’s Hezbollah group, however the latest escalation in tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia has raised concerns about the dynamics of the U.S.-Saudi relationship and its impact on the region and the world. Vivian Salma explains at NBC News.

The U.S. faces a dilemma: how closely should it align with Saudi Arabia in its combative approach to Iran? There has been no consensus within the Trump administration and some have raised concerns that they would not want to antagonize Iran and provoke a reaction from Iran’s proxies in Iraq and Syria. Dion Nissenbaum explains at the Wall Street Journal.

Bin Salman’s decision to oust Hariri has handed power to Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon, however Saudi’s economic influence in Lebanon may force Hezbollah to compromise over its weaponry in order to “salvage the economy,” the Economist writes.

Trump has played a role in Bin Salman’s efforts to consolidate his power in Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince’s zeal for reform reflects a modernization drive that eschews democratic principles and diverges from the Western model – a framework that Trump has consistently undermined through rhetoric and action. Anne Applebaum writes at the Washington Post.

TRUMP-RUSSIA

Trump’s former security chief Keith Schiller testified before the House Intelligence Committee yesterday, confirming that a foreign individual offered to send five women to Trump’s hotel room during his visit to Moscow in November 2013, but Schiller refused the man’s offer saying that “we’re not interested in that.” Carol D. Leonnig reports at the Washington Post.

Schiller made the comments about the five women in the context of him strenuously disputing the contents of the salacious dossier compiled by former British Intelligence officer Christopher Steele, which alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. Ken Dilanian and Jonathan Allen report at the Hill.

The White House senior adviser Stephen Miller has been interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team as part of investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, sources familiar with the investigation said yesterday, one source claiming that Miller’s role in the firing of former F.B.I. Director James Comey was among the topics discussed. Pamela Brown, Gloria Borger and Evan Perez report at CNN.

The opposition research firm Fusion G.P.S. produced negative information on the Clinton Foundation that the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya offered to Trump Jr. and Trump campaign officials during their meeting in June 2016, according to sources familiar with the matter. Mark Hosenball reports at Reuters.

Schiller’s revelation about the offer of five women demonstrates how things work in Russia and their pursuit of “kompromat” tactics, Chris Cilizza writes at CNN.

RUSSIA

The Russian state-funded R.T. television news network said yesterday that it would register as a foreign agent in compliance with a request from the U.S. Justice Department, but said that it would challenge the decision as the “demand is discriminative.” Focus on the network has intensified in light of the investigations into Russia’s role in the 2016 election and the lobbying efforts of Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates. Paul Sonne reports at the Wall Street Journal.

The Russian embassy in the U.S. yesterday condemned the Justice Department for demanding R.T. to register as a foreign agent, saying that measures limiting activity “will inevitably trigger an immediate symmetrical response.” Julia Manchester reports at the Hill.

The U.S. is expected to propose the deployment of 20,000 peacekeepers in eastern Ukraine in the coming days in a test of Russia’s willingness to end the conflict in Ukraine, however Western officials remain skeptical that Russia would fulfil its commitments under the 2015 Minsk agreement to withdraw all troops and weapons out of Ukraine and allow Kiev to restore control over the country following Russia’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014. Laurence Norman and Julian E. Barnes report at the Wall Street Journal.

Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday accused the U.S. of attempting to interfere in Russia’s presidential campaign and claimed that the U.S.’s role in trying to disqualify Russian athletes at the 2018 Winter Olympics was a means of trying to undermine his presidency. David Filipov and Marissa Payne report at the Washington Post.

SYRIA

The Islamic State group have taken back half of the Syrian town of Albu Kamal despite the Syrian army’s announcement yesterday that it had captured the town, according to the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Reuters reports.

The Islamic State group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was spotted Albu Kamal, a Hezbollah-run media unit claimed today, but did not offer further information, Reuters reporting.

Syrian opposition activists denied claims that al-Baghdadi has been sighted, saying that the Syrian army was seeking to distract from its losses in Albu Kamal. Bassem Mroue reports at the AP.

Iran- and Russia-backed Syrian government forces now face possible confrontation with U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (S.D.F.) following yesterday’s defeat of the Islamic State group in their last significant stronghold in the country, Sarah El Deeb explains at the AP.

Russia’s “deplorable” attempts to discredit the report into chemical weapons attacks in Syria continue to “deny the truth,” the U.S. representative Kenneth D. Ward said yesterday at a meeting of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (O.P.C.W.), remarks that were posted on O.P.C.W.’s website. Mike Corder reports at the AP.

IRAQ

The U.S.-led coalition has been setting up outposts in western Iraq near the border of Syria to clear Islamic State group militants from their last redoubt in the Euphrates River valley, Susannah George reports at the AP.

U.S.-led airstrikes continue. U.S. and coalition forces carried out six airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria on November 3. Separately, partner forces conducted four strikes against targets in Iraq. [Central Command] The figures have not been updated since November 4.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

The U.S. military has killed several al-Shabab Islamist militants in Somalia in airstrikes yesterday, the U.S. military stated. Abi Guled reports at the AP.

The European Union will preserve the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and ensure that it will be “fully implemented by all, in all its parts,” the E.U. foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said today. Reutersreports.

The self-styled Libyan National Army forced Islamist fighters from the city of Beghazi yesterday, expelling the militants from one of their last strongholds in the country, Reuters reports.

N.A.T.O. announced yesterday that it would deploy around 700 troops to Afghanistan, falling short of U.S. expectations of around 1,500 troops, the N.A.T.O. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that there are still “some gaps” that the alliance would work on. Julian E. Barnes and Craig Nelson report at the Wall Street Journal.

Militants loyal to the Islamic State group killed six soldiers and injured four on a southern Philippine island, according to Philippine military spokesperson, Reuters reporting.

Israel will be holding its largest-ever air drills with pilots from 8 countries and around 1,000 participants, the Israeli military announced yesterday, the exercises coming amid increased tensions in the region. Tia Goldenberg reports at the AP.

An ex-Guantánamo Bay inmate has filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government claiming that it was complicit in his detention and torture, Jillian Kestler-D’Amours reports at Al Jazeera.

Read on Just Security »

Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading…
Page 2

UK House Speaker Doubles Down On Trump Parliament Speech Ban

1 Share

The honor was given to former President Barack Obama in 2011.

Trump talks tough on trade in Vietnam, no formal meeting with Putin – Washington Post

1 Share

Washington Post
Trump talks tough on trade in Vietnam, no formal meeting with Putin
Washington Post
DANANG, Vietnam — President Trump revived his tough talk on trade Friday at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit here, warning that he will not allow “the United States to be taken advantage of anymore.” Speaking to a gathering of business …
All eyes on Trump and Putin attending Vietnam summitUSA TODAY
Trump meeting with Putin expected to take place Friday: reportThe Hill
Will Trump Snub Putin? US Less Convinced About Meeting Than MoscowNewsweek
Fox News –Telegraph.co.uk
all 698 news articles »

Former FBI counter-spy on Mueller, Trump and Putin: “Russia is winning”

1 Share

These are people who wanted to win at all costs, and believed that this information was something they could get that would help secure the presidency for Trump. Those are the boxes that get ticked for me. Then there is actually the question of opportunity and access. We know Manafort had connections with the Kremlin.

Again, this pattern demonstrates an attempt by the Russians to recruit U.S. persons to support their operational intent to undermine our country.

How does the information gleamed from Mueller’s indictment either complicate or clarify the timeline of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election?

I think the biggest problem we have with Manafort and Gates is that there are alleged criminal activities which predate the campaign, especially the Ukrainian money-laundering operation.

That is something which will be used to parry and deflect. But ultimately it does not matter if these events happened before the presidential campaign. They are still a crime. It also shows that Manafort is a man who has been a campaign manager and likely a money launderer for the Russians. He should never have been in that position [on the Trump campaign] to begin with. At best, Donald Trump could just plead ignorance, that he didn’t do his due diligence. Again, this doesn’t make him look any better.

How do you read the question of Trump’s involvement, given the new information? Like a Mafia don, it seems that Trump will say he had no idea what was going on around him.

That’s a very good point. I think that Donald Trump was not fully aware of a lot of these intricacies. I think he was not aware of them simply because of the Russians. The Russians were very smart about this, in terms of figuring out how to recruit people. We see that with Hillary Clinton emails and the success that they apparently had there.

Former FBI counter-spy on Mueller, Trump and Putin: “Russia is winning” – Salon

1 Share

Salon
Former FBI counter-spy on Mueller, Trump and Putin: “Russia is winning”
Salon
… what Putin hoped to gain by interfering in the 2016 American presidential election? Was Papadopoulos “flipped” by the Russians to work against the United States? Do we now have evidence that the Russians infiltrated Trump’s inner circle accomplished?and more »

Legal expert thinks Robert Mueller may indict Vladimir Putin in Donald Trump’s Russia scandal 

1 Share

Yes, you read that headline correctly. One legal expert, who has a law degree from Oxford and another law degree from the London School of Economics, is weighing in on Donald Trump’s Russia scandal. Based on the available evidence and the direction he thinks things are now headed in, he believes that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may end up indicting Russian President Vladimir Putin.

That’s the argument from Brent Budowsky, a legal expert who has written a new op-ed about the matter for The Hill (link). He makes a compelling case that Robert Mueller has the legal grounds to convene a grand jury against Putin, and the evidence to bring an indictment against him. Putin has committed various major and quantifiable crimes against the United States as part of an attempt at interfering in the U.S. election on Donald Trump’s behalf. Budowsky is urging Mueller to name Putin as an unindicted co-conspirator instead – but the bottom line is why Mueller would go after Putin at all.

Palmer Report’s own take on the matter is this: short of a regime change, Russia obviously would not be willing to extradite its own president to stand trial in the United States. Mueller could try Putin in absentia, as a way of publicly laying out the case that Putin rigged the election in Trump’s favor and worked with members of the Trump campaign to do it. In so doing, Mueller would be trying Donald Trump by proxy.

There are a number of legal experts who believe Robert Mueller can indict Donald Trump while he’s still a sitting president. There are far fewer who believe Mueller can actually put a sitting U.S. president on trial, because the Constitution grants impeachment trial power to Congress. However, nothing says Mueller can’t put the president of Russia on trial, as a way of convincing the American public that Trump is overwhelmingly guilty and illegitimate thus helping to force Trump’s ouster.

The post Legal expert thinks Robert Mueller may indict Vladimir Putin in Donald Trump’s Russia scandal appeared first on Palmer Report.

AP: Russia Twitter trolls rushed to deflect Trump bad news – CBS News

1 Share

CBS News
AP: Russia Twitter trolls rushed to deflect Trump bad news
CBS News
Since early this year, the extent of Russian intrusion to help Mr. Trump and hurt Clinton in the election has been the subject of both congressional scrutiny and a criminal investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. In particular, those 
Trump vs. Clinton: Why are we still obsessed a year later?Los Angeles Times 
Trump Calls Russia Investigation ‘A Disgrace’NPR
Trump’s bogus Clinton allegations assault the rule of lawCNN
TIMEPOLITICO Magazine
all 654 news articles »

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

6:58 AM 11/10/2017 – M.N.: This article in “Sputnik” is a good example of the deliberate disinformation

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

M.N.: This article in “Sputnik”, the Russian propaganda mouthpiece, is a good example of the deliberate disinformation covered as the “respectable sociological stance”, with the corresponding and not so innocent “recommendations”, with the purpose of disarming America and providing the convincing cover for the Russian Intelligence activities, or their “special operations”. The “sad point” is that this point of view is very popular, if not prevalent in the U.S. mass media, providing the easiest, and the false in my view, explanation to the public, and it probably is heavily influenced by the Russian propaganda. 

If you admit the hostile special intelligence operations nature of the mass killings as the hypothesis, then all the sociological and the statistical studies become irrelevant.

And the purpose of their “recommendations” becomes obvious, too.

Watchdog: Altering Gun Laws, Background Checks Proper Response to Mass Shootings – Sputnik International
 


Sputnik International
Watchdog: Altering Gun Laws, Background Checks Proper Response to Mass Shootings
Sputnik International
On Tuesday, Democrats were unsuccessful in forcing a vote on legislation that would establish a select committee to study the causes of mass shootings, find ways to regulate the gun background check system and research how people with mental health …

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

6:06 AM 11/10/2017 – The Root Causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. – by Michael Novakhov

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  • 2
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    2
    Shares

The Root Causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. – by Michael Novakhov

If you admit the hostile special intelligence operations nature of the mass killings as the hypothesis, then all the sociological and the statistical studies become irrelevant.

Image result for three monkeys see no evil

4:28 PM 11/7/2017 – The Root Causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S., in my opinion – M.N. | NYT Shows How Not to Analyze Mass-Shooting Data – National Review

4:28 PM 11/7/2017 – The Root Causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S.: In my opinion:

If you admit as the hypothetical explanatory option the  hostile special intelligence operations nature of the mass killings, and it is impossible not to consider this scenario as “an”, if not “the” (in majority of cases) explanation, then all the sociological and the statistical studies become irrelevant, just as the gun ownership explanatory theory, which is indeed false, in my opinion. This latter factor might be contributing but not the root cause, and not the main causal factor in the modern-day U.S. culture. 

But the good thing is that we started to ask these questions and started to look for the answers. We should not let the conceptual stereotypes to cloud our judgment. One of such stereotypes, regarding “Al Qaeda”, started to crumble before our eyes: “21 Years of War with Al  Qaeda?” 

The so-called “ISIS” probably is the next in line of the abandoned illusions in waiting. 

“I did also call him” “Ishmael”, but we did not want to see this phenomenon, and we still do not want to face it, as most logically it is, which is the current state of de facto hybrid or intelligence war of deep and multi-dimensional deception with Russia and her overt and covert allies. Not an easy situation but not the reason for despair. Now, when the picture becomes clearer, all sorts of the proper questions will be asked, and all sorts of the proper answers will be sought. I think, one of the concerns might be the effects of the excessive liberal or conservative slants or biases, which apparently can be equally harmful and can enhance the security vulnerabilities by rocking the boat too much in either direction. The skillful political balance appears to be the key. 

It looks like the beginning of the end of the current wave of the pre-and-post-9/11  historical denial. So much for the powers of the very plausible self-deception: “I do not see it, because I do not want to see it”, just like the good old three monkeys

“Why are US mass shootings getting more deadly?” – BBC News

I did notice this trend also and mentioned it in one of my previous posts

The answer: because the planners and the organizers of these attacks do everything to approach the military efficiency in these operations. They do view them as the para-military types of operations. The preferred use of the AR-15 (Kalashnikovs or their modifications) also points in this direction, besides serving the (deadly) commercial advertising purposes. 

Michael Novakhov 

11.7.17 

Links: 

“I did also call him” “Ishmael”.

"I will call him" "Ishmael"
The Global and The US Domestic Terrorism Incidents, The Mass Shooting Incidents, and The Incidents of Shooting at the U.S. Police Officers: Comparisons and The Illustrations for The Statistical Analysis – The Brinsley’s Jacket – Last and Current Update: 11.23.16 
______________________________________

 

“Some colleagues sent me the New York Times article “What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer” today. My jaw just about hit the floor when I saw the chart that appears at the top of the piece, above everything else except the title and byline…”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453485/nyt-shows-how-not-analyze-mass-shooting-data

“We shouldn’t care about “gun murders” or “mass shootings”; we should care about murders in general and mass killings in general, regardless of how they’re accomplished. (Up to a point it’s essentially tautological to claim that more guns translates to more problems with guns, because a society with no guns by definition cannot have any problems with them.) As I’ve noted numerous times before, there is no simple, consistent correlation between gun ownership and murder or homicide rates in general, either among developed countries or among U.S. states. More sophisticated studies face a variety of serious methodological obstacles — I don’t find any of them that compelling — and have reached varying conclusions. The research on mass shootings in particular is in an even more primitive state.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453485/nyt-shows-how-not-analyze-mass-shooting-data

________________________________

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

1 Share

Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence.

Contributing Op-Ed Writer: Sutherland Springs Only Happens to Be in Texas

1 Share

There is nothing particularly Lone Star State-ish about a mass killing these days. Ask New York, or Las Vegas.

 ___________________________________

 

Mass Shootings News Review

Current News, Selected Articles, Reviews, Analysis, Investigations, Opinions

RECENT POSTS

The Next Phase in the War on Terror 

1 Share

Last week, in the deadliest terrorist attack in New York City since 9/11, Sayfullo Saipov turned a nearly mile-long stretch of bike path along Manhattan’s West Side Highway into a killing ground. The attack reflects a terrorism threat that is morphing from the complex, externally directed attack carried out by a network that we saw on 9/11 to violent individuals, inspired online by ISIS and other radical jihadist groups. We built an architecture to prevent another 9/11, but we have a long way to go when it comes to tackling this latest phase of terrorism.

The good news is that communities have proven resilient when attacked. The bad news is that this week—with calls for “extreme vetting” and denigration of our criminal justice system as a tool against terror—we saw dangerous backsliding instead of a renewed focus on the work needed for the next phase in the war on terror.

How should we respond to this latest terror act on our soil? Rather than demagoguing on immigration, launching divisive political attacks, or disparaging our criminal justice system, we should focus on what works. Effectiveness should be our lodestar. Russia is not the only one who wants to weaken the United States by sowing division in our country—the terrorists want to do so as well. We shouldn’t let them.

When tragedy and terror strike we must deliver swift and certain justice consistent with the rule of law. While it appears cooler heads have prevailed to reverse the President’s initial impulse to send the New York attacker to Guantanamo (an unprecedented and legally dubious move), the fact that we found ourselves having the debate yet again about “war” vs. “law enforcement” in the terror fight prompted disturbing déjà vu. Dedicated professionals across two administrations worked hard to ensure that this country can apply all tools—military, intelligence, law enforcement, diplomacy, financial sanctions—to disrupt threats and hold terrorists accountable. For terrorists caught on U.S. soil, we have relied on a criminal justice system that is the envy of the world not only because it is the hallmark of our rule of law society but also because it gets results.

The record is clear when it comes to generating intelligence, securing convictions and safely holding terrorists. The more than one million federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who work in that system put their lives on the line to keep us safe are anything but a “laughing stock.” To the contrary, they include more than 30,000 FBI agents, intelligence analysts and other professionals who I was proud to call colleagues when I served as Chief of Staff to then FBI-Director Robert S. Mueller. This nation is also served everyday by dedicated federal prosecutors who are no “joke.” That includes those in the Southern District of New York who, true to their tradition of independence, tuned out the political talk and moved swiftly to charge the New York attacker. It was precisely the need for intelligence-driven criminal prosecutions of terrorists and spies that led to the creation of the Justice Department’s National Security Division which I was privileged to lead during the Obama Administration. These elements of our post 9/11 architecture—solidified over both Republican and Democratic Administrations—have brought justice in hundreds of terrorist-related cases since 9/11.

Contrast that approach with the (hopefully short-lived) impulse to send Saipov to Guantanamo on the theory that we’re at war (we are) and he’s an enemy (he is) and enemies don’t get lawyers (not quite). The Supreme Court has determined that Guantanamo Bay, where a detainee has the right to challenge his detention, is not lawyer-free zone. And while a bipartisan effort reformed military commissions in 2009 to maintain a prosecution tool for terrorists caught on a hot battlefield, they have proven anything but swift and certain. In 15 years, the military commissions have delivered just eight convictions or guilty pleas and several of those have been overturned or invalidated. The 9/11 and U.S.S. Cole bombing victims and their families are still waiting for justice today.

Justice would not be served by sending Saipov to Guantanamo. Nor would it serve the goal of generating intelligence and understanding how Saipov came to plow down pedestrians on Halloween afternoon. Saipov reportedly has talked to FBI agents and told them that he consumed ISIS propaganda prior to his attack. Understanding more about how and when he became radicalized is critical to stopping future attacks. But the surest way to keep that from happening would be to interrupt the FBI interrogation and ship Saipov to Guantanamo.

It is dangerous pre-9/11 thinking to suggest that the FBI can’t act in this case—as it has in so many others since 9/11—to obtain intelligence from a terrorist in custody. In fact, the FBI can immediately question terrorists—without giving Miranda warnings—to identify other threats and plots. In 2011 when Congress was considering a mandatory military custody law for terrorist captures here or abroad, the FBI was right to argue that such a mandate would interrupt their intelligence gathering process by turning a terrorist over to the military where he could challenge his military detention with the benefit of a lawyer. Sure enough, in case after case where the FBI has moved quickly to gather intelligence and then bring a prosecution in our courts, terrorists have pled guilty or received lengthy sentences in the highest security Federal prisons. And importantly the FBI has been able to generate intelligence that led to the capture of other terrorists (Just ask Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab). We need this intelligence now more than ever in order to understand how Saipov was radicalized and how someone might have intervened in time to stop him.

It appears that Saipov did not slip through the vetting system, but instead may fall into the more-common category that DHS described in March of this year when it concluded that most foreign born, US-based terrorists are radicalized after they arrive. At the moment, we have a rare opportunity, having taken Saipov into custody alive. As NYPD Deputy Commissioner John Miller said, Saipov followed the ISIS playbook “to a tee” by weaponizing a vehicle and leaving a note to brag about it. This breed of terrorist poses a significant challenge to law enforcement and we should strive to learn as much as we can about Saipov’s path to radicalization.

In response to this challenge, we should reject impulsive responses in favor of what works. Recycling campaign chants of “extreme vetting” and pulling the plug on the Diversity Visa Program which reportedly allowed Saipov entry in 2010 is a distraction; he reportedly was radicalized years after he entered the United States. To be clear, we should support strong and thorough vetting for anyone who wants to enjoy the rights and benefits of this country. Such vetting, regardless of specific program, should be refined based on threat intelligence. This is why following the Paris attacks in 2015, the DHS strengthened the visa waiver program to respond to the threat from foreign fighter returnees who may have traveled to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq but held European passports eligible for visa-free travel to the United States. The future of the Diversity Visa Program might be a reasonable topic for debate, but based on what we know now is in no way related to the tragedy on the Westside Highway.

Rather than creating distractions and issuing blanket travel bans, our vetting process should respond to the actual threats we face. We should be building trust in communities we need to identify future threats, not alienating and marginalizing them. Let’s focus on working with social media companies to stop abuse of their platforms. Let’s work to strengthen relationships with our international security partners.

Sixteen years after 9/11 we face a different type of threat. In response, we should emulate the best we’ve seen from this country. We should model resilience and support, and we should reject politics in favor of pragmatism. We must summon the best in our communities, in our government and politics, and rely on that which makes us different from every other country in the world: the rule of law and our justice system. Anything less allows terrorists to divide us.

Read the whole story
· · · · ·

21 Years of War with Al Qaeda? 

1 Share

Has the United States been at war with al-Qaeda for 21 years? During the most recent 9/11 military commission hearing at Guantanamo Bay, the prosecution finally articulated its view of when the U.S. and al-Qaeda entered into an armed conflict. According to the prosecution, that putative armed conflict began more than 21 years ago, on August 23, 1996, the day Osama bin Laden, the founder of the terrorist group, published a fatwa calling for attacks on Americans. The government characterized this fatwa as a declaration of war:

We do believe that the ’96 document written by [Osama] bin Laden, who was the head of al-Qaeda at the time he wrote it, is a declaration of war.

The prosecution apparently staked out this astonishing position, at odds with history, law, and the U.S. government’s interests outside of the 9/11 military commission, to satisfy its short-term litigation goal of preserving the military commission’s personal jurisdiction over the 9/11 defendants.

The Military Commission Act grants military commissions personal jurisdiction over “alien unprivileged belligerents.” The Act defines those as individuals who are not U.S. citizens, who are not privileged belligerents, and who either (1) engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; (2) purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (3) were a part of al-Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense.  All three categories of individual over whom a military commission may have personal jurisdiction must have some connection to hostilities—which the MCA defines as “any conflict subject to the laws of war.”  (The timing element of the third category implicates hostilities through §950p(c), which limits offenses triable by military commission to those “committed in the context of or associated with hostilities.”)  Hostilities, in turn, are defined as any conflict subject to the laws of war.  Thus, the military commission has personal jurisdiction over the 9/11 defendants only if they were connected to an armed conflict between the U.S. and al-Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001.

Since May 2017, the 9/11 military commission is working its way towards a pre-trial, evidentiary hearing on personal jurisdiction.  It was in the context of a preliminary hearing addressing what if any witnesses should provide testimony as to personal jurisdiction that Judge Pohl pressed the prosecution for a specific date on which the armed conflict with al-Qaeda began.  The government’s response—August 23, 1996—was intended to ensure that the 9/11 military commission could proceed.  Unfortunately, that position carries with it significant ramifications implicating state sovereignty—the oldest rule in international law—and fundamental applications and consequences of the law of armed conflict.

It is axiomatic that only states may bring about the legal state of war or, in modern terms, armed conflict, through an act of speech. Historically, the law of war applied to situations of declared war between states.  When the 1949 Geneva Conventions established the modern framework for armed conflict that rests primarily on objective indicators of conflict rather than political declarations or determinations, the drafters retained the notion of declared war between states—but only for conflicts between states.  Thus, international armed conflicts—armed conflicts between two or more states—may arise upon a declaration of war alone or through the use of armed force between two states.  In contrast, non-international armed conflicts——armed conflicts between states and non-state actors (or among non-state actors)—only exist when non-state actors are sufficiently organized and violence between the parties is sufficiently intense. Whereas Common Article 2, which invokes the full panoply of the Geneva Conventions, applies only to interstate war and may be triggered merely by a declaration of war, Common Article 3 applies alone in the event of “an armed conflict not of an international character.” The drafters of the Geneva Conventions simply made no provision for a  non-international armed conflict to be triggered by means of a declaration of war.

In fact, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions intentionally excluded a declared-war trigger for non-international armed conflict. Common Article 3 reflects a careful balance: recognizing that conflicts between states and non-state actors may rise to a level of violence comparable to that of interstate armed conflict, while also accommodating states’ desire to minimize international legal regulation intruding on their internal affairs. This bargain reflects states’ aversion to conferring the sort of legitimacy or legal status on non-state actors that could challenge states’ sovereignty, including by implicitly recognizing their belligerent or insurgent status.

Thus, the final clause of Common Article 3 includes a disclaimer: “The application of the preceding provisions [Common Article 3] shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.” Jean Pictet’s authoritative Commentary on the Geneva Conventions specifically attributes the provision’s origin to a desire to “prevent the [non-state] party from basing a claim for recognition as a regular Government on the respect it had shown for the Convention,” as required in the original Convention draft. His explanation of Common Article 3 attributes much of its evolution from its initial proposal to its final form to states’ concerns about legitimizing criminal entities.

“There was also a risk of common or ordinary criminals being encouraged to give themselves a semblance of organization as a pretext for claiming the benefit of the Conventions, representing their crimes as ‘acts of war’ in order to escape punishment for them. A party of rebels, however small, would be entitled under the Conventions to ask for the assistance and intervention of a Protecting Power. Moreover, it was asked, would not the de jure Government be compelled to release the captured rebels as soon as the troubles were over, since the application of the Convention would place them on the same footing as prisoners of war?”

Pictet concluded that without the disclaimer, Common Article 3 would not have been adopted. “It meets the fear—always the same one—that the application of the Convention, even to a very limited extent . . . may confer belligerent status, and consequently increased authority, upon the adverse party.”

The same concerns over extending legitimacy to non-state actors persists today.  Indeed, the United States has never ratified Additional Protocol I precisely because it had the potential to “give recognition and protection to terrorist groups” by extending the law pertaining to international armed conflicts to certain non-international armed conflicts. In transmitting his decision not to seek ratification of Additional Protocol I, President Ronald Reagan explained to the U.S. Senate that the application of the full panoply of international humanitarian law to armed non-state actors who do not otherwise comply with the law of armed conflict could legitimate the aims and the practices of terrorist organizations.

Nevertheless, solely in order to extend the military commissions’ jurisdiction over the 9/11 defendants, the government has chosen to legitimize bin Laden and al-Qaeda by placing them on the same legal plane as states, stating last week that:

. . . [O]ur position has always been under international law, when you have international armed conflicts, a declaration of war is sufficient alone [to trigger the law of armed conflict].

. . . .

If we were to declare war on another country today, the law of war would apply from the second we declared war. And that’s really what we are talking about. We are talking about when did the hostilities begin so we know when the law of war took over. And clearly our position has always been that we believe it began in 1996 with [Osama] bin Laden’s declaration . . . .

The military commission prosecution evidently believes that, as a matter of law, an individual or a non-state actor may, through its speech alone, unilaterally bring about a legal state of armed conflict. If the military commission were to credit the prosecution’s position, it would preserve the military commission’s jurisdiction and save the prosecution the trouble and difficulty of demonstrating the existence of a non-international armed conflict prior to 9/11. Unfortunately, the consequences of that inexplicable position are not limited to whether the 9/11 military commission may go forward.

According bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa the legal effect of a declaration of war implies that in 1996 al-Qaeda had the characteristics of a state actor. International law normally limits statehood only to those entities that are able to exert effective control over a definite territory and population, engage in international relations, and garner recognition. But none of this was true of al-Qaeda in 1996. Three months before issuing his fatwa, bin Laden and al-Qaeda were evicted from Sudan and dispossessed of their enterprises there. At the time, al-Qaeda boasted as few as several dozen members. And, seven months later, the Taliban—who by then exerted actual effective control over the territory where bin Laden resided—forced bin Laden to relocate to Kandahar from Nangarhar, where he originally established himself in Afghanistan after fleeing Sudan.

The prosecution’s position imbuing al-Qaeda with state-like powers undermine U.S. interests outside of this military commission in at least five ways.  First, it undermines the lawfulness and legitimacy of the U.S. war of self-defense against Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11.  If al-Qaeda were a state or something akin to a state in 1996, then by implication Afghanistan and the Taliban did not so much host al-Qaeda as surround it, as if it were an enclaved state. Under the prosecution’s view, therefore, the Taliban could not be responsible for surrendering bin Laden following the 9/11 attacks, and the United States’ ultimatum to hand him over would have been unreasonable: how could a de facto government with only partial control of its own territory be responsible for curtailing the actions of an enclaved sovereign? Consequently, if the prosecution were right that al-Qaeda was the equivalent of a state actor, the invasion of Afghanistan could be viewed as a misdirected and illegal aggressive war.

Second, the prosecution’s position necessarily suggests that the armed conflict between al-Qaeda and the United States is an international armed conflict—as opposed to a non-international armed conflict—invoking the full panoply of the laws of war.  This position also means that al-Qaeda members were the regular armed forces of a state, meaning that members of al-Qaeda could make a colorable claim to combatant immunity and prisoner-of-war (POW) status. At the very least, all of those currently detained and accused of prior membership in al-Qaeda should have been treated as POWs until they received an Article 5 hearing. (Ammar al Baluchi, for example, has requested, but never received, an Article 5 hearing.) The prosecution’s position in the 9/11 case legitimizes attacks by members of al-Qaeda on U.S. soldiers and military infrastructure, narrowing the scope of criminality associated with al-Qaeda attacks.  For example, according to the prosecution’s view, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole would remain perfidious but the sailors killed and the vessel targeted would be lawful military targets—and the charge of terrorism would be a mere restatement of the object of war: violence intended to coerce a political result.

Third, if the prosecution position prevailed, al-Qaeda would have enjoyed belligerent rights and the benefit of the laws of neutrality. Neutrality of non-belligerents is automatically triggered by the existence of a state of war between belligerents. Neutrals must remain neutral—that is they must not assist one belligerent party against the other. But belligerents must also refrain from conducting hostilities on the territory of neutral states, a fundamental protection for neutrals and against the spread of war. For example, the application of neutrality as a result of the prosecution’s position would mean that the U.S. violated Sudan’s neutrality along with its sovereignty by bombing the al-Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Khartoum in 1998.

Moreover, and outside of the immediate concerns relating to al-Qaeda, the government’s position suggests that declarations of war by non-state actors are a fast-track to sovereignty. The consequences of this implication may be far reaching. There are numerous entities that have substantially stronger claims to statehood than did al-Qaeda in 1996, but that remain outsiders in the international system. Would entities like Somaliland, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, and others finally gain admittance to the international system by declaring war on a neighbor or a far-off foe unlikely to take notice?

Finally, the government’s position leaves unsettled how to differentiate non-state declarations of war that have legal effect from those that do not. The U.S. has been the target of numerous supposed declarations of war by violent non-state actors to which it accorded no legal effect. For example, the United States treated neither the Symbionese National Liberation Army nor the Weathermen as enemy belligerents. Similarly, why give bin Laden’s August 1996 fatwa the legal weight of a declaration of war but not al Qaeda’s earlier 1992 fatwa that likewise called for attacks on U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the prosecution’s astounding position that bin Laden’s fatwa actually caused a legal state of war with the U.S. is that the government is willing to contort the law of armed conflict to suit its short-term litigation goals. Unfortunately, its single-minded and short-sighted effort to patch up the broken 9/11 military commission is simply making wreckage of law and history—and proving the old adage that hard cases make bad law.

The opinions and views expressed are those of the author alone. They do not represent the views of the US Department of Defense or the US Government. 

Image: Getty Read on Just Security »

Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · · ·

Contributing Op-Ed Writer: Sutherland Springs Only Happens to Be in Texas 

1 Share

There is nothing particularly Lone Star State-ish about a mass killing these days. Ask New York, or Las Vegas.

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

1 Share

Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence.

WHAT DOESN’T: CRIME, RACE OR MENTAL HEALTH

If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.

A 2015 study estimated that only 4 percent of American gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues. And Mr. Lankford, in an email, said countries with high suicide rates tended to have low rates of mass shootings — the opposite of what you would expect if mental health problems correlated with mass shootings.

Whether a population plays more or fewer video games also appears to have no impact. Americans are no more likely to play video games than people in any other developed country.

Racial diversity or other factors associated with social cohesion also show little correlation with gun deaths. Among European countries, there is little association between immigration or other diversity metrics and the rates of gun murders or mass shootings.

A VIOLENT COUNTRY

America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Americans sometimes see this as an expression of deeper problems with crime, a notion ingrained, in part, by a series of films portraying urban gang violence in the early 1990s. But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

MASS SHOOTINGS HAPPEN EVERYWHERE

Skeptics of gun control sometimes point to a 2016 study. From 2000 and 2014, it found, the United States death rate by mass shooting was 1.5 per one million people. The rate was 1.7 in Switzerland and 3.4 in Finland, suggesting American mass shootings were not actually so common.

But the same study found that the United States had 133 mass shootings. Finland had only two, which killed 18 people, and Switzerland had one, which killed 14. In short, isolated incidents. So while mass shootings can happen anywhere, they are only a matter of routine in the United States.

As with any crime, the underlying risk is impossible to fully erase. Any individual can snap or become entranced by a violent ideology. What is different is the likelihood that this will lead to mass murder.

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun.

By contrast, in this same window, the United States experienced five of its deadliest mass shootings, which killed 78 people. Scaled by population, the American attacks were 12 times as deadly.

BEYOND THE STATISTICS

In 2013, American gun-related deaths included 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides and 505 deaths caused by an accidental discharge. That same year in Japan, a country with one-third America’s population, guns were involved in only 13 deaths.

This means an American is about 300 times more likely to die by gun homicide or accident than a Japanese person. America’s gun ownership rate is 150 times as high as Japan’s. That gap between 150 and 300 shows that gun ownership statistics alone do not explain what makes America different.

The United States also has some of the world’s weakest controls over who may buy a gun and what sorts of guns may be owned.

Switzerland has the second-highest gun ownership rate of any developed country, about half that of the United States. Its gun homicide rate in 2004 was 7.7 per million people — unusually high, in keeping with the relationship between gun ownership and murders, but still a fraction of the rate in the United States.

Swiss gun laws are more stringent, setting a higher bar for securing and keeping a license, for selling guns and for the types of guns that can be owned. Such laws reflect more than just tighter restrictions. They imply a different way of thinking about guns, as something that citizens must affirmatively earn the right to own.

THE DIFFERENCE IS CULTURE

The United States is one of only three countries, along with Mexico and Guatemala, that begin with the opposite assumption: that people have an inherent right to own guns.

The main reason American regulation of gun ownership is so weak may be the fact that the trade-offs are simply given a different weight in the United States than they are anywhere else.

After Britain had a mass shooting in 1987, the country instituted strict gun control laws. So did Australia after a 1996 incident. But the United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society.

That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart.

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

Continue reading the main story

Read the whole story
· · · · ·

Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. – Google Search

1 Share

Story image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from Pacific Standard

The Sad, Lonely Men Behind America’s Mass Shootings

Pacific Standard3 hours ago
The Sad, Lonely Men Behind America’s Mass Shootings … 59 people in Las Vegas in what was the worst mass shooting in modern American history, … Is toxic masculinity really the root cause of our mass shooting epidemic?
In Texas, Two Very American Heroes
National Review15 hours ago
USCCB president decries massive shooting at Texas Baptist church
<a href=”http://CatholicPhilly.com” rel=”nofollow”>CatholicPhilly.com</a>5 hours ago
Trump wrong to blame mass killings on mental illness rather than …
In-DepthSan Francisco Chronicle16 hours ago

Media image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from The Root

The Root

Media image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from San Francisco Chronicle

San Francisco Chronicle

Media image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from CatholicPhilly.com

CatholicPhilly.com

Media image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from Church Times

Church Times

Media image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from National Review

National Review

Media image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from Malaysian Christian News

Malaysian Christian News

Story image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from New York Times

No, Mr. President, It Is ‘a Guns Situation’

New York TimesNov 6, 2017
In little more than a month, we have had two cases of mass murder … The money could be raised by a modest tax on all guns owned in the United States. … Once more we are told that the root cause is a mentally ill person.

Story image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from The Independent (blog)

It’s not Muslims, Mexicans or immigrants making the US unsafe – it’s …

The Independent (blog)Nov 6, 2017
Not only are most adult mass shooters in the US men, but most school shooters are boys too. … But it’s also not the root of the cause. … So what makes some people commit mass shootings – what is the common factor that …

Story image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from Mic

Domestic violence is a link among most mass shooters — but …

MicNov 6, 2017
Many recent mass killings have been committed by men with histories of … Acts of domestic violence are at the root of a majority of mass shootings: Everytown … The shooter in the attack had a history of domestic violence. …. really addressing what the root causes are, whether that be studies, whether that …

Thoughts About Mass Murder

Power Line (blog)17 hours ago
Moreover, the root cause of murder isn’t firearms or cars. It is evil. Countries where there are vastly fewer firearms than in the U.S. still have …

Story image for Root causes of Mass Shootings in the U.S. from FiveThirtyEight

Why High-Profile Events Like Mass Shootings Often Don’t Lead To …

FiveThirtyEightOct 18, 2017
But in the U.S., gun control policy has often appeared impossible to pass at the … This idea describes the debate after mass shootings pretty well; … health problems or declining public morals, as the root cause of the problem.
Solving Our Gun Violence Problem at the Polls
<a href=”http://TAPinto.net” rel=”nofollow”>TAPinto.net</a>Oct 18, 2017

Read the whole story
· · · · ·

Mass Shootings in the U.S. – Google Search

1 Share

What Explains US Mass Shootings? International Comparisons …

New York Times7 hours ago
From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, …
Columbine massacre no longer among 10 deadliest mass shootings …
<a href=”http://Chron.com” rel=”nofollow”>Chron.com</a>18 hours ago
Mass Shootings in America Are Spreading Like a Disease
In-DepthThe AtlanticNov 6, 2017
 –

6:17 PM 11/7/2017 – NYT Shows How Not to Analyze Mass-Shooting Data – National Review

Saved Stories

Saved Stories – None

NYT Shows How Not to Analyze Mass-Shooting Data – National Review

Omar Mateen – Google News: The Sad, Lonely Men Behind America’s Mass Shootings – Pacific Standard
The Sad, Lonely Men Behind America’s Mass Shootings – Pacific Standard
fbi orlando – Google News: Schiff to AP: Trump, Russia, GOP leaders threaten democracy – News965
State trooper shot during Route 33 traffic stop in Slate Belt – lehighvalleylive.com
Las Vegas shooting – Google News: Insane Las Vegas conspiracy theory claims Antifa, ISIS and ‘deep state’ worked together – Metro US
Remembering victims of the Sutherland Springs church shooting – mySanAntonio.com
Church security: preparing for The Worst – 41 NBC News
‘US Media Needs to Change How They Cover Mass Shootings’ Professor – Sputnik International
Dem lawmaker calls for study to examine link between domestic violence, mass shootings – The Hill
Texas police won’t use the mass shooter’s name. Why media outlets are still doing it – Globalnews.ca
FBI agents can’t crack Texas church shooter’s cell phone, officials say – mySanAntonio.com
Studies Reveal A Terrifying Connection Between Mass Shootings And Domestic Violence – BET
A fake shooter and ‘false flag’ rumors at the hospital: How dark online hoaxes came to Texas – Chicago Tribune
Omar Mateen – Google News: The role of assault rifles in US mass shootings – KSRO
Orlando shooting investigation – Google News: Mass Shooting Here? Authorities Have Plans – Government Technology
Texas church gunman escaped from mental health facility in 2012 after threatening military superiors – Washington Post
2:13 PM 11/7/2017 Interpretation update: Sutherland Springs Only Happens to Be in Texas, and it produces a lot of Joan Sutherlands, such as Papa-whom?
FBI Official: Active Shooter Numbers ‘On the Rise’ and Americans Need to ‘Prepare’ Themselves – Mediaite
Texas church shooter once escaped from mental health center – Chicago Tribune
Texas mass shooting reignites US debate about gun control – Irish Times
Church officials train to respond to active shooter – WAPT Jackson
Analysis: US mass shootings: A crisis among America’s white males? – Xinhua
Amid church shooting fallout, data shows DOD reported only 1 domestic violence conviction in 2016 – mySanAntonio.com
A mass shooter’s name is part of the story; concealing it is silly and self-important – Los Angeles Times

 

Saved Stories – None
NYT Shows How Not to Analyze Mass-Shooting Data – National Review

National Review
NYT Shows How Not to Analyze Mass-Shooting Data
National Review
Some colleagues sent me the New York Times article What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer today. My jaw just about hit the floor when I saw the chart that appears at the top of the piece, above everything else … 
Where the guns used in Chicago actually came fromWashington Postall 58 news articles » and more »  

Omar Mateen – Google News: The Sad, Lonely Men Behind America’s Mass Shootings – Pacific Standard

Pacific Standard
The Sad, Lonely Men Behind America’s Mass Shootings
Pacific Standard
Unlike Stephen Paddock, who killed 59 people in Las Vegas in what was the worst mass shooting in modern American history, Kelley acquired his firearms illegally; unlike Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and …
Mass shooters exploit lapses, limited laws to get gunsWashington Post
Texas church shooting: How Trump’s reaction to mass attacks differs for US-born suspects like Devin KelleyWBAL Radio
Texas church attack the latest US mass shootingWTOP
Daily Commercial –The Denver Post –WXIA-TV
all 6,105 news articles »

 Omar Mateen – Google News

The Sad, Lonely Men Behind America’s Mass Shootings – Pacific Standard

Pacific Standard
The Sad, Lonely Men Behind America’s Mass Shootings
Pacific Standard
Unlike Stephen Paddock, who killed 59 people in Las Vegas in what was the worst mass shooting in modern American history, Kelley acquired his firearms illegally; unlike Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and …
Fact Check: No, More Guns Won’t Prevent Mass ShootingsNBCNews.com
Trump says extreme vetting on guns wouldn’t stop mass shootingsCNBC 
Timeline: How Congress has responded to mass shootingsUSA TODAY
 
Police Say ‘Domestic Situation’ Led to Texas Mass Shooting

New York Magazine Texas TribuneWTSP 10 News
all 6,619 

HuffPostUSA TODAY
all 5,828
 news articles »

 


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  • 2
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    2
    Shares
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •