Skip to content


Just More Western hypocrisy In Ukraine over recent “Join Russia” protests



Just More Western hypocrisy In Ukraine over recent “Join Russia” protests

By Dark Politricks

The recent “riots” in Eastern Ukraine by people who want to federalize Ukraine or let their part of the country join Russia like Crimea is just another example of the hypocrisy of the west.

Remember when this was all going on in Kiev.

Peaceful “demonstrators” just exercising their democratic right to protest by pepper spraying and even shooting Ukrainian police officers in the streets?

Ukrainian protester sprays pepper spray at policeman

Protestors defy ban on protesting by the Ukraine government

At that time the western nations, the IMF, EU and the axis of war (US/UK/France) were all de-crying the crackdown on “peaceful protesters” who have now been found out to be shooting from the top of buildings at both protesters AND policemen causing the tension to increase to boiling point.

We now have evidence of this from a leaked phone call between the EU Foreign Minister and the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet which suggests that the western nations KNEW that the snipers killing the innocent people in Kiev were actually from a sub-sect of the Maidan group of protesters.

The Estonian Foreign Minister also recalled a conversation with a doctor who treated those shot by snipers in Kiev. She said that both protesters and police were shot at by the same people.

Urmas Paet stressed:

“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,

Ashton’s response was  “Well, yeah…that’s, that’s terrible.”, after which Paet continued:

“So that she then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor, she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened”.

At the end she seemed shocked by the claims but not exactly surprised.

“There is now a stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition”, said Foreign Minister Urmas Paet to Catherine Ashton, who replied:

“I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh”.

She even says “yeah”, when he mentions this, and it seems clear that some knowledge is foreknown about a false flag coup to overthrow out the legitimate President of the country.

You can listen to the two leaders discuss the false flag attacks below.

Or read more about it here.

As Michel Chossudovsky says in his article: The leaders of EuroMaidan ordered the shooting of their own supporters.

We are dealing with a diabolical agenda: the deaths of protesters in Maidan square triggered by Neo-Nazi elements (supported by the West) were used to break the legitimacy of a duly elected government.

Underlying US foreign policy and CIA intelligence ops, civilian deaths are often triggered deliberately with a view to accusing the enemy and demonizing a foreign head of State or head of government

The Maidan sniper killings are, in this regard reminiscent of what occurred in Syria in mid-March 2011 at the very outset of the insurgency: civilians were killed by rooftop snipers in the border city of Daraa. The resulting casualties –without further investigation– were blamed on the government of Bashar al Assad. It was subsequently confirmed by Israeli and Lebanese press reports, that the snipers were hired mercenaries.

People like Catherine Ashton and John McCain who stood in the middle of “Freedom Square” hand in hand with fascists and neo-nazis are hypocrites and liars.

John McCain Oleh Tyahnybok
Here is John McCain in the Ukraine meeting (on his right) far right leader Oleh Tyahnybok in Independence Square in Kiev, Ukraine, Sunday, Dec. 15, 2013.

The people they stood with are now in power after an illegal coup that was authorized by the west.

These are the same Senators who take money from AIPAC and other pro-Israeli groups with one hand, and shake the hands of anti-Semites with their other. All the while Jews are leaving Ukraine scared for their safety due to some of the lesser civilized members of the new power structure that was imposed by force.

This new government kicked out a legitimate leader, Viktor Yanukovych, and replaced the whole government with a number of people who are not even supposed to be allowed to work with EU countries, especially Germany under their strict anti-Nazi laws.

An example would be the ex Chechen fighter and nationalist leader Aleksandr Muzychko, who fought against Russian troops in Chechnya and recently branded his Kalashnikov gun in front of regional authorities begging them to “try to take it away from me”.

He is also on record for making openly anti-Semitic statements as are many of the far right of the “Maidan protestors” who have been caught out by leaked phone calls and evidence showing that they were the only people on top of a building one day in any position to fire into a hotel housing RT.com reporters as well as shooting policeman down below.

What better way to get a populace angry with your government than let the people know the authorities are killing innocent people?

However now they have their coup, and thrown out a legitimate leader they seem to be no longer useful to the Wests milking machine e.g the IMF that wants to double gas prices, reduce benefits by half and increase taxes.

Some of these people who helped the ex President have even turned up dead like Olexander Muzychko.

Olexander Muzychko, an ultranationalist wanted for war atrocities, was recently killed by Ukrainian special forces in a sanctioned execution by Government officials.

Muzychko was put on an international wanted list on suspicion of torturing and murdering at least 20 Russian servicemen in Chechnya in the early 2000s. After surfacing in Ukraine, he was arrested in absentia by a court in southern Russia earlier this month.

The Right Sector, along with Muzychko, is a major ally of the neo-Nazi Svoboda party led by Oleh Tyahnybok, a member of the new Ukrainian government and an active promoter of the ideas of Stepan Bandera a Ukrainian who collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II.

Good credentials!

He was involved in mass atrocities in the wartime ethnic cleansing of Poles, Jews and Russians. Just the person you want to help you get into government but not stay inside too long I suspect.

Russia has described last month’s uprising in Kiev as an illegitimate fascist coup, which resulted in Moscow taking steps to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

The people of Crimea held a legal and internationally verified referendum which showed over 96.8% of the people in the Russian Black Sea Port region wanted to become part of Russia.

Crimea’s regional parliament has declared independence and applied to become part of the Russian Federation, a day after people in the Black Sea peninsula voted overwhelmingly to leave Ukraine in a referendum that most of the world has condemned as illegal.

However why is it legal for Kosovo to vote to leave Serbia, a part of the country for hundreds of years or Scotland to order a referendum to leave the United Kingdom but not Crimea to vote to leave Ukraine for Russia?

Could it be because the result doesn’t fit with the Wests ideas of “who” should be ruling which part of the world?

You only have to look at the first democratic election in Palestine to see the reaction when Hamas won!

A split country, in-fighting between Sunnis and Shiites, and a big distraction as the opposition fight each other instead of their real enemy.

However this “illegal” and “unsanctioned” move by a group of pro-Russians was seen and reported by the west as Russia invading Ukraine!

Forget the fact that since Ukraine gained independence the Russian Black Sea Fleet and the Navy personnel who run it have been allowed to carry arms and wear military uniform in Crimea for years.

These Russian military men were not invaders but sanctioned and legitimate troops who have been based in this new region of Russia under an agreement signed by both countries years ago.

Now the shoe is on the other foot!

Pro-Russian demonstrators in the east of Ukraine are demanding their rights and protection of freedom from the new Ukrainian government who has threatened to send in specialist “anti terrorist” squads to oust these domestic extremists!

These people have taken over police stations and other government facilities and Russia has warned Ukraine not to do something stupid like send in the army and kill their own people.

Most of the demonstrators want to stay Ukrainian BUT in a Federal Union where each area could decide their own fate. They do not want to be in sock to the EU and permanent debt due to the IMF,

Pro Russian Demonstrators
Pro Russian demonstrators demand their rights be heard

Pro Russian Demonstrators take over a Police Station
Russian demonstrators take over a Ukrainian Police Station

If the pro-Russian protesters and armed militants do not leave the occupied buildings in some cities of Ukraine, the illegal government other-thrown by a pro EU mob has threatened a full-scale anti-terrorist operation.

So far the deadlines have passed and no Ukrainan forces have been deployed – thank God!

But what would happen if Ukraine DID send in their troops?

Well I guess the following:

  • Lots of unarmed pro-Russian demonstrators will be killed. They will be labelled by the Western media as terrorists and domestic extremists trying to remove any sympathy from them.
  • The western mouthpieces would spew out their propaganda about this being a fight for freedom and liberty and the rule of law – totally forgetting they supported an illegal coup just months ago,
  • Stories like the one from the New York Times describing how bad life in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008 has been since Russia took control will fill the papers, true or not.
  • Russia would invade the Ukraine like they did in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia in 2008 to “protect” their “Russian speaking” people who consider themselves by all means “Russian“.
  • NATO would do Fuck All but make loud noises and try to pass resolutions in the UN which will be blocked by Russia and China (at the very least) in the UN Security Council.
  • If a sensible resolution was put down that let the people of the Ukraine decide for themselves whether they wanted to be run by an illegal government, a newly elected Federal government with a new constitution or split the country in two then that would make sense and also let the people of the country decide their fate.
  • In the event that the latter option is taken the western part of Ukraine will  suffer the austerity policies the IMF and EU has already imposed on Greece, they would see unemployment soar, taxes rise and most importantly have their gas turned off due to unpaid bills to Russia.
  • What does Ukraine offer the west? Nothing really but land near the Russian border. Land that was called the “bread basket of the west” and if managed properly it could feed the world ten times over. Russia would have to invade the Eastern part of Ukraine to prevent a NATO county on its doorstep, something which was promised by Ronald Reagan to never happen if the Soviet Union fell.
  • We in Europe would probably impose sanctions on Russia which would in the end back fire on us. We would have our own gas pipelines that bypass Ukraine cut off and Russia would just sell it on to China, India and other countries with high demand and lots of cash.
  • If we did actually go to a “hot” war we would probably end up nuclear and say goodbye to the world. No one wants that but a war can start over any little misjudgment.  If you don’t know the story UK pop singe James Blunt, whilst a soldier in Kosovo, was ordered to “destroy” and “attack” the Russian forces that had entered the country and taken  over an airfield by General Wesley Clark. Thankfully British soldiers have some brains and think nuclear war is a bad idea and James Blunt refused the order. Luckily he was backed up British Gen Sir Mike Jackson, who said: “I’m not going to have my soldiers be responsible for starting World War III.” – luckily the Russians ran out of supplies in 3 days and made friends with the Brits who helped them out.
  • After a hot war starts who knows what would happen but by guess is we would back down like pussies and rightly so, letting Russia take control over areas of Ukraine who have always wanted to be Russian and not Nazi collaborators.

So can you see the hypocrisy here?

We allow an elected President to be forced out of power by an armed fascist and nationalist filled group of people. Some of whom have already been knocked off as they are no longer useful to the cause.

We then declare this victory as some kind of sign that people power works. Yet when the Eastern Ukrainians do exactly the same thing in support of Russia we call them terrorists, domestic extremists and Russian soldiers in disguise trying to stir up trouble.

As of yet I haven’t seen any photos of Putin or his deputies in Eastern Ukraine standing on boxes with arms in the air urging the people on like John McCain did in Kiev.

However none of that matters. Putin is the great baddie of this play and he will always be portrayed as such if you get your news from the BBC, FOX, MSNBC or CNN. I am not for one minute saying RT.com is unbiased in its reporting but it is worth getting an alternative view on events before making your mind up.

Just don’t believe talking twats like Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity for your own view-point. Have a read of RT.com and get some opposing points of view before making your OWN mind up about a situation.

It might just stop a war.

 


Nigel Farage v Nick Clegg – The European Union In Or Out debate



.Nigel Farage v Nick Clegg - The European Union In Or Out debate

By Dark Politricks

Over the last two weeks Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg have been debating whether we should leave the EU on radio and TV. Of course you might have missed these debates on TV as they haven’t really been highlighted in the TV schedules.

The leader of the UKIP, Nigel Farage, the bloke you would have a pint with but doesn’t have a single MP in the UK Parliament debated Nick Clegg, the deputy PM, who will have hardly any MP’s after the next election due to his broken promises and propping up of Tory austerity policies.

Two non-entities you may say, except the EU elections are coming up soon and UKIP always do very well in them and will undoubtedly probably beat both the Lib-Dems and the Tories if current polling is correct.

The sad thing is that with such an important question to be debated the leaders of the real two parties who have actual  influence in our national parliament couldn’t be bothered to debate such an important question.

Our PM, David Cameron, and the cartoon character that calls himself the leader of the opposition Ed Milliband didn’t even think it was worth debating the EU and letting the British public have their opinions on whether it is better to be in or out of the EU.

For those of you who missed it the first debate was on LBC radio and shown on Sky News and the second debate was on the BBC.

From polls carried out after the debates Nigel Farage won by a ratio of 3 to 1.

A YouGov poll: Farage 68%, Clegg 27%
A ICM poll: Farage 69, Clegg 31%

Read more about the results of the debate here.

Who won the debate?

The European Union In Or Out debate

For your nightly entertainment I have included some videos to the debates so that you can watch the two debates between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg.

One political figure on the rise and one on the slide to the bottom. I will let you decide which is which.

One, Nigel Farage, is perfectly happy to be the outspoken, friendless EU MP who wants to actually do himself out of a job by shutting the whole shop down.

Nick Clegg on the other hand who has never had a real job apart from politiking at various levels (unlike Nigel) will cling onto the EU whether they turn into a EU super-state, with its own army, forcing NATO on broke countries it tricks into joining such as the Ukraine.

All whilst people in Spain and Greece and even Ireland and the UK suffer due to the EU being so broke and harsh austerity measures being imposed on us.

Remember Nick Clegg used to work in the EU so he probably is expecting to get a cushy paycheck once he is kicked out of Westminster at the next election.

He has already proven himself a liar by breaking the one promise that his key constituents (students and the young) voted for him in the last election e.g no increases in University Student Fees, plus the much vaunted “Freedom Bill” which turned from a fine bill restoring the public’s rights in a UK Police State to a law that prevented cars from being clamped.

In fact you can compare the original Freedom Bill here which was very quickly taken down from the Liberal Democrats websites as soon as they realized their “Protection of Freedoms Bill” was a watered down piece of toilet paper!

Whatever you think about the EU, I have never had a vote on whether I wanted to be in the EU, let alone the common market, the Euro, The Lisbon Treaty or any of the other treaties that have taken our national powers away from us bit by bit over the last few decades.

Therefore whether you want to be in Europe or not you should at least want a say in your own future.

Whatever you think about these two politicians at least they have the balls unlike the other leaders of the Labour and Tory party to talk in public about such important matters.

The first debate held on LBC radio and SkyNews last week

The second debate held this week on the BBC

©2014 Dark Politricks


Can you imagine if Ukraine was the USA?



Can you imagine if Ukraine was the USA?

By Dark Politricks

Can you imagine if what was occurring in the Ukraine was happening in the USA or the UK?

Policeman killed by ultra nationalists and anti-Semite thugs being put into positions of power with the help of AIPAC bought and paid for US politicians such as John McCain?

It just goes to show how the US and Europe doesn’t give a shit about using nationalist thugs and anti-semites to carry out their agenda when it means they can ebb away at Russian borders.

However at home, if you dare criticise Israel you are called an anti-semite and demonised- square than one if you please?

Here is proof of John McCain meeting ultra nationalist far right leaders in Kiev recently.

What right does a US politician have to enter another country and demand changes in leadership? Plus how does John McCain look at himself in the mirror when he defends Israel to his core yet is happy to make deals with anti-semites and neo-nazi’s?

John McCain Oleh Tyahnybok
Here is John McCain in the Ukraine meeting (on his right) far right leader Oleh Tyahnybok in Independence Square in Kiev, Ukraine, Sunday, Dec. 15, 2013.

Can you imagine if Russian politicians turned up in Washington or London and stood with the BNP or Klu Klux Klan and demanded that the constitutionally elected President of the country stood down so that ultra nationalist thugs could take their place?

Here is one of the thugs John McCain and EU leaders want to put into positions of power threatening officials in their offices.

Aleksandr Muzychko a radical Ukrainian nationalist leader lashed out at a local prosecutor with obscene language, punches and threats claiming the prosecutors were “sabotaging” their job.

Shut the f**k up, you b*tch! Your f**king time is over,” he uttered, threatening to rope the clerk like a dog and lead him to the people on Maidan.

This “activist,” is an ex Chechen fighter who fought against Russian troops and recently branded his Kalashnikov in front of regional authorities goading them and threatening them to “try to take it away from me”.

He is also on record for making openly anti-Semitic statements as are many of the far right “protestors” who have been killing and beating policeman, shooting at politicians and rioting on a daily basis for months now.

Here are just a few photos of “demonstratorsattacking the Ukraine police.

If the US can pinch the noses of peaceful students sitting on the ground to spray pepper spray down their throats, then can can you imagine the response of US police if protesters sprayed pepper spray at THEM, or battered them as they are doing in the Ukraine by Occupy or Tea Party protesters? They would have been shot on the spot.

Here are US police pepper spraying peaceful students, sitting on the floor, causing no harm to anyone yet they are obviously a serious danger people’s safety. Otherwise why would the cop feel the need to defend himself with a potentially deadly chemical.

US Police attack peaceful students with pepper spray

And here is a “peaceful Ukrainian protestor” attacking Ukrainian police with pepper spray as they show immense restraint in the face of brutality by a nationalist thug.

Ukrainian protester sprays pepper spray at policeman

Protestors defy ban on protesting by the Ukraine government

Protester kicks rank of Ukrainian police

Now I am not saying that the Ukrainian president who is on the run and has just given a press conference on RT.com is perfect.

He banned protests and allowed policemen to kill many of the protesters. He has probably done even worse.

However he was legitimately elected and if the new method of installing a leader of a country is just to protest, riot, kill cops and force the current leaders to flee then why are we not doing it in the USA or UK?

Well obviously because this method is only  for the Empire to overthrow OTHER countries, democracy and elections only matter if the “right” people are elected. Just look at Palestine and Hamas, Iran or Iraq. Only people who will sell their souls to western ideals, and porn their countries assets to the IMF and World Bank are the “right kind of people”.

No wonder the axis of evil contains those countries without western owned central banks. Only 10 years ago that list included Iraq and Libya, Afghanistan and Sudan. Now it’s just Cuba, North Korea and Iran.

These new Western installed thugs, neo-nazis and police killers that the west has helped into power are choosing a much poorer deal from the EU that will see wages and benefits drop, the bread basket of Europe sold off and privatised along with key industries and higher gas and oil prices. Is the chance of joining a broke Europe worth all of that when the deal Russia was going to provide was billions better?

It is the same methodology of the Banksters which has been used to reduce Greece, Spain and Ireland to shreds. They don’t care about human rights, not if they are willing to install neo-nazis and anti-semites into power.

No all they care about is encircling Russia, getting them into NATO and then extracting as much wealth from the Ukrainians pockets as possible. How do these Ukrainian EU lovers not see that?

Here is what Gorbachev says about the meddling of the US and Europe in the Ukraine.

The west promised not to encroach on Russian areas of influence when the Soviet Union split up but this promise was blatantly broken as soon as the USA realised they were the only super power and believed they could do as they pleased despite previous agreements.

First Georgia became a US proxy after a “colour” revolution, and with US/Israeli help they tested the Russian military when they killed Russian peace keepers and bombed innocent people’s houses in the breakaway territory of South Ossetia during the start of the 2008 Chinese Olympics.

However Russia proved the west wrong and humiliated the Georgian and Israeli forces in this illegally started war and now half of South Ossetia is under Russian control. Not that the west sees it this way. In their eyes  it was Russia who attacked Georgia not the other way round. Oh how media lies are spread and believed by the willing.

The only good thing to come out of the war was that the west saw the Russians couldn’t be pushed around beyond limits. There is a line that cannot be crossed!

The West then moved into the Caucuses and the “Stans”, building air bases, using their proxy Islamic terrorists to stir up trouble and then invading Afghanistan to get soldiers on the doorstep of Russia. All that Lithium, Natural Gas an Oil to be taken from Russian areas of influence.

I’m sure the weakening of Russia was not even considered when the neo-cons were planning their own oil pipelines to rival the Russians bringing gas and oil to Europe and ports in the south.

It just amazes me that people like Catherine Ashton (EU) and John McCain, who are against nationalism at home are prepared to enter a sovereign country, talk to neo-nazis (people they would never talk to at home), and stir up trouble in a country they have no business being in.

If I was Putin, I would invade Ukraine right now, at least the eastern half and Crimea who wants to stay connected to Russia, and then see what balls the NATO agitators really have.

I cannot believe the US or Europe want to cause shit with Russia when they need their help with Syria and Iran so I doubt they would do anything if that happened apart from make loud noises and thump their chests.

However Putin can see his country being surrounded by the west (NATO) and from a historical perspective they are paranoid to the extreme about being attacked by the west. For some more context watch Oliver Stone’s untold history of the United States. The Russians have been invaded so many times in recent years that during World War II the allies were willing to promise them a “buffer zone” to ease their worries about another attack from Germany or the west.

However as soon as Roosevelt died and Truman took over this Soviet buffer zone became the “Iron curtain” that Churchill famously spoke about in his 1946 speech.

This is despite the fact he had made a deal with Stalin, called the “Percentages Agreement” on a piece of paper that Stalin famously kept that split up their spoils of war, with Churchill agreeing to Stalin’s demands for a buffer in return for UK demands for land in return.

The Percentages document between Churchill and Stalin

Churchill even later admitted that Stalin had never ever broken his word and kept all his promises to him, and that it was in fact the US/UK that broke theirs. Stalin very much wanted the World War allied status to continue after Germany and Japan had been defeated. Alas it was not so.

Remember whilst the UK and US lost less than a million men in World War II, Russia lost over 20 million! Whatever you are taught in school about World War II, the US/UK did not win the war in Europe, Russia did.

They beat us to Berlin and they destroyed the majority of the German army. As we were fighting a few German divisions the Russians were fighting hundreds.

Also they were invaded by the Germans twice in the 20th century (World War I and II) and before that by Napoleon.

There is a saying in Russia, “give a German a gun and before long they will turn it at Russia”.

If you don’t know your history then you should note that when Germany invaded the Ukraine in WWII, many Ukrainians treated them as liberators and even joined their ranks to fight the Soviets. There is a reason so many neo-nazis exist in that region and the Russians have a right to fear it.

If the west is so keen to allow neo-nazis to take power in a state that they want to join NATO and the EU then we must ask ourselves, are we becoming a fascist empire or do we just have no morals when it comes to taking over countries by any means necessary.

For more info read about Gladio 2 (Sibel Edmonds) and how the US used nationalists to other throw regimes in the 80′s and 90′s and then changed to Islamic extremists when it suited them (al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front etc). It might help explain why the current axis of war (US/UK/France) switch from nationalists to religious fighters depending on the state they are trying to other throw.

This is the first part of the 5 part series with James Corbett. For the others go to this youtube.com link.

Whatever happens in Ukraine I just wish that the US and Europe would stop meddling and let the people decide for themselves without letting neo-nazis and extremists pull the strings.

Like Gorbachev says, I hope someone will use a bulldozer and remove all the meddling Western instigators that have caused so much trouble in that country.

If no-one does that we will soon see the bread basket of Europe become a pauper like Greece as banksters from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and the IMF run off with big bags of swag over their shoulders.

Banksters run off with Ukrainian swag
IMF Banksters will undoubtably run off with Ukrainian swag as the people of the country become paupers

Dr Judy Wood – Evidence of Energy Weapons at 9.11



Dr Judy Wood – Evidence of Energy Weapons at 9.11

By Dark Politricks

This is a great talk I watched earlier from Dr Judy Wood who is an expert on direct energy weapons and the theory that the WTC on 9.11 was destroyed not by Thermite, Nano-thermite, or bombs but by new (or old) direct energy weapons.

Weapons that made cars twist and turn into objects that looked like they had been crushed by the “Thing” roads away from the WTC area.

Weapons that made the buildings turn into dust in mid-air, causing no seismic waves that would be expected from the millions tons of debris from the buildings hitting the floor.

The fact that the WTC was built under the water table, and that if the millions of tonnage of the WTC had hit the floor AS steel and concrete then the whole of lower Manhattan would have been flooded.

Those are 3 of her major points but she then shows evidence of direct energy weapons in use, as I am sure you have all seen, and goes on to talk about the empirical evidence that supports her theory.

I also suggest you read as much as you can about John Hutchison who has used Nikola Tesla direct energy and his own machines to bend and twist metal on film.

She shows videos that can show the huge concrete and metal blocks falling from the buildings actually turning into dust in pure air. Dust that then didn’t hit the floor but then floated up into the sky, blocking out the sun.

Some people call her crazy, lasers from space or moon beams and other names derived to ostracize her from the 911Truth community.

Instead of coming from a pre-proposed exploitation such as bombs or thermite and then going cherry picking evidence that fits the theory, she has gone the other way. She looks at the problem and then tries to solve it. She looks at what happened, the data, and then from that tries to determine “what actually happened”.

Before you know what happened you cannot determine “how it happened”, she say.

She calls Richard Gage, Dr Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer and others as “gate keepers” to the 911 Truth community. People who heard people looking for truth one way when the real explanation lays straight ahead.

Whether you believe her explanation of not it is worth watching.

Never take one theory and run with it. Try and get as much evidence as possible before making your minds up.

I am always debating and thinking about the the events of 9.11 because of the effect it had on the world. The events on 9.11 led to the war on terror, an almost NAZI like US police state, NSA spying, loss of civil liberties, drones and constant war around the world. Therefore shouldn’t you want to think about it too?

The blurb from the video says.

Published on Aug 21, 2013
http://globalbem.com/
http://www.globalbemvoices.com/
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/glo…

Dr Judy Wood at the Breakthrough energy Movement conference,2012 Holland

Title: The dawn of a new age, evidence of breakthrough energy technology on 9/11

For many years, we have heard that a “free-energy device is just around the corner,” but it never seems to come to fruition. Nikola Tesla wanted to give free energy to the world nearly 100 years ago but was afraid it would fall into the wrong hands and be used for destructive purposes. Well, that is no longer just a risk; it has already happened.

However, until we understand just how powerful this technology is as well as how powerful the interests are that control it, we won’t see it in general use. We first need to respect what this technology can do, otherwise it would be like leaving a gun cabinet unlocked around children who do not know what guns can do.

We also need the world to see what this technology has done.

This technology was used to destroy the World Trade Center complex on 9/11/01 and was a demonstration of a new kind of free-energy technology in front of the entire world.

As more people around the world recognize this, the less power the controlling interests will have. And if the entire world knows that free-energy technology exists, individuals can openly build their own devices and share their designs with others. It won’t be a secret!

Dr Judy Wood Biography

Dr. Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and has served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.

Dr. Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics, 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992).

http://www.drjudywood.com/
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

The Global Breakthrough Energy Movement (GlobalBEM) is a non-profit volunteer-powered organization dedicated to educating & activating the public about breakthrough energy technologies which are clean, sustainable and world-changing.

Disclaimer : We are all, in a sense, investigators of our world. And while we, as individuals or as Globalbem, may not agree with everything presented on this video, we fully support freedom of thought and speech as well as the Quest for truth.

We are a non-profit organization of volunteers and thus each member or any other person involved in any way, has to take responsibility for their own statements, acts and beliefs.

If you enjoyed this presentation and want to support GlobalBEM please visit our donate page here http://globalbem.com/info/donate/ and subscribe to our newsletter to get informed about our next conference.

Our information

globalbem.com
globalbemvoices.com
facebook.com/GlobalBEM
twitter.com/GlobalBEM
youtube.com/user/GlobalBEM
soundcloud.com/globalbem

If you have any questions about the videos, please contact us at [email protected]

All rights reserved © GlobalBEM 2012

View the original video at youtube.com.


Edward Snowdens response to the European Parliament about NSA spying



Edward Snowden’s response to the European Parliament about NSA spying

By Dark Politricks

This is Edward Snowden’s response to the European Parliament which wanted to find out more the United State’s spying on the EU, their citizens, politicians and internet traffic.

He was invited to attend a meeting but obviously was worried about being arrested mid-air or held by a US friendly nation as a “terrorist” obviously with good reason.

Therefore the EU sent him questions and he responded in kind with this letter. I do apologise for the formatting but it was copied from a PDF document which didn’t do such a good job.

Edward doesn’t tell us much new or anything we really didn’t know but he does state the facts in writing for history’s judgment.

I hope you read this and pass this on.

Introductory Statement

I would like to thank the European Parliament for the invitation to provide testimony for
your inquiry into the Electronic Mass Surveillance of EU Citizens.

The suspicion-less
surveillance programs of the NSA, GCHQ, and so many others that we learned about over the last year endanger a number of basic rights which, in aggregate, constitute the foundation of liberal societies.

The first principle any inquiry must take into account is that despite extraordinary political
pressure to do so, no western government has been able to present evidence showing that such programs are necessary. In the United States, the heads of our spying services once claimed that 54 terrorist attacks had been stopped by mass surveillance, but two independent White House reviews with access to the classified evidence on which this claim was founded concluded it was untrue, as did a Federal Court.

Looking at the US government’s reports here is valuable. The most recent of these
investigations, performed by the White House’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, determined that the mass surveillance program investigated was not only ineffective — they found it had never stopped even a single imminent terrorist attack — but that it had no basis  in law. In less diplomatic language, they discovered the United States was operating an unlawful mass surveillance program, and the greatest success the program had ever produced was discovering a taxi driver in the United States transferring $8,500 dollars to Somalia in 2007.

After noting that even this unimpressive success – uncovering evidence of a single unlawful bank transfer — would have been achieved without bulk collection, the Board recommended that the unlawful mass surveillance program be ended. Unfortunately, we know from press reports that this program is still operating today.

I believe that suspicionless surveillance not only fails to make us safe, but it actually makes us less safe. By squandering precious, limited resources on “collecting it all,” we end up with more analysts trying to make sense of harmless political dissent and fewer investigators running down real leads. I believe investing in mass surveillance at the expense of traditional, proven methods can cost lives, and history has shown my concerns are justified.

Despite the extraordinary intrusions of the NSA and EU national governments into private
communications world-wide, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “Underwear Bomber,” was
allowed to board an airplane traveling from Europe to the United States in 2009. The 290 persons on board were not saved by mass surveillance, but by his own incompetence, when he failed to detonate the device. While even Mutallab’s own father warned the US government he was dangerous in November 2009, our resources were tied up monitoring online games and tapping German ministers. That extraordinary tip-off didn’t get Mutallab a dedicated US investigator. All we gave him was a US visa.

Nor did the US government’s comprehensive monitoring of Americans at home stop the
Boston Bombers. Despite the Russians specifically warning us about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the FBI couldn’t do more than a cursory investigation — although they did plenty of worthless computer-based searching – and failed to discover the plot. 264 people were injured, and 3 died. The resources that could have paid for a real investigation had been spent on monitoring the call records of everyone in America.

This should not have happened. I worked for the United States’ Central Intelligence
Agency. The National Security Agency. The Defense Intelligence Agency. I love my country, and I believe that spying serves a vital purpose and must continue. And I have risked my life, my family, and my freedom to tell you the truth.

The NSA granted me the authority to monitor communications world-wide using its mass
surveillance systems, including within the United States. I have personally targeted individuals using these systems under both the President of the United States’ Executive Order 12333 and the US Congress’ FAA 702. I know the good and the bad of these systems, and what they can and cannot do, and I am telling you that without getting out of my chair, I could have read the private communications of any member of this committee, as well as any ordinary citizen. I swear under penalty of perjury that this is true.

These are not the capabilities in which free societies invest. Mass surveillance violates our
rights, risks our safety, and threatens our way of life.

If even the US government, after determining mass surveillance is unlawful and
unnecessary, continues to operate to engage in mass surveillance, we have a problem. I consider the United States Government to be generally responsible, and I hope you will agree with me. Accordingly, this begs the question many legislative bodies implicated in mass surveillance have sought to avoid: if even the US is willing to knowingly violate the rights of billions of innocents — and I say billions without exaggeration — for nothing more substantial than a “potential” intelligence advantage that has never materialized, what are other governments going to do?

Whether we like it or not, the international norms of tomorrow are being constructed today,
right now, by the work of bodies like this committee. If liberal states decide that the
convenience of spies is more valuable than the rights of their citizens, the inevitable result will be states that are both less liberal and less safe.

Thank you.

I will now respond to the submitted questions. Please bear in mind that I will not be
disclosing new information about surveillance programs: I will be limiting my testimony to information regarding what responsible media organizations have entered into the public
domain. For the record, I also repeat my willingness to provide testimony to the United States Congress, should they decide to consider the issue of unconstitutional mass surveillance.

Rapporteur Claude Moraes MEP, S&D Group

Given the focus of this Inquiry is on the impact of mass surveillance on EU citizens, could you elaborate on the extent of cooperation that exists between the NSA and EU Member States in terms of the transfer and collection of bulk data of EU citizens?

- A number of memos from the NSA’s Foreign Affairs Directorate have been published in
the press.

One of the foremost activities of the NSA’s FAD, or Foreign Affairs Division, is to pressure or incentivize EU member states to change their laws to enable mass surveillance. Lawyers from the NSA, as well as the UK’s GCHQ, work very hard to search for loopholes in laws and constitutional protections that they can use to justify indiscriminate, dragnet surveillance operations that were at best unwittingly authorized by lawmakers. These efforts to interpret new powers out of vague laws is an intentional strategy to avoid public opposition and lawmakers™ insistence that legal limits be respected, effects the GCHQ internally described in its own documents as “damaging public debate.”

In recent public memory, we have seen these FAD “legal guidance” operations occur in
both Sweden and the Netherlands, and also faraway New Zealand. Germany was pressured to modify its G-10 law to appease the NSA, and it eroded the rights of German citizens under their constitution. Each of these countries received instruction from the NSA, sometimes under the guise of the US Department of Defense and other bodies, on how to degrade the legal protections of their countries’ communications. The ultimate result of the NSA’s guidance is that the right of ordinary citizens to be free from unwarranted interference is degraded, and systems of intrusive mass surveillance are being constructed in secret within otherwise liberal states, often without the full awareness of the public.

Once the NSA has successfully subverted or helped repeal legal restrictions against
unconstitutional mass surveillance in partner states, it encourages partners to perform access operations. Access operations are efforts to gain access to the bulk communications of all major telecommunications providers in their jurisdictions, normally beginning with those that handle the greatest volume of communications. Sometimes the NSA provides consultation, technology, or even the physical hardware itself for partners to “ingest” these massive amounts of data in a manner that allows processing, and it does not take long to access everything. Even in a country the size of the United States, gaining access to the circuits of as few as three companies can provide access to the majority of citizens’ communications. In the UK, Verizon, British Telecommunications, Vodafone, Global Crossing, Level 3, Viatel, and Interoute all cooperate with the GCHQ, to include cooperation beyond what is legally required.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/02/telecoms-bt-vodafone-cables-gchq

By the time this general process has occurred, it is very difficult for the citizens of a country
to protect the privacy of their communications, and it is very easy for the intelligence services of that country to make those communications available to the NSA — even without having explicitly shared them. The nature of the NSA’s “NOFORN,” or NO FOREIGN NATIONALS classification, when combined with the fact that the memorandum agreements between NSA and its foreign partners have a standard disclaimer stating they provide no enforceable rights,provides both the NSA with a means of monitoring its partner’s citizens without informing the partner, and the partner with a means of plausible deniability.

The result is a European bazaar, where an EU member state like Denmark may give the
NSA access to a tapping center on the (unenforceable) condition that NSA doesn’t search it for
Danes, and Germany may give the NSA access to another on the condition that it doesn’t search
for Germans. Yet the two tapping sites may be two points on the same cable, so the NSA simply
captures the communications of the German citizens as they transit Denmark, and the Danish
citizens as they transit Germany, all the while considering it entirely in accordance with their
agreements. Ultimately, each EU national government’s spy services are independently hawking
domestic accesses to the NSA, GCHQ, FRA, and the like without having any awareness of how
their individual contribution is enabling the greater patchwork of mass surveillance against
ordinary citizens as a whole.

The Parliament should ask the NSA and GCHQ to deny that they monitor the
communications of EU citizens, and in the absence of an informative response, I would suggest
that the current state of affairs is the inevitable result of subordinating the rights of the voting
public to the prerogatives of State Security Bureaus. The surest way for any nation to become
subject to unnecessary surveillance is to allow its spies to dictate its policy.

The right to be free unwarranted intrusion into our private effects — our lives and
possessions, our thoughts and communications — is a human right. It is not granted by national
governments and it cannot be revoked by them out of convenience. Just as we do not allow
police officers to enter every home to fish around for evidence of undiscovered crimes, we must
not allow spies to rummage through our every communication for indications of disfavored
activities.

Could you comment on the activities of EU Member States intelligence agencies in these
operations and how advanced their capabilities have become in comparison with the NSA?

4
- The best testimony I can provide on this matter without pre-empting the work of
journalists is to point to the indications that the NSA not only enables and guides, but shares
some mass surveillance systems and technologies with the agencies of EU member states. As it
pertains to the issue of mass surveillance, the difference between, for example, the NSA and
FRA is not one of technology, but rather funding and manpower. Technology is agnostic of
nationality, and the flag on the pole outside of the building makes systems of mass surveillance
no more or less effective.

In terms of the mass surveillance programmes already revealed through the press, what
proportion of the mass surveillance activities do these programmes account for? Are there many
other programmes, undisclosed as of yet, that would impact on EU citizens rights?

- There are many other undisclosed programs that would impact EU citizens’ rights, but I
will leave the public interest determinations as to which of these may be safely disclosed to
responsible journalists in coordination with government stakeholders.

Shadow Rapporteur Sophie Int’Veld MEP, ALDE Group

Are there adequate procedures in the NSA for staff to signal wrongdoing?

- Unfortunately not. The culture within the US Intelligence Community is such that
reporting serious concerns about the legality or propriety of programs is much more likely to
result in your being flagged as a troublemaker than to result in substantive reform. We should
remember that many of these programs were well known to be problematic to the legal offices of
agencies such as the GCHQ and other oversight officials. According to their own documents,
the priority of the overseers is not to assure strict compliance with the law and accountability for
violations of law, but rather to avoid, and I quote, “damaging public debate,” to conceal the fact
that for-profit companies have gone “well beyond” what is legally required of them, and to avoid
legal review of questionable programs by open courts. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2013/oct/25/leaked-memos-gchq-mass-surveillance-secret-snowden)

In my personal experience, repeatedly raising concerns about legal and policy matters with
my co-workers and superiors resulted in two kinds of responses.

The first were well-meaning but hushed warnings not to “rock the boat,” for fear of the sort
of retaliation that befell former NSA whistleblowers like Wiebe, Binney, and Drake. All three
men reported their concerns through the official, approved process, and all three men were
subject to armed raids by the FBI and threats of criminal sanction. Everyone in the Intelligence
Community is aware of what happens to people who report concerns about unlawful but
authorized operations.

The second were similarly well-meaning but more pointed suggestions, typically from
senior officials, that we should let the issue be someone else’s problem. Even among the most
senior individuals to whom I reported my concerns, no one at NSA could ever recall an instance
where an official complaint had resulted in an unlawful program being ended, but there was a

5
unanimous desire to avoid being associated with such a complaint in any form.

Do you feel you had exhausted all avenues before taking the decision to go public?

- Yes. I had reported these clearly problematic programs to more than ten distinct officials,
none of whom took any action to address them. As an employee of a private company rather
than a direct employee of the US government, I was not protected by US whistleblower laws,
and I would not have been protected from retaliation and legal sanction for revealing classified
information about lawbreaking in accordance with the recommended process.

It is important to remember that this is legal dilemma did not occur by mistake. US
whistleblower reform laws were passed as recently as 2012, with the US Whistleblower
Protection Enhancement Act, but they specifically chose to exclude Intelligence Agencies from
being covered by the statute. President Obama also reformed a key executive Whistleblower
regulation with his 2012 Presidential Policy Directive 19, but it exempted Intelligence
Community contractors such as myself. The result was that individuals like me were left with no
proper channels.

Do you think procedures for whistleblowing have been improved now?

- No. There has not yet been any substantive whistleblower reform in the US, and
unfortunately my government has taken a number of disproportionate and persecutory actions
against me. US government officials have declared me guilty of crimes in advance of any trial,
they’ve called for me to be executed or assassinated in private and openly in the press, they
revoked my passport and left me stranded in a foreign transit zone for six weeks, and even used
NATO to ground the presidential plane of Evo Morales – the leader of Bolivia – on hearing that I
might attempt to seek and enjoy asylum in Latin America.

What is your relationship with the Russian and Chinese authorities, and what are the terms on
which you were allowed to stay originally in Hong Kong and now in Russia?

- I have no relationship with either government.

Shadow Rapporteur Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP, Greens Group

Could we help you in any way, and do you seek asylum in the EU?

- If you want to help me, help me by helping everyone: declare that the indiscriminate, bulk
collection of private data by governments is a violation of our rights and must end. What
happens to me as a person is less important than what happens to our common rights.

As for asylum, I do seek EU asylum, but I have yet to receive a positive response to the
requests I sent to various EU member states. Parliamentarians in the national governments have
told me that the US, and I quote, “will not allow” EU partners to offer political asylum to me,
which is why the previous resolution on asylum ran into such mysterious opposition. I would

6
welcome any offer of safe passage or permanent asylum, but I recognize that would require an
act of extraordinary political courage.

Can you confirm cyber-attacks by the NSA or other intelligence agencies on EU institutions,
telecommunications providers such as Belgacom and SWIFT, or any other EU-based
companies?

- Yes. I don’t want to outpace the efforts of journalists, here, but I can confirm that all
documents reported thus far are authentic and unmodified, meaning the alleged operations
against Belgacom, SWIFT, the EU as an institution, the United Nations, UNICEF, and others
based on documents I provided have actually occurred. And I expect similar operations will be
revealed in the future that affect many more ordinary citizens.

Shadow Rapporteur Cornelia Ernst MEP, GUE Group

In your view, how far can the surveillance measures you revealed be justified by national
security and from your experience is the information being used for economic espionage? What
could be done to resolve this?

- Surveillance against specific targets, for unquestionable reasons of national security while
respecting human rights, is above reproach. Unfortunately, we’ve seen a growth in untargeted,
extremely questionable surveillance for reasons entirely unrelated to national security. Most
recently, the Prime Minister of Australia, caught red-handed engaging in the most blatant kind of
economic espionage, sought to argue that the price of Indonesian shrimp and clove cigarettes
was a “security matter.” These are indications of a growing disinterest among governments for
ensuring intelligence activities are justified, proportionate, and above all accountable. We
should be concerned about the precedent our actions set.

The UK’s GCHQ is the prime example of this, due to what they refer to as a “light oversight
regime,” which is a bureaucratic way of saying their spying activities are less restricted than is
proper (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/legal-loopholes-gchq-spy-world). Since
that light oversight regime was revealed, we have learned that the GCHQ is intercepting and
storing unprecedented quantities of ordinary citizens’ communications on a constant basis, both
within the EU and without http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-
world-communications-nsa). There is no argument that could convince an open court that such
activities were necessary and proportionate, and it is for this reason that such activities are
shielded from the review of open courts.

In the United States, we use a secret, rubber-stamp Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
that only hears arguments from the government. Out of approximately 34,000 government
requests over 33 years, the secret court rejected only 11. It should raise serious concerns for this
committee, and for society, that the GCHQ’s lawyers consider themselves fortunate to avoid the
kind of burdensome oversight regime that rejects 11 out of 34,000 requests. If that’s what heavy
oversight looks like, what, pray tell, does the GCHQ’s “light oversight” look like?

7
Let’s explore it. We learned only days ago that the GCHQ compromised a popular Yahoo
service to collect images from web cameras inside citizens’ homes, and around 10% of these
images they take from within people’s homes involve nudity or intimate activities
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo). In
the same report, journalists revealed that this sort of webcam data was searchable via the NSA’s
XKEYSCORE system, which means the GCHQ’s “light oversight regime” was used not only to
capture bulk data that is clearly of limited intelligence value and most probably violates EU laws,
but to then trade that data with foreign services without the knowledge or consent of any
country’s voting public.

We also learned last year that some of the partners with which the GCHQ was sharing this
information, in this example the NSA, had made efforts to use evidence of religious
conservatives’ association with sexually explicit material of the sort GCHQ was collecting as a
grounds for destroying their reputations and discrediting them
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_4346128.html). The “Release
to Five Eyes” classification of this particular report, dated 2012, reveals that the UK government
was aware of the NSA’s intent to use sexually explicit material in this manner, indicating a
deepening and increasingly aggressive partnership. None of these religious conservatives were
suspected of involvement in terrorist plots: they were targeted on the basis of their political
beliefs and activism, as part of a class the NSA refers to as “radicalizers.”

I wonder if any members of this committee have ever advocated a position that the NSA,
GCHQ, or even the intelligence services of an EU member state might attempt to construe as
“radical”? If you were targeted on the basis of your political beliefs, would you know? If they
sought to discredit you on the basis of your private communications, could you discover the
culprit and prove it was them? What would be your recourse?

And you are parliamentarians. Try to imagine the impact of such activities against ordinary
citizens without power, privilege, or resources. Are these activities necessary, proportionate, and
an unquestionable matter of national security?

A few weeks ago we learned the GCHQ has hired scientists to study how to create divisions
amongst activists and disfavored political groups, how they attempt to discredit and destroy
private businesses, and how they knowingly plant false information to misdirect civil discourse
(https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/).

To directly answer your question, yes, global surveillance capabilities are being used on a
daily basis for the purpose of economic espionage. That a major goal of the US Intelligence
Community is to produce economic intelligence is the worst kept secret in Washington.

In September, we learned the NSA had successfully targeted and compromised the world’s
major financial transaction facilitators, such as Visa and SWIFT, which released documents
describe as providing “rich personal information,” even data that “is not about our targets”
(http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-exclusive-nsa-spies-on-international-bank-
transactions-a-922276.html). Again, these documents are authentic and unmodified – a fact the
NSA itself has never once disputed.

8
In August, we learned the NSA had targeted Petrobras, an energy company
(http://g1.globo.com/fantastico/noticia/2013/09/nsa-documents-show-united-states-spied-
brazilian-oil-giant.html). It would be the first of a long list of US energy targets.

But we should be clear these activities are not unique to the NSA or GCHQ. Australia’s
DSD targeted Sri Mulyani Indrawati, a finance minister and Managing Director of the World
Bank (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/18/australia-tried-to-monitor-indonesian-
presidents-phone). Report after report has revealed targeting of G-8 and G-20 summits. Mass
surveillance capabilities have even been used against a climate change summit.

Recently, governments have shifted their talking points from claiming they only use mass
surveillance for “national security” purposes to the more nebulous “valid foreign intelligence
purposes.” I suggest this committee consider that this rhetorical shift is a tacit acknowledgment
by governments that they recognize they have crossed beyond the boundaries of justifiable
activities. Every country believes its “foreign intelligence purposes” are “valid,” but that does
not make it so. If we are prepared to condemn the economic spying of our competitors, we must
be prepared to do the same of our allies. Lasting peace is founded upon fundamental fairness.

The international community must agree to common standards of behavior, and jointly
invest in the development of new technical standards to defend against mass surveillance. We
rely on common systems, and the French will not be safe from mass surveillance until
Americans, Argentines, and Chinese are as well.

The good news is that there are solutions. The weakness of mass surveillance is that it can
very easily be made much more expensive through changes in technical standards: pervasive,
end-to-end encryption can quickly make indiscriminate surveillance impossible on a cost-
effective basis. The result is that governments are likely to fall back to traditional, targeted
surveillance founded upon an individualized suspicion. Governments cannot risk the discovery
of their exploits by simply throwing attacks at every “endpoint,” or computer processor on the
end of a network connection, in the world. Mass surveillance, passive surveillance, relies upon
unencrypted or weakly encrypted communications at the global network level.

If there had been better independent and public oversight over the intelligence agencies, do you
think this could have prevented this kind of mass surveillance? What conditions would need to be
fulfilled, both nationally and internationally?

- Yes, better oversight could have prevented the mistakes that brought us to this point, as
could an understanding that defense is always more important than offense when it comes to
matters of national intelligence. The intentional weakening of the common security standards
upon which we all rely is an action taken against the public good.

The oversight of intelligence agencies should always be performed by opposition parties, as
under the democratic model, they always have the most to lose under a surveillance
state. Additionally, we need better whistleblower protections, and a new commitment to the
importance of international asylum. These are important safeguards that protect our collective

9
human rights when the laws of national governments have failed.

European governments, which have traditionally been champions of human rights, should
not be intimidated out of standing for the right of asylum against political charges, of which
espionage has always been the traditional example. Journalism is not a crime, it is the
foundation of free and informed societies, and no nation should look to others to bear the burden
of defending its rights.

Shadow Rapporteur Axel Voss MEP, EPP Group

Why did you choose to go public with your information?

- Secret laws and secret courts cannot authorize unconstitutional activities by fiat, nor can
classification be used to shield an unjustified and embarrassing violation of human rights from
democratic accountability. If the mass surveillance of an innocent public is to occur, it should be
authorized as the result of an informed debate with the consent of the public, under a framework
of laws that the government invites civil society to challenge in open courts.

That our governments are even today unwilling to allow independent review of the secret
policies enabling mass surveillance of innocents underlines governments’ lack of faith that these
programs are lawful, and this provides stronger testimony in favor of the rightfulness of my
actions than any words I might write.

Did you exhaust all possibilities before taking the decision to go public?

- Yes. I had reported these clearly problematic programs to more than ten distinct officials, none
of whom took any action to address them. As an employee of a private company rather than a
direct employee of the US government, I was not protected by US whistleblower laws, and I
would not have been protected from retaliation and legal sanction for revealing classified
information about lawbreaking in accordance with the recommended process.

It is important to remember that this is legal dilemma did not occur by mistake. US
whistleblower reform laws were passed as recently as 2012, with the US Whistleblower
Protection Enhancement Act, but they specifically chose to exclude Intelligence Agencies from
being covered by the statute. President Obama also reformed a key executive Whistleblower
regulation with his 2012 Presidential Policy Directive 19, but it exempted Intelligence
Community contractors such as myself. The result was that individuals like me were left with no
proper channels.

Are you aware that your revelations have the potential to put at risk lives of innocents and
hamper efforts in the global fight against terrorism?

- Actually, no specific evidence has ever been offered, by any government, that even a single life
has been put at risk by the award-winning journalism this question attempts to implicate.

10
The ongoing revelations about unlawful and improper surveillance are the product of a
partnership between the world’s leading journalistic outfits and national governments, and if you
can show one of the governments consulted on these stories chose not to impede demonstrably
fatal information from being published, I invite you to do so. The front page of every newspaper
in the world stands open to you.

Did the Russian secret service approach you?

- Of course. Even the secret service of Andorra would have approached me, if they had had the
chance: that’s their job.

But I didn’t take any documents with me from Hong Kong, and while I’m sure they were
disappointed, it doesn’t take long for an intelligence service to realize when they’re out of luck. I
was also accompanied at all times by an utterly fearless journalist with one of the biggest
megaphones in the world, which is the equivalent of Kryptonite for spies. As a consequence, we
spent the next 40 days trapped in an airport instead of sleeping on piles of money while waiting
for the next parade. But we walked out with heads held high.

I would also add, for the record, that the United States government has repeatedly acknowledged
that there is no evidence at all of any relationship between myself and the Russian intelligence
service.

Who is currently financing your life?

- I am.

Shadow Rapporteur Timothy Kirkhope MEP, ECR Group

You have stated previously that you want the intelligence agencies to be more accountable to
citizens, however, why do you feel this accountability does not apply to you? Do you therefore,
plan to return to the United States or Europe to face criminal charges and answer questions in
an official capacity, and pursue the route as an official whistle-blower?

- Respectfully, I remind you that accountability cannot exist without the due process of law, and
even Deutsche Welle has written about the well-known gap in US law that deprived me of vital
legal protections due to nothing more meaningful than my status as an employee of a private
company rather than of the government directly (http://www.dw.de/us-whistleblower-laws-offer-
no-protection/a-17391500). Surely no one on the committee believes that the measure of one’s
political rights should be determined by their employer.

Fortunately, we live in a global, interconnected world where, when national laws fail like this,
our international laws provide for another level of accountability, and the asylum process
provides a means of due process for individuals who might otherwise be wrongly deprived of it.
In the face of the extraordinary campaign of persecution brought against me by my the United States government on account of my political beliefs, which I remind you included the grounding of the President of Bolivia’s plane by EU Member States, an increasing number of national governments have agreed that a grant of political asylum is lawful and appropriate.

Polling of public opinion in Europe indicates I am not alone in hoping to see EU governments agree that blowing the whistle on serious wrongdoing should be a protected act.

Do you still plan to release more files, and have you disclosed or been asked to disclose any
information regarding the content of these files to Chinese and Russian authorities or any names contained within them?

As stated previously, there are many other undisclosed programs that would impact EU citizens’ rights, but I will leave the public interest determinations as to which of these may be safely disclosed to responsible journalists in coordination with government stakeholders. I have not disclosed any information to anyone other than those responsible journalists.

Thank you.
For the original PDF version go to http://site.d66.nl/intveld/document/testimony_snowden/f=/vjhvekoen1ww.pdf

 




css.php