Sandra Finley

Dec 072018
 

From: Sandra Finley

some edits to original.

– – – –
In case people at OpenMedia are not aware.

My reading:  Barbara Loe Fisher’s recent video is an alert, an alarm bell.  Even if it’s US-based.

Elaboration follows.

 

Bless all of you at OpenMedia for your appreciation of the needs of Democracy.

You are warriors par excellence.   . . .

– – – – – – – –

ELABORATION

 

As I understand,  more than a year ago the FCC bowed to Corporate pressures re the Internet.  (FCC = US Federal Communications Commission)  Well, maybe they didn’t have to bow, they simply followed established practice.

2014-04-24  Unless Defeated, New FCC Rules Will Put ‘Stake in Internet’s Heart’

The new rules were not defeated.

Fisher is saying:  in the U.S. they lost the battle for net neutrality.  They are a year into censorship (a propaganda state).  That is the reality.  People! – –  strengthen and build real-life connections, communications, and sharing of information through non-internet media.  Don’t just sit and watch corporate takeover of communication channels, now including the Internet.

 

I operate on the understanding that what the Corporations get in the US, they will eventually get in Canada, and vice versa.  The success of Canadian wins for Net Neutrality, through pressure on the CRTC, are tenuous.

2017-04-20  We won! OpenMedia. Net neutrality, CRTC.    (CRTC = Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission)

our movement has won rules to prevent telecom giants from manipulating data caps to make some apps and services more expensive than others. Since then our victory has been making headlines all over the world.

But today, telco shills and industry apologists have flocked to Twitter to express their outrage. . . .  if their outrage is any indication, they’ll do everything they can to undo our huge win.

– – – – – – – – – –

NOT ONLY TELCO

Industries highly motivated to join forces in manipulation of access to the Internet,

(the INTERNET thwarts their ability to control the society using the standard tool – – Propaganda.  They are dependent on propaganda to ensure the flow of profits.):

If you are naive, or born post-Bush Senior and the “Gulf War” in the ’90’s,  I recommend the above video.   I discovered I am the former, still naive after all I’ve seen.

 

I suspect I should be adding “Big Government” (Big Money) to the list.  The public interest, and the Government’s assigned job (regulation) is often not their motivation or priority.

 

The effects of  FCC’s failure to protect the public interest in the US, are now emerging, as described in the address by Fisher (a repeat of the link at top):

If short of time,  You might listen to the first part of the video, and then skip ahead to about the 10:16 minute mark.   Fisher describes what has actually happened.  And what to do, under the circumstances.   She does a good job of describing the consequences for democracy, in general, not in just one sphere.

Or, the transcript of Fisher’s address is also on the posting.

Thanks! to the many people and organizations in Canada who went to the mat with the CRTC over net neutrality and prevailed.

The win is precarious, given what Barbara Loe Fisher describes has happened to NVIC.   Let us all be alert.

EXCERPT FROM THE FULL TRANSCRIPT

Traffic to NVIC’s websites has fallen more than 50 percent since net neutrality was cancelled last year and access to our online information was restricted by suppressive algorithms and rating systems.70

Although NVIC takes a pro-education, pro-informed consent position and does not make vaccine use recommendations, NVIC’s Pinterest account was recently suspended.71 The reason given was that Pinterest takes action “against accounts that repeatedly save content that includes harmful advice, misinformation that targets individuals or protected groups or content that originates from disinformation campaigns” and that Pinterest operators “don’t allow advice when it has immediate or detrimental effects on a Pinner’s health or on public safety. This includes promotion of false cures for terminal or chronic illnesses and anti-vaccination advice,” adding that they rely on “information from national and internationally recognized institutions like the CDC and WHO World Health Organization” to guide their judgments.

NVIC is awaiting the judgment of NewsGuard Technologies about whether our weekly online journal newspaper The Vaccine Reaction will be given a green or red rating, which will send a signal to major search engines and social media platforms with the power to preserve or censor and make information disappear from the Internet.

Censoring Information for The Greater Good?

The new Internet Police scrubbing the World Wide Web of information they do not want you to see or talk about is part of the larger culture war going on today in our country and in many countries.72  73 When it comes to vaccination, discrimination and censorship is justified in the name of public safety and The Greater Good.74 75

Who’s greater good? . . .

Who is BARBARA LOE FISHER?     Everything I’ve seen by her, over the years, has been well-reasoned and well done.   She is sounding an alarm, based on what is being experienced in the sector she knows.

She and NVIC, the organization she runs, are threatening Big Pharma.  A search throws up examples:

2017-05-11    Refusal to Vaccinate Should Be a Hanging Offense? from the Vaccine Reaction

If the State can tag, track down and force individuals to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.” — Barbara Loe Fisher, National Vaccine Information Center

2018-03-26   Baylor’s Doc Hotez Bullies Parents of Vaccine Injured Children | Barbara Loe Fisher

2015-11-09   Vaccine Injury Compensation in USA: Government’s Broken Social Contract with Parents

2013-05-28   Desperate Times for Vaccine Risk Denialism

– – – – – –  –

RELATED POSTINGS, chronologically:

2014-01-29  Two-tiered internet, Avaaz petition important

2014-04-24  Unless Defeated, New FCC Rules Will Put ‘Stake in Internet’s Heart’    (FCC = US Federal Communications Commission)

2017-08-07  Further concentration in the Canadian Communications industry – you can help stop it.

2018-08-23  Verizon under fire for ‘throttling’ firefighters’ data in California blaze. (Net neutrality)

Dec 062018
 

BACKGROUND:

Wikipedia:

 Syngenta AG is a Swiss-based global company  that produces agrochemicals and seeds. As a biotechnology  company, it conducts genomic research. It was formed in 2000  by the merger of Novartis Agribusiness and Zeneca  Agrochemicals.

As of 2014 Syngenta is the world’s largest  crop chemical producer[2] As of 2009 it ranked third in  seeds and biotechnology sales.[3] Sales in 2015 were  approximately US$13.4 billion, over half of which were in  emerging markets.[1]

It is owned by ChemChina, a Chinese  state-owned enterprise.

Source: Xinhua
 CHICAGO, April 7 (Xinhua) — ChemChina’s purchase of Syngenta not only helps facilitate the Swiss company’s operation in China, but also adds wings to its further development worldwide.

“We are really, really happy that ChemChina has purchased Syngenta because it gives us a very strong way of contributing more to the modernizing of agriculture in China,” Andrew Guthrie, Syngenta Regional Director China, told Xinhua in an interview.

“What Syngenta is able to do is to bring the world’s leading technology to China and to its growers. And because of the acquisition by ChemChina, we have the great support to do this.”

In June 2017, ChemChina, a state-owned enterprise with full name as China National Chemical Corporation, purchased Syngenta, a global Swiss agribusiness that markets seeds and agrochemicals, for 43 billion U.S. dollars, the largest transaction ever clinched by a Chinese company overseas.

The marriage between ChemChina and Syngenta is not accidental. Before the tie was knotted, ChemChina and Syngenta had forged a very strong working relationship.

They had worked closely on a potato project in Dingxi in China’s northwestern Gansu Province, in which they brought technology, products and advice to farmers there and increased the yields by more than 30 percent.

“The biggest challenge that we have is that China is such a big country with lots of different crops at 200,000,000 farming households. If we’re really going to make a difference, our biggest challenge is how do we reach 200,000,000 farming households,” Ruthrie said.

Being purchased by ChemChina, “we are in a completely new chapter now.”

ChemChina has strong relationships within China. “One of the most crucial things about making a difference in China is around the collaborations and the partnerships that we will form,” Guthrie added.

Since the acquisition by ChemChina, Syngenta has received a very strong support and interest from all of its key stakeholders across China, because everbody realizes the Syngenta assets are now part of China, Guthrie said.

To be connected with more Chinese institutes which have a lot of investments in agriculture R&D through ChemChina is also what Syngenta would love to do. “This leads to a really good win-win opportunity for both Chinese institutes in agriculture and some in Syngenta that we’re trying to accomplish”, said Jeff Rowe, president of Syngenta Global Seeds North America and China.

Now being a Chinese multi-national, Syngenta has moved some of its most experienced business leaders in the world to China, Rowe told Xinhua. “We are in the process of moving top talent that we have anywhere in the world to China.”

Syngenta invests over one billion dollars in research and development every year, and is now very much focused on solving the problems that growers have in China, as well as all around the world.

After the acquisition, “China is now a global player in the agriculture research and development,” and is now the third pillar of global R&D center after the United States and countries in Europe, Ruthrie said. “We want to continue to invest and expand China’s R&D center”.

In the meantime, Syngenta hopes to be a vehicle to help companies in China bring more Chinese technology to the rest of the world. “Projects and initiatives like the Belt and Road are very important and we hope we can make a contribution to those sorts of initiatives as well,” Ruthrie said.

“Syngenta’s acquisition is a very, very big step for ChemChina in the China market, but also globally, in all the big markets and agriculture markets in the world,” Rowe said.

Dec 062018
 

 RELATED:   2018-12-06 NYT: Paul Manafort Discussed Deal to Seize Julian Assange

 

Julian Assange’s lawyer has rejected an agreement announced by Ecuador’s president to see him leave the Ecuadorean embassy in London, after six years inside.

Lenin Moreno, the president of Ecuador, has made no secret of his wish to be rid of the WikiLeaks founder, who sought asylum inside the embassy in June 2012 and has not left since.

On Thursday Mr Moreno announced that a deal had been reached between London and Quito to allow Mr Assange, 47, to be released.

“The way has been cleared for Mr Assange to take the decision to leave in near-liberty,” said Mr Moreno.

He did not specify what “near liberty” meant.

Mr Moreno earlier this year announced that he was severing Mr Assange’s telephone and internet links, and in October said he was banning him from making “political statement” that jeopardised Ecuador’s relations with other countries. Mr Assange then sued for a breach of his human rights.

From December, he was also due to pay for his own costs of food, medical care and laundry, in yet another sign of the growing impatience of the Ecuadorean government.

Mr Moreno added that Britain had guaranteed that the Australian would not be extradited to any country where his life is in danger.

But Mr Assange’s lawyer, Barry Pollack, told The Telegraph that the deal was not acceptable.

The legal team have long argued that they will not accept any agreement which risks his being extradited to the United States.

Julian Assange participates via video link at a news conference marking the 10th anniversary of WikiLeaks, in Berlin in October 2016

Last year Jeff Sessions, the former US attorney general, said arresting Mr Assange was a priority.

In November a filing error revealed that Mr Assange faced charges in the US – although it was not clear what those charges were.

Many speculate they would be connected to the release of classified information, and Mr Assange fears a long prison sentence in the US for what his supporters say is publishing information in the public interest.

“The suggestion that as long as the death penalty is off the table, Mr Assange need not fear persecution is obviously wrong,” said Mr Pollack.

“No one should have to face criminal charges for publishing truthful information.

“Since such charges appear to have been brought against Mr Assange in the United States, Ecuador should continue to provide him asylum.”

Mr Assange fled to the embassy to avoid charges of rape, sexual molestation and coercion. All charges were dropped by May 2017.

He does, however, still face charges in the UK of skipping bail.

Dec 062018
 
Image
A rally in Quito, Ecuador, in support of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in the country’s embassy in London since 2012.CreditCreditJose Jacome/EPA, via Shutterstock

The New York Times is reporting that President Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort tried to negotiate a deal with Ecuador to hand over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States. Manafort reportedly met with incoming Ecuadorean President Lenín Moreno in 2017 and discussed the possibility of turning in Assange—who has been holed up at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for over six years—in exchange for debt relief and other concessions from the U.S.

= = = = =

NY Times


WASHINGTON — In mid-May 2017, Paul Manafort, facing intensifying pressure to settle debts and pay mounting legal bills, flew to Ecuador to offer his services to a potentially lucrative new client — the country’s incoming president, Lenín Moreno.

Mr. Manafort made the trip mainly to see if he could broker a deal under which China would invest in Ecuador’s power system, possibly yielding a fat commission for Mr. Manafort.

But the talks turned to a diplomatic sticking point between the United States and Ecuador: the fate of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

In at least two meetings with Mr. Manafort, Mr. Moreno and his aides discussed their desire to rid themselves of Mr. Assange, who has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, in exchange for concessions like debt relief from the United States, according to three people familiar with the talks, the details of which have not been previously reported.

They said Mr. Manafort suggested he could help negotiate a deal for the handover of Mr. Assange to the United States, which has long investigated Mr. Assange for the disclosure of secret documents and which later filed charges against him that have not yet been made public.

Within a couple of days of Mr. Manafort’s final meeting in Quito, Robert S. Mueller III was appointed as the special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters, and it quickly became clear that Mr. Manafort was a primary target. His talks with Ecuador ended without any deals.

There is no evidence that Mr. Manafort was working with — or even briefing — President Trump or other administration officials on his discussions with the Ecuadoreans about Mr. Assange. Nor is there any evidence that his brief involvement in the talks was motivated by concerns about the role that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks played in facilitating the Russian effort to help Mr. Trump in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation into possible coordination between Mr. Assange and Mr. Trump’s associates, which has become a focus for Mr. Mueller.

Mr. Manafort and WikiLeaks have both denied a recent report in The Guardian that Mr. Manafort visited Mr. Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London in 2013, 2015 and 2016.

Paul Manafort is said to have suggested that he could help Ecuadorean officials negotiate a deal for the handover of Mr. Assange to the United States.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times

etc.

Dec 062018
 

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/12/5/how_false_testimony_and_a_massive

Aalternate – – link works just fine, altho it shows as invalid:

https://publish.dvlabs.com/democracynow/360/dn2018-1205.mp4?start=2083.0


As the media memorializes George H.W. Bush, we look at the lasting impact of his 1991 invasion of Iraq and the propaganda campaign that encouraged it. Although the Gulf War technically ended in February of 1991, the U.S. war on Iraq would continue for decades, first in the form of devastating sanctions and then in the 2003 invasion launched by George W. Bush. Thousands of U.S. troops and contractors remain in Iraq. A largely forgotten aspect of Bush Sr.’s war on Iraq is the vast domestic propaganda effort before the invasion began. We look at the way U.S. media facilitated the war on Iraq with journalist John “Rick” MacArthur, president and publisher of Harper’s Magazine and the author of the book “Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War.”

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, a national day of mourning has been declared following the death of former President George H.W. Bush, who died Friday at the age of 94. The Post Office and other federal agencies are closed for the day. A funeral service for Bush is being held today at the Washington National Cathedral. Former Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Bush’s son, George W. Bush, will attend, as will President Trump, who was not invited to speak. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush explained why President Trump was not speaking by saying, quote, “It’s because we have a unique circumstance here. My brother was president. First dibs, as we used to say.” A second funeral will be held on Thursday in Houston, where George H.W. Bush will be buried.

Well, we continue now to look back at the legacy of the 41st president. Bush only served one term in the Oval Office, but the blowback from his 1991 invasion of Iraq is still being felt today. Although the Gulf War technically ended in February 1991, the U.S. war on Iraq would continue for decades, first in the form of devastating sanctions and then in the 2003 invasion launched by George H.W. Bush’s son, George W. Bush. Thousands of U.S. troops and contractors remain in Iraq today.

AMY GOODMAN: We look back now at a largely forgotten aspect of Bush’s war on Iraq: the vast domestic propaganda campaign that occurred in the United States before the invasion began. The story centers on a young Kuwaiti woman named Nayirah. On October 10th, 1990, the 15-year-old girl gave riveting testimony before Congress about the horrors inside Kuwait after Iraq invaded.

NAYIRAH AL-SABAH: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Nayirah, and I just came out of Kuwait. … My sister, with my 5-day-old nephew, traveled across the desert to safety. There was no milk available for the baby in Kuwait. They barely escaped when their car was stuck in the desert, desert sand, and help came from Saudi Arabia.

I stayed behind and wanted to do something for my country. The second week after invasion, I volunteered at the Al-Adan Hospital with 12 other women who wanted to help, as well. I was the youngest volunteer; other women were from 20 to 30 years old. While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of incubators, took the incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor. It was horrifying. I could not help but think of my nephew.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Nayirah’s testimony was rebroadcast across the country and marked a turning point in public opinion on going to war. President George H.W. Bush repeatedly cited her claims.

PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH: They had kids in incubators, and they were thrown out of the incubators, so that Kuwait could be systematically dismantled.

AMY GOODMAN: Three months after Nayirah testified, President George H.W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. But it turned out Nayirah’s claims weren’t true. No human rights group or news outlet could confirm what she said. It also turned out Nayirah was not just any Kuwaiti teenager. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasser al-Sabah. She had been coached by the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was working for the Kuwaiti government.

We’re joined now by the journalist who first revealed Nayirah’s identity, Rick MacArthur, the president and publisher of Harper’s Magazine, the author of the book Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War.

I mean, so, you know, as we said, this is a turning point. You have this teenager, this girl, saying she witnessed this, that Iraqi soldiers came into Kuwait and ripped babies out of Kuwaiti incubators. But she was only referred to as Nayirah at the time of the testimony; it wasn’t Nayirah al-Sabah, so you would know that she’s the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, who also testified in that hearing?

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Correct. That’s all part of the propaganda plan, is to maintain her anonymity to protect her and her family against reprisals in Kuwait. That was the cover story. But, of course, nobody bothered to try to find out who she really was. They just bought the story hook, line and sinker, even though at the time there were a couple of human rights investigators who were becoming suspicious.

I got onto the trail after the war, unfortunately, and was able to run down what really had happened, which was that Hill & Knowlton selected her as a persuasive witness to this atrocity, and it was all part of a campaign to turn Saddam Hussein, at least in the public consciousness, into Adolf Hitler. And the feeling was that they couldn’t sell the Gulf War without this. In other words, they had to cheat to win.

And that’s what interests me about the eulogies for George Bush. He’s being presented now as this paragon of kind of WASP respectability and integrity, old-school, when in fact he was a—had a violent side to him, a very angry and violent and ruthless side to him. And when you see him doing the propaganda, using the Hill & Knowlton disinformation, you see a side of a politician that’s kind of ugly. And we’re still—as Juan said, we’re still living with the consequences of our having placed troops in Saudi Arabia, because that’s what sets off bin Laden, finally.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Rick, in terms of most people—it’s been over a quarter-century now. Most people don’t recall the climate then. But there was significant public opposition to the United States going into Iraq to beat back the invasion of Kuwait, and the vote to approve the military action was very close, wasn’t it? So this was crucial, this kind of—this testimony.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Precisely. You’ve got to remember, in 1990, ’91, we’re only—what?—15 years after Vietnam. And there’s still this very, very bad feeling in the country, that’s represented in Congress by senators like John Kerry, that we were conned into Vietnam, it was an undeclared war, and we weren’t going to get conned again into another phony war or a phony pretext. And so, it was clear that Bush was going to have to get congressional authorization for invading—for liberating Kuwait. And so, the vote was going to be very close. It ended up being 52 to 47. It would have been 52 to 48 if Alan Cranston, the senator from California, had come back to Washington to vote. He said he would have voted if it was close. He was undergoing chemotherapy in California.

And it’s clear that, I mean, numerous representatives and senators cited the baby incubator atrocity, which was false—it never happened—as a reason for voting for the Gulf War resolution. In other words, these are people who said, “Well, look, we could figure out other ways to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait—economic sanctions, negotiations.” There was a feeling that this was about oil, it wasn’t about principle, even though Bush posed it as a matter of international law. But these people said, finally, “Look, if he’s really Hitler, if he’s really capable of having an army that slaughters”—and it got to hundreds of babies by the time Amnesty International gave its official seal of approval to the story.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, that’s—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, and I recall the front—

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: It was inflated. It got even bigger.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s very, very important—

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —about Amnesty International and the roll that it played.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Right.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: It wasn’t just Nayirah.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Wasn’t just Nayirah. Human Rights Watch fell for it. They were neutral officially. But Amnesty International actually put the number over 300 babies. There weren’t that many incubators in Kuwait City hospitals. Now, if you want to go back over the record, you’ll see how badly the media, how badly the press failed in all this by not asking questions.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I remember that my newspaper, the New York Daily News, had a front page: “They killed babies!”

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And so, the media uncritically accepted this story—

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Sure.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —without any kind of check.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: And if he’s a baby killer, then, well, you know, reasonable people can disagree about how to enforce international law, how to prevent countries from invading other countries, but we have to draw the line at baby killing.

And after the war—it’s not just me—it’s John Martin who did the really good reporting. He went around to all the hospitals—

AMY GOODMAN: For ABC.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: For ABC News—did what a reporter should do, unfortunately too late: interviewed hospital personnel, doctors—did a very thorough job. Nobody could cite one instance of a baby being pulled from an incubator by Iraqi soldiers and killed. There were babies killed because of neglect and because of the American bombardment of Kuwait and of Iraq, because a lot of hospital personnel fled. There were casualties. There were infants who died. But there were no babies killed by being pulled from incubators. It never happened.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And this was, I think, as you note, the beginning of a new effort at the—or increased effort at the propaganda campaigns of our government to justify war.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Right. And this is something that hasn’t been explored enough. Again, we go back to George Bush’s alleged WASP integrity and respectability. Well, he’s also the father of George W. Bush, who took the propaganda campaign a couple steps further with Saddam’s fake atomic bomb program—never happened, never existed, in the time that we said it was going on. He may have had ambitions before, but there certainly was no atomic bomb program in 2002, 2003.

But we’ve now gotten so used to debating whether we should go to war or not based on fake news—I’m sorry to quote Donald Trump—but false information, that we don’t know how to discuss these subjects anymore. And the war-making power has been taken out of the hands of the people, almost been taken out of the hands of the Congress. It’s almost quite—somebody said to me earlier, “Why did Bush bother to ask Congress for permission to invade Iraq in 1991?” Well, back then, we were still a little bit more of a constitutionally ruled country. And there was this bitter memory of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Vietnam and the fact that we fought an undeclared war on false pretexts.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Rick MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. The beginning of your book, Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War, is—the first chapter is called “Cutting the Deal.” And you start with a quote of Earl Shorris saying, “Some men are pleased to give orders and some men are pleased to take orders.” It’s really the beginning of the embedding process.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain this highly unusual meeting, August morning in 1990, eight days after Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, of the four, at the time—you know, the media landscape is so different—the four Washington bureau chiefs of the major U.S. television networks presenting themselves where?

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Well, they present themselves at the home of Prince Bandar, who is the Saudi fixer in the United States. He’s the sort of majordomo of everything that happens Saudi-related in the United States. And he’s the guy that the reporters have to ask for favors. That’s who you go to for help, because the White House and the Pentagon had decided, from the beginning, we’re not going to have another Vietnam. In other words, we’re not going to have another situation where reporters are permitted to go anywhere they want, take pictures of corpses, take pictures of burning buildings or helicopters crashing. We’re not going to—because the belief was—the revisionist belief was that we lost Vietnam because the American public was demoralized by all the bad news coming back on CBS Evening News and in Newsweek. So we’re not going to let this happen again.

And the decision was made to pool reporters and to censor them. In other words, you’d send groups of five to the front, wherever the Pentagon decided the front happened to be that day. They would get to take pictures and describe things, in theory, but their report would have to be shared with everybody else—there’d be no competition—and it would have to be vetted by Pentagon censors. So, obviously, the American public saw nothing. The reporters were permitted to see nothing. And it was kind of comical, finally, to see hundreds of reporters in Dhahran, which is where the press center was, recycling censored reports from the front which showed nothing.

There were two or three honorable reporters—Chris Hedges, Bob Simon of CBS—who went off the reservation, so to speak, and saw a little bit, but these were the exceptions. Susan Sachs from Newsday was another person who tried to do a good job.

AMY GOODMAN: Didn’t they go to the Saudi ambassador’s home, sent there by the Bush administration, even though the Bush administration was sending soldiers into Saudi Arabia? When it came to the press getting permission—

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —they said, “You’ll have to get permission from Saudi Arabia.”

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Well, this was a way to lobby the Saudis for favors. It was still going to be the Pentagon that decided who got to go where when. But the feeling was, among the networks, was, if we can get Prince Bandar to cut us some—give us some—do some favors for us, cut us some slack, maybe he can use his influence with the Bush administration to give us better access than the competition.

And this brings us back to the present day. I mean, we’re in bed with the Saudi Arabians, going back a long way. And the idea of the American media begging for favors from a Saudi prince, well, it’s an ugly—it’s an ugly image. And it also speaks to the hypocrisy of the American media, back then and still today, about the First Amendment. I mean, there were a group of us that sued the Pentagon. Sydney Schanberg and The Nation and Harper’s Magazine, we sued the Pentagon over this. We lost. And—over the censorship plan. But for the most part, Katharine Graham, Sulzberger, the heads of the networks, they didn’t do anything. That’s all in my book also. You can see the—you can see what they said about it.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Rick MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. We’ll be back with him in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Combat Rock” by Sleater-Kinney. And a shout-out to today’s class visiting Democracy Now!, Marymount Manhattan College. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we look at President George H.W. Bush’s legacy when it comes to war, particularly the Iraq War. Juan?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Rick, I wanted to ask you, following up on what we were talking about, about the agreement of many of the major media companies to go along with the censorship protocols of the Pentagon in the war. Ironically, this was the first televised—live televised war. And those of us who remember the pictures of the bombers hitting different parts of Iraq and Kuwait—so, you had his irony of, on the one hand, there was censorship and control; on the other hand, it was a televised war, so that the American people got this idea of these precision-guided bombs that the United States was unleashing on the Iraqi forces.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Right. Strictly speaking, it’s not the first televised war. You could say Vietnam is the first televised war. But—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Live. Live televised.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: But live televised war, yes, in the sense that you have these long press conferences, if you can call them that, run by Norman Schwarzkopf, the commander of the—the overall commander of the allied forces, as they were quaintly called, who turns out to be a brilliant PR man. And what he understood was, it’s better to talk over the reporters at the press conference and show pictures in real time, if possible—sometimes in real time, sometimes they were videotapes—to show what the Army was allegedly doing before anybody could check it out. So, he brilliantly—I mean, it looks very old-fashioned. He’s got a television set, set up on the stage in Dhahran, showing allegedly precision-guided—precision missiles hitting their targets every time, to make people—give people the feeling that the American Army is invincible.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to the U.S. military commander in charge of Iraq, who you’re referring to—

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Right, right.

AMY GOODMAN: —General Norman Schwarzkopf. During a news conference January 31st, 1991, he explains how the U.S. has been targeting Iraq’s Scud missiles.

GEN. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF: Last night in western Iraq, we also attacked and destroyed three Scud TELs with F-15s, and I feel we preempted a missile attack on Israel last night. Now, I certainly can’t say there will be no more Scud launches. You can never say that. But I have a high degree of confidence that we are getting better and better at our ability to find them, and I think this tape speaks for itself in our ability to find them and destroy them.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Norman Schwarzkopf, General Norman Schwarzkopf.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Right. And the day before, actually, they showed pictures of them, of the United States Air Force, allegedly blowing up Scud missile—mobile Scud missile launchers, because at that point people were very upset and frightened that the Iraqis were going to hit targets in Israel. They did get a couple of Scuds through the defenses into Israel. So they had to have results. They had to show that they were taking out the Scud missile launchers. And so they claimed to have knocked out 11 of them. After the war, Scott Ritter and Mark Crispin Miller did some good reporting and refuted this, said that no Scud missile launchers were blown up. But the—mobile Scud missile launchers.

But the point is, is that in real time, the press, the media, could not challenge anything that was said. Here’s the video. Here are the generals with their pointers. How can you argue with this? And there’s nobody on the ground, no reporters in the field, who can verify anything or contradict anything. It’s not easy even under the freest circumstances in wartime to confirm or refute what the government says. But there’s zero chance in this war. So the American public gets the impression that it’s a clean war, a sanitized war; we’re hitting every target.

One of the great statistics to know is that 93 percent of the tonnage dropped on Iraq and Kuwait in the Gulf War was conventional dumb bombs, most of them from Vietnam-era B-52s. Only 7 percent of the tonnage fired were laser-guided missiles, which is what they’re talking about here. So it’s–

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, it’s possible to say that it was under George—

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I mean, George Herbert Walker Bush that the United States government perfected the propaganda control of media coverage of the war.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Yes. And none of these things are new. In other words, if you go back to World War I, you’ve got Belgian babies were being bayoneted by the Germans. I mean, it’s an old—it’s an old propaganda trick. So, killing babies has been used before. But in terms of actual technical sophistication, using the latest media technology to subvert democracy and to manipulate people and to make them feel good about the war, ultimately, Schwarzkopf, CENTCOM, Pete Williams at the Pentagon and the Bush administration, this was the pièce de résistance.

AMY GOODMAN: Your final thoughts, in the last 30 seconds, on the review of President George H.W. Bush’s life that we’re seeing in the media today?

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: Well, I’m horrified. There was a column in The Wall Street Journal yesterday by William McGurn headlined “George Bush’s Wonderful Life,” where he literally compares him to George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life, which is crazy on its face, because George Bailey is a kind of populist. He’s opposed to the power of Mr. Potter and his bank and so on and so forth.

But George Bush was not a peace-loving guy. I’ll never forget George McGovern saying to me—and George McGovern—

AMY GOODMAN: We have 15 seconds.

JOHN R. MacARTHUR: —having been a bomber pilot in World War II—saying, “You know, most of us came back from World War II—most of us who came back from World War II had had enough. Bush didn’t get enough, didn’t get enough violence.”

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there. Rick MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, author of Second Front.

Dec 052018
 
In Search of a Perfect World: Angelica & German

Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1948, the growing global economy has created new challenges. With operations that can span several different countries, large multinational corporations, such as mining and extraction companies, can act with impunity, without state oversight or the control of international human rights mechanisms.

As of 2013, more than 50 per cent of the world’s publically listed exploration and mining companies were headquartered in Canada. Many of those companies have been accused of being irresponsible, engaging in conduct they could never get away with in Canada, exploiting weak or corrupt governments and legal systems in foreign countries that turn a blind eye to their operations.

In 2009, Adolfo Ich, a Mayan Q’eqchi’ community leader, was shot dead by a security guard employed at the Fenix nickel mine in El Estor, Guatemala. Adolfo was seeking to calm the community during a protest on contested land with the mine. A bystander at the protest, German Chub, was also shot by the same security guard and left for dead. He is now a paraplegic.

Chub, along with Adolfo’s widow Angelica, took the mine’s security guard to Guatemalan courts, but the case was thrown out. Angelica was even charged with obstruction of justice.

Hope for change

In the CBC Docs Special Presentation In Search of a Perfect World, we meet Canadian lawyer Murray Klippenstein, who is using domestic law to champion international human rights. He managed to convince an Ontario Court to let the Guatemalans, including Angelica and German, sue the mining company here, in Canada.

“Mining companies kind of lived in this world where we go to another country far away, where the courts are corrupt, and that they could get away with things. But that’s not the case anymore,” says Klippenstein.

He hopes this landmark case sends shockwaves through the boardrooms of Canada, “What happened in Guatemala is what you did. You did it from here in Toronto. And so you have to be accountable here.”

MORE:
Upholding human rights in the face of a changing world

Meanwhile, in January 2018 — an effort years in the making — the federal government announced the creation of an independent Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE)  “to investigate allegations of human rights abuses linked to Canadian corporate activity abroad.” The office will be advised by a multi-stakeholder advisory body on responsible business conduct abroad.

For more on this story, including former CBC correspondent Peter Mansbridge’s interviews with the Guatemalan villagers, watch In Search of a Perfect World.

Dec 052018
 

RELATED:    2018-12-07   An alert sent to OpenMedia, Propaganda flourishes if we can’t hang onto Net Neutrality.   (Includes elaboration.)


by Barbara Loe Fisher

TRANSCRIPT

Before the Internet was launched in 1992, our thoughts, values and beliefs were informed by our family and friends and by the books, magazines and newspapers we read and by what we heard on radio and saw on television. If we wanted to communicate with each other we would pick up the telephone, write a letter or meet face to face.

The Internet changed everything.

The World Wide Web gave us electronic access to free, uncensored information on our computers, tablets and cell phones and the ability to instantly share that information with each other. It connected us together in a virtual public square, where we could do our own research and talk about our personal experiences, and express what we think and believe and how we feel about important issues that affect our lives.

There are three billion people on the Internet communicating with each other. 1 Except for the printing press created in the 15th century, there is no other single means of communication that has had as profound an impact on freedom of thought and speech as the World Wide Web.

Yes, the Internet has changed everything. And, now, everyone needs to know how the Internet is changing.

internet

In the very near future you may not be able to find information about vaccine science, policy and law published on websites like NVIC.org and

TheVaccineReaction.org or be able to connect with us on social media platforms to have an open conversation about it. With the cancellation of net neutrality in the U.S. in 2017,3 the two decade forging of public-private business partnerships between governments and politically powerful corporations and institutions has cleared the way for factual information about health to be censored as “fake news” and quietly removed from the Internet if it does not conform with public health policy and government recommendations for use of pharmaceutical and food products.

Has the Internet been hijacked by Wall Street? It sure looks that way.

An electronic wall is being built to block you from getting information you want so you only get information someone else decides you need. An electronic burning of the books has begun, and the people are being silently herded into a virtual Dark Age. While this censorship is starting with conversations about health and vaccination, it will not end there.

Those who have bought and control the Internet now have the power to restrict or block any kind of information they do not want you to see or talk about with your family, friends and others you connect with online.5

So who is doing the judging of what is truth and what is “fake news” online?

The Internet Police Thinking and Speaking for You

Web of Trust6 and Snopes,7 both for-profit enterprises, have attempted to police the Internet for the past decade by rating websites for “trustworthiness” or branding articles published online as “true” or “false,” even as they themselves became embroiled in controversy about trustworthiness.10 But Snopes and Web of Trust are rookies compared to the professional SWAT team hired this year by a new corporation, NewsGuard Technologies, Inc., to rate websites and online publications so, in their own words, they can quote “fight false news, misinformation and disinformation.”11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NewsGuard is collaborating with The Paley Center for Media,18 Google,19 Microsoft,20 21 Publicis,22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 schools, libraries32 and other institutions to protect you and your children from news and perspective they think will harm you and society.

There is no question that “fake news” is a real problem in both mainstream and alternative media when demonstrably false information is deliberately disguised as fact. However, it is also a real problem when demonstrably factual information or perspective is mislabeled as “fake news,” simply because it criticizes government policy or threatens the bottom line of corporations selling government recommended commercial products like liability free vaccines.

dollars handshake

One of the most politically powerful public-private partnerships today is the lucrative one that has been forged by the pharmaceutical industry with government,33 34 35 36 37 38 mainstream media39 and wealthy philanthropic foundations with political agendas.40 41 42 43 44 45

NVIC Giving a Voice for the Vaccine Injured, Defending Human Rights

It has been 25 years since the nonprofit charity founded in 1982 by parents of vaccine injured children, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), began posting vaccine information on the Internet. Our mission is to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and to protect the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking, which serves as the foundation for the ethical practice of medicine.46 The co-founders and parent representatives of NVIC have a long, transparent public record of consumer advocacy, including working with Congress to secure vaccine safety informing, recording, reporting and research provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and serving on federal vaccine advisory committees and testifying in congressional and state legislative hearings.47 48

We represent and give a voice to a vulnerable minority, the ones for whom the risks of vaccination turn out to be 100 percent. But we also represent and give a voice to people who believe that the human right to freedom of thought, speech, conscience and informed consent must be protected.49

Verifiable Facts About Vaccination Not “Fake News”

Ten years before the birth of the Internet, one of the best-kept secrets in America was that vaccines can and do cause injury and death and that some individuals are more vulnerable to being harmed by vaccination. In 1982, an Emmy award winning television documentary DPT: Vaccine Roulette produced by consumer reporter Lea Thompson alerted parents and pediatricians that the whole cell pertussis vaccine in DPT shots could brain damage children.50 51 It was a mainstream media outlet – NBC – that blew the whistle on the pharmaceutical industry’s neglect, and the medical establishment’s denial of DPT vaccine reactions, and the 50-year failure of industry and government to improve the safety of a vaccine mandated for all children to attend school.

These are verifiable facts: the truth, not “fake news.”

Three years later in 1985, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich published DPT: A Shot in the Dark, a book that further documented the risks and failures of the old crude whole cell pertussis vaccine.52 A year later, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. In that legislation, for the first time the US government acknowledged that FDA licensed and CDC recommended vaccines can and do injure children.53 54

Since the 1986 Act was passed, the government has awarded four billion dollars in compensation to thousands of children and adults who have suffered permanent injuries, or whose loved ones have died after being given federally licensed and recommended vaccines.55

These are verifiable facts: the truth, not “fake news.”

Between 1991 and 2013, the National Academy of Sciences published a series of reports on vaccine adverse effects.56 These reports confirmed that vaccines can cause brain and immune system disorders, and that genetic, biological and environmental risk factors make some individuals more vulnerable to being harmed but doctors don’t know how to identify them because of gaps in vaccine science.57

boy being vaccinated

These are verifiable facts: the truth, not “fake news.”

More than 684,000 adverse events following vaccination, including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths, have been reported to the federal government since 1990.58 This number is estimated to represent less than one percent of all vaccine adverse events that have actually occurred.59

These are verifiable facts; the truth, not “fake news.”

The U.S. government now recommends that children receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines between the day of birth and age 18, with 50 doses given before the age of six,60 which is triple the number of vaccinations given to children in 1983.61 Almost all of these vaccinations are mandated by states for children to attend school62 and some children are being refused medical care and adults are being fired from their jobs if they don’t get every one of them, even after suffering vaccine reactions and deterioration in health.63 64 65 66 67

Vaccine policy and mandates have helped to create a global vaccine market now projected to bring in a staggering $57 billion dollars for drug companies by 2025.68 69

These are verifiable facts, not “fake news.” But very soon you may not be able to get this information or talk about it online.

It is already happening.

Discrimination and Censorship: NVIC’s Information Targeted Online

Traffic to NVIC’s websites has fallen more than 50 percent since net neutrality was cancelled last year and access to our online information was restricted by suppressive algorithms and rating systems.70

Although NVIC takes a pro-education, pro-informed consent position and does not make vaccine use recommendations, NVIC’s Pinterest account was recently suspended.71 The reason given was that Pinterest takes action “against accounts that repeatedly save content that includes harmful advice, misinformation that targets individuals or protected groups or content that originates from disinformation campaigns” and that Pinterest operators “don’t allow advice when it has immediate or detrimental effects on a Pinner’s health or on public safety. This includes promotion of false cures for terminal or chronic illnesses and anti-vaccination advice,” adding that they rely on “information from national and internationally recognized institutions like the CDC and WHO World Health Organization” to guide their judgments.

NVIC is awaiting the judgment of NewsGuard Technologies about whether our weekly online journal newspaper The Vaccine Reaction will be given a green or red rating, which will send a signal to major search engines and social media platforms with the power to preserve or censor and make information disappear from the Internet.

Censoring Information for The Greater Good?

The new Internet Police scrubbing the World Wide Web of information they do not want you to see or talk about is part of the larger culture war going on today in our country and in many countries.72  73 When it comes to vaccination, discrimination and censorship is justified in the name of public safety and The Greater Good.74 75

Who’s greater good? Who among us in society should be given the power to take away our freedom to seek and obtain knowledge, to engage in rational thinking, to speak in the public square and follow the judgment of our conscience when making decisions about what we are willing to risk our lives and our children’s lives for?

In America, where the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution guarantees civil liberties to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, we cannot wait any longer to publicly discuss and answer that question. It is a question that needs open public discussion, not censorship, because what is at stake affects not only freedom of thought and speech, but the loss of autonomy, the first and most sacred of all natural rights that protects every one of us from exploitation by wealthy corporations and politically powerful institutions.

Taking Positive Action with Eyes Wide Open and No Fear

In this time of oppression, we cannot know what needs to be done unless we go forward with our eyes wide open, understanding the new reality without fearing it. It is time to collect, preserve and cherish the good books, articles, films, videos and podcasts that have been published about vaccination and share them with our family and friends; time to save and download to our computers and external hard drives the written and video information still online that we want to keep and share with our children and our grandchildren. Time to expand the open public record by attending, testifying at and recording every legislative hearing, every town hall gathering, and every federal vaccine advisory committee meeting where people discuss vaccination or attempt to eliminate the human right to autonomy and censor freedom of thought and speech.

If the doors to the Internet are closing, we can still stand up and speak in the smaller public squares that have always been there. We can come together and talk the old fashioned way, meeting in cafes, hotels, churches and in the privacy of our own homes. We can set up telephone trees and stay in touch by mail the way we did before the Internet. We can still use the World Wide Web to create private messaging and host webinars. We can create new ways of communicating with each other using more secure channels for uncensored conversations about vaccination and health.

No matter what happens to the Internet, the best way to not lose touch with us is to register today for the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal, which is a secure communications network that puts you in electronic contact with your own legislators and provides you with real time information about vaccine-related legislation moving in your state. Taking that action provides us with an address to send you information in the mail, which also happens if you make a charitable donation to NVIC in any amount.

Today, everybody knows somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated and was never healthy again. NVIC has been here for 36 years telling the truth about vaccination and advocating for better quality vaccine science, higher government vaccine safety licensing standards, more humane public health policies and protection of informed consent rights. The truth about vaccination is out there now and the truth will shine bright and clear in the end, no matter who tries to stop it from being known.

It’s your health, your family, your choice and our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.

Dec 052018
 
U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York charges four men on grounds of wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy, connected to tax haven use, leaving three arrested and one at large.
‘Panama Papers’ involves the 2016 document leaks of Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York charged four people for taking part in a scheme, similar to the infamous ‘Panama Papers,’ which, over several decades, managed to evade taxes in the United States. This marks the first criminal case involving tax havens in the United States.

RELATED: 
European Union Adds Bahamas, Saint Kitts, Virgin Islands to Tax Haven Blacklist

“As alleged, these defendants went to extraordinary lengths to circumvent U.S. tax laws in order to maintain their wealth and the wealth of their clients,” and they “shuffled millions of dollars through offshore accounts and created shell companies to hide fortunes,” the Manhattan Attorney Geoffrey Berman, said, regarding the charges.

Three individuals have been arrested, while the fourth remains at large. The most serious charges for these men, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy, carry a maximum sentence of 20 years.

Ramses Owen and Dirk Bauer are said to have “conspired to help [Monseca’s] clients” conceal assets as well as income and investments in off-shore banks. The scheme was carried out by setting up a fake foundation and shell companies, under Panama, Hong Kong and British island law.

Harald Joachim von Der Goltz, one of the three arrested, is one of the clients who benefited from such tax evasion schemes. Von Der Goltz, with the help of Owen and Bauer, set up shell companies with fake bank accounts under the name of his mother, a Guatemalan citizen who was not obliged to pay taxes in the United States.

Panama Papers

‘Panama Papers’ refers to the 2016 document leaks of Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, a company through which Owen and Bauer serviced clients, documents that linked hundreds of individuals and corporations to hidden tax activities.

In 2015, an unknown source leaked more than 11.5 million documents containing information for more than 214,488 offshore entities around the world. Prior to that, offshore banking received little attention. The documents were given to a German newspaper, before being passed on to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) to process and disseminate.

In the specific case of Panama, the country began to open its doors to the activity in 2009 when Standard Oil started registering ships on the isthmus nation in order to avoid heavy taxes and regulations in the United States. Many different types of businessmen and businesses, from all over the world, followed suit in later decades. The group included drug-cartels, dictators, like Augusto Pinochet and Ferdinand Marcos, among many others.

But, it was in the 1970s – with the boom of petrol and the growth of oil prices – that Panamanian authorities saw and harnessed the potential to amass the wealth generated by offshore finance afforded by tax havens. The trend spurred the implementation of strict laws to protect corporate and individual financial secrecy, with their corresponding confidentiality regulations.

Tax Havens

The key component of the law is a veil of secrecy over finance: the names of clients went unregistered in the public domain.

A haven is a place with little to zero tax imposition is designed for foreign capital, which attracts wealth-seekers to stash capital or investment to circumvent paying taxes in their respective countries.

Tax haven countries, like Panama for example, will now impose a government-sanctioned nominal “user fee” to establish and maintain social responsibility.

An individual or company which uses tax havens will create a “shell company,” that is, a company which exists only on paper, holds no assets of its own, has no employees, but generally has a bank account and serves to support business transactions in anonymity. The shell company allows for the source of capital to be hidden from the public domain.

The ‘veil of secrecy’ helps to protect legal and illegal transactions. Since secrecy regulations do not limit the origins, licit or illicit, of any capital. In general, independently of the origin of the money, tax havens are widely criticized for diminishing resources from an economy’s tax-base which could be used to fund public policy, particularly in resource-strapped developing countries.

According to a study conducted by Forbes in 2017, nearly 10 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) is held in tax havens or offshore banks, a figure which is on the rise.

Tax havens are not a third world problem, they also operate in the heart of the world’s capitalist centers, such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

Dec 052018
 

Attorneys seeking details about the U.S. government’s investigation into WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange argued Monday that the Department of Justice lacks justification for continuing to keep its case completely sealed.

Lawyers for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a nonprofit organization representing journalists’ interests, raised the claim throughout a 12-page memorandum filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, where the group initiated legal proceedings last month seeking access to sealed documents related to the Justice Department’s pending prosecution of the Australian-born WikiLeaks boss.

“The Reporters Committee does not dispute that, in some cases, prior to an arrest the Government may have a compelling interest that justifies temporary sealing of court records subject to the First Amendment right of access,” attorney Caitlin Vogus wrote in the memo. “But such interests are not present prior to an arrest in all cases, and the Government cannot justify wholesale sealing of the Assange Prosecution, specifically, based on nothing more than the fact that Assange is not in U.S. custody.”

“The Government does not demonstrate a compelling interest that would justify keeping the entirety of the Assange Prosecution sealed by mulishly asserting the fiction that Assange—who has confined himself to the Ecuadoran Embassy in London—might attempt to evade arrest if the nature of the charges pending against him are made public,” she added. “Given the specific circumstances here, unsealing court records from the Assange Prosecution, including the ‘contents’ of the criminal complaint against Assange, would not ‘pose any extra threat’ that he will evade or avoid arrest, or implicate any other compelling interest of the Government.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alexandria declined to comment.

The Reporters Committee filed a motion last month seeking access to court records related to Mr. Assange, 46, after his surname was spotted in a document entered by prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia in an unrelated case.

Dec 032018
 

Bayer, the German drugmaker that bought U.S. seed company Monsanto earlier this year, announced on Thursday the sale of a number of businesses, around 12,000 job cuts and 3.3 billion euros ($3.8 billion) in impairments, Reuters reported.

NOTE:  some very interesting “Related” stories (international resistance) from Sustainable Pulse at bottom.

Chief Executive Werner Baumann is under pressure to boost Bayer’s share price after a drop of more than 35 percent so far this year, dragged down by concern over more than 9,000 lawsuits it faces over the cancer-causing effect of Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer.

Sustainable Pulse Director, Henry Rowlands, commented on the shocking news on Thursday; “This just shows what happens when a company doesn’t do its homework before making a huge investment. Bayer will struggle to recover from the Monsanto fiasco and investors in the company are obviously now very concerned. The only way out of this mess for Bayer is to stop selling glyphosate-based herbicides.”

The group said it was looking at options – that could include a sale – for the Coppertone sunscreen and Dr. Scholl’s foot care products from the consumer healthcare division it bought from Merck & Co in 2014 for $14 billion.

It will also divest its animal health division, the number five player in the industry, which analysts have said could fetch 6-7 billion euros ($7.9 billion).

The unit, the largest maker of flea and tick control products for cats and dogs and a supplier of livestock veterinary drugs, had sales of 1.57 billion euros in 2017, accounting for about 4.5 percent of group revenues.

Bayer will also seek a buyer for its 60-percent stake in German chemical production site services provider Currenta.

Related