Whenever I read an article, a paper, or a book, I read it for what it says.

I also read for what it doesn’t say.

Russia notoriously releases documents that do not say things that would cause the West to erupt in protests upon reading. A few years ago, the SCO wrote a paper about cybersecurity in which they implied but did not say explicitly say that the State reserved the right to shut down the internet to preserve State security.  As I read the paper I had the distinct feeling something was being ‘talked around’. When I realized what it was, the document ‘screamed’ this, at least to me. This usually is a result of me simply asking “why?”

While reading this article, I discovered the missing question was “why would the Russian people want to have a colored revolution?” With this in mind, Gerasimov appears to ask the wrong questions. “How can we suppress free speech and expression in Russia more effectively or just more?”  “How can Russia control Russians better?” “How can we detect feelings of discontent?” There are many other questions which should now be offered.

A better question is “How can we change what Russia is doing to promote Russian citizen contentment and lessen global hatred of Russian policies?”  This simply assumes that discontent causes colored revolutions.

The obvious next step should be to ask “Should Russia change its attitude of aggression against other countries?”

Russia is asking the wrong questions.

</end editorial>

Footnote: To get corroboration for this article I had to dig deeply. Here is an article in Sputnik Vietnam.  http://vn.sputniknews.com/russia/20160301/1253738.html

Russia’s top brass has called on leading military theorists and specialists as well as the defense industry and the government to jointly develop a “soft power” strategy to counter the potential threat from “color revolutions.” The annual general meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences (Akademiya Voyennykh Nauk—AVN), on February 27, saw a number of inter-linked presentations addressing the nature of modern warfare and the role of military science in assessing such issues, as well as a keynote speech by the chief of the General Staff, Army-General Valery Gerasimov. Experts supported Gerasimov’s conclusion that in order to counter the possible security threat posed by “color revolution,” Russia must form and develop a range of soft power instruments. It was made clear that a “coup” in the color revolution model is regarded by Moscow as a form of hybrid warfare conducted by foreign powers against Russia’s interests (RIA Novosti, March 1).

Color revolutions were characterized as an essential component in Western “hybrid warfare” approaches, with the underlying message during the conference being that Moscow must now remedy these threats by forming new anti-hybrid capabilities of its own. Gerasimov’s speech has brought full circle the discussion triggered by his controversial article in Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer in February 2013; Gerasimov’s assessment of modern trends in warfare was soon interpreted as evidence of the existence of a Russian concept and doctrine pertaining to “hybrid warfare,” with many rushing to judgement based on the example in Ukraine (Kommersant, March 1; Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 27, 2013).

Among the themes covered by speakers were reforming the military-industrial complex, weapons procurement, and the formation of private military companies. Central elements in the military theoretical framework that formed the backdrop to the presentations, especially Gerasimov’s assessments, are found in the work of the country’s leading military theorist—Army-General Makhmut Gareev, the president of the AVN. Indeed, in recent years Gareev has walked a line between traditionalists and modernizers in his articles and speeches, particularly calling for new ideas and approaches to how Russia confronts the challenges of modern warfare. In his written analysis published prior to EuroMaidan, he warned that a color revolution could pose a direct threat to Russian security (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 24, 2016; December 4, 2013).

It is in this context, and following Russia’s military experiences in Ukraine and Syria, that Gerasimov chose the AVN to issue his call to action against color revolutions. Reportedly, Gareev also addressed the academy on the results of its activities in 2015 and set out some tasks for the year ahead. The AVN consists of 13 academic departments with 21 regional branches. It has 98 honorary members and 2,783 professors. Among the professors, 72 percent are retired military officers or reservists and 28 percent of the AVN’s military scientists are current members of the Armed Forces (Kommersant, March 1).

Gerasimov framed his comments by noting the firmly established foreign “high-tech” warfare concept aimed at achieving its goals by “remote” non-contact impact upon enemy forces, using high-precision and long-range systems operating in the air, sea and space. This trend, according to Gerasimov, was a prominent theme in the development of the world’s leading militaries in recent years, and is now reflected in Russian defense planning to 2020, including the Plan of Defense approved by President Putin and put into effect at the beginning of 2016. He continued by noting that Russia faces a broad range of multi-vector threats, especially linked to the use of soft power: political, diplomatic, economic, informational, cybernetic, psychological and other non-military means. The main result of Russian military science should be practical, leading the way in formulating new ideas and thinking on these issues. Gerasimov elaborated on the nature of military threats, Russia’s complex security environment, changes in the nature of combat, as well as the means and methods of using military force. In addition, he raised questions about the future priorities for the Armed Forces, including modernization as well as developing the strategic rocket forces and system of air and space defense (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, March 8; Krasnaya Zvezda, February 28).

Turning to the threat posed to Russia’s security from the phenomenon of color revolutions, Gerasimov linked the themes of globalization, the weakening of national borders, as well as the emergence of the field of information as a fundamental component in modern warfare. Gerasimov believes that this shifts the focus to an integrated application of “political, economic, and information activities and other non-military measures relying on military force.” Looking out on international approaches to modern warfare, the General Staff sees “hybrid” approaches readily being used and developed by other powers, which, in turn, means Russia needs to play catch up. In his view, a “soft power” approach is needed to combat color revolutions using a range of means partly already present in the Foreign Policy Concept but necessitating refinement. Gerasimov wants the AVN to further study trends in modern warfare and to take into account lessons learned from the Great Patriotic War, Afghanistan and anti-piracy missions, as well as Syria and Crimea (though Russian forces met with little resistance in the latter). He also combined his call for soft power counter measures against color revolutions with greater efforts to study offense and defense in outer space and in the information space (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, March 8; Krasnaya Zvezda, February 28).

By including the Great Patriotic War as an additional area demanding study to strengthen Russia’s approaches to future warfare, Gerasimov was not simply paying lip service to the AVN and the esteemed role of Gareev—whose views were largely shaped by his experience of the war. Indeed, the collective memory of June 1941 (date of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union), distilled even today into the educational culture of the top brass, explains the Russian security elite’s predisposed fear of a sudden, surprise attack—most recently embodied by the United States’ Prompt Global Strike and missile defense plans, which drive aspects of Moscow’s nuclear modernization (Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, February 26).

Gerasimov’s address to the AVN confirms the non-existence of a Russian hybrid doctrine, or approach to warfare per se. Rather, according to his public remarks, Gerasimov sees the need to respond to the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which he claims are forming such capabilities (Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, February 28).

Stone tablets. Monks copying by hand. Guttenberg printing press. Books. Newspapers. The Internet. All methods of publishing writing.  For shared knowledge, to pique interest, and to inspire.  For information.  Knowledge. Exposure.  To keep politicians, government employees, and corporations honest. How? That is the secret, my fellow information warriors.

According to the late Dr. Rev. Haagen Staack, early mankind passed stories down, from generation to generation. Through the passage of time, the stories became cleaner as they evolved, and many of the questions faded away, they were answered. Then man invented writing, these stories were written and the Bible came to be. Divinely inspired. This was the theory Dr. Staack presented during one of the first weeks of class in Religion 101 at Muhlenberg College, in my freshman year of college. This simple theory made sense and it rocked my world.  My father was a Lutheran Minister, I grew up reading the bible and hearing stories and lessons since I was a wee lad. That there could actually be alternatives to the way things were taught in Sunday School and in Church – just wow. At least one of my brain cells popped.  I realized I had to read everything more critically, ask questions, contemplate alternatives to everything, and figure out what was truth and reality – and what were all the permutations and alternatives.

In the past two years Russia, who prides themselves on having a unique perspective of the world, has released more alternate theories than I could have imagined. Seemingly, in every situation in which Russia could conceivably receive blame, Russian leadership and the Russian media use a standard mantra. Deny, offer alternate theories, blame the West, undermine Western leaders, governments, and alliances; and promote Russia and Russian national interests. There appeared to be Russian media, and then everyone else. Little the Russians said rang true, it was always a little bit off. Russian reports, and I read many of them, just seemed crazy. People just don’t do that stuff.  Later, sometimes much later, the Western media would publish conflicting reports, which usually just made sense. I was not taking the side of the Western media, I honestly tried to remain unbiased, I usually read the Russian originated reports first.

The mainstream media, social media, and other news sources just didn’t seem to help. Official statements and proclamations are published. Western reporters generated reports which analyzed, dissected, and eventually turned complex situations into a gooey predigested mass capable of satiating some interests.  They mostly just filled blank spaces and cause readers indigestion. One, seemingly, has no way of knowing what is true, what is untrue, fabricated, watered down, or just plain stupid.  How is one to understand?

Enter Bellingcat.

Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins:

Bellingcat uses open source and social media investigation to investigate a variety of subjects, from Mexican drug lords to conflicts being fought across the world. Bellingcat brings together contributors who specialise in open source and social media investigation, and creates guides and case studies so others may learn to do the same.

In the way of Sherlock Holmes, Eliot Higgins, and other Bellingcat investigators use “open source” material, which means publicly available resources. Then they use common sense, logic, and many state-of-the-art investigative techniques and tools, crowdsourcing and an amazingly cooperative team. Investigators donate their time, efforts and products and have managed to uncover and unmask things many governments would rather wish they hadn’t.

But Bellingcat does not keep its findings private, they publish their own reports. Then they do something which is practically unheard of, they share their investigative techniques.  Want to know how:

• Automatically Finding Weapons in Social Media Images Part 2.
• Using Citizen Science to Assess Environmental Damage in the Syrian Conflict
• Online Identification of Conflict Related Environmental Damage

…and that’s just a very shortened list of their instructive guides.

Bellingcat’s most notable achieve to date was their investigation of the MH17 shootdown by Russia. I can say this with a good amount of certainty, mainly because of Bellingcat’s report.  Bellingcat’s investigation revealed the actual Buk used to shoot down MH17. Using social media, they located and tracked not only the launcher, they located and tracked connected individuals. Using photographic geolocation location combined with metadata analysis, Bellingcat showed exactly where each of the events occurred.  When I directly contrast these results with Russian statements and reports, they don’t use Google Earth images, and then use photoshop images onto them, showing mythical aircraft at the precise moment of their fabricated activities. They use images taken by the involved soldiers. They show comparative images, verifying locations. They track individuals using distinctive features and their own Vkontakte accounts. The list of their accomplishments is extensive.

In the few years that Bellingcat has been around, I have learned to trust their reports because their products are checked, doubled checked, and their techniques and methodologies are listed – in the report. Bellingcat has become a reliable source of information for me in a wide variety of situations.

Journalistic integrity. Bellingcat has it – and lots of it.

I trust Bellingcat like I have learned not to trust Russia.

Mikhail Lesin was murdered by blunt force trauma to the head.

What?

Russia ran out of polonium-210?  No umbrella injection? Not shot? No car bomb?  Not shot on a bridge? Not cyanide? Not a ricin dart? Not dioxin? No letter laced with poison? Not a car bomb? Not arsenic, scopolamine or thallium? Atropine, barbiturates, chloral hydrate, paraldehyde or Warfarin? All mokroye delo, or wetwork techniques and tools used in Russia. 

Not a mysterious heart attack, another signature of the FSB.

Here is a report written by the CIA in 1993.

The Medical Examiner says Lesin was murdered, but there is no saying Russia did this.

Some say it was, they say Russia murdered Lesin for what he knew.

Russian FM spokesperson said:

“The Russian Embassy…has repeatedly sent through diplomatic channels inquiries about the progress of the investigation into the death of Russia’s citizen. The U.S. side has not provided us any substantive information,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote on Facebook on March 11.

“We are waiting for clarifications from Washington…If the information published by the media today is confirmed, then Russia’s authorities will send a request to the U.S. side for international legal assistance,” she wrote.

Russia.  You wanted it bad. You got it bad.

</end editorial>

Medical Examiner Says Ex-Kremlin Press Minister Died Of ‘Blunt Force’ To Head

By Mike Eckel

Russia, you wanted it bad, you got it bad.

I could easily say this.  Oops, I already did. Once read it cannot be unread. Suck on that, Lavrov.

Russia, you stood up RT a smidgen over one decade ago. RT spun off Sputnik News in 2014. Dozens and dozens of state-sponsored media sites then stood up. Hundreds of Russian proxy sites and active measure sites stood up. Russian media saturated the world with Russian propaganda. Russia invaded Georgia, then Ukraine. Russia prattled, babbled, chattered, twittered, prated, went on, ran on, rattled on, yapped, jabbered, maundered, rambled, burbled, driveled, blabbered, and gabbed.

Simultaneously Russia restricted Western journalist access to Crimea, then Donbass. Western journalists were denied Russian visas. OSCE observers, to this day, are still restricted from many areas in Donbass.

Russia saturated the electromagnetic spectrum and the internet with outlandish conspiracy theories after the MH17 shootdown by Russia.

For the next two years, Russia did not let up their constant barrage of words against the West. Every offensive action by Russia was somehow attributed to Western actions. Russia lied, cheated, and stole. Russia undermined the West, undermined every country, every politician, leader, and every alliance. Russia then, through their bombing campaign of Assad’s enemies in Syria, caused millions to leave Syria and flood Europe – weaponizing refugees against the West. Simultaneously Russia broadcast the situation in Europe was even worse, inventing rapes, attacks and attitudes that did not exist. This caused the West to question themselves and exacerbated an already bad situation with fairy tales.

Now Russia is calling on the US Secretary of State to tone down US media in their attacks against Russia. Pardon me, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, no. This situation was caused by and for Russia, to undermine the West, and to promote “Russian national interests”.  Russia, again, is playing the victim when Russia is the progenitor.

Secretary Kerry.  Please nod your head yes, say you will, then paddle Russia’s bottom. The petulant child and playground bully needs to be punished.

</end editorial>

Footnote: in the meantime:

• Lavrov slams attacks on Russian diplomatic missions in Ukraine (Wait, didn’t Russia attack Ukraine?) Do you see a pattern here?

(Translation from Russian by my Chrome browser)

A video has emerged which may show an ISIS decoy meant to draw anti-ISIS coalition attention.

Not sectarianism No to SectariAnism is a YouTube channel with a large number of anti-ISIS videos.  They also have a webpage at https://www.facebook.com/NoFSe/.  

Just between us girls, I would wager your next paycheck that this is a US-backed anti-Daesh information effort, hosted by the Iraq government.

If true, the decoy discovered in the below video could be a major distraction for the anti-ISIS coalition.

Daash Hmrat manufactured from wood to deceive aviation and Iraqi forces

by Roy Greenslade

Swedish Radio chief supports call for the UN to appoint a special envoy responsible for overseeing issues concerned with the safety of journalists

Two years ago today, a Swedish radio journalist was murdered in Afghanistan. Earlier this week, another Swedish radio reporter was injured during an attack on a group of journalists in Russia.

The latest attack, and the memory of the killing two years ago, has moved Cilla Benkö, director-general of Sveriges Radio (Swedish Radio), to call for the issue of the safety of journalists to be taken more seriously. I agree with her, and I am publishing her passionate plea here in the hope of reaching as many people as possible.

Enough is enough. Every policy initiative that can be taken to secure the safety of journalists, both here in Sweden and internationally, through bodies such as the UN and the EU, must now be implemented. This is an urgent matter if we want to protect the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression.

On Wednesday (9 March), our correspondent, Maria Persson Löfgren, was attacked while on assignment in the Russian state of Ingushetia. On 11 March 2014, our Asia correspondent, Nils Horner, was murdered in Kabul. Two completely unacceptable events.

Both Maria and Nils were engaged in normal assignments for a foreign correspondent. The job is demanding, tough and sometimes associated with danger.

We should be thankful that there are people who want to engage in this kind of journalism, because it’s through them that the rest of us learn about a reality that is often more complicated than those governing in a country would suggest.

The issue of the safety of journalists must be taken more seriously at an international level. Ceasing to cover troubled areas is not an option. In an increasingly digitised world, it is very easy for extremist groups and others to spread their propaganda.

Without journalists on site there are no other images to counter the propaganda, which is exactly what extremist forces, and sometimes undemocratic regimes, want to achieve. Today, therefore, journalists in many countries have become legitimate targets of hatred, threats, kidnappings and, in the worst cases, murder.

I am relieved that Maria and the other members of the group with whom she was travelling received only minor injuries. They are shaken and shocked, but it could have ended much worse.

Last year, 111 journalists and aides were killed, according to figures from the International News Safety Institute (INSI). The days when journalists could do their work unharmed, even in dangerous and difficult conditions, have long since passed. The figures for 2015 confirm a trend that has unfortunately become the rule rather than the exception.

But INSI’s figures also show that the vast majority of the journalists who were deprived of their lives last year were domestic journalists: local journalists who spent their everyday lives trying to bring those responsible to justice for their crimes, abuses of power and corruption.

It is shocking, and deeply tragic, that almost everyone who performs these gruesome deeds can do so with impunity. Very few are arrested and very few are punished. Nine out of ten perpetrators go free.

The UN has adopted a number of resolutions but no major changes have taken place and the situation is not improving. On the contrary, developments are moving in the wrong direction, as shown clearly by Wednesday’s incident.

Maria was in an area where foreign journalists have never been attacked. This adds yet another location to the growing list of areas where we must now think harder before we decide whether we can send journalists.

I support Reporters without Borders in its demands that the UN should appoint a special envoy responsible for overseeing issues concerned with the safety of journalists.

Correspondents must be protected against attacks and I’m sure that a special envoy could accomplish a great deal if given a clear and strong mandate.

In addition, more decisive actions by ordinary politicians are also required, especially those in well-functioning democracies. In Sweden, freedom of press is 250 years old this year.

Advertisement

This is an excellent opportunity for Swedish representatives to raise the issue of the safety of journalists even more strongly in as many international forums and contexts as possible.

Talking is not enough. Swedish foreign aid could also be used to support organisations involved in providing safety training for journalists and their colleagues. Organisations which, thanks to this assistance, could train local journalists free of charge.

Furthermore, questions about whether a country guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of expression, and about how many journalists have been killed or imprisoned in the country, should be raised during state visits.

The issue of the safety of journalists is affecting the entire world. Remote coverage of troubled areas in journalists’ own countries, or in other countries, is not an option.

Independent monitoring requires journalistic presence. Without it, we risk a future where organisations promulgating extreme propaganda gain legitimacy.

*Cilla Benkö, director-general of Sveriges Radio, is also a member of the European Broadcasting Union board, a member of the jury for the UNESCO press freedom prize, and a member of INSI’s steering committee

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/mar/11/journalists-must-be-protected-in-order-to-combat-propaganda

In what has to be a propaganda defeat for Russia, Ukraine’s song for the Eurovision Song Contest has been approved.

The song, 1944, is about Stalin’s wartime deportation of Crimean Tatars.  This treatment of Crimean Tatars is being repeated after the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014.

Russia has been singing praises of Stalin in recent months, his reputation is being built up.

</end editorial>

Geneva (AFP) – Ukraine’s entry for this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, which faced fierce opposition from Russia over claims it had a political message, can take part in the competition, organisers said Thursday.

The song by Susana Jamaladinova, known by her stage name Jamala, is about Joseph Stalin’s wartime deportation of Crimean Tatars.

“The governing body of the Eurovision Song Contest on behalf of the participating broadcasters, evaluated the eligibility of the Ukrainian entry ‘1944’,” a statement from the Geneva-based organisers said.

“The group concluded that the title and lyrics of the song do not contain political speech and the song is not considered to be in breach of the rules of the competition.

“The song therefore can participate in the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest,” it added.

Russian officials and some politicians in Crimea had complained that the song brought up old history in order to denigrate Russia for its decision to annex the Ukrainian peninsula in March 2014.

The song was inspired by the deportation of Jamala’s great-grandmother, her five children and some 240,000 other Crimean Tatars in 1944, virtually the entire Tartar population on the Black Sea peninsula.

This year’s Eurovision competition will be hosted by Stockholm in May.

Source: https://au.news.yahoo.com/entertainment/a/31069724/eurovision-approves-ukraine-song-challenged-by-russia/?cmp=st

This is the power of journalism.

The Freedom of Information Act was designed to disclose documents associated with items of public interest, it is best used by journalists to uncover actions or inaction by the federal government which is not complying with the law, breaking the law or flouting the law.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law that gives you the right to access information from the federal government. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government.

http://www.foia.gov/

FOIA is one of many tools used by reporters for them to hold the US Government accountable.

Here Justin Elliott reports that FOIA 20 day response requirement is not being complied with by FEMA.

Now FEMA is professionally embarrassed by one of the biggest news sources in the US, even the President will hear about this, and, in turn, will hold FEMA responsible.  Eventually, there will be accountability, hopefully resulting in the government being held accountable.

This is why I support Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Information and an open press. Our confidence in our government has been shaken by many events, leading many to believe that we are being lied to by our government, and this fear is being used against us by foreign governments – especially Russian information warfare.

Russia seeks to undermine our country by any means possible, this report will surely be rebroadcast by RT and will be touted as a demonstration of our fragility.

We must support FOIA, it builds the foundations upon which our nation is built.

By Justin Elliott (Washington Post reporter)

Two years ago last month, I filed a public-records request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency as part of my reporting into the flawed response to Hurricane Sandy. Then, I waited.

The Freedom of Information Act requires a response within 20 business days, but agencies routinely blow that deadline. Eight months later, ProPublica and NPR published our investigation into the Sandy response, but it did not include any documents from FEMA. The agency had simply never gotten back to me.

Finally, this Feb. 10 — 492 business days past the law’s 20-day deadline — I got a curious phone call from FEMA. The agency was starting a “clean search” for the documents I asked for, because the original search “was not done properly.”

Why?

“I wish I had the answer,” the staffer told me. “There are quite a few cases that this happened to.”

Documents are the lifeblood of investigative journalism, but these problems aren’t of interest only to reporters. The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to deliver on the idea of a government “for and by the people,” whose documents are our documents. The ability to get information from the government is essential to holding the people in power accountable. This summer will mark the 50th anniversary of the law, which has been essential in disclosing the torture of detainees after 9/11, decades of misdeeds by the CIA, FBI informants who were allowed to break the law and hundreds of other stories.

President Obama himself waxed poetic about FOIA on his first full day in office in 2009, issuing a statement calling it “the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government.” He promised that his would be “the most transparent administration in history.”

But Obama hasn’t delivered. In fact, FOIA has been a disaster under his watch.

Newly uncovered documents (made public only through a FOIA lawsuit) show the Obama administration aggressively lobbying against reforms proposed in Congress. The Associated Press found last year that the administration had set a record for censoring or denying access to information requested under FOIA, and that the backlog of unanswered requests across the government had risen by 55 percent, to more than 200,000.

The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee looked into the state of the public-records law and in January issued a report with a simple, devastating title: “FOIA Is Broken.”

Incredibly, it took my ProPublica colleague Michael Grabell more than seven years to get records about air marshal misconduct from the Transportation Security Administration. As he pointed out, his latest contact in the FOIA office was still in high school when Grabell filed his initial request.

[Reporters say federal officials, data increasingly off limits]

After a reporter at NBC4 in Washington sought files related to the 2013 Navy Yard shooting, Navy officials actively strategized about how to thwart the request. The Navy only apologized after it mistakenly forwarded its internal email traffic to the reporter.

When a Mexican journalist asked the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2014 for files related to its role in the capture of drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, the agency sent a letter back demanding $1.4 million in fees to search its records.

“There’s a leadership void that has gotten worse,” veteran FOIA lawyer Scott Hodes told me. “It’s not treated as an important thing within the administration.”

Why is the law failing so badly after all the promises about transparency? My experience and the experiences of other journalists suggest the reason is twofold: incompetence and neglect.

When I probed a bit more into what had gone wrong at FEMA, the agency’s entire FOIA apparatus started to look like a Potemkin village. The FOIA staff was never trained properly, a FEMA spokesman told me. Of 16 positions in the office, eight have long been vacant for reasons that are not entirely clear. The backlog of requests at FEMA has ballooned to 1,500. That’s more than double what it was less than two years ago.

Spokesman Rafael Lemaitre said that the backlog was “frankly unacceptable to senior leadership here at FEMA, who have been aware of the problems and are taking actions to correct it.”

“Obviously the Freedom of Information Act is a very vital resource for taxpayers,” Lemaitre said. “Frankly, we haven’t done a very good job of fulfilling that promise.”

Over the past two years, whenever I periodically called or emailed for updates, agency staffers either ignored me, said their systems weren’t working or told me they didn’t have any new information.

My request outlasted the tenure of my original contact in the FOIA office. When I called 14 months into the process, I was told she had left the agency — fair enough, as people change jobs all the time. But my request had apparently not been handed off to anyone else. No one seemed to know what was going on.

Last year, the federal FOIA ombudsman found that FEMA took an average of 214 days to process complex FOIA requests, the third-worst in the Department of Homeland Security, which gets the most requests in the government. (That compares to an average processing time for complex requests of 119 days across the whole government.) “A lack of responsiveness prompted lawsuits that cost the agency a bunch of money,” said James Holzer, the head of the ombudsman’s office, who praised FEMA officials for at least recognizing the problem.

A hiring freeze at the agency after sequestration didn’t help matters. But officials told Holzer’s investigators last year that the eight long-vacant positions in the public records office would be filled as early as last fall. Today, those jobs remain empty. The FEMA spokesman didn’t have an explanation for what’s taking so long.

When I tried to find out whether anyone had been held responsible for the fiasco, I didn’t find much more transparency. “I cannot discuss any personnel issues, unfortunately,” the spokesman told me.

Has the agency at least set a specific goal for when it will get through its backlog? “Our target is to get these cleared as quickly as possible — I don’t have a date for you.”

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-federal-government-no-longer-cares-about-disclosing-public-information/2016/03/10/7e0bf1bc-e631-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

This is what we fear in the US with the government openly monitoring our conversations.

I worked in intelligence for years and strongly backed security over privacy. Today I am not so sure. I have seen this abused, especially since 9-11-2001, in many different ways. Unimpeded access to iPhones is yet another way to erode our privacy in the name of security. What little privacy we have is fleeting.

Disclosing these folders aka diplomas to journalists is a way for State Security and Counterintelligence to tell journalists ‘we are watching, we are listening, we know who you are, don’t cross us’. As journalists pursue stories, especially ones that could prove injurious to corrupt officials, this pressure may increase.

Meri Jordanovska, you are a brave journalist. Disclosing that State Security and Counterintelligence is threatening you is almost tantamount to sticking a stick in their eye. I pray you good health and more freedom than you appear to be enjoying.

Source: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/blog/my-secret-service-diploma-shows-what-macedonia-has-become

By Meri Jordanovska 

Rigged elections, murdered journalists, jailed dissidents, skimmed billions … ‘the biggest crook in Russia’ is haunted by his past

Former doctor Michael Honig’s curious new novel explores the degenerative effects of endemic corruption. At its centre is a middle-aged nurse, Nikolai Sheremetev, derisively nicknamed “Saint Nikolai”, who seems to be the last man in the country to realise something is rotten in the state of Russia.

The bafflingly innocent Sheremetev must finally acknowledge the nature of the world around him when his beloved nephew, Pasha, is imprisoned. It will take a huge bribe to buy him out because Pasha’s jailers will never believe that an uncle who works for someone that people are calling “the biggest crook in Russia” could be satisfied with a meagre nurse’s salary. The dacha, where all but Sheremetev siphon off their small share of Vladimir’s world-class wealth, is – of course – a microcosm of the country.

As Sheremetev grapples with his moral dilemma, the ex-president’s own ghosts are circling. Characters and events from the past are more real to this reimagined Vladimir Vladimirovich (known throughout by his first name, sometimes with patronymic) than the confusing present.

Honig uses hallucinatory flashbacks to set out the barbarous high points of this fictional 30-year reign: rigging elections, murdering journalists, jailing dissidents, skimming billions from budgets for the Olympics and World Cup, waging wars; an olfactory spectre of the Chechen terrorists he threatened to kill “on the toilet” haunts him. He even admits to ordering “a bomb or two in an apartment building” to encourage appetite for another war. He holds imaginary dialogues with thinly disguised oppositionists, who accuse Vladimir of “embezzlement, propaganda, lies … intimidation” while he rehearses political cliches: “Only a strong man can rule Russia”; “Every problem in Russia is the fault of the west”.
Sign up to our Bookmarks newsletter
Read more
The Senility of Vladimir P is more literal than comparable Russian fiction; in Russia, satire can be dangerous. Dissident journalist Oleg Kashin wrote a dystopian novella (published in English earlier this year as Fardwor, Russia!) in which scientific experiments create legions of overgrown children. Shortly after delivering the book to his publishers, Kashin was savagely beaten and almost killed, probably in response to his political reporting.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, contemporary Russian satire is often fuelled by surreal violence, from Vladimir Sorokin’s powerful Day of the Oprichnik (gang rape, casual murders, drug-fuelled orgies) to Victor Pelevin’s S.N.U.F.F. (sophisticated sex robots, flying killer cameramen filming propaganda). Vladimir P shares these sci-fi elements only to the extent of being set in the near future – eastern Ukraine and northern Belarus have become part of Russia, for example.

Advertisement

Honig’s previous novel, Goldblatt’s Descent, drew directly on his own experience as a doctor to lay bare flaws and frustrations in the NHS. Vladimir P is a very different book, more streamlined and less personal, but both are satires about survival, in which the central character is pitted against an intractable system he despises. Malcolm Goldblatt, a locum registrar in a teaching hospital, watches a junior colleague’s “Hogarthian” progress (“was she sinking into corruption or climbing out of naivety?”) as he grapples with his own moral pressures. Shermetev likewise learns the hard way that “there was no room for softness in Russia”.

Honig’s background has also given him first-hand experience of dementia, a terrible disease “that struck at the core of what made a person who he was”. The deepest part of a person’s character “goes last”; Vladimir’s surviving traits include formidable martial arts’ skills and vanity. He endlessly watches documentaries about himself and tears his top off during an outing to the lake, convinced that it must be a photo shoot. Moments of dark comedy lighten the novel’s grim outlook: Stepanin, the dacha’s irascible, hard-drinking chef, wants to skim off enough money from the dacha to open a Moscow restaurant (“Russian fusion, minimalist decor”). When things go wrong he resorts to his other catchphrase: “fuckery with a cock on top”.

The Senility of Vladimir P is not subtle or stylistically complex, but it readably relates a story worth telling. Many of the events described are happening now and often not so far away. A criminal oligarch has “a beautifully cut suit, probably from London, where his wife, children and two of his mistresses lived”. Vladimir jokes about dissidents having “a habit of dying in London if they’re not careful … it’s that English tea they’re always drinking. There’s more than one way to make it hot.” Since the Litvinenko inquiry recently concluded Putin “probably approved” the radioactive poisoning of his London-based enemy, the hint is accurate and topical.

Advertisement

Preserving a system anywhere that is relatively free of corruption needs vigilance. One of the dacha’s gardeners tells Sheremetev, with suitably horticultural imagery: “If you allow the weeds to grow, they’ll choke off everything.” Honig’s satirical targets include apathy and self-delusion. There is the fatalism that sees real change as impossible: “It was the same in the days of Ivan the Terrible … and it’s the same now,” says the chauffeur. Then there’s the corrosive idea that all politicians are the same: “If it wasn’t Vladimir Vladimirovich who screwed us, it would have been someone else,” claims the chef, downing another shot of vodka. Facts, along with journalists and dissidents, have been casualties of the regime. “A man who tells such lies, for so long,” says the gardener, “… in the end, does he even know the truth himself?”

• The Senility of Vladimir P by Michael Honig (Atlantic Books, £12.99). To order a copy for £10.39, go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/mar/12/the-senility-of-vladimir-p-by-michael-honig-review

This Chinese company makes the world’s classiest toilets, and it’s got the brand name to prove it.

• BY BETHANY ALLEN-EBRAHIMIAN
• MARCH 14, 2016
• BETHANY.ALLEN
• @BETHANYALLENEBR

Source: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/14/china-trump-toilet-president-poop-fake/

Knockoffs, especially of well-known Western brands, are common in China, from counterfeit Louis Vuitton bags, imitation Hyatt and Marriott hotels, and even a fake Apple store. Under Chinese law, close imitations are not necessarily considered trademark violations. (Toilets aren’t the only Trump-branded household items in China; Trump Electronics, with factories in Shanghai and Guangzhou, makes air purifiers.) In July 2015, Michael Jordan lost a lawsuit against Qiaodan, or “Jordan” in Chinese, a Chinese company which uses an image of a jumping basketball player as its logo. Dan Harris, a lawyer who helps U.S. firms navigate Chinese law, said that Chinese trademark regulations differ from those in the United States. “Most countries, including China, give trademarks to whomever files for it first,” he told NPR in an August 2015 interview. “But [in] the United States, it’s whoever uses it first.”

Trump is well-known for lending his name to business endeavors ranging from hotels to wine and steak, to education. The financial disclosure forms that Trump filed in 2015 as part of his presidential candidacy revealed that 268 of the listed 515 entities contained the name “Trump.” Shenzhen Trump Industries did not appear on this list. (Neither Trump the politician nor Trump the toilet maker immediately responded to requests for comment.)

Given Trump’s preoccupation with the value of his synonymous brand, it seems unlikely that Shenzhen Trump received official permission to use the name — the “U” in the company’s Trump logo is fashioned to resemble a toilet bowl.

Brian Sloan contributed research.

Source: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/14/china-trump-toilet-president-poop-fake/

For the sensitive ones among you, I apologize for these images. I have removed the most offensive images on the first page.

Warning, when going to the link for the continuation you will see enough tortured dead bodies to give the most sensitive among you nightmares. If you are offended and avoid the pictures, you are part of the problem. Without viewing this, without seeing and understanding how bad Russian war crimes are, you avoid relating Russian war crimes to the media and the proper authorities.

This is a much-needed website, published by the Ukraine Information Army.

I believe this is a work in progress, it needs a bit of work but this ‘teaser’ should give you an idea of what is found.  The evidence of Russian soldiers and mercenaries committing war crimes is undeniable.

</end editorial>

---

Up until now, Russia has continued to use mercenaries and military personnel for provocations. Despite the Minsk agreement and declaration of a cease-fire and withdrawal of weapons, fighters systematically shelled the city, the APU position and engaged in kidnapping and torture. In addition, factories and enterprises which were built by Ukraine are trafficked in Russia. Russia deliberately trying to destroy the infrastructure of Donbass and make him a terrorist ulcer, which will prevent normal living across the whole country. The UN estimates that the death toll in the conflict in eastern Ukraine has exceeded 9000 people, including 2000 civilians, many of whom appear to have died as a result of indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks on the militants.

The torture and murder of prisoners

(Photos removed to avoid violating several censorship rules)

Putin’s militants are not just committing war crimes by killing civilians and torturing prisoners also by the mocking of dead bodies. Best known among the terrorists Russian Federation citizen Alexei Milchakov fighting in the so-called DSHRG “Rusich”. The Nazis included in this division militants have been repeatedly seen not only in the torture of prisoners and the shooting of unarmed Ukrainian military but in mockery of dead bodies. Thus, in February 2015 after the capture of Debaltsevo Milchakov’s unit cut the face to the Ukrainian military.

The shooting of the prisoners of war in the village of Krasny Partizan

The enemy caught unawares Ukrainian checkpoint in the village of Krasny Partizan. 12 or 13 Ukrainian soldiers were forced to surrender. Twelve of them were put to the wall of the house, which served as their last refuge. Five of them have been shot there three other died of wounds right on the site. One who shot took video of the crime scene after the shooting occurred. The bodies of the dead were dumped a heap on the roadside so that they could be picked up by truck. Then there was one more body. The executioners filmed the body again to demonstrate their “achievements”.

Source: https://russiakills.com/en

Continued at http://federalnewsradio.com/cybersecurity/2016/03/widespread-neglect-puts-nasas-networks-jeopardy/

By BBC Trending What’s popular and why

A group of Twitter accounts seem to be designed to pump out crude Iranian propaganda aimed at an English-speaking audience – but the people behind it and their true motivations are a mystery.

Dozens of accounts tweet to thousands of followers in waves every few minutes throughout the day using the hashtag “Powerful Iran”. Their profile pictures are Hollywood celebrities or stock photos, but their tweets almost always include pictures of Iranian military equipment along with random and sometimes seemingly irrelevant hashtags:

Image copyrightTwitter/@daniel_mathew12

All of the tweeted photos bear a logo showing a dove with a rifle on its back bearing the Iranian flag. They also include a caption using the “Powerful Iran” hashtag in three languages: English, Arabic and Persian.

Image copyrightTwitter/@coreenwright3

So who’s behind this Twitter bot army? BBC Trending traced the logo to a blog, a Twitter account and Google+ profile with very little personal information. Messages sent to the blogger went unanswered.

Image copyrightTwitter

There are, however, a few clues as to the motivation of whoever is behind this odd bot army. The tweets are in English, indicating that the accounts are targeting a Western audience. And the hashtags the accounts use – along with “Poweful_Iran” which appears on nearly all of the tweets – cover a range of countries, media outlets, political slogans and other issues. For instance, the tweets include hashtags such as #Israel, #CNN, #Gaza, #BBC and others.

Curiously, though, the tweets don’t use “@” mentions to tweet at individual accounts, which would, at least, bring the messages to the attention of other Twitter users.

“The campaign attempts to leverage hashtags related to the U.S. government (#FBI, #CIA), Israel, Saudi Arabia, and some conservative U.S. hashtags,” says John Little, a security and intelligence expert who writes at Blogs of War. “It also bizarrely attempts to leverage hashtags from popular culture such as #GreaseLive which appears in several tweets.”

Whatever the intention, Little points out, the campaign itself is far from sophisticated.

“In terms of effectiveness, the campaign is a miserable failure. Almost all of the tweets have gone unnoticed and have no retweets or favourites. The few interactions that I can find also appear to be faked by other bots. In fact, a review of the top tweets for the hashtag reveals that a large number of them are my tweets exposing the campaign.”

Little says the tweets reflect themes – themes that happen to coincide with the preoccupations of the Iranian clerical establishment, such as threats to destroy Israel and shut down sea traffic in the Persian Gulf, suggestions that Israel and Saudi Arabia are working together, and repeated assertions that Iran is a major military player on the world stage.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35778645

Here an expert, Apollo Robbins, during a TED talk, demonstrates how misdirection works for pickpocketing.

Now recall how Russian forces oozed over Crimea and took over the peninsula.

Now contemplate these Russian statements.

• There are no Russians soldiers…
• Volunteers…
• It was Ukraine…
• There were no separatists there…
• Putin’s airplane was the target…
• Minsk II agreement…

Now watch this in action on a much smaller scale.

…. and this, from Lavabit’s founder……

https://www.facebook.com/KingLadar/posts/10156714933135038

As many of you already know, the government cited the Lavabit case in a footnote. The problem is their description insinuates a precedent that was never created. Obviously, I was somewhat disturbed by their misrepresentation. So I decided to draft a statement. And keep in mind, these are the same people who say “trust us.” Click continue to read it and enjoy. L~

Press Release
Statement on Lavabit Citation in Apple Case
For Immediate Release: March 15, 2016

Dallas, TX–Lavabit founder Ladar Levison has issued the following statement regarding the citation of his company’s appeal from 2014 in the government’s March 10th reply brief, which seeks extraordinary assistance from Apple under the All Writs Act, and is currently pending in the Central District of California:

The government’s citation of the Lavabit case, and their description of its outcome, is disturbingly disingenuous. The language used (in footnote 9, page 22) is incredibly misleading, as it insinuates a precedent unsupported by the appellate court’s ruling. The government implies the 4th circuit, in “affirming contempt sanctions,” supported a district court decision which compelled Lavabit “to assist law enforcement,” by surrendering its “private SSL encryption key.” This verbiage suggests the seizure of third party encryption keys was found lawful by the appellate court, which is wholly unsupported by the appellate court’s opinion. Rather, the 4th circuit chose to rely on a contrived procedural technicality, holding that Lavabit “waived” its right to an appeal, and allowed the court to avoid addressing the substantive questions raised in the case. In my opinion, the government’s depiction is so far removed from reality that it calls into question the legitimacy of every citation.

Even more disturbing is the government’s reliance upon a ruling, where a small business was forced to mount an adversarial defense in a secret proceeding (which Lavabit sought to unseal multiple times), as a precedent for the seizure of source code and encryption keys. Given only a week to prepare at the district level, and then denied review at the appellate level, the Lavabit case lacks the validity of due process, subverts the rule of law, and perverts the function of the judicial branch. This citation presupposes a deliberate attempt to seek the creation of a legal framework, through the courts, for the forced forfeiture of intellectual property which “might” facilitate surveillance. There is no basis, in case law or statute, for such authority, and suggests a strategy designed to revive the Star Chamber, and thwart the constitutional rights of all Americans. Laws formed in secret will always find themselves wanting for authority as they, by definition, lack the consent of the people.

The current Apple case, together with the Lavabit case, join a growing litany of recent court decisions which have eroded away our personal liberties. Taken together, these rulings force us to ask difficult questions. Specifically, can the federal government be trusted to defend our rights, and protect our freedom?

Quite simply, the deceitful description of the Lavabit case by the Department of “Justice” is an attempt to plunder our nation’s law libraries in search of incremental infringements upon our liberties, which may have seemed minor at the time, but are now being assembled into a slippery slide capable of carrying us to the bottom of a dangerous slope. History proves how easy it is to fall, and how hard it is to climb. If we grant terrorists, miscreants, and scoundrels the ability to frighten us into surrendering our rights, then we also give them a weapon capable of far more harm than any firearm or explosive.

I sincerely hope Judge Pym considers the government’s argument with the suspicion it deserves, and carefully considers the consequences of siding with law enforcement. While the current case may seem simple on its surface, a decision in favor of law enforcement will threaten our ability to think privately, speak freely, and receive meaningful due process in the future.

140MB PDF of the Lavabit court documents, redacted in part.
https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-lavabit-unsealed.pdf

Source: https://www.facebook.com/KingLadar/posts/10156714933135038

The article waits until the very last line to deal the coup de grâce:

“Any Russian agency would undoubtedly be regarded as being in the pocket of the Kremlin,” McNamara said. The move is a “standard response to being downgraded. Nobody in the market cares.”

This directly relates to information warfare in that if Putin and Russia don’t like what external (Western) ratings firms are saying about it, Russia creates its own ratings agency.  Expect ACRA to be a Russia cheerleader, the results widely touted by the Russian media.

This is how Russian propaganda works.  Call me cynical, but to this Russia watcher and information warfare expert, this is standard Russian operating procedure.

Everything Russia says is to be doubted.  Internally or externally, Russian media is disingenuous. Russia invents its own sources.

</end editorial>

by Anna Baraulina Anna Andrianova

March 17, 2016 — 5:00 PM EDT Updated on March 18, 2016 — 4:44 AM EDT

Vladimir Putin’s homegrown credit-ratings firm is up and running and foreign competitors are already feeling the heat.
In the past three weeks, Moody’s Investors Service Inc. and Fitch Ratings Ltd. have said they plan to stop issuing local ratings rather than agree to having their Moscow branches regulated by the Russian government at the cost of breaking international sanctions. As the New York-based firms scale back, the venture known as ACRA is poised to fill the void when it starts publishing opinions in the second half.

Russia is squeezing the business of foreign-ratings assessors since downgrades it condemned as politically motivated last year pushed the sovereign below investment grade for the first time in more than a decade. The finance ministry and central bank plan to use ACRA to replace the so-called big three as their yardstick to measure credit quality of investments.

“Cutting off international agencies from national ratings, the state is protecting the local provider,” said Ivan Guminov, chief fund manager at Ronin Trust in Moscow. “Until this moment all important ratings were provided by big three and a new local player would have had a hard time to conquer a share on this market if it had to compete with them. ”

Moody’s Exits

Moody’s last week announced it would shutter its joint venture in Moscow of 12 years, and today it withdrew Russia national scale ratings. Fitch said Feb. 29 it will probably stop issuing local ratings on Russian companies, the same day ACRA, which stands for Analytical Credit Rating Agency, applied for a license to operate in Russia. Standard & Poor’s said it’s in talks with the central bank about how to maintain a domestic presence under the new rules.

The Bank of Russia announced plans to start a company immune to “geopolitical risks” in July after S&P and Moody’s cut Russia’s rating to junk amid a slump in oil prices and sanctions imposed over Ukraine. The central bank will stop using S&P, Moody’s and Fitch in its decision-making, according to Elena Chaikovskaya, head of financial markets development. ACRA is so far the only agency which asked for accreditation under new rules, she said on March 14.Putin Allies

Putin Allies

In the weeks that followed Putin’s annexation of Crimea two years ago, oligarchs associated with the president faced U.S. penalties. That prompted foreign ratings firms to withdraw coverage on banks the businessmen controlled, leaving the finance ministry with no way to assess how safe its deposits were. The lenders, Bank Rossiya OAO and SMP Bank AO, were among the government’s savings banks.

“It happened that we didn’t have any idea of those banks’ credit quality,” Deputy Finance Minister Alexey Moiseev said in an interview last month, explaining why Russia needs an alternative to the big three firms. Credit assessments from international firms have long been used by private investors in Russia to manage risk and by the Bank of Russia to regulate the financial industry.

Other local investors will also see it as a positive, said Suki Mann, a former head of European credit strategy at UBS Group AG who now runs bond blog CreditMarketDaily.com.
“It can provide transparency and ultimately it will help investors with their own decision-making processes,” said Mann, who considers ratings from local agencies in his analysis. “It shouldn’t be relied on as a sole source of making an investment decision, but it can be a good thing to have in your armory.”

Shareholders

ACRA’s board is headed by an American, Karl Johansson, who advised the Russian government while at Ernst & Young LLP in Moscow. Ekaterina Trofimova, a former banking analyst for Russia and former Soviet states at S&P, will run the new venture. Twenty-seven shareholders, including Sberbank, Raiffeisenbank and Severstal PAO among others, will each have 3.7 percent of 3 billion rubles ($44 million) of the authorized capital.ACRA won’t have a political agenda and its 23 analysts have “very deep knowledge of Russian industries,” Johansson said in an interview.

ACRA won’t have a political agenda and its 23 analysts have “very deep knowledge of Russian industries,” Johansson said in an interview.Investors outside of Moscow are more likely to see the venture as an attempt by Russia to hit back at Western adversaries, said London-based money manager Paul McNamara, who helps oversee about $4.5 billion of assets at GAM UK. He said he’ll disregard the research.

Investors outside of Moscow are more likely to see the venture as an attempt by Russia to hit back at Western adversaries, said London-based money manager Paul McNamara, who helps oversee about $4.5 billion of assets at GAM UK. He said he’ll disregard the research.“Any Russian agency would undoubtedly be regarded as being in the pocket of the Kremlin,” McNamara said. The move is a “standard response to being downgraded. Nobody in the market cares.”

“Any Russian agency would undoubtedly be regarded as being in the pocket of the Kremlin,” McNamara said. The move is a “standard response to being downgraded. Nobody in the market cares.”

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/putin-starts-own-rating-firm-as-fleeing-americans-leave-void