By Thom Hartmann: Last Hours of Humanity: Warning the World to Extinction!

If you were standing outdoors looking at the distant and reddening sky 250 million years ago as the Permian mass Extinction was beginning, unless you were in the region that is known as Siberia you would have no idea that a tipping point had just passed and soon 95% of all life on earth would be dead. It's almost impossible to identify tipping points, except in retrospect. For example, we have almost certainly already past the tipping point to an ice-free Arctic. And we are just now realizing it, even though that tipping point was probably passed a decade or more ago. This is critically important because in the history of our planet there have been five times when more than half of all life on Earth died. They're referred to as "mass extinctions." One, the one that killed the dinosaurs, was initiated by a meteorite striking the Earth. The rest all appear to have been initiated by tectonic and volcanic activity. In each case, however, what happened was that massive amounts of carbon-containing greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, were released from beneath the Earth's crust and up into the atmosphere.  This provoked global warming intense enough to melt billions of tons of frozen methane on the oceans floors. That pulse of methane, an intense greenhouse gas, then brought the extinction to its full of intensity. While in the past it took continental movement or an asteroid to break up the crust of the earth enough to release ancient stores of carbon into the atmosphere, we humans have been doing this very aggressively for the past 150 years by drilling and mining fossil fuels. So the question: Will several centuries of burning fossil fuels release enough carbon into the atmosphere to mimic the effects of past volcanic and asteroid activity and provoke a mass extinction? Geologists who study mass extinctions are becoming concerned. As more and more research is coming out about the massive stores of methane in the Arctic and around continental shelves, climate scientists are beginning to take notice, too. The fossil fuel companies are sitting on roughly 2 trillions of underground carbon. That, in and of itself, is enough to warm the earth by 5 or 6@C, and is an amount of carbon consistent with tipping points during past mass extinctions. There are an additional estimated 2 trillion tons of methane stored in the Arctic and probably 2 to 5 times that much around continental shelves all around the Earth. If our burning fossil fuels warms the oceans enough that methane melts and is quickly released into the atmosphere, the earth will be in its sixth mass extinction. And make no mistake about it, the animals and plants that are most heavily hit by mass extinctions are those that are largest and at the top of the food chain. That means us. We must stop the carbon madness and move, worldwide, to renewable 21st century energy sources. This is why we've produced a short documentary on this topic, and a short e-book titled The Last Hours of Humanity: Warming the World to Extinction that you can find at www.lasthours.org. Please check it out and share it with as many friends as possible! The future of humanity is at stake. 

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky: Syria's Chemical Weapons: Western Military Alliance and Israel

continue to Support Al Qaeda Affiliated Rebels. Amply documented the Al Nusrah rebels are in possession of chemical weapons. In an unusual twist, An August 9, 2013 UPI report intimates that the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusrah rebels rather than the Syrian government constitute a threat to the security of Israel, an absurd proposition. And that Israel, so to speak, fears that chemical weapons might "fall in the wrong hands." Troops loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad have broken through rebel forces encircling the northern city of Aleppo to secure a major chemical weapons base that, if they can hold it, will be a big help to U.N. experts sent in to destroy Assad's chemical arsenal. The sprawling facility at al-Safira is one of the most important chemical warfare centers in Syria, and has been one of the most threatened by the rebels, including hard-line jihadist groups like the al-Nusra Front. The nightmare scenario for Israeli and Western leaders is that the jihadists get their hands on Assad's vast armory of chemical weapons and deadly nerve agents like sarin and VX. Confirmed by CNN, the rebels were trained in the use of chemical weapons by Western special forces. Moreover, Israel has been supporting Al Nusrah out of the Golan heights, so how on earth could the Al Nusrah rebels constitute a threat to the security of the State of Israel. The report points to the fact that UN inspectors on the ground have acknowledged that the threat comes from the Al Nusrah rebels: "The capture of al-Safira by the government from the rebels, which includes a heavily guarded facility where nerve agents are produced and weaponized, could allow the U.N. specialists to eliminate a significant portion of Assad's weapons of mass destruction." Assad's forces, supported by mobile artillery and airstrikes, Monday broke through rebel lines to secure the chemical weapons facility at al-Safira, where important defense plants are located, outside the strategic city of Aleppo. On Oct. 3 the regime retook the key town of Khanasser near Aleppo which controls the main highway to al-Safira, allowing Assad's forces to break through to Al-Safira four days later. "This development will be welcomed even by the United States, whose opposition to the Assad regime is currently outweighed by its concerns for securing the chemical weapons in Syria," the U.S. intelligence consulting firm Stratfor said. Welcomed by the US? Washington has supported the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels from the very outset including the rebel assault on al Safira. Moreover, according to Israeli sources, NATO and Turkey's High command were involved as of mid-2011 in the recruitment of Mujahideen to be dispatched to Syria. "a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011. "NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces." NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011."

By Anrei Akulov: CIA Activities in Syria: US Never Stops to Step on Same Rake.

According to the Washington Post (CIA Ramping up Covert Training Program for Moderate Syrian Rebels. Oct.3, the CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in Syria, as U.S. officials said. The newspaper reports the CIA's mission has been defined by the White House's desire to seek a political settlement, a scenario that relies on an eventual stalemate among the warring factions rather than a clear victor. As a result, US officials said, limits on the agency's authorities enable it to provide enough support to help ensure that politically moderate, U.S. supported militias don't lose but not enough for them to win. The Washington Post informs that US officials spoke on the condition of anonymity and said the agency has sent additional paramilitary teams to secret bases in Jordan in recent weeks in a push to double the number of rebel fighters getting CIA instruction and
weapons before being sent back to Syria. The effort led by the CIA was described as an urgent bid to bolster moderate Syrian militias, which have been unable to mount a serious challenge to Assad. The CIA is ramping up and expanding its effort, says a U.S. official familiar with operations in Syria, because it was clear that the opposition was losing, and not only losing tactically but on a more strategic level.  Back in June the US deployed Patriot air defense systems F-16 fighter jet aircraft to Jordan as part of the annual military exercise called Eager Lion leaving 700 combat-equipped troops and 200 military planners in Jordan to assist in long-term planning with Jordanian forces in case of a chemical weapons crisis or a large-scale humanitarian relied mission. Then the US announced that it would send light arms to the rebels. In September the New York Times ran an interesting article called President Gains McCain's Backing on Syria Attack saying, Officials said that in the same conversation, which included Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, Mr. Obama indicated that a covert effort by the United States to arm and train Syrian rebels was beginning to sneak into Syria. Back in May there had been reports that this training program had already been underwayfor some time and the LA Times caught up with it in June, disclosing that the program began at least as far back as November 2012 on US bases in Jordan and Turkey. On August 23 French Le Figaro reported that CIA-trained rebels crossed the Syrian border from Jordan. They had been trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said. The first group of 300 handpicked Free Syrian Army soldiers crossed the border on August 17 into the Deraa region, and a second group was deployed on August 19, the paper reported. The paper quoted a researcher at the French Institute for Strategic Analysis as saying the trained rebels group was passing through Ghouta, on their way to Damascus. CIA activities today. The CIA training effort is centered in Jordan, The program is aimed at shoring up the fighting power of units aligned with the Supreme Military Council, an umbrella organization led by General Idris, that relies heavily on contractors and former members of U.S. Special Operations forces. Officials said the instruction is rudimentary and typically spans four to six weeks.

By Orla Guerin: Pakistani civilian victims vent anger over US drones:

When tribal elders from the remote Pakistani region of North Waziristan travelled to Islamabad last week to protest against CIA drone strikes, a teenager called Tariq Khan was among them. A BBC team caught him on camera, sitting near the front of a tribal assembly, or jirga, listening carefully. Four days later the 16-year-old was dead, killed by one of the drones he was  protesting against. In his final days, Tariq was living in fear, according to Neil Williams from the British legal charity, Reprieve, who met him at the Jirga. "He was really really petrified," said Mr. Williams from the British legal charity, Reprieve, who met him at the Jirga."He was really really petrified," said Mr Williams, "and so were his friends. He didn't want to go home because of the drones. They were all scared." Tariq carried with him the identity card of his teenage cousin, Asmar Ullah, who was killed by a drone. On Monday he shared his fate. Tariq's family say he was hit by two missiles as he was driving near Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan. The shy teenager, who was good with computers, was decapitated in the strike. His 12-year-old cousin Wahid was killed alongside him. The boys were on their way to see a relative, according to Tariq's uncle, Noor Kalam, whom we reached by phone. He denied that Tariq had any link to militant groups. "We condemn this very strongly," he said. "He was just a normal boy who loved football." The CIA's drone campaign is a covert war, conducted in remote terrain, where the facts are often in dispute. The tribal belt is off limits to foreign journalists. Militants often seal off the locations where drone strikes take place. The truth can be buried with the dead. After the missile strike on Monday, Pakistani officials said four suspected militants had been killed. If the strike actually killed two young boys, as appears to be the case, it's unlikely anyone will ever be held to account. There are no confirmed death tolls but several independent organizations estimate that drones have killed more than 2,000 people since 2004. Most are suspected to be militants. Many senior commanders from the Taliban and al-Quada are among the dead. But campaigners claim there have been hundreds of civilian victims, whose stories are seldom told. A shy teenage boy called Saadullah is one of them. He survived a drone strike that killed three of his relatives, but he lost both legs, one eye and his hope for the future. "I wanted to be a doctor," he told me, but I can't walk to school anymore. When I see others going, I wish I could join them."Like Tariq, Saadullah travelled to Islamabad for last week's jirga. Seated alongside him was Haji Zardullah, a white-bearded man who said he lost four nephews in a separate attack. "None of these were harmful people," he said. "Two were still in school and one was in college." Asghar Khan, a tribal elder in a cream turban, said three of his relatives paid with their lives for visiting a sick neighbor. "My brother, my nephew and another relative were killed by a drone in 2008," he said. "They were sitting with this sick man when the attack took place. There were no Taliban." Legal challenges: Viewed from a drone, any adult male in the tribal areas can look like a target, according to Mirza Sgahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who is taking on the CIA.

By Stephen Lendman: US Globalized Torture Black Sites:

On October 5, US Delta Force commandos, CIA operatives, and FBI agents abducted Abu Anas al-Liby. Doing so highlights what's been out-of-control since 9/11. In the 1980s, al-Liby was one of many CIA-recruited mujahideen fighters. They were used against Afghanistan's Soviet occupiers. Ronald Reagan called them "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." He characterized Contra killers the same way. Bin Laden, al-Liby, and many other Al Qaeda fighters were used strategically as both allies and enemies. Most recently, al-Liby was an anti-Gaddafi "freedom fighter". In 2000, he was indicted for his alleged role in bombing US Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies in 1998. He was one of the FBI's most wanted. He had a $5 million bounty on his head. US policy is out-of-control. Obama authorizes whatever he wants anywhere worldwide. Rogue leaders operate that way. On October 8, AP headlined "Did Obama Swap 'Black' Detention sites for ships?" He ordered alleged "terrorists for as long as it takes aboard US naval vessels." Al-Libi is held on the USS San Antonio. It's an amphibious warship. Throughout his tenure, Obama continued the worst of odious Bush administration practices. The Clinton administration began them. Guilt or innocence doesn't matter. Suspects are lawlessly abducted. They're denied all rights. They're held secretly at US black sites. Confessions are extracted through torture. Detainees say anything to stop pain. Guantanamo is the tip of the iceberg. Dozens of US torture prisons operate globally. Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and many other complicit US allies host them. They permit indefinite detention, interrogations, torture and other forms of abuse. They assist in capturing and transporting detainees. They allow use of their domestic airspace. They provide intelligence information. America is by far the world's leading human rights abuser. No nation in history matches its ruthlessness. It's out-of-control. It's unaccountable. It's waging war on humanity. It's waging war on humanity. It's doing it globally. Reprieve is UK-based. It works to "secure each person's right to a fair trial." It tries to "save lives." In June 2008, it said America "may have used as many as 17 ships as floating prisons." "About 26,000 people are being lawlessly held by the US in secret prisons, a figure that includes land-based detention centers." Information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001." So have thousands more under Obama. Former Pentagon spokesman Navy Commander Jeffrey Gordon lied earlier, saying: "We do not operate detention facilities on board Navy ships." They're in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay." They're in at least 54 complicit countries. according to Reprieve: "prison ships have been used by the US to hold terror suspects illegally since the days of Clinton." "US government sources have confirmed that both the USS Bataan and the USS Peleliu have been used to hold prisoners." Reprieve investigations suggest that a further 15 ships have been used to hold prisoners beyond the rule of law since 2001."

By Harvey Wasserman: 1400 Hiroshimas still swing in the Fukushima air:

Japan's pro-nuclear Prime Minister has finally asked for global help at Fukushima. It probably hasn't hurt that more than 1,000,000 people have signed petitions calling for a global takeover; more than 8,000 have viewed a new YouTube on it. Massive quantities of heavily contaminated water are pouring into the Pacific Ocean, dousing workers along the way. Hundreds of huge, flimsy tanks are leaking untold tons of highly radioactive fluids. At Unit #4. more than 1300 fuel rods, with more than 400 tons of extremely radioactive material, containing potential cesium fallout comparable to 14,000 Hiroshima bombs, are stranded 100 feet in the air. All this more than 30 months after the 3/11/2011 earthquake/tsunami led to three melt-downs and at least four explosions. "Our country needs your knowledge and expertise" he has said to the world community. "We are wide open to receive the most advanced knowledge from overseas to contain the problem." But is he serious? "I am aware of three US companies with state of the art technology that have been to Japan repeatedly and have been rebuffed by the Japanese government," says Arnie Gunderson, a Vermont-based nuclear engineer focused on Fukushima. "I have spoken with six Japanese medical doctors who have said that they were told not to discuss radiation induced medical issues with their patients. None will speak out to the press. "Three American University professors were afraid to sign the UN petition to Ban Ki-Moon because it would endanger their Japanese colloquies who they are doing research with." Abe, he says, to paraphrase it politely, might not be entirely forthcoming. Fukushima Daiichi is less than 200 miles from Tokyo. Prevailing winds generally blow out to sea, directly towards the United States, where Fukushima's fallout was measured less than a week after the initial disaster. But radioactive hot spots have already been found in Tokyo. A worst-case cloud would eventually make Japan an uninhabitable waste-land. What it could do to the Pacific Ocean and the rest of us downwind approaches the unthinkable. "If you calculate the amount of cesium 137 in the pool" at Unit #4, "the amount is equivalent to 14,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs," says Hiroaki Koidi, assistant professor at the earthquake/tsunami. An International Atomic Energy Agency document says they were exposed to the open air, did catch fire and did release radiation. Since none of the six GE-designed Daiichi reactors has a containment over the fuel pools, that radiation poured directly into the atmosphere. Dozens more designed like these reactors operate in the US and around the world. Then corrosive sea water was dumped into the pool. Unit #4 was damaged in the quake, and by an explosion possibly caused by hydrogen leaking in from water flowing frown from the mountains, and from attempts to cool the cores missing from Units #1, #2 and #3. Tokyo Electric Power and the Japanese government may try to bring down the Unit #4 rods next month. With cranes operated by computers, that might normally take about 100 days. But this requires manual control. Tepco says they'll try to do it in a year, half their original estimate, presumably to beat the next earthquake.

By Norman Solomon: "Endorsed Military Efforts in the Name of Peace".

Here comes the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize, Dragging a Broken Moral Compass. The announcement of this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner, set for October 11, is sure to make big news. The prize remains the most prestigious in the world. But the award has fallen into an evasive pattern, ignoring the USA's continuous "war on terror" and even giving it tacit support. In his 1895 will, the dynamite inventor and ammunition magnate Alfred Nobel specified that Norway's parliament should elect a five member committee for awarding the prize to "champions of peace." Yet the list of recent Nobel peace laureates is notably short on such champions. Instead, the erstwhile politicians on the Norwegian Nobel Committee have largely bypassed the original purpose of the prize. Despite all its claims of independence, the Oslo-based Nobel Committee is enmeshed in Norwegian politics. The global prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize has obscured the reality that its selection committee is chosen by leaders of Norway's main political parties, and, as a member of NATO, Norway is deeply entangled in the military alliance. When the Nobel Peace Prize went to President Obama in 2009, he was in the midst of drastically escalating the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, in tandem with the rest of NATO. The same prize went to the European Union in 2012, a year after many of its member states intervened with military force in Libya. On both occasions, in effect, the Nobel Committee bestowed a "good war-making seal of approval." Since 2001, the Nobel Peace Prize has been on a prolonged detour around the U.S. government's far-flung warfare, declining to honor anyone who had challenged any of it anywhere in the world. But the Nobel Committee has done more than just ignore peace activism seeking to stop U.S. -led war efforts. By giving the Peace Prize to Obama and the E.U., the committee has implicitly endorsed those military efforts as part of a rhetorical process that conflates war-making with peace-making. Orwell's 1984 specter of "War Is Peace" looms uncomfortably large. At times, the Peace Prize has earned goodwill in NGO circles by honoring humanitarian work that is laudable but not directly related to peace. And so far in this century, when the Nobel Committee has focused the prize on human rights, it has danced around Uncle Sam's global
shadow. The Peace Prize has gone only to dissidents in countries where governments are in conflict with Washington, such as Shirin Ebadi of Iran in 2003 and Liu Xiaobo of China in 2010, while failing to honor any of the profuse activism against severe abuses by U.S. backed governments. It was not always this way. During previous decades, the annual announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize might alternately please or enrage the top leaders in the capital of a world power. In 1983, the awarding of the prize to Poland's Solidarity leader Lech Walesa infuriated the Kremlin. When the 1992 prize went to Rigoberta Menchu, an indigenous foe of U.S. supported tyrants killing Guatemalan civilians in large numbers, it was a much-needed rebuke to Washington.

By Richard Escow: Republicans Discover Government, Promptly Convene 'Imperial Congress'

Picture a lone Republican running through the darkened hallways of power, paraphrasing Soylent Green's climactic line as he shouts the news to his peers: "It's people! The Federal government is people!" That insight seemed to strike Hill Republicans last week, if only briefly: Our government ids made up of people helping other people. But don't count on seeing as new era of conciliation or a new embrace of democratic processes. Instead Republicans seemed to renew their commitment to the principle that only one branch of government, their branch, should control it. Call it the Imperial Congress, and this week it tried to invent a new form of governance. Of the People, By the People: This could be a learning moment for any Republican willing to change. For years they've railed against a dark and faceless abstraction they call "Government." Now that they've shut down the government, not the faceless monster of their fantasies, but the real-life Constitutional version, they 've been forced to change their tune a little. Consider Rep. Randy Neugebauer's boorish rant to a Park Ranger, whom he lacerated because the shutdown had closed the park to most visitors. Neugebauer didn't tell the ranger or the crowd of onlookers that we didn't need parks, or that we could do without a government to run them. Instead he tried to place the blame for their closure on a single Federal employee. Suddenly the enemy was government shutdowns, not government. That's progress, in a way. But think of it: A Congressman who voted to shutdown the government, while continuing to receive $172,000 per year, dressed down a park ranger who had shown up for work not knowing when, or if she would be paid at all. (The average Park Ranger earns $44,900 per year.) Neugebauer, and others like him, have been indoctrinated with a far-right ideology which says that Federal employees should "get off our backs." But instead of facing a Randian parasite, Neugebauer was confronted with a human being trying to do a popular job under difficult circumstances. Deep down inside, his rage might have been thinly concealed shame. It certainly should have been. This embarrassing moment, and others like it, might have contributed to the GOP's decision late last week to agree that all furloughed workers will eventually receive back pay. They may have also discovered that Federal employees, like other citizens, vote. Neugebauer told the Park Ranger she should be "ashamed" for turning a line of people away from a national park site, even though Neugebauer's party has been orchestrating the shutdown for months, as reported in detail in today's New York Times. The Congressman confronted another reality that day: The government exists for people just like the ones standing in line with him. And since the people designed that government through their democratic institutions, it shouldn't be surprising that they generally like the things it does. Even conservatives who mouth anti-government rhetoric usually like going to parks and museums, or receiving Social Security checks.

By Norman Solomon: Here Comes the Nobel Peace Prize, Dragging a Broken Moral Compass!

The announcement of this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner, set for October 11, is sure to make big news. The prize remains the most prestigious in the world. But the award has fallen into an evasive pattern, ignoring the USA's continuous "war on terror" and even giving it tacit support. In his 1895 will, the dynamite inventor and ammunition magnate Alfred Nobel specified that Norway's parliament should elect a five-member committee for awarding the prize to "champions of peace." Yet the list of recent Nobel laureates is notably short on such champions. Instead, the erstwhile politicians on the Norwegian Nobel Committee have largely bypassed the original purpose of the prize. Despite all its claims of independence, the Oslo-based Nobel Committee is enmeshed in Norwegian politics. The global prestige of the Nobel Prize has obscured the reality that its selection committee is chosen by leaders of Norway's main political parties-and, as a member of NATO, Norway is deeply entangled in the military alliance. When the Nobel Peace Prize went to President Obama in 2009, he was in the midst of drastically escalating the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, in tandem with the rest of NATO. The same prize went to the European Union in 2012, a year after many of its member states intervened with military force in Libya. On both occasions, in effect, the Nobel Committee bestowed a "good war-making seal of approval." Since 2001, the Nobel Peace Prize has been on a prolonged detour around the U.S. government's far flung warfare, declining to honor anyone who had challenged any of it anywhere in the world. But the Nobel Committee has done more than just ignore peace activism seeking to stop U.S. -led war efforts. By giving the Peace Prize to Obama and the E.U., the committee has implicitly endorsed those military efforts as part of a rhetorical process that conflates war-making with peace-making. Orwell's 1984 specter of "War Is Peace" looms uncomfortably large. At times, the Peace Prize has earned goodwill in NGO circles by honoring humanitarian work that is laudable but not directly related to peace. And so far in this century, when the Nobel Committee has focused the prize on human rights, it has danced around Uncle Sam's global shadow. The Peace Prize has gone only to dissidents in countries where governments are in conflict with Washington, such as Shirin Ebadi of Iran in 2003 and Liu Xiaobo of China in 2010, while failing to honor any of the profuse activism against severe abuses by U.S. -backed governments. It was not always this way. During previous decades, the annual announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize might alternately please or enrage the top leaders in the capital of a world power. In 1983, the awarding of the prize to Poland's Solidarity leader Lech Walesa infuriated the Kremlin. When the 1992 prize went to Poland's Solidarity leader Lech Walesa infuriated the Kremlin. When the 1992 prize went to Rigoberta Menchu, an indigenous foe of U.S. supported tyrants killing Guatemala civilians in large numbers, it was a much needed rebuke to Washington. Yes, some Peace Prize choices were dubious or worse. After an Orwellian one, the caustic songwriter Tom Lehrer commented: "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace ." In an exercise of absurd equivalency, the Nobel Committee had given the 1973 prize to Kissinger and North Vietnam's negotiator Le Duc Tho.

By Bashar al Assad: President al-Assad Interview: "No Dialogue with Gunmen, All Decisions taken ny the West

for the past ten years have been in support of al-Qaeda" President Bashar al-Assad said that all the political decisions that have been in support of al-Qaeda, intentionally or inadvertently. In an interview with the German Der Spiegel News Magazine, President al Assad said that through Western support, now there are thousands of al-Qaeda fighters from 80 countries in Syria. Following is the full text of the interview: Der Spiegel: Mr. President, do you love your country? President Assad: Of course, and in this I am no different from most people. This is not merely about emotions, but rather about what one can do for his country if he has the power and especially in times of crisis, and at this particular time, I realize more than ever how much I love my country and so I must protect it. Der Spiegel: Wouldn't you be more patriotic if you stepped down and allowed for negotiations over an interim government or for a cease-fire with the armed opposition? President Assad: The Syrian people determine my fate: no other party can determine this issue. As for the armed opposition or fractions, who do they represent, the Syrian people? Is so, this can be proven only through the ballot box. Der Spiegel: Are you prepared to run in the next elections? President Assad: My term ends in August next year. The presidential elections should take place before that time. I cannot decide now whether I am going to run, this depends on what the Syrian people want. If people are not behind me, I won't stand in the elections. Der Spiegel: Will you seriously consider giving up power? President Assad: This is not about me or what I want. Its about what the people want. The country is not mine alone, it's the country for all Syrians. Der Spiegel: But some people say that you are the cause of the rebellion, because people want to get rid of corruption and tyranny. They call for true democracy, and according to the opposition, this is not possible with you in power. President Assad: Do these people speak for themselves, or do they speak on behalf of the Syrian people or on behalf of the countries that are backing them? Do they speak on behalf of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia or Quatar? Let me be clear about this: this conflict is being brought to our country from the outside world. These people live in five-star hotels, they are dictated to by their financial backers and have no grass roots in Syria. Der Spiegel: Do you deny that there is a strong opposition against you in your country? President Assad: There is certainly an opposition in our country. What country doesn't have opposition? It's impossible for all the Syrians to be on my side. Obama has no right to tell the Syrian people whom to choose as their president. Der Spiegel: But some people say that you are the cause of the rebellion, because people want to get rid of corruption and tyranny. They call for a true democracy, and according to the opposition, this is not possible with you in power. President Assad: Do these people speak for themselves, or do they speak on behalf of the Syrian people or on behalf of the countries that are backing them? Do they speak on behalf of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia or Quatar? Let me be clear about this: this conflict is being brought to our country from the outside world. These people live in five-star hotels, they are dictated to by their financial backers and have no grass roots in Syria.

Arcitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: This paragraph was followed by a list of interviewees,

including four people representing three scholarly research organizations: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the 9/11 Concensus Panel, and The Journal of 9/11 Studies. The "Truth-seeker" video immediately started to gain popularity on YouTube, reaching 131,000 views in the first three days. The history of the viewing statistics may be seen by clicking on the little graphic symbol under the video frame, and to the right. Truth-seeker posted its program to YouTube on Sept. 8. Russia Today tweeted the YouTube link to its 546,000 followers and to the interviewer, Daniel Bushnell, that day: The Truthseeker: 9/11 and operation Gladio: A MOXNEWS copy of the same newscast was also posted September 8 under the title "Russia Today News Declares 9/11 An Inside Job False Flag Attack!" which in turn started to escalate, with over 80,000 views in the first few days. Other uploads of the program also appeared, with less traffic, bringing the early viewing total to over a quarter of a million people. What Happened Next? In both the RT and MOXNEWS Cases, the viewer statistics on YouTube suddenly flat-lined on the morning of September 11, like a heart monitor when the patient dies. The YouTube search engine had suddenly failed to locate these videos. Oddly, although the RT video may still be viewed on YouTube through its direct link, if known from the Google URL box, it cannot be accessed on YouTube by its title, or by searching "Truthseeker." The MOXNET version was also decoupled from the YouTube search engine for a period of time after September 11, but has since been restored to normal indexing. How Were the Search Engine Failures Detected and Verified? Investigations carried out independently by a US engineering colleague and myself revealed the following: 1. YouTube Search Results and Rankings: Searching the exact title of the original "Truthseeker" posting ("911 and Operation Gladio" does not yield the original RT post. It does yield other posts with far fewer viewings, but the original, which as we have seen  still exists as a URL, is evidently no longer in the YouTube index. Its viewings have slowly risen over several weeks from 131,000 to 136,000 through the early news reports, but with by far the most views of all uploads, it should appear at the top of the list. Searching YouTube for the URL of the original escalating RT version produces no result either, although as we have seen, the URL is still a functioning direct link. Take any URL from YouTube or Google, plug it into the search box and watch it come up on top of the list, because there is only one. Searching YouTube for the program's name, "Truthseeker," displays titles from Episodes 1-22, and also Episode 24, but it fails to show Episode 23, "9/11 and Operation Gladio" in 15 pages of search results. Searching for the MOXNET post on the third day of its existence produced a similar result. It should have appeared second from the top with its 80,000 views, but it was difficult to get it to appear at all, except through its direct link, if one had saved this earlier. Oddly enough, the MOXNET post is once again normally accessible on YouTube, as it was September 8-11, through a search engine.

By Elizabeth Woodworth: Search Engine Manipulation. Google and You Tube Suppress Controversial 9/11 Truth?

Let's Make 9/11 Truth Go Viral! Introduction. With polls consistently showing that approximately 50% of Canadians and Americans doubt the official story of 9/11, the feat of keeping the lid on a public debate for over 12 years has been nothing short of miraculous. This article presents a simple case study showing that this miracle is being performed with the assistance of Google and YouTube search engine interference. On September 8, 2013, the popular Russia Today "Truthseeker" program, with over a million subscribers on YouTube, published a 13-minute newscast entitled "The Truthseeker: 9/11 and Operation Gladio (E23). Below the video ran the caption: Bigger than Watergate: US 'regular' meetings with Al-Qaeda's leader, documented White House 'false flag terrorism' moving people 'like sheep', the father of Twin Towers victim tell us why he backs this month's 9/11 campaign on Times Square and around the world, and the protests calendar for September.

AlterNet: By Mark Weisbrot: Take a Hint, America: Latin America Is Outraged for good Reason

Over the NSA and U.S. Hubris. Tuesday's cancellation of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff's state visit to the White House, scheduled for next month, came as little surprise. Documents leaked by Edward Snowden, and reported by Glenn Greenwald and TV Globo, had caused an uproar in Brazil. According to the documents and reports, the US government had spied on Dilma's personal communications, and had targeted the computer systems of Brazil's Petrobas, the big oil company that is majority-owned by the state. TV Globo's report indicated that there was information in the targeted Petrobas computer network that could be very valuable to foreign oil companies. Former President Lula da Silva said that Obama should "personally apologize to the world", and Dilma also demanded a full apology, which was not forthcoming. The rift with Brazil comes at a time worsening US relations with Latin America, and especially South America. It is indicative of a much deeper problem.  The Obama administration's refusal to recognize the results of the Venezuelan elections in April of this year, despite the lack of doubt about the results and in stark opposition to the rest of the region, displayed an aggressiveness that Washington hadn't shown since it aided the 2002 coup. It brought a sharp rebuke from South America, including Lula and Dilma. Less than two months later, US Secretary of State John Kerry launched a new "detente", meeting with his Venezuelan counterpart
Elias Jaua in the first such high-level meeting in memory, and implicitly recognizing the election results. But new hopes were quickly dashed when several European governments, clearly acting on behalf of the United States, forced down President Evo Morales' plane in July. "They've definitely gone crazy," President Cristina Kirchner tweeted, and UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations issued a strong denunciation. The gross violation of international law and diplomatic norms was another flamboyant display of Washington's lack of respect for the region. It seems that every month there is another indication of how little the Obama administration cares about improving relations. On 24 July, the IMF, at the direction of the US Treasury Department, abandoned its plan to support the Argentine government in its legal battle with "vulture funds". The IMF had previously committed to filing a brief with the US supreme court supporting the Argentine government. This was not out of love for Argentina, but because the lower court's decision, which would try to prevent Argentina from paying 92% of its creditors in order to satisfy the vulture funds, was seen as a threat to future debt restructuring and therefore to the world financial system. But anti-Argentina lobbyists were allowed to prevail, even against the Treasury Department's legitimate concern for international financial stability. There are structural reasons for the Obama administration's repeated failures to accept the new reality of independent governments in the region. Although President Obama may want better relations, he is willing to spend about $2 in political capital to accomplish this. And that is not enough. When he tried to appoint an Ambassador to Venezuela in 2010, for example, Republicans, including the office of then Senator Richard Lugar successfully scuttled it. For President Obama, there are generally no electoral consequences from having bad relations with Latin America.

Alternet: By Mark Weisbrot: Take a Hint, America: Latin America Is Outraged For Good Reason Over the NSA and U.S. Hubris!

Tuesday's cancellation of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff's state visit to the White House, scheduled for next month, came as a surprise. Documents leaked by Edward Snowden, and reported by Glenn Greenwald and TV Globo, has caused an uproar in Brazil. According to the documents and reports, the US government had spied on Dilma's personal communications, and had targeted the computer systems of Brazil's Petrobras, the big oil company that is majority-owned by the state. TV Globo's report indicated that there was information in the targeted Petrobas computer network that could be very valuable to foreign oil companies. Former President Lula da Silva said that Obama should "personally apologize to the world", and Dilmo also demanded a full public apology, which was not forthcoming. The rift with Brazil comes at a time of worsening US relations with America, and especially South America. It is indicative of a much deeper problem. The Obama administration's refusal to recognize the results of the Venezuelan elections in April of this year, despite the lack of doubt about the results and in stark opposition to the rest of the region, displayed an aggressiveness that Washington hadn't shown since it aided the 2002 coup. It brought a sharp rebuke from South America, including Lula and Dilma. Less than two months later, US Secretary of State John Kerry launched a new "detente", meeting with his Venezuelan counterpart Elias Jaua in the first such high-level meeting in memory, and implicitly recognizing the election results. But new hopes were quickly dashed when several European governments, clearly on behalf of the United States, forced down President Evo Morales' plane in July. "They've definitely gone crazy," President Evo Morales' plane in July. "They've definitely gone crazy," President Cristina Kirchner tweeted, and UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations issued a strong denunciation. The gross violation of international law and diplomatic norms was another flamboyant display of Washington's lack of respect for the region. It seems that every month there is another flamboyant display of Washington's lack of respect for the region. It seems that every month there is another indication of how little the Obama administration cares about improving relations. On 24 July, the IMF, at the direction of the US Treasury Department, abandoned its plan to support the Argentine government in its legal battle with "vulture funds". The IMF had previously committed to filing a brief with the US supreme court supporting the Argentine government. This was not out of love for Argentina, but because the lower court's decision, which would try to prevent Argentina from paying 92% of its creditors in order to satisfy the vulture funds, was seen as a threat to futures debt restructuring and therefore to the world financial system. But anti-Argentina lobbyists were allowed to prevail, even against the Treasury Department's legitimate concern for international financial stability. There are structural reasons for the Obama administration's repeated failures to accept the new reality of independent governments in the region. Although President Obama may want better relations, he is willing to spend about $2 in political capital to accomplish this.

Paul Joseph Watson: CIA Linked Vet Who Fought With Al-Qaeda Released From Jail!

Paul Joseph Watson: Infowars.com An Army veteran whose father said he was working for the CIA has been released from jail despite fighting alongside an Al-Qaeda terrorist group in Syria was responsible for killing US troops in Iraq. 33-year-old Eric Harroun has received what has been described as a "sweet plea deal" after he faced life in prison for providing material support to a terrorist organization by fighting with Jabhat Al-Nusra, the group that the New York Times reported, "killed numerous American troops in Iraq," and is now the leading front line fighting force in Syria. Al-Nusra is led by Ayman al-Zawahri, the head of Al-Qaeda who recently called for terror attacks inside the United States. "Under a deal entered in federal court in Alexandria, Hanoun pleaded guilty to an obscure law regulating munition exports. He was sentenced to time served. The plea agreement itself remains sealed, though court records show it was entered Thursday," reports the Associated Press. Harroun, who has been in prison since March, was released on 3 years probation with a paltry $100 fine. Despite claiming to have shot at least 10 people and "fighting along jihadists and America-hating terrorists while celebrating his bloody exploits on YouTube videos," Harroun is now a free man. A video uploaded to YouTube earlier this year shows Harroun celebrating the downing of a Syrian Army helicopter while his fellow militants shout "Allah Akbar". Absent from media reports about Harroun's release is the fact that his father told CBS 5 earlier this year that Harroun was working for the CIA in Syria. "I know he was doing some work for the CIA over there, I know for a fact that he was passing information onto the CIA," Darryl Harroun told reporters. While individuals merely accused of being terrorists are thrown into prison camps like Guantanamo Bay for years and prevented from having a trial, Harroun has got off with a slap on the wrist despite evidence clearly indicating that he fought alongside terrorists in Syria. American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike simply for producing propaganda videos and communicating with accused terrorists. His 16-year-old son was similarly slaughtered for merely sharing his father's surname. Other American citizens like John Walker Lindh were imprisoned and tortured in Guantanamo Bay for fighting with the Taliban. The difference is that Harroun was apparently working alongside Al-Nusra at the behest of the CIA, supporting terrorists whom the Obama administration is now backing in its bid to topple Bashar Al-Assad. Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars. com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

7 Signs America Has Regressed Back To the Harsh, Cruel 19th Century By Richard Eskow

Of course they shut the Federal government down. Tea Party Republicans long for the days when there were no government authorities to enforce laws and restrain the power of unchecked wealth, the days when there was no Justice Department, no SEC, no other agencies protecting Americans from the misdeeds of bankers and corporate titans.
But it already seems as if our entire country has secretly been transported back in time. We may think we’re living in the 21st century, but all the signs suggest we’re living in an earlier and harsher era.
Here are seven signs the United States of America has returned to the 19th century.
1. Wall Street can “send your man around to see my man” again.
Shocked by newly elected President Teddy Roosevelt’s moves against Wall Street, J. P. Morgan went to the White House. "If we have done anything wrong,” said Morgan, “send your man to my man and they can fix it up."
"That can't be done," said Roosevelt. "We don't want to fix it up," his Attorney General added, "we want to stop it." The year was 1902, and 19th-century privilege was over for Wall Street. Now it’s back, and so are the “men”—and as the recent foot-dragging over female Fed chair candidate Janet Yellen highlights, they almost always are men.
The chief architects of deregulation in the 1990s included Sen. Phil Gramm, President Bill Clinton and Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. That deregulation cost millions of Americans their jobs and millions more their life savings. But the parties behind it did just fine.
Gramm went to work for UBS bank immediately upon leaving the Senate in 2002, and is now vice-chairman of its investment banking division. Robert Rubin eventually headed up Citigroup, the megabank whose creation was made possible when his Treasury Department pushed for a then-illegal merger between Travelers and Citibank. Rubin was to become deeply implicated in the fraud and scandal which led to the 2008 crisis, although he claimed ignorance of his own bank’s doings and never faced prosecution.
Larry Summers has made millions from Wall Street banks. Bill Clinton made tens of millions “advising” two investment funds belonging to billionaire Ron Burkle. Exactly how much isn’t known, but a very public falling out [2] involved Burkle’s alleged “stiffing” of Clinton on a final $20-$25 million payment. Clinton went on to serve as an advisor of Teneo Capital until February 2012.
Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs was George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary. Barack Obama’s first Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, is now collecting huge fees [3] on Wall Street. Obama’s second Secretary, Jack Lew, was an executive at Citigroup. His former economic advisor, Peter Orszag, has traded places with Lew and is now at Citigroup. Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, broke the Democratic mold by working at JPMorgan Chase.
White House visitor logs, which are woefully incomplete [4], show that Wall Street’s top dogs [5] were frequent guests, especially at the height of the bank bailout. Despite massive fraud and tens of billions in fines and settlements, not one senior banker has been indicted for the crimes which brought down the economy.
Teddy Roosevelt’s legacy has been undone. Bankers can “send their man" to see the president’s man—and he's frequently the same man.
2. Workers aren’t unionized.
The horrors of working life during the Industrial Revolution led to the rise of the American union, beginning in the year 1860. The US State Department estimates that 3 percent of the workforce belonged to a union by the close of the 19th century. That number rose to roughly 7 percent by 1930, and to more than one worker in four by 1954.
The percentage of working people in unions has now dropped to roughly 7 percent again for private-sector workers. That’s roughly the early-20th-century level. When you add in government employees, who are more heavily unionized, the number rises slightly, to 11.5 percent. Our national and state capitals remain in the grip of an ill-advised round of cost-cutting that’s bringing the total number of government employees down quickly, which adds to the decline of these numbers.
Thanks to a four-decade-long campaign against them, unions—and workers—are more likely to be vilified than praised. It’s almost impossible to imagine today’s United States Congress passing the 1895 law that created Labor Day.
3. Our rights end at the workplace door.
Our individual rights are being steadily eroded in the workplace. As employment lawyer Mark Trapp told Business Week, “the freedom to speak your mind doesn’t really exist in the workplace.” A series of court cases has shown that Americans can be fired for expressing political opinions outside their place of employment, too, on social media like Twitter or Facebook.
One of the unions’ first demands was for a shorter workday, which in the 1800s meant a 10-hour maximum. Now we’re moving back toward 19th-century standards. As the Washington Times reports, “Americans are working approximately 11 more hours per week now than they did in the 1970s, yet the average income for middle-income families has declined by 13% (when adjusting for inflation).”
Here’s a 19th-century image, from the New York Times: “ …employees at lower rungs of the economic ladder can be timed with stopwatches in the bathroom; stonewalled when they ask to go; given disciplinary points for frequent urination; even hunted down by supervisors with walkie-talkies if they tarry in the stalls.”
4. They’re advocating child labor again.
What’s the matter with kids today? According to a number of conservatives, they’re not being put to work in factories and farms. Child labor, one of the moral blights of 19th-century America, is increasingly popular on the right again.
Child labor laws do not permit children under the age of 14 to work in non-agricultural settings. That is “truly stupid,” Newt Gingrich [6] said last year while running for the Republican presidential nomination. Children aren’t learning the proper “work habits,” said Gingrich, who proposed firing most school janitors and giving the jobs to underage minority children instead.
Republican Senator Mike Lee [7]has called for abolishing federal child labor laws (although he says he isn’t opposed to state laws). Lee said that labor and manufacturing are “local activities,” not “interstate commercial transactions.”
“This may sound harsh,” said Lee, “but it was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh.”
Arkansas congressional candidate Tom Cotton also believes in child labor. "We need more young people who've worked all day in the fields, not less,” said Cotton during his 2012 campaign. Cotton won his race and now serves in the House of Representatives.
5. It’s practically legal to shoot people down in the streets again.
At least 22 states have some version of the “Stand Your Ground” law, which permits people to shoot and kill another person if they feel in danger, even when it’s possible to escape safely.
A nonpartisan political group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns [8] is part of a coalition whose recent study showed that states which passed Stand Your Ground laws between 2005 and 2007 saw a 53 percent increase [9] in “justifiable homicides.” As the coalition notes, “this increase is not simply the result of more homicides being classified as ‘justifiable,’ but also of an overall increase in firearm-related and overall homicides in Stand Your Ground states.”
The report notes that prosecutors in these states had greater difficulty convicting violent offenders.
“The findings in this report aren't surprising, given that these laws give anyone with a gun more permissive rules of engagement in America's communities than our troops have on the battlefield," said Jon Soltz, a two-tour veteran of the Iraq war and chairman of VoteVets [10].
The laws are also more permissive than 19th-century law, despite the fact that dueling remained legal until 1859, when most states outlawed it. Unlike Stand Your Ground, both parties in a duel were armed and had an equal chance of success. Duels were also voluntary, whereas a person who is shot under Stand Your Ground has no choice in the matter.
6. The rich have more of our national wealth than they did in colonial times.
As Jordan Weissman [11] demonstrated in the Atlantic last year, the top 1 percent and the top 10 percent capture more of our national income now than they did in the 1700s, before we won our nation’s independence. Inequality was worse by 1860, but is even worse today than in either century.
This country enacted a series of laws which enabled Americans to achieve social mobility. But in the wake of cuts to everything from education to childhood nutrition, and with the decline of the American middle-class, those opportunities are fading too.
Here’s one of the main reasons the middle-class is declining: With no strong counterforce representing employees, corporations are also amassing more wealth than ever. The charts Henry Blodget [12] made last year remain essentially unchanged: as corporations amass more and more wealth, they’re sharing less and less of it with workers in the form of wages.
As G. William Domhoff [13] shows, by the end of the Reagan era the percentage of national wealth going to the top 1 percent had returned to pre-1929 levels. It has continued to climb since then. A recent review of 2012 economic data shows, among other things, that the top 1 percent saw their incomes rise by a staggering 32 percent in one year—and that the top 10 percent captured more than half of our nation’s income for the first time since they started tracking this data a century ago.
7. Political debates are getting rough again.
It starts with the rhetoric, and politicians were rough on each other in the 1800s. Sen. Charles Sumner spent hours calling an opponent a “pimp” and mocking his limp and speech impediment, both of which were caused by a stroke. The Lincoln-Douglas debates [14] of 1858, when they ran against each other for the Senate, included racial slurs and other insults (although Douglas graciously held Lincoln’s hat while he was sworn in as president, after losing to him in the 1860 election).
In the days of duels and fights of honor, political rhetoric quickly escalated into violence. Perhaps the most famous incident of pol-on-pol violence was the caning of abolitionist Sen. Sumner on the floor of the Senate by pro-slavery Rep. Preston Brooks, as another Southern congressman held a pistol on observers to prevent them from intervening.
Representatives were seen carrying guns on the floor of Congress [15] in 1836. One representative drew a gun on a witness during a hearing that year. In 1842 a Whig Party congressman from Tennessee was threatened with a knife by fellow party members.
Today a new era of incivility has dawned in the capitol building. Its watershed moment may have been the day Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at President Obama as the President addressed a joint session of Congress. While Wilson was eventually admonished by the House, the vote was almost entirely along party lines. (Only seven Republicans joined with Democrats on the vote.)
Wilson was able to beat his nearest primary challenger by nine points the following year, and to run unopposed in the general election. He received 96 percent of the vote.
The gloves are off, and the new harsh rhetoric is coming almost exclusively from a party that refuses to sanction its members for it. Rep. Michele Bachmann has been a one-person factory for inflammatory quotes. And in a very 19th century—and very crude—letter, Republican Rep. Allen West wrote to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: "You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!” West has also said that Nazi leader Josef Goebbels would be “very proud” of Democrats, and that liberals should “get the hell out of the United States.”
Fortunately, government leaders have yet to turn on one another physically. But that day may be coming. Michael Schwartz, Chief of Staff for Sen. Tom Coburn, said this [16]: ““I’m a radical! I’m a real extremist. I don’t want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!”
Rep. Peter King has been a one-man hate campaign against Americans of the Muslim faith, and he has not been censured or reprimanded by his party in any way for his hate-filled rhetoric.
In 1884, the spokesman for Republican presidential candidate Hal Blaine accused the Democrats of being the party of “rum, Romanism, and rebellion.” This anti-Catholic slur caused Blaine to lose the state of New York, giving the presidency to Grover Cleveland. Democrats may be hoping that comments like King’s will help to reproduce such election results in coming years.
_______

The Guardian By Glenn Greenwald: Secret Deal Allows NSA to Share Ameeicans' Data With Israel!

The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel [5] without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian [6] by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA [7] and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.
The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration [8] that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy [9]of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.
The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum [6], which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.
The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies "pertaining to the protection of US persons", repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.
But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content."
According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. "NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection", it says.
Although the memorandum is explicit in saying the material had to be handled in accordance with US law, and that the Israelis agreed not to deliberately target Americans identified in the data, these rules are not backed up by legal obligations.
"This agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights and shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a legally binding instrument according to international law," the document says.
In a statement to the Guardian, an NSA spokesperson did not deny that personal data about Americans was included in raw intelligence data shared with the Israelis. But the agency insisted that the shared intelligence complied with all rules governing privacy.
"Any US person information that is acquired as a result of NSA'ssurveillance [10] activities is handled under procedures that are designed to protect privacy rights," the spokesperson said.
The NSA declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.
The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain "any files containing the identities of US persons" for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA's special liaison adviser when such data is found.
Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to "destroy upon recognition" any communication "that is either to or from an official of the US government". Such communications included those of "officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)".
It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA, nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such communications. In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on "the agency's attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip".
The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata of Americans' emails and calls without a warrant when such communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent resident.
Moreover, with much of the world's internet traffic passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency's surveillance programs.
The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will "regularly review a sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US persons' identities". It also requests that the Israelis limit access only to personnel with a "strict need to know".
Israeli intelligence is allowed "to disseminate foreign intelligence information concerning US persons derived from raw Sigint by NSA" on condition that it does so "in a manner that does not identify the US person". The agreement also allows Israel to release US person identities to "outside parties, including all INSU customers" with the NSA's written permission.
Although Israel is one of America's closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.
The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post [11], Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.
While NSA documents tout the mutually beneficial relationship of Sigint sharing, another report, marked top secret and dated September 2007, states that the relationship, while central to US strategy, has become overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel.
"Balancing the Sigint exchange equally between US and Israeli needs has been a constant challenge," states the report, titled 'History of the US – Israel Sigint Relationship, Post-1992'. "In the last decade, it arguably tilted heavily in favor of Israeli security concerns. 9/11 came, and went, with NSA's only true Third Party [counter-terrorism] relationship being driven almost totally by the needs of the partner."

In another top-secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. "On the one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems," the official says. "A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US."
Later in the document, the official is quoted as saying: "One of NSA's biggest threats is actually from friendly intelligence services, like Israel. There are parameters on what NSA shares with them, but the exchange is so robust, we sometimes share more than we intended."

The memorandum of understanding also contains hints that there had been tensions in the intelligence-sharing relationship with Israel. At a meeting in March 2009 between the two agencies, according to the document, it was agreed that the sharing of raw data required a new framework and further training for Israeli personnel to protect US personinformation.

It is not clear whether or not this was because there had been problems up to that point in the handling of intelligence that was found to contain Americans' data.
However, an earlier US document obtained by Snowden, which discusses co-operating on a military intelligence program, bluntly lists under the cons: "Trust issues which revolve around previous ISR [Israel] operations."

The Guardian asked the Obama administration how many times US data had been found in the raw intelligence, either by the Israelis or when theNSA reviewed a sample of the files, but officials declined to provide this information. Nor would they disclose how many other countries the NSA shared raw data with, or whether the Fisa court, which is meant to oversee NSA surveillance programs and the procedures to handle US information, had signed off the agreement with Israel.
In its statement, the NSA said: "We are not going to comment on any specific information sharing arrangements, or the authority under which any such information is collected. The fact that intelligence services work together under specific and regulated conditions mutually strengthens the security of both nations.
"NSA cannot, however, use these relationships to circumvent US legal restrictions. Whenever we share intelligence information, we comply with all applicable rules, including the rules to protect US person information."