Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

August 08 2013

Why doesn't Superman focus on heroics that actually save lives ? Biased super-hero mythos reflect…

Why doesn’t #Superman focus on heroics that actually save lives ? Biased super-hero #mythos reflect our society’s idiotic #security obsession about the ’terrorist’ threat that has come to dominate the political discourse.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305#comic #terrorism #comics

April 11 2013

Predictive analytics and data sharing raise civil liberties concerns

Last winter, around the same time there was a huge row in Congress over the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), U.S. Attorney General Holder quietly signed off on expanded rules on government data sharing. The rules allowed the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), housed within the Department of Homeland Security, to analyze the regulatory data collected during the business of government for patterns relevant to domestic terrorist threats.

Julia Angwin, who reported the story for the Wall Street Journal, highlighted the key tension: the rules allow the NCTC to “examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them.” 

On the one hand, this is a natural application of big data: search existing government records collected about citizens for suspicious patterns of behavior. The action can be justified for counter-terrorism purposes: there are advanced persistent threats. (When national security is invoked, privacy concerns are often deprecated.) The failure to "connect the dots" using existing data across government on Christmas Day 2009 (remember the so-called "underwear bomber?") added impetus to getting more data in the NCTC’s hands. It’s possible that the rules on data retention were extended five years because the agency didn’t have the capabilities it needed. Data mining existing records offers unprecedented opportunities to find and detect terrorism plots before they happen.

On the other hand, the changes at the NCTC that were authorized back in March 2012 represent a massive data grab with far-reaching consequences. The changes received little public discussion prior to the WSJ breaking the story, and they seem to substantially override the purpose of the Federal Privacy Act that Congress passed in 1974. Extension of the rules happened without public debate because of what effectively amounts to a legal loophole. Post proposed changes to the Federal Register, voila. Effectively, this looks like an end run around the Federal Privacy Act.

Here’s the rub: according to Angwin, DoJ Chief Privacy Officer Nancy Libin:

“… raised concerns about whether the guidelines could unfairly target innocent people, these people said. Some research suggests that, statistically speaking, there are too few terror attacks for predictive patterns to emerge. The risk, then, is that innocent behavior gets misunderstood — say, a man buying chemicals (for a child’s science fair) and a timer (for the sprinkler) sets off false alarms. An August government report indicates that, as of last year, NCTC wasn’t doing predictive pattern-matching.”

It’s hard to say whether predictive data analytics are now in use at NCTC. It would be surprising if there isn’t pressure to experiment, given the expansion of “predictive policing” in cities around the U.S.. There stand to be significant, long-lasting repercussions if the center builds capacity to apply that capability at large scale without great care and informed Congressional oversight.

One outcome is a dystopian scenario straight out of science fiction, from “thoughtcrime” to presumptions of guilt. Alistair Croll highlighted some of the associated issues involved with big data and civil rights last year.

As Angwin pointed out, the likelihood of a terrorist attack in the U.S. remains low as compared to other risks Americans face every day from traffic, bees or lifestyle decisions. After 9/11, however, public officials and Congress have had little risk tolerance. As a result, vast, expensive intelligence and surveillance infrastructure in the U.S. has been massively expanded, with limited oversight and very little accountability, as documented in “Top Secret America.”

When intelligence officials have gone public to the press as whistle-blowers regarding overspending, they have been prosecuted. Former National Security Agency staffer Thomas Drake spoke at the 2011 Web 2.0 Summit about his experience. We talked about it in a subsequent interview, below:

The new rules have been in place now for months, with little public comment upon the changes. (Even after it was relaunched, the nation doesn’t seem to be reading the Federal Register. These days, I’m not sure how many members of the DC media do, either.) I’m unsure whether it’s fair to blame the press, though I do wonder how media resources were allocated during the “horse race” of the presidential campaigns last year. Now, the public is left to hope that the government oversees itself effectively behind closed doors.

I would find a recent “commitment to privacy and civil liberties” by the Department of Homeland Security more convincing if the agency wasn’t confiscating and searching electronic devices at the border without a warrant. 

Does anyone think that the privacy officers whose objections were overruled in the internal debates will provide the effective counterweight protecting the Bill of Rights will require in the years to come?

September 26 2012

02mydafsoup-01

August 19 2012

NSU und RAF - die Geheimdienstzwillinge?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Published on 22 Aug 2012 by CompactTV

Am 16. August 2012 war der Mitgründer der "Bewegung 2. Juni" Bommi Baumann zu Gast bei Compact live in Berlin und berichtete zu seinen Beziehungen zu Verena Vecker Becker und der RAF.

Am 6. Juli wurde Verena Becker zu 4 Jahren Haft wegen Beihilfe zum Mord am ehemaligen Generalbundesanwalt Siegfried Buback verurteilt. Zu wenig, wenn man der Argumentation Bommi Baumanns folgt. Er hält Verena Becker für die mutmaßliche Todesschützin, also die Täterin. Warum also wurde Becker weder damals verhaftet noch heute als Mörderin verurteilt? Bommi Baumann könnte Erhellendes dazu beitragen. Er trat im Stuttgarter Prozess auch als Zeuge auf. Schließlich war Michael "Bommi" Baumann es, der Becker 1972 für den Untergrund rekrutierte. Damals wurde die "Bewegung 2. Juni" in Westberlin gegründet.

Compact live am 16. August 2012 - mit Bommi Baumann und Jürgen Elsässer

http://www.compact-magazin.com

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bommi_Baumann


// oAnth - absolut sehenswert
Reposted fromlesslow lesslow

December 19 2011

Big crime meets big data

Marc Goodman (@futurecrimes) is a former Los Angeles police officer who started that department's first Internet crime unit in the mid-1990s. After two decades spent working with Interpol, the United Nations, and NATO, Goodman founded the Future Crimes Institute to track how criminals use technology.

Malicious types of software, like viruses, worms, and trojans, are the main tools used to harvest personal data. Cyber criminals also use social engineering techniques, such as phishing emails populated with data gleaned from social networks, to trick people into providing further details. In the interview below, Goodman outlines some of the other ways organized criminals and terrorists are harnessing data for nefarious ends.

What motivates data criminals?

Marc GoodmanMarc Goodman: Anything that would motivate someone to join a startup would motivate a criminal. They want money, shares in the business, a challenge. They don't want a 9-to-5 environment. They also want the respect of their peers. They have an us-against-them attitude; they're highly innovative and adaptive, and they never take the head-on approach. They always find clever and imaginative ways to go about something that a good person would never have considered.

What type of personal data is most valuable to criminals?

Marc Goodman: The best value is a bank account takeover. A standard credit card might cost a criminal only $10, but for $700 they could buy details of a bank account with $50,000 in it, money that could be stolen in just one transaction.

European credit cards tend to cost more than American credit cards since Europeans are much better at guarding their data. There's also a universal identifier for Americans — the social security number — but the same thing doesn't exist from a pan-European perspective.

How is data crime more scalable than traditional crime?

Marc Goodman: Data crime can be scripted and automated. If you were to take a gun or a knife and stand on a street corner, there are only so many people you can rob. You have to do the crime, run away from the scene, worry about the police, etc. You can't walk into Wembley Stadium with a gun and say, "Everybody, put your hands up," but you can do the equivalent from a cyber-crime perspective.

One of the reasons why cyber crime thrives is that it's totally international whereas law enforcement is totally national. Now, the person attacking you can be sitting in New York or Tokyo or Botswana. The ability to conduct business without getting on a plane is an awesome advantage for international organized crime.

Strata 2012 — The 2012 Strata Conference, being held Feb. 28-March 1 in Santa Clara, Calif., will offer three full days of hands-on data training and information-rich sessions. Strata brings together the people, tools, and technologies you need to make data work.

Save 20% on registration with the code RADAR20

How has cyber crime evolved?

Marc Goodman: In the 1970s, you had to be a clever hacker and create your own scripts. Now all of that stuff can be bought off the shelf. You can buy a package of crimeware and put in the email addresses or the domain that you want to attack via a nice user interface. It's really plug-and-play criminality.

You claim that the 2008 Mumbai attackers used real-time data gathering from social networks and other media. How do terrorists use data?

Marc Goodman: Since the Internet arrived, terrorists have been advertising, doing PR, recruiting, and fundraising, all online. But this was the first time that we had seen terrorists use technology to the full extent that this group did during the incident. They had mobile phones and satellite phones. The terrorist war room they set up to monitor the media and feed back information in real time to the attackers was a really significant innovation.

They re-engineered the attack mid-incident to kill more people. They were constantly looking for new hostages. Organizations like the BBC and CNN were tweeting to ask people on the ground in Mumbai to contact a producer. People trapped in hotels called the TV stations. All of that information was being tracked by the terrorist war room. There was an Indian minister who was doing a live interview on the Indian Broadcast Network (IBN) while hiding in the kitchen of the ballroom of the Taj Mahal hotel. The war room picked this up and directed the attackers to that part of the hotel where they could find the minister.

What can be done to combat cyber crime?

Marc Goodman: The terrorism problem is very different from the cyber crime problem. Most terrorism tends to have a basis in the real world whereas cyber crime tends to be purely online. Governments are pretty good at tracking the terrorists in their own countries, and there is decent international cooperation on terrorism.

What is making things more difficult for governments is that, in the old days, if you tapped somebody's home phone, you had a good picture of what was going on. Now you don't know where to look. Are they communicating on Facebook, on Twitter, or having a meeting in World of Warcraft?

Law enforcement needs to develop better systems to deal with the madness of social media in terrorist attacks. The public is getting involved in ways that are, frankly, unhealthy. There was a hostage situation in the U.S. a couple of months ago where a man took a hostage and was sexually assaulting her. He was trapped in a hotel room with guns and was posting live on Facebook and Twitter. Then the public started to interact with the hostage-taker, tweeting things like, "You wouldn't kill her. You are not brave enough to do it." In the past, police could close off several blocks, put up yellow crime scene tape, close the airspace over the scene, and bring in a trained negotiator. How does law enforcement intervene when there can be a completely disintermediated conversation between the criminal or terrorist and the general public?


Marc Goodman discussed the business of illegal data at Strata New York 2011. His full presentation is available in the following video:

This interview was edited and condensed.

Related:

December 16 2011

Obama and the final destruction of the constitution

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, if signed into law, will signal the death knell of our constitutional republic and the formal inception of a legalized police state in the United States. Passed by the House on May 26, 2011 (HR 1540), the Senate version (S. 1867) was passed on Dec. 1, 2011. Now only one man — Barack Obama, a scholar of constitutional law — will make the decision as to whether the Bill of Rights he went to Harvard to study will be superceded by a law that abrogates it.
First, let’s be clear what is at stake. Most critical are Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Act, which authorize detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without charge or trial if deemed necessary by the president. The bill would allow federal officials to take these steps based on suspicions only, without having to demonstrate to any judicial official that there is solid evidence to justify their actions. No reasonable proof will any longer be required for the government to suspend an American citizen’s constitutional rights. Detentions can follow mere membership, past or present, in “suspect organizations.” Government agents would have unchecked authority to arrest, interrogate, and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat to “national security.” Further, military personnel anywhere in the world would be authorized to seize U.S. citizens without due process. As Senator Lindsay Graham put it, under this Act the U.S. homeland is considered a “battlefield.”
What is at stake is more than the Constitution itself, as central as that document has been to the American experiment in democracy. What is a stake is nothing short of the basic fundamentals of western jurisprudence. Central to civilized law is the notion that a person cannot be held without a charge and cannot be detained indefinitely without a trial. These principles date back to Greco-Roman times, were developed by English common law beginning in 1215 with the Magna Carta, and were universalized by the Enlightenment in the century before the American Constitution and Bill of Rights were fought for and adopted as the supreme law of the land.
For more than two centuries of constitutional development since then, the United States has been heralded as the light to the world precisely because of the liberties it enshrined in its Declaration of Independence and Constitution as inalienable. It now seems as if the events of 9/11 have been determined to be of such a threatening magnitude that our national leaders feel justified to abrogate in their entirety the very inalienable principles upon which our Republic was founded.
At the heart of this Act is the most fundamental question we must ask ourselves as a free people: is 9/11 worth the Republic? The question screaming at us through this bill is whether the war on terror is a better model around which to shape our destiny than our constitutional liberties. It compels the question of whether we remain an ongoing experiment in democracy, pioneering new frontiers in the name of liberty and justice for all, or have we become a national security state, having financially corrupted and militarized our democracy to such an extent that we define ourselves, as Sparta did, only through the exigencies of war?
Within a week of 9/11, the Use of Military Force Act was approved which authorized the full application of U.S. military power against “terrorism.” A month later, on Oct. 26, 2001, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act that began the legislative assault on the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment right to freedom of association was gutted as federal officials were authorized to prosecute citizens for alleged association with “undesirable groups.” The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was compromised by permitting indefinite detentions of those suspected of “terrorism.” The Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy was obliterated as unchecked surveillance was authorized to access personal records, financial dealings, and medical records of any citizen at any time without any judicial oversight or permission. Evidence obtained extra-judicially could be withheld from defense attorneys.
The Patriot Act also criminalized “domestic terrorism.” It stated that civil conduct can be considered “domestic terrorism” if such actions aim to “influence by intimidation or coercion” or “intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” Put in plain language, this means that actions such as Occupy Wall Street can be designated as “domestic terrorism” by Federal authorities without judicial oversight and dealt with outside the due process of constitutional protections.
Two weeks after passage of the Patriot Act, on Nov. 13, President Bush issued Military Order No. 1 authorizing the executive branch and the military to capture, kidnap, or otherwise arrest non-citizens anywhere in the world if suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. Proof was not required. It stipulated that trials, if held, would be military tribunals, not civil courts, and that evidence obtained by torture was permissible. No right of appeal was afforded to those convicted. Numerous executive orders, findings, and National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives followed, further consolidating the militarization of due process under the law and enabling the executive branch to act without legal constraint after it has defined a person or group as potentially engaging in “terrorist” activity.
A year later, on Nov. 25, 2002, the Homeland Security Act was passed that for the first time integrated all U.S. intelligence agencies, both domestic and foreign, into a single interactive network under the president. The Act gave these intelligence agencies complete freedom to collect any and all data on anyone anywhere in the United States and, working with allies abroad, to access complete information on anyone anywhere in the world, working closely with local police, intelligence agencies, and the corporate sector. This dissolved the distinctions between domestic and foreign spying and made more ambiguous the distinction between domestic and foreign “terrorism.”
The next major step took place on Oct. 17, 2006, when Congress passed the Military Commissions Act that effectively abrogated habeas corpus for domestic and foreign enemies alike, stating, “Any person is punishable who aides, abets, counsels, commands, or procures” material support for alleged terrorist groups. One of the most basic principles of both our democracy and our civilization, that a person cannot be held without being charged, was surrendered, and done so by substantial majorities in both houses. On the same day, the 2007 NDAA was passed, which amended the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting U.S. military personnel from acting upon U.S. citizens within U.S. borders. Not only was anything allowable in the pursuit of “terrorists,” but the military was authorized to conduct operations inside the homeland in their pursuit.
Now comes the 2012 NDAA, which completes the process and thus serves as the coup de grace for a democratically voted metamorphosis from republic to national security state. It puts the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution by designating the entire United States as essentially the same “battlefield” in the war on terror as Iraq or Afghanistan, and authorizes the executive branch and the military to take whatever actions they consider legitimate against any human being anywhere on planet earth, civilian or enemy combatant, and to do so without any judicial oversight or constitutional constraint. If this Act is passed, the Bill of Rights will no longer protect American citizens from their government. The Constitution will no longer be the ultimate law of the land.
The House and Senate versions of the Act must now be reconciled and the Act sent to the president to either sign or veto. With his decision, he will determine the fate of those very liberties which, up to this point, have been integral to and indeed have defined America.

20111215-181926.jpg

Reposted fromSigalontech Sigalontech

December 09 2011

02mydafsoup-01

oAnth via Diaspora* - links on the "National Defense Authorization Act" (NDAA)


oAnth via Diaspora*

cf. from 2011-12-07 - with links to other media sites, which are covering the issue

[...]

FOX Business (TV): NDAA -- the National Defense Authorization Act -- may legalize 'murder' of American citizens on US soil by the military without due process, trial, or attorney. Link:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1313320586001/

FORBES: NDAA is the 'greatest threat' to civil liberties that Americans face -- a very conservative publication not prone to sensationalism, by the way. Link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-the-greatest-threat-to-civil-liberties-americans-face/

NY Times blog: NDAA needs to be vetoed immediately by Pres. Obama. Link:
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/president-obama-veto-the-defense-authorization-act/?src=tp

Alternet: Is Gitmo in your future? Link:
http://www.alternet.org/world/153321/battlefield_america%3A_is_gitmo_in_your_future

HuffPo: Former FBI special agent fears what NDAA means for Americans, calls for an Obama veto. Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/ndaa-military-detainment_b_1126781.html

Gawker: The bill that 'could ruin America.' Link:
http://gawker.com/5865089/20-things-you-should-know-about-americas-most-horrifying-new-law

Amnesty International's analysis: Welcome to the war. Link: http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/welcome-to-the-war/

[...]

--------------------------------------------------


cf. about NDAA on soup.io tagged via
http://02mydafsoup-01.soup.io/tag/compil_NDAA_2011Dec
Play fullscreen
Wilkerson: New Military Powers the Road to Tyranny

Larry Wilkerson: National Defense Authorization Act that passed the Senate giving the military power for indefinite detention without trial is a draconian violation of our rights

Time: 07:28 More in News & Politics

December 08 2011

Play fullscreen
Military to Gain Power of Indefinite Detention in Senate Bill

Ray McGovern: Amendment to NDAA gives military the right to operate on American soil, detain people without trial for an indefinite period of time including US citizens

Time: 12:11 More in News & Politics

December 07 2011

02mydafsoup-01

September 11 2011

The September 11 attacks: how little changed

I had planned to keep out of the whole journalistic splurge over September 11 (even though I'm going to a memorial concert tonight for one of my own relatives), because I didn't want to foist my political speculations on a Radar crowd, but the outpouring this week of "Everything changed forever!" rhetoric has driven me to write.

What jumps out at me when considering September 11, 2001 is how little the world has changed in response. Developed nations still consume resources as if they'll go on forever, particularly gobbling up enormous amounts of fossil fuels, the chief source of tension between these nations and the Middle East. The West still throws its weight around in every conventional manner, including the same kinds of military interventions it used to dominate the rest of the world over the past two centuries. (Remember, the incursion that overthrew Saddam Hussein was the "Second Gulf War.") On the positive side, Europe and the United States remain open, democratic societies, even though European countries have gone tensions over integration and suffered large Islamist terror attacks.

Dual predictions about the consequences of September 11, 2001 were aired right afterword: on the one hand that we would prolong the compassion and doubt about our current social trends and transform them into a new, nuanced understanding of our planet's and population's needs, on the other hand that we would suppress all glimmerings of creativity dissent to become a garrison society. What the United States did to keep these risks at bay, I believe, was to make sure that for the majority of our citizens nothing has changed. Remember George W. Bush's exhortation to go out shopping. That remains the mantra to this day, as the rush to cut taxes demonstrates.

The world has certainly changed in the past ten years, but not in response to the attacks. Analysts do say that investments by the U.S. government in Egyptian democratic groups provided some foundation for the Tahrir Square protests, but much more of a foundation was supplied by long-standing activists such as labor unions. The Arab Spring, the most significant political change of the decade, sprang for the most part from internal ferment. The natural evolution of the computer field, benefitting much less from military investment than in previous decades, created many social changes. Investments in green technologies have been driven not by concerns over terrorism (which is perhaps why they have sputtered out in the United States) but by worries over climate change in Europe and the exhaustion of traditional energy sources in China.

Besides the immediate casualties of the September 11 attacks and those who were close to them, the burden of change has fallen on two groups in the U.S.: residents of Middle Eastern extraction (and anyone unfortunate enough to look like them), and those in the military. By drawing on the National Guard and preserving the military as an all-volunteer force, the government has isolated the latter group and created almost a misunderstood subculture within the United States.

Perhaps we can integrate September 11 into our culture in a more healthy manner by reaching out to these groups. Although few Americans outside the racially distinct group have experienced the force of government surveillance and persecution (the legal groundwork for which preceded the PATRIOT act), we can expect these incursions on civil liberties to expand. Remember that the economic success of Japan in the 1980s led to racist attacks on East Asians. I don't find the widespread American and European fear of Muslims to be surprising, because our attackers claim they are carrying out these attacks in the name of Islam, and how can people who know nothing else about the religion know any better? But if we do not understand difference now, similar misunderstandings can rend any two groups in society apart at any time.

As for those in the military (another one of my relatives is in the Kandahar province right now), the United States urgently needs to understand what they have suffered to take strenuous efforts to streamline their return to society and the economy. It is scandalous that they do not receive adequate treatment for injuries, and scandalous that they have trouble getting rehired. But this is because most of us deny what they have gone through and what it means for them. The Paris metro (at least the last time I took it) reserves special seats for disabled war veterans, a constant reminder of their suffering in World War II. The United States needs some equivalent reminder for the psychological and physical effects of war.

I read repeatedly that soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq feel disoriented upon their return, strangers to their own country. Is it their reaction to American society that is pathological, or the society to which they are reacting? Even asking the question can move us forward to respond to September 11.

September 07 2011

02mydafsoup-01
Play fullscreen
Freiheit oder Sicherheit (ARTE+7 Themenabend, 06.09.11)


yt permalink
Uploaded by 0x46616c6b on Sep 6, 2011

Seit 2001 entwickelten die Regierungen in den USA und in Europa nach jedem Anschlag neue Anti-Terror-Gesetze, die es ermöglichen sollen, Terroristen rechtzeitig zu erkennen und Terroranschläge zu verhindern. Denn die Sicherheit der Bürger hat oberste Priorität. Diese Gesetze sollen sowohl mit den Grundgesetzen und Verfassungen der einzelnen Länder vereinbar sein, als auch mit den Prinzipien der westlichen Welt, mit Freiheit, Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit.
Die Dokumentation beschäftigt sich mit den Anti-Terror-Gesetzen und ihren Folgen und rekonstruiert dabei auch einige prominente Fälle, bei denen Menschen durch Verfehlungen in das Netz des Antiterrorkampfes gerieten. 


So wurde der 22-jährige Nottinghamer Doktorant Rzwaan Sabir verhaftet, weil er von einer Internetseite des US-Justizministeriums für seine Abschlussarbeit ein Trainingshandbuch der Al Qaida heruntergeladen hatte. Das machte ihn für die britische Polizei zum Terrorverdächtigen, die ihn daraufhin sechs Tage im Gefängnis festhielt.


Präventiv verhaftet wurde 2009 Marrouane S., ein marokkanischer Informatikstudent aus München. Er wurde verdächtigt, einen Anschlag auf das Münchner Oktoberfest zu planen. Mehrere anonyme Drohvideos im Internet hatten die Behörden alarmiert. Es gab keine Beweise dafür, dass der marokkanische Student etwas damit zu haben könnte. Seine einwöchige Inhaftierung wurde nachträglich per Gerichtsbeschluss für rechtswidrig erklärt, dennoch wird er bis heute vom Verfassungsschutz observiert.


In Frankreich sitzt der französisch-algerische Kernphysiker Adlène Hicheur seit fast zwei Jahren in Untersuchungshaft. Er wird verdächtigt gemeinsam mit der maghrebinischen Al-Quaida Anschläge in Europa vorbereitet zu haben. Beweise dafür gibt es bis heute keine. 


Aufgrund von vagen Verdächtigungen wurde 2007 der deutsche Stadtsoziologe Andrej Holm verhaftet. Das BKA hatte den wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter der Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main der Zugehörigkeit einer linken militanten Gruppe zugeordnet und wegen Bildung einer terroristischen Vereinigung drei Wochen in Untersuchungshaft festgehalten. Eine internationale Kampagne von Journalisten, Philosophen und Wissenschaftlern hatte sich für ihn eingesetzt. Auch der prominente Soziologe Richard Sennett kämpfte in einem offenen Brief "Guantánamo in Germany" an die Generalbundesanwaltschaft um Holms Freilassung, veröffentlicht am 21.08.2007 im Guardian. 


Auch in Frankreich werden aufgrund der neuen Anti-Terror-Gesetze verstärkt linke Aktivisten auf Verdacht hin für unbestimmte Zeit in Untersuchungshaft genommen.
Im November 2008 sorgte der Fall der "Tarnac 9" für Aufsehen. Neun junge Menschen wurden auf einem Bauernhof in Tarnac verhaftet, mit dem Verdacht terroristische Anschläge zu planen, beziehungsweise durchgeführt zu haben. In den Wochen zuvor wurden TGVs der Linien Paris-Lille und Paris-Strasbourg mit sogenannten Hakenkrallen blockiert. 


Acht der Verdächtigen wurden bald wieder auf freien Fuß gesetzt. Allein Julien Coupat saß wegen Verdachts auf "Bildung einer kriminellen Vereinigung mit terroristischen Zielen" über ein halbes Jahr in Untersuchungshaft. Die dünne Beweislage und der Vorwurf des Terrorismus führten zu Protesten von Juristen, Journalisten und auch von Polizisten. Giorgio Agamben und andere Philosophen schrieben in einem offenen Brief, die Angeklagten seien nur deshalb verhaftet worden, weil sie politisch aktiv gewesen seien: "Sie haben an Demonstrationen teilgenommen, sie denken nach, lesen Bücher, leben gemeinsam in einem Dorf." Die Weigerung der Angeklagten, sich in der Haft gegenseitig zu denunzieren, wurde als Indiz dafür aufgefasst, dass es sich um Terroristen handle.

Reposted byzensursbsmkrekkschlingellydschimondkroetezweisatzfreundeundhelferdocumentaryn0gprednilmurdeltareturn13alphabetekeliasauthmillenonrunnerlemustername

August 26 2011

Play fullscreen
Egyptian Revolution Affects Israeli-Gaza Policy
Phyllis Bennis: Israel holds back from all out attack on Gaza concerned about reaction of Egyptian public opinion


July 26 2011

02mydafsoup-01

[...]

Judging from Breivik’s writings, his hysterical hatred of the Labor Party’s immigration policies and tolerance of Muslim immigrants likely led him target the government-operated summer camp at Utoya. For years, the far-right has singled Norway out as a special hotbed of pro-Islam, pro-Palestinian sentiment, thanks largely to its ruling Labor Party. In 2010, for instance, the English Defense League called Norway a future site of “Islamohell,” “where unadulterated political correctness has ruled the roost, with sharp talons, for decades.” Yesterday, when the Wall Street Journal editorial page rushed to blame Muslim terrorists for what turned out to be Breivik’s killing spree, it slammed the Norwegian government for pulling troops from Afghanistan and demanding that Israel end its siege of Gaza. For his part, Breivik branded the Labor Party as “traitors.”

There is no clear evidence that Breivik’s support for the Israeli right played any part in his killing spree. Nor does he appear to have any connection with the Israeli government. However, it is worth noting that in November 2010, the Israeli government joined the right-wing pile on, accusing the Norwegian government of “anti-Israel incitement” for funding a trip for students to New York to see the “Gaza Monologues” play. Then, the day before Breivik’s terror attack, which he planned long in advance, Norway’s Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stor visited the Labor Youth camp at Utoya. There, he was met with demands to support the global BDS movement and to support the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral statehood bid. “The Palestinians must have their own state, the occupation must end, the wall must be demolished and it must happen now,” the Foreign Minister declared, earning cheers from the audience.

Breivik’s writings offer much more than a window into the motives that led him to commit terror. They can also be read as an embodiment of the mentality of a new and internationalized far-right movement that not only mobilizes hatred against Muslims, but is also able to produce figures who will kill innocent non-Muslims to save the Western way of life.

[END]

Anders Behring Breivik, a perfect product of the Axis of Islamophobia | maxblumenthal.com 2011-07-23
Reposted bykrekk krekk
02mydafsoup-01
[...]

Breivik sieht die Endzeit, also die endgültige Revolution der konservativen Westeuropäer, die dann alle Muslime deportieren und alle Verräter aus den Reihen des Kulturmarxismus und Multikulturalismus exekutiert und abgeurteilt haben , im Jahre 2083 kulminieren. Das Jahr ist auch in deutschen Kreisen interessant, hier gibt es bei den antiislamischen Kulturkämpfern eine Gruppe, die sich Initiative 1683. Die sehen sich in der Tradition des Kampfes zwischen Islam und Christentum und nehmen Bezug auf die türkische Belagerung Wiens im Jahr 1683. In letzter Sekunde hätte man die Strategie entdeckt und konnte so eine Einnahme Wiens verhindern, was nun als Vorbild für heute dienen soll:

Wir sehen heute eine stetige Unterwanderung der Menschenrechte und der Demokratie durch den Islam in Europa und in Deutschland. Ein krankhafter Relativismus und eine heuchlerische Toleranz entpuppen sich als Beschützer des Bösen. Vielen Menschen ist nicht bewußt, was es bedeutet, unsere Freiheit, unser Werte und unsere christlichen Wurzeln, auf welchen die Errungenschaften des Abendlandes und der heutigen modernen westlichen Welt gegründet sind, zu verlieren.

Das ist derselbe Wahn, den auch Breivik teilt. Und weil der Islam Weltherrschaft anstrebt, ist alles erlaubt. Die "Initiative" ruft alle Christen auf, "unser Volk" nicht untergehen zu lassen und "aufzustehen". Was das bedeutet, wird nicht näher ausgeführt. Zu den "Sprechern" der Initiative gehört Michael Mannheimer, der in den entsprechenden Kreisen gerne vor "Eurarabia" warnen darf. Der hat im April öffentlich im Internet klar gemacht, um was es geht. Breivik war vielleicht nur ein Pionier, der die Hoffnung der Kulturkämpfer radikal ausgeführt hat. Mannheimer, der gerne etwa auf der extremistischen Website Politically Incorrect, wo Sarrazin, Wilders, Broder (der derzeit sichtlich angeschlagen ist) und Co. gefeiert werden, als "Islamkenner" beworben wird, hat einen Aufruf zum allgemeinen Widerstand des deutschen Volkes veröffentlicht (auf PI als Forumsbeitrag), in dem er ungeniert zum bewaffneten Kampf aufruft, was offenbar vom Innenministerium und dem Verfassungsschutz geduldet wird. Für Mannheimer umarmt nun auch die Kirche "den schlimmstmöglichen Feind", nämlich den Islam. Deswegen sei jetzt "die letzte Bastion im Widerstand gegen den menschenfeindlichen Faschismus Islam gefallen":

[...]
Bundesregierung: "Tat und Täter weisen keine Bezüge nach Deutschland auf" -  Das ist falsch ... | Telepolis - 2011-07-26
Reposted bykrekk krekk
02mydafsoup-01
[...]

Im taktischen Dispositiv übertrifft der Autor die Manifeste aus den sechziger und siebziger Jahren, auch die neuen französischen Aufstandsautoren bei weitem. Die Schreckensherrschaft ist auf seiner Seite. So will er den Feind überraschen, seine bessere Geländekenntnis nutzen, situative Vorsprünge und Entschlossenheit nutzen. Der Rest ist operatives Handbuch, Tagebuch, Logistik, Autobiographie, Sozialreform in reaktionärer Replik auf Ideen der Frühsozialisten. Das Manifest bezeugt einen umsichtigen Planer, als hätte er in einer Elitehochschule den MBA mit Bravour gemacht. Einkauf, Cash Flow, Lager, Assessment, Controlling, alles hat er auf dem Schirm. Sein Produkt aber, darauf läuft es hinaus, ist nicht der Schrecken. Der ist eine Beigabe.

Sein Produkt ist der auf 1516 Seiten niedergelegte innere Monolog aus der gesellschaftlichen Mitte, ein Echo der endlosen Tiraden gegen die Welt, wie sie ist, ein Echo aus den Foren in den Weiten des Netzes. Aus seinem Text spricht der Chor der Erniedrigten und Beleidigten, die im Ausdruck ihres Hasses auf alle und alles zu grandioser Form finden. Er ist ein gut erzogenes Kind aus der Mitte der Gesellschaft, der den Stolz der arabischen Straßenkämpfer bewundert, ihn sich zu eigen macht, um sie zu schlagen. Der Kämpfer, der aus ihm spricht, ist nicht zu schlagen – nicht wegen seiner Waffen, seiner Umsicht, seiner Klugheit, sondern weil er bloß ein Kopf unter vielen dieser Hydra ist, die sich aus dem Manifest erheben.

Die Idee der schärferen Überwachung, die gleich wieder erklang, noch ehe die Auswertung begonnen hat, verkennt den Befund am Ende der Lektüre. Breivik ist ein Kind der Mitte. Die Überwachung wäre der Versuch, dieser Selbsterkenntnis mit vergeblichem Aufwand aus dem Weg zu gehen.

[END]

Die Normalität des Attentäters: Ein Kind unserer Welt || Hintergründe - Feuilleton - FAZ.NET - 2011-07-26

July 25 2011

02mydafsoup-01
[...]

Sein 1.500 Seiten starkes "Manifest" spricht für die Simulakron-These. Dort kann man auch Hinweise darauf finden, dass dass er ECA-Stack selbst genommen hat und er "Kriegern" im Kampf für ein unabhängiges Europa die Einnahme von Steroiden und NoXPlodes (Mittel zur Gefäßerweiterung) empfiehlt. Zwar neigt Breivik einerseits zur Behauptung, er sei einer der wenigen gewesen, die in der Hip-Hop-Szene keine Drogen genommen hätten. Deren Wirkung beschreibt er als destruktiv, zudem gebe es die Neigung, von Marihuana auf Amphetamine oder auch Heroin umzusteigen. Er kenne zehn Leute, deren Gehirne allein durch den Haschischkonsum zerstört worden seien. Die nationalistischen Bewegungen, denen er sich zurechnet, sollen weiterhin die elektronische Trance-Musik ausnutzen, wie dies auch die Marxisten gemacht hätten:

[...]
Tempelritter auf Mission müssen sich aufputschen | Telepolis - 2011-07-24

May 09 2011

Al-Jazira vit une situation de deuil



Lundi matin, n'importe quelle télévision, radio, journal se devait d'évoquer cet événement au moins au travers des faits : que s'est-il passé, comment, etc. Mais on a un peu l'impression, en voyant ça en langue arabe, qu'Al-Jazira vit une situation de deuil à peine dissimulée, de tristesse, de frustration. On n'est pas dans l'évocation neutre des faits, ni dans ce qu'a commis cette organisation depuis vingt ans. Il faut reconnaître que du côté américano-occidental, certains médias n'ont pas non plus fait montre d'un grand professionnalisme mettant en valeur les scènes de liesse dans les rues, avec la fameuse expression du Far West " we got him ! ". Mais sur Al-Jazira, les images de reportages qui passent en boucle montrent le chef d'Al-Qaida dans une posture beaucoup plus paisible, parfois même humaniste. Les commentaires écrits à chaud par la rédaction d'Al-Jazira évoquent davantage le désintéressement de Ben Laden pour la vie facile et mondaine et sa recherche des bienfaits du travail, du combat, du djihad...

A aucun moment Al-Jazira ne juge nécessaire d'accorder de l'espace à ceux atteints par les attentats d'Al-Qaida visant des civils innocents, même en terre arabo-musulmane, ni ne diffuse la moindre image des corps déchiquetés des dizaines de milliers de ces victimes au Yémen, au Pakistan, en Indonésie, en Asie centrale, en Turquie, en Irak, en Somalie, au Soudan, en Egypte, en Algérie, voire en Arabie saoudite et à Gaza, sans parler des milliers de victimes en Europe et aux Etats-Unis. Al-Jazira a été jusqu'à installer une terminologie distinctive choquante en hissant les victimes des bombardements américains et occidentaux au rang de martyrs (chahid), tandis que les victimes d'Al-Qaida ne demeurent en dernière instance que des morts ordinaires (maqtoul).

Hosham Dawod, anthropologue, membre de l’Institut interdisciplinaire de l’anthropologie du contemporain (IIAC-CNRS).

May 06 2011

02mydafsoup-01
02mydafsoup-01
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl