What Adam Curry is reading

The Chemical Weapons Origins of Syria
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Lame Cherry
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:27
  As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.........
  Ever notice how remove viewers have vanished from the Mockingbird fringe media........gee I wonder why that order went out. None the less, I am not remote viewer, although I have that capability.
  The chemical weapons being utilized in Syria are real. They are not of Col. Khadaffi nor of Bashir Assad origin. In fact, if one desires to know where these weapons came from in Middle East manufacture, the source of them is Saddam Hussein.These WMD chems came directly to Syria from Iraq. No Saddam did not ship this weapons cache, but this cache was one in the Kurdish region by Mosul. They were located and under CIA control and recently entered in country to light the fuse in Syria.
  Assad's people did not use these weapons. This was al Qaeda group which answers to 1600 Penn Avenue as a greater regional realignment is taking place and the children of Aram are to be sacraficed on holocaust fires.When the Russians make the statement that this was not Assad and it was the American or European backed terrorists in these "fighters", they are not lying.This is distressing to me personally as the Americans have a mother in these Syrians after the Exodus in she was the main progenitor of the American line through the sons of Manneseh.
  I digress, but this is not right to be making a collossal pyre of Syria for the anti Christ's coming kingdom.
  There are not a great deal of these chemical weapons in only one truck load entered Syria. The protocols are changing in this, in the Jews are not to receive chemical greetings, but instead it is now calling for biological agents in "non lethal" anthrax to be introduced, again from Saddam's missing WMD stores.Upon inquiry there was about 97 pounds of this Saddam Anthrax brought into America, and it was not weaponized. It's stores have been added to by a private lab on the east coast. This is where the source is for this anthrax in a "non lethal" spore.Approximately 275 pounds of this WMD has left the states and is sitting in an American base in Turkey awaiting deployment.One of the religious Jewish enclaves in northern Israel is the intended delivery point via rocket attack.
  It is stated this blog stopped the original "Jew babies coughing up lungs" by publication of the original protocol. The new operational plans are for this "non lethal" anthrax to sow the seeds of destruction.
  Protocol indicates end of August launch for a two week "war".Tick tock.........Goes the clockIt was posted hereSo very clearThat chemical weapons would come to playTo blame Assad for his nuclear judgment dayThe Russians now say it was Obama's al QaedaThe regime now says it was Assad duhTick tockTick tockWill the war come last week lateOf that August dateTick tockTick tock
  I would prefer that the cartel would get this initiated as living on the air I breathe and not large donations from millionaires for these exclusives gives my child bearing hips a girlish figure, but then I suppose as TL once noted I looked like holocaust audition chic once in my model figure.Get your mind on the WMD's and not my bod as both are lethal, but the theater in Syria is the attraction.
  That should be enough of the exclusives for free. They though still have on the digital something about including Americans in this as was exclusively published here. So what do you rich people want now from me......to breathe my air too when yours is unfit?TL concludes if the work here does not warn off the events on the horizon transpiring, then those events completed would probably bring in the millionaire donations as they will then try to save themselves.
  All I need is the air Lame Cherry breathes and my wads o'cash.Richtard O'Moneybags..
  71 lines and 674 words.........that would be like 5000 dollars a line to be informed to save oneself. Got to go as looking at a pizza with TL and what difference does world war make when you can look at a pizza.
  agtG
  REPORT: 500 killed in 'gas attack' near Damascus...
  SKYNEWS: 1,300...
  Children convulsing on floor, foaming at nose and mouth...
  'Rebels' post videos of attack on YOUTUBE...
  'Suspicious'...
Gibraltar as-it-happened: British ships sail in for war games amid sovereignty row - Telegraph
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:14
  16.35 The European Commission is to send a team to Gibraltar to investigate long border delays resulting from increased checks by the Spanish authorities. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy agreed to the monitoring mission in discussions with Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
  The European Commission said in a statement that the team would travel to the area as soon as possible. David Cameron had requested on Friday that a mission scheduled for next month instead be dispatched "urgently".
  They agreed that a commission fact-finding mission should as soon as possible examine in loco the border control/movement of people and goods questions.
  "President Barroso expressed his hope that Spain and the UK will address these matters in a way that is in line with their common membership in the EU."
  Meanwhile the Spanish government said in a statement that Mr Rajoy had also requested the visit, asking for observers to ensure that the economic activity in the area did not "violate European rules relating to the laundering of money, contraband and taxation".
  16.28 Fabian Picardo, Gibraltar's chief minister, has given a press conference at which he called for the EU to intervene.
  This is an unseemly political row and it is causing a breakdown of the European treaty right at our border. The sooner the EU can intervene and make Spain see sense the better. We want dialogue with our neighbours so that we can live peacefully and fruitfully together for the good of all our citizens.
  The role of politicians should be to make life easier for people not ore difficult. And the frontier should be a model of EU cooperation.
  Unfortunately very strong rhetoric coming from Spain makes Gibraltar look like the bad guys but that isn't the case.
  I have always said that Gibraltar has nothing against Spanish fisherman fishing in our waters as long as they do so legally and observe our environmental limitations. The reef was created having made very careful calculations to preserve marine management. They are British Gibraltar waters and so we are within our right to manage them."
  15.20 Earlier agency reports that Jose Manuel Barroso, head of the European Commission, told Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy that a Gibraltar border tax would be illegal have been corrected - this warning came from Commission spokesman Olivier Bailly and not in a phone call between the pair.
  13.48 Julie Girling, the Conservative MEP for the South West and Gibraltar, has arrived in the territory for talks with local politicians.
  "I think what the people of Gibraltar have really appreciated with the arrival of Westminster today, and the two support ships, is that it is flying the flag, it is saying 'we British people support the Gibraltarians, we are not abandoning you', and that has been very, very welcome," she said.
  "If this situation continues, if the pressure on Gibraltar continues, then of course I think the people of Gibraltar would like to see a bit more of that."
  12.30 Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, has told Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy that it would be "illegal" to impose a fee for crossing the Gibraltar border as Madrid has proposed.
  Mr Barroso urged Spain to "respect the law of the European Union" in his telephone conversation with Mr Rajoy, and appealed for "dialogue" between the Spanish and British governments, spokesman Olivier Bailly said at a news conference in Brussels.
  "The Commission hopes that these two member states hold dialogue as members of the European Union. It also falls to them to find a solution and overcome obstacles," Mr Bailly said according to Europa Press.
  12.10 Conservative MP James Wharton, writing on Twitter, welcomes the presence of HMS Westminster and chides Spanish authorities.
  11.59
  Downing Street is refusing to rule out 'tit for tat' actions against Spain in response to the delays at the Gibraltar border imposed by Spanish authorities, according to Tim Shipman, Deputy Political Editor at the Daily Mail. He tweets that this could translate to "disrupting their tourists".
  11.01
  Fiona Govan reports from Gibraltar on the enthusiastic reception given to the HMS Westminster by the Rock's residents as it arrived this morning.
  Gibraltarian Andrea Jones said: ''I feel very emotional, very patriotic.
  ''It means a lot to us Gibraltarians to have naval ships here during these troubled times.
  "It shows the strength of the ties between Britain and Gibraltar and it sends a strong signal to Spain '' We are here, we are British and not Spanish and we never will be."
  Gibraltarians welcomed the HMS Westminster with displays of patriotism
  10.50 The Telegraph's Spain Correspondent, Fiona Govan, reports that EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso is to take up the issue of the Gibraltar border controls imposed by Spain.
  "Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy will have a conversation with EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso today over the border controls imposed by Spain, sources at Moncloa confirmed. This follows a call from PM David Cameron on Friday for the EU to send a monitoring unit over to assess the situation."
  10.35 On its front page this morning, the Gibraltar Chronicle reported claims that in 1982, King Juan Carlos of Spain told a senior offical in the Thatcher government that it was not in Madrid's interests to recover Gibraltar soon "even if it were possible". The king's remarks, allegedly made to Sir Anthony Parsons, Margaret Thatcher's foreign policy adviser, referenced threats from the Moroccan king to recover Spanish enclaves Ceuta and Melilla if there were to be movement on the Gibraltar issue.
  10.08 As British warships sailed into Gibraltar's warships this morning for long-scheduled military exercises, Fabian Picardo, Gibraltar's chief minister, said that he and his family have received death threats amid the escalating dispute over the sovereignty of the British territory. Peter Dominiczak, The Telegraph's Political Correspondent, reports.
Strait of Gibraltar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:14
  The Strait of Gibraltar (Arabic: Ù…Ø¶ÙŠÙ‚ Ø¬Ø¨Ù Ø·Ø§Ø±Ù‚, Spanish: Estrecho de Gibraltar) is a narrow strait that connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea and separates Gibraltar and Spain in Europe from Morocco in Africa. The name comes from the Rock of Gibraltar, which in turn originates from the ArabicJebel Tariq (meaning "Tariq's mountain"[1]) named after Tariq ibn Ziyad. It is also known as the Straits of Gibraltar, or STROG (Strait Of Gibraltar), in naval use[2] and as the "Pillars of Hercules" (Ancient Greek: Î±á¼± á¼(C)ÏÎ¬ÎºÎ>>ÎµÎ¹ÎÎ¹ ÏƒÏá†Î>>Î±Î¹)[3] in the ancient world.
  Europe and Africa are separated by 7.7 nautical miles (14.3 km; 8.9 mi) of ocean at the strait's narrowest point. The Strait's depth ranges between 300 and 900 metres (160 and 490 fathoms; 980 and 3,000 ft)[4] which possibly interacted with the lower mean sea level of the last major glaciation 20,000 years before present[5] when the level of the sea was believed to be lower by 110''120 m (60''66 fathoms; 360''390 ft).[6] Ferries cross between the two continents every day in as little as 35 minutes. The Spanish side of the Strait is protected under El Estrecho Natural Park.
  On the northern side of the Strait are Spain and Gibraltar (a British overseas territory in the Iberian Peninsula), while on the southern side are Morocco and Ceuta (a Spanish exclave in North Africa). Its boundaries were known in antiquity as the Pillars of Hercules. There are several islets, such as the disputedIsla Perejil, that are claimed by both Morocco and Spain.[7]
  Due to its location, the Strait is commonly used for illegal immigration from Africa to Europe.[8]
  Extent[edit source |edit]The International Hydrographic Organization defines the limits of the Strait of Gibraltar as follows:[9]
  On the West. A line joining Cape Trafalgar to Cape Spartel.On the East. A line joining Europa Point to P. Almina (35°54'²N5°18'²W>> / >>35.900°N 5.300°W>> / 35.900; -5.300).Around 5.9 million years ago,[10] the connection between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean along the Betic and Rifan Corridor was progressively restricted until its total closure, effectively causing the salinity of the Mediterranean to periodically fall within the gypsum and salt deposition range, during what is known as the Messinian Salinity Crisis. In this water chemistry environment, dissolved mineral concentrations, temperature and stilled water currents combined properly and occurred regularly to precipitate many mineral salts in sea floor bedded layers. The resultant accumulation of various huge salt and mineral deposits about the Mediterranean basin are directly linked to this era. It is believed that this process took a short time, by geological standards, lasting between 500,000 and 600,000 years.
  It is estimated that, were the straits closed even at today's higher sea level, most water in the Mediterranean basin would evaporate within only a thousand years, as it is believed to have done then,[10] and such an event would lay down similar mineral deposits as those such as the salt mines now found under the sea floor all over the Mediterranean.
  After a lengthy period of restricted intermittent or no water exchange between the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean basin, approximately 5.33 million years ago,[11] the Atlantic-Mediterranean connection was completely reestablished through the Strait of Gibraltar by the Zanclean flood, and has remained open ever since.[12] The erosion produced by the incoming waters seem to be the main cause for the present depth of the strait (900 m at the narrows, 280 m at the Camarinal Sill). The strait is expected to close again as the African Plate moves northward relative to the Eurasian Plate,[citation needed] but on geological rather than human timescales.
  The Strait has been identified as an Important Bird Area by BirdLife International because hundreds of thousands of seabirds use it every year to pass between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, including large numbers of Cory's and Balearic Shearwaters, Audouin's, Yellow-legged and Lesser Black-backed Gulls, Razorbills and Atlantic Puffins.[13]
  For full articles on the history of the north Gibraltar shore, see History of Gibraltar or History of Spain. For the full article on the history of the south Gibraltar shore, see History of Morocco.Evidence of the first human habitation of the area by Neanderthals dates back to 125,000 years ago. In fact, it is believed that the Rock of Gibraltar may have been one of the last outposts of Neanderthal habitation in the world, with evidence of their presence there dating to as recently as only 24,000 years ago.[14] Archaeological evidence of Homo sapiens habitation of the area dates back to ca. 40,000 years ago.
  Beginning in 1492, the straits began to play a certain cultural role in acting as a barrier against cross-strait conquest and the flow of culture and language that would naturally follow such a conquest. In that year, the last Muslim government north of the straits was overthrown by a Spanish force. Since that time, the straits have come to foster the development of two very distinct and varied cultures on either side of the straits.
  On the northern side, the Christian/European culture has remained dominant (as it used to be in the southern side too), along with the Latin-based Spanish language, while on the southern side, the markedly different Muslim-Arabic/Mediterranean culture came to dominate later, along with the Arabic language. For the last 500 years, religious and cultural intolerance, more than the small travel barrier that the straits present, has come to act as a powerful enforcing agent of the cultural separation that exists between these two groups.
  The small British enclave of the city of Gibraltar presents a third cultural group found in the straits. This enclave was first established in 1704 and has since been used by Britain to act as a surety for control of the sea lanes into and out of the Mediterranean.
  Following the Spanish coup of July 1936 the Spanish Republican Navy tried to blockade the Strait of Gibraltar to hamper the transport of Army of Africa troops from Spanish Morocco to Peninsular Spain. But on 5 August 1936 the so-called Convoy de la victoria was able to bring at least 2,500 men across the strait breaking the republican blockade.[15]
  The Strait is an important shipping route from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. There are ferries that operate between Spain and Morocco across the strait, as well as between Spain and Ceuta and Gibraltar to Tangier.
  Tunnel across the strait[edit source |edit]In December 2003, Spain and Morocco agreed to explore the construction of an undersearailtunnel to connect their rail systems across the Strait. The gauge of the rail would be 1,435 mm (4 ft 8.5 in) to match the proposed construction and conversion of significant parts of the existing broad gauge system to standard gauge.[16] While the project remains in a planning phase, Spanish and Moroccan officials have met to discuss it as recently as 2012,[17] and proposals predict it could be completed by 2025.
  The Strait of Gibraltar links the Atlantic Ocean directly to the Mediterranean Sea. This direct linkage creates certain unique flow and wave patterns. These unique patterns are created due to the interaction of various regional and global evaporative forces, tidal forces, and wind forces.
  Inflow and outflow[edit source |edit]Through the strait, water generally flows more or less continually in both an eastward and a westward direction. A smaller amount of deeper saltier and therefore denser waters continually work their way westwards (the Mediterranean outflow), while a larger amount of surface waters with lower salinity and density continually work their way eastwards (the Mediterranean inflow). These general flow tendencies may be occasionally interrupted for brief periods to accommodate temporary tidal flow requirements, depending on various lunar and solar alignments. Still, on the whole and over time, the balance of the water flow is eastwards, due to an evaporation rate within the Mediterranean basin higher than the combined inflow of all the rivers that empty into it.[citation needed] The shallow Camarinal Sill of the Strait of Gibraltar, which forms the shallowest point within the strait, acts to limit mixing between the cold, less saline Atlantic water and the warm Mediterranean waters. The Camarinal Sill is located at the far western end of the strait.
  The Mediterranean waters are so much saltier than the Atlantic waters that they sink below the constantly incoming water and form a highly saline (thermohaline, both warm and salty) layer of bottom water. This layer of bottom-water constantly works its way out into the Atlantic as the Mediterranean outflow. On the Atlantic side of the strait, a density boundary separates the Mediterranean outflow waters from the rest at about 100 m (330 ft) depth. These waters flow out and down the continental slope, losing salinity, until they begin to mix and equilibrate more rapidly, much further out at a depth of about 1,000 m (3,300 ft). The Mediterranean outflow water layer can be traced for thousands of kilometres west of the strait, before completely losing its identity.
  During the Second World War, German U-boats used the currents to pass into the Mediterranean Sea without detection, by maintaining silence with engines off.[18] From September 1941 to May 1944 Germany managed to send 62 U-boats into the Mediterranean. All these boats had to navigate the British-controlled Strait of Gibraltar where nine U-boats were sunk while attempting passage and 10 more had to break off their run due to damage. No U-boats ever made it back into the Atlantic and all were either sunk in battle or scuttled by their own crews.[19]
  Internal waves[edit source |edit]Internal waves (waves at the density boundary layer) are often produced by the strait. Like traffic merging on a highway, the water flow is constricted in both directions because it must pass over the Camarinal Sill. When large tidal flows enter the Strait and the high tide relaxes, internal waves are generated at the Camarinal Sill and proceed eastwards. Even though the waves may occur down to great depths, occasionally the waves are almost imperceptible at the surface, at other times they can be seen clearly in satellite imagery. These internal waves continue to flow eastward and to refract around coastal features. They can sometimes be traced for as much as 100 km (62 mi), and sometimes create interference patterns with refracted waves.[20]
  Some studies have proposed the possibility of erecting tidal power generating stations within the strait, to be powered from the predictable current at the strait.
  In the 1920s and 1930s, the Atlantropa project proposed damming the strait to generate large amounts of electricity and lower the sea level of the Mediterranean by several hundreds of meters to create large new lands for settlement.[21]
  ^"Gibraltar". 1911encyclopedia.org. 2008-12-08. Retrieved 2013-05-28. ^See, for instance, Nato Medals: Medal for Active Endeavor, awarded for activity in the international water of the Mediterranean and STROG.^Strabo Geographia 3.5.5.^See Robinson, Allan Richard and Paola Malanotte-Rizzoli, Ocean Processes in Climate Dynamics: Global and Mediterranean Examples. Springer, 1994, p. 307, ISBN 0-7923-2624-5.^W¼rm_glaciation^Cosquer cave^Tremlett, Giles, "Moroccans seize Parsley Island and leave a bitter taste in Spanish mouths", in The Guardian, July 13, 2002.^"Migration Information Source - The Merits and Limitations of Spain's High-Tech Border Control". Migrationinformation.org. Retrieved 2011-07-15. ^"Limits of Oceans and Seas, 3rd edition". International Hydrographic Organization. 1953. Retrieved 7 February 2010. ^ abMessinian Salinity Crisis#Evidence^At the Miocene/Pliocene boundary, ca. 5.33 million years before the present^Cloud, P., Oasis in space. Earth history from the beginning, New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., p. 440. ISBN 0-393-01952-7^BirdLife International (2012). Important Bird Areas factsheet: Strait of Gibraltar. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 2012-02-20.^"Last of the Neanderthals". National Geographic. October 2008. Retrieved 2009-12-29. ^Antony Beevor (1982 revised 2006). The Battle for Spain. Orion. ISBN 978-0-7538-2165-7. ^"Europe-Africa rail tunnel agreed". BBC News.^Tunnel to Connect Morocco with Europe, February 17, 2012^Paterson, Lawrence. U-Boats in the Mediterranean 1941-1944. Chatham Publishing, 2007, pp. 19 and 182. ISBN 9781861762900^"U-boat war in the Mediterranean". uboat.net. Retrieved 2011-07-15. ^Wesson, J. C.; Gregg, M. C. (1994). "Mixing at Camarinal Sill in the Strait of Gibraltar". Journal of Geophysical Research99 (C5): 9847''9878. doi:10.1029/94JC00256. ^"Atlantropa: A plan to dam the Mediterranean Sea". Xefer blog. March 16, 2005. Retrieved on 13 August 2012.Coordinates: 35°58'²18'"N5°29'²09'"W>> / >>35.97167°N 5.48583°W>> / 35.97167; -5.48583
Declarations or Statements upon UNCLOS ratification
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:11
  Date of most recent addition: 10 April 2013
  Declarations and statementsIMPORTANT: Official up-to-date information regarding the declarations and statements under articles 287, 298 and 310 of the Convention is available at the web site of the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations.
  Introduction:Article 310 of the Convention allows States and entities to make declarations or statements regarding its application at the time of signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, which do not purport to exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention.
  Article 310 reads:"Article 310. Declarations and statements "Article 309 does not preclude a State, when signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention, from making declarations or statements, however phrased or named, with a view, inter alia, to the harmonization of its laws and regulations with the provisions of this Convention, provided that such declarations or statements do not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State."
  Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept.
  Article 287, paragraph 1, reads:"Article 287. Choice of procedure "When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
  (a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;(b) the International Court of Justice;(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein."
  In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:"Article 298. Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
  "1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
  (a)
  (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded form such submission;(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
  (b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention."
  PLEASE NOTE: Declarations and statements with respect to the Convention and to the Agreement on Part XI made before 31 December 1996 - upon signature, ratification or accession - have been analyzed and published in "The Law of the Sea: Declarations and statements with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.97.V.3).
  United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:Declarations made upon signature, ratification, accession or succession or anytime thereafterAlgeria
  [Original: French]
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  It is the view of the Government of Algeria that its signing the Final Act and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not entail any change in its position on the non-recognition of certain other signatories, nor any obligation to co-operate in any field whatsoever with those signatories.
  Upon ratification (11 June 1996):
  Declaration 1The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 287, paragraph 1 (b), of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea dealing with the submission of disputes to the International Court of Justice. The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that, in order to submit a dispute to the International Court of Justice, prior agreement between all the parties concerned is necessary in each case.
  Declaration 2The Algerian Government declares that, in conformity with the provisions of Part II, section 3, subsections A and C, of the Convention, the passage of warships in the territorial sea of Algeria is subject to an authorization fifteen (15) days in advance, except in cases of force majeure as provided for in the Convention.
  Angola
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  "The Government of the People's Republic of Angola reserves the right to interpret any and all articles of the Convention in the context of and with due regard to Angolan Sovereignty and territorial integrity as it applies to land, space and sea. Details of these interpretations will be placed on record at the time of ratification of the Convention.
  The present signature is without prejudice to the position taken by the Government of Angola or to be taken by it on the Convention at the time of ratification."
  Argentina
  [Original: Spanish]
  Upon signature (5 October 1984):
  The signing of the Convention by the Argentine Government does not imply acceptance of the Final Act of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. In that regard, the Argentine Republic, as in its written statement of 8 December 1982 (A/CONF.62/WS/35), places on record its reservation to the effect that resolution III, in annex I to the final Act, in no way affects the "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", which is governed by the following specific resolutions of the General Assembly: 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9 and 38/12, adopted within the framework of the decolonization process.
  In this connection, and bearing in mind that the Malvinas and the South Sandwich and South Georgia Islands form an integral part of Argentine territory, the Argentine Government declares that it neither recognizes nor will it recognize the title of any other State, community or entity or the exercise by it of any right of maritime jurisdiction which is claimed to be protected under any interpretation of resolution III that violates the rights of Argentina over the Malvinas and the South Sandwich and South Georgia Islands and their respective maritime zones. Consequently, it likewise neither recognizes nor will recognize and will consider null and void any activity or measure that may be carried out or adopted without its consent with regard to this question, which the Argentine Government considers to be of major importance.
  The Argentine Government will accordingly interpret the occurrence of acts of the kind referred to above as contrary to the aforementioned resolutions adopted by the United Nations, the patent objective of which is the peaceful settlement of the sovereignty dispute concerning the islands by means of bilateral negotiations and through the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
  Furthermore, it is the understanding of the Argentine Republic that, whereas the Final Act states in paragraph 42 that the Convention "together with resolutions I to IV, [forms] an integral whole", it is merely describing the procedure that was followed at the Conference to avoid a series of separate votes on the Convention and the resolutions. The Convention itself clearly establishes in article 318 that only the Annexes form an integral part of the Convention; thus, any other instrument or document, even one adopted by the Conference, does not form an integral part of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  Upon ratification (1 December 1995):
  (a) With regard to those provisions of the Convention which deal with innocent passage through the territorial sea, it is the intention of the Government of the Argentine Republic to continue to apply the regime currently in force to the passage of foreign warships through the Argentine territorial sea, since that regime is totally compatible with the provisions of the Convention.
  (b) With regard to Part III of the Convention, the Argentine Government declares that in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed with the Republic of Chile on 29 November 1984, which entered into force on 2 May 1985 and was registered with the United Nations Secretariat in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, both States reaffirmed the validity of Article V of the Boundary Treaty of 1881 whereby the Strait of Magellan (Estrecho de Magallanes) is neutralized forever with free navigation assured for the flags of all nations. The aforementioned Treaty of Peace and Friendship also contains specific provisions and a special annex on navigation which includes regulations for vessels flying the flags of third countries in the Beagle Channel and other straits and channels of the Tierra del Fuego archipelago.
  (c) The Argentine Republic accepts the provisions on the conservation and management of the living resources of the high seas, but considers that they are insufficient, particularly the provisions relating to straddling fish stocks or highly migratory fish stocks, and that they should be supplemented by an effective and binding multilateral regime which, inter alia, would facilitate cooperation to prevent and avoid overfishing, and would permit the monitoring of the activities of fishing vessels on the high seas and of the use of fishing methods and gear. The Argentine Government, bearing in mind its priority interest in conserving the resources of its exclusive economic zone and the area of the high seas adjacent thereto, considers that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur both within the exclusive economic zone and in the area of the high seas adjacent thereto, the Argentine Republic, as the coastal State, and other States fishing for such stocks in the area adjacent to its exclusive economic zone should agree upon the measures necessary for the conservation of those stocks or stocks of associated species in the high seas.
  Independently of this, it is the understanding of the Argentine Government that, in order to comply with the obligation laid down in the Convention concerning the conservation of the living resources in its exclusive economic zone and the area adjacent thereto, it is authorized to adopt, in accordance with international law, all the measures it may deem necessary for the purpose.
  (d) The ratification of the Convention by the Argentine Government does not imply acceptance of the Final Act of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. In that regard, the Argentine Republic, as in its written statement of 8 December 1982 (A/CONF.62/WS/35), places on record its reservation to the effect that resolution III, in annex I to the Final Act, in no way affects the 'Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)', which is governed by the following specific resolutions of the General Assembly: 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19, 43/25, and Assembly decisions: 44/406, 45/424, 46/406, 47/408 and 48/408, adopted within the framework of the decolonization process.
  In this connection, and bearing in mind that the Malvinas and the South Sandwich and South Georgia Islands form an integral part of Argentine territory, the Argentine Government declares that it neither recognizes nor will recognize the title of any other State, community or entity or the exercise by it of any right of maritime jurisdiction which is claimed to be protected under any interpretation of resolution III that violates the rights of Argentina over the Malvinas and the South Sandwich and South Georgia islands and their respective maritime zones. Consequently, it likewise neither recognizes nor will recognize and will consider null and void any activity or measure that may be carried out or adopted without its consent with regard to this question, which the Argentine Government considers to be of major importance.
  The Argentine Government will accordingly interpret the occurrence of acts of the kind referred to above as contrary to the aforementioned resolutions adopted by the United Nations, the objective of which is the peaceful settlement of the sovereignty dispute concerning the islands by means of bilateral negotiations and through the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
  The Argentine Republic reaffirms its legitimate and inalienable sovereignty over the Malvinas and the South Georgia and South Sandwich islands and their respective maritime and island zones, which form an integral part of its national territory. The recovery of those territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of the inhabitants of the territories and in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute a permanent objective of the Argentine people that cannot be renounced.
  Furthermore, it is the understanding of the Argentine Republic that the Final Act, in referring in paragraph 42 to the Convention together with resolutions I to IV as forming an integral whole, is merely describing the procedure that was followed at the Conference to avoid a series of separate votes on the Convention and the resolutions. The Convention itself clearly establishes in article 318 that only the Annexes form an integral part of the Convention; thus, any other instrument or document, even one adopted by the Conference, does not form an integral part of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  (e) The Argentine Republic fully respects the right of free navigation as embodied in the Convention; however, it considers that the transit by sea of vessels carrying highly radioactive substances must be duly regulated.
  The Argentine Government accepts the provisions on prevention of pollution of the marine environment contained in Part XII of the Convention, but considers that, in the light of events subsequent to the adoption of that international instrument, the measures to prevent, control and minimize the effects of the pollution of the sea by noxious and potentially dangerous substances and highly active radioactive substances must be supplemented and reinforced.
  (f) In accordance with the provisions of article 287, the Argentine Government declares that it accepts, in order of preference, the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention: (a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; (b) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for questions relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, in accordance with Annex VIII, article 1. The Argentine Government also declares that it does not accept the procedures provided for in Part XV, section 2, with respect to the disputes specified in article 298, paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c).
  After ratification (26 October 2012):
  [½] in accordance with article 298 of [the] Convention, the Argentine Republic withdraws with immediate effect the optional exceptions to the applicability of section 2 of part XV of the Convention provided for in that article and set forth in its declaration dated 18 October 1995 (deposited on 1 December 1995) to "military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in noncommercial service".
  Australia
  Made after ratification (22 March 2002):
  Declaration of 21 March 2002 under articles 287 and 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  The Government of Australia declares, under paragraph 1 of article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea done at Montego Bay on the tenth day of December one thousand nine hundred and eighty-two that it chooses the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, without specifying that one has precedence over the other:
  (a) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI of the Convention; and
  (b) The International Court of Justice.
  The Government of Australia further declares, under paragraph 1 (a) of article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea done at Montego Bay on the tenth day of December one thousand nine hundred and eighty-two, that it does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV ( including the procedures referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this declaration) with respect of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations as well as those involving historic bays or titles.
  These declarations by the Government of Australia are effective immediately.
  Austria
  Upon ratification (14 July 1995):
  With regard to article 287 of the Convention of the Law of the Sea, Austria declares the following:
  In the absence of any other peaceful means to which it would give preference, the Government of the Republic of Austria hereby chooses one of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the two Conventions in accordance with article 287 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, in the following order:
  1. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
  2. A special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII;
  3. The International Court of Justice.
  Also in the absence of any other peaceful means, the Government of the Republic of Austria hereby recognizes as of today the validity of special arbitration for any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping.
  The Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations would like to draw the attention of the Secretary-General to the fact that, as a member of the European Union, Austria has transferred competence to the Union in certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed declaration on the nature and extent of the competence transferred to the European Union will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  Bangladesh
  Upon ratification (27 July 2001):
  1. The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh understands that the provisions of the Convention do not authorize other States to carry out in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf military exercise or manoeuvres, in particular, those involving the use of weapons or explosives, without the consent of the coastal State.
  2. The Bangladesh Government is not bound by any domestic legislation or by any declaration issued by other States upon signature or ratification of this Convention. Bangladesh reserves the right to state its position concerning all such legislation or declarations at the appropriate time. In particular, Bangladesh ratification of the Convention in no way constitutes recognition of the maritime claims of any other State having signed or ratified the Convention, where such claims are inconsistent with the relevant principles of international law and which are prejudicial to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of Bangladesh in its maritime areas.
  3. The exercise of the right of innocent passage of warships through the territorial sea of other States should also be perceived to be a peaceful one. Effective and speedy means of communication are easily available and make the prior notification of the exercise of the right of innocent passage of warships reasonable and not incompatible with the Convention. Such notification is already required by some States. Bangladesh reserves the right to legislate on this point.
  4. Bangladesh is of the view that such a notification requirement is needed in respect of nuclear-powered ships or ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances. Furthermore, no such ships shall be allowed within Bangladesh waters without the necessary authorization.
  5. Bangladesh is of the view that the sovereign immunity as envisaged in article 236 does not relieve a State from the obligation, moral or otherwise, in accepting responsibility and liability for compensation and relief in respect of damage caused by pollution of the marine environment by any warship, naval auxiliary, other vessels or aircraft owned or operated by the State and used on government non-commercial service.
  6. Ratification of the Convention by Bangladesh does not ipso facto imply recognition or acceptance of any territorial claim made by a State party to the Convention, nor automatic recognition of any land or sea border.
  7. The Bangladesh Government does not consider itself bound by any of the declarations or statements, however phrased or named, made by other States when signing, accepting, ratifying or acceding to the Convention and that it reserves the right to state its position on any of those declarations or statements at any time.
  8. The Bangladesh Government declares, without prejudice to article 303 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, that any objects of an archaeological and historical nature found within the maritime areas over which it exercises sovereignty or jurisdiction shall not be removed, without its prior notification and consent.
  9. The Government of Bangladesh shall, at an appropriate time, make declarations provided for in articles 287 and 298 relating to the settlement of disputes.
  10. The Government of Bangladesh intends to undertake a comprehensive review of existing domestic laws and regulations with a view to harmonizing them with the provisions of the Convention.
  Declarations under article 287 of the Convention, 14 December 2009
  Declaration relating to Article 287 with respect to India:
  ½Pursuant to Article 287, paragraph 1 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the People½s Republic of Bangladesh declares that it accepts the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for the settlement of dispute between the People½s Republic of Bangladesh and the Republic of India relating to the delimitation of their maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal.½
  Declaration relating to Article 287 with respect to Myanmar:
  ½Pursuant to Article 287, paragraph 1 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the People½s Republic of Bangladesh declares that it accepts the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for the settlement of dispute between the People½s Republic of Bangladesh and the Union of Myanmar relating to the delimitation of their maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal.½
  Belarus
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  1. The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic declares that, in accordance with article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it accepts, as the basic means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII. For the consideration of questions relating to fisheries, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic chooses a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII. The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic recognizes the competence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in relation to questions of the prompt release of detained vessels or their crews, as envisaged in article 292.
  2. The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic declares that, in accordance with article 298 of the Convention, it does not accept compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions in the consideration of disputes concerned with the delimitation of marine limits, disputes relating to military activity and disputes in relation to which the United Nations Security Council performs functions entrusted to it under the United Nations Charter.
  Upon ratification (30 August 2006)
  1. In accordance with article 287 of the Convention, the Republic of Belarus accepts as the basic means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII. For the settlement of disputes concerning fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research or navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping, the Republic of Belarus will use a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII. The Republic of Belarus recognizes the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea over questions concerning the prompt release of detained vessels or their crews, as envisaged in article 292 of the Convention; 2. In accordance with article 298 of the Convention, the Republic of Belarus does not accept compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions for the consideration of disputes concerning military activities, including by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, or disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction, or disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations.
  Belgium
  [Original: French]
  Upon signature (5 December 1984):
  The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium has decided to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea because the Convention has a very large number of positive features and achieves a compromise on them which is acceptable to most States. Nevertheless, with regard to the status of maritime space, it regrets that the concept of equity, adopted for the delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, was not applied again in the provisions for delimiting the territorial sea. It welcomes, however, the distinctions established by the Convention between the nature of the rights which riparian States exercise over their territorial sea, on the one hand, and over the continental shelf and their exclusive economic zone, on the other.
  It is common knowledge that the Belgian Government cannot declare itself also satisfied with certain provisions of the international r½gime of the sea-bed which, though based on a principle that it would not think of challenging, seems not to have chosen the most suitable way of achieving the desired result as quickly and surely as possible, at the risk of jeopardizing the success of a generous undertaking which Belgium consistently encourages and supports. Indeed, certain provisions of Part XI and of Annexes III and IV appear to it to be marred by serious defects and shortcomings which explain why consensus was not reached on this text at the last session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, in New York, in April 1982. These shortcomings and defects concern in particular the restriction of access to the Area, the limitations on production and certain procedures for the transfer of technology, not to mention the vexatious implications of the cost and financing of the future International Sea-Bed Authority and the first mine site of the Enterprise. The Belgian Government sincerely hopes that these shortcomings and defects will in fact be rectified by the rules, regulations and procedures which the Preparatory Commission should draw up with the twofold intent of facilitating acceptance of the new r½gime by the whole international community and enabling the common heritage of mankind to be properly exploited for the benefit of all and, preferably, for the benefit of the least favoured countries. The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium is not alone in thinking that the success of this new r½gime, the effective establishment of the International Sea-Bed Authority and the economic viability of the Enterprise will depend to a large extent on the quality and seriousness of the Preparatory Commission's work: it therefore considers that all decisions of the Commission should be adopted by consensus, that being the only way of protecting the legitimate interests of all.
  As the representatives of France and the Netherlands pointed out two years ago, the Belgian Government wishes to make it abundantly clear that, notwithstanding its decision to sign the Convention today, the Kingdom of Belgium is not here and now determined to ratify it. It will take a separate decision on this point at a later date, which will take account of what the Preparatory Commission has accomplished to make the international r½gime of the sea-bed acceptable to all, focusing mainly on the questions to which attention has been drawn above.
  The Belgian Government also wishes to recall that Belgium is a member of the European Economic Community, to which it has transferred powers in certain areas covered by the Convention; detailed declarations on the nature and extent of the powers transferred will be made in due course, in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  It also wishes to draw attention formally to several points which it considers particularly crucial. For example, it attaches great importance to the conditions to which Articles 21 and 23 of the Convention subject the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, and it intends to ensure that the criteria prescribed by the relevant international agreements are strictly applied, whether the flag States are parties thereto or not. The limitation of the breadth of the territorial sea, as established by Article 3 of the Convention, confirms and codifies a widely observed customary practice which it is incumbent on every State to respect, as it is the only one admitted by international law: the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium will not therefore recognize, as territorial sea, waters which are, or may be, claimed to be such beyond 12 nautical miles measured from baselines determined by the riparian State in accordance with the Convention. Having underlined the close linkage which it perceives between Article 33, paragraph 1 (a), and Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium intends to reserve the right, in emergencies and especially in cases of blatant violation, to exercise the powers accorded to the riparian State by the latter text, without notifying beforehand a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State, on the understanding that such notification shall be given as soon as it is physically possible. Finally, everyone will understand that the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium chooses to emphasize those provisions of the Convention which entitle it to protect itself, beyond the limit of the territorial sea, against any threat of pollution and, a fortiori, against any existing pollution resulting from an accident at sea, as well as those provisions which recognize the validity of rights and obligations deriving from specific conventions and agreements concluded previously or which may be concluded subsequently in furtherance of the general principles set forth in the Convention.
  In the absence of any other peaceful means to which it obviously gives priority, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium deems it expedient to choose alternatively, and in order of preference, as Article 287 of the Convention leaves it free to do, the following means of settling disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention:
  1. an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII;
  2. the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
  3. the International Court of Justice.
  Still in the absence of any other peaceful means, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium wishes here and now to recognize the validity of the special arbitration procedure for any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention in respect of fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research or navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping.
  For the time being, the Belgian Government does not wish to make any declaration in accordance with Article 298, confining itself to the one made above in accordance with Article 287. Finally, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium does not consider itself bound by any of the declarations which other States have made, or may make, upon signing or ratifying the Convention, reserving the right, as necessary, to determine its position with regard to each of them at the appropriate time.
  Upon ratification (13 November 1998):
  The Kingdom of Belgium notes that, as a State member of the European Community, it has transferred competence to the Community for some matters provided for in the Convention, which are listed in the declaration made by the European Community upon formal confirmation of the Convention by the European Community on 1 April 1998.
  In accordance with article 287 of the Convention, the Kingdom of Belgium hereby declares that it chooses, as a means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, in view of its preference for pre-established jurisdictions, either the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI (art. 287.1 (a)) or the International Court of Justice (art. 287.1(b)), in the absence of any other means of peaceful settlement of disputes that it might prefer.
  Bolivia
  (Original: Spanish)
  Upon signature (27 November 1984):
  On signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Bolivia hereby makes the following declaration before the International community:
  1. The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a perfectible instrument and, according to its own provisions, is subject to revision. As a party to it, Bolivia will, when the time comes, put forward proposals and revisions which are in keeping with its national interests.
  2. Bolivia is confident that the Convention will ensure, in the near future, the joint development of the resources of the sea-bed, with equal opportunities and rights for all nations, especially developing countries.
  3. Freedom of access to and from the sea, which the Convention grants to land-locked nations, is a right that Bolivia has been exercising by virtue of bilateral treaties and will continue to exercise by virtue of the norms of positive international law contained in the Convention.
  4. Bolivia wishes to place on record that it is a country that has no maritime sovereignty as a result of a war and not as a result of its natural geographic position and that it will assert all the rights of coastal States under the Convention once it recovers the legal status in question as a consequence of negotiations on the restoration to Bolivia of its own sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
  Brazil
  [Original: English]
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  "I. Signature by Brazil is ad referendum, subject to ratification of the Convention in conformity with Brazilian constitutional procedures, which include approval by the National Congress.
  II. The Brazilian Government understands that the r½gime which is applied in practice in maritime areas adjacent to the coast of Brazil is compatible with the provisions of the Convention.
  III. The Brazilian Government understands that the provision of article 301, which prohibits "any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations", apply, in particular, to the maritime areas under the sovereignty or the jurisdiction of the coastal State.
  IV. The Brazilian Government understands that the provisions of the Convention do not authorize other States to carry out in the exclusive economic zone military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular those that imply the use of weapons or explosives, without the consent of the coastal State.
  V. The Brazilian Government understands that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, the coastal State has, in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf, the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of all types of installations and structures, without exception, whatever their nature or purpose.
  VI. Brazil exercises sovereignty rights over the continental shelf, beyond the distance of two hundred nautical miles from the baselines, up to the outer edge of the continental margin, as defined in article 76.
  VII. The Brazilian Government reserves the right to make at the appropriate time the declarations provided for in articles 287 and 298, concerning the settlement of disputes."
  Upon ratification (22 December 1988):
  In accordance with article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Federal Republic of Brazil makes the following statement:
  (I) The Brazilian Government understands that the provisions of article 301 prohibiting "any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State, or in other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations" apply in particular to the maritime areas under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the coastal State.
  (II) The Brazilian Government understands that the provisions of the Convention do not authorize other States to carry out military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives, in the exclusive economic zone without the consent of the coastal State.
  (III) The Brazilian Government understands that in accordance with the provisions of the Convention the coastal State has, in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf, the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and to regulate the construction, operation and use of all kinds of installations and structures, without exception, whatever their nature or purpose.
  Canada
  Declaration made upon ratification (7 November 2003):
  "With regard to article 287 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Canada hereby chooses the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention without specifying that one has precedence over the other:
  (a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI of the Convention; and
  (b) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII of the Convention.
  With regard to Article 298, paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Canada does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Part XV, section 2, with respect to the following disputes:
  - Disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles;
  - Disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
  - Disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in the Convention.
  According to Article 309 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, no reservations or exceptions may be made to the Convention unless expressly permitted by other articles of the Convention. A declaration or statement made pursuant to article 310 of the Convention cannot purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention in their application to the state, entity or international organization making it. Consequently, the Government of Canada declares that it does not consider itself bound by declarations or statements that have been made or will be made by other states, entities and international organizations pursuant to article 310 of the Convention and that exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention and their application to the State, entity or international organization making it. Lack of response by the Government of Canada to any declaration or statement shall not be interpreted as tacit acceptance of that declaration or statement. The Government of Canada reserves the right at any time to take a position on any declaration or statement in the manner deemed appropriate."
  Cape Verde
  Declaration made upon signature (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratification (19 August 1987):
  "The Government of the Republic of Cape Verde signs the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with the following understandings:
  I. This Convention recognizes the right of coastal States to adopt measures to safeguard their security interests, including the right to adopt laws and regulations relating to the innocent passage of foreign warships through their territorial sea or archipelagic waters. This right is in full conformity with articles 19 and 25 of the Convention, as it was clearly stated in the Declaration made by the President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in the plenary meeting of the Conference on April 26, 1982.
  II. The provisions of the Convention relating to the archipelagic waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf are compatible with the fundamental objectives and aims that inspire the legislation of the Republic of Cape Verde concerning its sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea adjacent to and within its coasts and over the seabed and subsoil thereof up to the limit of 200 miles.
  III. The legal nature of the exclusive economic zone as defined in the Convention and the scope of the rights recognized therein to the coastal state leave no doubt as to its character of a suigeneris zone of national jurisdiction different from the territorial sea and which is not a part of the high seas.
  IV. The regulations of the uses or activities which are not expressly provided for in the Convention but are related to the sovereign rights and to the jurisdiction of the coastal State in its exclusive economic zone falls within the competence of the said State, provided that such regulation does not hinder the enjoyment of the freedoms of international communication which are recognized to other States.
  V. In the exclusive economic zone, the enjoyment of the freedoms of international communication, in conformity with its definition and with other relevant provisions of the Convention, excludes any non-peaceful use without the consent of the coastal State, such as exercises with weapons or other activities which may affect the rights or interests of the said state; and it also excludes the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity, political independence, peace or security of the coastal State.
  VI. This Convention does not entitle any State to construct, operate or use installations or structures in the exclusive economic zone of another State, either those provided for in the Convention or those of any other nature, without the consent of the coastal State.
  VII. In accordance with all the relevant provisions of the Convention, where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur both within the exclusive economic zone and in an area beyond and adjacent to the zone, the States fishing for such stocks in the adjacent area are duty bound to enter into arrangements with the coastal State upon the measures necessary for the conservation of these stock or stocks of associated species."
  Upon ratification: (10 August 1987)
  I. ...
  II. The Republic of Cape Verde declares, without prejudice to article 303 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that any objects of an archaeological and historical nature found within the maritime areas over which it exerts sovereignty or jurisdiction shall not be removed without its prior notification and consent.
  III. The Republic of Cape Verde declares that, in the absence of or failing any other peaceful means, it chooses, in order of preference and in accordance with article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the following procedures for the settlement of disputes regarding the interpretation or application of the said Convention:
  (a) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;
  (b) The International Court of Justice.
  IV. The Republic of Cape Verde, in accordance with article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, declares that it does not accept the procedures provided for in Part XV, section 2, of the said Convention for the settlement of disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by Government-operated vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, as well as disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the aforementioned Convention.
  Chile
  [Original: Spanish]
  Statement made upon signature (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratification (25 August 1997):
  In exercise of the right conferred by article 310 of the Convention, the delegation of Chile wishes first of all to reiterate in its entirety the statement it made at last April's meeting when the Convention was adopted. That statement is reproduced in document A/CONF.62/SR.164. . . . in particular to the Convention's pivotal legal concept, that of the 200 mile exclusive economic zone to the elaboration of which [the Government of Chile] country made an important contribution, having been the first to declare such a concept, 35 years ago in 1947, and having subsequently helped to define and earn it international acceptance. The exclusive economic zone has a suigeneris legal character distinct from that of the territorial sea and the high seas. It is a zone under national jurisdiction, over which the coastal State exercises economic sovereignty and in which third States enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight and the freedoms inherent in international communication. The Convention defines it as a maritime space under the jurisdiction of the coastal State, bound to the latters' territorial sovereignty and actual territory, on terms similar to those governing other maritime spaces, namely the territorial sea and the continental shelf. With regard to straits used for international navigation, the delegation of Chile wishes to reaffirm and reiterate in full the statement made last April, as reproduced in document A/CONF.62/SR.164 referred to above, as well as the content of the supplementary written statement dated 7 April 1982 contained in documentA/CONF.62/WS/19.
  With regard to the international sea-bed r½gime, [the Government of Chile wishes] to reiterate the statement made by the Group of 77 at last April's meeting regarding the legal concept of the common heritage of mankind, the existence of which was solemnly confirmed by consensus by the General Assembly in 1970 and which the present Convention defines as a part of juscogens . Any action taken in contravention of this principle and outside the framework of the sea-bed r½gime would, as last April's debate showed, be totally invalid and illegal.
  Upon ratification (25 August 1997):
  ...
  2. The Republic of Chile declares that the Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed with the Argentine Republic on 29 November 1984, which entered into force on 2 May 1985, shall define the boundaries between the respective sovereignties over the sea, seabed and subsoil of the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Chile in the sea of the southern zone in the terms laid down in articles 7 to 9.
  3. With regard to part II of the Convention:
  (a) In accordance with article 13 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1984, the Republic of Chile, in exercise of its sovereign rights, grants to the Argentine Republic the navigation facilities through Chilean internal waters described in that Treaty, which are specified in annex 2, articles 1 to 9.
  In addition, the Republic of Chile declares that by virtue of this Treaty, ships flying the flag of third countries may navigate without obstacles through the internal waters along the routes specified in annex 2, articles 1 and 8, subject to the relevant Chilean regulations.
  In the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1984, the two Parties agreed on the system of navigation and pilotage in the Beagle Channel defined in annex 2, articles 11 to 16. The provisions on navigation set forth in that annex replace any previous agreement on the subject that might exist between the Parties.
  We reiterate that the navigation systems and facilities referred to in this paragraph were established in the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship for the sole purpose of facilitating maritime communication between specific maritime points and areas, along the specific routes indicated, so that they do not apply to other routes existing in the zone which have not been specifically agreed on.
  (b) The Republic of Chile reaffirms the full validity and force of Supreme Decree No. 416 of 1977, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which, in accordance with the principles of article 7 of the Convention - which have been fully recognized by Chile - established the straight baselines which were confirmed in article 11 of the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship.
  (c) In cases in which a State places restrictions on the right of innocent passage for foreign warships, the Republic of Chile reserves the right to apply similar restrictive measures.
  4. With regard to part III of the Convention, it should be noted that in accordance with article 35 (c), the provisions of this part do not affect the legal regime of the Strait of Magellan, since passage through that strait is "regulated by long-standing international conventions in force specifically relating to such straits" such as the 1881 Boundary Treaty, a regime which is reaffirmed in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1984.
  In article 10 of the latter Treaty, Chile and Argentina agreed on the boundary at the eastern end of the Strait of Magellan and agreed that this boundary in no way alters the provisions of the 1881 Boundary Treaty, whereby, as Chile declared unilaterally in 1873, the Strait of Magellan is neutralized forever with free navigation assured for the flags of all nations under the terms laid down in article V. For its part, the Argentine Republic undertook to maintain, at any time and in whatever circumstances, the right of ships of all flags to navigate expeditiously and without obstacles through its jurisdictional waters to and from the Strait of Magellan.
  Furthermore, we reiterate that Chilean maritime traffic to and from the north through the Estrecho de Le Maire shall enjoy the facilities laid down in annex 2, article 10 of the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship.
  5. Having regard for its interest in the conservation of the resources in its exclusive economic zone and the adjacent area of the high seas, the Republic of Chile believes that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur both within the exclusive economic zone and in the adjacent area of the high seas, the Republic of Chile, as the coastal State, and the States fishing for such stocks in the area adjacent to its exclusive economic zone must agree upon the measures necessary for the conservation in the high seas of these stocks or associated species. In the absence of such agreement, Chile reserves the right to exercise its rights under article 116 and other provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the other rights accorded to it under international law.
  6. With reference to part XI of the Convention and its supplementary agreement, it is Chile's understanding that, in respect of the prevention of pollution in exploration and exploitation activities, the Authority must apply the general criterion that underwater mining shall be subject to standards which are at least as stringent as comparable standards on land.
  7. With regard to part XV of the Convention, the Republic of Chile declares that:
  (a) In accordance with article 287 of the Convention, it accepts, in order of preference, the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention:
  (i) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with annex VI;
  (ii) A special arbitral tribunal, established in accordance with annex VIII, for the categories of disputes specified therein relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, and marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping.
  (b) In accordance with articles 280 to 282 of the Convention, the choice of means for the settlement of disputes indicated in the preceding paragraph shall in no way affect the obligations deriving from the general, regional or bilateral agreements to which the Republic of Chile is a party concerning the peaceful settlement of disputes or containing provisions for the settlement of disputes.
  (c) In accordance with article 298 of the Convention, Chile declares that it does not accept any of the procedures provided for in part XV, section 2 with respect to the disputes referred to in article 298, paragraphs 1 (a), (b) and (c) of the Convention.
  China
  [Original: Chinese]
  Upon ratification (7 June 1996)1/:
  In accordance with the decision of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China at its nineteenth session, the President of the People's Republic of China has hereby ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and at the same time made the following statement:
  1. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People's Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and the continental shelf.
  2. The People's Republic of China will effect, through consultations, the delimitation of the boundary of the maritime jurisdiction with the States with coasts opposite or adjacent to China respectively on the basis of international law and in accordance with the principle of equitability.
  3. The People's Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.
  4. The People's Republic of China reaffirms that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning innocent passage through the territorial sea shall not prejudice the right of a coastal State to request, in accordance with its laws and regulations, a foreign State to obtain advance approval from or give prior notification to the coastal State for the passage of its warships through the territorial sea of the coastal State.
  Declaration made after ratification (25 August 2006)
  Declaration under article 298:
  The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
  Costa Rica
  (Original: Spanish)
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  The Government of Costa Rica declares that the provisions of Costa Rican law under which foreign vessels must pay for licences to fish in its exclusive economic zone, shall apply also to fishing for highly migratory species, pursuant to the provisions of articles 62 and 64, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
  Croatia
  [Original: English]
  Statement made upon succession (5 April 1995) 2/:
  The Republic of Croatia considers that, in accordance with article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 29 May 1969, there is no peremptory norm of general international law which would forbid a coastal State to request by its laws and regulations foreign warships to notify their intention of innocent passage through its territorial waters, and to limit the number of warships allowed to exercise the right of innocent passage at the same time (articles 17 to 32 of the Convention).
  Declaration made after succession (4 November 1999):
  Declaration under article 287:
  In implementation of article 287 of the [Convention], the Government of Croatia [declares] that, for the settlement of disputes concerning the application or interpretation of the Convention and of the Agreement adopted on 28 July 1994 relating to the Implementation of Part XI, it chooses, in order of preference, the following means:
  i) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with annex VI;
  ii) The International Court of Justice."
  Cuba
  [Original: Spanish]
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  "At the time of signing the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Cuban Delegation declares that, having gained possession of the definitive text of the Convention just a few hours ago, it will leave for the time of the ratification of the Convention the issuing of any statement it deems pertinent with respect to articles:
  287 -- on the election of the procedure for the settlement of controversies pertaining to the interpretation or implementation of the Convention;
  292 -- on the prompt release of ships and their crews;
  298 -- on the optional exceptions to the applicability of Section 2;
  as well as whatever statement or declaration it might deem appropriate to make in conformity with article 310 of the Convention."
  Upon ratification (15 August 1984):
  With regard to article 287 on the choice of procedure for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Cuba declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and, consequently, will not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the provisions of articles 297 and 298.
  With regard to article 292, the Government of the Republic of Cuba considers that once financial security has been posted, the detaining State should proceed promptly and without delay to release the vessel and its crew and declares that where this procedure is not followed with respect to its vessels or members of their crew it will not agree to submit the matter to the International Court of Justice.
  Czech Republic
  [Original: English]
  Upon ratification (21 June 1996):
  The Government of the Czech Republic, having considered the declaration of the Federal Republic of Germany of 14 October 1994, pertaining to the interpretation of the provisions of Part X of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which deals with the right of access of land-locked States to and from the sea and freedom of transit, states that the above-mentioned declaration of the Federal Republic of Germany cannot be interpreted with regard to the Czech Republic in contradiction with the provisions of Part X of the Convention.
  Denmark
  Upon ratification (16 November 2004)
  The Kingdom of Denmark makes the following declaration: It is the position of the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark that the exception from the transit passage regime provided for in article 35 (c) of the Convention applies to the specific regime in the Danish straits (the Great Belt, the Little Belt and the Danish part of the Sound), which has developed on the basis of the Copenhagen Treaty of 1857. The present legal regime of the Danish straits will therefore remain unchanged.
  The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark declares pursuant to article 287 of the Convention that it chooses the International Court of Justice for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark declares pursuant to article 298 of the Convention that it does not accept an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII for any of the categories of disputes mentioned in article 298.
  The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark declares, in accordance with article 310 of the Convention, its objection to any declaration or position excluding or amending the legal scope of the provisions of the Convention. Passivity with respect to such declarations or positions shall be interpreted neither as acceptance nor rejection of such declarations or positions.
  The Kingdom of Denmark recalls that, as a member of the European Community, it has transferred competence in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. In accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention, a detailed declaration on the nature and ex tent of the competence transferred to the European Community was made by the European Community upon deposit of its instrument of formal confirmation. This transfer of competence does not extend to the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
  Ecuador
  [Original: Spanish]
  Upon ratification (24 September 2012):
  I. The Ecuadorian State, pursuant to article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic, which provides that "the territory of Ecuador constitutes a single geographical and historical unit with natural, social and cultural dimensions, the legacy of our forebears and ancestral peoples. This territory includes the continental and maritime space, the adjacent islands, the territorial sea, the Galapagos Archipelago, the soil, the continental shelf, the subsoil and the superjacent continental, island and maritime space. Its boundaries are those established in the treaties in force", confirms the full validity of the Declaration of Santiago on the Maritime Zone, signed in Santiago, Chile, on 18 August 1952, by means of which Chile, Ecuador and Peru declared "... as a norm of their international maritime policy, the exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction that each of them possesses in respect of the sea adjacent to the coasts of their respective countries, up to a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles from those coasts..." in order ".... to ensure that their peoples have the necessary livelihood conditions and to provide them with the means for their economic development...";
  II. The Ecuadorian State, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction over the 200 nautical miles that comprise the following maritime spaces:
  1. Internal waters, which are the waters on the landward side of the baselines;
  2. The territorial sea, which extends from the baselines to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles;
  3. The exclusive economic zone, which is an area that extends for 188 nautical miles from the outer limits of the territorial sea; and,
  4. The continental shelf;
  III. Ecuador shall exercise its sovereign jurisdiction and competence, without limitation or restriction of any type, in the internal waters and the 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea, measured from the baselines. It guarantees the right of coastal and non-coastal countries to continuous and expeditious innocent passage of their ships, with the obligation that they comply with the provisions of the Ecuadorian State, and provided that such passage is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the State;
  IV. In the exclusive economic zone, the Republic of Ecuador shall have the following rights and obligations:
  1. Exclusive sovereignty for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil;
  2. Exclusive sovereignty for the purposes of the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, marine currents and winds;
  3. Exercise of the exclusive right to authorize, regulate and undertake the construction, operation and use of all types of artificial islands, installations and structures within the 200 miles of its maritime territory, including the continental shelf;
  4. The other rights and duties laid down in the Convention;
  5. All other States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the freedoms of navigation, overflight and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, subject to the provisions of the Convention.
  The other States shall observe and comply with the laws, rules and regulations issued by the Ecuadorian State in its capacity as a coastal State;
  V. With regard to the continental shelf, the Ecuadorian State exercises exclusive sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, conserving and exploiting its natural resources, and no one may exploit them without its express consent.
  The Ecuadorian State declares that, within the timeframe and the conditions set forth in article 76 of the Convention, it will make use of its right to extend its continental shelf to a distance of 350 nautical miles measured from the baselines of the Galapagos Archipelago;
  VI. Ecuador reiterates the full force and validity of Supreme Decree No. 959-A, published on 28 June 1971 in Official Register No. 265 of 13 July 1971, by means of which it established its straight baselines in accordance with international law. It reaffirms that the said lines in the Galapagos Archipelago are determined by the common geological origin of those islands, their historical unity and the fact that they belong to Ecuador, as well as the need to protect and preserve their unique ecosystems. The baselines, from which the maritime spaces described in paragraph II of the present Declaration are measured, are as follows:
  1. Continental baselines:
  (a) The line will start from the point of intersection of the maritime boundary with Colombia with the straight line Punta Manglares (Colombia) - Punta Galera (Ecuador);
  (b) From this point, a straight line passing through Punta Galera and meeting the most northerly point of Isla de la Plata;
  (c) From this point a straight line to Puntilla de Santa Elena;
  (d) A straight line from Puntilla de Santa Elena in the direction of Cabo Blanco (Peru) to the intersection with the geographical parallel that constitutes the maritime boundary with Peru.
  2. Insular baselines:
  (a) From Islote Darwin, a straight line to the north-eastern tip of Isla Pinta;
  (b) A straight line to the most northerly point of Isla Genovesa;
  (c) A straight line passing through Punta Valdizan, Isla San Cristobal, and intersecting the northern extension of the straight line joining the south-eastern tip of Isla Espa½ola with Punta Pitt, Isla San Cristobal;
  (d) A straight line from this intersection to the south-eastern tip of Isla Espa½ola;
  (e) A straight line to Punta Sur, Isla Santa Maria;
  (f) A straight line passing through the south-eastern tip of Isla Santa Isabela, near Punta Esex, and intersecting the southern extension of the line joining the outermost projecting point of the western coast of Isla Fernandina, approximately in its centre, with the western tip of the southern part of Isla Isabela, in the vicinity of Punta Cristobal;
  (g) From this point of intersection a line passing through the western tip of the southern part of Isla Isabela, in the vicinity of Punta Cristobal, to the outermost projecting point of the western coast of Isla Fernandina, approximately in its centre;
  (h) A straight line to Isla Darwin;
  VII. With regard to the delimitation of the maritime spaces adjacent to the continental territory of Ecuador, the State declares that this is determined by the delimitation treaties in force and constituted by the geographical parallels extending from the points where the land boundaries reach the sea;
  VIII. It confirms the full validity of the international instruments applicable to the Galapagos Archipelago, by means of which it has been listed as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Natural Heritage for Humanity site and a biosphere reserve of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme.
  The Ecuadorian State therefore exercises full jurisdiction and sovereignty over the Galapagos Marine Reserve, established by the law on the special regime for the conservation and sustainable development of the province of Galapagos, published in Official Register No. 278 of 18 March 1998, as well as over the Particularly Sensitive Sea area and the "area to be avoided", both established by the International Maritime Organization;
  IX. Ecuador declares that the Gulf of Guayaquil is a historic bay, owing to its traditional use and exploitation by the people of Ecuador, as well as the positive influence of the waters of the Guayas river in generating an ecosystem rich in natural resources;
  X. The Ecuadorian State declares that it has the exclusive right to regulate uses or activities not expressly provided for in the Convention (residual rights and jurisdiction) that relate to its rights within the 200 nautical miles, as well as any future expansion of the said rights;
  XI. It declares that States whose warships, naval auxiliaries, or other vessels or aircraft that, subject to prior notification of and authorization by the Ecuadorian State, may pass through the maritime spaces subject to its sovereignty and jurisdiction, are liable for any damage they cause by polluting the marine environment, pursuant to articles 235 and 236 of the Convention;
  XII. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, when the same or associated fish stocks are found both within the Ecuadorian 200-mile zone and in a maritime area adjacent to the said zone, the States whose nationals fish for those species in the area adjacent to the Ecuadorian zone must agree with the Ecuadorian State the measures necessary to conserve and protect them, as well as to promote their optimum utilization. In the absence of such agreement, Ecuador reserves to itself the exercise of its rights under article 116 and other provisions of the Convention, as well as all other relevant rules of international law;
  XIII. The Ecuadorian State, in cases where it is party to a commercial contract in the Area of the seabed, will not submit itself to binding commercial arbitration, as this is prohibited by article 422 of its Constitution. In such cases, it will provide prior express notice of the dispute resolution mechanism to which it will submit, provided that this does not involve the transfer of its sovereign jurisdiction.
  XIV. In accordance with article 287 of the Convention, Ecuador chooses, for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention:
  1. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;
  2. The International Court of Justice;
  3. A special tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII, for one or more of the categories of disputes relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping;
  XV. With regard to article 297, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Government of Ecuador will not accept the submission to the procedures provided for in Part XV, section 2, of disputes relating to the exercise of its rights in relation to scientific research, as well as with respect to the regulation of fisheries within the 200 nautical miles, including its discretionary powers for determining the catch, its harvesting capacity, the allocation of surpluses, if any, and the terms and conditions established in its conservation and management laws and regulations;
  XVI. With regard to the provisions of article 297, paragraph 3, subparagraphs (b) (iii) and (c), Ecuador will not accept the validity of any report of the conciliation commission that substitutes its discretion for that of the Ecuadorian State in relation to the use of surplus living resources within its areas of sovereignty and jurisdiction, in application of articles 62, 69 and 70 of the Convention, or whose recommendations entail effects detrimental to Ecuadorian fishing activities;
  XVII. In accordance with article 298 of the Convention, Ecuador declares that it does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Part XV, section 2, with respect to the categories of disputes described in paragraph 1, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), of the said article 298;
  XVIII. The Ecuadorian State declares, in accordance with articles 5 and 416 of the Constitution of the Republic, that its maritime spaces constitute a zone of peace; consequently, no military exercises or manoeuvres of any type, nor any shipping activities that threaten or could threaten peace and security, may be conducted without its express consent.
  Furthermore, it hereby declares that prior notification and authorization shall be required for the transit through its maritime spaces of ships powered by nuclear energy or transporting radioactive, toxic, hazardous or harmful substances.
  *****
  Subsequently, the Government of Ecuador notified the Secretary-General that it wished to clarify that, in respect of paragraph XIII of the aforementioned Declaration, in cases where Ecuador is party to a contract relating to activities in the Area of the seabed, Ecuador recognizes the competence of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
  Egypt
  [Original: Arabic]
  Upon ratification (26 August 1983):
  Upon ratification, the Government of Egypt, under the provisions of article 310 of the Convention, made the following declarations:
  Declaration concerning the territorial sea
  1. The Arab Republic of Egypt establishes the breadth of its territorial sea at 12 nautical miles, pursuant to article 5 of the Ordinance of 18 January 1951 as amended by the Decree of 17 February 1958, in line with the provisions of article 3 of the Convention.
  2. The Arab Republic of Egypt will publish, at the earliest opportunity, charts showing the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Red Sea is measured, as well as the lines marking the outer limit of the territorial sea, in accordance with usual practice.
  Declaration concerning the contiguous zone
  The Arab Republic of Egypt has decided that its contiguous zone (as defined in the Ordinance of 18 January 1951 as amended by the Presidential Decree of 17 February 1958) extends to 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, as provided for in article 33 of the Convention.
  Declaration concerning the passage of nuclear-powered and similar ships through the territorial sea of Egypt
  Pursuant to the provisions of the Convention relating to the right of the coastal State to regulate the passage of ships through its territorial sea and whereas the passage of foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous and noxious substances poses a number of hazards,
  Whereas article 23 of the Convention stipulates that the ships in question shall, when exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, carry documents and observe special precautionary measures established for such ships by international agreements,
  The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it will require the aforementioned ships to obtain authorization before entering the territorial sea of Egypt, until such international agreements are concluded and Egypt becomes a party to them.
  Declaration concerning the passage of warships through the territorial sea of Egypt
  [With reference to the provisions of the Convention relating to the right of the coastal State to regulate the passage of ships through its territorial sea:] Warships shall be ensured innocent passage through the territorial sea of Egypt, subject to prior notification.
  Declaration concerning passage through the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba
  The provisions of the 1979 Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel concerning passage through the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba come within the framework of the general regime of waters forming straits referred to in Part III of the Convention, wherein it is stipulated that the general regime shall not affect the legal status of waters forming straits and shall include certain obligations with regard to security and the maintenance of order in the State bordering the strait.
  Declaration concerning the exercise by Egypt of its rights in the exclusive economic zone
  The Arab Republic of Egypt will exercise as from this day the rights attributed to it by the provisions of Parts V and VI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the exclusive economic zone situated beyond and adjacent to its territorial sea in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Red Sea.
  The Arab Republic of Egypt will also exercise its sovereign rights in this zone for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters, and with regard to all other activities for the economic exploration and exploitation of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds.
  The Arab Republic of Egypt will exercise its jurisdiction over the exclusive economic zone according to the modalities laid down in the Convention with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific research, the protection and preservation of the marine environment and the other rights and duties provided for in the Convention.
  The Arab Republic of Egypt proclaims that, in exercising its rights and performing its duties under the Convention in the exclusive economic zone, it will have due regard for the rights and duties of other States and will act in a manner compatible with the provisions of the Convention.
  The Arab Republic of Egypt undertakes to establish the outer limits of its exclusive economic zone in accordance with the rules, criteria and modalities laid down in the Convention.
  [The Arab Republic of] Egypt declares that it will take the necessary action and make the necessary arrangements to regulate all matters relating to its exclusive economic zones.
  Declaration concerning the procedure chosen for the settlement of disputes in conformity with the United Nations
  [With reference to the provisions of article 287 of the Convention:] The Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it accepts the arbitral procedure, the modalities of which are defined in Annex VII to the Convention, as the procedure for the settlement of any dispute which might arise between Egypt and any other State relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  The Arab Republic of Egypt further declares that it excludes from the scope of application of this procedure those disputes contemplated in article 297 of the Convention.
  Statement concerning the Arabic version of the text of the Convention
  The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is gratified that the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted the new Convention in six languages, including Arabic, with all the texts being equally authentic, thus establishing absolute equality between all the versions and preventing any one from prevailing over another.
  However, when the official Arabic version of the Convention is compared with the other official versions, it becomes clear that, in some cases, the official Arabic text does not exactly correspond to the other versions, in that it fails to reflect precisely the content of certain provisions of the Convention which were found acceptable and adopted by States in establishing a legal regime governing the seas.
  For these reasons ..., the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt takes the opportunity afforded by the deposit of the instruments of ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to declare that it will adopt the interpretation which is best corroborated by the various official texts of the Convention.
  Equatorial Guinea
  Declaration made after ratification (20 February 2002):
  Declaration under article 298
  The Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea hereby enters a reservation and declares that, under article 298, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention of 1982 on the Law of the Sea, it does not recognize as mandatory ipso facto with respect to any other State any of the procedures provided for in part XV, section 2, of the Convention as regards the categories of disputes set forth in article 298, paragraph 1 (a).
  Estonia
  Upon accession (26 August 2005)
  "1. As a member state of the European Community, the Republic of Estonia has transferred competence in certain matters governed by the Convention to the European Community according to the declaration made by the European Community on April 1, 1998 while acceding to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  2. Pursuant to Article 287, paragraph 1 of the Convention the Republic of Estonia chooses the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI and the International Court of Justice as means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention."
  European Community
  Upon signature (7 December 1984):
  "On signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the European Economic Community declares that it considers that the Convention constitutes, within the framework of the Law of the Sea, a major effort in the codification and progressive development of international law in the fields to which its declaration pursuant to Article 2 of Annex IX of the Convention refers. The Community would like to express the hope that this development will become a useful means for promoting co-operation and stable relations between all countries in these fields.
  The Community, however, considers that significant provisions of Part XI of the Convention are not conducive to the development of the activities to which that Part refers in view of the fact that several Member States of the Community have already expressed their position that this Part contains considerable deficiencies and flaws which require rectification. The Community recognises the importance of the work which remains to be done and hopes that conditions for the implementation of a sea bed mining regime, which are generally acceptable and which are therefore likely to promote activities in the international sea bed area, can be agreed. The Community, within the limits of its competence, will play a full part in contributing to the task of finding satisfactory solutions.
  A separate decision on formal confirmation(*) will have to be taken at a later stage. It will be taken in the light of the results of the efforts made to attain a universally acceptable Convention."
  Competence of the European Communities with regard to matters governed by the Convention on the Law of the Sea (Declaration made pursuant to article 2 of Annex IX to the Convention)
  Article 2 of Annex IX to the Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that the participation of an international organisation shall be subject to a declaration specifying the matters governed by the Convention in respect of which competence has been transferred to the organisation by its member states.
  The European Communities were established by the Treaties of Paris and of Rome, signed on 18 April 1951 and 25 1957, respectively. After being ratified by the Signatory States the Treaties entered into force on 25 July 1952 and 1 January 1958(**).
  In accordance with the provisions referred to above this declaration indicates the competence of the European Economic Community in matters governed by the Convention.
  The Community points out that its Member States have transferred competence to it with regard to the conservation and management of sea fishing resources. Hence, in the field of sea fishing it is for the Community to adopt the relevant rules and regulations (which are enforced by the Member States) and to enter into external undertakings with third states or competent international organisations.
  (*) Formal confirmation is the term used in the Convention for ratification by international organisations (see Article 306 and Annex IX, Article 3).
  (**) The Treaty of Paris establishing the European Coal and Steel Community was registered at the Secretariat of the United Nations on 15.3.1957 under No. 3729; the Treaties of Rome establishing the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) were registered on 21 April and 24 April 1958, respectively under Nos 4300 and 4301. The current members of the Communities are the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea shall apply, with regard to matters transferred to the European Economic Community, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty.
  Furthermore, with regard to rules and regulations for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, the Member States have transferred to the Community competences as formulated in provisions adopted by the Community and as reflected by its participation in certain international agreements (see Annex).
  With regard to the provisions of Part X, the Community has certain powers as its purpose is to bring about an economic union based on a customs union.
  With regard to the provisions of Part XI, the Community enjoys competence in matters of commercial policy, including the control of unfair economic practices.
  The exercise of the competence that the Member States have transferred to the Community under the Treaties is, by its very nature, subject to continuous development. As a result the Community reserves the right to make new declarations at a later date.
  Annex
  Community texts applicable in the sector of the protection and preservation of the marine environment and relating directly to subjects covered by the ConventionCouncil Decision of 3 December 1981 establishing a Community information system for the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea (81/971/EEC) (OJ No L 355, 10.12.1981, p. 52).
  Council Directive of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (76/464/EEC) (OJ No L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23).
  Council Directive of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (75/439/EEC)(OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23).
  Council Directive of 20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry (78/176/EEC) (OJ No L 54, 25.2.1978, p. 19).
  Council Directive of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters (79/923/EEC) (OJ No L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47).
  Council Directive of 22 March 1982 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry (82/176/EEC) (OJ No L 81, 27.3.1982, p. 29).
  Council Directive of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges (83/513/EEC) (OJ No L 291, 24.10.1983, p. 1 et seq.).
  Council Directive of 8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry (84/156/EEC) (OJ No L 74, 17.3.1984, p. 49 et seq.).
  Annex
  The Community has also concluded the following Conventions:
  Convention for the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources (Council Decision 75/437/EEC of 3 March 1975 published in OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 5).
  Convention on long-range transboundary air pollution (Council Decision of 11 June 1981 published in OJ No L 171, 27.6.1981, p. 11).
  Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and the Protocol for the prevention of pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft (Council Decision 77/585/EEC of 25 July 1977 published in OJ No L 240, 19.9.1977, p. 1).
  Protocol concerning co-operation in combating pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by oil and other harmful substances in cases of emergency (Council Decision 81/420/EEC of 19 May 1981 published in OJ No L 162, 19.6.1981, p. 4).
  Protocol of 2 and 3 April 1983 concerning Mediterranean specially protected areas (OJ No L 68/36, 10.3.1984)."
  Declaration made upon formal confirmation (1 April 1998):
  Declaration concerning the competence of the European Community with regard to matters governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and the Agreement of 28 July 1994 relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention
  The European Community presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour of depositing its instrument of formal confirmation of the United Nations Convention of 10 December 1982 on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 28 July 1994 relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention of 10 December 1982 on the Law of the Sea.
  By depositing this instrument, the Community has the honour of declaring its acceptance, in respect of matters for which competence has been transferred to it by those of its Member States which are parties to the Convention, of the rights and obligations laid down for States in the Convention and the Agreement. The declaration concerning competence provided for in Article 5(1) of Annex IX to the Convention is attached.
  The Community also wishes to declare, in accordance with Article 310 of the Convention, its objection to any declaration or position excluding or amending the legal scope of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and in particular those relating to fishing activities. The Community does not consider the Convention to recognize the rights or jurisdiction of coastal States regarding the exploitation, conservation and management of fishery resources other than sedentary species outside their exclusive economic zone.
  The Community reserves the right to make subsequent declarations in respect of the Convention and the Agreement and in response to future declarations and positions.
  The Community takes this opportunity to reiterate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the assurance of its highest consideration.
  (Declaration made pursuant to article 5(1) of Annex IX to the Convention and to article 4(4) of the Agreement)
  Article 5(1) of Annex IX of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that the instrument of formal confirmation of an international organization shall contain a declaration specifying the matters governed by the Convention in respect of which competence has been transferred to the organization by its member States which are Parties to the Convention. 1/
  Article 4(4) of the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 2/provides that formal confirmation by an international organization shall be in accordance with Annex IX of the Convention.
  The European Communities were established by the Treaties of Paris (ECSC) and of Rome (EEC and Euratom), signed on 18 April 1951 and 25 March 1957 respectively. After being ratified by the Signatory States, the Treaties entered into force on 25 July 1952 and 1 January 1958. They have been amended by the Treaty on European Union, which was signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992 and entered into force, after being ratified by the Signatory States, on 1 November 1993, and most recently by the Accession Treaty signed in Corfu on 24 June 1994, which entered into force on 1 January 1995. 3/
  The current Members of the Communities are the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention shall apply with regard to the competences transferred to the European Community, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, in particular Article 227 thereof.
  This declaration is not applicable to the territories of the Member States in which the said Treaty does not apply and is without prejudice to such acts or positions as may be adopted under the Convention and the Agreement by the Member States concerned on behalf of and in the interests of those territories.
  In accordance with the provisions referred to above, this declaration indicates the competence that the Member States have transferred to the Community under the Treaties in matters governed by the Convention and the Agreement.
  The scope and the exercise of such Community competence are, by their nature, subject to continuous development, and the Community will complete or amend this declaration, if necessary, in accordance with Article 5(4) of Annex IX to the Convention.
  *****
  The Community has exclusive competence for certain matters and shares competence with its Member States for certain other matters.
  1. Matters for which the Community has exclusive competence:
  - The Community points out that its Member States have transferred competence to it with regard to the conservation and management of sea fishing resources. Hence in this field it is for the Community to adopt the relevant rules and regulations (which are enforced by the Member States) and, within its competence, to enter into external undertakings with third States or competent international organizations. This competence applies to waters under national fisheries jurisdiction and to the high seas. Nevertheless, in respect of measures relating to the exercise of jurisdiction over vessels, flagging and registration of vessels and the enforcement of penal and administrative sanctions, competence rests with the Member States whilst respecting Community law. Community law also provides for administrative sanctions.
  - By virtue of its commercial and customs policy, the Community has competence in respect of those provisions of Parts X and XI of the Convention and of the Agreement of 28 July 1994 which are related to international trade.
  2. Matters for which the Community shares competence with its Member States:
  - With regard to fisheries, for a certain number of matters that are not directly related to the conservation and management of sea fishing resources, for example research and technological development and development cooperation, there is shared competence.
  - With regard to the provisions on maritime transport, safety of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution contained inter alia in Parts II, III, V, VII and XII of the Convention, the Community has exclusive competence only to the extent that such provisions of the Convention or legal instruments adopted in implementation thereof affect common rules established by the Community. When Community rules exist but are not affected, in particular in cases of Community provisions establishing only minimum standards, the Member States have competence, without prejudice to the competence of the Community to act in this field. Otherwise competence rests with the Members States.
  A list of relevant Community acts appears in the Appendix. The extent of Community competence ensuing from these acts must be assessed by reference to the precise provisions of each measure, and in particular, the extent to which these provisions establish common rules.
  - With regard to the provisions of Parts XIII and XIV of the Convention, the Community's competence relates mainly to the promotion of cooperation on research and technological development with non-member countries and international organizations. The activities carried out by the Community here complement the activities of the Member States. Competence in this instance is implemented by the adoption of the programmes listed in the Appendix.
  3. Possible impact of other Community policies
  - Mention should also be made of the Community's policies and activities in the fields of control of unfair economic practices, government procurement and industrial competitiveness as well as in the area of development aid. These policies may also have some relevance to the Convention and the Agreement, in particular with regard to certain provisions of Parts VI and XI of the Convention.
  *****
  1/ When it signed the Convention, the Community made the requisite declaration, in accordance with Article 2 of Annex IX, in which it specified the matters dealt with by the Convention for which competence had been transferred to it by its Member States.2/ Signed by the Community on 29 July 1994 and applied by it provisionally with effect from 16 November 1994.3/ The Treaty of Paris establishing the European Coal and Steel Community was registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations on 15 March 1957 under No. 3729; the Treaties of Rome establishing the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) were registered on 21 April and 24 April 1958 respectively under Nos. 4300 and 4301. The Treaty on European Union was registered on 28 December 1993 under No. 30615; the Accession Treaty of 24 June 1994 was published in OJ No C 241 of 29 August 1994.
  APPENDIXCommunity Acts which refer to matters governed by the Convention and the Agreement
  In the maritime safety and prevention of marine pollution sectors
  Council Decision of 25 February 1992 on radionavigation systems for Europe (92/143/EEC) (OJ No L 59, 4.3.1992, p. 17)
  Council Directive of 21 December 1978 concerning pilotage of vessels by deep sea pilots in the North Sea and English Channel (79/115/EEC) (OJ No L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 32)
  Council Directive of 13 September 1993 concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods (93/75/EEC) (OJ No L 247, 5.10.1993, p. 19)
  Council Directive of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (93/103/EC) (OJ No L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1)
  Council Directive of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organizations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (Classification Societies Directive) (94/57/EC) (OJ No L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20)
  Council Directive of 22 November 1994 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (94/58/EC) (OJ No L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 28)
  Council Directive of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control (95/21/EC) (OJ No L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1)
  Council Directive of 20 December 1996 on marine equipment (96/98/EC) (OJ No L 46, 17.2.1997,p. 25)
  Council Regulation of 4 March 1991 on the transfer of ships from one register to another within the Community (91/613/EEC) (OJ No L 68, 15.3.1991, p.1) and Commission Regulation of 28 July 1993 concerning the application of amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, for the purpose of Council Regulation (EEC) No 613/91 (2158/93/EEC) (OJ No L 194, 3.8.1993, p. 5)
  Council Regulation of 21 November 1994 on the implementation of IMO Resolution A.747(18) on the application of tonnage measurement of ballast spaces in segregated ballast oil tankers (2978/94/EEC) (OJ No L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 1)
  Council Regulation of 8 December 1995 on the safety management of roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries (ro-ro ferries) (3051/95/EEC) (OJ No L 320, 30.12.1995, p. 14)
  In the field of protection and preservation of the marine environment
  Part XII of the Convention
  Council Decision of 3 December 1981 establishing a Community information system for the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea (81/971/EEC) (OJ No L 355, 10.12.1981, p. 52)
  Council Decision of 6 March 1986 establishing a Community information system for the control and reduction of pollution caused by the spillage of hydrocarbons and other harmful substances at sea (86/85/EEC) (OJ No L 77, 22.3.1986, p. 33)
  Council Directive of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (75/439/EEC) (OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975,p. 23)
  Council Directive of 15 July 1975 on waste (75/442/EEC) (OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39)
  Council Directive of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (76/160/EEC) (OJ No L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1)
  Council Directive of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (76/464/EEC) (OJ No L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23)
  Council Directive of 20 February 1978 on wastes from the titanium dioxide industry (78/176/EEC) (OJ No L 54, 25.2. 1978, p. 19)
  Council Directive of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters (79/923/EEC) (OJ No L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47)
  Council Directive of 15 July 1980 on air quality limit values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulars (80/779/EEC) (OJ No L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 30)
  Council Directive of 22 March 1982 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry (82/176/EEC) (OJ No L 81, 27.3.1982, p. 29)
  Council Directive of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities (82/501/EEC) (OJ No L 230, 5.8.1982, p. 1)
  Council Directive of 3 December 1982 on procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of environments concerned by waste from the titanium dioxide industry (82/883/EEC) (OJ No L 378, 31.12.1982, p. 1)
  Council Directive of 3 December 1982 on a limit value for lead in the air (82/884/EEC) (OJ No L 378, 31.12.1982, p. 15)
  Council Directive of 26 September 1983 on a limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges (83/513/EEC) (OJ No L 291, 24.10.1983, p. 1)
  Council Directive of 8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry (84/156/EEC) (OJ No L 74, 17.3.1984, p. 49)
  Council Directive of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants (84/360/EEC) (OJ No L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20)
  Council Directive of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane (84/491/EEC) (OJ No L 274, 17.10.1984, p. 11)
  Council Directive of 7 March 1985 on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide (85/203/EEC) (OJ No L 87, 27.3.1985, p. 1)
  Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC) (OJ No L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40)
  Council Directive of 12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List 1 of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC (86/280/EEC) (OJ No L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 16)
  Council Directive of 24 November 1988 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (88/609/EEC) (OJ No L 336, 7.12.1988, p. 1)
  Council Directive of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (89/369/EEC) (OJ No L 163, 14.6 1989, p. 32)
  Council Directive of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste incineration plants (89/429/EEC) (OJ No L 203, 15.7 1989, p. 50)
  Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (91/271/EEC) (OJ No L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40)
  Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC) (OJ No L 375, 31.12. 1991, p. 1)
  Council Directive of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (91/689/EEC) (OJ No L 377, 31.12. 1991, p. 20)
  Council Directive of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (92/43/EEC) (OJ No L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7)
  Council Directive of 15 December 1992 on procedures for harmonizing the programmes for the reduction and eventual elimination of pollution caused by waste from the titanium dioxide industry (92/112/EEC) (OJ No L 409, 31.12.1992, p. 11)
  Council Directive of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste (94/67/EEC) (OJ No L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 34)
  Council Regulation of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (259/93/EEC) (OJ No L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1)
  In the marine environment research and scientific and technological cooperation sector
  Marine Science and Technology Programme
  Environment and Climate Programme
  Cooperation with third countries and international organizations: Scientific and technological cooperation with developing countries Programme (INCO-DC)
  Conventions to which the Community is a party
  Convention for the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources, Paris, 4 June 1974 (Council Decision 75/437/EEC of 3 March 1975, published in OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 5)
  Protocol amending the Convention for the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources, Paris, 26 March 1986 (Council Decision 87/57/EEC of 28 December 1986, published in OJ No L 24, 27.1.1987, p. 47)
  Protocol for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from land-based sources, Athens, 17 May 1980 (Council Decision 83/101/EEC of 28 February 1983, published in OJ No L 67, 12.3.1983, p.1)
  Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and the Protocol for the prevention of the pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft, Barcelona, 16 February 1976, (Council Decision 77/585/EEC of 25 July 1977, published in OJ No L 240, 19.9.1977, p. 1)
  Protocol concerning cooperation in combating pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by oil and other harmful substances in cases of emergency, Barcelona, 16 February 1976 (Council Decision 81/420/EEC of 19 May 1981, published in OJ No L 162, 19.6 1981, p. 4)
  Convention on long-range transboundary air pollution, Geneva, 13 November 1979, (Council Decision 81/462/EEC of 11 June 1981, published in OJ No L 171, 27.6.1981, p. 11)
  Protocol of 23 April 1982 concerning Mediterranean specially protected areas, Geneva, 3 April 1982, (Council Decision 84/132/EEC of 1 March 1984, published in OJ No L 68, 10.3.1984, p. 36)
  Agreement for cooperation in dealing with pollution of the North Sea by oil and other harmful substances, Bonn, 13 September 1983, (Council Decision 84/358/EEC of 28 June 1984, published in OJ No L 188, 16.7. 1984, p. 7)
  Cooperation agreement for the protection of the coasts and waters of the north-east Atlantic against pollution, Lisbon, 17 October 1990, (Council Decision 93/550/EEC of 20 October 1993, published in OJ No L 267, 28.10.1993, p. 20)
  Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, signed in Basel on 22 March 1989, (Council Decision 93/98/EEC of 1 February 1993, published in OJ No L 39, 16.2.1993, p. 1)
  Fiji
  Upon ratification (10 December 1982):
  Declaration under article 287:
  The Government of the Republic of Fiji declares that it chooses the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  Finland
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  As regards those parts of the Convention which deal with innocent passage through the territorial sea, it is the intention of the Government of Finland to continue to apply the present r½gime to the passage of foreign warships and other government-owned vessels used for non-commercial purposes through the Finnish territorial sea, that r½gime being fully compatible with the Convention."
  Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:
  "It is the understanding of the Government of Finland that the exception from the transit passage r½gime in straits provided for in article 35 (c) of the Convention is applicable to the strait between Finland (the Aland Islands) and Sweden. Since in that strait the passage is regulated in part by a long-standing international convention in force, the present legal r½gime in that strait will remain unchanged after the entry into force of the Convention.
  Upon ratification (21 June 1996):
  1. ...
  2. In accordance with article 287 of the Convention, Finland chooses the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention as well as of the Agreement relating to the implementation of its Part XI.
  3. Finland recalls that, as a State member of the European Community, it has transferred competence to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed declaration on the nature and extent of the competence transferred to the European Community will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  France
  [Original: French]
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  1. The provisions of the Convention relating to the status of the different maritime spaces and to the legal r½gime of the uses and protection of the marine environment confirm and consolidate the general rules of the law of the sea and thus entitle the French Republic not to recognize as enforceable against it any foreign laws or regulations that are not in conformity with those general rules.
  2. The provisions of the Convention relating to the area of the sea-bed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction show considerable deficiencies and flaws with respect to the exploration and exploitation of the said area which will require rectification through the adoption by the Preparatory Commission of draft rules, regulations and procedures to ensure the establishment and effective functioning of the International Sea-Bed Authority.
  To this end, all efforts must be made within the Preparatory Commission to reach general agreement on any matter of sub- stance, in accordance with the procedure set out in rule 37 of the rules of procedure of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
  3. With reference to article 140, the signing of the Convention by France shall not be interpreted as implying any change in its position in respect of resolution 1514 (XV).
  4. The provisions of article 230, paragraph 2, of the Convention shall not preclude interim or preventive measures against the parties responsible for the operation of foreign vessels, such as immobilization of the vessel. They shall also not preclude the imposition of penalties other than monetary penalties for any willful and serious act which causes pollution.
  Upon ratification (11 April 1996):
  1. France recalls that, as a State member of the European Community, it has transferred competence to the Community in certain matters covered under the Convention. A detailed statement of the nature and scope of the areas of competence transferred to the European Community will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  2. France rejects declarations or reservations that are contrary to the provisions of the Convention. France also rejects unilateral measures or measures resulting from an agreement between States which would have effects contrary to the provisions of the Convention.
  3. With reference to the provisions of article 298, paragraph 1, France does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Part XV, section 2, with respect to the following disputes:
  - Disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles;
  - Disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
  - Disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in the Convention.
  Gabon
  (23 January 2009)
  Declaration under article 298, paragraph 1:
  ½..the Government of the Republic of Gabon pursuant to article 298, paragraph 1 of the Convention, does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV of the said Convention with respect to the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) of article 298.
  Germany
  [Original: German]
  Upon accession (14 October 1994) 3/:
  Statements
  I. The Federal Republic of Germany recalls that, as a member of the European Community, it has transferred competence to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed declaration on the nature and extent of the competence transferred to the European Community will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  II. For the Federal Republic of Germany the link between Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and the Agreement of 28 July 1994 relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as foreseen in article 2(1) of that Agreement is fundamental.
  III. In the absence of any other peaceful means, which would be given preference by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, that Government considers it useful to choose one of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the two Conventions, as it is free to do under article 287 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, in the following order:
  1. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
  2. An arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
  3. The International Court of Justice.
  Also in the absence of any other peaceful means, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany hereby recognizes as of today the validity of special arbitration for any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping.
  Declaration
  With reference to similar declarations made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, in the light of declarations already made or yet to be made by States upon signature, ratification of or accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, declares as follows:
  Territorial sea, archipelagic waters, straits
  The provisions on the territorial sea represent in general a set of rules reconciling the legitimate desire of coastal States to protect their sovereignty and that of the international community to exercise the right of passage. The right to extend the breadth of the territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles will significantly increase the importance of the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea for all ships including warships, merchant ships and fishing vessels; this is a fundamental right of the community of nations.
  None of the provisions of the Convention, which in so far [as they] reflect existing international law, can be regarded as entitling the coastal State to make the innocent passage of any specific category of foreign ships dependent on prior consent or notification.
  A prerequisite for the recognition of the coastal State's right to extend the territorial sea is the regime of transit passage through straits used for international navigation. Article 38 limits the right of transit passage only in cases where a route of similar convenience exists in respect of navigational and hydrographical characteristics, which include the economic aspect of shipping.
  According to the provisions of the Convention, archipelagic sea lane passage is not dependent on the designation by the archipelagic States of specific sea lanes or air routes in so far as there are existing routes through the archipelago normally used for international navigation.
  Exclusive economic zone
  In the exclusive economic zone, which is a new concept of international law, coastal States will be granted precise resource-related rights and jurisdiction. All other States will continue to enjoy the high-seas freedoms of navigation and overflight and of all other internationally lawful uses of the sea. These uses will be exercised in a peaceful manner, and that is, in accordance with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.
  The exercise of these rights can therefore not be construed as affecting the security of the coastal State or affecting its rights and obligations under international law. Accordingly, the notion of a 200-mile zone of general rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction of the coastal State cannot be sustained either in general international law or under the relevant provisions of the Convention.
  In articles 56 and 58 a careful and delicate balance has been struck between the interests of the coastal State and the freedoms and rights of all other States. This balance includes the reference contained in article 58, paragraph 2, to articles 88 to 115 which apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with Part V. Nothing in Part V is incompatible with article 89 which invalidates claims of sovereignty.
  According to the Convention, the coastal State does not enjoy residual rights in the exclusive economic zone. In particular, the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State in such zone do not include the rights to obtain notification of military exercises or manoeuvres or to authorize them.
  Apart from artificial islands, the coastal State enjoys the right in the exclusive economic zone to authorize, construct, operate and use only those installations and structures which have economic purposes.
  The high seas
  As a geographically disadvantaged State but a State with important interests in the traditional uses of the seas, the Federal Republic of Germany remains committed to the established principle of the freedom of the high seas. This principle, which has governed all uses of the sea for centuries, has been affirmed and, in various fields, adapted to new requirements in the provisions of the Convention, which will therefore have to be interpreted to the furthest extent possible in accordance with that traditional principle.
  Land-locked States
  As to the regulation of the freedom of transit enjoyed by land-locked States, transit through the territory of transit States must not interfere with the sovereignty of these States. In accordance with article 125, paragraph 3, the rights and facilities provided for in Part X in no way infringe upon the sovereignty and legitimate interests of transit States. The precise content of the freedom of transit has in each single case to be agreed upon by the transit State and the land-locked State concerned. In the absence of such agreement concerning the terms and modalities for exercising the right of access, the access of persons and goods to transit through the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany is only regulated by national law, in particular with regard to means and ways of transport and the use of traffic infrastructure.
  Marine scientific research
  Although the traditional freedom of research suffered a considerable erosion by the Convention, this freedom will remain in force for States, international organizations and private entities in some maritime areas, e.g., the seabed beyond the continental shelf and the high seas. However, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, which are of particular interest to marine scientific research, will be subject to a consent regime, a basic element of which is the obligation of the coastal State under article 246, paragraph 3, to grant its consent in normal circumstances. In this regard, promotion and creation of favourable conditions for scientific research, as postulated in the Convention, are general principles governing the application and interpretation of all relevant provisions of the Convention.
  The marine scientific research regime on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles denies the coastal State the discretion to withhold consent under article 246, paragraph 5(a), outside areas it has publicly designated in accordance with the prerequisites stipulated in paragraph 6. Relating to the obligation, to disclose information about exploitation or exploratory operations in the process of designation is taken into account in article 246, paragraph 6, which explicitly excluded details from the information to be provided.
  Ghana
  (15 December 2009)
  Declaration relating to Article 298
  ½In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (½the Convention½), the Republic of Ghana hereby declares that it does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) of article 298 of the Convention.½
  Greece
  Interpretative declaration on the subject of straits made upon signature (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratification (21 July 1995) 4/:
  "The present declaration concerns the provisions of Part III `on straits used for international navigation' and more especially the application in practice of articles 36, 38, 41 and 42 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  In areas where there are numerous spread out islands that form a great number of alternative straits which serve in fact one and the same route of international navigation, it is the understanding of Greece, that the coastal state concerned has the responsibility to designate the route or routes, in the said alternative straits, through which ships and aircrafts of third countries could pass under transit passage r½gime, in such a way as on the one hand the requirements of international navigation and overflight are satisfied, and on the other hand the minimum security requirements of both the ships and aircrafts in transit as well as those of the coastal state are fulfilled."
  Upon ratification (21 July 1995):
  In depositing this instrument, the Permanent Mission of Greece, as instructed by its Government, formulates the following declarations:
  1. In ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Greece secures all rights and assumes all the obligations deriving from the Convention.
  Greece shall determine when and how it shall exercise those rights, according to its national strategy. This shall not imply that Greece renounces these rights in any way.
  2. Greece wishes to reiterate the interpretative declaration on straits which it deposited at the time of the Convention's adoption and at the time of its signature, the original English-language text of which reads as follows:
  The present declaration concerns the provisions of Part III on straits used for international navigation and more especially the application in practice of articles 36, 38, 41 and 42 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  In areas where there are numerous spread-out islands that form a great number of alternative straits which serve in fact one and the same route of international navigation, it is the understanding of Greece that the coastal State concerned has the responsibility to designate the route or routes, in the said alternative straits, through which ships and aircraft of third countries could pass under a transit passage regime, in such a way as on the one hand the requirements of international navigation and overflight are satisfied, and on the other hand the minimum security requirements of both the ships and aircraft in transit as well as those of the coastal State are fulfilled.
  3. Pursuant to article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Hellenic Republic hereby chooses the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI to the Convention as the means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  4. Greece, as a State member of the European Community, has given the latter jurisdiction with respect to certain issues relating to the Convention. Following the deposit by the European Union of its instrument of formal confirmation, Greece will make a special declaration specifying in detail the issues dealt with in the Convention for which it has transferred jurisdiction to the European Union.
  5. Greece's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not imply that it recognizes the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and does not, therefore, constitute the establishment of treaty relations with the latter.
  Guatemala
  [Original: Spanish]
  Upon ratification (11 February 1997):
  [The Government of Guatemala] declares, that:
  (a) approval of the Convention by the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala shall under no circumstances affect the rights of Guatemala over the territory of Belize, including the islands, cays and islets, or its historical rights over Bah½a de Amatique, and
  (b) accordingly, the territorial sea and maritime zones cannot be delimited until such time as the existing dispute is resolved.
  Guinea
  (Original: French)
  Upon signature (4 October 1984):
  The Government of the Republic of Guinea reserves the right to interpret any article of the Convention in the context and taking due account of the sovereignty of Guinea and of its territorial integrity as it applies to the land, space and sea.
  Guinea-Bissau
  [Original: French]
  Upon ratification (25 August 1986):
  The Government of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau declares that, as regards article 287 on the choice of a procedure for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and consequently will not accept that jurisdiction with respect to articles 297 and 298.
  Honduras
  [Original: Spanish]
  Declaration made after ratification (18 June 2002):
  Declaration of 18 June 2002 made pursuant to article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea .
  18 June 2002
  Declaration under article 287:
  In accordance with article 287, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the State of Honduras chooses the International Court of Justice as the means for the settlement of disputes of any kind concerning the interpretation or application of the said Convention.
  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the State of Honduras reserves the possibility of considering any other means of peaceful settlement, including the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, as agreed on a case-by-case basis.
  Hungary
  Upon ratification (5 February 2002):
  ... the Government of Hungary makes the following declaration in relation to article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea adopted in Montego Bay on 10 December 1982:
  In accordance with article 287 of the said Convention, the Government of the Republic of Hungary shall choose the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention in the following order:
  1. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;
  2. The International Court of Justice;
  3. A special tribunal constructed in accordance with Annex VIII for all the categories of disputes specified therein.
  Iceland
  Declaration made upon ratification (21 June 1985):
  Upon depositing the instrument of ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Permanent Representative of Iceland, on behalf of the Government of Iceland, declares that under article 298 of the Convention the right is reserved that any interpretation of article 83 shall be submitted to conciliation under Annex V, section 2, of the Convention.
  India
  Declaration made upon ratification (29 June 1995):
  (a) The Government of the Republic of India reserves the right to make at the appropriate time the declarations provided for in articles 287 and 298, concerning the settlement of disputes;
  (b) The Government of the Republic of India understands that the provisions of the Convention do not authorize other States to carry out in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives without the consent of the coastal State.
  Iran (Islamic Republic of)
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  Interpretative declaration on the subject of straits
  "In accordance with article 310 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seizes the opportunity at this solemn moment of signing the Convention, to place on the records its "understanding" in relation to certain provisions of the Convention. The main objective for submitting these declarations is the avoidance of eventual future interpretation of the following articles in a manner incompatible with the original intention and previous positions or in disharmony with national laws and regulations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is, . . . , the understanding of the Islamic Republic of Iran that:
  1) Notwithstanding the intended character of the Convention being one of general application and of law making nature, certain of its provisions are merely product of quid pro quo which do not necessarily purport to codify the existing customs or established usage (practice) regarded as having an obligatory character. Therefore, it seems natural and in harmony with article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that only states parties to the Law of the Sea Convention shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights created therein.
  The above considerations pertain specifically (but not exclusively) to the following:
  -- The right of Transit passage through straits used for international navigation (Part III, Section 2, article 38).
  -- The notion of "Exclusive Economic Zone" (Part V). - All matters regarding the International Seabed Area and the Concept of "Common Heritage of mankind" (Part XI).
  2) In the light of customary international law, the provisions of article 21, read in association with article 19 (on the Meaning of Innocent Passage) and article 25 (on the Rights of Protection of the Coastal States), recognize (though implicitly) the rights of the Coastal States to take measures to safeguard their security interests including the adoption of laws and regulations regarding, inter alia , the requirements of prior authorization for warships willing to exercise the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
  3) The right referred to in article 125 regarding access to and from the sea and freedom of transit of Land-locked States is one which is derived from mutual agreement of States concerned based on the principle of reciprocity.
  4) The provisions of article 70, regarding "Right of States with Special Geographical Characteristics" are without prejudice to the exclusive right of the Coastal States of enclosed and semi-enclosed maritime regions (such as the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman) with large population predominantly dependent upon relatively poor stocks of living resources of the same regions.
  5) Islets situated in enclosed and semi-enclosed seas which potentially can sustain human habitation or economic life of their own, but due to climatic conditions, resource restriction or other limitations, have not yet been put to development, fall within the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 121 concerning "Regime of Islands", and have, therefore, full effect in boundary delimitation of various maritime zones of the interested Coastal States.
  Furthermore, with regard to "Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions" the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully endorsing the Concept of settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, and recognizing the necessity and desirability of settling, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation, issues relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, at this time will not pronounce on the choice of procedures pursuant to articles 287 and 298 and reserves its positions to be declared in due time."
  Iraq
  Upon signature (10 December 1982)5/:
  Pursuant to article 310 of the present Convention and with a view to harmonizing Iraqi laws and regulations with the provisions of the Convention, the Republic of Iraq has decided to issue the following statement:
  1. The present signature in no way signifies recognition of Israel and implies no relationship with it.
  2. Iraq interprets the provisions applying to all types of straits set forth in Part III of the Convention as applying also to navigation between islands situated near those straits if the shipping lanes leaving or entering those straits and defined by the competent international organization lie near such islands.
  Ireland
  Upon ratification (21 June 1996):
  Ireland recalls that, as a State member of the European Community, it has transferred competence to the Community in regard to certain matters which are governed by the Convention. A detailed declaration on the nature and extent of the competence transferred to the European Community will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  Italy
  Declarations made upon signature (7 December 1984) and confirmed upon ratification (13 January 1995):
  "Upon signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, Italy wishes to state that in its opinion part XI and annexes III and IV contain considerable flaws and deficiencies which require rectification through the adoption by the Preparatory Commission of the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea of appropriate draft rules, regulations and procedures.
  Italy wishes also to confirm the following points made in its written statement dated 7 March 1983:
  - - according to the Convention, the Coastal State does not enjoy residual rights in the exclusive economic zone. In particular, the rights and jurisdiction of the Coastal State in such zone do not include the right to obtain notification of military exercises or manoeuvres or to authorize them.
  Moreover, the rights of the Coastal State to build and to authorize the construction operation and the use of installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf is limited only to the categories of such installations and structures as listed in art. 60 of the Convention.
  - - None of the provisions of the Convention, which corresponds on this matter to customary International Law, can be regarded as entitling the Coastal State to make innocent passage of particular categories of foreign ships dependent on prior consent or notification."
  Upon ratification (13 January 1995):
  Upon depositing its instrument of ratification Italy recalls that, as a State member of the European Community, it has transferred competence to the Community with respect to certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed declaration on the nature and extension of the competence transferred to the European Community will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  Italy wishes also to reconfirm the following declarations made when it signed the Convention:
  According to the Convention, the coastal State does not enjoy residual rights in the exclusive economic zone. In particular, the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State in such zone do not include the right to obtain notification of military exercises or manoeuvres or to authorize them. Moreover, the rights of the coastal States to build and to authorize the construction, operation and the use of installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf is limited only to the categories of such installations and structures as listed in article 60 of the Convention.
  None of the provisions of the Convention, which corresponds on this matter to customary international law, can be regarded as entitling the coastal State to make innocent passage of particular categories of foreign ships dependent on prior consent or notification.
  Italy has the honour to declare, under paragraph 1(a) of article 298 of the Convention, that it does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations as well as those involving historic bays or titles.
  In any case, the present declarations should not be interpreted as entailing acceptance or rejection by Italy of declarations concerning matters other than those considered in it, made by other States upon signature or ratification.
  Italy reserves its right to make further declarations relating to the Convention and to the Agreement whose instrument of ratification is hereby deposited.
  Declaration made after ratification (26 February 1997)
  In implementation of article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Italy has the honour to declare that, for the settlement of disputes concerning the application or interpretation of the Convention and of the Agreement adopted on 28 July 1994 relating to the Implementation of Part XI, it chooses the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice, without specifying that one has precedence over the other.
  In making this declaration under article 287 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Italy is reaffirming its confidence in the existing international judicial organs. In accordance with article 287, paragraph 4, Italy considers that it has chosen "the same procedure" as any other State Party that has chosen the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or the International Court of Justice.
  Kiribati
  Upon accession (24 February 2003):
  Declaration:
  "In exercise of the right conferred by Article 310 of the Convention, the Republic of Kiribati, upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), declares that in accepting the provisions of Part IV of Article 47 of the said Convention, wishes to highlight its concerns relating to the formula used for drawing archipelagic baselines.
  Part IV calculations for archipelagic waters do not allow a baseline to be drawn around all the islands of each of the three Groups of islands that make up the Republic of Kiribati. These Group of islands are spread over an expanse of over three million square kilometres of ocean, and the existing formula as spelt out in Part IV of the Convention, will divide Kiribati's three island groups into three distinct exclusive zone waters and international waters.
  The Government of Kiribati wishes to propose that the formula used for drawing archipelagic baselines be revisited in the future to take into consideration the above-mentioned concerns of Kiribati.
  Accession by Kiribati to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not in any way prejudice its status as an archipelagic state or its legal rights to declare all or part of its maritime territory as archipelagic waters under the said Convention. "
  Latvia
  On 31 August 2005
  Declaration under article 287:
  "In accordance with paragraph 1 of the Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea the Republic of Latvia declares that it chooses the following means for the settlement of dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
  1) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI of the Convention,
  2) The International Court of Justice."
  Luxembourg
  Upon signature (5 December 1984):
  The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has decided to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea because it represents, in the context of the law of the sea, a major contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law.
  Nevertheless, in the view of the Government of Luxembourg, certain provisions of Part XI and Annexes III and IV of the Convention are marred by serious shortcomings and defects which, moreover, explain why it was not possible to reach a consensus on the text at the last session of the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea, held in New York in April 1982.
  These shortcomings and defects concern, in particular, the mandatory transfer of technology and the cost and financing of the future Sea-Bed Authority and the first mine site of the Enterprise. They will have to be rectified by the rules, regulations and procedures to be drawn up by the Preparatory Commission. The Government of Luxembourg recognizes that the work remaining to be done is of great importance and hopes that it will be possible to reach agreement on the modalities for operating a sea-bed mining r½gime that will be generally acceptable and therefore conducive to promoting the activities of the international zone of the sea-bed.
  As the representatives of France and the Netherlands pointed out two years ago, [the Government of Luxembourg] wishes to make it abundantly clear that, notwithstanding its decision to sign the Convention today, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is not here and now determined to ratify it.
  It will take a separate decision on this point, at a later date, which will take account of what the Preparatory Commission has accomplished to make the international r½gime of the sea-bed acceptable to all.
  [The Government of Luxembourg] also wishes to recall that Luxembourg is a member of the European Economic Community and, by virtue thereof, has transferred to the Community powers in certain areas covered by the Convention. Detailed declarations on the nature and extent of the powers transferred will be made in due course, in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  Like other members of the Community, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg also reserves its position on all declarations made at the final session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, at Montego Bay, that may contain elements of interpretation concerning the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  Kuwait
  [Original: Arabic]
  Declaration made upon ratification (2 May 1986)6/:
  Understanding
  It is understood that the ratification by the State of Kuwait of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982, does not mean in any way a recognition of Israel by the Government of the State of Kuwait. Furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the State of Kuwait and Israel.
  Lithuania
  Declaration made upon accession (12 November 2003)
  ".... in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 287 of the Convention, the Republic of Lithuania chooses the following means for the settlement of dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
  (a) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
  (b) The International Court of Justice."
  Madagascar
  [Original: French]
  On 20 December 2012
  Declaration under article 287:
  "In accordance with article 287, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Republic of Madagascar declares that, with regard to the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, it accepts the competence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea."
  Malaysia
  Upon ratification (14 October 1996):
  In accordance with article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Malaysia makes the following declarations:
  1. The Malaysian Government is not bound by any domestic legislation or by any declaration issued by other States upon signature or ratification of this Convention. Malaysia reserves the right to state its position concerning all such legislations or declarations at the appropriate time. In particular, Malaysia's ratification of the Convention in no way constitutes recognition of the maritime claims of any other State having signed or ratified the Convention, where such claims are inconsistent with the relevant principles of international law and the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and which are prejudicial to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of Malaysia in its maritime areas.
  2. The Malaysian Government understands that the provisions of article 301, prohibiting "any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations", apply in particular to the maritime areas under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the coastal State.
  3. The Malaysian Government also understands that the provisions of the Convention do not authorize other States to carry out military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives in the exclusive economic zone without the consent of the coastal State.
  4. In view of the inherent danger entailed in the passage of nuclear-powered vessels or vessels carrying nuclear material or other material of a similar nature and in view of the provision of article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning the right of the coastal State to confine the passage of such vessels to sea lanes designated by the State within its territorial sea, as well as that of article 23 of the Convention, which requires such vessels to carry documents and observe special precautionary measures as specified by international agreements, the Malaysian Government, with all of the above in mind, requires the aforesaid vessels to obtain prior authorization of passage before entering the territorial sea of Malaysia until such time as the international agreements referred to in article 23 are concluded and Malaysia becomes a party thereto. Under all circumstances, the flag State of such vessels shall assume all responsibility for any loss or damage resulting from the passage of such vessels within the territorial sea of Malaysia.
  5. The Malaysian Government also wishes to reiterate the statement relating to article 233 of the Convention in its application to the Straits of Malacca and Singapore which has been annexed to a letter dated 28 April 1982 transmitted to the President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
  6. The ratification of the Convention by the Malaysian Government shall not in any manner affect its rights and obligations under any agreements and treaties on maritime matters entered into which the Malaysian Government is a party.
  7. The Malaysian Government interprets article 74 and article 83 to the effect that in the absence of agreement on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone or continental shelf or other maritime zones, for an equitable solution to be achieved, the boundary shall be the median line, namely a line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Malaysia and of such other States is measured.
  Malaysia is also of the view that in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, namely article 56 and article 76, if the maritime area is less [than] or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines, the boundary for the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone shall be on the same line (identical).
  8. The Malaysian Government declares, without prejudice to article 303 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, that any objects of an archaeological and historical nature found within the maritime areas over which it exerts sovereignty or jurisdiction shall not be removed, without its prior notification and consent.
  Mali
  Upon signature (19 October 1983):
  On signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Republic of Mali remains convinced of the interdependence of the interests of all peoples and of the need to base international co-operation on, in particular, mutual respect, equality, solidarity at the international, regional and sub-regional levels, and positive good-neighbourliness between States.
  It thus reiterates its statement of 30 April 1982, reaffirming that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in the negotiation and adoption of which the Government of Mali participated in good faith, constitutes a perfectible international legal instrument.
  Nevertheless, Mali's signature of the said Convention is without prejudice to any other instrument concluded or to be concluded by the Republic of Mali with a view to improving its status as a geographically disadvantaged and land-locked State. It is likewise without prejudice to the elements of any position which the Government of Mali may deem it necessary to take with regard to any question of the Law of the Sea pursuant to article 310.
  In any case, the present signature has no effect on the course of Mali's foreign policy or on the rights it derives from its sovereignty under its Constitution or the Charter of the United Nations and any other relevant rule of international law.
  Malta
  Upon ratification (20 May 1993) 7/:
  The ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is a reflection of Malta's recognition of the many positive elements it contains, including its comprehensiveness and its role in the application of the concept of the common heritage of mankind.
  At the same time, it is realized that the effectiveness of the regime established by the Convention depends to a great extent on the attainment of its universal acceptance, not least by major maritime States and those with technology which are most affected by the regime.
  The effectiveness of the provisions of Part IX on "enclosed or semi-enclosed seas", which provide for cooperation of States bordering such seas, like the Mediterranean, depends on the acceptance of the Convention by the States concerned. To this end, the Government of Malta encourages and actively supports all efforts at achieving this universality.
  The Government of Malta interprets articles 69 and 70 of the Convention as meaning that access to fishing in the exclusive economic zone of third States by vessels of developed land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States is dependent upon the prior granting of access by the coastal States in question to the nationals of other States which have habitually fished in the said zone.
  The baselines as established by Maltese legislation for the delimitation of the territorial sea and related areas, for the archipelago of the islands of Malta and which incorporate the island of Filfla as one of the points from which baselines are drawn, are fully in line with the relevant provisions of the Convention.
  The Government of Malta interprets article 74 and article 83 to the effect that in the absence of agreement on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf or other maritime zones, for an equitable solution to be achieved, the boundary shall be the median line, namely a line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial waters of Malta and of such other States is measured.
  The exercise of the right of innocent passage of warships through the territorial sea of other States should also be perceived to be a peaceful one. Effective and speedy means of communication are easily available and make the prior notification of the exercise of the right of innocent passage of warships reasonable and not incompatible with the Convention. Such notification is already required by some States. Malta reserves the right to legislate on this point.
  Malta is also of the view that such a notification requirement is needed in respect of nuclear-powered ships or ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances. Furthermore, no such ships shall be allowed within Maltese internal waters without the necessary authorization.
  Malta is of the view that the sovereign immunity contemplated in article 236 does not exonerate a State from such obligation, moral or otherwise, in accepting responsibility and liability for compensation and relief in respect of damage caused by pollution of the marine environment by any warship, naval auxiliary, other vessels or aircraft owned or operated by the State and used on government non-commercial service.
  Legislation and regulations concerning the passage of ships through Malta's territorial sea are compatible with the provisions of the Convention. At the same time, the right is reserved to develop further this legislation in conformity with the Convention as may be required.
  Malta declares itself in favour of establishing sea lanes and special regimes for foreign fishing vessels transversing its territorial sea.
  Note is taken of the statement by the European Community made at the time of signature of the Convention regarding the fact that its member States have transferred competence to it with regard to certain aspects of the Convention. In view of Malta's application to join the European Community, it is understood that this will also become applicable to Malta on membership.
  The Government of Malta does not consider itself bound by any of the declarations which other States may have made, or will make upon signing or ratifying the Convention, reserving the right as necessary to determine its position with regard to each of them at the appropriate time. In particular, ratification of the Convention does not imply automatic recognition of maritime or territorial claims by any signatory or ratifying State.
  Mexico
  Declaration made after ratification (6 January 2003)
  Declarations under articles 287 and 298
  In accordance with the terms of article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Mexico declares that it chooses, in no order of preference, one of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention:
  1. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with annex VI;
  2. The International Court of Justice;
  3. A special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
  "The Government of Mexico declares that, pursuant to article 298 of the Convention, it does not accept the procedures provided for in part XV, section 2, with respect to the following categories of disputes:
  1. Disputes relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, pursuant to paragraph 1 (a) of article 298;
  2. Disputes concerning military activities and the other activities referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of article 298.
  Moldova
  Declaration (upon accession, 6 February 2007):
  As a country without seashore and geographically disadvantaged bordering a sea poor in living resources. Republic of Moldova affirms the necessity to develop international cooperation for the exploitation of the living resources of the economic zones, on the basis of just and equitable agreements that should ensure the access of the countries from this category to the fishing resources in the economic zones of other regions or sub regions.
  Montenegro
  Confirmed upon succession:
  Declaration:
  "1. Proceeding from the right that State Parties have on the basis of article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the [Government of Montenegro] considers that a coastal State may, by its laws and regulations, subject the passage of foreign warships to the requirement of previous notification to the respective coastal State and limit the number of ships simultaneously passing, on the basis of the international customary law and in compliance with the right of innocent passage (articles 17-32 of the Convention).
  2. The [Government of Montenegro] also considers that it may, on the basis of article 38, para.1, and article 45, para. 1 (a) of the Convention, determine by its laws and regulations which of the straits used for international navigation in the territorial sea of [Montenegro] will retain the regime of innocent passage, as appropriate.
  3. Due to the fact that the provisions of the Convention relating to the contiguous zone (article 33) do not provide rules on the delimitation of the contiguous zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts, the [Government of Montenegro] considers that the principles of the customary international law, codified in article 24, para. 3, of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, signed in Geneva on 29 April 1958, will apply to the delimitation of the contiguous zone between the Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."
  Morocco
  Declaration upon ratification (31 May 2007):
  The laws and regulations relating to maritime areas in force in Morocco shall remain applicable without prejudice to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco affirms once again that Sebta, Melilia, the islet of Al-Hoceima, the rock of Badis and the Chafarinas Islands are Moroccan territories.
  Morocco has never ceased to demand the recovery of these territories, which are under Spanish occupation, in order to achieve its territorial unity.
  On ratifying the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco declares that ratification may in no way be interpreted as recognition of that occupation.
  The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself bound by any national legal instrument or declaration that has been made or may be made by other States when they sign or ratify the Convention and reserves the right to determine its position on any such instruments or declarations at the appropriate time.
  The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco reserves the right to make, at the appropriate time, declarations pursuant to articles 287 and 298 relating to the settlement of disputes.
  Netherlands
  Upon ratification (28 June 1996):
  A. DECLARATION IN RESPECT OF ARTICLE 287 OF THE CONVENTION
  The Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby declares that, having regard to article 287 of the Convention, it accepts the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention with States Parties to the Convention which have likewise accepted the said jurisdiction.
  B. OBJECTIONS
  The Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to any declaration or statement excluding or modifying the legal effect of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  This is particularly the case with regard to the following matters:
  I. Innocent passage in the territorial sea
  The Convention permits innocent passage in the territorial sea for all ships, including foreign warships, nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or hazardous waste, without any prior consent or notification, and with due observance of special precautionary measures established for such ships by international agreements.
  II. Exclusive economic zone
  1. Passage through the exclusive economic zone
  Nothing in the Convention restricts the freedom of navigation of nuclear-powered ships or ships carrying nuclear or hazardous waste in the exclusive economic zone, provided such navigation is in accordance with the applicable rules of international law. In particular, the Convention does not authorize the coastal State to make the navigation of such ships in the exclusive economic zone dependent on prior consent or notification.
  2. Military exercises in the exclusive economic zone
  The Convention does not authorize the coastal State to prohibit military exercises in its exclusive economic zone. The rights of the coastal State in its exclusive economic zone are listed in article 56 of the Convention, and no such authority is given to the coastal State. In the exclusive economic zone all States enjoy the freedoms of navigation and overflight, subject to the relevant provisions of the Convention.
  3. Installations in the exclusive economic zone
  The coastal State enjoys the right to authorize, operate and use installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone for economic purposes. Jurisdiction over the establishment and use of installations and structures is limited to the rules contained in article 56 paragraph 1, and is subject to the obligations contained in article 56 paragraph 2, article 58 and article 60 of the Convention.
  4. Residual rights
  The coastal State does not enjoy residual rights in the exclusive economic zone. The rights of the coastal State in its exclusive economic zone are listed in article 56 of the Convention, and cannot be extended unilaterally.
  III. Passage through straits
  Routes and sea lanes through straits shall be established in accordance with the rules provided for in the Convention. Considerations with respect to domestic security and public order shall not affect navigation in straits used for international navigation. The application of other international instruments to straits is subject to the relevant articles of the Convention.
  IV. Archipelagic States
  The application of Part IV of the Convention is limited to a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos, and may include other islands. Claims to archipelagic status in contravention of article 46 are not acceptable. The status of archipelagic State, and the rights and obligations deriving from such status, can only be invoked under the conditions of part IV of the Convention.
  V. Fisheries
  The Convention confers no jurisdiction on the coastal State with respect to the exploitation, conservation and management of living marine resources other than sedentary species beyond the exclusive economic zone.
  The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory species should, in accordance with articles 63 and 64 of the Convention, take place on the basis of international cooperation in appropriate subregional and regional organizations.
  VI. Underwater cultural heritage
  Jurisdiction over objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea is limited to articles 149 and 303 of the Convention. The Kingdom of the Netherlands does however consider that there may be a need to further develop, in international cooperation, the international law on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage.
  VII. Baselines and delimitation
  A claim that the drawing of baselines or the delimitation of maritime zones is in accordance with the Convention will only be acceptable if such lines and zones have been established in accordance with the Convention.
  VIII. National legislation
  As a general rule of international law, as stated in articles 27 and 46 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, States may not rely on national legislation as a justification for a failure to implement the Convention.
  IX. Territorial claims
  Ratification by the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not imply recognition or acceptance of any territorial claim made by a State party to the Convention.
  X. Article 301
  Article 301 must be interpreted, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as applying to the territory and the territorial sea of a coastal State.
  XI. General declaration
  The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves its right to make further declarations relative to the Convention and to the Agreement, in response to future declarations and statements.
  C. DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEX IX OF THE CONVENTION
  Upon depositing its instrument of ratification the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, as State member of the European Community, it has transferred competence to the Community with respect to certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed declaration on the nature and extent of the competence transferred to the European Community will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions in Annex IX of the Convention.
  13 February 2009
  [to be included]
  Nicaragua1/
  [Original: Spanish]
  Upon signature (9 December 1984):
  In accordance with article 310, Nicaragua declares that such adjustments of its domestic law as may be required in order to harmonize it with the Convention will follow from the process of constitutional change initiated by the revolutionary State of Nicaragua, it being understood that the Convention and the Resolutions adopted on 10 December 1982 and the Annexes to the Convention constitute an inseparable whole.
  For the purposes of articles 287 and 298 and of other articles concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention, the Government of Nicaragua shall, if and as the occasion demands, exercise the right conferred by the Convention to make further supplementary or clarificatory declarations.
  Upon ratification (3 May 2000):
  In accordance with article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Nicaragua hereby declares:
  1. That it does not consider itself bound by any of the declarations or statements, however phrased or named, made by other States when signing, accepting, ratifying or acceding to the Convention and that it reserves the right to state its position on any of those declarations or statements at any time.
  2. That ratification of the Convention does not imply recognition or acceptance of any territorial claim made by a State party to the Convention, nor automatic recognition of any land or sea border.
  In accordance with article 287, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Nicaragua hereby declares that it accepts only recourse to the International Court of Justice as a means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  Nicaragua hereby declares that it accepts only recourse to the International Court of Justice as a means for the settlement of the categories of disputes set forth in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of article 298 of the Convention.
  ...
  1/ Refer to depositary notification C.N.302.2000.TREATIES-1 of 22 May 2000 (Nicaragua: Consent to be bound following the ratification of the Convention).
  Norway
  Upon ratification (24 June 1996):
  Declarations
  According to article 309 of the Convention, no reservations or exceptions other than those expressly permitted by its provisions may be made. A declaration pursuant to its article 310 cannot have the effect of an exception or reservation for the State making it. Consequently, the Government of the Kingdom of Norway declares that it does not consider itself bound by declarations pursuant to article 310 of the Convention that are or will be made by other States or international organizations. Passivity with respect to such declarations shall be interpreted neither as acceptance nor as rejection of such declarations. The Government reserves Norway's right at any time to take a position on such declarations in the manner deemed appropriate.
  Declaration pursuant to article 287 of the Convention
  The Government of the Kingdom of Norway declares pursuant to article 287 of the Convention that it chooses the International Court of Justice for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  Declaration pursuant to article 298 of the Convention
  The Government of the Kingdom of Norway declares pursuant to article 298 of the Convention that it does not accept an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII for any of the categories of disputes mentioned in Article 298.
  Oman
  [Original: Arabic]
  Upon signature (1 July 1983):
  "It is the understanding of the Government of the Sultanate of Oman that the application of the provisions of articles 19, 25, 34, 38 and 45 of the Convention does not preclude a coastal State from taking such appropriate measures as are necessary to protect its interest of peace and security."
  Upon ratification (17 August 1989):
  Pursuant to the provisions of article 310 of the Convention and further to the earlier declaration by the Sultanate of Oman dated 1 June 1982 concerning the establishment of straight baselines at any point on the coastline of the Sultanate of Oman and the lines enclosing waters within inlets and bays and waters between islands and the coastline, in accordance with article 2 (c) of Royal Decree No. 15/81 and in view of the desire of the Sultanate of Oman to bring its laws into line with the provisions of the Convention, the Sultanate of Oman issues the following declarations:
  Declaration No. 1, on the territorial sea
  1. The Sultanate of Oman determines that its territorial sea, in accordance with article 2 of Royal Decree No. 15/81 dated 10 February 1981, extends 12 nautical miles in a seaward direction, measured from the nearest point of the baselines.
  2. The Sultanate of Oman exercises full sovereignty over its territorial sea, the space above the territorial sea and its bed and subsoil, pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations of the Sultanate and in conformity with the provisions of this Convention concerning the principle of innocent passage.
  Declaration No. 2, on the passage of warships through Omani territorial waters
  Innocent passage is guaranteed to warships through Omani territorial waters, subject to prior permission. This also applies to submarines, on condition that they navigate on the surface and fly the flag of their home State.
  Declaration No. 3, on the passage of nuclear-powered ships and the like through Omani territorial waters
  With regard to foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other substances that are inherently dangerous or harmful to health or the environment, the right of innocent passage, subject to prior permission, is guaranteed to the types of vessel, whether or not warships, to which the descriptions apply. This right is also guaranteed to submarines to which the descriptions apply, on condition that they navigate on the surface and fly the flag of their home State.
  Declaration No. 4, on the contiguous zone
  The contiguous zone extends for a distance of 12 nautical miles measured from the outer limit of the territorial waters, and the Sultanate of Oman exercises the same prerogatives over it as are established by the Convention
  Declaration No. 5, on the exclusive economic zone1. The Sultanate of Oman determines that its exclusive economic zone, in accordance with article 5 of Royal Decree No. 15/81 dated 10 February 1981, extends 200 nautical miles in a seaward direction, measured from the baselines from which the territorial sea is measured.
  2. The Sultanate of Oman possesses sovereign rights over its economic zone and also exercises jurisdiction over that zone as provided for in the Convention. It further declares that, in exercising its rights and performing its duties under the Convention in the exclusive economic zone, it will have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and will act in a manner compatible with the provisions of the Convention.
  Declaration No. 6, on the continental shelf
  The Sultanate of Oman exercises over its continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources, as permitted by geographical conditions and in accordance with this Convention.
  Declaration No. 7, on the procedure chosen for the settlement of disputes under the Convention
  Pursuant to article 287 of the Convention, The Sultanate of Oman declares its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, as set forth in annex VI to the Convention, and the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, with a view to the settlement of any dispute that may arise between it and another State concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  Pakistan
  Upon ratification (26 February 1997):
  Whereas the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted on 10 December 1982 at Montego Bay and was opened for signature immediately thereafter;
  Whereas article 306 of the Convention provides that the present Convention shall be ratified and the instrument of ratification deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations;
  And whereas the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has decided to ratify the said Convention subject to the following declarations:
  (i) The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan shall, at an appropriate time, make declarations provided for in articles 287 and 298 relating to the settlement of disputes;
  (ii) The Law of the Sea Convention, while dealing with transit through the territory of the transit State, fully safeguards the sovereignty of the transit State. Consequently, in accordance with article 125, the rights and facilities of transit to the land-locked State ensure that it shall not in any way infringe upon the sovereignty and the legitimate interest of the transit State. The precise content of the freedom of transit consequently, in each case, has to be agreed upon by the transit State and the land-locked State concerned.
  In the absence of such an agreement concerning the terms and modalities for exercising the right of transit, through the territory of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan shall be regulated only by national laws of Pakistan;
  (iii) It is the understanding of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea do not in any way authorize the carrying out in the exclusive economic zone and in the continental shelf of any coastal State military exercises or manoeuvres by other States, in particular where the use of weapons or explosives is involved, without the consent of the coastal State concerned.
  Panama
  [Original: Spanish]
  Upon ratification (1 July 1996):
  The Republic of Panama, in depositing its instrument of ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted by Law No. 38 of 4 June 1996 and promulgated in Official Journal No. 23.056 of 12 June 1996), declares that it has exclusive sovereignty over the "historic Panamanian bay" of the Golfo de Panam½, a well-marked geographic configuration the coasts of which belong entirely to the Republic of Panama. It is a large indentation or inlet to the south of the Panamanian isthmus, where sea-waters superjacent to the seabed and subsoil cover the area between latitudes 7½28'00" North and 7½31'00" North and longitudes 79½59'53" and 78½11'40", both west of Greenwich, these being the positions of Punta Mala and Punta Jaqu½ respectively, west and east of the entrance of the Golfo de Panam½. This large indentation penetrates fairly deep into the Panamanian isthmus. The width of its entrance, from Punta Mala to Punta de Jaqu½ is some 200 kilometres and it penetrates inland a distance of 165 kilometres (measured from the imaginary line joining Punta Mala and Punta Jaqu½ to the mouths of the Rio Chico east of Panama City).
  Given its present and potential resources, the historic bay of the Golfo de Panam½ is a vital necessity for the Republic of Panama, both in terms of security and defence (this has been the case since time immemorial) and in economic terms, as its marine resources have been utilized since ancient times by the inhabitants of the Panamanian isthmus.
  It is oblong in shape, with a coastal outline that roughly resembles a calf's head, and its coastal perimeter, which measures some 668 kilometres, is under the maritime control of Panama. According to this delimitation, the historic bay of the Golfo de Panam½ has an area of approximately 30,000 square kilometres.
  The Republic of Panama declares that, in the exercise of its sovereign and territorial rights and in compliance with its duties, it will act in a manner compatible with the provisions of the Convention and reserves the right to issue further statements on the Convention if necessary.
  Philippines
  Understanding made upon signature (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratification (8 May 1984) 8/9/
  1. The signing of the Convention by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines under and arising from the Constitution of the Philippines.
  2. Such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines as successor of the United States of America, under and arising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of America of 10 December 1898, and the Treaty of Washington between the United States of America and Great Britain of 2 January 1930.
  3. Such signing shall not diminish or in any manner affect the rights and obligations of the contracting parties under the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States of America of 30 August 1951 and its related interpretative instruments; nor those under any other pertinent bilateral or multilateral treaty or agreement to which the Philippines is a party.
  4. Such signing shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines over any territory over which it exercises sovereign authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands, and the waters appurtenant thereto.
  5. The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential Decrees or Proclamation of the Republic of the Philippines; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines maintains and reserves the right and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippines Constitution.
  6. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic State over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty, independence and security.
  7. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines, and removes straits connecting these waters with the economic zone or high sea from the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation.
  8. The agreement of the Republic of the Philippines to the submission for peaceful resolution, under any of the procedures provided in the Convention, of disputes under article 298 shall not be considered as a derogation of Philippines sovereignty.
  Portugal
  [Original: Portuguese]
  Upon ratification (3 November 1997):In accordance with article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Portuguese Government made the following declarations:
  1. Portugal reaffirms, for the purpose of delimitation of the territorial sea, the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, its rights under domestic law in respect of the mainland and of the archipelagos and the islands incorporated therein;
  2. Portugal declares that, within a 12 nautical mile zone contiguous to its territorial sea, it shall take such control measures as it deems to be necessary, in accordance with the provisions of article 33 of the Convention;
  3. Pursuant to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Portugal enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured;
  4. The maritime boundary lines between Portugal and the States whose coasts are opposite or adjacent to its own coasts are those which historically have been established on the basis of international law;
  5. Portugal expresses its understanding that the Resolution III of the United Nations Third Conference on the Law of the Sea shall fully apply to the non-self-governing Territory of East Timor, of which it remains the administering Power, under the United Nations Charter and the relevant Resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council. Accordingly, the application of the Convention, in particular a delimitation, if any, of the maritime areas of the territory of East Timor, shall take into consideration the rights of its people under the Charter and the Resolutions and, furthermore, the responsibilities incumbent upon Portugal as administering Power of the Territory of East Timor;
  6. Portugal declares, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 303 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to the application of other legal instruments of international law regarding the protection of the underwater archaeological heritage, any objects of a historical or archaeological nature found in the maritime zones under its sovereignty or jurisdiction may be removed only after prior notice to and subject to the consent of the competent Portuguese authorities;
  7. Ratification by Portugal of this Convention does not imply the automatic recognition of any maritime or land boundary;
  8. Portugal does not consider itself bound by the declarations made by other States and it reserves its position as regards each declaration to be expressed in due time;
  9. Bearing in mind the available scientific information and with a view to the protection of the environment and the sustained growth of economic activities based on the sea, Portugal will, preferably through international cooperation and taking into account the precautionary principle, carry out control activities beyond the areas under national jurisdiction;
  10. For the purposes of Article 287 of the Convention, Portugal declares that, in the absence of non-judicial means for the settlement of disputes arising out of the application of this Convention, it will choose one of the following means for the settlement of disputes:
  (a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, established in pursuance of Annex VI;(b) the International Court of Justice;
  (c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
  (d) a special arbitral tribunal, constituted in accordance with Annex VIII;
  11. In the absence of any other peaceful means for the settlement of disputes, Portugal will, in accordance with Annex VIII to the Convention, choose the recourse to a special arbitral tribunal in so far as the application of the provisions of this Convention, or the interpretation thereof, to the matters relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of living marine resources and marine environment, scientific research, navigation and marine pollution are concerned;12. Portugal declares that, without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 1, Part XV of this Convention, it does not accept the compulsory procedures referred to in Section in Section 2 of the said Part, with respect to one or more of the categories specified in Article 298 (a) (b) (c) of this Convention;
  13. Portugal notes that, as a Member State of the European Community, it has transferred to the Community competence over a few matters governed by this Convention. A detailed declaration will be submitted in due time, specifying the nature and extent of the matters in respect of which it has transferred competence to the Community, in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  Qatar
  Upon signature (27 November 1984) 10/:
  The State of Qatar declares that its signature of the Convention on the Law of the Sea shall in no way imply recognition of Israel or any dealing with Israel or, lead to entry with Israel into any of the relations governed by the Convention or entailed by the implementation of the provisions thereof.
  Republic of Korea
  Declaration made after ratification (18 April 2006)
  1. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 298 of the Convention, the Republic of Korea does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
  2. The present declaration shall be effective immediately.
  3. Nothing in the present declaration shall affect the right of the Republic of Korea to submit a request to a court or tribunal referred to in Article 287 of the Convention to be permitted to intervene in the proceedings of any dispute between other States.
  Republic ofPalau
  Declaration made after ratification (27 April 2006)
  Declaration under article 298:
  "The Government of the Republic of Palau declares under paragraph 1 (a) of Article 298 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that it does not accept compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions relating to the delimitation and/or interpretation of maritime boundaries."
  Romania
  Declarations made upon signature (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratification (17 December 1996):
  1. As a geographically disadvantaged country bordering a sea poor in living resources, Romania reaffirms the necessity to develop international cooperation for the exploitation of the living resources of the economic zones, on the basis of just and equitable agreements that should ensure the access of the countries from this category to the fishing resources in the economic zones of other regions or subregions.
  2. Romania reaffirms the right of coastal States to adopt measures to safeguard their security interests, including the right to adopt national laws and regulations relating to the passage of foreign warships through their territorial sea.
  The right to adopt such measures is in full conformity with articles 19 and 25 of the Convention, as it is also specified in the Statement by the President of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in the plenary meeting of the Conference on 26 April 1982.
  3. Romania states that according to the requirements of equity - as it results from articles 74 and 83 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea - the uninhabited islands without economic life can in no way affect the delimitation of the maritime spaces belonging to the mainland coasts of the coastal States.
  Russian Federation
  [Original: Russian]
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, under article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it chooses an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII as the basic means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. It opts for a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for the consideration of matters relating to fisheries, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research, and navigation, including pollution from vessels and dumping. It recognizes the competence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, as provided for in article 292, in matters relating to the prompt release of detained vessels and crews.
  2. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, in accordance with article 298 of the Convention, it does not accept the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions for the consideration of disputes relating to sea boundary delimitations, disputes concerning military activities, or disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations.
  Upon ratification (12 March 1997):
  The Russian Federation declares that, in accordance with article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it does not accept the procedures, provided for in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention, entailing binding decisions with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 of the Convention, relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles; disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft, and disputes concerning law-enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction; and disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations.
  The Russian Federation, bearing in mind articles 309 and 310 of the Convention, declares that it objects to any declarations and statements made in the past or which may be made in future when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or made for any other reason in connection with the Convention, that are not in keeping with the provisions of article 310 of the Convention. The Russian Federation believes that such declarations and statements, however phrased or named, cannot exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention in their application to the party to the Convention that made such declarations or statements, and for this reason they shall not be taken into account by the Russian Federation in its relations with that party to the Convention.
  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  After ratification (22 November 2010):
  Declaration:
  In accordance with Article 287, of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, ½ the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines declares that it chooses the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI, as the means of settlement of disputes concerning the arrest or detention of its vessels.
  Sao Tome and Principe
  [Original: fran½ais]
  Upon signature (13 July 1983):
  I. The signing of the Convention by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe will in no way affect or prejudice the sovereign rights of the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe embodied in and flowing from the Constitution of Sao Tome and Principe;
  II. The Government of the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe reserves the right to adopt laws and regulations relating to the innocent passage of foreign warships through its territorial sea or its archipelagic waters and to take any other measures aimed at safeguarding its security;
  III. The Government of the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe considers that the provisions of the Convention relating to archipelagic waters, the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone are compatible with the legislation of the Republic of Sao Tome and Principe as regards its sovereignty and its jurisdiction over the maritime space adjacent to its coasts;
  IV. The Government of the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe considers that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, where the same stock area adjacent thereto, the States fishing for such stocks in the adjacent area are under an obligation to agree with the coastal State upon the measures necessary for the conservation of the stock or stocks of associated species;
  V. The Government of the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, reserves the right to adopt laws and regulations to ensure the conservation of highly migratory species and to co-operate with the States whose nationals harvest these species in order to promote the optimum utilization thereof.
  Saudi Arabia
  [Original: Arabic]
  Upon ratification (24 April 1996):
  1. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not bound by any domestic legislation or by any declaration issued by other States upon signature or ratification of this Convention. The Kingdom reserves the right to state its position concerning all such legislation or declarations at the appropriate time. In particular, the Kingdom's ratification of the Convention in no way constitutes recognition of the maritime claims of any other State having signed or ratified the Convention, where such claims are inconsistent with the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and prejudicial to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the Kingdom in its maritime areas.
  2. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not bound by any international treaty or agreement which contains provisions that are inconsistent with the Convention on the Law of the Sea and prejudicial to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the Kingdom in its maritime areas.
  3. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia considers that application of the provisions of Part IX of the Convention concerning the cooperation of States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed areas is subject to the acceptance of the Convention by all States concerned.
  4. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia considers that the provisions of the Convention relating to application of the system for transit passage through straits used for international navigation which connect one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone with another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone also apply to navigation between islands adjacent or contiguous to such straits, particularly where the sea lanes used for entrance to or exit from the strait, as designated by the competent international organization, are situated near such islands.
  5. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia considers that innocent passage does not apply to its territorial sea where there is a route to the high seas or an exclusive economic zone which is equally suitable as regards navigational and hydrographic features.
  6. In view of the inherent danger entailed in the passage of nuclear-powered vessels or vessels carrying nuclear material or other material of a similar nature and in view of the provision of article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning the right of the coastal State to confine the passage of such vessels to sea lanes designated by the State within its territorial sea, as well as that of article 23 of the Convention, which requires such vessels to carry documents and observe special precautionary measures as specified by international agreements, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with all of the above in mind, requires the aforesaid vessels to obtain prior authorization of passage before entering the territorial sea of the Kingdom until such time as the international agreements referred to in article 23 are concluded and the Kingdom becomes a party thereto. Under all circumstances, the flag State of such vessels shall assume all responsibility for any loss or damage resulting from the innocent passage of such vessels within the territorial sea of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
  7. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall issue its internal procedures for the maritime areas subject to its sovereignty and jurisdiction, so as to affirm the sovereign rights and jurisdiction and guarantee the interests of the Kingdom in those areas.
  Serbia and Montenegro
  Confirmed upon succession (12 March 2001) 16/:
  1. Proceeding from the right that States parties have on the basis of article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia considers that a coastal State may, by its laws and regulations, subject the passage of foreign warships to the requirement of previous notification to the respective coastal State and limit the number of ships simultaneously passing, on the basis of the international customary law and in compliance with the right of innocent passage (articles 17 to 32 of the Convention).
  2. The Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia also considers that it may, on the basis of article 38, paragraph 1, and article 45, paragraph 1 (a) of the Convention, determine by its laws and regulations which of the straits used for international navigation in the territorial sea of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will retain the regime of innocent passage, as appropriate.
  3. Owing to the fact that the provisions of the Convention relating to the contiguous zone (article 33) do not provide rules on the delimitation of the contiguous zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts, the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia considers that the principles of the customary international law, codified in article 24, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, signed at Geneva on 29 April 1958, will apply to the delimitation of the contiguous zone between the parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  Slovenia
  Declaration made upon succession (16 June 1995) 11/:
  The Republic of Slovenia does not consider itself to be bound by the declaratory statement on the basis of article 310 of the Convention, given by the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  On the basis of article 310 of the Convention, the Republic of Slovenia wishes to give the following declaratory statement:
  "Proceeding from the right that States Parties have on the basis of article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Republic of Slovenia considers that its Part V 'Exclusive economic zone', including the provisions of article 70, 'Right of geographically disadvantaged States', forms part of the general customary international law."
  This notification of succession is considered to have taken effect as of 25 June 1991, the date on which the Republic of Slovenia assumed responsibility for its international relations.
  Declarations made after succession (11 October 2001):
  Declaration pursuant to article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  The Government of the Republic of Slovenia declares pursuant to article 287 of the Convention that it chooses an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention
  Declaration pursuant to article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  The Government of the Republic of Slovenia declares pursuant to article 298 of the Convention that it does not accept an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII for any of the categories of disputes mentioned in article 298.South Africa
  I. The Government of the Republic of South Africa withdraws the declarations made on behalf of South Africa upon signature of the Convention on 5 December 1994.
  Upon ratification (23 December 1997) 12/:
  II. The Government of the Republic of South Africa shall, at an appropriate time, make declarations provided for in Articles 287 and 298 of the Convention relating to the settlement of disputes.
  Spain
  [Original: Spanish]
  Upon signature (4 December 1984):
  1. The Spanish Government, upon signing this Convention, declares that this act cannot be interpreted as recognition of any rights or situations relating to the maritime spaces of Gibraltar which are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 between the Spanish and British Crowns. The Spanish Government also considers that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is not applicable in the case of the Colony of Gibraltar, which is undergoing a decolonization process in which only the relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly apply.
  2. It is the Spanish Government's interpretation that the r½gime established in Part III of the Convention is compatible with the right of the coastal State to issue and apply its own air regulations in the air space of the straits used for international navigation so long as this does not impede the transit passage of aircraft.
  3. With regard to article 39, paragraph 3, it takes the word "normally" to mean "except in cases of force majeure or distress".
  4. With regard to Article 42, it considers that the provisions of paragraph 1 (b) do not prevent it from issuing, in accordance with international law, laws and regulations giving effect to generally accepted international regulations.
  5. The Spanish Government interprets articles 69 and 70 of the Convention as meaning that access to fishing in the economic zones of third States by the fleets of developed land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States is dependent upon the prior granting of access by the coastal States in question to the nationals of other States who have habitually fished in the economic zone concerned.
  6. It interprets the provisions of Article 221 as not depriving the coastal State of a strait used for international navigation of its powers, recognized by international law, to intervene in the case of the casualties referred to in that article.
  7. It considers that Article 233 must be interpreted, in any case, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 34.
  8. It considers that, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 297 regarding the settlement of disputes, Articles 56, 61 and 62 of the Convention preclude considering as discretionary the powers of the coastal State to determine the allowable catch, its harvesting capacity and the allocation of surpluses to other States.
  9. Its interpretation of Annex III, Article 9, is that the provisions thereof shall not obstruct participation, in the joint ventures referred to in paragraph 2, of the States Parties whose industrial potential precludes them from participating directly as contractors in the exploitation and resources of the Area.
  Upon ratification (15 January 1997):
  1. The Kingdom of Spain recalls that, as a member of the European Union, it has transferred competence over certain matters governed by the Convention to the European Community. A detailed declaration will be made in due course as to the nature and extent of the competence transferred to the European Community, in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  2. In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonization in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly are applicable.
  3. Spain understands that:
  a) The provisions laid down in Part III of the Convention are compatible with the right of a coastal State to dictate and apply its own regulations in straits used for international navigation, provided that this does not impede the right of transit passage.
  (b) In article 39, paragraph 3 (a), the word `normally' means `unless by force majeure or by distress'.
  (c) The provisions of article 221 shall not deprive a State bordering a strait used for international navigation of its competence under international law regarding intervention in the event of the casualties referred to in that article.
  4. Spain interprets that:
  (a) Articles 69 and 70 of the Convention mean that access to fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of third States by the fleets of developed landlocked or geographically disadvantaged States shall depend on whether the relevant coastal States have previously granted access to the fleets of States which habitually fish in the relevant exclusive economic zone.
  (b) With regard to article 297, and without prejudice to the provisions of that article in respect of settlement of disputes, articles 56, 61 and 62 of the Convention do not allow of an interpretation whereby the rights of the coastal State to determine permissible catches, its capacity for exploitation and the allocation of surpluses to other States may be considered discretionary.
  5. The provisions of article 9 of Annex III shall not prevent States Parties whose industrial potential does not enable them to participate directly as contractors in the exploitation of the resources of the zone from participating in the joint ventures referred to in paragraph 2 of that article.
  6. In accordance with the provisions of article 287, paragraph 1, Spain chooses the International Court of Justice as the means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  Declaration made after ratification (19 July 2002)
  Declarations under articles 287 and 298:
  Pursuant to article 287, paragraph 1, the Government of Spain declares that it chooses the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice as means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  The Government of Spain declares, pursuant to the provisions of article 298, para. 1(a) of the Convention, that it does not accept the procedures provided for in part XV, section 2, with respect to the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles.
  Sudan
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  Declarations made in plenary meeting at the Final Part of the Eleventh Session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held at Montego Bay, Jamaica, from 6 to 10 December 1982, and reiterated upon signature
  [1] In accordance with article 310 of the Convention, the Sudanese Government will make such declarations as it deems necessary in order to clarify its position regarding the content of certain provisions of this instrument.
  [2] [The Sudan] wishes to reiterate [the statement by the President of the Conference] in plenary meeting during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, on 26 April 1982, concerning article 21, in which deals with the laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passage: namely, that the withdrawal of the amendment submitted at the time by a number of States did not prejudge the right of coastal States to take all necessary measures, particularly in order to protect their security, in accordance with article 19 on the meaning of the term "innocent passage" and article 25 on the rights of protection of the coastal State.
  [3] The Sudan also wishes to state that, according to its interpretation, the definition of the term "geographically disadvantaged States" given in article 70, paragraph 2, applies to all the parts of the Convention in which this term appears.
  [4] The fact that [the Sudan] is signing this Convention and the Final Act of the Conference in no way means that [it] recognizes any State whatsoever which it does not recognize or with which it has no relations.
  Sweden
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  "As regards those parts of the Convention which deal with innocent passage through the territorial sea, it is the intention of the Government of Sweden to continue to apply the present r½gime for the passage of foreign warships and other government-owned vessels used for non-commercial purposes through the Swedish territorial sea, that r½gime being fully compatible with the Convention.
  It is also the understanding of the Government of Sweden that the Convention does not affect the rights and duties of a neutral State provided for in the Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in case of Naval Warfare (XIII Convention), adopted at The Hague on 18 October 1907."
  Upon signature and confirmed upon ratification (25 June 1996):
  "It is the understanding of the Government of Sweden that the exception from the transit passage r½gime in straits, provided for in Article 35 (c) of the Convention is applicable to the strait between Sweden and Denmark (Oresund) as well as to the strait between Sweden and Finland (the Aland islands). Since in both those straits the passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions in force, the present legal r½gime in the two straits will remain unchanged."
  Upon ratification (25 June 1996):
  It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden that the exception from the transit passage regime in straits, provided for in article 35 of the Convention is applicable to the strait between Sweden and Denmark (Oresund), as well as to the strait between Sweden and Finland (the Aland islands). Since in both those straits the passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions in force, the present legal regime in the two straits will remain unchanged.
  The Government of the Kingdom of Sweden hereby chooses, in accordance with article 287 of the Convention, the International Court of Justice for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention and the Agreement Implementing Part XI of the Convention.
  The Kingdom of Sweden recalls that, as a member of the European Community, it has transferred competence in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed declaration on the nature and extent of the competence transferred to the European Community will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  Switzerland
  1 May 2009
  Declaration under article 287:
  The Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has been designated as the only competent organ for disputes concerning law of the sea matters.
  Thailand
  15 May 2011
  Declaration:
  I. The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand declares, in relation to Article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as follows:
  1. The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand intends to undertake a comprehensive review of existing domestic laws and regulations with a view to progressively harmonizing them with the provisions of the Convention.
  2. The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand is not bound either by any declaration or position excluding or modifying the legal scope of the provisions of the Convention, or by any domestic legislation which is inconsistent with the relevant principles of international law and the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand reserves the right to state its position concerning all such legislations or declarations at the appropriate time.
  3. Ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not imply recognition or acceptance of any territorial claim made by a State party to the Convention.
  4. The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand understands that, in the exclusive economic zone, enjoyment of the freedom of navigation in accordance with relevant provisions of the Convention excludes any non-peaceful use without the consent of the coastal State, in particular, military exercises or other activities which may affect the rights or interests of the coastal State; and it also excludes the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity, political independence, peace or security of the coastal State.
  5. The Government of the kingdom of Thailand reserves the right to make, at an appropriate time, the declaration provided for in Article 287 relating to the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  II. The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand declares, in relation to Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as follows:
  With reference to Article 298, paragraph 1, the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Part XV, Section 2, with respect to the following disputes:
  - disputes concerning the interpretation or application of Articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles;
  - disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under Article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
  - disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in the Convention.
  Timor-Leste
  Declaration [upon accession]:
  1. Timor-Leste reaffirms, for the purposes of delimitation of the territorial sea, the Continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, its rights under domestic law, that historically incorporate the eastern part of island of Timor, the enclave Oecusse-Ambeno, the island of Ata½ro and the island of Jaco;2. Ratification by Timor-Leste of this Convention does not imply the automatic recognition of any maritime or land boundary;3. Timor-Leste does not consider itself bound by the declarations made by other States and it reserves its position as regards each declaration to be expressed in due time;
  4. For the purposes of article 287 of the Convention, Timor-Leste declares that, in the absence of non-judicial means for the settlement of disputes arising out of the application of this Convention, it will choose one of the following means for the settlement of disputes:
  a) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, established in pursuance of Annex VI;b) The International Court of Justice;c) An arbitral tribunal, constituted in accordance with Annex VII;d) A special arbitral tribunal, constituted in accordance with Annex VIII.
  Trinidad and Tobago
  17 October 2007
  Declaration under article 287:
  "The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago ... declare[s] that in the absence of or failing any other peaceful means, The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago chooses the following means in order of priority for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:
  a. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
  b. The International Court of Justice."
  13 February 2009
  Declaration under article 298:
  ½ ½ [The] Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, do hereby declare under paragraph 1 (a) of article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea done at Montego Bay on the tenth day of December one thousand nine hundred and eighty-two, that the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Part XV, section 2 of the Convention with respect to the categories of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations as well as those involving historic bays or titles.½
  [Original: Arabic]
  Upon ratification (24 April 1985)
  Declaration 1
  The Republic of Tunisia, on the basis of resolution 4262 of the Council of the League of Arab States, dated 31 March 1983, declares that its accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not imply recognition of or dealings with any State which the Republic of Tunisia does not recognize or have dealings with.
  Declaration 2
  The Republic of Tunisia, in accordance with the provisions of article 311, and in particular paragraph 6 thereof, declares its adherence to the basic principle relating to the common heritage of mankind and that it will not be a party to any agreement in derogation thereof. The Republic of Tunisia calls upon all States to avoid any unilateral measure or legislation of this kind that would lead to disregard of the provisions of the Convention or to the exploitation of the resources of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof outside of the legal regime of the seas and oceans provided for in this Convention and in the other legal instruments pertaining thereto, in particular resolution I and resolution II.
  Declaration 3
  The Republic of Tunisia, in accordance with the provisions of article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, declares that it does not accept the procedures provided for in part XV, section 2, of the said Convention with respect to the following categories of disputes:
  (a)(i)Disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;(ii)After the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;(iii)This subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;(b)Disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;(c)Disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.Declaration 4
  The Republic of Tunisia, in accordance with the provisions of article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, declares that its legislation currently in force does not conflict with the provisions of this Convention. However, laws and regulations will be adopted as soon as possible in order to ensure closer harmony between the provisions of the Convention and the requirements for completing Tunisian legislation in the maritime sphere.
  Declaration made after ratification (22 May 2001)
  Declaration under article 287
  In accordance with the provisions of article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Tunisia declares that it accepts, in order of preference, the following means for the settlement of disputes relating to the interpretation or implementation of the above-mentioned Convention:
  (a) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;
  (b) An arbitral tribunal established in accordance with Annex VII.
  Ukraine[Original: Ukrainian]
  Upon signature (10 December 1982):
  1. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic declares that, in accordance with article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it chooses as the principal means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII. For the consideration of questions relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping, the Ukrainian SSR chooses a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII. The Ukrainian SSR recognizes the competence, as stipulated in article 292, of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in respect of questions relating to the prompt release of detained vessels or their crews.
  2. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic declares, in accordance with article 298 of the Convention, that it does not accept compulsory procedures, involving binding decisions, for the consideration of disputes relating to sea boundary delimitations, disputes concerning military activities and disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations.
  Upon ratification (26 July 1999):
  1. Ukraine declares that, in accordance with article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, it chooses as the principal means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII. For the consideration of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention in respect of questions relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping, Ukraine chooses a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII.
  Ukraine recognizes the competence, as stipulated in article 292 of the Convention, of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in respect of questions relating to the prompt release of detained vessels or their crews.
  2. Ukraine declares, in accordance with article 298 of the Convention, that it does not accept, unless otherwise provided by specific international treaties of Ukraine with relevant States, the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions for the consideration of disputes relating to sea boundary delimitations, disputes involving historic bays or titles, and disputes concerning military activities.
  3. Ukraine declares, taking into account articles 309 and 310 of the Convention, that it objects to any statements or declarations, irrespective of when such statements or declarations were or may be made, that may result in a failure to interpret the provisions of the Convention in good faith, or are contrary to the ordinary meaning of terms in the context of the Convention or its object and purpose.
  4. As a geographically disadvantaged country bordering a sea poor in living resources, Ukraine reaffirms the necessity to develop international cooperation for the exploitation of the living resources of economic zones, on the basis of just and equitable agreements that should ensure the access to fishing resources in the economic zones of other regions and sub-regions.
  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  Upon accession (25 July 1997):
  (a) General
  The United Kingdom cannot accept any declaration or statement made or to be made in the future which is not in conformity with articles 309 and 310 of the Convention. Article 309 of the Convention prohibits reservations and exceptions (except those expressly permitted by other articles of the Convention). Under article 310 declarations and statements made by a State cannot exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention in their application to the State concerned.
  The United Kingdom considers that declarations and statements not in conformity with articles 309 and 310 include, inter alia, the following:
  - those which relate to baselines not drawn in conformity with the Convention;
  - those which purport to require any form of notification or permission before warships or other ships exercise the right of innocent passage or freedom of navigation or which otherwise purport to limit navigational rights in ways not permitted by the Convention;
  - those which are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention relating to straits used for international navigation, including the right of transit passage;
  - those which are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention relating to archipelagic states or waters, including archipelagic baselines and archipelagic sea lanes passage;
  - those which are not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention relating to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including those which claim coastal state jurisdiction over all installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, and those which purport to require consent for exercises or manoeuvres (including weapons exercises) in those areas;- those which purport to subordinate the interpretation or application of the Convention to national laws and regulations, including constitutional provisions.
  (b) European Community
  The United Kingdom recalls that, as a Member of the European Community, it has transferred competence to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed declaration on the nature and extent of the competence to the European Community will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
  (c) The Falkland Islands
  With regard to paragraph (d) of the Declaration made upon ratification of the Convention by the Government of the Argentine Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands and over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering authority of both Territories, has extended the United Kingdom's accession to the Convention and ratification of the Agreement to the Falkland Islands and to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom, therefore, rejects as unfounded paragraph (d) of the Argentine declaration.
  (d) Gibraltar
  With regard to point 2 of the declaration made upon ratification of the Convention by the Government of Spain, the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Gibraltar, including its territorial waters. The Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering authority of Gibraltar, has extended the United Kingdom's accession to the Convention and ratification of the Agreement to Gibraltar. The Government of the United Kingdom, therefore, rejects as unfounded point 2 of the Spanish declaration.
  (e) Extent
  These instruments of accession and of ratification extend to:
  The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandThe Bailiwick of JerseyThe Bailiwick of GuernseyThe Isle of ManAnguillaBermudaBritish Antarctic TerritoryBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBritish Virgin IslandsCayman IslandsFalkland IslandsGibraltarMontserratPitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno IslandsSt. Helena and DependenciesSouth Georgia and South Sandwich IslandsTurks and Caicos Islands
  Declaration made after accession
  12 January 1998
  Declaration on the choice of procedure under article 287
  In accordance with Article 287, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland chooses the International Court of Justice for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is a new institution, which the United Kingdom hopes will make an important contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes concerning the law of the sea. In addition to those cases where the Convention itself provides for the compulsory jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the United Kingdom remains ready to consider the submission of disputes to the Tribunal as may be agreed on a case-by-case basis.
  7 April 2003
  Declaration pursuant to article 298, paragraph 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:
  ".....the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1(b) and (c) of article 298."
  United Republic of Tanzania
  Upon ratification (30 September 1985):
  In accordance with article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Republic of Tanzania declares that it chooses the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
  Uruguay
  [Original: Spanish]
  Declarations made upon signature (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratification (10 December 1982):
  (A) The provisions of the Convention concerning the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone are compatible with the main purposes and principles underlying Uruguayan legislation in respect of Uruguay's sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea adjacent to its coast and over its bed and subsoil up to a limit of 200 miles.
  (B) The legal nature of the exclusive economic zone as defined in the Convention and the scope of the rights which the Convention recognizes to the coastal State leave room for no doubt that it is a "sui generis" zone of national jurisdiction different from the territorial sea and that it is not part of the high seas.
  (C) Regulation of the uses and activities not provided for expressly in the Convention (residual rights and obligations) relating to the rights of sovereignty and to the jurisdiction of the coastal State in its exclusive economic zone falls within the competence of that State, provided that such regulation does not prevent enjoyment of the freedom of international communication which is recognized to other States.
  (D) In the exclusive economic zone, enjoyment of the freedom of international communication in accordance with the way it is defined and in accordance with other relevant provisions of the Convention excludes any non-peaceful use without the consent of the coastal State - for instance, military exercises or other activities which may affect the rights or interests of that State; and it also excludes the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity, political independence, peace or security of the coastal State.
  (E) This Convention does not empower any State to build, operate or utilize installations or structures in the exclusive economic zone of another State, neither those referred to in the Convention nor any other kind, without the consent of the coastal State.
  (F) In accordance with all the relevant provisions of the Convention, where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur both within the exclusive economic zone and in an area beyond and adjacent to the zone, the States fishing for such stocks in the adjacent area are duty bound to agree with the coastal State upon the measures necessary for the conservation of these stocks or associated species.
  (G) When the Convention enters into force, Uruguay will apply, with respect to other States parties, the provisions established by the Convention and by Uruguayan legislation, on the basis of reciprocity.
  (H) Pursuant to the provisions of article 287, Uruguay declares that it chooses the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for the settlement of such disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention as are not subject to other procedures, without prejudice to its recognition of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and of such agreements with other States as may provide for other means for peaceful settlement.
  (I) Pursuant to the provisions of article 298, Uruguay declares that it will not accept the procedures provided for in part XV, section 2, of the Convention, in respect of disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraphs 2 and 3.
  (J) Uruguay reaffirms that, as stated in article 76, the continental shelf is the natural prolongation of the territory of the coastal State to the outer edge of the continental margin.
  Viet Nam
  Upon ratification (25 July 1994) 13/:
  The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, by ratifying the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, expresses its determination to join the international community in the establishment of an equitable legal order and in the promotion of maritime development and cooperation.
  The National Assembly reaffirms the sovereignty of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam over its internal waters and territorial sea; the sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Viet Nam, based on the provisions of the Convention and principles of international law; and calls on other countries to respect the above-said rights of Viet Nam.
  The National Assembly reiterates Viet Nam's sovereignty over the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes and its position to settle those disputes relating to territorial claims as well as other disputes in the Eastern Sea through peaceful negotiations in the spirit of equality, mutual respect and understanding, and with due respect of international law, particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and of the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the coastal States over their respective continental shelves and exclusive economic zones; the concerned parties should, while exerting active efforts to promote negotiations for a fundamental and long-term solution, maintain stability on the basis of the status quo, refrain from any act that may further complicate the situation and from the use of force or threat of force.
  The National Assembly [differentiates] between the settlement of the dispute[s] over the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes and the defence of the continental shelf and maritime zones falling under Viet Nam's sovereignty, rights and jurisdiction, based on the principles and standards specified in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  The National Assembly [authorizes] the National Assembly's Standing Committee and the Government to review all relevant national legislation to consider necessary amendments in conformity with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and to safeguard the interests of Viet Nam.
  The National Assembly authorizes the Government to undertake effective measures for the management and defence of the continental shelf and maritime zones of Viet Nam.
  Yemen (formerly Democratic Yemen)
  [Original: Arabic]
  Upon ratification (21 July 1987):
  1. The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen will give precedence to its national laws in force which require prior permission for the entry or transit of foreign warships or of submarines or ships operated by nuclear power or carrying radioactive materials.
  2. With regard to the delimitation of the maritime borders between the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen and any State having coasts opposite or adjacent to it, the median line basically adopted shall be drawn in a way such that every point of it is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of any State is measured. This shall be applicable to the maritime borders of the mainland territory of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen and also of its islands.
  [Note: The Yemen Arab Republic had signed the Convention on 10 December 1982 with the following declarations:1. The Yemen Arabic Republic adheres to the rules of general international law concerning rights to national sovereignty over coastal territorial waters, even in the case of the waters of a strait linking two seas.
  2. The Yemen Arab Republic adheres to the concept of general international law concerning free passage as applying exclusively to merchant ships and aircraft; nuclear-powered craft, as well as warships and warplanes in general, must obtain the prior agreement of the Yemen Arab Republic before passing through its territorial waters, in accordance with the established norm of general international law relating to national sovereignty.
  3. The Yemen Arab Republic confirms its national sovereignty over all the islands in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean which have been its dependencies since the period when the Yemen and the Arab countries were a Turkish administration.
  4. The Yemen Arab Republic declares that its signature of the Convention on the Law of the Sea is subject to the provisions of this declaration and the completion of the constitutional procedures in effect.
  The fact that we have signed the said Convention in no way implies that we recognize Israel or are entering into relations with it.]
Disputed status of Gibraltar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:08
  The British [11] and Gibraltarian governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised.[12][13][14][15] On the other hand, the Special Committee on Decolonization maintains Gibraltar on its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.[16] Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list[17] and Spanish commentators still describe Gibraltar as a "colony".[18][19]
  Spanish position[edit source |edit]Since the Anglo-Dutch capture of Gibraltar in 1704, Spain has tried to recover it by both military and diplomatic means. The 18th century saw three unsuccessful sieges (1704, 1727 and 1779-83). The decline in Spain's naval power and the British world preeminence during the 19th century made any recovery attempt by Spain unthinkable.[20] The claim was reactivated during the 1950s and especially during the 1960s by the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco. However, the quest for Gibraltar is largely a cross-ideology issue[clarification needed] having been supported by politicians and public figures of any political sign[clarification needed] for more than three centuries. In that sense, the president of the Spanish Republic in exile, Claudio Snchez-Albornoz graphically stated:[21] "There cannot be a Spaniard worthy of the name, who can write, without blushing, that Gibraltar is not part of Spain. And if there is anyone who can write that without blushing, I take the liberty of blushing for him, as a liberal Spaniard in exile."
  Reclaiming the territory by peaceful means remains the policy of successive Spanish governments.
  The traditional Spanish position is based on territorial integrity, as per UN Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960) which according to Spain complements and constrains the right to self-determination: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
  During the 1960s, the UN General Assembly passed two resolutions on the issue (2231 (XXI), "Question of Gibraltar"[22] and 2353 (XXII), "Question of Gibraltar"[23]). The resolutions on the decolonisation of Gibraltar focused on the "interests" and not the "wishes" of the Gibraltarians. The latter resolution states that:
  any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and especially with paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly [...] Invites the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume without delay the negotiations provided for in General Assembly Resolutions 2070 (XX) and 2231 (XXI), with a view to putting an end to the colonial situation in Gibraltar and to safeguarding the interests of the population.
  From such a point of view, Gibraltarians are seen as mere "settlers" from the United Kingdom and other countries and only their interests, not their wishes (as the right to self-determination would involve), need be safeguarded. This point of view is supported by the fact that following the 1704 capture of Gibraltar by Anglo-Dutch troops, only around 70 out of the original 5,000 Spanish inhabitants chose to remain in Gibraltar.[24] Therefore, Spain has insisted that the Gibraltar dispute is a purely bilateral matter with the United Kingdom and has ignored the role and will of the Gibraltarians.
  The first formal proposal on how to achieve the return of Gibraltar to Spain was made on 18 May 1966 by the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fernando Castiella. The proposal comprised three clauses:[25][26]
  "The cancellation of the Treaty of Utrecht and the subsequent return of Gibraltar to Spain.""The stay of the British base in Gibraltar, its use being subject to a specific Anglo-Spanish agreement.""A "Personal Statute" for Gibraltarians, under United Nations guarantee, protecting their cultural, social and economic interest in Gibraltar or anywhere else in Spain, including their British nationality. An "appropriate [..] administrative formula" should be also agreed."The proposal was rejected by the British Government and by the Gibraltarians, which overwhelmingly voted to remain under British sovereignty in a referendum held in 1967 (12,138 to 44).
  No further success for the Spanish claims was achieved for the following forty years. In view of that, the Spanish position seems to have softened, being redirected towards some form of temporary or permanent arrangement to achieve joint sovereignty, which has been proposed by Spain and discussed with the British Government. Such a proposal was tabled by the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Fernando Morn, in 1985. The details of the proposal were not made public, but information released showed an offer on a treaty with the United Kingdom in order to "re-integrate" Gibraltar with Spain, while preserving Gibraltarians' way of life. They would keep their British nationality, as well as their existing political and labour rights, self-government and institutions. Morn proposed that a condominium or leaseback arrangement should be agreed, over a 15 or 20-year period.[27] This proposal was not formally rejected by Douglas Hurd, the then British Foreign Secretary, until 1993.
  In 1997 a second proposal was made by the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Abel Matutes, foreseeing a hundred-year period of joint sovereignty before a definite transfer to Spain.[28] A similar scheme was provisionally agreed on between the Spanish and British governments in the spring of 2002, but this was eventually abandoned, after sustained opposition by the Gibraltarians which included the Gibraltar sovereignty referendum of 2002.
  British position[edit source |edit]In his evidence to the UK ParliamentForeign Affairs Committee in 2008, Jim MurphyMP, Minister of State for Europe stated:[6]
  The UK Government will never '-- "never" is a seldom-used word in politics '-- enter into an agreement on sovereignty without the agreement of the Government of Gibraltar and their people. In fact, we will never even enter into a process without that agreement. The word "never" sends a substantial and clear commitment and has been used for a purpose. We have delivered that message with confidence to the peoples and the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain. It is a sign of the maturity of our relationship now that that is accepted as the UK's position.
  On the other hand, the British Government has ruled out both the independence of Gibraltar and its integration into the United Kingdom. With regard to the independence, it refers to the Treaty of Utrecht as, according to the British view, it would require Spanish consent:[29]
  I will note that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, Gibraltar's right of self determination is not constrained by the Treaty of Utrecht except in so far as Article X gives Spain the right of refusal should Britain ever renounce Sovereignty. Thus independence would only be an option with Spanish consent.
  The option of Integration was rejected on 26 June 1976, when the British Government issued the Hattersley Memorandum rejecting the integration in order to:[30] "avoid innovations which might result in prolongation of the frontier restrictions imposed by Spain."
  Gibraltarian position[edit source |edit]Gibraltarians argue that the Spanish claims are baseless, pointing to the right to self-determination of all peoples, guaranteed and enshrined by the UN, according to the UN Charter. Its article 1 states that "The Purposes of the United Nations are ... to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
  To the same section 2 of Resolution 1514 (XV) states: "All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
  Furthermore, resolution 2231 (XXI) itself recalls and demands implementation of Resolution 1514(XV) (guaranteeing Gibraltar's right to self-determination) and therefore the Spanish claim for its territorial integrity (which would not be affected by Gibraltar's decolonisation) cannot displace or extinguish the rights of the people of Gibraltar under resolution 1514(XV) or under the Charter. From this point of view, any additional right that Spain could claim by virtue of the "reversionary" clause contained in the Treaty of Utrecht is overruled and annulled under article 103 of the UN Charter: " In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."
  Finally, it is argued that there is in fact no principle in International Law or UN doctrine that can displace the inalienable right to self-determination. In this regard, in 2008, the UN 4th Committee rejected the claim that a dispute over sovereignty affected self-determination, affirming it to be a basic human right.[31]
  The Gibraltar Government has also argued that Gibraltar is a British territory and therefore by definition not an integral part of any other state, implying that Spain's territorial integrity cannot be affected by anything that occurs in Gibraltar: "Even if integration of a territory was demanded by an interested State it could not be had without ascertaining the freely expressed will of the people, the very sine qua non of all decolonisation."
  In a referendum held in Gibraltar in September 2002, Gibraltarian voters rejected even partial Spanish sovereignty.[32]
  Speaking to the UK Parliament Foreign Affairs committee in March 2008 Peter Caruana the Chief Minister of Gibraltar noted:
  Spain does not dispute that Gibraltar is properly, in law, British territory. Therefore, this is not disputed land. She has a political claim to the return of Gibraltar sovereignty, but she does not dispute the fact that in proper international law, she ceded sovereignty to Britain in perpetuity and therefore it is undisputed British sovereign territory.[33]
  Gibraltarians seem to remain mistrustful of Spain despite improved relations.[34][35][36]
What hypocrisy! With Gibraltar besieged, ROBERT HARDMAN visits Spain's own Rock - the colonial outpost in Africa that, with ocean-going double standards, they refuse to surrender | Mail Online
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:04
  By Robert Hardman
  PUBLISHED: 16:19 EST, 16 August 2013 | UPDATED: 04:28 EST, 17 August 2013
  3,084shares
  517
  Viewcomments
  Colonial grandeur still dominates the skyline. An old cannon points its weather-beaten barrel across the Strait of Gibraltar. Up on the huge rock above, the sleepy ancient fortress is still manned by the Armed Forces. Down below, locals and tourists seek shade in the little cafes or head for the beach.
  It's easy to forget that just a couple of miles down the road is the heavily fortified frontier that cuts this contented little peninsular off from the rest of the continent. But as far as the locals are concerned, this is their patch of soil. They say they will never be forced to hand it over to the vast, brooding nation to which they are attached by a narrow bit of land. That would be, well, completely undemocratic.
  'We are Spanish to the death!' says retired fisherman Andre Leon, 77, sitting beneath a tree in the centre of Ceuta, the resolutely Spanish territory on the northern tip of Morocco, where he was born and bred.
  'We are Spanish to the death!' says retired fisherman Andre Leon, 77, sitting beneath a tree in the centre of Ceuta, the resolutely Spanish territory on the northern tip of Morocco, where he was born and bred
  It's a nice enough spot, with ancient monuments and air-conditioned shopping plazas. And it neatly illustrates the ocean-going Spanish hypocrisy to be found on either side of the 18-mile stretch of water separating Europe and Africa.
  For, just across one of the world's busiest seaways, we find the 30,000 British citizens of Gibraltar enduring threats, siege conditions and even physical abuse from a clapped-out Spanish regime mired in a slush-fund corruption scandal. The centre-Right People's Party hopes to divert the attentions of a disgusted Spanish electorate by shouting the oldest war cry in the book: 'Give us back Gibraltar!'
  Yet try to point out Spain's own string of post-colonial possessions on the African coast, such as Ceuta '-- clearly visible on Gibraltar's horizon '-- and the response is a furious outburst of sanctimonious shrieking, table-thumping and general spilling of Rioja. 'That is completely different,' declares Spanish officialdom, citing a 15th-century legal technicality.
  You only need to spend a few days, as I have this week, on both sides of the strait to realise Spain isn't just in breach of both the letter and spirit of European law with its current harassment of Gibraltar. It's also guilty of the most brazen double standards. In short, Spain wants to have its paella, eat it, get someone else to pay for it and thump anyone who argues.
  Little wonder the people of Gibraltar are preparing the warmest of welcomes for the Royal Navy frigate, HMS Westminster, when she docks on Monday as part of a routine exercise.
  'As soon as someone spots her on the horizon, we'll have boats out to greet her,' says Gareth Gingell from a local community action group called The Defenders of Gibraltar.
  Foreign Office mandarins and high-brow British commentators may wince at the vulgar jingoism of it all. Why should a tiny tax haven be allowed to sour Britain's relations with Spain?
  As one Guardian columnist put it this week, places like Gibraltar are nothing more than 'Churchillian theme parks of red pillar boxes, fish and chips and warm beer'.
  Gibraltar yesterday unveiled designs for a new £20 silver coin featuring Churchill and the words 'We shall never surrender' (it had been planned for months).
  This is a place so wedded to the British way of life that two juggernauts leave Britain every day just to stock the Gib branch of Morrisons. This week, the Gibraltarian government announced production of the world's first stamp commemorating the birth of Prince George.
  If you try to point out Spain's own string of post-colonial possessions on the African coast, such as Ceuta, the response is a furious outburst of sanctimonious shrieking (Robert Hardman pictured)
  Yet such patriotism is scoffed at by sophisticated, Europhile bien-pensants for whom it is always 'silly old Britain' rather than her adversary that is clinging obsessively to the past.
  This is the classic, arrogant perspective of the grand appeaser who has not had to endure hour after hour, day after day, sitting in 30c heat at the whim of a latter-day mini-Franco in the Spanish foreign ministry. Many of the people I find queuing stoically at the frontier happen to be Spanish, since Gibraltar employs 10,000 people from a part of Spain with more than 30'‰'‰'‰per cent unemployment.
  Edward Macquisten of the Gibraltar Chamber of Commerce points out that the region has Gib to thank for one in six jobs. Spain is punishing its own.
  In recent days, though, Madrid has ordered its commissars on the Gibraltar border to make life as miserable as possible for that pesky rock, with its full employment, its fish and chips, its low taxes, its photos of the Queen and its squeaky-clean little government.
  This week, I have watched a perfectly fluid border-crossing turn into a five-hour traffic jam, with one arbitrary click of the fingers from a cross-looking man in a comedy moustache and green Guardia Civil uniform.
  'This is an utter disgrace. Get Rajoy [the Spanish Prime Minister] to suffer this,' says Manuel Abad, 43, a Gibraltarian ship agent, waiting in a queue of mopeds stretching as far as I can see. The next scooter in the queue has Spanish plates and a Spanish rider. 'Sack Rajoy!' she shouts in Spanish.
  Few have suffered as badly as Wayne McKay, a 37-year-old call-centre manager. Two weeks ago, he was beaten up by four Spanish policemen and thrown in a Spanish cell, and now awaits two charges of assault, after riding his bicycle up the wrong lane to Spanish passport control.
  An exaggeration? Not when I listen to his patient, detailed account of the beating '-- right down to the Arabic tattoo between the shoulders of a policeman called 'Jesus', who stripped off his shirt before administering the first blows.
  Five generations of Wayne's family have been policemen in Gibraltar, and he has never been in trouble in his life. Now, he is a nervous wreck, as he prepares for his day in (a Spanish) court.
  Yesterday, Gib's chief minister Fabian Picardo assured me that Wayne has the full support of his government. 'You can see much of what happened on video,' he says, describing the Guardia Civil as 'storm troopers' reminiscent of the Turkish police in the classic film Midnight Express. In Madrid, the government has threatened everything from a £43 toll for crossing the border to the closure of Spanish airspace to British planes and even a ban on ships refuelling from Gibraltarian supply barges.
  The people of Gibraltar are preparing the warmest of welcomes for the Royal Navy frigate, HMS Westminster, when she docks on Monday as part of a routine exercise
  Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy also declared he was joining forces with Argentina's Malvinas-mad President Cristina Kirchner to form a Brit-bashing double act at the UN '-- until it turned out he'd forgotten to discuss it with her.
  At a more local level, Spain has resorted to diverting excess sewage to a Gibraltarian tourist spot. 'Four years ago, they built a storm drain, and instead of sending it out into the bay they pointed it towards Western Beach,' says Mr Picardo.
  There has to be some sort of excuse for all this. Even the imploding administration of Mr Rajoy cannot admit it is bullying Gibraltar for the hell of it. So it has had to manufacture various trumped-up charges. For years, Madrid has been insisting that border checks are crucial to combat cigarette smuggling into Spain '-- although this hardly explains why there are five-hour queues to get into Gibraltar, as there were yesterday morning.
  In the past few days, though, Spain has come up with an entirely different excuse. And it is one that is gathering sympathy and support in Spain. 'This is a violation of EU and international law!' thundered the Spanish foreign ministry, following this month's construction of an artificial reef by the Gibraltar authorities.
  Spain's Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy declared he was joining forces with Argentina's Malvinas-mad President Cristina Kirchner to form a Brit-bashing double act at the UN
  Supported by Greenpeace no less, the reef has been built to help replenish and protect dwindling fish stocks. Angrier than a ton of beef charging down the cobbles of Pamplona, Mr Rajoy and his ministers have railed at this 'attack on the environment'.
  Though Spain is happy to pump the contents of 10,000 lavatories into the path of Gibraltarian swimmers, it professes outrage that 73 blocks of hollowed-out concrete should be dumped on the ocean floor. Worse still, it claims, this is jeopardising the livelihoods of countless Spanish fishermen who earn their living in these waters. Compensation, Britain, por favor!
  On the Spanish side of the border, I find considerable local sympathy for these claims, even from Spaniards who depend on Gibraltar for their livelihood.
  There is just one problem with the Spanish argument. It is complete and utter codswallop. For I find that over the last few years, the Spanish department of agriculture and fisheries has installed no less than 25 identical artificial reefs along this Andalucian coastline. What's more, it received an EU grant for three-quarters of the £11'‰million cost. 'The only difference between their reefs and ours,' says Mr Picardo, 'is that the EU paid for the Spanish reefs. We paid for our own.'
  What's more, the only sort of fishing affected by the new reef is raking the sea bed '-- which is illegal anyway. And only one Spanish fishing boat is known to fish this area.
  So, here we have it. Spain is punishing 30,000 Brits and thousands of Spanish workers for creating a marine sanctuary '-- just like its own '-- which may stop one fisherman from breaking the law.
  It is beyond a joke. It is worse than 'sabre-rattling', as Mr Picardo described it recently. It is pure banditry. And it is entirely right that the British Government has finally ignored the feeble, hand-wringing, 'don't-upset-the-Spanish' wing of the Foreign Office.
  Instead, David Cameron has told Spain that Britain will not tolerate these threats, that Gibraltar has an inviolable right to self-determination, and that Britain is studying Spain's behaviour for potential breaches of EU law.
  Both he and Foreign Secretary William Hague have repeatedly condemned recent events, condemnations which, in the past, might have come from an ambassador or a junior FCO minister.
  Spain is starting to get the message, aware its threats and sanctions will not stand up to legal scrutiny.
  Just six weeks ago, I was here in Gibraltar after a Guardia Civil patrol boat fired plastic bullets at a blameless Gibraltarian on a jetski.
  David Cameron has told Spain that Britain will not tolerate their threats, that Gibraltar has an inviolable right to self-determination and that Britain is studying Spain's behaviour for potential breaches of EU law
  Back then, everyone here was moaning that the British Government was 'not doing enough'.
  Not any more.
  'David Cameron has been staunch on this,' says Dominique Searle, editor of the Gibraltar Chronicle newspaper. 'I can't think of the last time the British Government was held in such high regard.'
  In Britain, Jim Dobbin MP, Labour chairman of Westminster's All-Party Group on Gibraltar proclaims cross-party unity on the issue.
  Fabian Picardo has been touched by the response from Britain '-- especially Mail readers '-- and shows me a card he received from a little girl from London called Lucy, enclosing £10 of her pocket money. 'There's no address, so maybe you could ask her to get in touch so we can thank her,' he says.
  While I'm having a cup of tea with the battered Wayne McKay and his family, the view is the same. 'If Cameron walked down Main Street, we'd shake his hand,' says Wayne's father, Peter, a former teacher.
  He says the current situation is the worst since the days when the fascist Spanish leader General Franco closed the border completely.
  'This place was like a glorified Alcatraz back then. The only way to show my pupils the wider world was to take them on a ferry to Morocco. I'll never forget when they all lurched over to one side of the bus. It was the first time they'd ever seen a scarecrow!'
  Motorists queue at the border crossing between Spain and Gibraltar in La Linea de la Concepcion. Horns honk. Every time queues like this happen, the local tourist trade suffers another body blow
  Like everyone here, Peter asks how Spain has the temerity to attack Britain's 'colonial' presence in Gibraltar while Spain sits on several chunks of Morocco '-- despite vocal protests from the Moroccan government.
  In Ceuta, you can't move for Spanish flags, Spanish road signs and Spanish police. It is impossible to find a single one of the 78,000 citizens who believes they should be Moroccan. And, interestingly, all seem sympathetic to Gibraltar.
  'If Gibraltar goes back to Spain, then we'll have to go back to Morocco,' says Ismail Abdel Krim, 42, a mechanic (of Moroccan descent) from the poor district of Los Rosales.
  Back on the Rock, another traffic jam stretches into the distance. Horns honk. I can hear several babies screaming their heads off at various points in the queue. Every time queues like this happen, the local tourist trade suffers another body blow.
  What's the answer? Ask the FCO mandarins and they will call for calm and dialogue. Gibraltar's UKIP MEP, William (Earl of) Dartmouth, has another idea. 'The Queen has not been to Gibraltar for almost 60 years,' he says. 'Her presence would show that we mean business.'
  Mr Picardo insists: 'She needs no invitation to come to the most loyal part of her realm, and she would be assured of the warmest welcome anywhere in the world.'
  Besides, it was not long ago that King Juan Carlos of Spain made a visit to Ceuta.
  There is not the faintest chance of the Queen dropping by here any time soon '-- though next month's National Day would be a good moment. If she did, the Spanish border would doubtless be slammed shut for days.
  But it would probably be worth it just to hear what nonsense the desperate Mr Rajoy and his hypocritical sidekicks cook up next.
  Share or comment on this articleSyria's darkest hour: Hundreds of children's bodies piled...Investment bank intern, 21, on £45,000 worked 'until 6am for...Parents of 'bored' teens who 'shot Australian baseball star'...Grandmother defends her sexy dance down the aisle to 'Crazy...German tourist, 20, who lost her right arm in Hawaiian shark...'Distraught' girl, 17, faces humiliation on the web after...Porn industry shuts down with immediate effect after 'female...New York-to-Shanghai flight diverts to Alaska after...Silicon Valley real estate tycoon, 74, 'made pregnant...Now for his ultimate embarrassment: Sydney Leathers releases...'My mom raised me to be strong': Hannah Anderson, 16, gives...Scene pictures reveal extent of bloody and brutal attack on...
A note from Roger Waters - August 18, 2013
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:36
  18th August 2013 Warsaw
  To My Colleagues in Rock and Roll
  Nigel Kennedy the virtuoso British violinist and violist, at The Recent Promenade Concerts at The Albert Hall in London, mentioned that Israel is apartheid. Nothing unusual there you might think, then one Baroness Deech, (Nee Fraenkel) disputed the fact that Israel is an apartheid state and prevailed upon the BBC to censor Kennedy's performance by removing his statement. Baroness Deech produced not one shred of evidence to support her claim and yet the BBC, non political, supposedly, acting solely on Baroness Deech's say so, suddenly went all 1984 on us. Well!! Time to stick my head above the parapet again, alongside my brother, Nigel Kennedy, where it belongs. And by the way, Nigel, great respect man. So here follows a letter last re-drafted in July
  25th July 2013
  To My Colleagues in Rock and Roll.
  In the wake of the tragic shooting to death of un-armed teenager Travon Martin and the acquittal of his killer Zimmerman, yesterday, Stevie Wonder spoke at a gig declaring that he will not perform in the State of Florida until that State repeals it's ''Stand your ground'' Law. In effect he has declared a boycott on grounds of conscience. I applaud his position, and stand with him, it has brought back to me a statement I made in a letter I wrote last February 14th, to which I have referred but have never published.
  The time has come, so here it is.
  This letter has been simmering on the back burner of my conscience and consciousness for some time.
  It is seven years since I joined BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) a non violent movement to oppose Israel's occupation of the West Bank ,and ,violations of international law and Palestinian human rights. The aim of BDS is to bring international attention to these Israeli policies, and hopefully, to help bring them to an end. All the people of the region deserve better than this.
  To cut to the chase, Israel has been found guilty, independently, by international human rights organizations, UN officials, and the International Court of Justice, , of serious breaches of international law. These include, and I will name only two:
  1.The Crime of Apartheid:
  The systematic oppression of one ethnic group by another.
  2.The Crime of Ethnic Cleansing:
  The forcible removable of indigenous peoples from their rightful land in order to settle an occupying population. For example, in East Jerusalem non Jewish families are routinely physically evicted from their homes to make way for Jewish occupants.
  There are others.
  Given the inability or unwillingness of our governments, or the United Nations Security Council to put pressure on Israel to cease these violations, and make reparations to the victims, it falls to civil society and conscientious citizens of the world, , to dust off our consciences, shoulder our responsibilities, and act. I write to you now, my brothers and sisters in the family of Rock and Roll, to ask you to join with me, and thousands of other artists around the world, to declare a cultural boycott on Israel, to shed light on these problems and also to support all our brothers and sisters in Palestine and Israel who are struggling to end all forms of Israeli oppression and who wish to live in peace, justice, equality and freedom.
  I am writing to you all now because of two recent events.
  Stevie Wonder.Word came to me, the first week of last December that Stevie Wonder had been booked to headline at a gala dinner for the Friends of The Israeli Defence Force in LA on 6th December 2012. An event to raise money for the Israeli armed forces, as if the $4.3,000,000,000 that we the US tax payers give them each year were not enough? This came right after The Israeli defence Force had concluded yet another war on Gaza, (Operation Pillar of Defence), according to human rights watch, committing war crimes against the besieged 1.6 million Palestinians there.
  Anyway, I wrote to Stevie to try to persuade him to cancel. My letter ran along these lines, ''Would you have felt OK performing at the Policeman's Ball in Johannesburg the night after the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 or in Birmingham Alabama, to raise money for the Law Enforcement officers, who clubbed, tear gassed and water cannoned those children trying to integrate in 1963?''
  Archbishop Desmond Tutu also wrote an impassioned plea to Stevie, and 3,000 others appended their names to a change .org petition. Stevie, to his great credit, cancelled!
  2. Earlier that week I delivered a speech at The United Nations. If you are interested you can find this speech on YouTube.
  The interesting thing about these two stories is that there was NOT ONE mention of either story in the mainstream media in the United States.
  The clear inference would be that the media in the USA is not interested in the predicament of the Palestinian people, or for that matter the predicament of the Israeli people,. We can only hope they may become interested as they eventually did in the politics of apartheid South Africa.
  Back in the days of Apartheid South Africa at first it was a trickle of artists that refused to play there, a trickle, that exercised a cultural boycott, then it became a stream, then a river then a torrent and then a flood, ( Remember Steve van Zant, Bruce and all the others? ''We will not Play in Sun City?'') Why? Because, like the UN and the International Courts of Justice they understood that Apartheid is wrong.
  The sports community joined the battle, no one would go and play cricket or rugby in South Africa , and eventually the political community joined in as well. We all as a global, musical, sporting and political community raised our voices as one and the apartheid regime in South Africa fell.
  Maybe we are at the tipping point now with Israel and Palestine. These are good people both and they deserve a just solution to their predicament. Each and every one of them deserves freedom, justice and equal rights. Just recently the ANC, the ruling party of South Africa, has endorsed BDS. We are nearly there. Please join me and all our brothers and sisters in global civil society in proclaiming our rejection of Apartheid in Israel and occupied Palestine, by pledging not to perform or exhibit in Israel or accept any award or funding from any institution linked to the government of Israel, until such time as Israel complies with international law and universal principles of human rights.
  Roger Waters
Supermodel Bar Refaeli Calls Out Former Pink Floyd Frontman Over Israel Boycott | TheBlaze.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:31
  Supermodel Bar Refaeli has a message for former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters: take my photo out of your concerts.
  Israeli model Bar Refaeli told former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters to take her image out of his concerts. (Getty Images)
  Waters is a major proponent of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel, and has penned a letter to fellow musicians asking them to boycott the country as well.
  But Waters apparently uses an image of the Israeli model during his shows, which Refaeli called him out on Wednesday.
  ''Roger Waters, you better take my picture off of the video art at your shows. If you're boycotting '' go all the way,'' Refaeli tweeted in Hebrew, according to a translation in Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
  According to Haaretz, Refaeli previously said she was ''honored'' to spot her photo during a Waters concert in 2011.
  Waters was criticized last month after he raised an inflatable pig featuring the Star of David alongside symbols of fascism and repressive regimes.
  ''Waters deployed a classic disgusting medieval anti-Semitic caricature widely used by both Nazi and Soviet propaganda to incite hatred against Jews,'' the Simon Weisenthal Center said at the time.
  Waters made his latest call for an Israeli boycott in a letter addressed to his ''colleagues in rock and roll'' posted on his Facebook page Aug. 18.
  ''Please join me and all our brothers and sisters in global civil society in proclaiming our rejection of apartheid in Israel and occupied Palestine, by pledging not to perform or exhibit in Israel or accept any award or funding from any institution linked to the government of Israel, until such time as Israel complies with international law and universal principles of human rights,'' Waters wrote.
  ''
Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman - TODAY.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:19
  NewsScott StumpTODAY contributor
  41 minutes ago
  Bradley Manning, the Army private sentenced to military prison for leaking classified documents, revealed he intends to live out the remainder of his life as a woman.
  ''I am Chelsea Manning. I am female,'' the Army private wrote in a statement read on TODAY Thursday. ''Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition.''
  Manning, 25, was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday after having been found guilty of 20 charges ranging from espionage to theft for leaking more than 700,000 documents to the WikiLeaks website while working in Iraq in 2010.
  Click here to read Manning's full statement
  ''I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility),'' he continued in the statement. ''I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back.''
  Manning signed the letter ''Chelsea E. Manning.''
  During his trial, Manning's defense team suggested his struggles with gender identity as a gay soldier were a factor in his decision to leak. His attorneys presented an email to a former supervisor from April 2010 in which he said he was transgender and joined the Army to ''get rid of it.'' The email, which had the subject line ''My Problem,'' also included a photo of Manning in which he is wearing a blonde wig and lipstick. During Manning's nine-month detainment at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va., following his arrest in 2010, he sent two letters to his counselor using the name ''Breanna,'' Master Sgt. Craig Blenis testified at his trial.
  "The stress that he was under was mostly to give context to what was going on at the time," Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, told Savannah Guthrie on TODAY Thursday. "It was never an excuse because that's not what drove his actions. What drove his actions was a strong moral compass."
  Manning will likely serve his sentence at Fort Leavenworth, the only military prison for service members sentenced to 10 or more years, a Military District of Washington spokesperson told The Associated Press.
  Coombs said he is "hoping" that Fort Leavenworth "would do the right thing" and provide hormone therapy for Manning. "If Fort Leavenworth does not, then I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure they are forced to do so."
  The facility does not provide hormone therapy or sex-reassignment surgery for gender identity issues but does provide psychiatric care, a Fort Leavenworth spokeswoman told Courthouse News earlier this week.
  In the U.S. prison system, transgender prisoners who have not had genital surgery are generally assigned to live with their birth-sex peers, but the military policy is unclear.
  On whether Manning will seek sexual reassignment surgery, Coombs said "I haven't really discussed that aspect with her. Really, it's more about getting the hormone therapy, so at this point I don't know the answer to that."
  Coombs told Guthrie that he expects Manning "to be out" on parole in seven years. "But I actually expect him to get pardoned," Coombs continued. "At least that's what my hope is, that the president will in fact pardon him."
  Coombs said he doesn't fear for Manning's safety in prison, and that Manning will not ask to live in a female prison. "Everyone that's in a military prison is a first-time offender. These are soldiers who have done something wrong, have gone to prison and are really just trying to do their time and then get out."
  In the statement read on TODAY, Manning thanked his supporters. ''I want to thank everybody who has supported me over the last three years,'' he wrote. ''Throughout this long ordeal, your letters of support and encouragement have helped keep me strong.l I am forever indebted to those who wrote to me, made a donation to my defense fund, or came to watch a portion of the trial. I would especially like to thank Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network for their tireless efforts in raising awareness for my case and providing for my legal representation.''
EFF Victory Results in Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional | Electronic Frontier Foundation
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:28
  Update: In response to EFF's FOIA lawsuit, the government has released the 2011 FISA court opinion ruling some NSA surveillance unconstitutional.
  For over a year, EFF has been fighting the government in federal court to force the public release of an 86-page opinion of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Issued in October 2011, the secret court's opinion found that surveillance conducted by the NSA under the FISA Amendments Act was unconstitutional and violated "the spirit of"' federal law.
  Today, EFF can declare victory: a federal court ordered the government to release records in our litigation, the government has indicated it intends to release the opinion today, and ODNI has called a 3:00 ET press conference to discuss "issues" with FISA Amendments Act surveillance, which we assume will include a discussion of the opinion.
  It remains to be seen how much of the opinion the government will actually make available to the public. President Obama has repeatedly said he welcomes a debate on the NSA's surveillance: disclosing this opinion'--and releasing enough of it so that citizens and advocates can intelligently debate the constitutional violation that occurred'--is a critical step in ensuring that an informed debate takes place.
  Hereareexamples of documents previously released by the administration in response to our Freedom of Information Act request. Anything even resembling those "releases" would be utterly unacceptable today. But we've come a long way since then'--it took filing a lawsuit;litigating (and winning) in the FISC itself; the unprecedented public release of information about NSA surveillance activities; and our continuing efforts to push the government in the district court for release of the opinion.
  Release of the opinion today is just one step in advancing a public debate on the scope and legality of the NSA's domestic surveillance programs. EFF will keep fighting until the NSA's domestic surveillance program is reined in, federal surveillance laws are amended to prevent these kinds of abuse from happening in the future, and government officials are held accountable for their actions.
With The Tesla Model S, Elon Musk Has Created A Nice Fossil Fuel Car - Forbes
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:17
  Log in with your social account:Or, you can log in or sign up using Forbes.New Posts+1 posts this hourMost PopularNFL's Richest TeamsListsTop Innovative CompaniesVideoVegas' DJ WarsFREE REPORT: 12 Stocks to Sell Now!Help|Connect
  |Sign up|Log in
VIDEO-John Kerry Clears State Dept. Officials Over Benghazi; ABC, NBC Yawn | MRCTV
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:45
  If the player does not load, please check that you are running the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.
  CBS This Morning on 20 August 2013 stood out as the only Big Three network morning newscast to cover the latest development in the controversy surrounding the September 11, 2012 Islamist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. Gayle King gave a 26-second news brief to Secretary of State John Kerry clearing four mid-level diplomats to return to duty, after they were placed on leave by his predecessor, Hillary Clinton. Neither ABC's Good Morning America and nor NBC's Today devoted any air time to Kerry's move.
VIDEO-Glenn Greenwald: 'Journalism Is Not a Crime and It Is Not Terrorism' | MRCTV
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:41
  MRC TV is an online platform for people to share and view videos, articles and opinions on topics that are important to them -- from news to political issues and rip-roaring humor.
  MRC TV is brought to you by the Media Research Center, a 501(c) 3 nonprofit research and education organization. The MRC is located at: 1900 Campus Commons Drive, Reston, VA 20194. For information about the MRC, please visit www.MRC.org.
  Copyright (C) 2013, Media Research Center. All Rights Reserved.
Same-sex marriage in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:40
  Legal recognition ofsame-sex relationshipsMarriageArgentinaBelgiumBrazilCanadaDenmark:· Denmark properFranceIcelandMexico:1· DF, QRNetherlands:· Netherlands properNew Zealand:· New Zealand proper
  NorwayPortugalSouth AfricaSpainSwedenUnited Kingdom:· England & Wales' United States:· CA, CT, DC, DE,· IA, MA, MD, ME,· MN, NH, NY, RI,· VT, WA, 5 tribesUruguay
  RecognizedCivil unions andregistered partnershipsAndorraAustralia:· ACT, NSW, QLD,· TAS, VICAustriaColombiaCzech RepublicDenmark:· GreenlandEcuadorFinlandGermanyHungaryIreland
  Isle of ManMexico:· COA, COLJerseyLiechtensteinLuxembourgSloveniaSwitzerlandUnited KingdomUnited States:· CO, HI, IL, NJ,· NV, OR, WIVenezuela:· M(C)rida
  Unregistered cohabitation' Not yet in effect1. Valid in all 31 states2. If performed in the Netherlands
  LGBT portalSame-sex unions have been legally recognized in Brazil since 2004. Same-sex marriage has been a right of all same-sex couples to access since May 14, 2013 due to a sweeping Federal Court ruling,[1][2] which denies notaries of states who do not recognise same-sex marriage the right to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.[3][4] Same-sex couples enjoy the provisions of several constitutional principles and the absence of prohibitive legislation. Stable union (Portuguese: uni£o estvel) is available for same-sex couples since May 2011. These unions are granted rights similar to those in marriages, including adoption, welfare benefits, pension, inheritance tax, income tax, social security, health benefits, immigration, joint property ownership, hospital and prison visitation, IVF and surrogacy.[5]
  Brazil's Supreme Federal Court ruled, in 2011, that same-sex couples are legally entitled to those unions, laying a legal foundation for future legislation on same-sex matrimonial rights. Several unions were converted into full marriage by state judges.[6] Before the nationwide legalization in May 2013, Alagoas,[7]Bahia,[7][8]Cear, Esp­rito Santo, Federal District, Mato Grosso do Sul, Para­ba, Paran,[9][10]Piau­, Rond´nia, Santa Catarina, Santa Rita do Sapuca­ (MG), S£o Paulo,[11][12] and Sergipe allowed same-sex marriages in a manner that is equal to opposite-sex marriages, while Rio de Janeiro in April 2013 allowed local judges to perform same-sex marriages if they agreed to do so.[13] Other states all recognized the marriages, and had registered marriages (often after a judicial approval) on a case-by-case basis.
  Nevertheless on May 14, 2013, The Justice's National Council of Brazil legalized same-sex marriage in the entire country in a 14-1 vote by issuing a ruling that orders all civil registers of the country to perform same-sex marriages and convert any existing civil unions into marriages if such a couple desires.[1][2][14][15][16][17]Joaquim Barbosa, president of the Council of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court said in the decision that notaries cannot continue to refuse to "perform a civil wedding or the conversion of a stable civil union into a marriage between persons of the same sex."[3] The ruling was published on May 15 and took effect on May 16, 2013.[18][19]
  In 2004, the first case of recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil occurred with a binational Englishman and a Brazilian. This legal precedent encouraged other couples to marry around the country. At the time of the ceremony, in the form of common-law marriage, this was a status that, until then, was only granted to opposite-sex couples. The couple had lived together for fourteen years, in the Brazilian city of Curitiba.[20]
  In 2010, the Foreign Ministry officialized the right of diplomatic LGBT partners of servers working in Brazil's representations abroad. The decision, which includes homosexual and heterosexual partners, was announced internally to embassies and consulates in over 200 countries. According to the Foreign Ministry, the measure must ensure that employees register their LGBT partners to secure their right to stay outside the country. Now, with the grant of diplomatic passports, in practice, means that it would be easier for the partner to obtain a residence permit. This decision complements other resolutions, that has enabled the officials in the Foreign Ministry's services to include same-sex partners as dependents on health plans.[21]
  Also in 2010, the state-owned Infraero (Brazilian Company of Airport Infrastructure) came to recognize the stable union between same-sex couples for purposes of granting benefits. The change came with the signing of the new Collective Work Agreement. To receive the benefit, the union must be registered through the public notary.[22]
  On 5 May 2011, Brazil's Supreme Federal Court ruled that civil unions must be allowed throughout the country. The decision was approved by 10-0; one judge abstained because he had previously spoken publicly in favor of same-sex unions when he was attorney-general. The ruling resulted in stable partnerships for LGBT having the same financial and social rights enjoyed by those in heterosexual relationships. Civil union of a same-sex couple guarantees the same 112 rights as marriage of opposite-sex couples.[23] Brazil's high court ruling came in response to two lawsuits, one filed by the Rio de Janeiro state government in 2008 and another in 2009 by the Public Ministry, a group of prosecutors that is part of the federal government but independent from its executive, legislative and judicial branches. To qualify as a stable union, same-sex couples can officially register as a civil union or prove it the same way some heterosexual couples do, by having a bank account together or living at the same address.[24]
  On 17 June 2011, a judge from Goinia, Jeronymo Pedro Villas Boas, annulled the first civil union that happened in the country, between Liorcino Mendes and Odilio Torres, and also ordered all notaries in Goinia to not issue civil unions anymore.[25][26][27][28] Villas Boas, who is also a church pastor of the Assembleia de Deus, claimed that same-sex unions are unconstitutional.[29] On 21 June, another judge, Beatriz Figueiredo Franco, cancelled Villas Boas decision, making the union valid again.[30] Concerned, Liorcino Mendes and Odilio Torres signed again another civil union in Rio de Janeiro.[31]
  On 27 June 2011, a Brazilian judge in the State of S£o Paulo converted a civil union into a same-sex marriage. It is not clear whether the ruling presents a precedent for additional same-sex marriages. The Supreme Federal Court had ruled in May that same-sex marriages are not required by the constitution of Brazil.[32] On 28 June, another stable union between same-sex couples was converted into a marriage. This time it was Judge Jennifer Antunes de Souza, the 4th of Bras­lia Family Court, who upheld the order.
  On 7 June 2013, the Brazilian Air Force recognized the "stable union" of a sergeant and his partner after he presented a notarized deed documenting their relationship; the Air Force did not comment on the recognition, and could not confirm if the relationship was the first same-sex union certified by the branch.[33] On 8 August 2013, Judge Elio Siquerira of the 5th region TRF ruled on appeal that the Brazilian Army must recognize the civil union (performed in January 2012 in Pernambuco) of a servicemember and his same-sex partner, and must also accord a military spousal pension to the partner. It marked the first time that a state-recognized same-sex union was recognized by the Army.[34][35]
  Recognition of same-sex unions in South America Same-sex marriage
  Other type of partnership
  Unrecognized or unknown
  No recognition, same-sex marriage banned by the constitution
  Same-sex sexual activity illegal
  Marriage law is governed by federal rather than state law and involves issuing of a marriage certificate by a notary. In May 2011, the Supreme Federal Court decided that the present marriage law already did allow for both opposite and same-sex marriages. Based on this decision, the states of Alagoas, Bahia, Cear, Esp­rito Santo, Federal District, Mato Grosso do Sul, Para­ba, Paran, Piau­, Rond´nia, Santa Catarina, S£o Paulo and Sergipe amended its guidances for issuing marriage certificates to implement the Supreme Court decision and allow same-sex marriage through a notary. In other states notaries who preside over marriage licenses and perform marriages are required by judicial order to provide such services to same-sex couples.[3]
  National Justice Council ruling[edit source |edit]On 14 May 2013, The Justice's National Council of Brazil legalized same-sex marriage in the entire country in a 14-1 vote; via issuing a ruling that orders all civil registers of the country to perform same-sex marriages and convert any existing civil unions into marriages if such a couple desires.[1][2][14][15][16][17]Joaquim Barbosa, president of the Council of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court said in the decision that notaries cannot continue to refuse to "perform a civil wedding or the conversion of a stable civil union into a marriage between persons of the same sex."[3][4][36]
  On 21 May 2013, the Social Christian Party (SCP) lodged an appeal of the National Council's decision in the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil. The party alleged that the Council had committed an abuse of power and that legalising same-sex marriage was a matter exclusively for the legislature to decide.[37] For the time being, the appeal does not affect the Council's original decision in favour of same-sex marriage. On 30 May 2013, the Supreme Federal Court rejected the appeal on technical grounds, stating that the SCP had used the wrong form of appeal. The Court held that the National Council's decision could only be challenged through a "direct action for unconstitutionality" (a§£o direta de inconstitucionalidade) rather than an action for injunction (mandado de seguran§a).[38] On 6 June 2013, the SCP re-lodged the appeal.[39][40]
  Timeline[edit source |edit]Individual cases[edit source |edit]In several individual cases, marriage licenses have been granted, often through the decision of a judge. Notable cases include:
  On 27 June 2011 S£o Paulo state Judge Fernando Henrique Pinto ruled that two men could convert their civil union into a full marriage, and indicated this was a first for Brazil. The ruling was based on the May Supreme Court decision.[41]On 31 May 2012, a civil partnership contracted by two men in England was converted into a marriage when the couple moved to Brazil.[42] The Brazilian Embassy ruled in favour due to a 2003 decision issued by a judge.On 28 June 2012, in the state of Par, 28 same-sex couples got married in a ceremony, that took place in Bel(C)m.[44]State-wide[edit source |edit]The Supreme court decision has given rise to several states explicitly altering their procedures enabling same-sex couples to marry in a manner that is bureaucratically identical to opposite-sex couples. Those states are listed below:
  On 7 December 2011, the Corregedoria Geral da Justi§a of Alagoas ordered the Civil registry of Alagoas to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, being the first state to enable same-sex marriages to be recognized in the same way as other marriages.[45][46]On 5 July 2012, Brazilian State's Judiciary Power of Sergipe issued "Provimento nº 06/2012" regulating same-sex marriage throughout the State.[47]On 9 July 2012, Santa Rita do Sapuca­ becomes the only city in the country (and in the world) that allows the same-sex marriages by itself, after the decision of one judge of Minas Gerais (the state of Santa Rita do Sapucai).[48]On 15 August 2012, the Corregedoria Geral da Justi§a of the State of Esp­rito Santo issued a Circular Letter stating that all Civil Regestries of that State should address same-sex marriage the same way they would do it regarding that for opposite-sex couples, making it the third Brazilian State to deal with this subject in its State jurisdiction.[49]On 26 November 2012, the Court of Bahia adapted the text of the directive regulating marriages to include same-sex marriage in a manner equal to other couples.[8][50][51]On 1 December 2012, the Court of Public Registers of the Federal District, ruled that, effective immediately, same-sex marriage licenses should be granted without a judge's intervention.[52]On 15 December 2012, the Corregedor Geral de Justi§a of Piau­ updated its marriage provisions in a similar manner.[53][54]On 18 December 2012, the Court of S£o Paulo did the same, with an entry into effect 60 days later.[7][55]On 7 March 2013, Cear's state general attorney, Francisco Sales Neto, ruled in decision 02/2013 that all notaries statewide are obligated to accept same-sex marriages. The decision took effect on 15 March 2013.[56][57]On 26 March 2013, the Corregedor Geral de Justi§a of Paran ruled that same-sex marriage and conversion of the stable unions to marriage should be possible using the normal marriage procedures.[9][10][58][59]On 2 April 2013, the Court of Mato Grosso do Sul authorizes marriage between same-sex couples in the state.[10][60][61]On 17 April 2013, the General Magistrate of Justice of Rio de Janeiro, Judge Valmir de Oliveira Silva, published a legal ruling authorizing same-sex marriage in the state if local judges agree. Same sex weddings are poised to begin in the coming days.[62] According to the ruling (25/2013), a couples' request must be registered by civil registry officers, who have to give 15 days for the district to decide if they agree. If they don't agree, the marriage cannot proceed.[63]On 26 April 2013, the Corregedoria Geral de Justi§a of the state of Rond´nia published in the Dirio da Justi§a Eletr´nico this Friday, April 26, 2013, the Provision 008/2013-CG which provides for the direct qualification for marriage between same-sex and conversion of stable in marriage in the civil registration records of the State of Rond´nia.[64][65][66]On 29 April 2013, the Corregedoria Geral de Justi§a of the state of Santa Catarina authorizes same-sex marriage in a manner equal to opposite sex couples if both applicants are resident of the state.[67]On 29 April 2013 the Corregedoria Geral de Justi§a of the state of Para­ba, Judge Murilo Mrcio da Cunha Ramos, authorized the release of a Provision (06/2013) which enables same-sex marriage.[68][69][70]^ abchttp://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,cnj-obriga-cartorios-a-celebrar-casamento-entre-homossexuais,1031678,0.htm^ abcBrazil judicial panel clears way for gay marriage^ abcdBrazilian judicial council orders notaries to recognize same-sex marriage^ abBrazil clears way for gay marriage^Uni£o civil entre pessoas do mesmo sexo (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender [LGBT] civil unions in Brazil)(Portuguese)^John Lyons (6 May 2011). "Brazil Top Court Grants Equal Rights to Same-Sex Unions". Retrieved 20 January 2012. ^ abc"Brazil's most populous state to allow same-sex marriage". Washington Blade. 21 December 2012. ^ ab"Bahia legaliza casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo (Bahia legalizes marriage between persons of the same sex". A Tarde (in Portuguese). 10 October 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. ^ abJoyce Carvalho (4 April 2013). "Casamento gay est valendo em todo o Paran". Parana-Online (in Portuguese). Retrieved 5 April 2013. ^ abc"Paran e Mato Grosso do Sul autorizam casamento gay". Athos (in Portuguese). 4 April 2013. Retrieved 5 April 2013. ^"Brazil: Court ruling means all gay couples can legally marry in the state of S£o Paulo". Pink News. 21 December 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2013. ^"S£o Paulo court guarantees same-sex marriages". Gay Star News. 21 December 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2012. ^"Rio de Janeiro state legalizes gay marriage". 17 April 2013. Retrieved 22 April 2013. According to the ruling (25/2013), a couples' request should be registered by civil registry officers, who have to give 15 days for the district to decide if they agree. If they do not agree, the marriage could not proceed.^ abDecis£o do CNJ obriga cart"rios a fazer casamento homossexual^ abCNJ obriga cart"rios a converterem uni£o estvel gay em casamento^ abRomero, Simon (May 14, 2013). "Brazilian Court Council Removes a Barrier to Same-Sex Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved May 15, 2013. ^ abTeacherken (May 15, 2013). "country with most Catholics effectively legalizes gay marriage". DailyKos. Retrieved May 15, 2013. ^(Portuguese)DIRIO DA JUSTI‡A CONSELHO NACIONAL DE JUSTI‡A Edi§£o nº 89/2013^(Portuguese)Regra que obriga cart"rios a fazer casamento gay vale a partir do dia 16^"Primeiro casal gay a registrar uni£o no pa­s completa 20 anos". Journal Comunicacao (in Portuguese). 18 April 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2013. ^"Itamaraty reconhece os parceiros Gays de diplomatas brasileiros" (in Portuguese). 14 July 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2013. ^"Infraero reconhece os c´njuges de seus empregados Homossexuais" (in Portuguese). 6 October 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2013. ^"Casais gays conquistam 112 direitos com decis£o do STF" (in Portuguese). 6 May 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2013. ^\ "Same-sex unions recognized by Brazil's high court" (in Portuguese). 6 May 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2013. ^Gois judge annuls first gay union after Supreme Court's decision (Portuguese)^Judge annuls stable union contract between homosexuals (Portuguese)^Homosexual union will go back to Supreme Court (Portuguese)^Brazilian judge declares Supreme Tribunal decision favoring civil unions 'unconsitutional [sic]' (English)^Judge accused of insubordination that annulled gay union is pastor of Assembleia de Deus (Portuguese)^Beatriz cancels decision by Jer´nymo Villas Boas (Portuguese)^Gois judge who annulled union of gay couple denies being homophobic (Portuguese)^The first gay marriage in Brazil (English)^"FAB reconhece como dependente marido de sargento homossexual ("FAB recognizes husband of homosexual Sergeant as dependent")". ^Raphael Guerra (2013-08-08). "Justi§a (C) favorvel uni£o gay no Ex(C)rcito ("Justice is in favor of gay unions in the Army")". Diario de Pernambuco. ^Staff Reports (August 8, 2013). "Justi§a manda Ex(C)rcito reconhecer companheiro de sargento gay ("Judge mandates Army recognizes gay partnership of sergeant")". Tribuna de Alagoas. ^Judges clear the way for gay marriage throughout Brazil^PSC recorre ao Supremo contra decis£o sobre casamento gay^[1]^(Portuguese)PSC entra com nova a§£o no STF contra casamento gay em cart"rio^(Portuguese)PSC volta a acionar STF contra casamento gay em cart"rios^Marriage news watch (English)^"Reconhecido casamento entre homens registrado no exterior". Zero Hora (in Portuguese). Retrieved 15 January 2013. ^"Casais gays encontram facilidade para casar no RS". Zero Hora (in Portuguese). Retrieved 15 January 2013. ^"Par faz primeiro casamento civil comunitrio gay". Diario Online (in Portuguese). Retrieved 15 January 2013. ^"Alagoas regulamenta o casamento civil entre gays em todos os cart"rios do estado - Brasil em Pol­tica no A Capa". UOL (in Portuguese). Retrieved 15 January 2013. ^"PROVIMENTO Nº 40, DE 06 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2011". JusBrazil (in Portuguese). 7 December 2011. Retrieved 31 December 2012. ^"Marriage open to gay couples in Sergipe" (in Portuguese). 5 July 2012. Retrieved 26 February 2013. ^"Casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo (C) liberado pela Justi§a em Santa Rita do Sapuca­" (in Portuguese). 9 July 2012. ^"Espirito Santo's legalization of gay marriage" (in Portuguese). 15 August 2012. Retrieved 26 February 2013. ^"Provimento Conjunto trata de uni£o homoafetiva". Tribunal de Justi§a do Estado da Bahia (official web site of the state supreme court). ^"Bahia j pode oficializar casamento homoafetivo". Bahia24/7 (in Portuguese). 27 November 2012. Retrieved 27 November 2012. ^Soraya Sobreira (1 December 2012). "Para a lei, j n£o h mais diferen§a [English: For the law, there is no difference anymore]". Journal de Brasilia (in Portuguese). Retrieved 15 January 2013. ^"Corregedoria do TJ regulamenta casamento gay no Piau­". Diario de Teresina (in Portuguese). 15 December 2012. Retrieved 15 January 2013. ^"provimento N° 24/2012 '' CGJ/PI". Piau­, Dirio da Justi§a (in Portuguese). 17 December 2012. p. 2. Retrieved 15 January 2013. ^"Tribunal divulga norma que regulamenta casamento gay em SP". Globo.com (in Portuguese). 18 December 2013. Retrieved 15 January 2013. ^"Justi§a do Cear autoriza casamento gay". Mixbrasil.uol.com (in Portuguese). 8 March 2013. Retrieved 8 March 2013. ^Corregadoria geral da Justi§a Provimento N.º 02/2013 (in Portuguese) (677). Estado do Cear, Dirio da Justi§a Eletr´nico. 8 March 2013. pp. 8''12. "Os Cart"rios de Registro Civil de Pesso as Naturais do Estado de Sergipe dever£o receber os pedidos de habilita§£o para casamento de pessoas do mesmo sexo, procedendo na forma do artigo 1.526 da Lei nº 10.406/2002" ^Paran regulates same-sex marriage throughout its territory "Justi§a do Paran autoriza casamentos homoafetivos. Cart"rios j est£o cientes e n£o podem se negar a realizar uniµes.". 26 March 2013. Retrieved 2 April 2013. ^"CGJ-PR divulga instru§£o sobre procedimentos de habilita§£o para casamentos homossexuais, instru§£o normativa Nº 2/2013". Promad.com.br. 3 April 2013. Retrieved 3 April 2013. "Que os magistrados e agentes delegados dos Registros Civis de Pessoas Naturais do Estado do Paran observem as decisµes proferidas pelo Superior Tribunal de Justi§a (REsp nº 1.183.378-RS) e por esta Corregedoria da Justi§a (autos de consulta nº 2013.49650-9/000), procedendo habilita§£o de pessoas do mesmo sexo para o casamento civil, nos termos dos artigos 1.525 e seguintes da Lei Federal nº 10.406/2002 (C"digo Civil)." ^"Tribunal de Justi§a autoriza casamento gay em Mato Grosso do Sul" [Court allows gay marriage in Mato Grosso do Sul] (in Portuguese). Retrieved 3 April 2013. ^"Provimento Nº 80, de 25 de marco de 2013". Dirio de Justi§a do Estado do Mato Grosso do Sul. Retrieved 3 April 2013. "Considerando o princ­pio advindo da decis£o do Supremo Tribunal Federal, na ADI 4277/DF, que passou a admitir a habilita§£o direta para o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo sem a necessidade do pr(C)vio reconhecimento da uni£o estvel" ^"Rio de Janeiro state legalizes gay marriage". 17 April 2013. Retrieved 22 April 2013. ^"Rio de Janeiro facilita casamento gay em todo estado; uniµes ainda passam por aval de juiz". Acapa. 19 April 2013. Retrieved 23 April 2013. ^"Casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo (C) autorizado em Rond´nia" (in portuguese). 26 April 2013. Retrieved 26 April 2013. ^"Casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo (C) autorizado em Rond´nia". Orodoniense. 26 April 2013. Retrieved 26 April 2013. ^"Casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo (C) autorizado em Rond´nia". UmOutroolhar. 27 April 2013. Retrieved 29 April 2013. "Dispµe sobre a habilita§£o direta para o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo e convers£o de uni£o estvel em casamento nas serventias extrajudiciais do Estado de Rond´nia." ^"CGJ autoriza casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo em SC". Globo (in Portuguese). 29 April 2013. Retrieved 30 April 2013. ^"Para­ba passa a ser o 13º Estado brasileiro a consentir o casamento homoafetivo" (in Portuguese). 29 April 2013. Retrieved 30 April 2013. ^"ATOS DA CORREGEDORIA-GERAL". Diario do Justica Electronico (in Portuguese). 39 April 2013. p. 4. Retrieved 30 April 2013. ^"Para­ba autoriza casamento gay". Mix Brasil (in Portuguese). 39 April 2013. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
VIDEO-NBC 'Sounding the Alarm' on Climate Change: 'Industrialized World' Using More Than 'Fair Share' of Fossil Fuels | MRCTV
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:34
  If the player does not load, please check that you are running the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.
  Hyping a story on global warming for Tuesday's NBC Nightly News, fill-in anchor Lester Holt proclaimed: "Sounding the alarm. A leaked report about the danger happening all around us tonight." Introducing the segment, Holt declared that the study "from one of the world's most prestigious groups of scientists...has a lot of people taking notice because of the alarming conclusions about climate change."
  Curry lead off the one-sided fearmongering by warning viewers: "The key finding in this leaked draft report is that it's, quote, 'extremely likely,' as in greater than 95%, that human activity is the main cause of the planet's temperature rise in the last 60 years." She cited a recent trip to the Arctic to bolster the case: "At the top of the world in Arctic, Greenland, scientists like Dr. Jason Box study the icy landscape. He says all this might be lost to climate change, mostly caused by humans burning fossil fuels."
  More in the cross-post on the MRC's NewsBusters blog.
VIDEO- SF Fire Chief Bans Helmet Cameras After Images Of First Responders Running Over Plane Crash Victim - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:28
VIDEO- C.I.A. ADMITS TO OVERTHROW OF IRANIAN GOVERNMENT! - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:26
CNN's 'New Day' Hits New Lows With Prince William Interview - Deadline.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:05
  CNN had a Royal first Monday and some new ratings and viewership lows for its morning show as well. Despite having the first sit down interview with Prince William since the birth of his son George last month, New Day received its lowest viewership and demo results since debuting on June 17. The Chris Cuomo and Kate Bolduan-hosted show pulled in just 60,000 viewers in the 25-54 demo and 216,000 viewers overall in its 6 AM to 9 AM time slot. The show's previous low in both categories was on July 24 when it garnered 75,000 in the demo and 229,000 viewers overall. The lows before that were on June 24 when the jewel in Jeff Zucker's CNN retooling crown had 84,000 among the 25-54s and on July 29 when it had 231,000 viewers in total.
  Related:CNN, ITV Snag First Prince William Chat Since Son's Birth
  With heavy promotion and iPhone alerts, Monday's New Day still came in fourth place among the cable news morning offerings on Monday ratings and viewershipwise. Fox News Channel's Fox & Friends won the morning with 220,000 viewers in the demo and 1.018 million watching in total. With 101,000 among adults 25-54, MSNBC's Morning Joe had half of FNC's pull in the demo and just over a third in terms of total viewers with 324,000. CNN's sister station HLN's Morning Express had 87,000 in the demo and 240,000 viewers overall.
  Related:CNN's 'New Day' On Battling 'Fox & Friends'
  Deadline's Dominic Patten - tip him here.
  Get Deadline news and alerts FREE to your inbox...
Radio success in network: Imagine that users pay - Media - FAZ
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:40
  Unter all den Erwartungen, die an das Internet herangetragen und doch entt¤uscht wurden, war Bertolt Brechts Radiotheorie, nach der jedem noch so kleinen Produzenten ein Publikum beschert werde, eine der langlebigsten. Das Internet hat die Institutionen aber nicht ¼berwunden, sondern im Gegenteil: Es hat Giganten erschaffen, milliardenschwere Konzerne. Kleine Medieninstitutionen, die dieser Entwicklung widerstehen, k¤mpfen um ihre wirtschaftliche Freiheit. Sie sind zumeist von Werbeerl¶sen abh¤ngig. Dass ein Publikum ein Medienangebot selbst¤ndig, nachhaltig und direkt finanziert, bleibt ein unerf¼llter Wunsch. Doch es gibt eine Ausnahme.
  Seit f¼nfeinhalb Jahren betreiben die Amerikaner John C. Dvorak und Adam Curry mit der Show 'žNo Agenda'' einen Podcast, also eine im Internet abrufbare und zu abonnierende Radiosendung, die das Gesch¤ftsmodell 'žValue for Value'' verfolgt. Sie senden zweimal pro Woche eine aufwendige und bis zu drei Stunden lange Talkshow und bestreiten diese allein von den Spenden ihrer H¶rer, die sie 'ždie Produzenten des besten Podcasts im Universum'' nennen. Auf sch¤tzungsweise 250.000 Dollar pro Jahr belaufen sich die Einnahmen.
  Ganz ohne klassische, institutionelle Medienerfahrung der Macher gelang der Erfolg der Internetshow allerdings nicht. Der 1952 geborene Technologiejournalist Dvorak schreibt seit Jahrzehnten Kolumnen, in denen er sich gegen die g¤ngigen Technologietrends stellt. Ber¼hmt ist er f¼r ein Zitat aus dem Jahr 1984, in dem er die f¼r den Macintosh erfundene Computermaus als von Menschen wohl kaum gewolltes Experiment von Apple darstellt. Bis heute tritt er in seinen Texten als 'žBuzzkill'' auf und redet als h¤ufiger Gast von 'žThis Week in Tech'' gegen die Technikeuphorie der Silicon-Valley-Protagonisten an.
  Curry, Jahrgang 1964, machte seine Laufbahn in den Medien nicht nur ber¼hmt, sondern auch reich. Mit 23 Jahren wurde er MTV-Moderator. Dass er f¼r den Sender die Domain 'žmtv.com'' registrierte und Sprachrohr im Internet werden wollte, brachte ihm viel rger ein. Im ersten Internetboom f¼hrte er ein Unternehmen mit mehreren hundert Mitarbeitern an die Technologieb¶rse Nasdaq. 2004 schuf er eine Videoplattform, ein Jahr vor der Gr¼ndung von Youtube. Als 'žPodfather'' z¤hlt er heute zum Erfinderkreis des Podcastings.
  Weitere Artikel
  'žNo Agenda'' h¤lt, was die Biographien der beiden versprechen: Misstrauen und Kritik gegen¼ber allen Institutionen und Entwicklungen, gepaart mit dem unbedingten Willen zu unterhalten. Curry und Dvorak nehmen insbesondere amerikanische Medien unter die Lupe und unterziehen Ausschnitte aus Radio- und Fernsehsendungen, die sie in jeder Sendung im Dutzend vorspielen, einer Zweitverwertung - sie legen ¼ber die Aussagen der Politiker und Moderationen von Journalisten eine eigene Weltsicht, in der eine abenteuerliche Bandbreite an Haltungen zum Vorschein kommt und insbesondere als alternativlos geltende Szenarien zerpfl¼ckt werden. Pr¤sidenten kommen bei ihnen nicht gut weg, ebenso das Milit¤r, Geheimdienste und Zentralbanken.
  Ihrem Publikum verlangen Curry und Dvorak einiges ab. Den Zuschnitt der Sendung mit ihren zahlreichen Querbez¼gen kann man erst nach Wochen nachvollziehen, und nicht selten wiegen die Na-ja-Effekte die Aha-Effekte auf. Doch die H¶rergemeinde w¤chst, nicht nur in Amerika, wo sich die groŸen Medieninstitutionen inzwischen offen politischen Lagern zurechnen und der Name 'žNo Agenda'' f¼r ein alternatives Programm durchaus passt. Adam Curry sch¤tzt, dass etwa ein Prozent der Zuh¶rer f¼r das Programm bezahlen. Zur 500. Ausgabe am Sonntag, den 31. M¤rz, wird der Anteil wohl etwas h¶her sein.
  WeitersagenMerkenDrucken Beitrag per E-Mail versendenRadioerfolg im Netz: Stell dir vor, die Nutzer zahlen
  Radioerfolg im Netz
  Stell dir vor, die Nutzer zahlen
  Von Stefan SchulzIhre Netzshow ist ohne Beispiel. Mit 'žNo Agenda'' zeigen John C. Dvorak und Adam Curry, wie man mit kritischem und textlastigem Radio im Internet H¶rer erreichen und sogar Geld verdienen kann.
  Ein Fehler ist aufgetreten. Bitte ¼berpr¼fen Sie Ihre Eingaben.
  Beitrag per E-Mail versendenVielen DankDer Beitrag wurde erfolgreich versandt.
  Lesermeinungen zu diesem Artikel (3)
2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. '-- From July 24 to August 19 | Climate Depot
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:39
  By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotAugust 21, 2013 6:04 PM
  2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps
  Via: http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/2899-record-cold-temps-667-record-warm-temps/
  From July 24 to August 19
  This is global warming?http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/climate/records/4week/us.html?cat=maxtemp,mintemp,snow,lowma x,highmin,Thanks to Ralph Fato for this link
  Related Links:
  Report: Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! - Climate Depot Exclusive Round Up of Current Global Cooling predictions '' Exclusive Report: Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: 'Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year 'pause' to the cooling since 2002'
  Second Slowest Peak Arctic Melt Season On Record '-- 'Since July 23, Arctic ice area loss has been the second slowest on record. Ice loss has been 61% of normal, and was just slightly faster than 2001'²
  51% Growth In Arctic Sea Ice From 2012 '-- The Arctic melt season is almost done, and there is 51% more ice than there was on this date last year.
  '15'² Peer Reviewed Studies Confirm Arctic Was Warmer During Medieval Period
  Flashback 1957: Extreme Heat, Drought, Melt, Thunderstorms At The North Pole
  'Consensus police': Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry reveals scientists trying to 'stifle skeptical research': 'Scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics'
Wait, what? Yahoo tops Google in US traffic
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: CNET News
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:48
  Yahoo bumps Google from the top spot on ComScore's top 50 Internet properties list, a position held by Google since 2008.
  For the first time in five years, Google is no longer No. 1 in US Internet traffic, and its top spot was taken by a surprising competitor -- the once lackluster Yahoo.
  ComScore released its monthly report on the top 50 US Internet properties Wednesday and it listed Yahoo as the top dog in July with 196,564,000 visits. Google, lagging behind slightly, had 192,251,000.
  Marketing Land noted that Google has been No. 1 since April 2008. While Yahoo's numbers fluctuated, its had reached the No. 2 or No. 3 position occasionally, it never could make it the top.
  The boost comes shortly after Yahoo's May purchase of the popular blogging site Tumblr. While ComScore still ranks Tumblr as its own entity, there's a footnote indicating that the site has "has assigned some portion of traffic to other syndicated entities." Tumblr came in at No. 38 with 38,367,000 visits.
  Whether it's some clever number crunching or a real renewed interest from consumers, these latest figures have got to give Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, and the company's loyal employees, a good morale boost.
NASA Announces Coronal Mass Ejection Hurtling Toward Earth from Sun
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:25
  First Posted: Aug 21, 2013 08:34 AM EDT
  Coronal mass ejections aren't necessarily rare. However, the ones that hurtle toward Earth can cause some issues for our planet. Early on August 20, our Sun slung one of these CMEs in our direction, sending billions of tons of particles into space. (Photo : ESA & NASA/SOHO, SDO)
  Coronal mass ejections aren't necessarily rare. However, the ones that hurtle toward Earth can cause some issues for our planet. Early on August 20, our Sun slung one of these CMEs in our direction, sending billions of tons of particles into space.
  Like Us on Facebook
  While the eruption occurred yesterday, though, it will be a few more days before we might feel the effects of these solar particles. It takes between one to three days before a CME reaches our planet from the sun. While the particles can't travel through the atmosphere to harm humans, though, they can disrupt electronic systems in satellite and on the ground.
  That's not the only effect that CMEs can have, though. These particles can also "supercharge" the Northern Lights. In fact, a CME in April led to the chance for a geomagnetic storm. These storms funnel energy into Earth's magnetic envelope, the magnetosphere, for an extended period of time. The CME's magnetic fields peel back the outermost layers of Earth's fields, changing their very shape. These storms can interact with the Earth's atmosphere and enhance the aurora, leading to displays that can be visible as far south as New Jersey and Oregon.
  Yet a geomagnetic storm doesn't only show off some spectacular light displays. Magnetic storms can degrade communication signals and caused unexpected electrical surges in power grids.
  In this case, the CME left the sun at speeds of about 570 miles per second, according to NASA. While this may seem fast, it's a fairly typical speed for CMEs. This strength of CME has normally caused geomagnetic storms that have been very mild in the past; it's unlikely that we should worry too much about the solar particles currently hurtling toward Earth.
  Want to get updates on this particular CME? Visit NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center here.
VIDEO: Syria 'toxic attacks kill hundreds'
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: BBC News - Home
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:01
  This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
Bradley Manning: a sentence both unjust and unfair | Editorial
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Media: WikiLeaks | theguardian.com
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:55
  Bradley Manning is escorted out of a courthouse in Fort Meade, Maryland. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP
  Bradley Manning has received a prison sentence that was 10 years longer than the period of time after which many of the documents he released would have been automatically declassified. The military judge handed down the longest ever sentence for a leak of US government information.
  Mr Manning, according to this logic, did more harm than the soldier who gave a Jordanian intelligence agent information on the build-up to the first Iraq war, or the marine who gave the KGB the identities of CIA agents and floorplans of the embassies in Moscow and Vienna. Mr Manning did three times as much harm in transmitting to WikiLeaks in 2010 the war logs or field reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, as Charles Graner did. He was the army reserve corporal who became ringleader of the Abu Ghraib abuse ring and was set free after serving six and a half years of his 10-year sentence.
  Among the 700,000 classified documents Mr Manning downloaded while stationed in Iraq was a video that showed a US Apache helicopter in Baghdad opening fire on a group of Iraqis, including two Reuters journalists and their children, who had attempted to rescue a severely injured man. More devastating than the film was the cockpit chatter of the soldiers who joked as they shot people in the streets.
  "Look at those dead bastards," said one. "Nice," said another.
  The Apache crew has never been charged with any offence (all their adult targets were listed as insurgents) and neither has any other individual as a result of Mr Manning's revelations. But the shortened 17-minute version of the video has been viewed more than 3m times on YouTube.
  So, the central question to answer in judging the proportionality of this sentence is whether the desire to punish a whistleblower driven by moral outrage stems from the alleged harm he did US military and diplomatic interests, or whether it derives more from sheer embarrassment. The judge presiding, Col Denise Lind, had already thrown out the gravest charge, that of "aiding the enemy". Col Lind had also limited the admissibility of evidence regarding the "chilling effects" that Mr Manning's actions had on US diplomacy by releasing 250,000 state department cables. A military witness conceded there was no evidence that anyone had been killed after being named in the releases.
  Mr Manning's recent apology for his actions does not, and should not, detract from the initial defence he gave for them, when he spoke of his shock at the "delightful bloodlust" displayed by that helicopter crew, or his belief that stimulating a debate about the wars was the right thing to do. We know what his motives as a whistleblower were and we have applauded them. They are certainly not akin to treachery or any act fit to be judged '' if anything is '' by an espionage act rushed onto the statute book in 1917 after America entered the first world war.
  Mr Manning exposed the abuse of detainees by Iraqi officers under the watch of US minders. He showed that civilian deaths during the Iraq war were much higher than the official estimates. If they were published today, these claims would be uncontentious. They have already slipped into the official history of this war. But the author of this orthodoxy will continue to pay for the record he helped establish by a prison term that he will serve well into the next decade, which is when the first date for his parole application becomes due. Mr Manning was seeking to hold his country and its army to the values they claim to uphold.
  It is unclear what the US military hopes to achieve by securing a sentence that dwarfs those of other military convictions. Deterrence features large in its thinking. Whistleblowing will not only endanger your career, it wants to say, but your freedom '' for most of your adult life. In 2008, one could have hoped that the US had a president whose administration would distinguish between leaks in the public interest and treason. But this sentence tells a different story. Mr Manning's sentence, which is both unjust and unfair, can still be reduced on appeal. Let us hope that it is.
Declassified Court Document Describes Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance Program.
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Dave Winer's linkblog feed
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:54
  In 2011, the FISA court ruled that an NSA surveillance program was unconstitutional. The court's opinion has now been declassified, and the Washington Postdescribes the program:
  Under the program, the NSA diverted large volumes of international data passing through fiber-optic cables in the United States into a repository where the material could be stored temporarily for processing and for the selection of foreign communications, rather than domestic ones. But in practice the NSA was unable to filter out the communications between Americans.
  A month after the FISA court learned of the program in 2011 and ruled it unconstitutional, the NSA revised its collection procedures to segregate the transactions most likely to contain the communications of Americans. In 2012, the agency also purged the domestic communications that it had collected.
  More later after I've had a chance to read the opinion itself.
  Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.
VIDEO-Why did gullible reporters promote a student paper about nuclear facility security? - Atomic Insights
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:18
  There was a flurry of attention in the press last week when a political science professor held a press conference to tell the world that one of his students had written a paper concluding that all of the nuclear power plants in the United States were vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
  For unpublished reasons, a number of reporters accepted the scare story at face value and published articles stoking fear, uncertainty and doubt. Editors at outlets as varied as Fox News, CNN, Reuters, and National Journal ran headlines like the following:
  Fox News '' Security at nation's nuclear facilities vulnerable to terrorist attack, report says
  CNN '' Report: U.S. nuclear plants remain vulnerable to terrorists
  Reuters '' U.S. nuclear power plants vulnerable to 9/11-style attacks: report
  National Journal '' Pentagon-Sponsored Report: Civilian Nuclear Reactors at Risk of Attack
  Here is an example of the kind of breathless reporting that makes nuclear energy professionals so frustrated with the ad supported media.
  One of the email groups to which I subscribe included the following response from Jerry Paul. I obtained his permission to publish his observations.
  It is a stretch to even call this document a ''report'', much less research. It is political propaganda. It is not authored or sourced by anyone with technical or scientific credentials nor is there any peer review (for obvious reasons). The faculty author, whose experience is in political science, asserts that the ''research'' was ''primarily by his [student] assistant''. Little can be found to indicate any subject matter expertise upon which he or his student might rely for his conclusions which depend on technical and complex aspects of nuclear science, nuclear materials and nuclear engineering. Rather, his bio boasts of his background as an activist for Greenpeace which is a political, not a scientific, organization. Few references are given in the paper other than quotes from individuals at other anti-nuclear activist organizations.
  Most of the paper reads like a science fair project, simply providing a catalogue of nuclear facilities coupled with only publicly-available generalizations about security at such places. The reader quickly concludes that neither of the authors have ever seen inside one of the nuclear facilities about which they perform an autopsy. The authors then make a Grand-Canyon size leap into conclusions about the way multiple agencies assess the DBT (Design Basis Threat). They essentially repeat the tired theory that the security posture of all facilities should be assessed identically.
  They ignore differences and distinctions that nuclear security experts understandably build into differing vulnerability assessments tailored to different scenarios, facility types, and nuclear asset types. The author's errors emanate from multiple underlying shortcomings, not the least of which is an absence of detailed understanding of the way that intelligence is gathered and analyzed by the governmental agencies involved with the process. This is understandable, of course, in that the authors, who apparently do not have a security clearance, admittedly rely solely on un-classified information for conclusions that require classified intelligence. (The tone and style of their discussion about intelligence indicates a depth a sophistication that is in parity with a chamber of commerce brochure)
  I do not think any of us should refer to this as a ''DOD report''. The author claims his study was prepared as part of a ''larger inter-disciplinary study'' (which could mean anything) at the University of Texas ''for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which provided financial support for the research''. I suspect the SecDef knows nothing of this ''report'' nor a request for it. It is likely that the ''larger study'' is so remote from the subject matter of this fiction novel so as to effectively have no connection to it. It is quite doubtful that the ''Office of the Secretary of Defense'' would request this type of study from a Greenpeace activist or any other person who has no credentials or experience with the subject matter. Nor would the SecDef likely ''provide financial support'' for this effort '... at least not knowingly. (Perhaps some investigative journalism should be directed toward this latter point.)
  James Conca says it well in his Forbes column on this titled Anyone Can Write A Story About Nuclear Terrorismhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/08/17/anyone-can-write-a-story-about-nuclear-terrorism/
  There are good people at the University of Texas who are capable of credible research on topics of nuclear security. They apparently were not consulted by the public affairs or political department. It is unfortunate, but U.T. should indeed be embarrassed to have let their good name be exploited for the dissemination of this piece.
  Jerry Paul is a nuclear engineer and attorney who formerly served as the Principal Deputy Administrator of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration and served as the U.S. NNSA Deputy Administrator for Nonproliferation. He also formerly served as the Distinguished Fellow for Energy Policy at the University of Tennessee Howard Baker Center for Public Policy.
  Here are some questions for reader discussion.
  Why did the reporters write scary stories about a document that is clearly marked as a ''working paper'' and includes a clear disclaimer on the front page indicating that most of the work was done by a graduate student assistant?Why did editors from so many different news outlets go with the story and accept scary, inflammatory headlines without asking hard questions about the source of the ''report''.Why didn't more people take the simple step of entering the professor's name into a search engine to find out that he is an activist who often writes scary stuff about nuclear energy and advocates starting a war with Iran to halt its nuclear energy program?
IC ON THE RECORD
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:55
  Remarks by the President in a Press Conference
  August 9, 2013
  THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Please have a seat.
  Over the past few weeks, I've been talking about what I believe should be our number-one priority as a country '-- building a better bargain for the middle class and for Americans who want to work their way into the middle class. At the same time, I'm focused on my number-one responsibility as Commander-in-Chief, and that's keeping the American people safe. And in recent days, we've been reminded once again about the threats to our nation.
  As I said at the National Defense University back in May, in meeting those threats we have to strike the right balance between protecting our security and preserving our freedoms. And as part of this rebalancing, I called for a review of our surveillance programs. Unfortunately, rather than an orderly and lawful process to debate these issues and come up with appropriate reforms, repeated leaks of classified information have initiated the debate in a very passionate, but not always fully informed way
  Now, keep in mind that as a senator, I expressed a healthy skepticism about these programs, and as President, I've taken steps to make sure they have strong oversight by all three branches of government and clear safeguards to prevent abuse and protect the rights of the American people. But given the history of abuse by governments, it's right to ask questions about surveillance '-- particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives.
  I'm also mindful of how these issues are viewed overseas, because American leadership around the world depends upon the example of American democracy and American openness '-- because what makes us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation, it's the way we do it '-- with open debate and democratic process.
  In other words, it's not enough for me, as President, to have confidence in these programs. The American people need to have confidence in them as well. And that's why, over the last few weeks, I've consulted members of Congress who come at this issue from many different perspectives. I've asked the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to review where our counterterrorism efforts and our values come into tension, and I directed my national security team to be more transparent and to pursue reforms of our laws and practices.
  And so, today, I'd like to discuss four specific steps '-- not all inclusive, but some specific steps that we're going to be taking very shortly to move the debate forward.
  First, I will work with Congress to pursue appropriate reforms to Section 215 of the Patriot Act '-- the program that collects telephone records. As I've said, this program is an important tool in our effort to disrupt terrorist plots. And it does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls without a warrant. But given the scale of this program, I understand the concerns of those who would worry that it could be subject to abuse. So after having a dialogue with members of Congress and civil libertarians, I believe that there are steps we can take to give the American people additional confidence that there are additional safeguards against abuse.
  For instance, we can take steps to put in place greater oversight, greater transparency, and constraints on the use of this authority. So I look forward to working with Congress to meet those objectives.
  Second, I'll work with Congress to improve the public's confidence in the oversight conducted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISC. The FISC was created by Congress to provide judicial review of certain intelligence activities so that a federal judge must find that our actions are consistent with the Constitution. However, to build greater confidence, I think we should consider some additional changes to the FISC.
  One of the concerns that people raise is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct programmatic surveillance only hears one side of the story '-- may tilt it too far in favor of security, may not pay enough attention to liberty. And while I've got confidence in the court and I think they've done a fine job, I think we can provide greater assurances that the court is looking at these issues from both perspectives '-- security and privacy.
  So, specifically, we can take steps to make sure civil liberties concerns have an independent voice in appropriate cases by ensuring that the government's position is challenged by an adversary.
  Number three, we can, and must, be more transparent. So I've directed the intelligence community to make public as much information about these programs as possible. We've already declassified unprecedented information about the NSA, but we can go further. So at my direction, the Department of Justice will make public the legal rationale for the government's collection activities under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The NSA is taking steps to put in place a full-time civil liberties and privacy officer, and released information that details its mission, authorities, and oversight. And finally, the intelligence community is creating a website that will serve as a hub for further transparency, and this will give Americans and the world the ability to learn more about what our intelligence community does and what it doesn't do, how it carries out its mission, and why it does so.
  Fourth, we're forming a high-level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies. We need new thinking for a new era. We now have to unravel terrorist plots by finding a needle in the haystack of global telecommunications. And meanwhile, technology has given governments '-- including our own '-- unprecedented capability to monitor communications.
  So I am tasking this independent group to step back and review our capabilities '-- particularly our surveillance technologies. And they'll consider how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that there absolutely is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used, ask how surveillance impacts our foreign policy '-- particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public. And they will provide an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year, so that we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign policy.
  So all these steps are designed to ensure that the American people can trust that our efforts are in line with our interests and our values. And to others around the world, I want to make clear once again that America is not interested in spying on ordinary people. Our intelligence is focused, above all, on finding the information that's necessary to protect our people, and '-- in many cases '-- protect our allies.
  It's true we have significant capabilities. What's also true is we show a restraint that many governments around the world don't even think to do, refuse to show '-- and that includes, by the way, some of America's most vocal critics. We shouldn't forget the difference between the ability of our government to collect information online under strict guidelines and for narrow purposes, and the willingness of some other governments to throw their own citizens in prison for what they say online.
  And let me close with one additional thought. The men and women of our intelligence community work every single day to keep us safe because they love this country and believe in our values. They're patriots. And I believe that those who have lawfully raised their voices on behalf of privacy and civil liberties are also patriots who love our country and want it to live up to our highest ideals. So this is how we're going to resolve our differences in the United States '-- through vigorous public debate, guided by our Constitution, with reverence for our history as a nation of laws, and with respect for the facts.
  Via WhiteHouse.gov
  Read More
VIDEO-Sharpton: Says Sen. Cruz Was A Senator Since Birth - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:45
New software allows insurers to track driving habits and personalize premiums - The Globe and Mail
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:42
  Paul-Andr(C) Savoie is changing the car-insurance industry by helping insurers monitor every move you make.
  Customer data provided by Mr. Savoie's tech company, based in Laval, Que., turns a car-insurance bill from a static monthly figure into something variable '' the more unsafe a customer's driving habits, the higher the cost.
  More Related to this Story''It creates a huge financial incentive on a monthly basis to drive safe,'' said Mr. Savoie, president and CEO of Baseline Telematics. ''We are attracting safer drivers and rehabilitating other drivers.''
  A handful of Canadian insurers have started testing the software in pilot programs. Those programs are overwhelmingly aimed at drivers 25 and younger. In some cases, it is the drivers' parents signing them up to keep close tabs on their driving habits.
  Since the inception of the modern car-insurance industry, premiums in Canada and much of the world have been determined by broad criteria, including age and car model. However, the ubiquity of movement sensors available in many modern vehicles '' as well as the ability to analyze the massive amounts of data produced by those sensors '' has created a new brand of insurance.
  By measuring exactly how each of their customers drives in real time, insurers are starting to charge individual premiums based on monitored driving habits.
  For 17 years, Mr. Savoie's company has been building software and hardware for the insurance industry. Over the past year or so, a couple of Canadian insurers have started deploying Baseline's namesake technology, ''telematics.''
  The product collects information from the vehicles of individual drivers and allows insurers to bill their customers according to these data. The software uses sensors to monitor speed, acceleration, braking and other metrics.
  That information is then analyzed for signs of unsafe driving, such as hard braking or speed-limit violations (the software monitors a vehicle's location to determine whether drivers are keeping within limits).
  While deployment of the technology is still in the testing stages among a handful of insurance companies, its usage reflects the widespread adoption of tools that allow companies to track customer habits.
  The ability to monitor and adapt to the behaviour of individual customers, for example, was part of the rationale for last month's announcement by Loblaw Cos. Ltd. that it will acquire Shoppers Drug Mart Corp. for $12.4-billion. Shoppers' Optimum loyalty program will give Loblaw purchasing information on some 10 million customers.
  The interactive and social-media-friendly nature of Mr. Savoie's software is meant to quell potential resistance from younger customers. Customers get weekly and monthly updates on their driving habits, are shown how they compare to others in their age group, and have the option to publish that information on Facebook.
  ''By people getting regular feedback and seeing in graphical illustration how they're driving compared to their peers, it has an impact on how they drive,'' said Don Thompson, vice-president of product management at Saskatchewan Government Insurance, which is testing the first telematics program for motorcycle insurance.
  The telematics system itself is largely reliant on ''big data'' analytics '' a fast-growing industry focused on automatically sifting through huge amounts of information to find previously undiscovered trends.
  To do that with the data collected by the telematics systems, Baseline sought the assistance of SAP, an analytics company whose customers include F1 racing teams and life-insurance providers '' the racing teams use SAP technology to collect and analyze data from cars in real time during races, and the insurers use it to look for patterns consistent with fraudulent claims.
  Baseline charges its customers an activation fee up front and a monthly subscription fee afterward. The exact cost of the system differs from insurer to insurer.
  By sifting through the data collected by the telematics program, Baseline and its customers are starting to see the patterns that help to flag high-risk driving. For example, frequent hard braking is a strong indicator of unsafe driving in cars, and the strongest indicator with respect to motorcyclists is cornering. As a result, Baseline's telematics hardware for motorbikes includes a 3-D accelerometer designed to measure the way a rider takes a corner.
  In time, insurers say the new system will allow them to pinpoint every customer's risk level, and charge them accordingly, instead of relying on broad metrics.
  ''When somebody is a very bad driver, we see that after few months they're not with us any more '' they discover they're not good and they go with a traditional insurer,'' says Suzanne Michaud, vice-president of client experience at Mobiliz, which is running a telematics insurance program in Quebec.
  ''With telematics we don't charge you an average premium, we charge you your premium.''
  The telematics-based systems still constitute a tiny fraction of overall insurance programs in Canada, and face growing pains. For example, the motorbike version of the technology is so new that very little data on the metrics associated with safe motorbike driving exist. That prompted Saskatchewan Government Insurance to ask skilled riders to come out to a local track to demonstrate proper riding techniques on motorbikes fitted with monitoring equipment, which provided some baseline data.
  However, there are many privacy issues related to the frequent collection of data from drivers, including their location and speed. Protocols are being developed on a company-by-company basis on how data is stored and secured, as well as what to do if the data show extreme violations, such as speeds so far above posted limits that a driver could be criminally charged. In such cases, some insurers have opted to slap the customer with an immediate extra charge on that month's bill, hoping a hit to the wallet will help change behaviour.
  But despite the privacy issues, Mr. Savoie is adamant that telematics-based policies will soon become the norm in Canada and throughout much of the world. In the early days of the service, Baseline had to install special hardware in vehicles to collect data. Now, the company is working on a smartphone app, which uses the sensors on those devices to collect the same information.
  Soon, the company won't even have to do that, Mr. Savoie said, because most car companies are already building those sensors into the cars.
  ''I think in the next two or three years, you will not be able to buy a car that doesn't have a telematics connection back to the manufacturers. I think cars are basically going to be smartphones.''
  But perhaps the most significant impact of telematics-based insurance is its applicability to myriad other industries. Richard Daukant, national vice-president of strategic engagements at SAP, notes that there has been an explosion in so-called body metrics hardware over the past few years '' wearable monitors that collect information such as heart rate, physical activity and calories burned.
  Now, he says, health insurance companies are starting to take a long look at that technology, hoping to harness it for a new type of customized insurance policy, whose premiums are determined by each customer's lifestyle.
  ''It's almost pay as you live, not pay as you drive.''
  Send your automotive maintenance and repair questions to globedrive@globeandmail.com
Bill Clinton foundation has spent more than $50M on travel expenses - m.NYPOST.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:36
  WASHINGTON '' Bill Clinton's foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit's tax forms reveal.
  The web of foundations run by the former president spent an eye-opening $12.1 million on travel in 2011 alone, according to an internal audit conducted by foundation accountants. That's enough to by 12,000 air tickets costing $1,000 each, or 33 air tickets each day of the year.
  That overall figure includes travel costs for the William J. Clinton Foundation (to which Hillary and Chelsea are now attached) of $4.2 million on travel in 2011, the most recent year where figures are available.
  The Clinton Global Health Initiative spent another $730,000 on travel, while the Clinton Health Action Initiative (CHAI) spent $7.2 million on travel.
  CHAI also spent $2.9 million on meetings and training, according to the report, conducted by the Little Rock, Ark. Accounting firm BDK CPA's and Advisors. All three entities have global reach, while CHAI has the most staff.
  It's impossible to discern from tax filings how the total travel costs were reached, although the former president is known to rack up his personal miles on private jets.
  Wealthy businessman John Catsimatitis has lent aircraft to Clinton and to the foundation multiple times for travel, including Clinton's recent trip to Africa along with daughter, Chelsea.
  Clinton sometimes uses Catsimatitis' Boeing 727, opting on other flights to use a smaller Gulfstream jet.
  ''I don't think it's necessarily their go-to plane, because the 727 is a pretty big plane. It all depends where they're going and what they're doing,'' said a Catsimatitis spokesman.
  Sometimes Clinton uses the plane at a discount rate for the foundation, and sometimes Catsimatitis donates the flight time to the charitable foundation, which has a variety of programs to improve global health and improve conditions in Haiti and other far-flung locales.
  According to previously undisclosed data provided by the Clinton Foundation, presidential trips accounted for 13 percent of the 2010 travel budget and 10 percent of the 2011 travel budget.
  That puts Bill Clinton's single-year travel tab for 2011 at more than $1 million. A foundation official wouldn't say how many presidential trips occurred in that time frame.
  The remaining travel paid for an array of foundation travel, with nearly 60 percent soaked up by the health access initiative, and about 5 percent going to the Clinton global health initiative, including flying students to attend Clinton Global Initiative University.
  A Climate Change Initiative took up 12 percent of travel in 2010 and 11 percent in 2011, although the program accounts for a much smaller fraction of foundation revenues. A foundation official said that's because the program employs many overseas staff and domestic staff doing transcontinental travel.
  Clinton made reference to foundation overhead in an ''open letter'' posted on his foundation's web site '' mentioning an outside review that called for ''stronger management staff'' and blaming his own efforts to keep costs down.
  ''The review told us that my passion to keep overhead costs down '' at about a low
  8 percent for most of the last decade, rising only to above 11 percent in 2012 as we invested to support our growth '' had gone on too long and that the Foundation needed better coordination without dampening the entrepreneurial spirit that infuses all our initiatives,'' he wrote.
  The sky-high travel costs come after a report revealed some of the foundation's high-flying ways, including letting actress Natalie Portman fly first class with her pooch to a foundation event.
Airline to charge overweight passengers more
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:34
  Samoa Air has introduced a "pay what you weigh" pricing policy.
  Samoa Air has become the world's first airline to implement "pay as you weigh" flights, meaning overweight passengers pay more for their seats.
  "This is the fairest way of travelling," chief executive of Samoa Air, Chris Langton, told ABC Radio. "There are no extra fees in terms of excess baggage or anything '' it is just a kilo is a kilo is a kilo."
  Like many Pacific island nations, Samoa has a serious obesity problem and is often included in the top 10 countries for obesity levels. As such, Mr Langton believes his airline's new payment policy will also help promote health and obesity awareness.
  "When you get into the Pacific, standard weight is substantially higher [than south-east Asia]," he said. "That's a health issue in some areas. [This payment system] has raised the awareness of weight."
  Under the new system, Samoa Air passengers must type in their weight and the weight of their baggage into the online booking section of the airline's website. The rates vary depending on the distance flown: from $1 per kilogram on the airline's shortest domestic route to about $4.16 per kilogram for travel between Samoa and American Samoa. Passengers are then weighed again on scales at the airport, to check that they weren't fibbing online.
  Samoa Air operates BN2A Islander and Cessna 172 aircraft.
  Mr Langton said he believed it to be a system of the future, and added that "the standard width and pitch of seats are changing as people are getting a bit bigger, wider and taller than they were 40 to 50 years ago".
  He also pointed out that families travelling with small children could end up paying far less with the pay-by-weight scheme.
  "A family of maybe two adults and a couple of mid-sized kids ... can travel at considerably less than what they were being charged before," he said.
  Public relations and marketing representative for Samoa Tourism, Peter Sereno, said he believed that the policy would also help with safety standards.
  "When you're only fitting eight to 12 people in these aircraft and you've got some bigger Samoans getting on, you do need to weigh them and distribute that weight evenly throughout the aircraft, to make sure everyone's safe," he said. "At the end of the day, I don't care who they're weighing or how they're weighing them as long as it's safe."
  Norwegian economist Bharat P. Bhatta proposed in a recent journal article that by implementing pay-per-kilo policies, carriers could also recoup the cost of the extra fuel required to carry larger people.
  Some airlines in the United States already force obese passengers who cannot fit in a single seat to pay for two seats, but this is the first time a per-kilo rate has been used by an airline.
  Poll: Do you think overweight airline passengers should pay more?Yes85%
  No15%
  Total votes: 40684.
  Would you like to vote?You will need Cookies enabled to use our Voting Feature.
  Would you like to vote?
  You will need Javascript enabled to use our Voting Feature.
  Poll closed 4 Apr, 2013
  Disclaimer:
  These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.
Inzet BREIN juridisch afgedekt in nieuw ebookdistributiecontract
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:33
  Wiebe de Jager
  09-08-13 11:20
  (5046 keer gelezen)
  Onlangs zag eReaders.nl de nieuwe overeenkomst 'digitale distributie voor webwinkels' in, die CB ter ondertekening voorlegt aan ebookshops die aangesloten zijn op distributieplatform eBoekhuis. In de overeenkomst staat te lezen dat webwinkeliers zich verplichten om klantinformatie door te geven aan Stichting BREIN indien er ebooks met watermerk worden aangetroffen op torrentsites of usenet.
  De nieuwe contractsvorm moet uitgevers van ebooks met digitaal watermerk de mogelijkheid geven om samen met Stichting BREIN overtreders van de auteurswet op te sporen. Bij verkoop van een digitaal boek met watermerk wordt er een unieke code verwerkt in het ebook, die herleid kan worden naar een specifieke transactie. Maar de bijbehorende klantgegevens zijn alleen bij de betreffende webwinkel bekend, vandaar dat het contract wordt herzien.
  Volgens de nieuwe bepalingen zijn ebookretailers in de toekomst verplicht om klantinformatie door te geven aan auteursrechthebbenden en Stichting BREIN indien er sprake is van een 'verdenking op inbreuk van de auteurswet', bijvoorbeeld als een ebook met watermerk wordt aangetroffen op een torrentsite of op usenet. De herziening van het contract volgt op onderhandelingen met boekverkopers en uitgevers rond de invoering van de watermerktechniek.
  De aankoopinformatie moet van BREIN minstens twee jaar bewaard blijven. Webwinkels zijn volgens de nieuwe overeenkomst verplicht om consumenten tijdens de aankoop van een ebook met watermerk te wijzen op het feit dat klantinformatie bewaard wordt en mogelijk wordt doorgespeeld naar derden, bij een vermoeden van misbruik.
  Op dit moment zijn er al veel ebooks met daarin een watermerk te vinden op torrentsites. Ook zijn er personen gesignaleerd die watermerk-ebooks 'tweedehands' te koop aanbieden. Dergelijke evidente vormen van misbruik zullen na bekrachtiging van het nieuwe contract door Stichting BREIN aangepakt kunnen worden.
  Inzet BREIN juridisch afgedekt in nieuw ebookdistributiecontract Beoordelingen
  Alleen geregistreerde gebruikers kunnen een reactie plaatsen.Klik hier om een account aan te maken of in te loggen.09-08-13 12:02
  hotmail-account, adresgegevens van de plaatselijke mcDrive en betaling met vooraf in de supermarkt aangeschafte bol.com cadeaukaart.Eenvoudig te omzeilen voor iedereen die vooraf de intentie heeft om verder te verspreiden, volgens mij deed een van de grotere verspreiders op usenet dit al zo om de donaties van downloaders om te zetten in nieuwe titels.
  09-08-13 15:07
  Nutteloze actie aangezien de meeste verspreiders best weten hoe eenvoudig een watermerk te verwijderen is. De enigen die ze mogelijk vangen zijn de kleinschalige onwetende uploaders.Ze blijven zoals altijd achter de feiten aanlopen, maar dat ben ik gewend van dit clubje. Overigens ben ik benieuwd of dit soort praktijken juridisch wel "zuiver" zijn.Desondanks wel een mooi moment om te stoppen met het sponsoren van dit soort onzin, en dus geen producten meer aan te schaffen bij aangeslotenen van stichting BREIN (dat deed ik toch al een hele tijd niet meer).
  12-08-13 14:21
  Het kan niet anders dan dat de partijen die al dit soort energie aanwenden/besteden, bakken geld verdienen.Volgens mij moet dat uit de verkoopprijs komen. Die kopers dan weer moeten betalen.Grappig, dit soort economische processen.Je moet toch wel erg creatief zijn om dit soort geld uit de zak klopperij steeds weer te bedenken.Daar moet een jarenlange ervaring in dit soort praktijken aan ten grondslag liggen.
  Kostenminimalisering en vraag en aanbod hun werk laten doen komt niet in hen op.
  Heel apart.
  13-08-13 8:39
  Helemaal met Rob eens. Nu lees ik weinig tot geen Nederlands, maar dit maakt dat ik voorlopig ook geen Nederlands ebook koop, al zou ik het toevallig wel willen hebben.
  14-08-13 16:53
  Dankzij het watermerk ipv de Adobe DRM kunnen kopers het ebook op verschillende apparaten lezen. Het watermerk werkt als een 'social DRM' doordat het kan helpen uploaders te identificeren die Illegaal kopien van ebooks verspreiden. BREIN komt daarbij in beeld op verzoek van de benadeelde partijen. Die hebben er immers baat bij dat structureel misbruik wordt tegen gegaan en dat is de taak die rechthebbenden aan BREIN geven.Er is die partijen (en BREIN) alles aan gelegen dat klantgegevens conform de Wbp worden opgeslagen en verwerkt. Aan de consument zal kenbaar zijn dat het doel van de vastlegging o.a. de handhaving van auteursrecht is.Het is overigens zo dat een benadeelde (of BREIN) ook afgifte van persoonsgegevens kan verkrijgen als die niet voor dat doel zijn opgeslagen. Dat kan conform art 8 sub f van de Wbp. De voorwaarden daarvoor zijn vastgelegd in rechtspraak van de Hoge Raad in Lycos/Pessers.
  BREIN richt zich op structureel misbruik en zal gegevens opvragen als daar in een concreet geval afdoende aanleiding voor is. De gegevens kunnen helpen bij het identificeren van notoire uploaders. Personen van wie gegevens worden opgevraagd zullen daarvan uiteraard conform de Wbp in kennis worden gesteld. Het contact opnemen met die personen is immers ook het doel van het opvragen ervan.
  14-08-13 18:07
  Kortom, er is een repressieve procedure bijgekomen om misbruik makkelijker aan te pakken.Deze procedure kost het nodige wat de consument moet betalen en de aanbieders in de markt denken niet echt na over het voorkomen van de noodzaak van deze procedure.Men gaat rustig voort met het uitmelken van consumenten.En de consument gaat nog harder proberen om niet onnodig uitgemolken te worden.Waarna er wellicht een royaal betaalde bromsnor bij moet komen om de 'schuldigen' te arresteren.Maatschappelijk onverantwoord ondernemen.
  15-08-13 12:53
  Tim Kuik, ik vind het fijn dat je hier meeleest, dan kan ik hier duidelijk over zijn: als consument vind ik elke vorm van DRM afstotelijk. Het is iets wat mij van de aanschaf van een ebook weerhoudt. En dan zoek ik wel iets anders, op Project Gutenberg of zo. Je hoeft niets illegaals te doen om voor eeuwig genoeg leesvoer te hebben.Ik snap wel dat dat voor jou geen overweging is, jij ontvangt je salaris toch wel(*), maar ik vraag me af of jouw clinten weleens meningen als de mijne onder ogen krijgen. Of vertrouwen ze geheel op de info van BREIN?
  Maar goed, geniet van je sinecure en blijf vooral in belabberd Nederlands van je afbijten, dan gaan wij als ebookkopers t.z.t. vast nog wel van BREIN houden. *ahem*
  (*) Wel ironisch dat jij goed geld verdient aan het fenomeen illegaal kopiren, vind je niet? Zeker als je nagaat dat dit fenomeen *niet* is tegen te gaan.
  15-08-13 14:53
  @Trefi: geen enkele garantie dat dit de echte Tim Kuik is hoor. Accountje is voor iedere grapjas (Marahari?) zo aangemaakt.
  15-08-13 16:12
  @BumbaHij is het vast niet. Maar dat maakt voor de geldigheid van mijn betoogje niet uit, en zo komt het toch met zijn naam erbij in het collectieve geheugen van internet terecht.
  15-08-13 17:54
  Tim (als je het bent), geloof je werkelijk nog in je eigen gepiep?Naar mijn mening zijn jullie gewoon een nutteloos en overbodig clubje zakkenvullers die met bedenkelijke methodes een strijd voeren die jullie nooit zullen winnen. Maar zolang de beurs maar wordt gespekt maakt dat allemaal niets uit, h¨?
  Af en toe deelt jullie clubje een klein tikje uit dat natuurlijk groot wordt uitgemeten (even de achterban paaien?), maar daar blijft het dan ook bij. Ongelooflijk dat er nog gasten zijn die hun geld (en dus het geld van hun klanten) over de balk smijten en zich bij jullie aansluiten.
  16-08-13 17:07
  Nog een fraai staaltje propaganda van Tim en zijn clubje over de nutteloze blokkade van The Pirate Bay. Een quote uit de Volkskrant van vandaag waar Tim jammer genoeg wat stoere taal mocht uitslaan: www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/12330/4-Uur-Nieuwsbreak/article/detail/3493554/2013/08/16/Tim-Kuik-Dat-trage-Pirate-Bay-browsertje-gaat-geen-verschil-maken.dhtml"Bovendien hebben wij zelf eerder al berekend dat het Nederlandse gebruik van The Pirate Bay met 80 procent gedaald is."
  Eerder op Tweakers is al uitgelegd dat de succesclaim van BREIN met een lading zout genomen moet worden: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/82924/brein-negeert-proxybezoek-bij-succesclaim-over-the-pirate-bay.html
  "Brein negeert proxybezoek bij 'succesclaim' over The Pirate Bay
  Stichting Brein stelt dat het bezoek vanuit Nederland naar The Pirate Bay drastisch is afgenomen sinds het instellen van blokkades bij de grote isp's. Brein kijkt echter naar Alexa-statistieken en negeert daarmee bezoek aan de torrentsite via proxy's."
  In een eerder artikel op de Volkskrant valt ook al te lezen dat de Universiteit van Amsterdam onderzoek heeft gedaan, en dat de blokkade van The Pirate Bay in Nederland niet tot minder downloads heeft geleid.
  Het is bij dit nieuwsartikel misschien allemaal een beetje off-topic dus ik zal er nu mee stoppen, maar zoals ik al aangaf: jullie zijn goed in het paaien van jullie achterban. Blijkbaar zijn dat allemaal goedgelovige noobs.
  16-08-13 17:52
  Even kijken of ik dit goed begrepen heb.Dit systeem kan alleen maar werken als mijn ebook reader mijn watermerk aan de Stichting Brein stuurt. Brein kan dan kijken of mijn ebook reader en mijn watermerk wel samen passen.
  En dit willen jullie serieus gaan invoeren? Ik behoor tot die groep mensen die het al vervelend vindt wanneer iemand in de trein in mijn krant meeleest. Ik moet dan nu een Stichting Brein permanent gaan vertellen wanneer en hoe lang ik in welk boek lees? Gaan we dat dan meteen koppelen aan de gezellige database van de NSA?
  Als ik ooit een argument voor het illegaal downloaden van een ebook heb gehoord dan is dit het wel.
  16-08-13 18:42
  Jord: zoals ik het lees wordt de combinatie watermerk/transactie/koper opgeslagen bij de ebookretailer en krijgen BREIN en consorten pas toegang als je de doodzonde hebt begaan om het ebook te verspreiden (Usenet/torrent etc.).Tim zegt hierboven dat BREIN zich richt op structureel misbruik en dat ze gegevens zal opvragen als daar in een concreet geval afdoende aanleiding voor is. De vraag is natuurlijk wat ze verstaan onder "structureel misbruik" en "afdoende aanleiding".Je ereader zelf verstuurd niets, tenminste niet het watermerk aan BREIN.Iedereen (behalve de branche zelf) kan natuurlijk zien dat dit soort maatregelen nutteloos zijn, aangezien een watermerk eenvoudig te verwijderen is en ze dus weinig tot geen grote uploaders op deze manier zullen pakken. Sterker nog, waarschijnlijk lachen die enkel om dit soort nieuws en liggen ze er echt niet wakker van.
  16-08-13 23:49
  Hier nog een artikel over het nieuwe ebookdistributiecontract (waar Tim overigens ook heeft gereageerd, makkelijk h¨ die copy/paste?): http://rsnijders.info/vakblog/2013/08/09/ebooks-met-watermerk/"Ik kan alleen maar hopen dat consumenten dit niet zullen accepteren, ze geen ebooks met watermerk gaan aanschaffen bij deelnemende ebookshops en dat die ebookshops beseffen dat hun klanten koningen (behoren te) zijn. En geen potentile ebookmisdadigers waar alle gegevens van geregistreerd worden voor het geval dat een gekocht ebook online opduikt. Met enig geluk wordt dat straks aan de Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens getoetst ter herinnering dat consumenten behalve plichten ook nog rechten hebben."
  En zo is het.
  17-08-13 6:27
  Al dit geneuzel begint bij de uitgevers. Die bieden niet aan wat de klanten willen en kloppen de consument onnodig veel geld uit de zak..Zij sturen hun veldwachter Bromsnor, meneer Kuik, er op af en die is op zijn beurt weer lekker bezig zijn 'bestaansrecht' overeind te houden.En dat doet hij goed, ook al zegt hij eigenlijk ontzettend stomme dingen, zoals bijvoorbeeld in dat VK artikel.Maar zijn opdrachtgevers, zijnde de uitgevers, zijn nog stommer want die betalen hem ervoor, met geld van de consumenten, die deze onnodige kosten niet willen betalen.En die uitgevers denken ook nog dat ze daar mee weg komen.Ik denk van niet.
  17-08-13 10:30
  @Rob: zoals het in het artikel staat heb je inderdaad gelijk.*Gelukkig dan hoef ik me alleen maar zorgen te maken als mijn files verloren gaan (account gehacked, pc gejat of een legitieme verkoop van mijn file aan iemand die niet te vertrouwen is).
  Ik slaap al weer een stuk beter!
  * Hoewel mijn reader deze data nu nog niet stuurt, geloof ik dat de denktank bij Brein hier zeker al over aan het nadenken is.
  17-08-13 15:52
  @George: precies."En dat doet hij goed, ook al zegt hij eigenlijk ontzettend stomme dingen, zoals bijvoorbeeld in dat VK artikel."
  Ik vind het gewoon liegen, want ik denk dat BREIN best wel beter weet.
  "En die uitgevers denken ook nog dat ze daar mee weg komen."
  Dan zal de consument een duidelijk signaal moeten gaan afgeven, want dat is de enige manier om deze onzin te stoppen.
  @Jord: Voor zover ik weet mag je een ebook sowieso niet doorverkopen. Je mag eigenlijk helemaal niets, alleen ernaar kijken. ;)
  18-08-13 15:48
  Ach, het is nog komkommertijd en zo af en toe pruttelt er weer iets naar boven.En ALWEER gaat het om symptoonbestrijding, en niet over de achterliggende opeenstapeling van fatale beslissingen in het uitgeversbeleid.Tuurlijk, je kunt je energie steken in repressie, maar voorkomen is toch beter dan genezen?Door nu het faalbeleid bij te stellen en ook eens iets leuks te melden (charme-offensief) en goede info te geven + een 6% lobby, kun je op termijn misschien het .torrent-klantenbestand weer binnenhalen.
  Maar dit is hozen met de kraan open.Het is een prima actie om klanten nog meer weg te jagen.
  19-08-13 10:07
  @RobDuidelijk dat de klanten niet tevreden zijn is het natuurlijk al lang bij de uitgevers.Punt is alleen dat ze daar niks mee doen omdat ze al 'eeuwen' lang gewend zijn alles te bepalen.Soort van dictators, zeg maar.Ze zijn de uitvinders van het put dempen; je weet wel, van dat kalf.
Kamervragen: is er nog wel sprake van een vrije markt voor ebooks in Nederland? | MustReads
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:32
  Home > Digitaal lezen > Kamervragen: is er nog wel sprake van een vrije markt voor ebooks in Nederland?Door Martijn Joosse op 21 augustus 2013 |Kamerlid Astrid Oosenbrug van de PvdA heeft gisteren Kamervragen aan de minister van Veiligheid en Justitie ingediend naar aanleiding van de berichtgeving van website eReaders.nl dat webwinkeliers die ebooks verkopen zich moeten verplichten om klantgegevens te verstrekken aan stichting BREIN.
  Sinds enige tijd verkopen Nederlandse ebookretailers ebooks die zijn voorzien van een watermerk. Dat watermerk zorgt ervoor dat een ebook herleid kan worden op de koper. Ebookdistributeur CB vraagt webwinkels een nieuw contract te ondertekenen waarmee deze gegevens kunnen worden doorgespeeld aan stichting BREIN in geval van misbruik. Oosenbrug vraagt zich af of het doorgeven van deze informatie mag, gelet op regelgeving rond de bescherming van de persoonlijke levenssfeer.
  Ook vraagt Oosenbrug de minister of webwinkels deze gegevens wel twee jaar mogen bewaren, zoals het nieuwe contract bepaalt. Daarnaast gaan de vragen van het Kamerlid over de mogelijkheid om ebooks door te verkopen. De opmerkelijkste vraag is misschien nog wel de laatste. Oosenbrug vraagt zich af of er met het Centraal Boekhuis als grootste distributeur nog wel een vrije markt is op het gebied van ebooks. De Kamervragen moeten binnen een termijn van drie weken door de minister beantwoord worden.
  Lees hier de Kamervragen.
  Over Martijn JoosseHoofdredacteur. Gefascineerd door alles op het snijvlak van boeken en digitale media. Schrijft ook voor eReaders.nl en Fransefilms.nl. Volg me op Twitter.
The Daily Dot - Forget PRISM: FAIRVIEW is the NSA's project to "own the Internet"
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:21
  According to Thomas Drake, a former National Security Agency senior executive who blew the whistle on the agency's reckless spending and spying in 2006, a previously unknown NSA surveillance program known as FAIRVIEW aims to ''own the Internet.''
  Last month, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked a series of PowerPoint slides to the Washington Post and the Guardian revealing that the agency was engaged in a large-scale Internet surveillance program, dubbed PRISM, that collects Americans' chats, emails, photos, and videos. One of the slides, only later released by the two papers, made reference to a group of additional ''upstream'' collection programs, including two named FAIRVIEW and BLARNEY, but gave no further details about their function.
  Drake, who was prosecuted under the Espionage Act for his whistleblowing, explained the upstream programs to the Daily Dot.
  ''Upstream means you get inside the system before it's in the Internet. In its pure form,'' he said.
  About the slide, Drake said, ''you've got programs and umbrella programs.'' FAIRVIEW is one such umbrella. Drake referred to it as a ''highly classified program'' for tapping into the world's intercontinental fiber optic cables.
  ''It's just a name,'' Drake said, ''that at the highest level means to own the Internet.''
  According to Drake, an article published this week in the Washington Post reveals one such instance of FAIRVIEW. The story describes a contract signed between the Asian telecom giant Global Crossing and the U.S. government. ''The agreements,'' the Post reported, ''do not authorize surveillance. But they ensure that when U.S. government agencies seek access to the massive amounts of data flowing through their networks, the companies have systems in place to provide it securely.''
  Domestically, similar efforts to tap into the Internet were leaked by a former AT&T Computer Network Associate Mark Klein, who witnessed the agency attaching splitters to the company's San Francisco office. ''What I know of the splitters,'' Klein said, ''is that they get everything.''
  According to Drake, beneath the umbrella of FAIRVIEW, programs like BLARNEY collect and analyze the data that is made accessible by secret arrangements like the one with Global Crossing. ''BLARNEY is a key access program facilitated by these commercial arrangements that exploits the Internet data at these junctions,'' Drake said. ''BLARNEY is to the international Internet space as PRISM is to the domestic.''
  Drake pointed out that FAIRVIEW is also the method through which the NSA receives the information it has collected, essentially co-opting the fiber optic cables to transmit the data back to the agency to be analyzed by data mining programs.
  At this point, said Drake, ''I don't try to put too much emphasis on the names of the projects.'' Their distinction, he said, is largely holdover from a time when the NSA's reach was less broad. They were named to delineate one particular data gathering technique from another. Many carry different names simply because they are specific to a particular region or state. ''The NSA has open season on anything foreign,'' he said.
  In Drake's opinion, journalists have overlooked the significance of BOUNDLESS INFORMANT, which tracks the international intelligence gathering techniques of the NSA.
  The Guardianreported that it ''has acquired top-secret documents about [BOUNDLESS INFORMANT] that details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information it collects from computer and telephone networks.'' According to Drake, the program indicates the incredible success of FAIRVIEW.
  Of FAIRVIEW, Drake added, ''I suspect a lot more is going to come out.''
  Illustration by Fernando Alfonso III
Video - NSA's Reach: 75% of U.S. Internet Traffic - WSJ.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:17
  Article ExcerptBY SIOBHAN GORMAN AND JENNIFER VALENTINO-DEVRIESWASHINGTON'--The National Security Agency'--which possesses only limited legal authority to spy on U.S. citizens'--has built a surveillance network that covers more Americans' Internet communications than officials have publicly disclosed, current and former officials say.
  The system has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic in the hunt for foreign intelligence, including a wide array of communications by foreigners and Americans. In some cases, it retains the written content of emails sent between citizens within the U.S. and also filters domestic phone calls made with Internet technology, these people say.
  The NSA's filtering, carried out with telecom ...
  Continue reading article with pop up player
Norcross police roll out crime-predicting technology; make arrests on day one - Daily Agenda - Atlanta Magazine
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:07
  It was more than intuition that drew a Norcross police officer to an extended-stay hotel. A computer program in her police cruiser had advised her to scope out that very hotel, at that very hour. When she arrived, she spotted a suspicious-looking man.
  Turns out, the man was on the lam, living at the hotel but wanted in Illinois on warrants stemming from burglary charges, officials said. ''He would eventually have been doing something wrong in Norcross,'' said Warren Summers, the city's police chief.
  But the hotel resident never got the chance. His was just one of several arrests made within the first twenty-four hours after Norcross rolled out new security software on August 8. The technology is, depending on your perspective, either a super creepy form of snooping or a highly effective crime deterrent.
  Norcross became the first police department in Georgia to launch a real-time crime prediction tool from a company called PredPol (short for ''predictive policing''). Using the same concepts retailers like Amazon and Target rely on to chart consumer behavior, the police program uses existing crime data (location, type of crime, dates, times, etc.) to form algorithms that lead police to where specific crimes are most likely to occur. It may sound farfetched'--or like a plot device in a science-fiction thriller'--but Chief Summers, for one, is sold.
  Norcross cops credit the program with helping officers snare several suspects the first day'--including the absconder from Illinois and two alleged burglars, who Summers said were caught red-handed in a house that fell within a 500 square-foot ''predictive box'' for misdeeds identified by the PredPol algorithms.
  A team of mathematicians and social scientists developed PredPol at three California universities over the past six years. Since its launch in 2011, departments from Santa Cruz to Columbia, South Carolina have adopted the technology.
  For now, PredPol helps Norcross officers target theft-related crimes such as robbery and burglary, as opposed to homicides or domestic disputes. The department is paying for the program with seized drug money.
  Elsewhere in the metro area, the Atlanta Police Department started a ninety-day PredPol pilot program in July. Department spokesman Carlos Campos said APD would launch the program in the fall, if they deem the pilot a success.
  All thirty Norcross patrol cars have access to PredPol via onboard laptops. Officers have been trained to patrol the "predictive boxes" frequently.
  ''You may displace crime just by being there,'' Summers said. ''The ultimate goal is not only to catch people but prevent crime.''
Facial Scanning Is Making Gains in Surveillance - NYTimes.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:41
  WASHINGTON '-- The federal government is making progress on developing a surveillance system that would pair computers with video cameras to scan crowds and automatically identify people by their faces, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with researchers working on the project.
  The Department of Homeland Security tested a crowd-scanning project called the Biometric Optical Surveillance System '-- or BOSS '-- last fall after two years of government-financed development. Although the system is not ready for use, researchers say they are making significant advances. That alarms privacy advocates, who say that now is the time for the government to establish oversight rules and limits on how it will someday be used.
  There have been stabs for over a decade at building a system that would help match faces in a crowd with names on a watch list '-- whether in searching for terrorism suspects at high-profile events like a presidential inaugural parade, looking for criminal fugitives in places like Times Square or identifying card cheats in crowded casinos.
  The automated matching of close-up photographs has improved greatly in recent years, and companies like Facebook have experimented with it using still pictures.
  But even with advances in computer power, the technical hurdles involving crowd scans from a distance have proved to be far more challenging. Despite occasional much-hyped tests, including one as far back as the 2001 Super Bowl, technical specialists say crowd scanning is still too slow and unreliable.
  The release of the documents about the government's efforts to overcome those challenges comes amid a surge of interest in surveillance matters inspired by the leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor. Interest in video surveillance was also fueled by the attack on the Boston Marathon, where suspects were identified by officials looking through camera footage.
  In a sign of how the use of such technologies can be developed for one use but then expanded to another, the BOSS research began as an effort to help the military detect potential suicide bombers and other terrorists overseas at ''outdoor polling places in Afghanistan and Iraq,'' among other sites, the documents show. But in 2010, the effort was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security to be developed for use instead by the police in the United States.
  After a recent test of the system, the department recommended against deploying it until more improvements could be made. A department official said the contractor was ''continuing to develop BOSS,'' although there is no sign of when it may be done. But researchers on the project say they made progress, and independent specialists say it is virtually inevitable that someone will make the broader concept work as camera and computer power continue to improve.
  ''I would say we're at least five years off, but it all depends on what kind of goals they have in mind'' for such a system, said Anil Jain, a specialist in computer vision and biometrics engineering at Michigan State University who was not involved in the BOSS project.
  The effort to build the BOSS system involved a two-year, $5.2 million federal contract given to Electronic Warfare Associates, a Washington-area military contractor with a branch office in Kentucky. The company has been working with the laboratory of Aly Farag, a University of Louisville computer vision specialist, and the contract was steered to the firm by an earmark request in a 2010 appropriations bill by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.
  Significant progress is already being made in automated face recognition using photographs taken under ideal conditions, like passport pictures and mug shots. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is spending $1 billion to roll out a Next Generation Identification system that will provide a national mug shot database to help local police departments verify identities.
  But surveillance of crowds from a distance '-- in which lighting and shadows vary, and faces tend to be partly obscured or pointed in random directions '-- is still not reliable or fast enough. The BOSS research is intended to overcome those challenges by generating far more information for computers to analyze.
  The system consists of two towers bearing ''robotic camera structures'' with infrared and distance sensors. They take pictures of the same subject from slightly different angles. A computer then processes the images into a ''3-D signature'' built from data like the ratios between various points on someone's face to be compared against data about faces stored in a watch-list database, the documents show.
  The Homeland Security Department hired the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to test the BOSS system at an arena in Kennewick, Wash. The plan, according to a ''privacy impact assessment,'' was to use 30 volunteers whose facial data would be mingled in a database among 1,000 mug shots to see whether the system could reliably recognize when any of the volunteers were present.
  The agency set up six tests to determine the technology's overall accuracy, determining afterward that ''it was not ready for a D.H.S. customer'' '-- meaning that police departments should not buy it.
  In interviews, Ed Tivol of Electronic Warfare Associates and Dr. Farag both suggested that as computer processing becomes ever faster the remaining obstacles will fall away.
  Mr. Tivol said the goal was to provide a match with an 80 percent to 90 percent certainty from a range of up to 100 meters, something ''that has never been done.'' While the system continued to have problems with light and shading in some tests, he said, in others the goal had been achieved at closer distances. Farther away, he said, the accuracy has fallen to 60 percent to 70 percent.
  ''The results were increasingly positive,'' he said. There was a ''significant improvement'' in speed, too, he said. At first, it took the system six to eight minutes to process images, but it now takes under 30 seconds.
  Still, he and Dr. Farag said, the officials overseeing the testing wanted a quicker turnaround. That might be easier with the more powerful computers available to the military, they said, but the government wanted them to use processors available off the shelf for civilian applications.
  Several independent biometric specialists, given a description of the project's test results, agreed that the system was not yet ready. They said 30 seconds was far too long to process an image for security purposes, and that its accuracy numbers would result in the police going out to question too many innocent people.
  Several of the specialists also suggested that similar technology may be progressing more quickly in other laboratories that have not received taxpayer financing. A spokesman for Mr. McConnell stressed that while he requested that the contract go to Electronic Warfare Associates, it was ''competitively bid.'' Federal records show the firm was the only one to submit a bid.
  Ginger McCall, a privacy advocate who obtained the documents under the Freedom of Information Act and provided them to The New York Times, said the time was now '-- while such technology is still maturing and not yet deployed '-- to build in rules for how it may be used. (Ms. McCall was at the Electronic Privacy Information Center at the time of her information act request.)
  ''This technology is always billed as antiterrorism, but then it drifts into other applications,'' Ms. McCall said. ''We need a real conversation about whether and how we want this technology to be used, and now is the time for that debate.''
  In particular, she said, there should be limits on whose faces are loaded into them when they are ready for deployment. Ms. McCall said it would be acceptable to use it for terrorism watch lists, but she feared any effort to systematically track everyone's public movements by using a comprehensive database of driver's license photographs.
  Still, Dr. Farag said, that kind of system is still very far off because it would take far too much computer processing power to load millions of images into a system and try to identify everyone at once, as opposed to sorting images in search of only a comparatively small number of faces on a watch list.
  ''Disappointments come when you are overambitious,'' he said.
  Kitty Bennett contributed research.
URGENT!!! POSSIBLE EMERGENCY ALERT FOR FEMA REGION 3 - Videos - Friends of Freeman
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:01
  NameTagseg: stopmotion, new-york, street
  DescriptionATTENTION EVERYONE!!! OBAMACARE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS BEGIN OCTOBER 1, 2013!!! There are a lot of things in the hopper. But this will not go well. Gov't is threatening to shut down unless Congress votes to 'DEFUND' Obamacare. So that the law will collapse. We are looking at a possible false flag EMP and subsequent sudden scorching of the earth by the sun. And there is the implosion of the entire world's economy. America being it's last bastion remaining. FYI - I WILL NOT TAKE VACCINES. FYI - Sheldon R Songstad - 75 years of age - currently resides in Sioux>> Falls, SD [VERY MUCH ALIVE.]His name and information are listed in the history of Senator>>s for South Dakota.FBI WARNING Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute or exhibit portions of copyright motion pictures, video tapes, or video disks under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called FAIR USE... ...and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody.'Like' if you like. Feel free to subscribe to my channel.Uploader: revmichellehopkinsUploaded: August 17, 2013 Emergency Fema Region 3 Alert!!! FEMA Region III: DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WVSent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:43 AMSubject: National update from Sheldon: Senator Sheldon R. Songstad, Ret. of South Dakota StateFYI - Sheldon R Songstad - 75 years of age - currently resides in Sioux>> Falls, SD [VERY MUCH ALIVE.]HERE IS WHAT WHAT THE SENATORS NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS RESEARCH TURNED UP...FEMA purchase orders for over $14.2 million for MREs and heater meals to be delivered to Region III by October 1st.FEMA purchase orders for 22 million pouches of emergency water to be delivered to region III by October 1st.FEMA purchase orders for $13.6 million for MREs and heater meals to be delivered to Austin by October 1st.Nine-week training course for UN Peacekeepers in CONUS to learn Urban Warfare, English, and US weapons systems beginning 4th week of July for 386,000 troops to be completed by October 1st.$11 million in antibiotics to be delivered to FEMA region III by October 1st ordered by CDC.World Health Organization held second emergency meeting in its history to discuss MERS Coronavirus. Determined a vaccine MUST be in place by October 1st.2800 MRAPs must be delivered to DHS by October 1st.No leave will be allowed for US military from September 28th thru November 5th. NORCOMM yearly training for civil unrest suspended until September 27th. To be performed in northeast coastal areas.Date for release of QE3 report moved to October 16th.All DHS agents MUST qualify with sidearm, shotgun and AR 15 by September 28th. No mention of yearly less lethal qualification.Sporadic testing of GPS and Communications satellites is coordinated for the first time with a testing date of September 29th.POTUS mandates to FEMA and DHS concerning support for metropolitan communities dealing with the extreme climate change MUST be complete by October 1st. These mandates were issued during the last three weeks.Over 300 school systems in the US have determined they need three-day kits for each school AND three-day kits for each student to take with them. All deliveries are scheduled for the month of September.All National Guard units will complete riot control and disaster assistance training during this years annual two week training. All units MUST have their training complete by September 30th.Daily testing of the Emergency Broadcast System to begin on September 25th and run thru October 2nd.Eastern-based Coast Guard units to perform massive group training, usually performed in the Gulf, in the Virginia and Delaware areas. This is a 10-day training mission to begin September 26th."GOD, PLEASE HELP AMERICA"Sheldon R. Songstad Senator Retired: South Dakota StateDocumentation Sources:http://www.fema.gov/region-iii-dc-de-md-pa-va-wvhttp://www.fema.gov/fy-2013-homeland-security-grant-program-hsgp-0http://map1.msc.fema.gov/res/0/Purchase_Order.htmSEEKING MORE DOCUMENTATION '¥' '¥Do you want to be saved? Do you want to know that you will be with Yeshua (Jesus) when you leave this world?ROAD TO SALVATIONRomans 10" 9 If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."PRAYER OF SALVATION"God in Heaven, I believe Your Son Jesus Christ came to earth, died on the cross for my sins and that You raised him from the dead! Forgive me of my sins because of his blood. Jesus be MY Saviour and Lord. Thank you for your salvation. In Jesus name. Amen."'¥' '¥*FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for entertainment purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law.Custom ThumbnailATTENTION EVERYONE!!! OBAMACARE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS BEGIN OCTOBER 1, 2013!!! There are a lot of things in the hopper. But this will not go well. Gov't is threatening to shut down unless Congress votes to 'DEFUND' Obamacare. So that the law will collapse. We are looking at a possible false flag EMP and subsequent sudden scorching of the earth by the sun. And there is the implosion of the entire world's economy. America being it's last bastion remaining. FYI - I WILL NOT TAKE VACCINES. FYI - Sheldon R Songstad - 75 years of age - currently resides in Sioux>> Falls, SD [VERY MUCH ALIVE.] His name and information are listed in the history of Senator>>s for South Dakota. FBI WARNING Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute or exhibit portions of copyright motion pictures, video tapes, or video disks under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called FAIR USE... ...and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody. 'Like' if you like. Feel free to subscribe to my channel. Uploader: revmichellehopkins Uploaded: August 17, 2013 Emergency Fema Region 3 Alert!!! FEMA Region III: DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:43 AM Subject: National update from Sheldon: Senator Sheldon R. Songstad, Ret. of South Dakota State FYI - Sheldon R Songstad - 75 years of age - currently resides in Sioux>> Falls, SD [VERY MUCH ALIVE.] HERE IS WHAT WHAT THE SENATORS NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS RESEARCH TURNED UP... FEMA purchase orders for over $14.2 million for MREs and heater meals to be delivered to Region III by October 1st. FEMA purchase orders for 22 million pouches of emergency water to be delivered to region III by October 1st. FEMA purchase orders for $13.6 million for MREs and heater meals to be delivered to Austin by October 1st. Nine-week training course for UN Peacekeepers in CONUS to learn Urban Warfare, English, and US weapons systems beginning 4th week of July for 386,000 troops to be completed by October 1st. $11 million in antibiotics to be delivered to FEMA region III by October 1st ordered by CDC. World Health Organization held second emergency meeting in its history to discuss MERS Coronavirus. Determined a vaccine MUST be in place by October 1st. 2800 MRAPs must be delivered to DHS by October 1st. No leave will be allowed for US military from September 28th thru November 5th. NORCOMM yearly training for civil unrest suspended until September 27th. To be performed in northeast coastal areas. Date for release of QE3 report moved to October 16th. All DHS agents MUST qualify with sidearm, shotgun and AR 15 by September 28th. No mention of yearly less lethal qualification. Sporadic testing of GPS and Communications satellites is coordinated for the first time with a testing date of September 29th. POTUS mandates to FEMA and DHS concerning support for metropolitan communities dealing with the extreme climate change MUST be complete by October 1st. These mandates were issued during the last three weeks. Over 300 school systems in the US have determined they need three-day kits for each school AND three-day kits for each student to take with them. All deliveries are scheduled for the month of September. All National Guard units will complete riot control and disaster assistance training during this years annual two week training. All units MUST have their training complete by September 30th. Daily testing of the Emergency Broadcast System to begin on September 25th and run thru October 2nd. Eastern-based Coast Guard units to perform massive group training, usually performed in the Gulf, in the Virginia and Delaware areas. This is a 10-day training mission to begin September 26th. "GOD, PLEASE HELP AMERICA" Sheldon R. Songstad Senator Retired: South Dakota State Documentation Sources: http://www.fema.gov/region-iii-dc-de-md-pa-va-wv http://www.fema.gov/fy-2013-homeland-security-grant-program-hsgp-0 http://map1.msc.fema.gov/res/0/Purchase_Order.htm SEEKING MORE DOCUMENTATION '¥' '¥ Do you want to be saved? Do you want to know that you will be with Yeshua (Jesus) when you leave this world? ROAD TO SALVATION Romans 10 " 9 If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." PRAYER OF SALVATION "God in Heaven, I believe Your Son Jesus Christ came to earth, died on the cross for my sins and that You raised him from the dead! Forgive me of my sins because of his blood. Jesus be MY Saviour and Lord. Thank you for your salvation. In Jesus name. Amen." '¥' '¥ *FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for entertainment purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law.
The Cozy Relationship between Britain and its Intelligence Apparatus - SPIEGEL ONLINE
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:56
  The Snowden affair was actually going pretty well for British Prime Minister David Cameron. After the initial uproar, many of his fellow citizens quickly lost interest in the surveillance scandal and in the fact that the British intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had launched what was presumably the most ambitious project ever to monitor global data communications. The opposition helped out by making itself largely invisible. And the Liberal Democrats, in a coalition government with the Conservatives, likewise did nothing despite the party's tradition of being champions of privacy protections.
  The United Kingdom is not an authoritarian surveillance state like China. But it is a country in which surveillance has become part of everyday life. The cold eyes of the security apparatus keep watch over everything that moves -- in underground stations and hospitals, at intersections and on buses. The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) recently estimated that there could be up to 5.9 million surveillance cameras in the country -- or one camera for every 11 Britons. Most were not installed by the government, but by companies and private citizens. One wonders who even has the time to look at these images.
  While there is the occasional burst of resistance on the island, most just accept surveillance as the price of freedom. And, in contrast to Germany, many journalists are wont to defend their government, particularly when it comes to the global interest of the United Kingdom and its supposed national security. Dan Hodges, a blogger with ties to the Labour Party, echoed the sentiments of many in the Westminster political world following the detention of David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been instrumental in exposing the breadth of GCHQ and NSA surveillance activities. Hodges wrote: "What do we honestly expect the UK authorities to do? Give him a sly wink and say 'Off you go son, you have a nice trip'?"
  Journalists Deferring to National Interests
  It's astonishing to see how many Britons blindly and uncritically trust the work of their intelligence service. Some still see the GCHQ as a club of amiable gentlemen in shabby tweed jackets who cracked the Nazis' Enigma coding machine in World War II. The majority of people instinctively rally round their government on key issues of defense policy, sovereignty and home rule -- even though the threat to the "national security" of the UK emanating from Edward Snowden is nothing more than an allegation at the moment. Those in power in Westminster have become used to journalists deferring to national interests when it comes to intelligence issues.
  The spies expect pre-emptive subservience and discretion from the country's press, and they often get what they want. There is no other explanation for the matter-of-factness with which government officials and GCHQ employees contacted Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger to demand the surrender or destruction of hard drives. What is surprising is the self-assurance that led the powerful to believe that none of this would ever come to light. According to the newspaper, after the hard drives had been destroyed in the Guardian's basement, an intelligence agent joked: "We can call off the black helicopters."
  Those words reflect the government's need for chummy proximity. Journalists must avoid such attempts at ingratiation from the powerful, even if it means that they are occasionally denied information and exclusive stories from intelligence sources. The hours Miranda spent being interrogated at Heathrow Airport and the destruction of the hard drives in the Guardian basement show that the British security authorities are serious about the information war that has just begun.
  Cozy Relationship
  It is a war that also revolves around deterrence and intimidation. The agent's comment about the black helicopters may have been meant as a joke, but it doesn't seem all that unrealistic in the country. Why else would the government, as Rusbridger describes in detail, exert pressure on the paper long after the Snowden leaks became public?
  And why else would it destroy hard drives, even though it stands to reason that the data on the drives had already been copied to other storage devices? The incident, at any rate, offers the British a prime opportunity to re-think their cozy relationship with their intelligence service.
  (C) SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013All Rights ReservedReproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
Don Easterbrook's AGU paper on potential global cooling | Watts Up With That?
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:51
  Don sent me his AGU paper for publication and discussion here on WUWT, and I'm happy to oblige '' Anthony
  Abstracts of American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San Francisco Dec., 2008
  Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded byGlacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium
  Easterbrook, Don J., Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225,
  Global, cyclic, decadal, climate patterns can be traced over the past millennium in glacier fluctuations, oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic observations. The recurring climate cycles clearly show that natural climatic warming and cooling have occurred many times, long before increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well known examples of such climate changes, but in addition, at least 23 periods of climatic warming and cooling have occurred in the past 500 years. Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years). Two cycles of global warming and two of global cooling have occurred during the past century, and the global cooling that has occurred since 1998 is exactly in phase with the long term pattern. Global cooling occurred from 1880 to ~1915; global warming occurred from ~1915 to ~1945; global cooling occurred from ~1945-1977;, global warming occurred from 1977 to 1998; and global cooling has occurred since 1998. All of these global climate changes show exceptionally good correlation with solar variation since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago.
  The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode.
  Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and sun spot activity over the past century show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. The announcement by NASA that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and coincides with recent solar variations. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct. ''Global warming'' (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over!
  Figure 1. Solar irradiance, global climate change, and glacial advances. Click to enlarge
  The real question now is not trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 as a means of stopping global warming, but rather (1) how can we best prepare to cope with the 30 years of global cooling that is coming, (2) how cold will it get, and (3) how can we cope with the cooling during a time of exponential population increase? In 1998 when I first predicted a 30-year cooling trend during the first part of this century, I used a very conservative estimate for the depth of cooling, i.e., the 30-years of global cooling that we experienced from ~1945 to 1977. However, also likely are several other possibilities (1) the much deeper cooling that occurred during the 1880 to ~1915 cool period, (2) the still deeper cooling that took place from about 1790 to 1820 during the Dalton sunspot minimum, and (3) the drastic cooling that occurred from 1650 to 1700 during the Maunder sunspot minimum. Figure 2 shows an estimate of what each of these might look like on a projected global climate curve. The top curve is based on the 1945-1977 cool period and the 1977-1998 warm period. The curve beneath is based on the 1890-1915 cool period and 1915-1945 warm period. The bottom curve is what we might expect from a Dalton or Maunder cool period. Only time will tell where we're headed, but any of the curves are plausible. The sun's recent behavior suggests we are likely heading for a deeper global cooling than the 1945-1977 cool period and ought to be looking ahead to cope with it.
  Figure 2. Global temperature variation 1900 to 2008 with projections to 2100. Click to enlarge.
  The good news is that global warming (i.e., the 1977-1998 warming) is over and atmospheric CO2 is not a vital issue. The bad news is that cold conditions kill more people than warm conditions, so we are in for bigger problems than we might have experienced if global warming had continued. Mortality data from 1979-2002 death certificate records show twice as many deaths directly from extreme cold than for deaths from extreme heat, 8 times as many deaths as those from floods, and 30 times as many as from hurricanes. The number of deaths indirectly related to cold is many times worse.
  Depending on how cold the present 30-year cooling period gets, in addition to the higher death rates, we will have to contend with diminished growing seasons and increasing crop failures with food shortages in third world countries, increasing energy demands, changing environments, increasing medical costs from diseases (especially flu), increasing transportation costs and interruptions, and many other ramifications associated with colder climate. The degree to which we may be prepared to cope with these problems may be significantly affected by how much money we waste chasing the CO2 fantasy.
  All of these problems will be exacerbated by the soaring human population. The current world population of about 6 ½ billion people is projected to increase by almost 50% during the next 30 years of global cooling (Figure 2). The problems associated with the global cooling would be bad enough at current population levels. Think what they will be with the added demands from an additional three billion people, especially if we have uselessly spent trillions of dollars needlessly trying to reduce atmospheric CO2, leaving insufficient funds to cope with the real problems.
  Figure 3. Global population.
  About these ads
VIDEO-Senate Energy CMTE-Professor tells all
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:47
  1498-S.SL - 5-22-2013Substitute House Bill 1498 - Session Law Chapter 292 Year 2013HTML - PDF
  1826.SL - 5-10-2013Engrossed House Bill 1826 - Session Law Chapter 149 Year 2013HTML - PDF
  1826.PL - 4-23-2013Engrossed House Bill 1826 - as passed by the LegislatureHTML - PDF
  1826.E HBR PL 13 - 4-22-2013House Bill Report on Engrossed House Bill 1826 as Passed Legislature on 04-22-2013HTML - PDF
  1826.E HBR FBR 13 - 4-22-2013Final Bill Report on Engrossed House Bill 1826HTML - PDF
  1498-S.PL - 4-17-2013Substitute House Bill 1498 as Recommended by Environment - as passed by the LegislatureHTML - PDF
  1826.E HBR SA 13 - 4-17-2013House Bill Report on Engrossed House Bill 1826 as Amended by the Senate on 04-17-2013HTML - PDF
  1498-S HBR PL 13 - 4-16-2013House Bill Report on Substitute House Bill 1498 as Passed Legislature on 04-16-2013HTML - PDF
  1498-S HBR FBR 13 - 4-16-2013Final Bill Report on Substitute House Bill 1498HTML - PDF
  1826.E AMS EET S2420.1 - 4-3-2013Senate Amendment by Senate Committee on Energy, Environment & Telecommunications (S2420.1) to Engrossed House Bill 1826HTML - PDF
  1826.E SBR EET 13 - 4-2-2013Senate Bill Report on Engrossed House Bill 1826 as Reported by Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications on 04-02-2013HTML - PDF
  1498-S SBR EET 13 - 4-2-2013Senate Bill Report on Substitute House Bill 1498 as Reported by Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications on 04-02-2013HTML - PDF
  1498-S SBA EET 13 - 3-26-2013Senate Bill Report on Substitute House Bill 1498HTML - PDF
  1314-S SBA EET 13 - 3-26-2013Senate Bill Report on Substitute House Bill 1314HTML - PDF
  1826.E SBA EET 13 - 3-26-2013Senate Bill Report on Engrossed House Bill 1826HTML - PDF
  1826.E - 3-9-2013Engrossed House Bill 1826HTML - PDF
  1826.E HBR APH 13 - 3-9-2013House Bill Report on Engrossed House Bill 1826 as Passed House on 03-09-2013HTML - PDF
  1314-S HBR APH 13 - 3-8-2013House Bill Report on Substitute House Bill 1314 as Passed House on 03-08-2013HTML - PDF
  1826 AMH MORR H1994.1 - 3-6-2013House Amendment by Rep. Morris (H1994.1) to House Bill 1826HTML - PDF
  1498-S HBR APH 13 - 3-6-2013House Bill Report on Substitute House Bill 1498 as Passed House on 03-06-2013HTML - PDF
  1498-S.DIG - 3-1-2013Digest of Substitute House Bill 1498HTML - PDF
  1314-S.DIG - 2-21-2013Digest of Substitute House Bill 1314HTML - PDF
  1498-S - 2-20-2013Substitute House Bill 1498 as Recommended by EnvironmentHTML - PDF
  1826 HBR ENVI 13 - 2-20-2013House Bill Report on House Bill 1826 as Reported by House Environment on 02-20-2013HTML - PDF
  1826 HBA ENVI 13 - 2-19-2013Initial House Analysis of House Bill 1826HTML - PDF
  1314-S - 2-13-2013Substitute House Bill 1314 as Recommended by EnvironmentHTML - PDF
  1826.DIG - 2-11-2013Digest of House Bill 1826HTML - PDF
  1826 - 2-8-2013House Bill 1826HTML - PDF
VIDEO-Can You Spot the Shot Al Jazeera America Took at Glenn Beck in the First 5 Minutes It Was on the Air? | Video | TheBlaze.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:05
  Within the first five minutes on the air on Tuesday, Al Jazeera America took aim at the American media during its opening segment, and it even took some subtle shots at conservative hosts including Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and, yes, Glenn Beck.
  The promotional video aired for the first hour of the network's domestic debut. And while it flashed patriotic images of the Capitol, the American flag waving proudly, and men in uniform, it also made clear that it's ready for a fight.
  ''News audiences know what they're missing, and they know what they want,'' a narrator says at about the 5:48 mark. And if you look closely, you'll notice some similar faces:
  Did you catch it? Here's a screen shot:
  Al Jazeera made clear it's ready to do battle with traditional American media. (Source: YouTube screen shot)
  Another woman says after, ''I do think that different channels, that the news is slanted in different directions. And I think we have to decide what we want to listen to, what we can assimilate the best.''
  The segment included ''man-on-the-street'' interviews of people lamenting the lack of balanced news coverage currently available.
  ''I'm always amazed at how American-centric the news is here,'' says a man wearing a Dairy Queen T-shirt on a New York street with the Empire State Building visible behind him.
  Another man tells the off-camera Al Jazeera America interviewer, ''We don't always feel like we're getting fed the truth and the whole story.''
  A man wearing a baseball cap emblazoned with the initials ''NRA'' (though we don't know if it's the National Rifle Association) says, ''If you talk about the mass media such as TV and print papers the mainstream, I think it's abysmal. It's just not news coverage, it's plain and simple opinion and brainwashing.''
  The segment also includes clips of Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain praising Al Jazeera's coverage.
  As TheBlaze reported, Beck argued on TheBlaze TV Tuesday night that Al Jazeera has ''always been anti-American,'' and that slant has ''really never gone away.'' The criticism of the anti-U.S bias explains the copious patriotic images the network presented in its first hour.
  It would be foolish to pretend the network is ''just like the BBC,'' Beck added.
  (H/T: Mediaite)
  ''
internet.org press release
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:46
  %PDF-1.3 %½½½½½½½½½ 4 0 obj > stream x½½[½½½u½½½)4½½½½ER½½½[½½½$N½x½½½½"y½½½?½ß½½½*5½½L½½½Xu½Ô¹×(C)½½½½½½v¶9½½½½|½½½½½=½½½½½½½½½½½Ç4½_½½Ý§½½6½]{½~½]ß'½½½v½½?m½½~½m?½½½O 2n½½}½½½5½f½½?½wo½~q½½½½15½s½½ ½½½½*½½½½½~½½m½½½½½½½½½½\½½~½Ç¯½½o½½½.U½ ½O½_Ü¸`½½I½5½M½½½½7½½½½½y½½qw½v½6½{½½vÛ>>C ½B½½½½½n8½½J½k½½!½E½½i½½%^g1½½sVs½ws½½Hl½_|Õ¶½½r½G½½½½q½Ö–½½½½½@f½½½½½awê†®½G%½Í¥O½|I@½½½½½)½q½ÍO½7½m½½½½7½;>½Dn½6½½½½½*½½½½~½oq½t{½i|u½=l½½]2_½%½K½M7wOs½{COÔ$y½6½½;,2½½(Q½-½½nFk£½ |o½½½ Ç‚½`½½½½ÛC½9'aEÛ½Lm½½; q~½-½GÙ­½½½½oJ½a%½½½=½Xb½,wà¥½yÙŽ½½i½½Ö–½Äª½%½yÝ'½½t]½ß>>7½½½@½½½fh5½½½9b8½½a½½x½t½½YL½½½½½½½K½½O×½"u½u½ZcC½½½½½BU½K½|6½i½l:Ù'79½½½½- #(g½O½/½ß†S½ ½½½A½½#½7½½tjgbB½½4½½½½r}½½½½½X½½u½5½½½½h½½½O½7½F½½vC&½O½/½½5½½2C½~½-I½½;?)½Qe`½~½dB½½½½½u'V½{q4½½y9½,M½½}N½½~½½Û½½½½½-½½½½½J½½L}Ë--s½½N½_½mEms½5=½ Jl½½½É½e½½½½R½½d½½)½½½8½2n½É½o½½[w½½+½;h½½½Kf_½½J½h½½S½#½½b½;D½½u½½0"½½WT½'½M)½&'½&R½½½?½8'½&( #½½ ½D½½%,½bV½½k#½½½&Ø½½½}½½bv½zv½½Ø¬½½½e@_'½C½½'f½o½2.½hL½"n½GL5uÍ°X4½½* ½0.Ç¬½Ò>>½½Xl½½½%L?½½MxT8!%C½ç'·½I½ÊŒ½½]½w½?½0½½½2½åŒ yzo½E½½[½~*eLÊ‹"½tZ½½½½w½>2½½$½½R½½Z2½K½½d½½8F07½½½½½,½½½½½½½ß--Z]½½rB8½Uw,S½½Ä–½/4Z½½(½YEn½½x)½½BD)I`½½Q½½½½½~½½½>½½B½½#½½H½q½gèŽŒ½½&½]9mPD½½½~½½C½½½)½½>½½½½%0` ?½3M½½½I½½½j? ½½m72q~½½j½½o1@v½½=½.½h½½F^½L½|k D½½:½[&89½½#½½n½.½G½s|½½@!Ì±
Facebook Leads an Effort to Lower Barriers to Internet Access - NYTimes.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:45
  MENLO PARK, Calif. '-- About one of every seven people in the world uses Facebook. Now, Mark Zuckerberg, its co-founder and chief executive, wants to make a play for the rest '-- including the four billion or so who lack Internet access.
  On Wednesday, Facebook announced an effort aimed at drastically cutting the cost of delivering basic Internet services on mobile phones, particularly in developing countries, where Facebook and other tech companies need to find new users. Half a dozen of the world's tech giants, including Samsung, Nokia, Qualcomm and Ericsson, have agreed to work with the company as partners on the initiative, which they call Internet.org.
  The companies intend to accomplish their goal in part by simplifying phone applications so they run more efficiently and by improving the components of phones and networks so that they transmit more data while using less battery power.
  For Mr. Zuckerberg, the formation of the coalition is yet another way in which he is trying to position himself as an industry leader. He has been speaking out more forcefully than other tech executives on topics like immigration overhaul, which the industry sees as critical to its hiring needs. With Internet.org, he is laying out a philosophy that tries to pair humanitarian goals with the profit motive.
  From left, Jay Parikh, Javier Olivan and Aaron Bernstein, Facebook officials involved with a consortium trying to deliver free or cheap ways to use the Internet to people who lack access.
  Jim Wilson / The New York Times
  ''The Internet is such an important thing for driving humanity forward, but it's not going to build itself,'' he said in a recent interview. ''Ultimately, this has to make business sense on some time frame that people can get behind.''
  But the effort is also a reflection of how tech companies are trying to meet Wall Street's demands for growth by attracting customers beyond saturated markets in the United States and Europe, even if they have to help build services and some of the infrastructure in poorer, less digitally sophisticated parts of the world.
  Google, for example, began a program with phone carriers last year that offers wireless users in some developing countries free access to Gmail, search and the first page clicked through from a search's results. Google is also reaching for the sky with Project Loon, an attempt to beam Internet access down to earth from plastic balloons floating more than 11 miles in the atmosphere.
  Twitter, which is preparing to offer shares to the public in an initial stock offering, has struck its own deals with about 250 cellphone companies in more than 100 countries to offer some free Twitter access, and worked to make sure its service is easy to use on even the cheapest cellphones.
  These companies have little choice but to look overseas for growth. More than half of Americans already use Facebook at least once a month, for instance, and usage in the rest of the developed world is similarly heavy. There is nearly one active cellphone for every person on earth, making expansion a challenge for carriers and phone makers.
  Poorer countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America present the biggest opportunity to reach new customers '-- if companies can figure out how to get people there online at low cost.
  The immediate goals of the new coalition are to cut the cost of providing mobile Internet services to 1 percent of its current level within five to 10 years by improving the efficiency of Internet networks and mobile phone software. The group also hopes to develop new business models that would allow phone companies to provide simple services like e-mail, search and social networks for little or no charge.
  While that sounds far less exciting than, say, Google's idea of delivering the Internet by balloon, Mr. Zuckerberg says small efforts can add up to big changes.
  ''No one company can really do this by itself,'' he said.
  Facebook is already working on techniques to reduce the average amount of data used by its Android mobile app from the current 12 megabytes a day to 1 megabyte without users noticing.
  Qualcomm, whose chip technology is prevalent in advanced cellphones, has created new designs to stretch a phone's battery life, slice the amount of data needed to transmit a video and extend the reach of mobile networks through tiny devices similar to Wi-Fi routers.
  The coalition partners have also begun trying new ways of reducing the data charges paid by cellphone customers while still enabling phone makers and carriers to make money.
  For example, Nokia, the Finnish cellphone maker, ran a recent experiment with Facebook and the Mexican phone carrier Telcel, in which it bundled free Facebook access with some of its Asha feature phones. Sales rose significantly, and the company decided to run similar promotions for customers of Bharti Airtel, a mobile carrier in India and Africa.
  However, the Internet.org team does not plan to tackle some thorny infrastructure issues that are huge barriers in the developing world, particularly the long-distance transmission of data to far-flung places.
  Michuki Mwangi, regional development manager for Africa at the Internet Society, a nonprofit group that has long worked to expand global Internet access, said the continent sorely lacked local interconnection points, forcing most requests for content like YouTube videos to be routed through Europe at high cost. Creating more connection points would require navigating a thicket of government interests and powerful incumbents. But at the very least, the group would like Facebook and Google to put copies of their content on a greater number of African servers to deliver it more quickly and cheaply, something that both companies say they are considering.
  As with the Open Compute coalition started by Facebook in 2011 to improve the efficiency of data centers, Facebook will seek to add other partners to Internet.org, including national governments, wireless phone carriers and Microsoft, a longtime Facebook ally that has its own projects to expand access.
  But Google '-- whose search and YouTube video products are as fundamental as Facebook's social network to many Internet users '-- is likely to remain outside the group.
  For one, its own efforts to expand Internet access are aggressive. In addition, the company is constantly refining its Android software, which runs the majority of new smartphones sold, to improve efficiency and battery life.
  ''We're always making investments in technology and programs to help people get online,'' said Courtney Hohne, a Google spokeswoman. ''We have teams around the world working on products tailored to local needs.''
  Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft and co-chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, recently suggested that Project Loon and similar projects were not the best use of resources to help people in the poorest nations.
  ''When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there's no Web site that relieves that,'' he said in a recent interview with Bloomberg Businessweek.
  Mr. Zuckerberg acknowledged that basic health care is essential, but said that ''if you can afford a phone, I think it would be really good for you to have access to the Internet.''
  The potential is already obvious in places like the Philippines, where the second-largest mobile phone company, Globe Telecom, has used free Twitter, Facebook or Google access as promotions to increase the number of its 37 million users who also subscribe to a mobile data plan to 20 percent from virtually zero in two years.
  ''Once you're connected, you're connected, and you don't want to look back,'' said Peter Bithos, Globe's senior adviser for consumer business.
  For Facebook, which generates most of its revenue from selling advertising that it shows to its users, the immediate profits from expanding Internet access will be minimal, Mr. Zuckerberg said, although he acknowledged that the long-term potential was there.
  ''We're focused on it more because we think it's something good for the world,'' he said, ''rather than something that is going to be really amazing for our profits.''
ANALYSIS: How Fracking hype disguises the sector's dangerous financial losses to date | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:30
  Shale gas'....the greatest con in history?Those who are still so gung-ho for Fracking should read some of the observations and damning commercial statistics below. They show beyond any reasonable doubt that the British people are being sold an expensive White Elephant that could yet endanger our water supply sustainability.
  Fracking industry leader Cuadrilla recently released its accounts for the 2012 financial year. They show a revenue of £392,000, and loss of £18.7m.
  The Muppets of Frackle Rock continue to hype natural gas and oil production from shale as the great energy solution'....but serious, well-founded data are hard to find.
  Energy company claims for the long term viability of shale production simply aren't borne out by the facts, and must be cause for less demonstrating and more critical questioning'...'...but the Ayes have it at the moment thanks to snow-job spin. However, when you look at those ludicrously poor results of Cuadrilla, you're bound to start asking commercial questions that have, so far, been sorely lacking in the shale debate. When you interrogate the numbers, whether they be the cost in UK water usage, significant deterioration of free cash flow at virtually every shale company (or the cost of externalities able to knock 50-60% off earnings at companies the size of Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil) one has to sit back and consider that, hey '' who knows guys? '' maybe shale fracking is full of sh*t.
  I posted about this to some extent last week, but there are doubts on many dimensions. According to Bloomberg just two days ago, 'The spending slowdown by international companies including BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP) and Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) comes amid a series of write-downs of oil and gas shale assets, caused by plunging prices and disappointing wells.' ''Writedowns'' and ''disappointing wells'' are not the stuff of public offering scrambles. Bloomberg added that 'fields bought during the 2009-2012 flurry remain below their purchase price.' Uh-huh.
  Chesapeake recently closed a couple of deals recently for about 1/4 of estimated value. The deal-making slump, which may last for years, threatens to slow oil and gas production growth as companies that built up debt during the rush for shale acreage can't depend on asset sales to fund drilling programs. (Note the point of figures from North Dakota I surveyed last time: they confirm this trend in full.)
  Here's another simple commercial observation: when starting up something supposed to be dinky-doodle-dandy, you're should be seeing get tidal waves of cashflow. But, er, this doesn't seem to be happening. The Energy Policy Forum recently noted as follows:
  ''Free cash flow of Continental Resources, a big player in the Bakken, has dropped from a loss of ($430M) to a loss of ($2.4B) since 2010. And Continental is not the only one. Devon Energy's free cash flow has dropped from ($1.2B) to a significant ($3.5B) over the same time frame. Range Resources, who are drilling primarily in the Marcellus, booked a negative free cash flow of ($556M) in 2010 and this has deteriorated to ($1.0B). Kodiak Oil and Gas, another Bakken player, had negative free cash flow in 2010 of ($170M). It has now deteriorated to ($1.0B). Chesapeake is interesting because its free cash flow for 2012 ($3.3B) is now roughly equivalent to its level in 2010, ($3.4B). But over the last two years Chesapeake has liquidated approximately $13 billion in assets with no commensurate gain to free cash flow. Management still needs to move outside the company to generate cash to continue operations. And yet, shareholders have had their underlying assets disappear to the tune of $13B to pay down debt.''
  What we are uncovering here is a scam of gigantic proportions: miners with asset problems and floored cash outflow are hunting everywhere for new ways, ever more desperate ways, to prop up serious business problems reflective of '' as I've said since Day One with shale fracking '' the obvious diminishing returns involved'.....and the hit and miss nature of drilling. This entire slagheap of hype, however, can't hide the fact that Shell wrote down the value of its North American holdings by more than $2 billion last quarter. From 2009 to 2011, Shell's cash flow rose and then plateaued between 2011 to 2012. But from 2012 to the latest quarter reported, there has been a steady decline.
  Shell's CEO Peter Voser stated earlier this month: ''The major [shale] acreage deals are behind us now''.
  Why would he say that if we were on the verge of a gas bonanza?
  The company informed investors that its North American oil and gas exploration will most likely remain unprofitable until sometime in 2014. Meanwhile they intend to divest shale assets.
  Further, their losses were specifically in shale oil according to the company report.
  ExxonMobil also took a hit to the bottom line with earnings falling more than 50% from the same quarter 2012. Chevron, too, is struggling. Yet in spite of such glaring financial anomalies, industry propaganda robots like Energy in Depth (EID) continue to turn out hyper-bollocks. This month, EID drivelled thus:
  ''That's right, folks'...As we continue to see across the United States, the shift in production techniques comes with countless, game-changing benefits for the nation. And, not for nothing, the Saudi Prince is absolutely terrified of what U.S. shale production could do to his country's control of the global oil market.''
  ''Roll up, roll up, roll up'....see the Amazing Bearded lady with two heads and thirteen legs coming out of her ears'...''. It really is pure Barnum & Bailey stuff. But behind the bollocks, the facts sit there like the dog's proverbials: the major operators, including some of the largest and most capable oil and gas companies on the planet, have so far failed with spectacular consistency to translate shale gas fracking into a meaningful long term return for investors ever-more-keen these days to find something '' anything '' solid to get behind. And this '' according to Bloomberg again '' is what that turns into:
  Shale Grab in U.S. Stalls as Falling Values Repel Buyers
  In conclusion, let me tell you where '' as a businessman more than a blogger on this one '' I'm heading to about fracking. I think unless somebody with an ounce of common sense in the UK Coalition steps in now to take a risk and tell it like it is, the people who wind up giving this utterly baseless fraud a role in Britain's medium term energy policy will be rewarded with a level of public opprobrium to make Connecting for Health, the PFI, the Iraq War, and the Poll Tax fiascos rolled into one seem a teacup-storm by comparison.
  I'd love for Ed Miliband to go out on a limb for us, but'....Ed, limb, go out on? Hahahahahaaha.
  Now of course, those of us in the 'Decency Resistance' would dearly love for the Condemned to get it precisely in the jugular re this one. But I don't want that to involve the degrading, polluting or even endangering of our water supply as the price of achieving that.
  This is the last time I'm going to make this obvious point: if we want to stop the maniacs yet again landing is in the mire here, we need to do far more than hug a piece of shale, and get ourselves arrested so the Daily Wail can demonise us. If we want to engage middle Britain, then it is the water supply and commercial arguments that will win the day.
  If the Tories think they aren't going to carry their supporters with them here, they might back down'....or even (dare I suggest such an odd thing) change course towards 99% pollution-free coal.
  Related to this issue from Yesterday: How the LABoraTORY worked in concert to f**k up our energy future
  About these ads
Center for Community Change::Board of Directors
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 01:25
  *Arlene Holt Baker, Executive Vice PresidentAFL-CIOWashington, DC
  *Jeff Berman, PartnerClifford Chance US LLPNew York, New York *Deepak Bhargava, Executive DirectorCenter for Community ChangeWashington, DC Kelly Brown, DirectorThe D5 CoalitionChicago, IL Peter Colavito, Director of Govt. RelationsService Employees International Union (SEIU)Washington, DC Quinn Delaney, PresidentAkonadi FoundationOakland, CA *Diane Feeney, PresidentFact Services for French AmericanCharitable TrustNew York, New York
  *Jane Fox-JohnsonWashington, DC
  Sam Fulwood IIIWashington, DC Garlin Gilchrist II, National Campaign DirectorMoveOn.orgWashington, DC *Jonathan Heller, Co-DirectorHuman Impact PartnersOakland, CA
  Kierra Johnson, Executive DirectorChoice USAWashington, DC
  David Jones, Executive DirectorCommunity Service Society of New YorkNew York, NY
  Esther Lopez, International Vice President and DirectorCivil Rights and Community Action DepartmentUnited Food and Commercial Workers International UnionWashington, DC William (Bill) LyonsNext Gen CircleSpringfield, VA
  Jean Tom, CounselPatterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP New York, NY *Dorian T. Warren, Assistant ProfessorPolitical Science & Public AffairsColumbia UniversityNew York, NY Mary Willis, Executive DirectorMorris Family FoundationLangley, WA
  *EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Center for Community Change::About
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 01:25
  Our MissionThe mission of the Center for Community Change is to build the power and capacity of low-income people, especially low-income people of color, to have a significant impact in improving their communities and the policies and institutions that affect their lives.
  The Center for Community Change strengthens, connects and mobilizes grassroots groups to enhance their leadership, voice and power. We believe that vibrant community-based organizations, led by the people most affected by social and economic injustice, are key to putting an end to the failed "on your own" mentality of the right and building a new politics based on community values.
  Founded in 1968 to honor the life and values of Robert F. Kennedy, the Center is one of the longest-standing champions for low-income people and communities of color. Together, our expert staff and dynamic partners confront the vital issues of today and build the social movements of tomorrow.
  What We BelieveOnly by challenging the "on your own" mentality of the right and building a new politics based on community values can we achieve social and economic justice.
  We believe that everyone should have a voice in the decisions that affect our lives and be fully engaged in our democracy.We believe in an America that honors the diversity of our racial and ethnic backgrounds as well as our experiences, talents and dreams.We believe that only together '' by sharing our hopes, connecting with each other, and taking action together '' can we change our communities and nation for the better.What We DoAmplify Community Voices: We ensure that grassroots voices are heard in Washington and shape the national conversation about building a better America.
  Strong community-based organizations and their brilliant leaders are our source of great ideas and real power. We strengthen the local power of these groups and elevate their voices from the grassroots to the national level.We deliver the grassroots message with authentic voices. We leverage our relationships with grassroots community leaders, ethnic and mainstream media, and national opinion makers to advocate for low-income people.Combine Grassroots Power to Win: We unite grassroots groups and leaders across race and ethnicity, issues and geography to solve some of the most pressing problems facing low-income people today.
  We bring together grassroots leaders to learn from one another and our expert staff, and to join forces on common causes.We are a catalyst for action. Leveraging one of the broadest and most diverse networks of community based organizations, we've built a 40 year history of winning real improvements to the lives of low-income families.Build the Social Movements of Tomorrow: We find and nurture the brilliant leaders and great ideas of tomorrow.
  We nurture the next generation of leaders. We discover opportunity and potential where others don't. Thousands of organizers and community leaders touch the Center for Community Change each year '' we are dedicated to finding the stars of tomorrow and preparing them to lead.We incubate the ideas that will shape a better tomorrow. We bring together the most creative thinkers from the grassroots to the ivory tower to develop innovative solutions and a vision for an America where we're all in it together.
Donate | Young Invincibles
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 01:24
  Why give a tax deductible donation to Young Invincibles?
  Because the issues facing young Americans impact all Americans.
  How we handle the lack of access to quality health care, staggering youth unemployment rates, unmanageable student debt, and the challenges that come with supporting a growing family will determine the future of our country.
  So please join us and make a contribution to YI today. We have a lot of work to do.
  Young Invincibles is fiscally sponsored by the Center for Community Change, a 501(c)(3) organization. Their fiscal sponsorship allows Young Invincibles to raise needed contributions from people like you. Your contributions will be tax deductible.
  If you would like donate by check, please make yours out to Center for Community Change with a note that the contribution is for Young Invincibles. Checks should be mailed to:
  Jen Mishory c/o Young InvinciblesCenter for Community Change1536 U St. NW, Washington DC 20009
  If you have questions, just email us at Give@YoungInvincibles.org.
Our Campaigns | Young Invincibles
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 01:23
  HEALTH CARE EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS
  If you want to see what we're up to on health care education, check out our Getting Covered campaign. We have also developed a a health care mobile application to educate young adults about their health care options.
  YI got its start with the fight for health care reform. Our campaign was Y.I. Want Change, a national coalition of over 20 organizations representing over one million young Americans across the country.
  We launched the coalition at a press conference with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, where she introduced the dependent coverage provision that now benefits millions of young Americans and their families. The press conference was the culmination of a lobby day organized by our coalition that brought young Americans from 40 states to the Capitol to push for one set of policies. In some ways, it was the birth of Young Invincibles.
  Over the many long months fighting for health care reform, YI collected the stories of over 1,200 young Americans from around the country. We heard them say over and over again that they were not invincible without health care. We were inspired by those stories. We hope we played a small part in helping to make their lives a little more stable and secure.
  You can hear videos of young Americans telling their own stories on our YouTube channel.
  CAMPAIGN FOR YOUNG AMERICA
  Last year, Young Invincibles' primary campaign was the Campaign for Young America, designed to help give young adults a voice in identifying specific solutions to the opportunity challenges facing our generation and country. We believe it is our generation's responsibility to not only describe the problems, but to use all our skills, insights, passion and hard work to create the way forward on issues ranging from jobs, to higher education, to health care.
  The Campaign for Young America website was the central hub for information and engagement with the campaign. In March 2012, YI hosted a National Youth Bus Tour across the country, with dozens of youth roundtables discussions, events on campuses and off, and direct action bringing the voices of young adults to our political leaders. The bus tour visited 20 states, 42 cities, and 43 campuses nationwide. This summer, we presented the culmination and synthesis of the youth roundtables, a coherent, specific agenda on federal policy in our Young American Ideas Book.
The American-Western European Values Gap | Pew Global Attitudes Project
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 01:15
  November 17, 2011
  American Exceptionalism SubsidesUPDATED FEBRUARY 29, 2012
  Survey ReportAs has long been the case, American values differ from those of Western Europeans in many important ways. Most notably, Americans are more individualistic and are less supportive of a strong safety net than are the publics of Britain, France, Germany and Spain. Americans are also considerably more religious than Western Europeans, and are more socially conservative with respect to homosexuality.
  Americans are somewhat more inclined than Western Europeans to say that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world. Moreover, Americans more often than their Western European allies believe that obtaining UN approval before their country uses military force would make it too difficult to deal with an international threat. And Americans are less inclined than the Western Europeans, with the exception of the French, to help other nations.
  These differences between Americans and Western Europeans echo findings from previous surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center. However, the current polling shows the American public is coming closer to Europeans in not seeing their culture as superior to that of other nations. Today, only about half of Americans believe their culture is superior to others, compared with six-in-ten in 2002. And the polling finds younger Americans less apt than their elders to hold American exceptionalist attitudes.
  These are among the findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, conducted in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Spain from March 21 to April 14 as part of the broader 23-nation poll in spring 2011.
  Use of Military ForceThree-quarters of Americans agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world; this view is shared by seven-in-ten in Britain and narrower majorities in France and Spain (62% each). Germans are evenly divided, with half saying the use of force is sometimes necessary and half saying it is not.
  Germans are more supportive of the use of military force than they have been in recent years. For example, in 2007, just about four-in-ten (41%) Germans agreed that it was sometimes necessary, while 58% disagreed. Opinions have been more stable in the U.S., Britain and France.
  For the most part, opinions about the use of force do not vary considerably across demographic groups. In Germany and Spain, however, support for the use of military force is far more widespread among men than among women. Six-in-ten German men agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world, compared with just 40% of women. And while majorities across gender groups in Spain believe the use of force may be necessary, more Spanish men than Spanish women say this is the case (68% vs. 56%).
  In Britain, France, Spain and the U.S., conservatives, or those on the political right, are more likely than liberals, or those on the left, to agree that the use of force is sometimes necessary to maintain world order. However, in the four countries, majorities across ideological groups express this view.
  When asked whether their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with international threats, American opinion differs considerably from that of Western Europeans. Americans are almost evenly divided on the question, with 45% saying that the U.S. should have UN approval while 44% say this would make it too difficult to deal with threats; in contrast, solid majorities in the four Western European nations surveyed, including about three-quarters in Spain (74%) and Germany (76%) say their country should have UN approval before it takes military action.
  In Western Europe, those with a college degree are more likely than those with less education to say their country should have UN approval before using military force, although majorities across both groups share this view. For example, in Spain, 84% of those who graduated from college say UN approval should be obtained, compared with 70% of those who do not have a college degree. Double-digit differences are also evident in Britain (15 percentage points), Germany (11 points) and France (10 points). This is not the case in the U.S., where respondents across education groups offer nearly identical views.
  In Germany, gender differences are also notable; even though German men are more likely than women to say the use of military force is sometimes necessary, more men than women say their country should have UN approval before using force (83% vs. 70%).
  The view that their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with threats is far more prevalent among American liberals than among conservatives. Close to six-in-ten (57%) liberals favor obtaining UN approval, while 33% say this would make it too difficult for the U.S. to deal with threats; in contrast, most conservatives (52%) say getting UN approval would make it too difficult to deal with threats, while 38% say this is an important step. Political moderates fall between the other two groups, with 49% saying the U.S. should seek the approval of the UN before using military force and 42% saying this would make it too difficult to deal with threats. The same ideological difference is generally not evident in Western Europe.
  Views on International EngagementAbout four-in-ten (39%) Americans say the U.S. should help other countries deal with their problems, while a narrow majority (52%) says the U.S. should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with their problems as best they can. In this regard, Americans are not drastically different from respondents in France, where 43% believe their country should help other countries and 57% say it should focus on its own problems.
  The British are nearly evenly divided; 45% say their country should help other countries deal with their problems and about the same number (48%) believe Britain should deal with its own problems.
  Compared with the U.S., France and Britain, Spain and Germany stand out as the only countries where majorities favor international engagement: 55% and 54%, respectively, say their countries should provide assistance to others, while 40% in Spain and 43% in Germany take the more isolationist view.
  Opinions about international engagement have changed somewhat in the U.S., France and Spain since last year, but while publics in the two Western European countries are now more in favor of helping others than they were in 2010, more Americans currently take an isolationist position. Last year, about the same number of Americans said their country should help other countries (45%) as said it should let other countries deal with their own problems (46%). Similarly, the Spanish were nearly evenly divided, with 49% favoring engagement and 47% taking an isolationist approach. In France, where a majority continues to take an isolationist view, even more (65%) did so a year ago.
  In the U.S. as well as in the four Western European countries surveyed, those with a college degree are far more likely than those with less education to offer an internationalist view. This is especially the case in Germany, where about three-quarters (73%) of those who graduated from college believe their country should help other countries deal with their problems, compared with a narrow majority (52%) of those without a college degree.
  Political ideology is also a factor in Germany, France and Spain. In these three countries, those on the right are more likely than those on the left to take the isolationist view when it comes to international engagement. For example, while about half (48%) of left-wing French say their country should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with theirs as best they can, about six-in-ten (59%) on the right offer this opinion.
  Cultural SuperiorityAbout half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement, ''Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;'' 44% in Spain share this view. In Britain and France, only about a third or fewer (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is better than others.
  While opinions about cultural superiority have remained relatively stable over the years in the four Western European countries surveyed, Americans are now far less likely to say that their culture is better than others; six-in-ten Americans held this belief in 2002 and 55% did so in 2007. Belief in cultural superiority has declined among Americans across age, gender and education groups.
  As in past surveys, older Americans remain far more inclined than younger ones to believe that their culture is better than others. Six-in-ten Americans ages 50 or older share this view, while 34% disagree; those younger than 30 hold the opposite view, with just 37% saying American culture is superior and 61% saying it is not. Opinions are more divided among those ages 30 to 49; 44% in this group see American culture as superior and 50% do not.
  Similar age gaps are not as common in the Western European countries surveyed, with the exception of Spain, where majorities of older respondents, but not among younger ones, also think their culture is better than others; 55% of those ages 50 or older say this is the case, compared with 34% of those ages 30 to 49 and 39% of those younger than 30.
  As is the case on other measures, opinions about cultural superiority vary considerably by educational attainment. In the four Western European countries and in the U.S., those who did not graduate from college are more likely than those who did to agree that their culture is superior, even if their people are not perfect. For example, Germans with less education are about twice as likely as those with a college degree to believe their culture is superior (49% vs. 25%); double-digit differences are also present in France (20 percentage points), Spain (18 points) and Britain (11 points), while a less pronounced gap is evident in the U.S. (9 points).
  Finally, among Americans and Germans, political conservative are especially likely to believe their culture is superior to others. In the U.S., 63% of conservatives take this view, compared with 45% of moderates and just 34% of liberals. Similarly, a majority (54%) of right-wing Germans see their culture as superior, while 47% of moderates and 33% of those on the political left agree.
  Individualism and the Role of the StateAmerican opinions continue to differ considerably from those of Western Europeans when it comes to views of individualism and the role of the state. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) Americans believe it is more important for everyone to be free to pursue their life's goals without interference from the state, while just 35% say it is more important for the state to play an active role in society so as to guarantee that nobody is in need.
  In contrast, at least six-in-ten in Spain (67%), France (64%) and Germany (62%) and 55% in Britain say the state should ensure that nobody is in need; about four-in-ten or fewer consider being free from state interference a higher priority.
  In the U.S., Britain, France and Germany, views of the role of the state divide significantly across ideological lines. For example, three-quarters of American conservatives say individuals should be free to pursue their goals without interference from the state, while 21% say it is more important for the state to guarantee that nobody is in need; among liberals in the U.S., half would like the state to play an active role to help the needy, while 42% prefer a more limited role for the state.
  Those on the political right in Britain, France and Germany are also more likely than those on the left in these countries to prioritize freedom to pursue one's goals without state interference. Unlike in the U.S., however, majorities of those on the right in France (57%) and Germany (56%) favor an active role for the state, as do more than four-in-ten (45%) conservatives in Britain.
  American opinions about the role of the state also vary considerably across age groups. About half (47%) of those younger than 30 prioritize the freedom to pursue life's goals without interference from the state and a similar percentage (46%) say it is more important for the state to ensure that nobody is in need; among older Americans, however, about six-in-ten consider being free a higher priority, with just about three-in-ten saying the state should play an active role so that nobody is in need. No such age difference is evident in the four Western European countries surveyed.
  Asked if they agree that ''success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,'' Americans again offer more individualistic views than those expressed by Western Europeans. Only 36% of Americans believe they have little control over their fate, compared with 50% in Spain, 57% in France and 72% in Germany; Britain is the only Western European country surveyed where fewer than half (41%) share this view.
  In the U.S. and in Western Europe, those without a college degree are less individualistic than those who have graduated from college; this is especially the case in the U.S. and Germany. About three-quarters (74%) of Germans in the less educated group believe that success in life is largely determined by forces beyond one's control, compared with 55% of college graduates. Among Americans, 41% of those without a college degree say they have little control over their fate, while just 22% of college graduates share this view.
  Religion More Important to AmericansAmericans also distinguish themselves from Western Europeans on views about the importance of religion. Half of Americans deem religion very important in their lives; fewer than a quarter in Spain (22%), Germany (21%), Britain (17%) and France (13%) share this view.
  Moreover, Americans are far more inclined than Western Europeans to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 53% say this is the case in the U.S., compared with just one-third in Germany, 20% in Britain, 19% in Spain and 15% in France.
  In the U.S., women and older respondents place more importance on religion and are more likely than men and younger people to say that faith in God is a necessary foundation for morality and good values. About six-in-ten (59%) American women say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 41% of men; and while a majority (56%) of Americans ages 50 and older say religion is very important to them, 48% of those ages 30 to 49 and 41% of those younger than 30 place similar importance on religion.
  Similarly, while a majority of American women (58%) say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, men are nearly evenly divided, with 47% saying belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality and 51% saying it is not. Among Americans ages 50 and older, 58% say one must believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 50% of those ages 30 to 49 and 46% of those younger than 30 share this view.
  Education also plays a role in views of religion in the U.S., to some extent. Although Americans with a college degree are about as likely as those without to say religion is very important to them (47% and 51%, respectively), the less educated are far more inclined to say that one must believe in God in order to be moral; 59% of those without a college degree say this, compared with 37% of those who have graduated from college.
  Views of religion and whether belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality vary little, if at all, across demographic groups in the Western European countries surveyed. In Spain, however, respondents ages 50 and older place more importance on religion than do younger people, although relatively few in this age group say it is very important to them; 33% say this is the case, compared with 16% of those ages 30 to 49 and 11% of those younger than 30.
  Politically, conservatives in the U.S., Spain and Germany are more likely than liberals to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, but while solid majorities of conservatives in the U.S. (66%) take this position, fewer than half of conservatives in Spain (31%) and Germany (46%) share this view. Meanwhile, just 26% of liberals in the U.S., 11% in Spain and 19% in Germany say belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality. Conservatives in the U.S. are also far more likely than liberals to consider religion very important in their lives (67% vs. 29%); in Western Europe, few across ideological groups place high importance on religion.
  Religious vs. National IdentityAmerican Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46% of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90%), Germany (70%), Britain (63%) and Spain (53%) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion.
  In Britain, France and Germany, more Christians now see themselves in terms of their nationality than did so five years ago, when national identification was already widespread in these countries. This change is especially notable in Germany, where the percentage seeing themselves first as Germans is up 11 percentage points, from 59% in 2006.
  Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70% in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22% say they are primarily American. Among other American Christians, more identify with their nationality (55%) than with their religion (38%).
  HomosexualityTolerance for homosexuality is widespread in the U.S. and Western Europe, but far more Western Europeans than Americans say homosexuality should be accepted by society; at least eight-in-ten in Spain (91%), Germany (87%), France (86%) and Britain (81%), compared with 60% in the U.S.
  Acceptance of homosexuality has increased in recent years, and the shift is especially notable in the U.S., where only slightly more said it should be accepted (49%) than said it should be rejected (41%) in 2007. Today, more Americans accept homosexuality than reject it by a 27-percentage point margin.
  While there are some differences in opinions of homosexuality across demographic groups in the Western European countries surveyed, overwhelming majorities across age, education and gender groups believe homosexuality should be accepted by society. In the U.S., however, these differences are somewhat more pronounced. For example, while 67% of American women believe homosexuality should be accepted, a much narrower majority of men (54%) share that view. Among Americans with college degrees, 71% accept homosexuality, compared with 56% of those with less education. Finally, about two-thirds (68%) of Americans younger than 30 say homosexuality should be accepted by society; 61% of those ages 30 to 40 and 55% of those ages 50 and older share this view.
  In addition to demographic differences, an ideological divide on views of homosexuality is also notable in the U.S., where more than eight-in-ten (85%) liberals and 65% of moderates express tolerant views, compared with 44% of conservatives. In the four Western European countries surveyed, at least three-quarters across ideological groups say homosexuality should be accepted by society.
VIDEO-NEW STATE CHICK-Daily Press Briefing - August 20, 2013
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 01:12
  2:03 p.m. EDT
  MS. HARF: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm so sorry for the delay. I have nothing at the top. Let's go ahead and get started.
  Deb.
  QUESTION: Can we yet again --
  QUESTION: Can we yet again go to Egypt?
  QUESTION: Can we just have a quick question on the --
  QUESTION: Can we go to Egypt?
  MS. HARF: Just one second. We'll go to Egypt in a second, Arshad.
  Go ahead.
  QUESTION: Can we just ask quickly about the State Department employees before we get to Egypt? Because I know this could take a long time.
  MS. HARF: I think both could take a while, but let's start with that, and then we'll go to Egypt, yes.
  QUESTION: Okay. Is it true that Secretary Kerry has not issued any kind of disciplinary action '' formal disciplinary '' against the four employees who were criticized in the investigative report? And are they back at work?
  MS. HARF: The State Department has determined that the four officials who were placed on administrative leave following the independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board's report should be reassigned to different positions within the Department, and they will be returning to work. The State Department's own review over the last months reaffirmed the findings of the ARB, that there was no breach of duty by these four employees, and that coupled with our efforts to strengthen security, the right answer for these four was reassignment. What we're focused on at the State Department is making sure we're doing everything in our power to prevent another tragedy even though we recognize that we operate in a volatile and dangerous world, and everyone from the Secretary on down is squarely focused on moving forward to strengthen security and protect our people and our facilities all around the world. Clearly, we know we can never completely eliminate the risk, but we are firmly committed to making sure we do everything we can to stand by our people in the field.
  QUESTION: Are they back at work?
  MS. HARF: I don't have specific details about when they will actually start back at work, but as of today, yes, they have new assignments.
  QUESTION: Was the independent Accountability Review Board then wrong in its assessment of the account of what happened that night?
  MS. HARF: Well, no. Actually, what I just said, I think, is that the State Department's own review which has taken place over these months actually reaffirmed the Accountability Review Board's findings, which were that they saw serious concerns '' or concerns with some of the steps and actions of these four individuals, but that they did not determine that there had been a breach of duty. So what we've done over these past few months is go back and look at all the facts and also take into account the totality of these four employees' overall careers at the State Department, and what we found in that review is that many of '' they have served honorably, often in very tough places, and that was all taken into account. But actually I would disagree with the notion of your question. I think our review reaffirmed the ARB's ''
  QUESTION: But the ARB did say that the actions that were taken were '' and I'm using the quote that the ARB used --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- was '' ''were inadequate.'' Is that correct?
  MS. HARF: I don't have that quote in front of me.
  QUESTION: And those actions were made by these four individuals?
  MS. HARF: I know that when it comes specifically to these four individuals that we're talking about today, that specific part, that they said '' the ARB found that there had been a lack of proactive leadership and management abilities specifically regarding what happened in Benghazi.
  QUESTION: Specifically regarding these four individuals?
  MS. HARF: Correct, but that there was no breach of duty.
  QUESTION: Who are back to work today?
  MS. HARF: But that there's no breach of duty. So the State Department reaffirmed that same finding and made a decision that all four would return to work, but they would be reassigned.
  QUESTION: Marie.
  MS. HARF: Yes, Jill.
  QUESTION: When you say ''no breach of duty'' --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- are you speaking legalese here? In other words, is this a bureaucratic decision by the State Department that according to the rules of the State Department, you can't fire somebody because ''no breach of duty?'' Is that '' you're being very precise?
  MS. HARF: Well, ''breach of duty'' is a technical term, yes. And as I said, the ARB did not find that there was a breach of duty, and neither did the State Department's own review. I think when we took a step back and looked at both what the ARB found, but what the Secretary and his team has been doing over these past few months is doing more fact finding, going into what happened on the ground, but also looking, again, at the totality of these four employees' careers at the State Department. Again, they've served in tough places. There were a lot of examples where they've had very exemplary careers here. So that was all looked at as we made this determination about what was appropriate.
  QUESTION: Okay. But just '' I guess when you stand back again and look at it --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- this is such an extraordinary thing --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- an ambassador killed under hideous circumstances, many things we '' looking at the ARB, we can see management deficiencies at senior levels, et cetera. Wasn't there a reason to go beyond just bureaucratic definitions and to actually make somebody responsible for this?
  MS. HARF: Well, I think first I'd make crystal clear that the people ultimately responsible for what happened in Benghazi are the terrorists who perpetrated this terrorist attack. So, (a) I would make that point; (b) what the ARB did was look at our processes and look at our systems and make recommendations about how to improve and enhance our security in the future. So the ARB took a hard look at this and did make some determinations about these four individuals. That's why they were placed on administrative leave and we undertook such a comprehensive look at them, at what they had done, and indeed, at their entire careers at the State Department. So clearly we take very, very seriously what happened that day. I think that should go without saying. And we've taken a look at the ARB's recommendations and have reaffirmed their findings in this decision.
  QUESTION: Marie.
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: The statement that was released on this last night and which was attributable to a senior State Department official --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- stated that Secretary Kerry, upon assuming office in February, launched this internal review of the ARB's findings. That disclosure, in turn, raises a number of questions, which I'd like to go through with you in turn. Number one, who led this review of the ARB?
  MS. HARF: Okay. Well, first, not '' I would like to clarify exactly what that statement means. Secretary Clinton, obviously, was the Secretary when these four were put on administrative leave. When Secretary Kerry came into office here, he basically picked up the ball. It was a continuation of that review that had already been started. He wanted to take the time to get all the facts himself. He wanted to take the time with his senior team to sit down and go over the ARB's findings in great depth and look into the situation of these four in their careers.
  QUESTION: Stop right there.
  MS. HARF: Yeah.
  QUESTION: The statement said that he launched this upon assuming office. Now you're telling me there was an ongoing internal review of ARB that Secretary Clinton transferred to him?
  MS. HARF: I think you're using the term ''review'' specifically. What we've been '' wait. Let me finish, James.
  QUESTION: I'm using your statement.
  MS. HARF: Okay. Can I finish?
  QUESTION: Please.
  MS. HARF: Thank you. I think we made it very clear when these four people were put on administrative leave that there was a review process into them that was ongoing. Obviously '' so that process was ongoing before Secretary Kerry got here. That's been well documented publicly.
  Point B is that when Secretary Kerry took office, he wanted to make sure that he himself and his senior team did a thorough investigation into what had happened, picking up on the work Secretary Clinton had already done, but obviously he would be the one making the decision, so he wanted to make sure he was acquainted with all the facts, and that we looked into all of the things that might go into a decision surrounding these four.
  QUESTION: Okay. What was the actual scope of this review by Secretary Kerry? Was it just with respect to these four individuals or was he reviewing the entire findings of the ARB?
  MS. HARF: Again, I think you're using the term review in a way that I'm not using it. When I say review, he wanted to make sure he was well acquainted with all of the facts. He wanted to dive deeply into all of the issues involved with the ARB, which obviously now fell under his purview to make decisions. So it's not like he was making a judgment on the ARB. That's not at all what I'm insinuating. That he was himself looking at the ARB, diving into the details, and also gathering other facts that may go into his eventual decision about these four.
  QUESTION: You just stated earlier in response to another question from one of my colleagues that he did engage in, quote, ''additional fact finding.''
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: What did that entail? Were documents reviewed? Were new depositions taken? What kind of fact-finding mission are we talking about?
  MS. HARF: Well, I think most specifically what I'm referring to is that we took '' he and the team took a look at the totality of the careers that these four individuals have had at the State Department. Again, they've served honorably, had distinguished records, and all of that wanted to be taken into account. When, quite frankly, you're making decisions about real people and their careers, he wanted to not only look at the ARB and what happened that day, but look at what they had done overall at the State Department.
  QUESTION: Whose recommendation was Secretary Kerry following when he made this determination about these four individuals?
  MS. HARF: Well, his senior team, and I don't have a specific name for you about who led that. I can endeavor to get more details on that. If I can share them, I will. I'm not sure I can. But setting that aside, there was '' his senior team looked at '' took a look at the situation, looked at the four, looked at their careers, made a recommendation to him which he agreed with, and he ultimately made the final decision.
  QUESTION: We have had in this briefing room --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- since Secretary Kerry assumed office, multiple discussions about the ARB --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- particularly in and around May 8, when the two whistleblowers, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Thompson testified before the Congress. And yet at no time did the State Department, either at this podium or in any other forum, disclose that Secretary Kerry had engaged in this process such as you've described it.
  MS. HARF: I think we --
  QUESTION: Why was that fact withheld from the public?
  MS. HARF: Well, I would disagree with the premise of your question to start, but second I would say we've been --
  QUESTION: What premise do you disagree with?
  MS. HARF: Let me '' can I finish and I'll tell you?
  QUESTION: Tell me.
  MS. HARF: Okay. What I would say is we've been clear, every single time we are asked about the status of these four, that Secretary Kerry is undergoing a process in conjunction with his senior team and will make a decision at some point in the future. Every single time someone from this podium has been asked that, that's exactly what they've said.
  This, quote, ''review,'' whatever word you want to use for it, his looking --
  QUESTION: I'm using your words.
  MS. HARF: -- right, and I'm using it too '' his looking at the facts, his in-depth look at the ARB and their careers are what played into this process of how he would eventually make a decision about the four. So there's not '' we have not been at all secret about the fact that Secretary Kerry has been leading a process.
  QUESTION: Last two questions '' you've been very patient and so have my colleagues '' was there an actual final report of some kind, in some form, that was presented to Secretary Kerry prior to his making these decisions that the Department would be willing to make public?
  MS. HARF: I don't know the answer to that question.
  QUESTION: Was there any kind of report at all?
  MS. HARF: I don't know. That's the '' I do not know the answer to that question.
  QUESTION: Last question.
  MS. HARF: I can take that question.
  QUESTION: With respect to the two aforementioned whistleblowers, Mr. Hicks --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- and Mr. Thompson, what is their status now?
  MS. HARF: I don't have any updates for you on that. I can endeavor to get an update for you. Again, I don't have details on that in here, but I can get back to you on that.
  QUESTION: Is it not a fact that they remain in limbo?
  MS. HARF: I don't know the answer to that, James. I really don't.
  QUESTION: Marie, could you just, for the record, give us the names of the four? And also, is Boswell '' is it correct that he is a political appointee?
  MS. HARF: I'm not, from the podium, going to read out the names of the four. I know it's been widely reported. Again, there are different specifics about political appointees. It is my understanding that one of the individuals is, but again, they've all been reassigned and will be taking up new positions going forward.
  QUESTION: So political appointees can be reassigned?
  MS. HARF: It is my understanding that that's the case, yes.
  QUESTION: Marie, I realize you can't talk about some of these personnel issues from the podium --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- but can you, generally speaking, give us a sense of the reassignments of these four, whether any of them, say, have anything to do with security at any U.S. diplomatic post abroad?
  MS. HARF: I can't give you any details about their specific onward assignments.
  QUESTION: Why?
  QUESTION: Do any of these reassignments since the Secretary decided that they couldn't remain in the positions they previously held '' what defined the parameters for where they would be allowed to work?
  MS. HARF: Well, these four individuals will be or have been reassigned to positions that are best suited to their experiences and capabilities. Again, I can't share with you further details about their onward assignments.
  QUESTION: Were these positions existent prior to them assuming the duties of this '' these new positions?
  MS. HARF: I believe so, but I'm not positive. I can double-check that.
  QUESTION: Have they been asked to sign nondisclosure agreements?
  MS. HARF: I don't know that, but I ask that '' I don't know that specifically on this. I have said from this podium categorically that no State Department employees have been asked to sign additional nondisclosure agreements in addition to the standard protection of classified information one everyone signs upon entering State. I have said --
  QUESTION: And that still stands?
  MS. HARF: Correct, yes, that still stands.
  QUESTION: One more on that --
  QUESTION: And Marie, just one '' another to make sure we understand: You can't say this because of rules and regulations, internal personnel regulations?
  MS. HARF: Yes, correct.
  QUESTION: Okay.
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: Did the Secretary feel that to take any action beyond having placed the four on administrative leave would be to make scapegoats of them?
  MS. HARF: I wouldn't characterize it that way. He '' when he came into the State Department, there were four people on administrative leave. When we're talking about this case, it's a very limited case of these four people. I think broadly speaking, what you've seen the Secretary do is continue the implementation of the additional embassy security measures that we've talked about a lot in here that are in the ARB. So what he's focused on is moving forward, figuring out the best way to enhance our security, to keep working with Congress to do so, and that's really been his main focus from this point on.
  QUESTION: And does he feel that ''breach of duty'' should be the appropriate standard here?
  MS. HARF: Appropriate standard for what?
  QUESTION: For deciding '' I mean, you've made '' you've emphasized several times that --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- as with the ARB, they found that there was no breach of duty.
  MS. HARF: Correct.
  QUESTION: The ARB also found that it believed that the criteria '' and I regret I don't have them in mind --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- specified under the law --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- set too high a bar for taking action against individuals who might have failed to properly do their jobs. And I'm wondering if '' so I don't remember if breach of duty is what was in the law and if they therefore felt that that was too high a standard '' but since you keep emphasizing that the Secretary agrees with the ARB that there was no breach of duty --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- I wonder if that '' ultimately, if the Secretary feels that should be the standard, that breach of duty is what would trigger some kind of action in such a case.
  MS. HARF: Well, I don't want to, I think, draw conclusions from this, broadly speaking, about how the Secretary looks at disciplinary action for employees. I think in this case, he was presented with a very limited situation of four employees. The ARB had made some conclusions about their performance, and the review that we undertook reaffirmed that when we made a decision about the four.
  Going forward, I don't have anything new to announce in terms of how we will make these decisions in the future. Needless to say, I think the Secretary, again, as I said, is focused on taking the recommendations in the ARB, particularly on the embassy security recommendations, and moving forward with those.
  QUESTION: Marie, one last way to --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- sort of approach this: To the average American sitting at home, they see four dead Americans, including our Ambassador; they see that there's some kind of blue-ribbon panel that's set up, we know as a function of a congressional mandate called the Accountability Review Board --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- and at the end of it, not one person is held accountable. How do you explain that to the American people?
  MS. HARF: Well, again, I would make two points, James. The first is that we've all made clear that we are focused on bringing to account those that were responsible for this tragedy in Benghazi, and that means finding the terrorists who actually perpetrated this horrible tragedy, period.
  Secondly, we take a very thorough and careful review of what happened that day, and we all wish there was some easy answer, just one thing we could have pointed to that would mean today that those four Americans are still here, but we have to let the facts lead where they do. And in this case, the Secretary took a very thorough look at four people and their situations, and made a determination on what their future should look like.
  Clearly, there is nobody in the world that is more saddened and upset and cares more about what happened that day than the people who work in this building, and believe me, they are doing everything in their power to bring to account those that were actually responsible for what happened that day.
  QUESTION: So there's not a single '' amongst the 20,000 worldwide State Department employees, there's not a single one of them who acted foolishly, stupidly, neglectfully, so much so that they should lose their job over it?
  MS. HARF: James, clearly the Accountability Review Board indicated there were deficiencies. Clearly, things could have been done better. I think that's patently obvious to everybody who's followed this for almost a year now. But again, we have to let the facts lead where they may, and these are people with real lives and real careers, and we can't just take action that's not warranted against them just to make us all feel better. That's not the way the process works, and quite frankly, we owe it more to our diplomats serving all around the world to have thorough processes and to look at all of this from an independent lens, which is exactly what the ARB did.
  QUESTION: Can we go to another topic?
  QUESTION: Oh, just one more?
  QUESTION: Can we go to Egypt?
  QUESTION: Just one more?
  MS. HARF: Yeah, we'll go to Egypt next.
  QUESTION: Marie, then, in a way, I guess, is it too much to say that the entity that is being held responsible is the entire State Department and the system that is here that failed? Is that correct?
  MS. HARF: Well, I don't know if I would term it exactly that way, Jill. I think we've been clear that there are additional steps that the ARB recommended that we agree with that we need to take, and as you all know, Congress right now is debating different ways to further enhance our embassy security. That's what we think everybody should be focused on going forward. That's what's really, in the future, what's going to be important on the ground.
  So I don't know if I would use those words. Clearly, everybody '' every single State Department employee '' felt a profound sense of loss that day and has ever since. But what they're focused on now is making sure that we do everything in our power to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
  QUESTION: Walk us through some of the steps that you're taking that the Accountability Review Board --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- recommended that you are in fact taking.
  MS. HARF: Yep, I can walk through a couple of them, and we have, I think, more detail on this if folks would like it after the briefing.
  We're bringing on more security personnel and enhancing their training. There were 29 recommendations, I should underscore here, that the ARB put forward. We're putting more Marines at our high-threat diplomatic posts. We're making sure that protecting our people is a priority mission for them. We're working more closely with our Defense Department partners on supporting our missions before, during, and after crises. We're upgrading our facilities and building new embassies and consulates, and we're making sure that concerns about safety and security always get the attention they need.
  So I would also encourage everyone to take a look at the unclassified ARB that's out there for everyone to read their recommendations. We'll continue working with Congress to enhance our security going forward.
  QUESTION: Egypt?
  MS. HARF: Egypt.
  QUESTION: So has the U.S. Government obligated any funds for Egypt from either the military or the economic categories of funding since the July 3rd coup against Morsy?
  MS. HARF: Well, let me first start by saying '' thank you for the question, Arshad '' that we have not made a policy decision to suspend our aid to Egypt, period. We have not made a decision to suspend all of our assistance to Egypt or to slow our assistance. Any reports to the contrary are simply false.
  In terms of your question specifically, I think, as we were clear the other day, there's a bucket of remaining money '' it's 585 million '' that has not yet been obligated on the FMF side. None of that has been obligated yet. On the economic side, I don't have an exact number for you. Some of '' as we've said, we continue to pay our bills; some of that has been ongoing. But we are, as everyone knows, I think, doing a comprehensive review of all of our assistance to Egypt and will be (a) continuing to operate within the law, but (b) making decisions going forward about where that goes from here.
  QUESTION: ''We continue to pay our bills,'' does that mean --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- that you have, since July 3rd, obligated any funds out of the economic assistance for Egypt '' since July 3rd?
  MS. HARF: Well, just, economic assistance goes both to the Egyptian Government but also to various NGOs --
  QUESTION: I know.
  MS. HARF: -- that would not be affected '' I know you know; I don't know if everyone knows '' (laughter) '' that would not be affected necessarily by some of the legal restrictions that we're talking about right now. It is my understanding that some of that has gone forward. I don't have an exact number for you, but it is my understanding that until a decision has been broadly made about the future of our assistance to Egypt, we will continue doing things like paying our bills.
  QUESTION: Since July 3rd, some of it has gone forward?
  MS. HARF: It's my understanding, yes, and again, the economic side includes NGOs. But we '' on everything we've gone forward with, we are doing so consistent with the law.
  QUESTION: So how do you explain all these stories, and there are now at least two --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- that state that the Administration is in some manner slowing, if not cutting, reducing its dispersal of aid to Egypt?
  MS. HARF: Well, I can't explain them other than to say that they're false. We've been very open when we've made decisions to not do things, like we were with the F-16s, like we were with Bright Star. We've also been very clear that there is an ongoing policy review underway about all of our assistance, but again, we have not made a policy decision to suspend our '' all of our aid to Egypt, period. So I can't describe the discrepancy.
  QUESTION: But not all of our aid?
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: Any of our aid?
  MS. HARF: Well, we've been clear, when we '' like with the F-16s, for example, but again, all of it is under review right now, and an overall policy decision has not been made.
  QUESTION: So let me ask it this way: If you had a trend line of the anticipated disbursal of all assistance ''
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- which I'm sure you do '' of the disbursal of all U.S. assistance, military and economic, to Egypt over the course of the current fiscal year ''
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- so you have a line that reflects --
  MS. HARF: Yeah.
  QUESTION: -- what you should have been paying out at what points --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- that line is totally unchanged other than the F-16s from where it otherwise would be?
  MS. HARF: Well, none of the future '' none of the remaining FMF --
  QUESTION: Right.
  MS. HARF: -- that 585, has been obligated yet. And the previous FMF was obligated before July 3rd.
  QUESTION: So is --
  MS. HARF: And there's no time by which we are legally required to obligate the remaining funds.
  QUESTION: Okay.
  MS. HARF: So we're not missing deadlines here, is what I'm saying.
  QUESTION: What I'm trying to understand --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- is whether there may be a de facto stop in aid to certain categories of aid to Egypt, including the 585 million on the military side and the non-NGO/non-democracy-related, et cetera, et cetera, aid on the economic side.
  MS. HARF: Well, I think what you're seeing right now is both a policy and a legal review at all of that.
  QUESTION: No, no, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about '' it's, I think, de facto versus de jure is what's important here.
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: And I understand that you --
  MS. HARF: I took six years of Latin. I'm right there with you, Arshad.
  QUESTION: I'm delighted, I am delighted, I am delighted. And I'm interested not in the de jure question, because you and Josh Earnest --
  MS. HARF: Correct.
  QUESTION: -- and everybody has addressed that.
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: I'm interested in the de facto question and if there is any way one could construe the disbursements of aid to Egypt since July 3rd as de facto being slower than they otherwise would have been --
  MS. HARF: Right. And I understand the question. And I think '' I can only, I think, say what the facts are here. The first is that when we have made two policy decisions to either cancel a military exercise or not deliver something, we've been very open about that. Those are the two policy decisions we've made. The '' and the reason I keep going back to this overall policy review is because these decisions all fall under that.
  Right now, all of our experts are looking at every single piece of aid we give to Egypt and whether a certain legal restriction might be triggered, whether it's not. And until there's an overall decision made about where we go from here, we continue, again, to pay our bills but look very carefully at what we're doing. And I think our goal has always been that we need to continue with our assistance by applying the law and what's necessary under the law.
  QUESTION: So simple --
  QUESTION: What is '' wait, I'm sorry, I've got '' I've just got two ot three more --
  MS. HARF: That's fine.
  QUESTION: -- and then I promise I will stop.
  MS. HARF: It's fine.
  QUESTION: Well, I'm apologizing to my colleagues.
  MS. HARF: You're all very polite to each other today. I like it.
  QUESTION: Yesterday, I asked Jen what was the value of the portion of the economic assistance --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- that might be '' might have to be stopped because of the coup and the subsequent violence.
  MS. HARF: Yes, mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: What '' and she finally said that it was less than half the total. What is that amount?
  MS. HARF: So I know you asked the question. I don't have an exact number yet. As you all know, this is very complicated. And it's not that we're just not telling you; it's that our folks right now are looking at every single piece of this and trying to determine what falls into what bucket. I will say this: that we promise to endeavor to share as much as we can about that. Our folks are going through it right now. Much of our budget request, just so folks know, is posted online. I don't know how much of the breakdown it has, but there is a lot of information actually online about our aid to Egypt on our website and OMB's and others.
  QUESTION: Right. But if I could --
  MS. HARF: I don't have an exact number for you today --
  QUESTION: Do you have a rough number?
  MS. HARF: I don't. And our folks are looking at it. We're endeavoring to get you an answer to that. I, unfortunately, just don't have it today.
  QUESTION: Okay.
  QUESTION: On that point, on the 585 million --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- you can explain to us in simple terms that all the aid that was already allocated to Egypt to have been '' to be received by now was actually received, and all the aid that is not allocated, in fact, it is not frozen but it has not matured yet. Is that the way it is?
  MS. HARF: So when we look at FMF, one big tranche of it was delivered '' I'm answering your question, I promise. It was delivered before July 3rd.
  QUESTION: Right.
  MS. HARF: The rest of it we have no date by which we have to deliver that, except by the end of the fiscal year. So there has been no hold on that, there's been no stop on that; it just has not been obligated yet.
  QUESTION: So '' and that is in September, correct?
  MS. HARF: And that will fall under the broad policy decision that the White House '' and with the input of us and many others '' ends up making.
  QUESTION: So in very clear terms --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- with the exception of the F-16s there has been no stop, no cutoff of any kinds of aid to Egypt?
  MS. HARF: With the '' well, we've also --
  QUESTION: With the exception of the F-16s --
  MS. HARF: So right, we've been very clear that we did not deliver the F-16s and we canceled Bright Star, which I know is not technically assistance; it's a military exercise. All of our aid is being reviewed right now, and broadly speaking, we are going to make decisions about every piece of that going forward based on what we have to do with the law and where our policy review ends up. But we have been clear that until that decision is made, we continue to pay our bills in conjunction with what our legal obligations are.
  QUESTION: On the 585 --
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: -- how come that has not been obligated yet? I mean, we're almost at the end of the fiscal year, aren't we?
  MS. HARF: There's no time by which '' every year is a little bit different '' we delivered a large tranche of it late in the spring. So I don't have a specific reason for you. I know there's not a hold on it. But again, things get delivered at different times for different reasons, and there's not a policy reason that it hasn't been delivered yet.
  QUESTION: Do you think it will be?
  MS. HARF: I don't want to speculate what the outcome of the policy review might look like.
  QUESTION: What will --
  QUESTION: Marie, can I --
  QUESTION: -- Secretary Kerry be recommending when he attends this cabinet-level session this afternoon?
  MS. HARF: I'm not going to get into internal deliberations about these issues. I think when we have announcements to make about our decisions, we will do so.
  QUESTION: Is he going to --
  QUESTION: Marie, can you --
  QUESTION: -- attend it, or is he going to be videoed in?
  MS. HARF: When Secretary Kerry is out of town, he attends meetings through videoconference, and I can assure you, will be fully engaged on this topic, as necessary.
  Yes.
  QUESTION: Can I ask you just to clear something up that I think all of us have read, and I'm sure you have since Senator Leahy is chairman of the subcommittee for appropriations that helps to handle paying the bills here?
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: So his office has said that there's a difference between policy and practice and that they have been informed that the transfer of military aid was, in fact, stopped. Again, they're phrasing it as practice, not official policy. When you say that since July 3rd we've continued to pay our bills --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- that seems to contradict this. So --
  MS. HARF: And DOD has been on the record talking about some of the things at this point, I believe, that they've continued to provide in the broader term of paying the bills. But DOD has been very clear that they've been sending things as well.
  QUESTION: So when you are saying that we're paying the bills, can you break down for us what is actually being paid there? Because the committee that's helping to oversee financing here basically says they've been told something else, that this building is doing something else. Why are they confused?
  MS. HARF: Well, you'd have to ask them what the genesis of their comments are. All I can speak for here is what our policy is and what I know is our practice, that we have not made a decision to suspend all of our aid to Egypt, we haven't made a decision to slow it down. This is all being reviewed right now, and that's why you see DOD being very clear that they're still sending some things. We've been clear '' and I don't have a breakdown about a specific example '' I think DOD has some good ones that they've put out there '' about the assistance we've continued providing. So I '' again, I'd refer you to them to explain their comments. All I can do is explain what the Administration's position and practice is.
  QUESTION: So for practice-wise, though, can you explain to us that perhaps when something's under review --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- what that means? Does that mean that we're waiting for the principals here to make the decision, thus the guys on the Hill have been told to stop what they're doing until they get that decision? So are they just stopping what they're doing rather than stopping the overall process? I think we're getting tangled in language here.
  MS. HARF: I think we're getting tangled in language on a lot of fronts today, but let's step back for a second. The Hill clearly plays a role in this, but in terms of who actually either pays the bills or sends these things or obligates money, that is done, of course, by the Administration. So we will continue consulting with Congress, and I would also underscore here that there are a wide diversity of opinions in Congress about where our Egypt policy should go from here. I think that's an important point.
  QUESTION: Could I --
  MS. HARF: But that the actual '' hold on one second, Said. The actual implementers of who delivers things is the Administration, so I can speak for what we're doing and what our policy is. Again, there's a policy review underway and decisions will be made by the interagency, of course, led by the President and the national security team about where we go from here.
  QUESTION: Your policy --
  QUESTION: Do you have a clue about the discrepancy? Do you have any clues, like what it might be?
  MS. HARF: I would not even want to venture a guess. I wouldn't.
  QUESTION: But it's correct to say that while a policy review is ongoing that it does not stop the pipeline in any way?
  MS. HARF: Not in any way. We've been clear --
  QUESTION: Beyond the F-16s?
  MS. HARF: Yeah. We keep going back to the F-16s. (Laughter.) No, that '' look, we're taking a look at all of our assistance. And if there are certain parts of it that may be subject to legal restrictions we won't '' legally speaking, we won't deliver those, right.
  QUESTION: So anything that might fall in that category then of the --
  MS. HARF: If there are things that are determined --
  QUESTION: -- it can't go forward?
  MS. HARF: Well, it's not '' I don't want to do a blanket statement here, because there's not a blanket answer. Everything's under review. If there are things that are '' that we determine may be subject to restrictions, that's a legal conversation we have at that point. There's a broader policy discussion ongoing about all of this, regardless of legal restrictions.
  QUESTION: Could --
  QUESTION: Can I ask a policy question?
  QUESTION: Can I ask about this? Sorry, just to understand the details of this.
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: But Marie, then the Times maybe was right on Monday, because anything '' I don't see how you could legally go forward with assistance that might be subject to restriction under U.S. law. So it seems to me --
  MS. HARF: Well, assistance is a big word there. There's a lot '' I mean, assistance covers a lot of things.
  QUESTION: Yeah. But my point is that I don't see how you could legally be giving the Egyptians any money that you thought might be subject to some kind of a restriction.
  MS. HARF: Well, we've undertaken a legal review and have determined that we have the legal authority to continue to provide most of our assistance without regard to whether a certain coup restriction applies.
  QUESTION: Okay. So --
  MS. HARF: So we've actual undertaken a legal review that we can continue to provide most of it '' I'll say this again, most of our assistance '' without regard to whether that specific restriction applies.
  QUESTION: But not all of it?
  MS. HARF: On the bucket of stuff '' and that's most, so on the small bucket of stuff that may be restricted, our legal analysis of that is ongoing. So we will make --
  QUESTION: But you're not giving that money?
  MS. HARF: I don't want to make a blanket statement, because I don't know --
  QUESTION: Well, but --
  MS. HARF: -- on every single little example of this where that stands, Arshad.
  QUESTION: Marie, how could you be giving that money if you're not sure if you legally can do so?
  MS. HARF: Because that legal review is ongoing.
  QUESTION: No, no. But if you're not sure of something legally, I don't see how you could do something potentially --
  MS. HARF: Well, we obviously wouldn't move forward --
  QUESTION: Let me finish --
  PARTICIPANT: -- before a review is done.
  QUESTION: -- potentially '' well, let me finish.
  MS. HARF: Yeah.
  QUESTION: -- potentially illegal by giving that money.
  MS. HARF: Correct. And we wouldn't move forward, hypothetically, with assistance before that legal review was done.
  QUESTION: Right. Okay.
  MS. HARF: Correct. Yes.
  QUESTION: So is that money on hold then?
  QUESTION: But Marie --
  QUESTION: It is.
  MS. HARF: There's not a specific bucket of money. This is much more complicated and complex than there's one bucket and two buckets and three buckets and we just checkmark, checkmark about when things can be delivered. There's a bucket of FMF that we have not yet obligated.
  QUESTION: Could I ask you a policy question?
  QUESTION: But Marie, just to follow up on --
  MS. HARF: Wait.
  QUESTION: I got that. Keep going. Keep going.
  MS. HARF: I was going to keep going. (Laughter.) There's a bucket of economic security funding that we've talked '' I think is what we're talking about. We have made a legal determination that we can continue to provide most of that assistance without --
  QUESTION: NGOs.
  MS. HARF: -- regardless of the restriction that may apply.
  QUESTION: NGOs and the --
  MS. HARF: Well, there's also some governmental funding --
  QUESTION: Democracy.
  MS. HARF: -- for democracy --
  QUESTION: Right. Okay.
  MS. HARF: -- health issues.
  QUESTION: Got it.
  MS. HARF: So most of our assistance can continue. So for that tiny bucket that there's a legal question about, there's a legal review. And of course, we would not do anything illegal.
  QUESTION: So maybe is that money on hold?
  MS. HARF: Of course we would not provide that before the legal review is undertaken.
  QUESTION: So isn't that money on hold then?
  MS. HARF: That money is on '' I wouldn't say that it's on hold. There's a review under '' the process underway. If it's determined that we can legally provide it, we will. If it's determined that we can't, we won't.
  QUESTION: And --
  QUESTION: Is this like money that's in the steam right now, so you're either going to have to hold it or stop it or you're going to have to let it go?
  MS. HARF: I don't understand your question. I'm sorry. What stream?
  QUESTION: Is it like a spigot? Is --
  MS. HARF: It's '' aid to Egypt is in no way like a spigot.
  QUESTION: Okay.
  MS. HARF: I think that's one misperception that we either turn it on or off.
  QUESTION: No, no. Let's not '' nobody's talking about spigots here, except you and Josh Earnest.
  QUESTION: Okay. Nobody's talking about spigots.
  MS. HARF: She brought up spigots.
  QUESTION: I didn't mean to bring it up. (Laughter.)
  QUESTION: She said stream, not spigot.
  MS. HARF: Well, she brought up spigot first.
  QUESTION: Okay. Forget the spigot. (Laughter.)
  MS. HARF: Okay. Yes. Continue.
  QUESTION: Okay. So these programs that you're still looking at, right --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- that the legal review is deciding whether you can do this legally or not --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- are these programs that have already been going on, or are these programs that are just like over here and ready to start?
  MS. HARF: I think it's probably a combination of both. I don't have a specific breakdown of those programs. That's why I don't want to make a blanket statement.
  QUESTION: So '' okay.
  MS. HARF: It's not because I don't want to tell you.
  QUESTION: So some of them are continuing on, right?
  MS. HARF: I do not have a specific breakdown on that.
  QUESTION: Can we go back to the '' you said that you --
  MS. HARF: I just don't, Deb.
  QUESTION: Okay.
  MS. HARF: I'm not trying to avoid the question. I just don't.
  QUESTION: You said that you have done a review that you can provide --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- most of your assistance without contravening any coup-related --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Correct.
  QUESTION: -- laws and regulations.
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: And then you referred to that tiny bucket --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Because most --
  QUESTION: I get it.
  MS. HARF: Yeah.
  QUESTION: Okay.
  MS. HARF: Okay.
  QUESTION: But you characterized it as tiny.
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: Since you have done that review and you have come to a conclusion that you can release most of it, except for that tiny bucket --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- how is it that you don't know what is the value of that tiny bucket?
  MS. HARF: I just don't have that number. Again, this is more complex than it sounds, Arshad.
  QUESTION: No, but how can --
  MS. HARF: It's much more complex than it sounds.
  QUESTION: But if the State Department has made a determination that it can proceed with all of this stuff, but not with that stuff --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- I don't see how somebody in this building doesn't know the value of that stuff.
  MS. HARF: Again, I can endeavor to get you more specifics about numbers. But I'm trying to make it very simple here by putting things into buckets, but as you all know, there are programs that do different things. There's funding that goes to programs that might do one thing that's acceptable and what's not. I'm not dodging the question.
  QUESTION: No, no, I understand that. I understand that. But I just don't believe --
  MS. HARF: So that's part of the problem here.
  QUESTION: I just '' I don't see how the Department could not have some estimate of the value of the monies whose legality '' of whose legality it is uncertain. But --
  MS. HARF: And all I can tell you is I am endeavoring to get you as specific a number as I can and I do not have it in front of me. That's all I can say on this one.
  QUESTION: And Marie, Marie --
  QUESTION: Can I ask you a policy question, please? Could I ask a policy --
  QUESTION: -- just one clarification.
  MS. HARF: I'll go to you next, Said. Yes, Jill, you go first.
  QUESTION: Okay. For those of us who do not have a legal degree, I just want to make sure '' a law degree '' I just wanted to make sure that when you say regardless of the restrictions that apply --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: Now, where are these restrictions coming from?
  MS. HARF: The restriction --
  QUESTION: Is this if the Administration defines it in the national interest or whatever? Because getting back to Arshad's question --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- forget about the coup, forget about the issue of the coup or anything that's going on --
  MS. HARF: Right.
  QUESTION: -- previous to this, wasn't everything, right from the beginning, determined to be legal before it became part of the aid?
  MS. HARF: I don't know exactly what your second question's getting at. We've said that part of the legal review we're undertaking involves our restrictions that Section 7008 may trigger. Again, we've been very clear that we're not going to make a determination one way or other on the coup and that we legally don't have to. But there are certain legal restrictions in terms of assistance that we must still abide by.
  QUESTION: Just so we're clear --
  QUESTION: Okay. So if a coup were to be '' if it were established to be a coup, that's what you're saying '' so regardless of the restrictions that apply --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- if it is to be deemed a coup --
  MS. HARF: Under that specific restriction, yes, that deals with that issue.
  QUESTION: Okay. All right. Gotcha.
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: Can we go to policy?
  MS. HARF: We can, Said.
  QUESTION: On Egypt? Now your policy stand is calling on the current authorities in Egypt to pull back from whatever they're doing in terms of repressing --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- the demonstrations and so on. But on the other hand, they're not listening to you at all. They are '' have arrested Mohammed Badie, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. They arrested Safwat Hegazy. They arrested a whole number of people. So the fact that you are not even using or waving the threat of cutting off aid and so on is actually emboldening them. Do you believe that? Do you concur with that?
  MS. HARF: I don't at all, Said. I would say a few things. First, we've made it clear, and the President made it clear, that business as usual cannot continue with Egyptian '' with the Egyptian Government '' excuse me '' when the situation on the ground is happening. And that's why we've taken steps, like delaying the F-16s, like canceling Bright Star. And we've also made very clear to the Egyptian Government that what happens on the ground is going to impact our policy review. And so it's incumbent upon them to move away from violence and towards an inclusive process. It's also incumbent upon all other parties in Egypt to move away from political polarization and rejoin '' as hard as it is, as tough as this process is '' an inclusive process as well. And we believe that we do need to remain engaged with the Egyptian Government. What form that takes is obviously part of the ongoing review, but we think it's in our best interest to help play a role '' again, even though it's tough '' to get Egypt back to a more inclusive place.
  QUESTION: So can I understand that not doing business as usual is actually the '' you cut off the F-16s and canceling Bright Star, which is really not a huge exercise '' it involves about 2,000 people and so on, and it was, in fact, put out a couple years ago. So this is not really a tremendous punishment.
  MS. HARF: Well, it's part of the overall picture.
  QUESTION: Part of it, but in terms of other things, not, let's say, business as usual, let's say your leverage at the IMF or your leverage at the World Bank, or in terms of investment or tourism or whatever. Are you using any of that to say that business cannot go on as usual?
  MS. HARF: Well, I think the President publicly said that business can't go on as usual. And I think the Egyptian interim government is well aware that right now we are doing a policy review to determine what our relationship will look like with Egypt going forward.
  QUESTION: But --
  MS. HARF: I think we've been clear that there '' we have serious concerns. We've condemned some of the things they've done. But we've also made clear that this is a very longstanding, important relationship. And this is a balancing act between how we best promote our interests and our values and our principles and can, going forward, have that kind of influence with the Egyptian Government.
  QUESTION: So General Sisi could look and see that you have a halfhearted effort to express your anger with them. On the other hand, he's getting all the support from your allies '' Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, everybody that '' even Israel '' they're all running '' rallying around him to embolden him, to give him '' and say, ''Go on, rah rah,'' and all this thing. He's not basically pulling back. So he's not doing this inclusive '' or taking that one step on the roadmap and which they had promised a month and a half ago.
  MS. HARF: Well, I'd make a few points. First, we're not at the end of this process. Clearly, this has been a long road that started in 2011, and on any given day, we can talk about the state of play. But our goal is to get back eventually to an inclusive process. But I would say that we have a very unique assistance relationship with Egypt, and we bring specific capabilities to the relationship that even Egyptian leaders have talked about.
  So assistance to Egypt and getting Egypt back to a better place economically is about more than simply writing checks. It's about foreign investment in Egypt; it's about encouraging tourism; it's about the international community being fully invested in helping Egypt grow its economy. And that is something that is very much, I think, dependent on our relationship with Egypt and others as well. So it's not just about sending money; it's about helping them get their economy to a sustainable place that's best for the Egyptian people.
  QUESTION: Okay. My last question: Are you disappointed with your allies '' Jordan, Saudi Arabia, even Israel '' for rallying into the '' to the side of General Sisi?
  MS. HARF: I don't want to use that term, Said. I think we will continue our discussions. The Secretary talks frequently with our partners in the region about this and other issues. We have had the same consistent message with our partners, with all parties in Egypt, about what our policy is, and are encouraging everyone to encourage the interim government and all parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, to play a constructive, inclusive role going forward.
  QUESTION: Yes, please.
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: First question related to the aid --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- but I'm not going to the buckets and all these things --
  MS. HARF: Spigot. (Laughter.)
  QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
  MS. HARF: Someone should be playing bingo.
  QUESTION: It's just when you use the term, ''pay the bills'' --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- you are talking about the American companies of manufacturing weapons, or pay the bills of '' to Egypt?
  MS. HARF: I'm using that term colloquially, a little loosely, right. So basically, where there are ongoing programs and there '' because there hasn't been a policy decision made to suspend our assistance to Egypt. Where there are ongoing programs, we have continued participating in those programs. Again, we've announced when we haven't. We've talked about the F-16s and Bright Star here. But until a policy decision's been made, that's how '' that's what we've been operating under, yes.
  QUESTION: Second question related to same: And it was raised the issue of Apache helicopters.
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: Is Apache helicopter '' I don't know if --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- clear for you '' is part of the 585 million, or it's already approved already that one?
  MS. HARF: I don't know the specifics. I just know that we have nothing to announce at this point on the Apache helicopters.
  QUESTION: Okay. Yes. The '' it was raised the issue of the arresting Mohammed Badie and I would just dispute the idea of the spiritual leader. Muslim Brotherhood are not Sufis nor Zen Buddhists. It's like it's political activist or political party. So based on that, and the process of arresting people, do you have any contacts with Egyptians regarding these issues in particular? Are you raising the issue, in what level? And how do you contacting the Muslim Brotherhood side, especially the incitement are still going on, which using power or force or, whatever, violence?
  MS. HARF: Well '' oh, sorry.
  QUESTION: I'm just trying to ''
  MS. HARF: Okay.
  QUESTION: It's yours.
  MS. HARF: We've said repeatedly that we oppose arbitrary arrests and detentions in Egypt, of course, as we do around the world. This case is no different. I don't have any specifics about diplomatic conversations to read out for you. Our folks on the ground are engaged in this very closely, but I don't have any specifics.
  I think one point we've consistently made is that the interim government has responsibilities to move away from violence and to move towards an inclusive process, but also that the Muslim Brotherhood and other parties have responsibilities as well to protest peacefully, to work towards rejoining an inclusive process, even though it is an incredibly difficult thing to do after what we've seen, but because it's in the best interest of the Egyptian people. So we will keep making that point with all of the parties on the ground there.
  QUESTION: Yesterday, from this podium was used the suspicious killing of the --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- arrested people. Are you still trying to figure out what is the real story about it?
  MS. HARF: Yes. I don't have any updates for you on that.
  QUESTION: And the second one, which is related to the mosques, the Christian churches in Egypt: It was mentioned that '' some reports in the newspapers and editorial, that the main reason of these attacks was that they are not '' they were not protected by Egyptian police. Do you dispute this story or it's true that it was attacked because there was no enough security?
  MS. HARF: Well, I don't have exact details on the security situation. But what I've said, and what we will continue to say, is these are heinous acts. There's no place for this kind of violence against churches or other places in Egypt, but particularly against Coptic churches. I don't have specifics on the security situation, but I think we've made that point very clear and underscored that it needs to stop.
  QUESTION: Tomorrow in Brussels, the foreign ministers of European Union are meeting and discuss different measures. Are you in touch with the European Union to make a kind of '' as people are asking for '' punishment or incentives or whatever you can call it regarding the Egyptian rulers' attitudes towards the Islamism or the Islamist inclusion?
  MS. HARF: Well, we've stayed in constant communication with our counterparts in Europe. I believe the Secretary talked to the EU High Representative Ashton today. I can double-check on that. Clearly, this is a topic of conversation that they have a lot and that we will continue pressing our position with them and encouraging them, of course, to keep playing the role that they've played.
  QUESTION: Has the Secretary spoken to any of his counterparts in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, other countries?
  MS. HARF: I don't have a full list. Let me see what I can get for you. I believe he's made a few calls, but I just want to make sure I have an update one. I can get it after the briefing.
  QUESTION: But you know --
  MS. HARF: Yes. I'll go to you, Said. Go ahead, yes. You've been very patiently waiting, yes.
  QUESTION: Thank you so much. And from Egypt to Bangladesh --
  MS. HARF: Oh, wait, hold on, let me finish Egypt and then we'll go to Bangladesh.
  QUESTION: Okay.
  MS. HARF: You're up next.
  QUESTION: Very quick on Egypt.
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: The Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia made very strong words; actually, they were almost hostile to the United States of America. Do you have any comment on this, I mean, considering that they are friends, the Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia in this case?
  MS. HARF: Well, we have a very close relationship with the Saudis. I think you've '' we've all been on trips --
  QUESTION: I'm just following up on Margaret's question --
  MS. HARF: -- with the Secretary where he's gone there. Yeah.
  QUESTION: -- in terms of speaking with any of these --
  MS. HARF: Yeah, I don't know if there's been a phone call with the Saudis. I can double-check, Said. But we've been in close communication with them. Clearly, we've kept pressing what our position is, and while every country has the ability to make their own policies, we will keep talking with them and discussing with them ways we can play productive roles going forward in Egypt.
  Yes, Egypt still?
  QUESTION: Yes, Egypt.
  MS. HARF: Okay.
  QUESTION: Thanks, Marie.
  MS. HARF: Yep.
  QUESTION: Not to beat a dead horse, but I just want to be absolutely clear. For that tiny, figurative bucket --
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: -- of funds whose legality is under review --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- are funds in that bucket being temporarily withheld during the legal review?
  MS. HARF: It's my understanding '' let me get a better answer for you before I make a blanket statement. It's my understanding that that's the case. But again, we have made the legal determination that most of our assistance can continue. Obviously, if there's a legal question, we wouldn't go forward with something. But again, there's been no blanket hold put on all of our assistance. There's not been a decision to suspend assistance. That policy review is still ongoing.
  QUESTION: But that's what I was asking. I was asking whether or not there's been any kind of hold on that '' the tiny bucket, or if that's just moving along as (inaudible).
  MS. HARF: If there's a legal '' I think I'm safe saying here that if there's a legal question about whether something should be sent, we will not send it while the legal review is ongoing. Yes.
  QUESTION: But the legal review has to do with things that would be related to military financing, security and the like, even though that's from the portion that's not in the 1.3 billion '' from that 260 million --
  MS. HARF: From the --
  QUESTION: -- that remains?
  MS. HARF: Correct. And a lot '' I mean, it's things, for example, that would go to the government, but a lot of that money '' as I said, most of it we can continue providing.
  QUESTION: Okay. Do you know what the 585 is for?
  MS. HARF: The rest of the FMF?
  QUESTION: Yes.
  MS. HARF: I don't have a specific breakdown on what that's for. I can try to get more details on that. I just don't have a breakdown in front of me.
  QUESTION: I know it's not obligated, but it could be earmarked.
  MS. HARF: I don't '' the answer is I don't know.
  QUESTION: Okay.
  MS. HARF: I can try and find out.
  QUESTION: So there is a '' maybe that's the difference between what the Hill people are saying and what you guys are saying, the discrepancy is that that money in that tiny bucket is kind of on hold until you finish your legal review because you don't want to break any laws.
  MS. HARF: I think what '' the stories I've been seeing out there and these reports I've been seeing out there that the Administration has made a decision to suspend or hold all of our assistance to Egypt '' that's the story that's out there right now. I am saying categorically that's not true.
  QUESTION: True. Okay. We get that. But if this little --
  MS. HARF: Yeah. But that's been the story that's been out there.
  QUESTION: But if the '' but you have put a hold on this little thing until you decide whether or not it's going against your '' the laws, right?
  MS. HARF: I mean, certainly, yes, we're doing a legal review of that bucket to make sure that we can proceed with it or we can't. But there's been no Administration policy decision on this, which I think has been a lot of the confusion --
  QUESTION: Got it.
  MS. HARF: -- out there, quite frankly. And some '' which the stories have said.
  QUESTION: Okay, well that's '' so that's, like, a pretty easy '' that's pretty easy to understand. (Laughter.)
  QUESTION: But Marie, was '' (laughter) '' Marie, was that --
  QUESTION: She said it wasn't --
  QUESTION: Was the money in the tiny bucket, or whatever it is '' (laughter) --
  QUESTION: We don't know how much money --
  QUESTION: -- it's driving me insane '' was that already previously assigned?
  MS. HARF: The answer is I don't know. I believe that a lot of it has been, but I don't know if some of its ongoing, if some of its new. I just don't have a specific breakdown. Again, I'm endeavoring to get you more on all of this, but it's complex and there's a lot of different factors at play, even with that tiny bucket, surprisingly.
  QUESTION: Does the '' does this Administration believe that in many parts, aid is '' governments feel that aid needs to continue flowing into '' so that you have leverage? Pulling aid back is complicated and it's hard to restart, that kind of aid. What is the feeling of the State Department about continuing aid to make sure that many areas are not compromised? And also, that signal that the U.S. sends by stopping aid is a very strong signal for other development projects and so on that goes on in the world. How much of that money '' I mean, how much of this do you feel that the Administration needs to keep on pushing through that aid, no matter what?
  MS. HARF: Right. Well, first I would say that this is part of the discussion that's ongoing right now at very high levels in this government about exactly that: What should our relationship with assistance look like with Egypt going forward? What makes sense? What doesn't? Do some things make more sense than others? That's part of what's going into this whole policy review right now. I don't want to get ahead of that. I don't want to prejudge. Clearly, we believe that engaging with the Egyptian Interim Government, whatever means that takes going forward, is important and that we have to make decisions on these issues based on our national security interests, which we've said from the start, and also on our values and our principles and what makes sense for us to do going forward. I don't want to get ahead of that process. Again, people are '' at a very high level are in discussions about all of these issues on an ongoing basis right now.
  QUESTION: Are you '' when we want to talk about this tiny bucket, what can we say? What's the amount of the (inaudible)?
  MS. HARF: I don't have a number for you. I don't.
  QUESTION: But we cannot say ''tiny bucket.''
  MS. HARF: I '' (laughter) '' I said we have determined legally that we can continue to provide most of our assistance regardless of whether this restriction will apply. There's been a legal determination about most of our assistance, and this is under the ESF, this, I think, 250, 260 number that we've been talking about. Again, there's a tiny portion of that that we're doing a legal review of right now. But again, that's a very small portion of the overall policy review that we're doing on everything. So I know we're very focused on that tiny bucket, but I would actually encourage folks to take a step back and say, okay, there's a broader policy review underway about what our entire relationship with Egypt and their assistance will look like going forward. So I know it's tempting to get down in the weeds, and it's important to get down in the weeds, but we need to bring it up a little bit and say, okay, where are we going from here and what is going to happen with all of this money and our relationship going forward?
  QUESTION: So do you believe that this --
  MS. HARF: I'll go to you next there.
  QUESTION: -- strategic relationship with Egypt, that has been nurtured over a period of 35 years, has been irrevocably hurt in the last month?
  MS. HARF: I wouldn't use those terms at all. I think we have made clear throughout the decades, through a lot, quite frankly, including in 2011 and including in the months and years since, that this is an important relationship, that Egypt plays a key role in regional stability, and that we have a relationship with Egypt that is important and that we will continue to work with them going forward. But clearly, we can't ignore what's happened in the past days and weeks, and that's why you've seen the President order his national security team to say, okay, what are we doing going forward? Where does our assistance go? What should this relationship look like? Because of exactly what's happened in the last few days, but it's a complicated relationship.
  QUESTION: Marie, is any of that money in the tiny bucket '' is that '' was that part of any budget assistance to the government?
  MS. HARF: I do not know the answer to that.
  QUESTION: And just one more weeds question.
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: If you're making a legal review to decide whether or not such a designation is going to affect you being able to spend the money --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- why do you have to do the legal review again? Because you've already decided you're not going to determine whether it's a coup or not.
  MS. HARF: Well, restrictions '' certain restrictions apply whether or not you officially designate a certain event as a coup or as not a coup. So certain restrictions may apply in certain situations. Again '' I hate to keep saying this '' but it's complex, and that's why it's not an easy yes-or-no answer.
  QUESTION: But it's still the coup law, right?
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. It's the same restriction, but again, that's separate from whether or not we are legally required to determine whether a coup has happened or not.
  QUESTION: Can I change subject?
  MS. HARF: Anything else on Egypt?
  QUESTION: How do you view the security situation --
  MS. HARF: Okay.
  QUESTION: -- in Egypt? Do you think that it's getting better, or how do you look at it?
  MS. HARF: Across all of Egypt?
  QUESTION: Yeah.
  MS. HARF: Broadly speaking, well, we remain concerned, of course, about the security situation, particularly in certain places. We've called on the interim government as the ones with the preponderance of power to take steps to reduce violence and ensure the security and safety of their people. We'll continue talking about specific incidents as they arise, and we'll keep giving the same message to the interim government that we have all along. Of course, we've talked a little bit about the Sinai in here as well, so we'll remain very focused on the security situation in the Sinai as well.
  Yes. And then I'll go to you. Yeah.
  QUESTION: I was wondering, back when Jen announced the '' or when she commented on the decision to cancel Bright Star --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- she mentioned that it wouldn't have any '' that nobody thought that it would have any kind of impact on the situation on the ground, rather that it was sending a message. Do you think that withholding any or all of U.S. aid would have an impact on the ground, or would that also be more aimed toward sending a message?
  MS. HARF: Well, I think those things are a little bit related, and I was here that day and I remember her comments. I don't have those exact comments in front of me.
  QUESTION: Yeah. I'm paraphrasing as well.
  MS. HARF: Yeah, I know, and it's okay. But I think '' look, we have a relationship with Egypt. We are pressing them through diplomatic channels, through very high-level diplomatic engagement at times, and also with other leaders in Washington, to move back towards an inclusive process. We've been pushing that from the beginning. Our assistance is one part of the overall relationship, so I would caution people from saying if we make one policy decision or another that the next day something will or won't happen. That's not how the world works, quite frankly, and it's certainly not how Egypt works.
  So I think what you're seeing right now is everybody saying: Okay, how can we best promote our interests and our policy, which is getting back to a democratic process? How can we best work with all parties? How does assistance fit into that? Where does it fit into that? And so all of these complicated issues are right now being discussed by our national security team. And if there were easy answers, we would have already made these decisions, but there aren't, as all of us who have studied Egypt for a long time know. So I think all of those play into what happens next.
  QUESTION: And beyond, like, national security interests and --
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- values, which you mentioned before, are there '' can you go into any more detail and provide any more criteria or factors that are playing into that policy review, that decision --
  MS. HARF: Well, clearly, the situation on the ground and what decisions the interim government's taking obviously '' I think it should go without saying '' play into that. But our national security interests, including the role that Egypt plays in regional stability, the economic situation that Egypt is currently facing and how we can best help them move forward with economic growth and assistance in that way as well. So there's a lot that goes into this, as we all are well aware.
  Yes.
  QUESTION: Is ensuring that the Egyptian military still has full control in the Sinai and securing the border of Israel a factor in the policy review?
  MS. HARF: Well, clearly, we're concerned about the security situation in Sinai. We've encouraged the interim government to pay attention to it, as we have. Again, I'm not going to put any specific criteria or litmus tests on the table for how this policy decision's being made, but clearly, Sinai is a key area for us for a number of reasons, one of which is, of course, Israel, but for other reasons as well.
  QUESTION: I have a question on a totally different subject.
  MS. HARF: Let me finish Egypt and then I'll go to you.
  QUESTION: Sure.
  MS. HARF: Is there anything else on Egypt or have we exhausted Egypt?
  QUESTION: Yeah, I wonder if you could have a comment on Mr. Erdogan's comment that Israel stands behind --
  MS. HARF: I do.
  QUESTION: -- the coup in Egypt.
  MS. HARF: We strongly condemn these statements. Suggesting that Israel is responsible for recent events in Egypt is offensive, unsubstantiated, and wrong. These statements distract from the urgent need of all regional countries to work together through constructive dialogue to address the fluid and dangerous situation in Egypt.
  Egypt, still? Hold on one second. Egypt?
  QUESTION: One last one.
  MS. HARF: Okay.
  QUESTION: Egypt-Israel.
  MS. HARF: Okay.
  QUESTION: Is the present situation in Egypt a factor in Israel asking for more military aid?
  MS. HARF: I haven't seen those reports, and I actually don't have anything for you on that.
  QUESTION: Can we go to the Israeli-Palestinian talks?
  MS. HARF: Yeah, let me do '' and then we'll go to you.
  QUESTION: This is a one-question subject, I promise you.
  MS. HARF: I'm going to hold you to that.
  QUESTION: (Laughter.) What is the United States doing to help get Shakil Afridi, the physician who assisted the United States in the hunt for Usama bin Ladin, freed from prison in Pakistan?
  MS. HARF: Yes, thank you for the question. We obviously regret that Dr. Afridi was convicted and the severity of his sentence. The Secretary raised Dr. Afridi's case with Pakistan's leadership during his recent trip to Islamabad. Bringing Usama bin Ladin to justice was clearly in Pakistan's interest as well as in our own. The prosecution and conviction of Dr. Afridi sends exactly the wrong message about the importance of this shared interest. We have clearly communicated this position to Pakistan both in public and in private, and we'll continue to raise this issue during our discussion with Pakistan's senior leadership.
  QUESTION: And you get no good answers?
  MS. HARF: I don't have anything for you on that about our private diplomatic discussions. We have been clear what our position is, and we'll continue raising it at a high level.
  QUESTION: So there's no reason to believe he's going to be free anytime soon?
  MS. HARF: I don't have any predictions to make for you, other than to tell you that we've raised the issue, the Secretary raised it recently, and we will continue to do so.
  QUESTION: Thank you.
  MS. HARF: Yeah.
  QUESTION: Marie, do you have any update on the Israeli-Palestinian talks? We understand that they could be resuming, going into the next phase in Jeddah?
  MS. HARF: I don't --
  QUESTION: They were held today?
  QUESTION: Not Jeddah, Jericho.
  QUESTION: No.
  QUESTION: They were held today?
  QUESTION: No, they have resumed in Jerusalem today apparently.
  QUESTION: Oh, they did?
  QUESTION: Yeah.
  MS. HARF: I don't have any '' I can just let you guys litigate this now.
  QUESTION: (Laughter.) If you could just --
  MS. HARF: I don't have any updates for you or additional readouts. Our Ambassador Indyk remains in the region, but I don't have any additional details for you about the talks.
  QUESTION: But you do '' you confirm that they did have a meeting today in Jerusalem?
  MS. HARF: I don't have any additional details to confirm for you, Said.
  QUESTION: No date on Jericho?
  MS. HARF: No dates for you yet.
  QUESTION: You're not aware that there was a meeting? Well, then how --
  MS. HARF: That's different than ''I don't have anything to confirm for you, Said.''
  QUESTION: Okay. But --
  MS. HARF: That's a different statement.
  QUESTION: No, let me just '' but the meeting has already taken place in Jerusalem, correct?
  MS. HARF: I have no additional details or readout from any meetings that may have taken place on Middle East peace. We've been clear, we've tried to set expectations that we won't announce every meeting, we won't talk about every meeting, and we won't read out every meeting. And that position holds.
  QUESTION: Marie, do you have any comment about this murder of the Australian '' I'm sorry '' the murder of the Australian in Oklahoma?
  MS. HARF: I do. The United States is deeply saddened to hear the tragic news of the death of an Australian citizen in Oklahoma. This is clearly a tragic death, and we extend our condolences to the family and the loved ones. We understand that local authorities are focused on bringing those responsible to justice. Clearly, we would support that.
  QUESTION: Yes.
  MS. HARF: Bangladesh, go ahead. Do you have a follow-up?
  QUESTION: I guess not, no. Thank you.
  MS. HARF: Okay. I can come back if you do.
  QUESTION: Well, thank you very much. As we speak, Bangladesh democracy is now again under threat. As you are aware of, that the Prime Minister has stalled any dialogue with the opposition leading to a situation that may be very explosive in days coming up. And this is against this '' on the issue of a caretaker government, the opposition leader has taken her position, and no election, she made it very clear, can be held under her administration. So things are going into '' in a different shape. Hope not there is violence and bloodshed, but the concern here is that the minorities '' the minorities in Bangladesh are scared to death now, because if anything happens leading up to the election and post-election, whatever that may be, the minorities may be affected by it. Especially our big neighbor, India, is very much concerned about their latest political situation that is unfolding in Bangladesh with these political things going on, a very explosive thing, and they have rightly spotted that.
  What is the position of the State Department? Because State Department seems to be a little bit mum on this issue other than Ambassador Mozena having a latest round of talk with the senior policy maker Begum Zia of the opposition, and we don't know the outcome, whether that was being made as a specific suggestion for having a government which is acceptable to all in conducting of elections and how to avoid bloodshed in a post-election scenario. So this is a very, very tricky situation that Bangladesh is in now.
  MS. HARF: And I appreciate the question. I don't have a lot of specifics for you. I don't have any diplomatic conversations to read out. Clearly we are concerned, as we are everywhere, about minority rights and the protection of minority rights. I think that certainly goes without saying that we are here as well. I can endeavor to get you some more specific response to what you asked about. I just don't '' I don't have any additional detail right now.
  QUESTION: Would you please take this question?
  MS. HARF: I will. I will take it as a question for you.
  QUESTION: Thank you so much.
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  Let's go to Scott, and then I'll come up to Jill.
  QUESTION: Marie, what can you tell us about the status of the American Embassy in Yemen?
  MS. HARF: The American Embassy in Yemen reopened. I think we announced that a few days ago. Did we?
  QUESTION: No.
  MS. HARF: Hold on. Let me double-check on that then. I believe that it reopened, but let me double-check on that. I thought we'd announced that, but I might have my embassies mixed up. Let me double-check on that and get back to you. I'm sorry I don't have that in front of me.
  Anything else? Yes, Scott.
  QUESTION: Yes, another, please.
  MS. HARF: Sorry.
  QUESTION: There's reports from the Nigerian Government about the possible death of the Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau. Does the United States have any information about that?
  MS. HARF: Yes. Just give me one second, please. We have seen these reports and are working to ascertain the facts. As many of you know, he was also falsely reported dead in 2009. He's the most visible leader of Boko Haram, and if his death '' it turns out to be true, the loss of such a central and well known figure would set back Boko Haram's operations and remove a key voice from its efforts to mobilize violent extremists in Nigeria and around the world. So we will continue to support Nigeria as it works to reach a comprehensive and lasting peace in the north. I don't know if we've talked about this before, but recently on August 15th, Under Secretary Wendy Sherman actually traveled there, talked '' and heard discussions about regional security, including how we can further partner with Nigeria to develop and implement effective counterterrorism measures.
  QUESTION: And on Mali ''
  MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
  QUESTION: -- the President today congratulated Mali on ''
  MS. HARF: Yes.
  QUESTION: -- the election. Does that mean that aid that was frozen last year during the coup can restart or resume?
  MS. HARF: That's all being looked at right now. I think the President's statement speaks for itself. Clearly we're all on the same page there, and that's a process that logistical in nature, and that's being looked at right now. I don't have anything to announce, but as we have decisions made on this or any other assistance, we're happy to announce them.
  Thanks, guys.
  (The briefing was concluded at 3:09 p.m.)
  DPB # 141
Marie Harf | The Center for a New American Security
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 01:09
  Media Spokesperson, Central Intelligence AgencyMarie E. Harf is a Media Spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, a position she has held since June 2008. Ms. Harf is part of the small team that develops the Agency's media strategy and responds to queries from reporters on a wide range of national security and intelligence topics. She staffs senior Agency officials at public appearances, helps prepare them for press interviews, and organizes CIA-hosted media events.
  Ms. Harf began her career at the CIA in the Directorate of Intelligence, where she was an analyst on Middle East leadership issues from March 2006 until June 2008. In this role, she produced finished intelligence products -- including for the President's Daily Brief -- on top foreign policy priorities, providing both insight and context while identifying risks and opportunities for the United States. She also authored in-depth assessments of foreign leaders, which were shared with U.S. officials before bilateral and multilateral meetings.
  Ms. Harf received her Master's Degree in Foreign Affairs from the University of Virginia, where her thesis dealt with regime stability in Saudi Arabia. She graduated with honors from Indiana University, earning a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science with concentrations in Russian and Eastern European Studies and Jewish Studies. Ms. Harf is a native of Granville, Ohio, and a staunch Ohio State Buckeye football fan.
VIDEO- State Dept: Action Against Clinton's Benghazi Fall Guys Was Not Warranted - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 01:07
Gwendolen Morgan | Bindmans LLP
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:47
  Gwendolen advises and represents individuals and a range of NGOs, companies and institutional clients. She has a broad public law and human rights practice encompassing healthcare, community care law, equality law, information law and privacy issues, challenges to criminal justice public law decisions, education law, environmental protection, animal welfare law, and international human rights law.
  Gwendolen is a consultant trainer for the British Institute of Human Rights (to local and central government staff and NGOs). She has also recently given seminars on using the law as a campaigning tool for the Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare, access to healthcare for migrants for the charity 'Freedom From Torture' and human rights in an era of austerity to the ICD International Human Rights Congress.
  She and colleagues in the public law department are happy to provide bespoke training e.g. on public law and Third Party Interventions, using judicial review to further campaigning aims, or on a specific area of policy in which clients work. They also often help with inhouse legal advice or factsheets.
  Professional Memberships and pro bono work
  Gwendolen is a member of the International Senior Lawyers Project pro bono panel. She is involved in the Solicitors International Human Rights Group and Advocates for International Development (A4ID). Gwendolen also advises on Liberty's Human Rights advice line.
  She is on the committee of the London Irish Lawyers Association working on developing its pro bono network. She recently advised in relation to the Residential Institutions statutory scheme for survivors of abuse in Irish residential institutions and will work with groups to ensure that the end scheme is fair and effective in meeting survivors' needs.
  Gwendolen was a founding committee member of Young Legal Aid Lawyers and served from 2005-2011. She continues to campaign on access to justice issues.
  Awards: 'Highly commended' in the category of Junior Lawyer of the Year at the Law Society Excellence Awards 2009, and Finalist in the 2008 Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year awards.
  Career
  Gwendolen studied law at Trinity College Dublin and Granada University. Before qualifying as a solicitor in Fisher Meredith LLP in 2006, she worked in the European Commission's Justice and Home Affairs department, the Central District Court of California, and assisted on Redress Board abuse cases in Ireland. Gwendolen joined Bindmans as a solicitor in 2008 and was made Associate in 2012.
  Publications and Media work
  Gwendolen has published articles on issues ranging from education law, discrimination, EU law and animal welfare to policing and freedom of expression. She is on the New Law Journal Public Law panel and contributes to Halsburys Law Exchange, Lexis Nexis, Oxford Human Rights Hub, The Observer, Index on Censorship, Independent Lawyer and many others. She is frequently asked to comment on cases and legal issues in print and broadcast media here and overseas.
  Languages
  French, Spanish, German and Irish; basic Dutch, Italian and Russian.
  Public law and human rights
  Public law challenges for victims of crime against the CPS and police for failure to properly investigate credible allegations. One case resulted in one of the first trafficking for forced labour prosecutions brought in the UK. Another led to the first Article 4 finding against the UK before the European Court of Human Rights (CN v. United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1911). The AIRE centre and EHRC intervened, and Anti-Slavery International and Kalayaan contributed evidence on the wider policy issues. For further details click here and see the blog articles on the Oxford Human Rights Hub.JR for the Law Society with Stephen Grosz QC challenging cuts to criminal legal aid '' R(Law Society) v. Lord Chancellor and Legal Services Commission EWHC [2012] 794 (Admin).Representing the Interested Party in a seminal judicial review of the DPP's decision not to prosecute in relation to a historical rape allegation '' R(F) v. DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin).A colonial public law and international human rights challenge for a Cayman Islands prisoner seeking a transfer.Advising education providers in relation to Ofsted inspections.Public service cuts cases '' for example:- A judicial review challenge for Harlow Welfare Rights & Advice Centre, whose legal advice funding was cut by Harlow District Council '' CO/475/2013.- A challenge for a group of disabled people against West Sussex's changes to its social care eligibility policy. She also acted for a group in Haringey concerned about day centre closures.- A judicial review for a group of students with complex learning difficulties against the Learning and Skills Council's decision to cease funding a specialist residential college in Wales in breach of its public sector equality duties '' CO/11697/2009.- Advising a multi-cultural literature trust on a public law challenge to Arts Council funding cuts.- Acting in numerous successful challenges involving cuts to individual's care packages, changes to care home and residential education placements, unfair charges for services and decisions which risk harming children, care leavers, elderly people and victims of trafficking.An Article 8 based judicial review against a local authority which had widely disseminated unsubstantiated criminal allegations made against her client causing him severe loss and distress: £60k damages and costs were awarded.Assisted in the following cases:- Advice in relation to the unlawful blacklisting of peaceful environmental and animal welfare activists by private companies with possible state collusion alongside Tamsin Allen and Mike Schwarz.- R (A Child) v Chief Constable of Dorset [2011] 1 FLR 11 '' acting for the Interested Party in a JR so as to prevent the police from serving the claimant with sensitive confidential documents about the vulnerable IP.- A v B [2009] UKSC 12 - a public law/Art 10 challenge to MI5's refusal to permit publication of a former employee's memoirs. (The adequacy of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is now under close parliamentary scrutiny since the PRISM revelations in 2013.)- Equality and Human Rights Commission's successful third party intervention in R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] UKHL 63.- Challenging the Foreign Office's refusal to properly investigate a massacre by British troops in Malaya in 1948.Animal Welfare and Environmental Protection
  Working with Badger Trust, Humane Society International, Compassion in World Farming, RSPCA, Secret World Wildlife Rescue, Save the Beaver, and other animal welfare NGOS on cases and campaigns.Advising on public law, environmental law, animal welfare, charity and licensing issues, Advertising Standards Agency challenges, Electoral Commission and Press Complaints Commission procedures, EU law, Aarhus and Protective Costs Orders, Environmental Information appeals to the ICO, and complaints to the international Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.Providing training to the Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare on using public law and judicial review to assist campaigning clients, and training for Badger Trust on badger-related legal issues.Case sample:
  Advising a group of environmentalists and community activists in relation to a public law challenge to the Olympics Development Authority plan to take over a local green space amenity.Representing the Badger Trust in relation to the proposed badger culls.- In R(Badger Trust) v. Welsh Ministers [2010] All ER (D) 125 the Court of Appeal quashed the Order permitting culling in Wales on all three grounds. A Protective Costs Order was also granted in her client's favour. Following a further challenge by the Trust, the new Minister for Environment ordered vaccination as a sustainable effective alternative to culling.- See media coverage in relation to the ongoing challenges to culling in England http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/21/badgers-bovine-tuberculosis and the 2012 judicial review '' R(Badger Trust) v. DEFRA [2012] EWCA Civ 1286.- In 2013, the Information Commissioner found in favour of Badger Trust's appeal against DEFRA's refusal to disclose key documents on the risks associated with culling. DEFRA has appealed to the tribunal with Badger Trust as a co-respondent. For background on the Environmental Information Regs case click here.- She has advised the Badger Trust and Humane Society International in relation to Bern Convention international environmental law complaints in relation to the culls.ternational environmental law complaints in relation to the culls.Public/Private Law challenges arising out of policing and criminal justice
  Along with other members of the public law team, Gwendolen works closely with Bindmans criminal law department when injustices arise out of police practices. They co-wrote the firm's Right to Protest microsite to assist with peaceful demos.
  Case sample:
  Advising in challenges to inappropriate police cautions, unlawful arrests, search warrants and retention of personal data (e.g. photos, information, fingerprints and DNA).Successfully preventing disclosure on criminal records certificates of historical, inaccurate allegations made against her clients which would have unfairly caused them to lose their jobs or prevented them from following a particular university course.She settled a judicial review for a young autistic boy whose data was retained unlawfully '' R (Z) - v - Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police (CO/4339/2011)Following a successful judicial review she brought with Stephen Grosz, they negotiated a £2m group settlement arising out of a police raid on a peaceful protesters' social centre following the 2009 G20 summit. The police had operated an unlawful policy of indiscriminately arresting, handcuffing, searching, photographing and filming 60 clients for an invited press corp.Successfully appealing against the Security Industry Authority's decision to revoke her client's door supervisor licence on the basis of a criminal record.Settling Court of Appeal challenge C1/2010/1781 for an Interested Party seeking to prevent disclosure of his confidential personal data by the Defendant police force in the course of judicial review proceedings.Discrimination Law
  Advising a wide range of NGOs, the Law Society and others in relation to equality law matters.An EHRC-funded race discrimination claim against BA which focuses on the territorial application of the Equality Act 2010. The test case will go to trial in late 2013.In a claim relating to disability discrimination in the provision of services, she secured a favourable mediation settlement for a HIV+ client with Equality and Human Rights Commission support.She successfully settled one of the first discrimination claims under EC Regulation No. 1107/2006 for a disabled international air passenger.She has brought a number of successful Equality Act claims for students in the education sphere eg against a grammar school in relation to its unlawful admissions policy and a university in relation to its accreditation systems.She persuaded a leading DIY chain to change its policy nationwide and make the 'reasonable adjustment' of providing wheelchairs on-site to disabled customers in 171 stores.Health and social care
  She has successfully represented a number of 'overseas visitors' in relation to charges imposed for healthcare, and advice to individuals on unfair charges for social care and care homes.She has won a number of NHS appeals for clients seeking funding for exceptional medical treatment.She persuaded a PCT to overturn a 'Do Not Resuscitate' order for a critically ill, disabled young child whose family considered further treatment could assist.She successfully challenged PCTs on a number of NHS Continuing Care decisions and has frequently engaged in negotiations with local authorities about care home closures, clients' care packages, charges for public services and choice of residential accommodation.She frequently advises charities representing service users in relation to children in need, care leavers, disabled and elderly clients. She has also advised local authorities on the rights of care leavers.Administrative and public law: Highly rated associate Gwendolen Morgan handles public law relating to animal welfare, education and social care. Sources comment that she is "going to be a big name."Chambers UK (2013)
  Civil liberties and human rights: Clients value Gwendolen Morgan's hard work and input and the results that she is able to secure. Her practice is broad, taking in asylum and trafficking, issues surrounding the right to privacy and discriminatory practices.Chambers UK (2013)
  Healthcare: Associate Gwendolen Morgan is "emerging as a leading practitioner.''Legal 500 (2012)
  Administrative and public law: Gwendolen Morgan is "exceptionally able."Legal 500 (2012)
  Administrative and public law: Gwendolen Morgan is praised for taking a "creative, hard-working and robust" approach to her work. She successfully represented the Badger Trust in a challenge to the Welsh Assembly Government's proposed badger cull.Chambers UK (2012)
  Civil liberties and human rights: The market recognises Gwendolen Morgan for her "sharp brain" and recent work on a European Court of Human Rights forced labour case arising out of her successful challenges against the CPS and police for failure to properly investigate allegations of mistreatment. She is involved in a significant amount of human rights training, writing and campaigning work, and sources agree that "she knows exactly how to play a case tactically, is well in tune with the issues, and understands where the pressure points are."Chambers UK (2012)
  Administrative and public law: Gwendolen Morgan has "tremendous imagination and judgement."Legal 500 (2011)
  Civil liberties and human rights: Gwendolen Morgan has the "tact and sensitivity to deal with sensitive and difficult issues."Legal 500 (2011)
  Recommended in Administrative and public law and Civil liberties and human rights.Legal 500 (2011)
British Newspaper Has Advantages in Battle With Government Over Secrets - NYTimes.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:45
  LONDON '-- Alan Rusbridger, the mop-haired, soft-spoken editor of The Guardian newspaper, finds himself in a shadowy battle with the British government over purloined secrets that the government will have a hard time winning in the Internet age.
  The Guardian, which leans left and used to see itself as the voice of Britain's socially conscious middle class, has struck a more combative tone in the last few years. It was deeply involved in publishing the WikiLeaks material and with that organization's impresario, Julian Assange, and now with the lawyer Glenn Greenwald and the former National Security Agency contractor, turned leaker, Edward J. Snowden.
  Having gone global and remained free to readers on the Web, with a newsroom in New York as well as in London, The Guardian is a much harder news organization than most to intimidate or censor, as the British government, with no written Constitution or Bill of Rights to enshrine protections of free speech, has discovered.
  But the tale of the last two months, as Mr. Rusbridger tells it, at least, is an extraordinary one of attempted political interference. Agents of the British government descended on The Guardian's offices to monitor three executives as they physically destroyed computer hard drives containing some of the classified material that Mr. Snowden downloaded from American intelligence databases and gave to Mr. Greenwald and others.
  ''You have powerful protections in America that we don't,'' Mr. Rusbridger, 59, said Tuesday in an interview after publishing an op-ed article in his paper describing some of the government's actions.
  In conversations with him, the British government threatened the paper with ''prior restraint,'' he said, to stop it from publishing material, and then demanded that The Guardian return or destroy the classified material it was holding.
  ''It was quite explicit: we had to destroy it or give it back to them,'' Mr. Rusbridger said in an earlier interview with the BBC. ''I explained that there were other copies, not within the U.K., so I couldn't see the point of destroying one copy. But because we had other copies I was happy to destroy a copy in London.''
  The United States has sought the extradition of Mr. Snowden, now in Russia, but it has not acted to restrain newspaper publication or gone into newspaper offices to seize or destroy files and hard drives, as in Britain.
  Mr. Rusbridger, Guardian editor since 1995, said he was prompted to describe the government's actions after the British police detained Mr. Greenwald's partner, David Michael Miranda, at Heathrow Airport on Sunday, on his way home from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro. Mr. Miranda had met another of those aiding Mr. Snowden, the filmmaker Laura Poitras, and was carrying encrypted material from her back to Mr. Greenwald in Brazil.
  Mr. Miranda, a Brazilian, was held in the transit area of the airport under Schedule 7 of Britain's Terrorism Act 2000 for the legal maximum of nine hours; he was questioned and his electronic equipment seized before being released without charges.
  He and Mr. Greenwald intend to file a lawsuit over the detention, Mr. Rusbridger said, ''because it's not clear that he was actually committing any offense in carrying material through Heathrow.''
  The British government has defended the detention. After saying little on Sunday or Monday, a Home Office spokeswoman said that the police had been looking for ''stolen information'' that could be of use to terrorists.
  ''If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act, and the law provides them a framework to do that,'' the spokeswoman said. ''Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.''
  The prime minister's office was kept informed, as was the American government, which denied having asked Britain to take any action against Mr. Miranda.
  Mr. Rusbridger sees the detention as an act of intimidation.
  Using terrorism legislation that ''offers none of the protections that exist in mainland Britain is quite a disturbing new turn,'' he said.
  A lawyer for Mr. Miranda, Gwendolen Morgan, told The Guardian that the police used the antiterrorism laws to bypass normal statutory procedures for seeking confidential journalistic material under a 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
  ''This act is likely to have a chilling effect on journalists worldwide, and is emphatically not what Parliament intended Schedule 7 powers to be used for,'' Ms. Morgan told The Guardian.
  Lawyers argued that the detention was also an unlawful ''deprivation of liberty'' under the European Convention of Human Rights.
  Mr. Rusbridger said that two months ago he was contacted by ''a very senior government official claiming to present the views of the prime minister,'' David Cameron. There were two meetings in which officials ''demanded the return or the destruction of the material we were working on,'' and in other meetings, he said, officials said: ''You've had your fun, now we want the stuff back,'' and, ''You've had your debate, there's no need to write any more.''
  The officials then threatened legal action to obtain the documents. Then two security experts from Britain's Government Communications Headquarters, known as G.C.H.Q., the counterpart to the American National Security Agency, came to oversee the destruction of hard drives in The Guardian basement by Guardian executives, Mr. Rusbridger said.
  He called it ''one of the most bizarre moments in The Guardian's long history.''
  Efforts to prevent publication of Snowden-related material began on June 7, when defense officials issued a confidential notice to newspapers and broadcasters in an attempt to limit the coverage of Mr. Snowden's revelations about surveillance tactics employed by intelligence agencies in Britain and the United States.
  Editors were reminded not to publish information that could ''jeopardize both national security and possibly U.K. personnel.'' The notice followed The Guardian's first publication of details of the American intelligence-gathering program called Prism.
  Now, it is not just the opposition Labour Party that is questioning the use of the terrorism laws in this case to seize material intended for journalism, which in countries like the United States would be under more legal protection. David Davis, a Conservative member of Parliament, said that the responses of the Home Office fail ''Logic 101.''
  '''If you're not on our side, you're on the side of the terrorists,' is what they're trying to say,'' Mr. Davis said.
  Robert Wintemute, a professor of human rights law at King's College, London, said that ''I hope this is an aberration rather than a signal of a wider clampdown'' on press freedom and human rights. ''I do think Greenwald and Miranda should bring this to court, because winning in court will rein in the government's powers,'' he said.
  Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura contributed reporting.
  North Korean Defectors Tell U.N. Panel of Prison Camp Abuses
The Best Conspiracy Theories About Obama's New Dog Sunny - Elspeth Reeve - The Atlantic Wire
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:24
  The Obamas got a new puppy on Monday, a black puffball named Sunny who's a Portuguese waterdog just like Bo. Sunny is a Trojan horse of cute, an adorable ball of fur on the outside that masks an insidious plot lurking at her core. Here are some of the best conspiracy theories about Sunny that the Internet has come up with in less than 24 hours. Granted, some of them might be jokes.
  Sunny's real name is Sunni
  Sunny? That sounds sort of close to Sunni, as in the branch of Islam, the religion some conspiracy theorists think President Obama adheres to.
  (Photo by The White House via Flickr.)
  Sunny is black because the Obamas are racist
  "With the addition of Sunny, the Obamas now have two black Portuguese water dogs," The Daily Caller's Patrick Howley reported on Monday. "The Obamas do not have any white dogs." The Daily Caller was not alone in this assessment.
  We might note that dog fur is less like human skin than like human hair, so the real outrage should be that the Obamas don't have any blonde dogs. (Photo via Pete Souza on Twitter.)
  Sunny exists to distract America from White House scandal
  "Forget All the Problems With ObamaCare, There's a New White House Dog!" Kyle Drennen writes sarcastically at the conservative site NewsBusters. But ConstitutionDaily's Scott Bomboy writes that there's some hard data suggesting there's a bit of truth in Drennen's headline. A July 2012 article in Political Science and Politics showed "the White House has used pets since the 1960s as public relations props during times of political scandal and international tension," Bomboy writes. "The translation: the White House lets the dogs out in times of scandal and war, and sends them back to the doghouse when the economic going is tough." (Photo via Associated Press.)
  Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at ereeve at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
My mother has Asperger's and needs to get help part 1 - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:23
Music Royalty Funds Charm Wealthy Investors | LIVE@LEEDS
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:19
  Anthony Greco 08/20/13 http://www.fa-mag.com
  Music may soothe the savage beast, but it also calms the wealthy fund investors who earn double-digit returns on the rights to some of the world's most famous melodies.
  Round Hill Music Royalty Partners, Kobalt Capital and Bicycle Music all offer private equity funds that allow high-net-worth investors to share in the revenue-generating potential of some of the most popular songs ever recorded, across multiple generations and music genres. The investment model is simple and has been used by some of the world's largest pension funds and private equity firms, including the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund and KKR. The funds acquire the rights to catalogs of music and individual songs, which they own for a specified number of years. Every time one of those songs is played, purchased or used for any commercial purpose'--anywhere in the world'--the fund collects the royalties and investors earn returns.
  Multiple sources drive income to the funds. Among them, downloads from Apple's iTunes service, which surpassed 25 billion song purchases in February 2013. A 99-cent download on iTunes generates 9.125 cents to the owner of the song's publishing rights, according to Round Hill CEO and Chairman Josh Gruss.
  Income streams also include radio plays, CD purchases, live performances, music-streaming services, cell phone ring tones and even the Muzak played in an elevator. If a filmmaker, television producer, advertiser or video game developer wishes to license a song, it must negotiate a fee with the publishing rights owner, who then receives royalty payments every time the film, TV show or commercial is shown and on every game unit sold.
  For example, Round Hill owns the rights to Land of a Thousand Dances, written by Chris Kenner and popularized by Wilson Pickett in 1966. The song appears in the movie Forrest Gump and various video games, and still receives significant radio play. That one song generates royalties of $300,000 to $400,000 a year, according to Gruss.
  Those royalties enable music funds to produce ''annuity-like cash flow streams,'' said Gruss, whose $200 million Round Hill Music Royalty Fund raised $52 million in its first closing. ''Much like an MLP or REIT, we are set up to have the royalty income distributed down to the investor. It's uncorrelated to the stock market or the price of oil or real estate. It's its own beast and that's why investors are interested,'' he said.
  The Round Hill fund has 15 investors, including limited partnerships, family offices, foundations, and wealthy individuals, Gruss said. The fund's portfolio includes more than 4,000 songs recorded by artists such as Frank Sinatra, Billie Holiday, the Beatles, Aerosmith, and Bruno Mars.
  Kobalt Capital started its investment fund in 2011 and has attracted more than $70 million, mostly from family offices, foundations and ultra-rich investors. The fund owns a catalog of more than 4,000 songs, including popular works by the B52s and Fleetwood Mac, and takes a two-pronged approach to investing in music publishing rights, according to CEO Johan Ahlstr¶m.
  ''We buy copyright catalogs and we also make royalty advances, which effectively become secured loans collateralized by catalogs, so we have great diversification,'' said Ahlstr¶m. ''We also have the ability to get active songwriters who have ongoing future music deliveries, which offers some interesting upside,'' but poses more risk.
  Founded By Neil Diamond
  Bicycle Music Co.'s pedigree dates back to 1974, when it was founded by Neil Diamond and his business partner, David Rosner. The company changed hands a few times, but, through its investment manager, Alchemy Copyrights, it is currently raising money for its third music royalty investment fund.
  Bicycle CEO and Chief Investment Officer Roger Miller declined to disclose the amounts invested in the funds. More than 40 investors, including wealthy individuals, pension plans and insurance companies, are participants, he said. Bicycle's funds have acquired about 100 catalogs of all sizes, including songs by Tammy Wynette, Cyndi Lauper, Marvin Hamlisch, and Nine Inch Nails.
  ''The primary purpose of the funds is to acquire the underlying rights, primarily publishing rights, but also master recording rights, likeness rights and other rights that underlie classic music that's been around for a while and will continue to be around for a while,'' said Miller. ''We pass through all the net cash to our investors, so it's a true cash-flow product for pension plans and other investors who need income to meet liabilities or cost of living needs.''
  Returns exceed 10 percent, Miller said. The minimum investment is $1 million.
  Rock Hill's Gruss declined to discuss his fund's returns but noted that industry expectations are in the 10 percent to 13 percent range. ''It's a current income vehicle, so we expect a high coupon type of yield,'' said Gruss. Round Hill distributes all royalty income to investors semiannually, in cash.investors. ''Extremely tax efficient. You can amortize the copyrights over 10 years so the amortization expense shields the royalty income. You defer your tax payments until the time you sell the asset,'' Gruss said.
  All three firms also try to maximize income by administering the royalty and publishing rights of the songs they control. Each has creative, marketing and accounting teams that seek out licensing opportunities and ensure that all royalties owed are paid. Each firm administers publishing and royalty rights for a roster of artists whose songs are not necessarily owned by the investment funds.
  ''We're at a very opportunistic time to get into this space because the digital world is allowing music to go places where it was never distributed before,'' Gruss said. ''Growth is coming from the international market. Seventy percent of the royalties we earn are from outside the U.S. If you think about a country that 10 years ago maybe had 10 TV stations, today it may have 100. All that programming requires music and we earn a royalty every time one of our songs is used.''
  ''Music is the engine of the digital world,'' he said.
  Like this:LikeLoading...
  This entry was posted on August 20, 2013 at 10:08 pm and is filed under Publishing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
CPS : The Counter-Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:15
  IntroductionThe Counter Terrorism Division (CTD) is responsible for advising the police in all terrorism cases and is often consulted whilst the evidence is being gathered. The CTD subsequently undertakes the prosecution of those terrorism offences. The Division also deals with Violent Extremism and Related Offences (see separate entry). All review decisions made by the CPS about whether or not to prosecute are made in line with the two tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which is a public document. Further reference to this document can be found at the back of the Violent Extremism document.
  Terrorism is defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000) and means the use or threat of action where ''
  The action ''involves serious violence against a person,involves serious damage to property,endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, oris designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system ANDThe use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, ANDThe use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological causeWhere the use or threat of action as defined above involves the use of firearms or explosives it is always terrorism, whether or not the condition in (2) above is satisfied.Since the beginning of 2007, the CTD has successfully prosecuted a range of offences including the following:
  Preparing for acts of terrorism. This means engaging in conduct in preparation for committing acts of terrorism or assisting another to do so (Section 5, Terrorism Act 2006)Training for Terrorism by providing instruction or training in certain skills, e.g. the making, handling or use of a noxious substance, in the knowledge that the trainee intends to use such skills for terrorist purposes (Section 6, Terrorism Act 2006). Also, those who attend 'training camps', i.e. any place used for terrorist training, commit an offence under Section 8, TACT 2006.Dissemination of terrorist publications is an offence under Section 2, TACT 2006. The section includes the distribution, circulation, giving, selling, lending or otherwise making available such publications, in any form. The person disseminating must intend or be reckless as to whether his conduct in doing this encourages, induces or provides assistance to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.Possessing information for terrorist purposes or collecting information of a kind to provide practical assistance to a person committing an act of terrorism. This includes having manuals about making explosives. The information can be in any form, written, photographic or electronic (Sections 57 and 58, Terrorism Act 2000).Fundraising for Terrorism (in the UK or abroad) or agreeing with others to do so, including using the money or property so realised, are offences under Sections 15-17 Terrorism Act 2000. This can also include Money Laundering under Section 18.Failing to disclose information which a person knows or believes might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism or in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person involved in an act of terrorism (Section 38B, Terrorism Act 2000).Conspiracy to murder.Conspiracy to cause explosions.Successful prosecutions since the end of 2006
Edward Epstein: Who Helped Snowden Steal State Secrets? - WSJ.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:14
  By Edward Jay Epstein
  In March 2013, when Edward Snowden sought a job with Booz Allen Hamilton at a National Security Agency facility in Hawaii, he signed the requisite classified-information agreements and would have been made well aware of the law regarding communications intelligence.
  Section 798 of the United States Code makes it a federal crime if a person "knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States" any classified information concerning communication intelligence.
  Mr. Snowden took that position so he could arrange to have published classified communications intelligence, as he told the South China Morning Post earlier this month. The point of Mr. Snowden's penetration was to get classified data from the NSA. He subsequently stated: "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked, that is why I accepted that position."
  My question would be, then: Was he alone in this enterprise to misappropriate communications intelligence?
  Before taking the job in Hawaii, Mr. Snowden was in contact with people who would later help arrange the publication of the material he purloined. Two of these individuals, filmmaker Laura Poitras and Guardian blogger Glenn Greenwald, were on the Board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation that, among other things, funds WikiLeaks.
  Associated PressGuardian newspaper reporter Glenn Greenwald
  In January 2013, according to the Washington Post, Mr. Snowden requested that Ms. Poitras get an encryption key for Skype so that they could have a secure channel over which to communicate.
  In February, he made a similar request to Mr. Greenwald, providing him with a step-by-step video on how to set up encrypted communications.
  So, before Mr. Snowden proceeded with his NSA penetration in March 2013 through his Booz Allen Hamilton job, he had assistance, either wittingly or unwittingly, in arranging the secure channel of encrypted communications that he would use to facilitate the publication of classified communications intelligence.
  On May 20, three months into his job, Mr. Snowden falsely claimed to his employer that he needed treatment for epilepsy. The purpose of the cover story was to conceal his trip to Hong Kong, where the operation to steal U.S. secrets would be brought to fruition.
  Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras also flew to Hong Kong. They were later joined by Sarah Harrison, a WikiLeaks representative who works closely with Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder. Mr. Snowden reportedly brought the misappropriated data to Hong Kong on four laptops and a thumb drive. He gave some of the communications intelligence to Mr. Greenwald, who had arranged to publish it in the Guardian, and Mr. Snowden arranged to have Ms. Poitras make a video of him issuing a statement that would be released on the Guardian's website. Albert Ho, a Hong Kong lawyer, was retained to deal with Hong Kong authorities.
  This orchestration did not occur in a vacuum. Airfares, hotel bills and other expenses over this period had to be paid. A safe house had to be secured in Hong Kong. Lawyers had to be retained, and safe passage to Moscow'--a trip on which Mr. Snowden was accompanied by WikiLeaks' Sarah Harrison'--had to be organized.
  The world now knows that the misappropriation of U.S. communications intelligence began appearing in the Guardian and other publications on June 5, and Mr. Snowden left Hong Kong for the Moscow airport on June 21. A question that remains to be answered: Who, if anyone, aided and abetted this well-planned theft of U.S. secrets?
  Mr. Epstein's most recent book is "The Annals of Unsolved Crime" published in March by Melville House.
  A version of this article appeared June 29, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Who Helped Snowden Steal State Secrets?.
The Smears of Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian '' a primer Unfashionista
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:13
  Like most people, I fully supported Edward Snowden blowing the whistle on the NSA surveillance programme on Americans. I called for a Presidential pardon for Snowden right here on this blog, and suggested the journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story, should win a Pulitzer prize for it.
  http://unfashionista.com/2013/06/09/obama-must-pardon-edward-snowden/
  Unfortunately, within barely a few days, my naive belief that Snowden was a patriotic whistleblower started to unravel. He fled to Hong Kong and it became apparent that he had targeted his job not just to gain intelligence on the NSA, but to expose American '' and British '' spy programmes, putting our agents at risk around the world, and aiding some of the world's most repressive regimes. With the interview Snowden did with the South China Morning Post, he exposed US intel in China. He then dumped his entire stash of files with the anti-American Wikileaks and Julian Assange, who has previously stated 'so what' if US intel assets are killed from leaks.
  My blog on that was here.
  http://unfashionista.com/2013/07/02/assange-turns-snowden-into-a-traitor/
  But with all this distressing realisation that Snowden was just a shitty little spy, one who was happy to suck up to the homophobic regime in Russia where he has taken asylum, i kept looking at Glenn Greenwald's feed '' @Ggreenwald on Twitter '' hoping to see some condemnation of the plain and obvious treason committed by his source. Yet there was none.
  I put this down to journalistic ''Stockholm Syndrome'', that Greenwald was so in love with his story and his source that he had just gone blind and could see no wrong. When Greenwald frenziedly attacked a Wall Street Journal reporter who suggested he, Greenwald, might have aided and abetted Snowden, I supported Greenwald. I honestly did not believe that Greenwald would stoop so low, knowing as he did by then that Snowden was happy to leak US intel operations against repressive regimes.
  The Guardian came out with a ''story'' that GCHQ had spied on Russia at the G8 and it was rightly met with total derision on Twitter, even amongst lefties. #GuardianBond was the hashtag. (They were shocked, shocked that our spies spy! and on Russia, too!)
  Well, the sell-out traitor Snowden took asylum with the homophobe Putin, issuing a fawning statement of thanks, and I assumed the story was dead for a while.
  Until the ''scandal'' of David Miranda's 9 hour detention broke on Twitter. Boy, did it seem pretty bad '' the husband of a journalist, nothing to do with this story himself, detained for no good reason for nine solid hours, denied a lawyer, held under the Terrorism Act, purely to intimidate his husband. Wow. I had no idea our security forces at Heathrow were such utter bastards, abusing their power in violation of all professional standards and ethics.
  Except'.... for that very reason I didn't quite believe it.
  Everybody else believed it though, and fellow UK papers, the AP, the NUJ, all ran the story unquestioningly '' by the way, the lot of you, this blind acceptance because a journalist throws an accusation is a violation of your OWN ethics.
  Here's how the story utterly unravelled over the course of the day.
  Glenn Greenwald to the New York Times, pretending Miranda was just there as a spouse, and was not himself a journalist:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html
  He is my partner. He is not even a journalist.
  This was the first clue. It turned out that the Guardian was paying for David Miranda's flights and that David Miranda was working on the leaks story, making him a journalist. My direct question to Greenwald '' and the Guardian '' as to whether the Guardian was paying Miranda for his work on the story went unanswered, though Greenwald instead asked me a question of his own.
  Here's where the Guardian admit they were paying for his flights and he was assisting with the story:
  The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights. Miranda is not an employee of the Guardian. As Greenwald's partner, he often assists him in his work and the Guardian normally reimburses the expenses of someone aiding a reporter in such circumstances
  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-detention-labour-glen-greenwald
  This showed that Greenwald was lying by saying that Miranda was merely a spouse '' he was actively involved in the story with Greenwald.
  But hey, no biggie '' even if Miranda WAS acting as a journalist himself, you can't detain someone under the Terrorism Act just for being a journalist. Freedom of the press. And you can't deny them a lawyer, as Greenwald said the airport police did:
  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa
  The official '' who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 '' said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.
  Except, giving an interview to the Guardian just before 10pm and after all the UK papers had gone to bed (so they couldn't report this) David Miranda confirmed he had been offered a lawyer:He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities.Right. Now let's pause for a moment and talk about lies of omission. All day long, both the Guardian newspaper and Glenn Greenberg had known that David Miranda was offered a lawyer by airport security. Yet all day long they had allowed the falsehood to be tweeted and written about that Miranda was detained without being offered a lawyer.Pretty shocking. Pretty untransparent, that, from self-appointed truth seekers.I was arguing at this point that Miranda, who was clearly working as a journalist assisting on the story, was obviously suspected of not just reporting, but helping Snowden disseminate his intelligence on UK and US spying programmes, which would clearly be a serious crime. I qualified it by saying Miranda may not have been doing that, but it could be reasonably suspected.I didn't know then what we all know now, and what Greenwald and the Guardian knew throughout the day but kept secret.But the final shoe fell. Glenn Greenwald admitted to the New York Times that David Miranda had been carrying, as a mule, stolen, encrypted thumb drives actually containing intelligence data that Snowden stole from the CIA '' and those encrypted drives were confiscated.Remember, Greenwald knew this all along. He knew his husband was not only a journalist but much more to the point, he was carrying top secret, encrypted drives with stolen intelligence information on them '' information not just about the NSA but about UK and US intelligence action against foreign powers. Yet he was so quick to lie and viciously slander our security services, saying they targeted his husband only to intimidate him, Greenwald. He always knew Miranda was transporting top secret encrypted files Snowden stole.Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.Note the NYT correctly says ''the two journalists'' '' though at this point they are far beyond that.As I tweeted away on this bombshell, fellow tweeters denied it was possible, even when again and again I pointed them to the quote. Then they asked ''If Miranda was carrying encrypted stolen Snowden data, why wasn't he arrested and charged? Eh? Eh?''Well, probably because the thumb drives are encrypted and it would take police more than 9 hours to decode them '' by which time they had to release Miranda under the law. The only reason we know for sure that Miranda was smuggling this is because Greenwald admitted it to the Times - once Miranda was safely back on Brazilian soil.In Brazil now Greenwald was threatening, out of sheer revenge, to expose British intelligence and therefore British agents. He tried to deny these threats later, but unfortunately for him, CNN reported his exact words with the video to prove it:Glenn Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about secret U.S. surveillance programs, said the authorities who took his partner into custody at London's Heathrow Airport ''are going to regret what they did.''
  ''I am going to write my stories a lot more aggressively now,'' the Guardian reporter told Brazil's Globo TV on Monday in Rio de Janeiro.
  ''I am going to publish many more documents now. I am going to publish a lot about England, too, I have a lot of documents about the espionage system in England. Now my focus is going to be that as well.''
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIvF8KXTW3s (slide to 1:20 for Greenwald)
  And lastly of course, we have the juxtaposition of the quotes by David Miranda to the Guardian and the statement by Glenn Greenwald to the New York Times. Miranda states (if you believe him, and I don't) that he had no idea what he was carrying. Greenwald states that he was transporting Snowden's stolen, top secret CIA intelligence data on encrypted thumb drives. So basically, you have Greenwald using his spouse as a mule to actively assist Edward Snowden, and you have Miranda lying at the airport when he answers that damned basic security question'... ''Has anyone given you anything to carry on board?''
  ''It is clear why they took me. It's because I'm Glenn's partner. Because I went to Berlin. Because Laura lives there. So they think I have a big connection,'' he [David Miranda] said. ''But I don't have a role. I don't look at documents. I don't even know if it was documents that I was carrying. It could have been for the movie that Laura is working on.''
  You lied to airport security, then, David, didn't you?
  Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.
  And you knew this all along, Glenn Greenwald, yet you continued to smear our intelligence police, just as you knew all along David Miranda was offered a lawyer yet failed constantly to correct the record?
  But you know, why is the New York Times breaking the story that Miranda was transporting stolen intelligence data, stolen by Snowden? Why wouldn't our fearless truth-seekers at the Guardian let Britain know what David Miranda was really doing?
  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-detention-labour-glen-greenwald
  He was returning to their home in Rio de Janeiro when he was stopped at Heathrow and officials confiscated electronics equipment, including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.
  Oh my goodness! Those awful Guardian subs are at it again. They totally forgot to mention that the ''memory sticks'' confiscated contained classified information about UK and US intelligence programmes against repressive foreign regimes, stolen by Edward Snowden! Ooopsy! Must tie a knot in your handkerchief, Alan Rusbridger, so you can remind your reporters to mention little details like that next time'.... before they accuse our security forces just doing their job of intimidation.
  Shame on the Guardian for its smear story, its partial reporting, and its vile accusations against our border agents. Shame on Glenn Greenwald for not correcting the idea that David Miranda was denied a lawyer. Shame on Greenwald and the Guardian for not admitting Miranda was smuggling encrypted Snowden files. Shame on Miranda for lying at security about being ''asked to carry anything for somebody else''. Shame on Greenwald for '' if we believe David (I don't) '' not telling his husband that he was carrying top secret encrypted CIA data that Snowden stole. And a plague on all their houses for conflating whistleblowing on the NSA with revelations of intelligence actions against foreign powers.
  Lastly, shame on Greenwald for attacking a fellow journalist, Edward Epstein, for questioning him '' as to whether he was actively assisting Edward Snowden. The encrypted thumb drives his husband was smuggling are a pretty solid proof of that.
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578573382649536100.html
  to end, let's just remind ourselves of Edward Snowden fearlessly betraying his country to the South China Morning Post:
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/20/edward-snowden-blows-it/
  Coda '' many have argued that David Miranda, even if assisting in espionage, should not have been detained under the Terrorism Act. This is of course flat wrong. The Terrorism Act does not only apply to men with bombs and guns. Interrupting electronic systems to influence the govt of a foreign power for political purposes is EXPRESSLY COVERED.
  http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/ctd.html
  Terrorism is defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000) and means the use or threat of action where ''
  The action ''involves serious violence against a person,involves serious damage to property,endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, oris designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system ANDThe use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, ANDThe use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause1 E, 2, 3 are absolutely covered here.
  photo by Agencia Senado
Goldman faces losses on erroneous trades
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 23:50
  Adam Jeffery | CNBC
  Goldman Sachs could lose as much as $100 million after making erroneous trades that disrupted trading activity across multiple options exchanges on Tuesday, market participants have told the Financial Times.
  People familiar with the matter identified Goldman as the trading firm behind the options trades that led exchanges run by NYSE Euronext, CBOE and Nasdaq OMX to say they were reviewing the transactions.
  These people said Goldman's losses from the trades could amount to $100 million if there were not canceled. Goldman Sachs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
  More From the Financial Times:JPMorgan pledges to clean up legal woesEmerging markets feel the heatDebt weighs on Southeast Asian consumers
  NYSE, Nasdaq and CBOE declined to comment on where the erroneous transactions might have originated and the amount of losses at stake.
  The development came after a large number of trades outside the normal price range flooded US options markets in the opening minutes of trading, stemming from NYSE Euronext and spilling out to rival exchanges.
  NYSE released trading alerts to say it was reviewing transactions in symbols beginning with "H" to "L" for the opening 17 minutes of trading on its Amex venue, where options linked to equities such as JPMorgan Chase and Kellogg are traded.
  The move came as CBOE and Nasdaq OMX, which run other leading options exchanges, temporarily stopped accepting quotes from NYSE Amex in early morning trading after problems emerged.
  Both CBOE and Nasdaq OMX said in trading alerts they were also reviewing transactions that took place in the opening minutes of the day's trade for a possible erroneous execution.
  In a statement acknowledging the issues, NYSE said it expected that most of the affected trades would be cancelled. A spokesman for NYSE told the Financial Times the Amex exchange did not have any systems or technology issues.
  The problems highlight the systemic challenges for the highly fragmented and interconnected US stock market, where securities swap hands at millisecond speeds across a dozen venues. They also come just months after the CBOE, the largest US options exchange by volume, failed to open for several hours after a systems problem.
  "That is unusual when a whole exchange has to be taken off [the national best bid or offer system]. When you're being pulled off of that calculation, your exchange is acting crazy," said Mark Longo, a former trader who runs Options Insider, an options education website.
  The exchange was lucky the series of symbols from "H" to "L" did not include some of the more popular underlying assets, such as Google, Amazon or Apple, he added. Disruption of trading in options on those underlying assets could have been truly disruptive, Mr Longo said.
  Alan Knuckman, chief market strategist at Trading Advantage, a Chicago-based firm, said the problems came as activity on US markets has been quiet, with many traders on holiday. "[Erroneous trades] happen from time to time; but the question is whether they are busted or honoured," said Mr Knuckman.
  Goldman Sachs could lose as much as $100 million after making erroneous trades Tuesday unless the trades are canceled.
The Wretched Google Interview Experience Symbo1ics Blog
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 23:28
  I would like to describe my experience interviewing with Google, and specifically outline why I thought the experience was poor by way of telling my story. As you shall see, this will be especially difficult to convey because you, the reader, will likely be convinced my poor experience is likely only a result of being sour about not being accepted rather than an a posteriori analysis of the events that occurred. There are two conclusions I would like to make: First, Google is extremely bad at communication and human-to-human relationships in general (this is largely known by their customer service, or lack thereof), and second, that I believe Google made the wrong decision in rejecting me.
  Since I don't want this to come off as a sob story, I will try to make it somewhat interesting by talking about the questions I got and keeping it in the style of a story rather than a complaint.
  Initial ContactA Google recruiter contacted me almost a year ago. I was working for a company in Colorado at this point, but I was in a bit of dismay concerning some financial mishaps that occurred, and I was interested in seeing if what other opportunities there were. So I responded to the recruiter saying that I was interested. At this point, Facebook had also coincidentally contacted me and were interested as well. Both Facebook and Google promptly set up an interview, and I was sure to let both of them know that I was interviewing for one another.
  A week goes by, Facebook had already set up a phone interview, but Google was sort of tripping over itself. They said they would set up an interview within a couple of weeks, but nothing happened. I email them a few times, and I get no response.
  A few weeks more go by, I've done phone interviews with Facebook and flown out to their offices to interview, and I'm extended an offer. Now I'm in a dilemma. Google says they are interested, but Facebook has given me an offer. I email Google one last time, and they never respond.
  I accepted the Facebook offer, though somewhat reluctantly, because I felt I was closing out on another opportunity.
  The MoveI decided to drive from Minnesota to California, a few days' drive, after about a month I accepted. (I wanted some time to pack things, get everything situated, change banks, find a place to live, etc.) After the month passes by, and I am on the road, driving through the Rocky Mountains, I get a call from a California phone number. I answer it, and it is another Google person. They tell me they are interested in interviewing. I told them that is what they said two months ago, and said that they would set up dates and times, but never did. The guy I was speaking to sounded somewhat sorry, but explained it must have just been an error in the system. I told the person that I was currently driving, and also that I had a new job starting in a couple weeks, but would still be interested in talking with him. He said he would call again later to discuss things.
  The person did call again, and now I was in a more comfortable position. In a hotel room in Reno and not at a wheel in the mountains. The person asked what I was interested in, asked me about languages I've used, asked me if I'd be willing to work at Google despite having accepted a job, etc. I showed interest, and did want to move forward, which he acknowledged, and he said he'd email me the next steps.
  I finally have moved into my apartment in California and started work. Many months go by, and was even interviewed and extended a better offer by another company, and Google never sent me the email.
  Google's Re-ignitionMy interactions with Google started in about October of 2012, and Google called me in May of 2013, a third recruiter who saw me via LinkedIn, oblivious of my past interactions. Again, I got the ''we are interested in interviewing.'' This time, the recruiter did follow through and continue communication. However, the communication was not very pleasant. It was very canned and calculated. The recruiter asked me a questions like ''Which language are you most comfortable in?'' to which I answer that I am comfortable in many languages, and they respond ''Well is it Python, C++, or JavaScript?'' I tell them I have programmed professionally in all three of them and they just pigeonhole me into the Python category.
  At around this time that Google contacted me, I had an offer from another company already. I told Google this, and they said they were happy to expedite things. They asked me if I knew anyone at Google, and in fact, I did. I knew four people. I was told that one of them gave me a shining recommendation, another described our work in the Lisp world and recommended me, another (very senior) who doesn't know me as well nonetheless recommended me, and lastly someone at the director level did say I should be interviewed and also passed around my resume internally.
  Finally, Google set up an on-site interview.
  The Google InterviewDespite Google's terrible track record so far for being organized and getting things done, I was still excited. I was so excited, I unfortunately could not sleep the night prior.
  I drive to Google's campus and wait about 30 minutes. The person I was supposed to meet went on a trip and did not tell me except via an automatic email that I received after emailing him asking ''Where are you?'' The recruiter comes along as backup and finds me, and takes me to my first interview. She asks me if I am ready, if I have used Google products before, and ensures that I will do just fine on the interviews as long as I am confident.
  Interview #1: Maps and SetsThe first interviewer came and was 15 minutes late, but did get started right away. He asked me the following question
  Create a data structure that has fast insertion, removal, membership testing, and random selection.
  I poke around for a little bit and end up writing a chart of three or four elementary data structures, outlining the time complexities of each operation, but I suspected there was something better, which was confirmed by the interviewer's push to see if I could develop something better. So next I try to mix the best attributes of one data structure with another. After some thinking, I finally got the details hammered out and mixed a hash table and a vector to produce something that has amortized constant everything. I felt victorious, especially since it is something I had to discover on the fly. For those interested, the code is here.
  Interview #2: Servers and DataThe next interviewer came in, and he totally crushed me. I'm not even sure if I remember the question correctly.
  If you have $n$ servers that take requests, and server $S_i$ can take a request every $t_i$ seconds, and you need to distribute requests to them as efficiently as possible, how do you do it?
  I fumbled around a lot, trying to create an efficient loop, modding a timer and switching to the machine that needed the request. Then he asked how I'd add more machines at runtime, and I turned this loop with fixed time points into a data structure that associated $t_i$ to $S_i$. The interviewer thought this was completely unsatisfactory, and said ''I wanted you to use a priority queue. We will just move to another question.'' I felt pretty bad about this, but he asked another question.
  If you have $n$ machines with a 10 GB string of characters on each, how do you find the most common character?
  I got this one I thought. Just ask for a distribution of each character from each machine, send the tables to a master machine which added them up and found the character with the highest frequency. Then he asked questions like ''If we make the network faster, does it make sense to send over all the data to one machine?'' I respond ''no'', and explain that it would actually degrade performance. Finally, toward the end, he asked
  Now suppose you are in the middle of Africa, each machine is on an Edge network, and each packet between the machines costs $1.00. Write a solution that minimizes the cost.
  There was only 5 or 10 so minutes left, but I thought that maybe I could incrementally determine the maximum. I started off by saying that each machine calculates a frequency table, but instead of sending the whole table, the master machine asks for the most common. I start describing very roughly the algorithm for doing this, but I don't think I was getting the details and corner cases right. Time was very pressured, and the interviewer expressed dissatisfaction with what I've done. ''Time's up. Maybe you can ask your friend there what the answer is.'' My friend was one of the people who recommended me and took me to lunch. He didn't know the answer off the top of his head either.
  I felt a bit unhappy with my performance, but thought that I got far enough that I must have did at least okay. I ate lunch with two of the people I know at Google, and one of them looked at my ''docket'' and exclaimed ''this question is illegal.'' He didn't tell me which one but he wrote something down and gave it back to me. We finished lunch talking about language runtimes, Lisp, and Go.
  Interview #3: TreesThis was probably the most straightforward interview. It started off with a discussion about languages. What's good about C? What's bad about it? What languages solve those problems? What languages introduce new ones? I mostly discussed type safety and memory safety, two things that I deal with most often in industrial code.
  Then he moved for a technical question. I'm not sure if I remember the question accurately, though.
  Given a list of pairs $(a,b)$ where $a$ is the number of a node and $b$ is its parent, construct a tree and return the root.
  There may have been a third value $c$, but I fail to remember what it was if it even was.
  I blazed through this. I wrote the code down to do so correctly and quickly the first time, and the interviewer actually said ''I probably should not have asked a Lisp programmer about trees.'' We spent the rest of the time (there was a lot of it) talking about Google and his position. I was particularly keen to figure out if he and his peers were solving tough problems or if most of the work was just tedium. I at least got an indication that he enjoyed what he did, but my question wasn't really answered. Interview ended, and I felt good again.
  Interview #4: Intervals and RegexenI get to my next interview, performed by a very nice man with a quiet, Russian accent. He asked me the following question, though he asked it more cryptically than I write:
  If you have a set of $n$ disjoint, sorted intervals $I = \bigcup_{k=1}^n [a_k, b_k]$, and you have an interval $I' = [x,y]$, compute $I\cup I'$.
  I'd worked with interval arithmetic before, and so I was in somewhat familiar territory. I quickly noted all of the possible cases, and proceeded to implement a solution that was actually more general than what the interviewer asked. I instead wrote a solution for the problem of computing $I$ efficiently given $I_1,\ldots,I_{n+1}$. It is a very easy generalization, and the interviewer saw that I think. Simplifying the union took no extra space and only took linear time, which was a sharp lower bound because we have to examine each disjoint interval at least once. The code for this is here.
  He then proceeded to ask me questions about regular expressions, then asked me to write the regular expression for a variety of things.
  Write a regular expression for floating point numbers.
  I went through it, and even talked about what the DFA would look like, and describe why it would be very efficient to match.
  I was even happier. Maybe lunch had helped! I thought this interview was a roaring success. We even had plenty of time to talk about Google and other things.
  Interview #5: Dynamic ProgrammingThe last interview was mostly okay.
  Given a set of Lego bricks of height 1, 2, 3, and 4, each colored differently, write a program to compute the number of ways of constructing a tower of height $n\ge 1$.
  This wasn't a foreign question. Very quickly, I wrote down the typical exponential solution; just recursively count. It looks almost exactly like Fibonacci, but with four branches instead of two. I said it could be made a lot better, and computed in linear time. Here, I choked up a bit. I've done this a million times before. I started writing the iterative solution in Scheme, but I wasn't getting the base cases quite right. I had to write out a few of the iterations, and after all that, I finally wrote it down, relieved. It felt almost scary, to forget something so trivial. The interviewer asked me if I could think of another way, and I couldn't. Then he wrote down a 4-by-4 square matrix, and I basically completed his sentence: ''Oh yes, of course, a particular right triangular matrix that you project onto the first dimension by right-multiplying by a unit vector after doing binary exponentiation to $n$, just like Fibonacci.'' I wrote down quickly using mathematical notation what the binary exponentiation looks like and what the projection looks like. He agreed, and we sat down and chatted some.
  The AftermathI actually felt pretty good about my performance. I heard rumors that it's okay to have a dud, and I thought I was in an especially favorable position since I had four people recommending me at various degrees, and since I nailed most of it.
  I was called the next day by one of the recruiter managers, who was aware that I had a job offer elsewhere at this time, and left a message. ''4 of the 5 interviewers have given me feedback, and it's looking really good. I'll let you know next week on Tuesday.'' Monday was Memorial Day. I felt like I had it in the basket. A definite 4/5 and four employees on my side.
  Tuesday rolls around, I eagerly await the phone call, and no one calls. Nor Wednesday or Thursday. It's Friday again. Nothing. I shoot off an email:
  It's been a week since I heard anything from your end and was wondering if there's any update before the weekend. (The last update I got was a voicemail message from you last Friday.)
  About two weeks roll by, and I had no choice but to accept the job offer I was given weeks prior. A few days after I accept the other offer, Google does call me and said something along the following:
  We decided we do not want to continue. You were a strong candidate but we felt you could use more experience. You can try again in 18 months. Sorry, I can't give you any feedback otherwise.
  This left me baffled. More experience in what? My resume needed more years, or I needed more algorithmic chops? I didn't pressure him nor did I argue with him, but it suffices to say I was extremely surprised.
  Google Rings Again and AgainA month or so later, a Google recruiter contacts me, and says ''we are interested in interviewing.'' What? Okay. I tell them, in full disclosure, that I just interviewed with them. They quickly get back to me and say
  Oops! Sorry I didn't see you in our database already. If you have any friends that want to interview, please let me know.
  They also invited me to be a connection on LinkedIn, which I did not accept.
  A few months go by, and I am on vacation in Boston, just hanging out with friends. I get a call. It's Google. ''We are interested in having you interview.''
  I thought it was another mistake, but they acknowledge that I interviewed before, and they said that the 18-month rule is still in effect, but they were considering me for a Software Engineer in Test (SET) position instead.
  There were two scheduled phone calls with the recruiter, and we discussed the position and how to move forward, and he sets up a phone call with an SET. The phone call with the SET was phenomenal I thought. An extremely nice guy, explained what he did very well. We chatted about my position, and he said I would probably be way more fit for a Software Engineer (SWE) position instead. I told him my past interview experience and he said something like
  If I were Google, I'd cut the crap and just hire you.
  That was very encouraging and somewhat flattering. Our phone call ended and he gave me his contact details and all.
  I talked to the recruiter again who said that he would pass around my resume and see if any managers were interested, and I would do a half-day interview again. After he said that, a few hours pass and he emails me back saying ''the managers would like to do a phone screen.''
  What?
  They have tons of data about me already, and they want to screen me? I can't say no, so I say okay, and they set up a phone screen for the week after.
  The Phone ScreenI get a call for the phone screen, and was asked to direct my browser to a Google Docs document. The interviewer dove right in.
  Given a timer time() with nanosecond accuracy and given the interface
  interface RealTimeCounter: void increment() int getCountInLastSecond() int getCountInLastMinute() int getCountInLastHour() int getCountInLastDay()implement the interface. The getCountInLastX functions should return the number of times increment was called in the last X.
  I froze up. How do I implement this? I just started coding.
  I whip something up along the following lines: keep a history of timestamps and bisect it to find the least time greater than or equal to current_time - X. I knew there were issues with this. Theoretically, memory grows linearly with increment and is practically unbounded. (Theoretically, it is bounded because the timer is quantized, but practically, you can construct a case where memory fills up.)
  I also discussed a way to prune the timestamps quickly, and it can be done on every query or every increment.
  I spent the rest of the time trying to think of a way to bound the memory. The interviewer did not provide any hints or help, nor did he give any indication about what the actual issue with the code was. (In other words, I identified the issue with unbounded memory.) They simply said ''would you like to spend the last 15 minutes cleaning this solution up or figuring out a better one?'' I said I'd spend 5 more minutes thinking, and I'd make my decision then.
  I couldn't think of a better way, but did discuss some rough ideas. Could we bucket the times somehow? How do we deal with the edges of the buckets? I talked about a way to map time intervals to buckets, but failed to incorporate it into my solution. After 5 minutes was up, I stayed with my word and just cleaned up what I had.
  The interview ended and I was mortified, I felt like I failed. Although I did write a full, working solution that had efficient time complexity, and theoretically efficient memory complexity, I knew it wasn't practically sufficient. But something is better than nothing, yes?
  I was told that I would be contacted within a day or two.
  Post-ScreenI went online and asked two Google employees this question, two Amazon employees, an ARM employee, a CS PhD student, and a few other very smart people, but none of them came back to me with a solution that bounds the memory. One of the Google employees talked with one of their Google friends about it, and the friend said something like ''It's the interview question that people know because they look up the answer. And everyone always looks up the answer.'' He proceeded to give me a hint over email about modding the timestamps, but I still fail to understand how it helps with edge cases (where the bucket size is greater than the resolution of the timer).
  I hadn't thought about it much, and a few of the people I talked to said they thought about it and still couldn't figure it out.
  A few days pass, and Google hadn't contacted me. A week passes, and I email. No response. I call. No response. It has been a month minus two days, and Google still has not reached out to me.
  My Google friend emails me telling me that he just gave me a recommendation to a Computer Science PhD position and said that it went well. He also added to the email that he checked my file at Google and saw that I was not accepted. But to this day, that has never been officially said.
  AfterthoughtsGoogle has simply shown, in my opinion, an extreme lack of respect for the interviewee. Massively delayed or non-existent communications, sloppy bookkeeping, canned responses, pandering for applicants, etc. My interviews only consisted of a barrage of highly technical questions. Not once was my resume brought up. Not once was I asked about me in an interview.
  Aside from being terrible at communication, Google implicitly rejected, without appeal, someone with offers for a PhD and someone who owns two checks from Knuth. My repositories, that contain code ranging from complicated group theoretic computations to implementations of set covering algorithms, meant nothing to them, even though I believe they subsume all of the gymnastics they put their interviewees on. It is a shame to see that current Google employees would also not have a job there, were they given the same set of interviewers as I had. (And don't get me wrong, they are extremely bright people and should be working at a top-tier company.)
  Overall, I am quite appalled with Google's interactions with me over the past year, and if there is this much contempt for interviewees like me, I wonder if they should be held in the same position.
  More on interviewing in Silicon Valley can be found in this post.
VIDEO-DashCam NA'–¶ Obama Stunning Trayvon Detroit Bankruptcy - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:08
Lava-lava - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:04
  A lava-lava is an article of daily clothing traditionally worn by Polynesians and other Oceanic peoples. It consists of a single rectangular cloth worn as a skirt.[1] The term lava-lava is both singular and plural in the Samoan language.
  Today the fashion remains common in Samoa, American Samoa, Tonga and parts of Melanesia and Micronesia. It is worn by men and women in uses from school uniforms to business attire with a suit jacket and tie. Many people of Oceanic ethnicity wear the lava-lava as an expression of cultural identity and for comfort within expatriate communities, especially in the United States (notably Hawai'i, California, Washington, and Utah), Australia, and New Zealand.
  The lava-lava is secured around the waist by an overhand knotting of the upper corners of the cloth; women often tuck the loose ends into the waistband, while men usually allow them to hang in front. Women generally wear ankle-length lava-lava while men's wraps often extend to the knee or mid-calf depending on the activity or occasion.
  In pre-contact times, the most prestigious lava-lava were made by wrapping the body in a ie toga with fine mats (finely woven textiles of pandanus leaves) or siapo (tapa cloth) pounded from paper mulberry or wild hibiscus bark. The Samoans also created lava-lava from traditional materials such as flower petals, leaves, feathers and seashells tied to a wrap-around backing of plaited plant fibers.
  Calico and loomed cotton cloth had largely replaced woven or barkcloth lava-lava as articles of daily use (though ie toga and siapo wraps are still used today for ceremonial and festive occasions and dance performances). Samoan men who bear the p'e'a body tattoo, as well as Samoan women who bear the malu leg tattoos often roll the waistband of the lava-lava or tuck in the sides and rear portion(s) of the lava-lava to expose their tattoo during dance performances or ceremonial functions (such as kava ceremonies), a style referred to as agini.
  Specially tailored linen lava-lava which extend mid-calf, often with pockets and ties/buckles, are worn by men at special occasions or to church; these are always solid colors (in contrast to the bright patterns of everyday lava-lava) and are known as sulu (Fijian), ie faitaga (Samoan), or tupenu (Tongan). Similar ankle-length skirts form the lower half of the two-piece formal dress worn by Samoan and Tongan women (called puletasi and puletaha, respectively). On special occasions the Tongan tupenu and puletaha are usually associated with a tapa cloth or waist-mat called ta'ovala and some Samoans still wear a tapa cloth vala sash in similar fashion (though the vala is generally restricted to ceremonial/festive regalia of orators or people acting/dressing as taupou maidens and manaia beaus). The formal, tailored linen lava-lava styles of Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji originated with the Fijian noble Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna who introduced the buckled sulu to Fiji in 1920 following his military service and university education in Europe.
  Loudly colored lava-lava made from materials such as satin, velvet, polyester, and sequins have recently been popularized among performance dance groups and village, church, or school-based choirs.
  In English, such garments are generically called sarong, but that word is actually Malay, whereas lava-lava is Samoan, being short for Ê>>ie lavalava (cloth that wraps around). Another common name for the Polynesian variety is pÄreu (usually spelled pareo), which is the Tahitian name.[2] In New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna, lava-lava are called "manou". A similar simple kind of clothing is the lap-lap worn in Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific, which is completely open at both sides.
David Miranda detention: Why I believe the Guardian has smeared Britain's security services '' Telegraph Blogs
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:49
  (Photo: Reuters)
  Like most people, I fully supported Edward Snowden blowing the whistle on the NSA surveillance programme on Americans. I called for a Presidential pardon for Snowden on my blog, and suggested the journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story, should win a Pulitzer prize for it.
  Unfortunately, within barely a few days, my naive belief that Snowden was a patriotic whistleblower started to unravel. He fled to Hong Kong and it became apparent that he had aimed not just to gain intelligence on the NSA, but to expose American '' and British '' spy programmes, putting our agents at risk around the world, and aiding some of the world's most repressive regimes. With the interview Snowden did with the South China Morning Post, he exposed US intel in China. He then dumped his entire stash of files with the anti-American Wikileaks and Julian Assange, who has previously stated "so what?" (I paraphrase) if US intel assets are killed from leaks.
  My blog on that was here.
  But with the distressing realisation that Snowden looks like a little spy, one who was happy to suck up to the homophobic regime in Russia where he has taken asylum, I kept looking at Glenn Greenwald's feed '' @Ggreenwald on Twitter '' hoping to see some condemnation of what many in the US believe is the plain and obvious treason committed by his source. Yet there was none.
  I put this down to journalistic "Stockholm Syndrome", that Greenwald was so in love with his story and his source that he had just gone blind and could see no wrong. When Greenwald frenziedly attacked a Wall Street Journal reporter who suggested he, Greenwald, might have aided and abetted Snowden, I supported Greenwald. I honestly did not believe that Greenwald would stoop so low, knowing as he did by then that Snowden was happy to leak US intel operations against repressive regimes.
  The Guardian came out with a ''story'' that GCHQ had spied on Russia at the G8 and it was rightly met with total derision on Twitter, even amongst lefties. #GuardianBond was the hashtag. (They were shocked, shocked that our spies spy! And on Russia, too!)
  Well, the sell-out traitor Snowden took asylum with the homophobe Putin, issuing a fawning statement of thanks, and I assumed the story was dead for a while.
  Until the ''scandal'' of David Miranda's nine-hour detention broke on Twitter. Boy, did it seem pretty bad '' the husband of a journalist, nothing to do with this story himself, detained for no good reason for nine solid hours, denied a lawyer, held under the Terrorism Act, purely to intimidate his husband. Wow. I had no idea our security forces at Heathrow were such utter b*******, abusing their power in violation of all professional standards and ethics.
  Except'... for that very reason I didn't quite believe it. Here's how the story utterly unravelled over the course of the day.
  Here's Glenn Greenwald to the New York Times, pretending Miranda was just there as a spouse, and was not himself a journalist:
  He is my partner. He is not even a journalist.
  This was the first clue. It turned out that the Guardian was paying for David Miranda's flights and that Miranda was working on the leaks story, making him a journalist. My direct question to Greenwald '' and the Guardian '' as to whether the Guardian was paying Miranda for his work on the story went unanswered, though Greenwald instead asked me a question of his own.
  Here's where the Guardian admit they were paying for his flights and he was assisting with the story:
  The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights. Miranda is not an employee of the Guardian. As Greenwald's partner, he often assists him in his work and the Guardian normally reimburses the expenses of someone aiding a reporter in such circumstances.
  This showed that Greenwald was lying by saying that Miranda was merely a spouse '' he was actively involved in the story with Greenwald.
  But hey, no biggie '' even if Miranda WAS acting as a journalist himself, you can't detain someone under the Terrorism Act just for being a journalist. Freedom of the press. And you can't deny them a lawyer, as Greenwald said the airport police did:
  The official '' who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 '' said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.
  Except, giving an interview to the Guardian just before 10pm and after all the UK papers had gone to bed (so they couldn't report this) David Miranda confirmed he had been offered a lawyer:
  He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities.
  Right. Now let's pause for a moment and talk about lies of omission. Surely both the Guardian newspaper and Glenn Greenwald had known for some time that David Miranda was offered a lawyer by airport security. So why did they allow the falsehood to be tweeted and written about that Miranda was detained without being offered a lawyer to persist for so long? Did they know all day and not tell us?
  I was arguing at this point that Miranda, who was clearly working as a journalist assisting on the story, was obviously suspected of not just reporting, but helping Snowden disseminate his intelligence on UK and US spying programmes, which would clearly be a serious crime. I qualified it by saying Miranda may not have been doing that, but it could be reasonably suspected.
  I didn't know then what we all know now, and what Greenwald and the Guardian knew but kept secret until late last night.
  But the final shoe fell. Glenn Greenwald admitted to the New York Times that David Miranda had been carrying, as a mule, stolen, encrypted thumb drives actually containing intelligence data that Snowden stole from the CIA '' and those encrypted drives were confiscated.
  Remember, Greenwald knew this all along. He knew his husband was not only a journalist but much more to the point, he was carrying top secret, encrypted drives with stolen intelligence information on them '' information not just about the NSA but about UK and US intelligence action against foreign powers. Yet he was so quick to lie and viciously slander our security services, saying they targeted his husband only to intimidate him, Greenwald. He always knew Miranda was transporting top secret encrypted files Snowden stole, as the New York Times reported:
  Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.
  Note the NYT correctly says ''the two journalists'' '' though at this point they are far beyond that.
  As I tweeted away on this bombshell, fellow tweeters denied it was possible, even when again and again I pointed them to the quote. Then they asked ''If Miranda was carrying encrypted stolen Snowden data, why wasn't he arrested and charged? Eh? Eh?''
  Well, probably because the thumb drives are encrypted and it would take police more than 9 hours to decode them '' by which time they had to release Miranda under the law. The only reason we know for sure that Miranda was smuggling this is because Greenwald admitted it to the Times '' once Miranda was safely back on Brazilian soil.
  In Brazil now, Greenwald was threatening, apparently out of sheer revenge, to expose British intelligence and therefore British agents. He tried to deny these threats later, but unfortunately for him, CNN reported his exact words with the video to prove it (slide to 1:20 for Greenwald):
  Glenn Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about secret U.S. surveillance programs, said the authorities who took his partner into custody at London's Heathrow Airport ''are going to regret what they did.''
  ''I am going to write my stories a lot more aggressively now,'' the Guardian reporter told Brazil's Globo TV on Monday in Rio de Janeiro.
  ''I am going to publish many more documents now. I am going to publish a lot about England, too, I have a lot of documents about the espionage system in England. Now my focus is going to be that as well.''
  And lastly of course, we have the juxtaposition of the quotes by David Miranda to the Guardian and the statement by Glenn Greenwald to the New York Times. Miranda states (if you believe him, and I don't) that he had no idea what he was carrying. Greenwald states that he was transporting Snowden's stolen, top secret CIA intelligence data on encrypted thumb drives. So basically, you have Greenwald using his spouse as a mule to actively assist Edward Snowden, and you have Miranda apparently lying at the airport when he answers that damned basic security question'... ''Has anyone given you anything to carry on board?''
  ''It is clear why they took me. It's because I'm Glenn's partner. Because I went to Berlin. Because Laura lives there. So they think I have a big connection,'' he [David Miranda] said. ''But I don't have a role. I don't look at documents. I don't even know if it was documents that I was carrying. It could have been for the movie that Laura is working on.''
  Did you lie to airport security, then, David?
  Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.
  And you knew this all along, Glenn Greenwald, yet you continued to smear our intelligence police, just as you knew all along David Miranda was offered a lawyer yet failed constantly to correct the record?
  But you know, why is the New York Times breaking the story that Miranda was transporting stolen intelligence data, stolen by Snowden? Why wouldn't our fearless truth-seekers at the Guardian let Britain know what David Miranda was really doing?
  This is an edited extract of a post on Unfashionista.com, published with Louise Mensch's permission. Read the full version here.
Most Americans Commit Three Felonies a Day '-- and Here's What Happens If They Get Caught
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:29
  The United States prison system is a blight for the country. The International Center for Prison Studies estimates that America imprisons 716 people per 100,000 citizens (of any age). That compares (unfavourably) with Russia (484), China (121) and Iran (284). Over two and a half million American children have a parent behind bars. A whopping 60% of those incarcerated in U.S. prisons are non-violent offenders, many of them in prison for drug charges (overwhelming African-Americans). Even while our crime rate has fallen, our incarcerated population has climbed.
  Politicians win elections by being tough on crime and portraying all prisoners as violent and subhuman. Convicted felons are not allowed to vote in America, disenfranchising them and preventing them from wielding any political influence. Nearly 6 million Americans, or 2.5% of the voting age population, cannot vote because they have a felony on record.
  Harvey Silverglate, a civil libertarian, has noted that with the broad laws on the books, especially those relating to technology, most Americans commit three felonies a day. These are the laws that allow the DOJ to harass people like Aaron Swartz with trumped-up charges. Silverglate argues that an overzealous prosecutor could charge almost anyone with one of the many absurd, archaic or overbroad laws on the books. Silly laws, like the infamous "three strike laws," create the illusion of safety at a high cost: the American prison system is bad for society and dehumanizing for those who are incarcerated.
  High rates of incarceration, and our inability to deal with recidivism (partially a result of high rates of incarceration) are bad for society. In 2008, the federal, state and local prison system cost a whopping $75 billion dollars. It's estimated that the total cost of the drug war over the last 40 years could be over $1 trillion. And that doesn't include opportunity costs: investments that could have been made with that money, humans that could be innovating and increasing GDP, etc. There are further, unquantifiable costs in the form of less social cohesion, the breakdown of neighborhoods, and fatherless children.
  Those who are incarcerated are ostracized, but also face a cruel dehumanization. Consider the widespread rape of prisoners, which remains unacknowledged in wider society except for a joke now and then.
  An estimated 217,000 American prisoners are raped each year. That's 600 new victims every day, and the results are horrifying and traumatizing. In 2010, the Department of Justice released a report about abuse in juvenile detention centers. The report found that 12.1% of all youth held in juvenile detention reported sexual violence; youth held for between seven and twelve months had a staggering victimization rate of 14.2%.
  Dr. James Gilligan told ABC News that "the more violent, powerful inmates '-- are in effect being given a bribe or a reward to cooperate with the prison authorities . .. as long as they cooperate, the prison authorities will permit them to have their victims."
  Worse, state, local and federal authorities who are aware of the problem do nothing to stop it. Back in 2009, the National Rape Elimination Commission released a set of proposed standards to reduce rape, including: make data on sexual assaults behind bars public; improve staff training, supervision and protection for vulnerable detainees; limit cross-gender searches and supervision, particularly when prisoners are undressed; and make it easier and safer for prisoners to report abuse. Here are how some correction departments responded.
  The New Mexico Corrections Department submitted this in response to the proposed standards: "A simple cost-benefit analysis shows that when weighed against the twelve million dollar cost of compliance, non-compliance would be much cheaper."
  "To be clear, the Department has every intention of complying with whatever standards are ultimately approved, but the fact remains that compliance with the currently proposed standards would be very expensive."
  The Alabama Department of Corrections estimated that implementing these standards would cost the state $58 million dollars, but that the state could cut costs by keeping the definition of "prison rape" limited:
  "We strongly recommend the use of the statutory definition of 'rape,' as directed by PREA. The term 'sexual abuse' is much too broad and encompassing of incidences such as verbal harassment which is not the intent of PREA."
  There is some hope for detainees. The Department of Justice released its new standards May of last year, to praise from Human Rights Watch. Prisons have until August of this year to comply, and then the Justice Department will conduct a round of audits. The new standards are welcome, but they come far too late for the far too many abused prisoners.
  The saddest thing about the entire saga is what Jesse Lerner-Kinglake from Just Detention International tells me: "This abuse is preventable. Indeed, the BJS studies showed that some facilities have all but eliminated this abuse." The problem is that no one cares enough to demand stricter standards.
  The American prison system should be our greatest source of shame. The only country that imprisons more people per capita may be North Korea (estimates are obviously tough to find). That's not a good comparison. I've noted here some of the causes and singled out one perncious problem, but I could have noted others. Consider the fate of the detainees held in Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) in the weeks after Katrina:
  "As floodwaters rose in the OPP buildings, power was lost, and entire buildings were plunged into darkness. Deputies left their posts wholesale, leaving behind prisoners in locked cells, some standing in sewage-tainted water up to their chests ...
  Prisoners went days without food, water and ventilation, and deputies admit that they received no emergency training and were entirely unaware of any evacuation plan. Even some prison guards were left locked in at their posts to fend for themselves, unable to provide assistance to prisoners in need."
  Or take East Mississippi Correctional Facility, run by the private corporation GEO Group, Inc. The ACLU has recently filed a federal suit on the behalf of the prisoners alleging that prisoners defecate into Styrofoam trays and plastic trash bags because they lack functioning toilets, the cells lack working lights, prisoners are often left naked, the cells are rat-infested, medical attention is limited, and that rape, stabbings, and beatings are often committed against mentally handicapped prisoners. Gawkerhas obtained the letter of one prisoner who was raped and robbed at the private prison.
  It's time for reform. The voiceless and voteless prisoners and former prisoners in America need us to demand reform.
Autopsy report: Michael Hastings - Documents - Los Angeles Times
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:05
  Journ­al­ist Mi­chael Hast­ings, who was killed in a fiery Los Angeles crash in June, died of ''trau­mat­ic in­jur­ies'' as a res­ult of the ac­ci­dent and had traces of drugs in his sys­tem, Los Angeles cor­on­er's of­fi­cials said Tues­day.
  Note: This doc­u­ment con­tains con­tent that some read­ers might find dis­turb­ing.
  '-- Andrew Blankstein
  Published: Aug. 20, 2013
  Advertisement
VIDEO-NSA files: why the Guardian in London destroyed hard drives of leaked files | World news | The Guardian
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:42
  Link to video: Alan Rusbridger: I would rather destroy the copied files than hand them back to the NSA and GCHQGuardian editors on Tuesday revealed why and how the newspaper destroyed computer hard drives containing copies of some of the secret files leaked by Edward Snowden.
  The decision was taken after a threat of legal action by the government that could have stopped reporting on the extent of American and British government surveillance revealed by the documents.
  It resulted in one of the stranger episodes in the history of digital-age journalism. On Saturday 20 July, in a deserted basement of the Guardian's King's Cross offices, a senior editor and a Guardian computer expert used angle grinders and other tools to pulverise the hard drives and memory chips on which the encrypted files had been stored.
  As they worked they were watched by technicians from Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) who took notes and photographs, but who left empty-handed.
  The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, had earlier informed government officials that other copies of the files existed outside the country and that the Guardian was neither the sole recipient nor steward of the files leaked by Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor. But the government insisted that the material be either destroyed or surrendered.
  Twelve days after the destruction of the files the Guardian reported on US funding of GCHQ eavesdropping operations and published a portrait of working life in the British agency's huge "doughnut" building in Cheltenham. Guardian US, based and edited in New York, has also continued to report on evidence of NSA co-operation with US telecommunications corporations to maximise the collection of data on internet and phone users around the world.
  The British government has attempted to step up its pressure on journalists, with the detention in Heathrow on Sunday of David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald, who has led the Guardian's US reporting on the files.
  Miranda was detained for nine hours under a section of legislation enacted in 2000 aimed at terrorists. The use of this measure '' which applies only to airports and ports '' meant the normal protection for suspects in the UK, including journalists, did not apply.
  The initial UK attempts to stop reporting on the files came two weeks after the publication of the first story based on Snowden's leaks, about a secret US court order obliging the communications corporation Verizon to hand over data on its customers' phone usage. This was followed by a story detailing how GCHQ was making use of data collected by the NSA's internet monitoring programme, Prism.
  The remains of a computer that held files leaked by Edward Snowden to the Guardian and destroyed at the behest of the UK government. Photograph: Roger ToothDays later the paper published another story revealing how UK intelligence spied on British allies at two London summits.
  Shortly afterwards two senior British officials arrived at the Guardian's offices to see Rusbridger and his deputy, Paul Johnson. They were cordial but made it clear they came on high authority to demand the immediate surrender of all the Snowden files in the Guardian's possession.
  They argued that the material was stolen and that a newspaper had no business holding on to it. The Official Secrets Act was mentioned but not threatened. At this stage officials emphasised they preferred a low-key route rather than go to court.
  The Guardian editors argued that there was a substantial public interest in the hitherto unknown scale of government surveillance and the collaboration with technology and telecoms companies, particularly given the apparent weakness of parliamentary and judicial oversight.
  There was no written threat of any legal moves.
  After three weeks which saw the publication of several more articles on both sides of the Atlantic about GCHQ and NSA internet and phone surveillance, British government officials got back in touch and took a sterner approach.
  "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back," one of them said.
  The same two senior officials who had visited the Guardian the previous month returned with the message that patience with the newspaper's reporting was wearing out.
  They expressed fears that foreign governments, in particular Russia or China, could hack into the Guardian's IT network. But the Guardian explained the security surrounding the documents, which were held in isolation and not stored on any Guardian system.
  However, in a subsequent meeting, an intelligence agency expert argued that the material was still vulnerable. He said by way of example that if there was a plastic cup in the room where the work was being carried out foreign agents could train a laser on it to pick up the vibrations of what was being said. Vibrations on windows could similarly be monitored remotely by laser.
  Between 16 and 19 July government pressure intensified and, in a series of phone calls and meetings, the threat of legal action or even a police raid became more explicit.
  At one point the Guardian was told: "We are giving active consideration to the legal route."
  Rusbridger said: "I don't know what changed or why it changed. I imagine there were different conversations going on within the security apparatus, within Whitehall and within Downing Street."
  The Guardian's lawyers believed the government might either seek an injunction under the law of confidence, a catch-all statute that covers any unauthorised possession of confidential material, or start criminal proceedings under the Official Secrets Act.
  Either brought with it the risk that the Guardian's reporting would be frozen everywhere and that the newspaper would be forced to hand over material.
  "I explained to British authorities that there were other copies in America and Brazil so they wouldn't be achieving anything," Rusbridger said. "But once it was obvious that they would be going to law I preferred to destroy our copy rather than hand it back to them or allow the courts to freeze our reporting."
  Any such surrender would have represented a betrayal of the source, Edward Snowden, Rusbridger believed. The files could ultimately have been used in the American whisteblower's prosecution.
  "I don't think we had Snowden's consent to hand the material back, and I didn't want to help the UK authorities to know what he had given us," the Guardian editor said.
  Furthermore the computer records could be analysed forensically to yield information on which journalists had seen and worked with which files.
  Rusbridger took the decision that if the government was determined to stop UK-based reporting on the Snowden files, the best option was destroy the London copy and to continue to edit and report from America and Brazil. Journalists in America are protected by the first amendment, guaranteeing free speech.
  Since a legal case over the publication of the Pentagon Papers by the Washington Post and New York Times in 1971, it is widely considered that the US state would not succeed in attempting prior restraint on publication. The leaked Pentagon Papers revealed top secret details of the poor progress of the US military campaign in Vietnam.
  Talks began with government officials on a procedure that might satisfy their need to ensure the material had been destroyed, but which would at the same time protect the Guardian's sources and its journalism.
  The compromise ultimately brought Paul Johnson, Guardian News and Media's executive director Sheila Fitzsimons, and one of its top computer experts, David Blishen, to the basement of its Kings Place office on a hot Saturday morning to meet two GCHQ officials with notebooks and cameras.
  The intelligence men stood over Johnson and Blishen as they went to work on the hard drives and memory chips with angle grinders and drills, pointing out the critical points on circuit boards to attack. They took pictures as the debris was swept up but took nothing away.
  It was a unique encounter in the long and uneasy relationship between the press and the intelligence agencies, and a highly unusual, very physical, compromise between the demands of national security and free expression.
  But it was largely a symbolic act. Both sides were well aware that other copies existed outside the UK and that the reporting on the reach of state surveillance in the 21st century would continue.
  "It affects every citizen, but journalists I think should be aware of the difficulties they are going to face in the future because everybody in 2013 leaves a very big digital trail that is very easily accessed," Rusbridger said.
  "I hope what [the Miranda detention row] will do is to send people back to read the stories that so upset the British state because there has been a lot of reporting about what GCHQ and the NSA are up to. What Snowden is trying to do is draw attention to the degree to which we are on a road to total surveillance."
  The award-winning legal analysis site Groklaw is to shut because its founder says there is no way to continue to run it without using secure email '' and that the threat of National Security Agency spying means that could be compromised.
  "There is now no shield from forced exposure," wrote Pamela Jones, an American paralegal who has run the site since its founding in 2003, in a farewell message on the site.
  Jones cites the revelations that the US National Security Agency (NSA) can capture any email, and can store encrypted email for up to five years, as having prompted her decision to close down: "The simple truth is, no matter how good the motives might be for collecting and screening everything we say to one another, and no matter how 'clean' we all are ourselves from the standpoint of the screeners, I don't know how to function in such an atmosphere. I don't know how to do Groklaw like this," she wrote.
  Privacy International criticised the climate that had led to Jones's decision. "The closing of Groklaw demonstrates how central the right to privacy is to free expression. The mere threat of surveillance is enough to [make people] self-censor," it said in a statement.
Google flagged our site as malware on our prelaunch announcement day
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:37
  Share the post "Worst timing ever '' Google flagged us as malware on our prelaunch announcement day"
  Today it was supposed to be a great day for our WordPress AB / Split Testing service but thanks to Google, it has end up being a nightmare (well, at least nobody died thought a couple of us almost had a heart attack in the process). We've decided to explain all details of what happened to: 1 '' Assure visitors that our website is (and always has been) safe to visit (and subscribe) and 2 '' Let other companies know the bizarre things that can happen during a (pre)launch day becuase you´re never prepared enough.
  So this is the chronology of the facts:
  To get some traction for our beta program we decided to contact Jeff from WPTavern and ask him if he could cover our service as a kind of prelaunch announcement. We chose him because of his reputation in the WordPress community and were sure a mention of our service in his site would make some waves (Jeff already covered a couple of years ago our other WordPress service MigrateToWP and that post has been a good source of visitors for us ever since).Yesterday Jeff told me the short interview I had done with him describing the service was up online. It was already quite late (in my CET '' Central European time), so I just forwarded the info to my co-founders and went to bed.I woke up early today and first thing I did was to check mailchimp to see how many people had joined the beta thanks to Jeff´s post. Strange, only 4 people had joined. I start to think something is going onI check the email and I see a message from Sumobi saying ''Just a heads up in case you are unaware. When I tried to visit your website, google chrome blocked it with their malware detected page. Might stop a lot of people signing up to your mailing list ''. WHAT?????? This is impossible!!! A quick visit to the announcement post confirms it, several people are complaining: ''Visiting this page now is very likely to infect your computer with malware.'' , ''I got the same warning. Wonder what's going on there.''. Not exaclty the kind of feedback we were expecting.Google WebMaster tools says that the site is clean. So Google is contradicting itself. It flags the site as malware to our visitors but to us, the owners, it says that everything is ok. Very helpful, thanks!None of us is able to get this warning when visiting the site ourselves, it seems that only some people see it, making even more difficult for us to trace the source of the problem. Thanks to the info we get from our visitors we are able to detect that the problem is a couple of links to the demo site of the WordPress theme we bought for the site.After contacting the theme shop we immediately get the following explanation: Google had blacklisted our demo site earlier today as the result of a false alarm. Google has since removed that blacklist entry and the message should have disappeared. If the message was displayed on a client's site it is likely that they hot-linked an image somewhere on their site that was hosted on demos.shapingrain.com. I could not find any links anywhere on either that blog or the final site, but that warning message would even appear if Google suspected content on a site that was linked via 3 or more levels on a remove site (if you link to a site, that links to another site, which links to demos.shapingrain.com) '-- so it might have been an avatar or something similar. It is even possible that the mention of shapingrain.com in the theme's stylesheet could have triggered that, depending on the browser and whether or not additional anti-virus software was used, since some users saw the message and some did not. Again, there was no actual threat or malware posted anywhere and Google has reacted quickly and removed the blacklist entry. I apologize for any inconvenience and hope to have answered your questions. If you have any follow-up questions, please feel free to get back in touch and I would be happy to answer those as well.(In theory) this closes the problem.So, to sum up, everything was just a misunderstanding between the theme shop and Google. And we were just unlucky this happened the day we were doing a first big announcement. Well, thanks Google for screwing us up
  You can argue that Google needs to protect internet users but Google should also protect the businesses which in the end is who make Google rich. It doesn´t make sense that it decides to block my site without alerting me at the same time (otherwise, what's the point of Google Webmaster tools?). And really, I believe Google algorithms can do better than this. All the other malware scanning tools we tested this morning said our site was clean so why Google can't be smart enough to see it as well? I bet to say it's just because for them a false positive (flagging a site as malware when it's not) is not a problem at all. It's not them that suffer the consequences but us. And unfortunately, ''When Google sneezes our businesss catch a cold, if not something worse''. So please, Google, if you read this be more business-friendly the next time. Do not assume that you are the only ones that follow the ''Don't be evil'' motto.
  For more about WordPress and conversion optimization check us on twitter , facebook or Google+ . And if you're not yet on WordPress, let us help you migrate to WordPress.
  Be sociable, share!
  Featured image by Brian Gurrola
  Share the post "Worst timing ever '' Google flagged us as malware on our prelaunch announcement day"
PRPD News for Programmers: Public Radio Listeners Continue Tech Growth
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:33
  "In Jacobs Media's fifth annual study of core public radio listeners across the United States, the value of trending is on display as gadget acquisition and digital media usage continues its growth curve. This extremely well-educated radio audience is actively accessing information from a growing variety of media sources, and changing the way that media outlets provide their content."That's the overview from the Fifth Annual Public Tech Survey, a collaboration of PRPD, Jacobs Media and numerous public radio stations around the country. Here are some of the key takeaways from PRTS5:Going mobile '' Public radio listeners are increasingly purchasing mobile devices. Now more than six in ten own a smartphone, while half now carry a tablet. iPads and similar devices account for an amazing 63% increase from PRTS4. This strongly suggests that more and more, public radio partisans enjoy taking their content and media sources with them.Twitter on the move '' While Twitter's reach is still dwarfed by Facebook, its footprint continues to grow. Now, more than one-fifth (21%) of respondents use the platform, especially fans of Triple A stations and Gen X and Y respondents.On-demand in demand '' In PRTS5, nearly half (46%) engage in time-shifted programming, often in the form of podcasts. Once again, the younger public generations are in the vanguard, along with fans of public radio's News/Talk stations.The generation gap '' While Baby Boomers represent the center lane of public radio partisanship and usage, it is the emerging Generation X and Millennial audiences that are making waves. Nine in ten of them use social networks, eight in ten own a smartphone, and six in ten stream on a weekly basis or more often. This ''new guard'' of public radio listener requires tracking and dedicated content initiatives by stations affected by their listenership and membership.Net Promoter recommendation scores continue to be spectacular for public radio stations, while social sharing continues to grow. This combination is potentially very powerful for public radio stations able to engage and harness it.In-car listening continues to play a major role in public radio consumption. Now, half of PRTS5 respondents are able to connect a phone or mp3 player into their vehicles.When it comes to smartphones and tablets, the Apple platform continues to dominate public radio hardware choices.Local public radio stations are the go-to destinations for both breaking and news stories that provide more perspective. Notably, Generations X and Y are the most apt to turn to local public radio outlets to glean perspective and additional information after a story first breaks.Fred Jacobs will moderate a special session at the Public Radio Program Directors Convention in Atlanta on Tuesday, September 17 at 4 p.m. '' ''PRTS5 Unplugged '' Not By The Numbers'' '' a conversation about what this study means beyond the data.Arthur Cohen, President of PRPD comments, ''Generationally, there are big stories in PRTS5. Our stakeholder stations now have a playbook to help guide their strategic planning as the world of technology undergoes rapid change.''And Jacobs Media President Fred Jacobs notes, ''Mobile and mobility continue to have steep upward trajectories while on-demand programming is becoming even more popular. Public radio's great content is tailor-made for digital consumption.''To register for the PRPD conference https://www.signup4.net/public/ap.aspx?EID=PRPD10E&OID=130PRTS5 data were gathered online from April 15 '' May 13, 2013. Overall, 56 public radio stations across the U.S. participated, contributing 30, 871 respondents.
Accused Boston bomber had multiple wounds, fracture: court papers - Yahoo! News
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:31
  HomeMailNewsSportsFinanceWeatherGamesGroupsAnswersFlickrMoreomg!ShineMoviesMusicTVHealthShoppingTravelAutosHomesMobileYahoo! NewsSearch NewsSearch WebSign InMailHelpAccount InfoHelpSuggestionsYahoo!HomeU.S.WorldPoliticsTechScienceHealthOdd NewsOpinionLocalDear AbbyComicsABC NewsY! News Originals {{/show_more}} ]]>
Hoofdredacteur Guardian: 'Werken met vertrouwelijke bronnen wordt straks onmogelijk in journalistiek'
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: VK: Home
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:29
  OPINIE - Alan Rusbridge '' 20/08/13, 17:25
  (C) afp. David Miranda en Glenn Greenwald.
  opinie David Miranda, de partner van Guardian-columnist Glenn Greenwald, werd urenlang op Heathrow vastgehouden. Er is sprake van een reel gevaar voor de journalistiek, schrijft Guardian-hoofdredacteur Alan Rusbridger in een artikel.
  In de kelder van de krant werden harde schijven vernietigd onder het toeziend oog van twee medewerkers van de inlichtingendienst GCHQ, die zich ervan vergewisten dat er niets meer te vinden was in de verwrongen hoop metaal wat de belangstelling kon opwekken van langlopende Chinese spionnen. 'We kunnen de zwarte helikopters afbellen', grapte een van de twee.
  Vorige week betrapte ik mezelf tijdens een besloten filmvoorstelling op het uiten van een vulgaire krachtterm tegen Bill Keller, de voormalige hoofdredacteur van de New York Times. Het was een verwarrend moment. De man die zich voordeed als mij - en die Keller bedankte omdat 'het hem geen reet kon schelen' - heeft eerder Malcolm Tucker gespeeld, de grofgebekte Schotse spindoctor die binnenkort de rol van Doctor Who op zich gaat nemen. Misschien dat Keller beter weet, maar ik kan me niet herinneren dat ik ooit dergelijke taal gebezigd heb. Ik herinner me wel dat ik iets heb gezegd als: 'wij hebben de USB-stick, jullie hebben het Eerste Amendement'.
  Het fictieve moment doet zich voor aan het begin van The Fifth Estate, de film van DreamWorks over WikiLeaks, die volgende maand uitkomt. Ik kan u vast verklappen dat Peter Capaldi een geloofwaardige redacteur van de Guardian neerzet.
  GrondwetHet echte moment met Keller deed zich voor vlak nadat we in 2010 de eerste lading WikiLeaks-documenten in handen kregen. Ik had het sterke vermoeden dat wij in het Verenigd Koninkrijk ernstig beperkt zouden worden in onze mogelijkheden om deze rijke bron van geheim materiaal te onderzoeken en erover te publiceren. En Amerika mag dan zijn eigen problemen hebben met mediawetten en klokkenluiders, maar de persvrijheid wordt er tenminste in de grondwet gegarandeerd. Het is ook ondenkbaar, hoop ik, dat een Amerikaanse regering, van welke politieke kleur dan ook, zou proberen om vooraf beperkingen op te leggen aan een nieuwsorganisatie die van plan was om materiaal te publiceren in het kader van een belangrijke openbare discussie, hoe vervelend of beschamend dat materiaal ook zou zijn.
  Afgelopen zondagochtend werd David Miranda, de partner van Guardian-columnist Glenn Greenwald, vastgehouden op de luchthaven Heathrow, waar hij was op doorreis naar Rio de Janeiro, waar het stel woont. Greenwald is de journalist die als eerste met de meeste artikelen is gekomen over het in de gaten houden van burgers door de staat, op basis van door voormalig NSA-medewerker Edward Snowden gelekte informatie. Greenwalds werk is ongetwijfeld vervelend en beschamend geweest voor diverse westerse overheden. Maar, zoals wel is gebleken uit de discussie in Amerika en Europa, is het publiek terdege ge¯nteresseerd in zijn verhalen over de juiste balans tussen veiligheid, burgerrechten, vrijheid van meningsuiting en privacy. Hij heeft dringende en verontrustende vragen opgeworpen over het toezicht dat door inlichtingendiensten wordt uitgeoefend; over het gebruik van geheime rechtbanken; over de innige en heimelijke relatie tussen de overheid en grote bedrijven; en over de mate waarin tegenwoordig de communicatie van miljoenen burgers stelselmatig wordt onderschept, verzameld, geanalyseerd en opgeslagen.
  Electronische communicatieBij dat werk wordt Greenwald regelmatig geholpen door David Miranda. Miranda is geen journalist, maar speelt wel een waardevolle rol door zijn partner te helpen bij diens journalistieke werk. Greenwald heeft zijn handen vol aan het lezen en analyseren van het materiaal van Snowden, het schrijven van artikelen en het afhandelen van verzoeken van media en sociale media van over de hele wereld. Hij kan die hulp dus zeker gebruiken. Zijn werk wordt ernstig bemoeilijkt door de zekerheid dat het hoogst onverstandig zou zijn van Greenwald (of van welke journalisten ook) om ervan uit te gaan dat welke vorm van elektronische communicatie dan ook veilig zou zijn. Tijdens het werk van de Guardian aan het Snowden-verhaal zijn er door heel wat mensen talloze vliegtuigen genomen om anderen persoonlijk te spreken. Dat is niet goed voor het milieu, maar het wordt steeds meer de enige manier waarop we nog kunnen werken. Binnenkort gaan we waarschijnlijk weer pen en papier invoeren.
  Miranda is negen uur vastgehouden op grond van bepaling 7 van de Britse antiterreurwetten. Die bepaling geeft de overheid zeer ruime bevoegdheden voor het aanhouden, fouilleren en ondervragen van mensen die op geen enkele manier in verband kunnen worden gebracht met 'terreur' in de gebruikelijke zin. De 'verdachten' kunnen geen beroep doen op rechtsbijstand en hun bezittingen kunnen voor maximaal zeven dagen in beslag worden genomen. Deze maatregel - speciaal ontworpen voor havens en voor de transitruimten op luchthavens - kent niet (C)(C)n van de 'checks-and-balances' die wel gelden zodra iemand echt op het grondgebied van Groot-Brittanni is. Mensen hoeven niet te worden gearresteerd, ze hoeven niet in staat van beschuldiging te worden gesteld en er geldt geen bescherming voor journalisten of hun materiaal. Een transitruimte op Heathrow is een behoorlijk onveilige plek.
  Journalist of nietDe beroepsstatus van Miranda - veel gedoe over of hij nu wel of niet een echte 'journalist' is - doet onder deze omstandigheden eigenlijk niet ter zake. De vraag wie er bescherming geniet zou minder moeten draaien om 'is dit een journalist?' en veel meer om 'dient de publicatie van dit materiaal een algemeen belang?'
  Het vasthouden van Miranda heeft terecht internationaal tot ontsteltenis geleid omdat het de gedachte voedt dat de regeringen van de VS en het VK wel beweren dat ze de door Snowden aangezwengelde discussie over het toezicht door de staat verwelkomen, maar er ook op uit zijn om de vloedgolf van lekken in te dammen en klokkenluiders fel te vervolgen. Die gedachte is terecht. Ik zal u wat achtergrondinformatie geven over de niet geringe hindernissen die voor ons worden opgeworpen bij het informeren van het publiek over wat inlichtingendiensten, overheden en grote bedrijven uitspoken.
  Zo'n twee maanden geleden nam een zeer hooggeplaatste overheidsfunctionaris, die zei dat hij het standpunt van de premier verwoordde, contact met mij op. Er volgden twee ontmoetingen waarbij hij teruggave of vernietiging eiste van al het materiaal waaraan wij werkten. De toon was onbuigzaam, zij het niet onhartelijk, maar er klonk wel het impliciete dreigement in door dat anderen binnen de regering en het overheidsapparaat voorstander waren van een meer draconische aanpak.
  Lolletje gehadEen maand geleden werd de toon harder, toen ik gebeld werd door iemand uit het hart van de regering die zei: 'Jullie hebben je lolletje gehad, nu willen we die spullen terug.' Er volgden nog meer bijeenkomsten met schimmige overheidsdienaren. Steeds was de eis: geef het Snowden-materiaal terug of vernietig het. Ik legde uit dat we dit onderwerp niet konden uitdiepen en erover schrijven als we aan dat verzoek tegemoet zouden komen. De overheidsdienaar keek me niet-begrijpend aan. 'Die discussie is nu wel afgerond. Jullie hoeven er niet meer over te schrijven.'
  Tijdens een van die bijeenkomsten vroeg ik rechtstreeks of de overheid zou proberen om de verslaggeving door de Guardian met juridische middelen onmogelijk te maken, door naar de rechter te stappen om zo de overdracht van het materiaal af te dwingen. De functionaris bevestigde dat dat inderdaad de bedoeling was als we niet zouden meewerken. Vooraf opgelegde inperking, welhaast ondenkbaar in de Verenigde Staten, lag nu expliciet en dreigend op tafel in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Door mijn eerdere ervaringen met WikiLeaks - de USB-stick en het Eerste Amendement - was ik echter op dit moment voorbereid. Ik legde de overheidsfunctionaris uit hoe internationale samenwerking werkte en hoe mediabedrijven tegenwoordig hun voordeel konden doen met het werken in de tolerantste juridische omgevingen. Botweg gezegd, hoefden wij onze verslaggeving niet vanuit Londen te doen. De meeste artikelen over de NSA werden toch al geschreven en geregisseerd vanuit New York. En was het al bij hem opgekomen dat Greenwald in Brazili woonde?
  De man gaf geen krimp en zo kwam het tot een van de meest bizarre momenten in de lange geschiedenis van de Guardian. In de kelder van de krant werden harde schijven vernietigd onder het toeziend oog van twee medewerkers van de inlichtingendienst GCHQ, die zich ervan vergewisten dat er niets meer te vinden was in de verwrongen hoop metaal wat de belangstelling kon opwekken van Chinese spionnen. 'We kunnen de zwarte helikopters afbellen', grapte een van de twee nog terwijl wij de restanten van een MacBook Pro bijeenveegden.
  In het regeringscentrum waren ze tevreden, maar het voelde toch aan als een buitengewoon zinloos staaltje symboliek waaruit een totaal onbegrip van het digitale tijdperk sprak. Wij gaan door met onze geduldige en nauwgezette verslaggeving rond de documenten van Snowden, alleen doen we dat niet in Londen. Ook het in beslag nemen van Miranda's laptop, telefoons, harde schijven en camera zal geen invloed hebben op het werk van Greenwald.
  Ontzagwekkend toezichtapparaatElke staat die zo'n ontzagwekkend toezichtapparaat optuigt, zal zijn best doen om te voorkomen dat journalisten daarover schrijven. Dat begrijpen de meeste journalisten wel. Ik vraag me echter af hoeveel van hen de absolute dreiging voor de journalistiek onderkennen die besloten ligt in het idee van het totale toezicht, wanneer of als het zover is - en het lijkt er steeds meer op dat het een kwestie van 'wanneer' is.
  Het is nog niet zover, maar misschien duurt het niet lang meer voor het voor journalisten onmogelijk wordt om nog met vertrouwelijke bronnen te werken. De meeste rapportages - de meeste mensenlevens eigenlijk, in 2013 - laten te veel digitale vingerafdrukken achter. De collega's die afgeven op Snowden of vinden dat journalisten er maar op moeten vertrouwen dat de staat het het beste weet (in Groot-Brittanni zijn dat, vreemd genoeg, vaak journalisten ter rechterzijde) konden op een dag wel eens ruw wakker worden geschud. Op de dag dat hun verslaggeving, hun zaak, onder vuur komt te liggen. In ieder geval weten journalisten nu dat ze de transitruimten van Heathrow maar beter kunnen mijden.
  Alan Rusbridger is hoofdredacteur van de Britse krant The Guardian.Vertaling door Leo Reijnen.
Meanwhile, Europe Is Collapsing
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Zero Hedge
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:28
  So much for the European growth meme (see CAT's bellwether sales to the region) or the cleanest dirty shirt moving across the pond. Even as the EUR soars (breaking above 1.3450), European bond and stock markets (most notably the peripherals that have soared recently on nothing but air and rotating momo liquidity), are collapsing. Spain and Italy are down 4.2% on the week, Greek stocks have dumped 6.8% and even the core are down almost 3%. Peripheral bonds (which actually outperformed in the rally) are sliding fast with Spanish and Italian bond spreads snapping 15bps wider. Europe's VIX has surged to its highest in a month (near 20%) and credit spreads for financials and corporates continued to blow wider, with stocks catching down. This is the biggest 2-day drop in 2 months for most assets.
  EURUSD surging... (and Swissie)...
  But stocks and bonds are collapsing...
  Average:Your rating: NoneAverage: 4.7(3 votes)
Kazachstan: Pink snow falls in heat of summer in Karaganda.
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: WT news feed
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:27
  CA-NEWS (KZ) - A pink snow has fallen in Karaganda in the heat of summer, reported local television channel.
  Snowfall started in Karaganda on August 13 after 10.00 pm covering the roofs of buildings, eyewitnesses say.
  Meteorologists have not registered snow, however. They forecast rain for that day and were skeptical about snow reports. Though the probability of snowfalls in August is not excluded by them. They call it wonders of nature.
Kris Humphries: Kim K ''Would Say Mean Things About Kanye''
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Jacky Jasper's Diary of a Hollywood Street King
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:26
  by Jacky Jasper
  She may be the mother of Kanye West's two-month old daughter, but Kim K isn't only said to not be attracted to the 'Black Skinhead' '-- she thinks ''he smells bad in bed'' too! Don't believe me.. Just ask Kris Humphries, who recently spilled the beans on the K-Klan member.
  This news comes just days after Kanye, Kim and baby North headed to Oklahoma for the funeral of Yeezus' late grandfather, Portwood Williams Sr..
  Here's what Life & Style is reporting:
  ''Kris Humphries has so much dirt on Kim and the Kardashians. He could tell all about how the whole show is fake, how Kim is a self-absorbed monster and how she would say mean things about Kanye West, like how he smells bad in bed and how she's not attracted to him at all.''
  Did Kris Humpries' ex-girlfriend previously announce she caught herpes from having sex with the NBA player? Of course. Don't believe me.. Ask Myla Sinanaj.
Accused Boston bomber had multiple wounds, fracture: court papers
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: News 1 Stop
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:25
  Scott MaloneReutersAugust 20, 2013
  Accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was badly injured when taken into custody by federal agents in April, with multiple gunshot wounds, including one that had fractured his skull, according to unsealed court papers.
  A trauma surgeon detailed the suspect's condition in a hearing the day the Chechen immigrant, who was lying in a Boston hospital bed, was first charged over the bombing attacks that killed three people and wounded about 264.
  Tsarnaev, now 20, is the survivor of a pair of brothers accused of carrying out the worst mass-casualty attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. A pair of homemade pressure-cooker bombs exploded on April 15 at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, which was crowded with thousands of spectators, volunteers and athletes.
  Read full article
  This article was posted: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 at 8:40 am
  Tags: domestic news, government corruption
Bill Clinton foundation has spent more than $50M on travel expenses
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: News 1 Stop
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:24
  Geoff EarleNew York PostAugust 20, 2013
  Bill Clinton's foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit's tax forms reveal.
  The web of foundations run by the former president spent an eye-opening $12.1 million on travel in 2011 alone, according to an internal audit conducted by foundation accountants. That's enough to by 12,000 air tickets costing $1,000 each, or 33 air tickets each day of the year.
  That overall figure includes travel costs for the William J. Clinton Foundation (to which Hillary and Chelsea are now attached) of $4.2 million on travel in 2011, the most recent year where figures are available.
  Read More
  This article was posted: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 at 9:20 am
  Tags: government corruption, money
Jackson Twitter Feud: Debbie vs. Randy
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Jacky Jasper's Diary of a Hollywood Street King
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:19
  by Jacky Jasper
  Debbie Rowe may have been under oath when she testified Paris Jackson ''tried to kill herself'' after MJ's fatal overdose '-- but she's shooting down Randy Jackson's tweets pointing to Paris as a troubled teen who remains under psychiatric treatment.
  Here's what Debbie Rowe took to Twitter to say to Randy:
  Here's what Roger Friedman had to say:
  ''Paris, it should be noted, hasn't been heard from since June 4th, after being incredibly open and public with her social networking. In the weeks leading up to her suicide attempt Paris had gotten much friendlier with Rowe, her biological parent. A month before the suicide attempt she'd signed with a major Hollywood manager.''
  Check out Randy's Tweets:
  Is Randy Jackson known to suffer narcoleptic episodes while he's getting a lap dance? Of course! Just ask former 4Play strip club manager, Dirk, who works over at the liquor store on Sunset and Detroit (during the night shift)!!
Trevor Horn: Conversation 2013
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: LIVE@LEEDS
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:13
  Chart-topping frontman, legendary producer and music industry businessman with interests including Sarm, Perfect Songs, ZTT and Stiff. Now Trevor Horn is turning his hand to a new talent as a musical composer.
  Under a new manager, Sandy Dworniak, he has teamed up with former 10cc man Lol Cr¨me to pen a stage production set appropriately enough in a recording studio.
  ''I've nearly finished it,'' he tells Music Week, revealing: ''I'm a big fan of musicals. I got to see a lot of them. The musical Billy Elliot was brilliant. That's the best modern one I've seen. I loved that.''
  It marks a new departure for Horn, best known as the lead singer of Video Killed The Radio Star chart-toppers Buggles and ace producer of such albums as ABC's The Lexicon of Love, Frankie Goes To Hollywood's Welcome To The Pleasure Dome, various from Seal and more recently Robbie Williams' Reality Killed The Radio Star (see what he did there?).
  Besides the musical, Horn talks to Music Week about what else he has been up to, how he became a record producer in the first place and whether it is still possible to make a living out of the profession.
  You have worked with so many people over the years '' is there anyone left?
  I always like working with people who've got really good songs and something they want to say. I don't care if it's a first record or a 15th record. In fact, if anything I prefer the first record. I don't really like going through the motions. I like things where there's something in it. Like Johnny Borrell, I did his sort of album and Johnny definitely felt like he had something to say, he had to get it out and I like that. ABC: Martin [Fry] had something to say. Seal had a whole new view of the world, Future Love Paradise or whatever. He was saying something.
  Do you get lots of approaches or do people think you are probably too busy?
  Most people think I'm way too expensive so they don't bother.
  Are you way too expensive?
  It depends how much I like the music. I like to do a good job of things.
  What do you make of the way production is often done these days with songwriter/producer teams '' sometimes a whole series of them for one album?
  It obviously depends who you are, but when I started out I wrote sort of three songs for Dollar with Bruce Woolley and then I produced the records, but then I thought if I just write them it's really going to limit me. In the same way, if I have to play on every record I make then that's going to limit the kinds of records I make. Back then in the Eighties you could still earn money from selling records so I didn't [write] . If you look at all the Seal albums I've done I'm not credited anywhere as a writer. Frankie Goes To Hollywood I'm not credited as a writer, yet we chopped that stuff up a lot, but I had this ethic I was the producer. That was paramount. These days writer/producer teams are fine. It works. It's a different sort of job really, because all the stuff, all the keyboards that we had to buy in the Eighties, now you can get all of those sounds so easily. It's a different world.
  You mention you like to work with new artists. Some of the biggest records you worked on like ABC's Lexicon Of Love you didn't subsequently work on the second albums. Were there circumstances there?
  There were circumstances with ABC because I was wrestling with [the creation of Frankie single] Relax and they kept saying to me, ''You've got to start our second album.''?I said I couldn't and, ''You've just got to wait until I finish this one.'' Mark [White] the guitar player said, ''We wouldn't wait for God that long so we're certainly not waiting for you,'' which I thought was funny at the time because I said, ''You've got to let me have another four weeks'' or whatever. So that was the reason I never did the second one '' but after the second one I was off and running somewhere else anyway.
  Do you think there's a chance of working with Robbie Williams again?
  Yeah, I thought there was a nice album we made together.
  At the time of making the album he said it was the most positive he had ever been creatively.
  He was lovely '' I saw him the other day coming in here. We had a cuddle and I said I'd been writing a musical. It was nice to see him and there's a couple of tracks on that record I really love. I though the first single was great, Bodies, I thought was hilarious, really good fun and Deceptacon and a couple of other things that I've got on my own personal playlist. He looks in good shape and has got a great voice, too.
  Is it still possible to make a living out of being a producer these days?
  Oh yeah, especially if you work on the Adele album. If you're a producer, my advice is: if Adele phones up take the job.
  Can you make it just as a producer now?
  No, you have to be a songwriter as well.
  People can now record their music on their laptops, so what is it that a great studio and great producer can still add to the recording?
  It's not just the right producer, it's the right manager and the right song. It's surprising what producers can bring to certain things. In the case of a band like Yes where I've done quite a few albums with them '' I've been a Yes fan since year dot '' I just run the whole thing because it stops them falling out with each other. The thing about an old school producer you're the central focus of the making of the record. Every decision comes back to you so when everyone's gone home you and the engineer are still there at 1 o'clock in the morning. Back in the Eighties it was sometimes trying to figure out how to get something sounding like it was in tune with whatever we had at the time. It's trying to get something to sound in time by slicing bits out of a two-inch tape in the late Seventies, early Eighties, whatever you had to do to get that record finished. And, of course, a recording studio like [Sarm] isn't like your bedroom. It takes a bit of learning. This is like my bedroom studio is, but back in the Seventies people would have no way of getting anywhere near [Sarm's quality] unless they actually came in. You might be a writer with a great script but unless you know the process of making a great film your first film will be terrible. Well, exactly the same thing happens when they come in here.
  Can you remember when you first came across the phrase 'record producer'?
  Yes, I do. I was aware when I was 14 that George Martin produced The Beatles and I was intrigued by it and I saw him on television and I thought, ''He's a bit like a music teacher,'' but I didn't really understand what he did. Then I remembered looking at the producer credits on records: Andrew Loog Oldham and the Glimmer Twins and weird stuff on Rolling Stones records. I was obsessed with recording and recording studios.
  I started playing when I was about 11 and by the time I was 15 or 16 I was playing semi-pro, playing bass guitar. My dad was a bass player so I used to stand in for him so the whole producer thing didn't really happen. When I was about 24 I built a studio with another guy in Leicester and we were working seven nights [a week] at a nightclub while we were doing it and because we got no work we put an ad in the paper. Some guys came around with songs that they had for the Leicester Song Competition. We got these guys' song out, gave it a structure and arrangement and somebody said to me, ''You know what you did there was being a record producer'' and I was like, ''That's what record producers do?'' I had no idea. But he said, ''If you become a record producer the production of the record is more important than being a bass player so that comes first.''?It took me five years after that to get a hit.
  Those records you made in the Eighties like the Frankie Goes To Hollywood ones still sound ultra-modern today'...
  That's the funny thing because in a way they were the first time you heard that kind of record. I just had this idea of making pop records with a mechanical rhythm because I liked Kraftwerk. All records have got mechanical rhythm sections now, but that was the big idea then.
  Those records are still heavily hammered on the radio as well.
  Yeah, thank God. If they sound good it's because we were in studios like [Sarm] to analogue tapes even though they were digital records. A lot of people in the music business have come from Sarm and they've been trained here and I'm pretty proud of all the people who we've worked with. They've all gone on to do really good things. If you can work for me you can work for everybody.
LIVE COVERAGE OF 9 11
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: aangirfan
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:12
  WHO CONTROLS YOUR MEDIA EXPOSED! - YouTube
  Not Too Big to Jail: Why Eliot Spitzer Is Wall Street's Worst Nightmare
  BBC removes musician's anti-Israeli comments from performance
  Fake Al Qaeda Actors EXPOSED! Adam Gadahn & Yousef al-Khattab...
Statement from the Office of the Vice President
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: White House.gov Press Office Feed
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:11
  The White House
  Office of the Vice President
  For Immediate Release
  August 19, 2013
  This morning, the Vice President accompanied his son Beau Biden to Houston, Texas, where Beau is being evaluated to determine the cause of an episode of disorientation and weakness that he experienced while on vacation with his family last week.
VIDEO-EMP '' OBAMA'S Fmr CIA Dir. Assures US ENEMIES ATTACKS FROM THE SOUTH ARE UNDETECTED & UNDEFENDED !!! | Sean Anthony | Flow of Wisdom
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:24
  Author InformationPosted by:Sean Anthony | Flow of Wisdom20 Year Radio Veteran, Sean Anthony is the Host of "Flow of Wisdom Radio." It airs live Sundays 3p-5p EST on the GCN Radio Networks (gcnlive.com.) Call in 877-300-7645. He is also the author of "Conversations With Hip Hop" available on Amazon.com
Leak from Fukushima tank
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:06
  ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: 12.46pmUPDATE 1: 1.35pm: remove mistaken description of rainwater valve as faulty Tepco is working to control a leak of highly radioactive water from a storage tank at Fukushima Daiichi. Water escaped from the tank and then reached the environment through a rainwater valve in the surrounding dam.
  The cooling of the reactor cores damaged in March 2011 still requires a constant flow of water, which circulates through the power plant basements before treatment and storage in a complex of large tanks. The water becomes highly radioactive after contact with the cores and is pumped to a storage and treatment facility. After decontamination the water is used again for cooling.
  At about 9.50am yesterday, a worker on routine inspection found water leaking from a rainwater drain valve in a dam that surrounds a tank of pre-treated water. This had formed two shallow puddles outside the dam. Investigations showed that the level of water in the tank was about 3 metres lower than expected, indicating that some 300 cubic metres had escaped. The water was said to be highly radioactive: 80,000 becquerels per cubic centimetre.
  The drain valve has now been successfully closed. Water from the failed tank is currently being pumped to other tanks and Tepco is removing water from within the dam to a temporary tank before it will be added to other tanks at the facility.
  Tepco is already removing the soil near the leak site and placing large sandbags in its place. The company's scientists are investigating how far the water may have spread and checking the area every three hours. It is also cleaning the floor slabs in the area.
  There is no evidence that the water entered a drainage ditch, said Tepco, meaning it is unlikely to have left the area or reached the sea. The incident has been classified at Level 1 on the International Nuclear Event Scale - an anomaly.
  Researched and writtenby World Nuclear News
Defense News Mobile - US Army Leaders Give Subordinates Just Weeks to Cut Staffs, Budgets by 25 Percent
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:40
  By PAUL McLEARYPosted: Tuesday Aug 20, 2013
  The Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff have given their staffs just weeks -- until Sept. 11 -- to report back with "a comprehensive set of recommendations" as to where the service can make 25 percent cuts in funding and manning levels at all Army headquarters elements at the 2-star level and above.
  The "2013 Army Focus Area Review Group" plan was spelled out in an August 14 Army document obtained by Defense News.
  In some of the strongest language yet about how seriously Army leadership is taking the cuts, the memo bluntly says that "Let there be no mistake, aggregate reductions WILL TAKE PLACE. The money is gone; our mission now is to determine how best to allocate these cuts while maintaining readiness. We expect Army leaders, military and civilian, to seize this opportunity to re-shape our Army. This effort will take PRIORITY OVER ALL other Headquarters, Department of the Army activities."
  The Group is being led by Deputy Undersecretary of the Army Thomas Hawley and head of Army's Office of Business Transformation Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr. The memo states that the group will have seven "Focus Area" teams, each tasked with developing "bold executable recommendations which will be used to balance the already directed reductions" in the budget projections from 2015-2019. The initial focus areas are:
  ? Institutional Headquarters Reductions
  ? Operational Headquarters Reductions
  ? Operational Force Structure and Ramps
  ? Readiness
  ? Acquisition Work Force
  ? Installation Services and Investments
  ? Army C31 and Cyber
  When it comes to Institutional Headquarters reductions, service leadership warned subordinates that "movement of personnel outside of headquarters to subordinate units is not a legitimate means of achieving savings. Teams should consider consolidation, reductions, and closing organizations."
  When it comes to the Operational Force Structure, staffers are tasked with looking at "specific interest areas [such as] forces that provide support to other Services, task organization of Corps and Divisions, Logistics, Theater capabilities and other echelon above Brigade Combat Team (BCT) forces."
  Given that reductions in the defense budget outlined in the 2011 Budget Control Act now look like they're going to remain the law of the land, the Army of the future is likely going to look very different from what recent projections assumed.
  To that end, service chief Gen. Ray Odierno and Secretary John McHugh wrote that "We must focus on the Army's core missions, sustaining the Army's ability to provide a smaller, more capable Army able to provide ready land forces to meet combatant commanders' global requirements; develop leaders for the 21st century, while maintaining the bonds of trust with Soldiers and Families. To ensure Army readiness at these reduced budget levels, we must make the best and maximum use of every single dollar provided to the Army."
  And all this has to be fleshed out in the next two weeks.
Politie gebruikt 'stealth sms' als opsporingstruc - BINNENLAND - PAROOL
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:22
  20-08-13 07:15 uur - Bron: ANP
  (C) anp
  De Nederlandse politie maakt al acht jaar heimelijk en vaak ongeoorloofd gebruik van de 'stealth sms', een middel waarmee kan worden bepaald waar iemand zich bevindt.
  Dat blijkt uit klachten van advocaten bij de privacyorganisatie Bits of Freedom en uit recente uitspraken van verschillende rechtbanken, meldt de Volkskrant.
  Voor de ontvanger is een stealth sms onzichtbaar. Als de politie zo'n bericht verzendt, maakt de betreffende mobiele telefoon contact met een zendmast. Zo kan de politie de locatie van het toestel achterhalen zonder de vereiste medewerking van een provider.
  Rechters zijn kritisch over de toepassing van de stealth sms door de politie. In een uitspraak van het gerechtshof in Den Bosch staat dat de manier waarop het middel wordt ingezet 'de integriteit van de opsporing onvoldoende waarborgt'.
Amsterdam wil kinderen vanaf 2,5 jaar naar basisschool sturen - Onderwijs - VK
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:15
  Door: Rosa Veenstra '' 20/08/13, 05:58
  (C) Marcel van den Bergh/ de Volkskrant. Kinderen op kinderdagverblijf 't Hummeltje spelen met scheerschuim.
  De gemeente Amsterdam wil kinderen vanaf 2,5 jaar naar de basisschool sturen. In het najaar lanceert de gemeente een plan om peuterspeelzalen, voorscholen en reguliere kinderopvang samen te voegen in een basisvoorziening voor peuters van 2,5 tot 4 jaar oud. In de loop van dit schooljaar begint een proefproject op tien scholen.
  Volgens het plan krijgen kinderen met een taalachterstand wekelijks recht op vier gratis dagdelen opvang van drie uur. Voor andere kinderen is dat twee gratis dagdelen per week. De opzet lijkt daarmee sterk op het plan van minister Lodewijk Asscher voor een landelijke peutervoorziening voor alle kinderen vanaf 2,5 jaar, ongeacht of de ouders werken of niet.
  Amsterdam kent een relatief hoog aantal kinderen met een taalachterstand. Met ruim 6.300 peuters valt bijna de helft van alle 2,5 tot 4-jarigen in de stad onder die categorie, terwijl het er landelijk 45 duizend zijn. Volgens de bestaande regelingen hebben zij recht op minstens tien uur voorschoolse educatie per week, betaald door de gemeente.
  0plusAmsterdam wil daar nu onder de naam Groep 0plus een pedagogische voorziening van maken voor alle kinderen. De opvang valt dan onder de verantwoordelijkheid van de basisschool en vindt plaats in hetzelfde gebouw of in de buurt daarvan. Als kinderen 4 jaar oud zijn, stromen ze door naar groep 1 van dezelfde school. Voor de financiering wil de stad het geld voor de kinderopvangtoeslag samenvoegen met de gemeentelijke middelen voor peuterspeelzaalwerk en voor- en vroegschoolse educatie.
  Als het initiatief doorgaat, heeft de Amsterdamse kinderopvang er een potentile concurrent bij. Volgens het plan mogen basisscholen samenwerken met een bestaande aanbieder van kinderopvang, maar ze mogen de peutervoorziening ook zelf aanbieden. In dat geval ziet de opvang zijn meest winstgevende clinten wegstromen, omdat er bij kinderen tot 2 jaar oud meer beroepskrachten op de groep moeten staan dan bij oudere kinderen. Kinderdagverblijven verdienen daarom meestal pas aan de opvang wanneer kinderen de peuterleeftijd bereiken.
  Grote aanbiedersHet plan valt daarom niet in goede aarde bij kinderopvangorganisaties in de stad. 'Uit ervaring weet ik dat scholen alleen in zee gaan met de grote aanbieders', zegt pedagoge Jessica Haije, eigenaar van Kids & Zo in Amsterdam. 'Dat zijn niet altijd de beste aanbieders op het gebied van de pedagogische kwaliteit voor peuters, dat blijkt ook uit rapportages van de GGD. Ik begrijp ook niet waarom er straks geld naar voorschoolse educatie bij basisscholen gaat, terwijl er al een hele infrastructuur ligt.'
  Het initiatief past in de oproep van de vier grote steden om een einde te maken aan het verschil tussen de commercile kinderopvang en de gesubsidieerde opvang. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag en Utrecht willen zelf de regie krijgen over de voorschoolse educatie voor kinderen van 2,5 tot 4 jaar.
  Gemeenten hebben al enige vrijheid om onderwijs, peuterspeelzalen, kinderopvang op elkaar af te stemmen. Rotterdam, Utrecht en Den Haag geven vrijwel alleen subsidie voor voorschoolse educatie als er een link is met de basisschool.
Black Actress Lays Into Oprah Over Trayvon Martin, Emmett Till Comparison: 'Shame on You' | Video | TheBlaze.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:07
  In Stacey Dash's mind, Trayvon Martin and Emmett Till are not the ''same thing.''
  The actress recently blasted Oprah Winfrey for making the controversial comparison, quoting Malcolm X to make her point.
  ''If You aren't careful, The newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed And loving the people who are doing the oppressing ~ Malcom X,'' Dash tweeted, later adding ''shame on you @oprah.''
  (Images via Getty)
  Dash also included a link to a story on the TV personality's interview during which she compared Till to Martin and claimed President Barack Obama is ''smart'' for not appearing on Fox News.
  Dash burst onto the political scene during the 2012 presidential election when she came out against President Barack Obama and pledged her support to failed Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Dash was viciously attacked on Twitter for supporting a Republican. TheBlaze's story outlining the so-called controversy remains the third most popular story in this site's history. Read it here.
  While promoting her new movie recently, ''The Butler,'' Oprah argued there are obvious similarities between the Till and Martin cases. ''In my mind, same thing,'' she said. Watch that portion of her ''Today'' interview below:
  Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
  Till was savagely murdered by a group of white men in 1955 after he was seen allegedly flirting with a white woman in Mississippi.
  The men took Till to a barn, beat him viciously and gouged out one of his eyes before shooting him in the head and dumping his body in the Tallahatchie River '' and that's the toned down version of the horrific killing.
  In contrast, Martin was shot and killed in Sanford, Fla., following a violent altercation with George Zimmerman in February 2012. Zimmerman, who claims he shot Martin in self-defense, stood trial and was found not guilty on murder and manslaughter charges by a jury of his peers.
  ''
Newspaper forced to destroy Snowden material - CNBC
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:54
  The Guardian, a major outlet for revelations based on leaks from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, says the British government threatened legal action against the newspaper unless it either destroyed the classified documents or handed them back to British authorities.
  In an article posted on the British newspaper's website on Monday, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said that a month ago, after the newspaper had published several stories based on Snowden's material, a British official advised him: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back."
  Rusbridger's disclosure follows Sunday's detainment at London's Heathrow Airport under British anti-terrorism laws of David Miranda, domestic partner of U.S. journalist and Guardian writer Glenn Greenwald.
  Miranda, a Brazilian citizen in transit from Berlin to Brazil, said he was released without charge after nine hours of questioning but minus his laptop, cellphone and memory sticks.
  (Read More: Obama faces a challenging post-vacation agenda)
  Greenwald, who met face to face in Hong Kong with Snowden and has written or co-authored many of the newspaper's stories about U.S. surveillance of global communications, vowed on Monday to publish more documents and said Britain will "regret" detaining his partner.
  Rusbridger said that after further talks with the British government, two "security experts" from Government Communications Headquarters, the British equivalent of the ultra-secretive U.S. National Security Agency, visited the Guardian's London offices.
  In the building's basement, Rusbridger wrote, government officials watched as computers which contained material provided by Snowden were physically pulverized. "We can call off the black helicopters," Rusbridger says one of the officials joked.
  A source familiar with the event said Guardian employees destroyed the computers as government security experts looked on.
  Rusbridger, in his article, said he told British officials that due to the nature of "international collaborations" among journalists, it would remain possible for media organizations to "take advantage of the most permissive legal environments." Henceforth, he said, the Guardian "did not have to do our reporting from London."
  (Read More: Leaker Snowden riles hacker conferences)
  A source familiar with the matter said that this meant British authorities were on notice that the Guardian was likely to continue to report on the Snowden revelations from outside British government jurisdiction.
  'Had Your Debate'
  Rusbridger said that in meetings with British officials, before the computers were destroyed, he told them the Guardian could not do its journalistic duty if it gave in to the government's requests.
  In response, he wrote, a government official told him that the newspaper had already achieved the aim of sparking a debate on government surveillance. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more," the unnamed official was quoted as saying.
  The Guardian's decision to publicize the government threat - and the newspaper's assertion that it can continue reporting on the Snowden revelations from outside of Britain - appears to be the latest step in an escalating battle between the news media and governments over reporting of secret surveillance programs.
  One U.S. security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government's detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks.
  White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday that while the United States did not ask British authorities to detain Miranda, British officials had given the United States a "heads up" about the British government's plan to question him.
  (Read More: Russia summit 'up in the air' as Snowden gets asylum)
  Greenwald, asked by a reporter if the detention of his partner would deter him from future reporting, said the opposite would happen.
  "I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England, too. I have many documents on England's spy system," Greenwald, speaking in Portuguese, told reporters at Rio de Janeiro's airport where he met Miranda upon his return to Brazil.
11 Facts About The Ongoing Fukushima Nuclear Holocaust That Are Almost Too Horrifying To Believe
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Activist Post
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 04:02
  Michael SnyderActivist PostIs Fukushima the greatest environmental disaster of all time? Every single day, 300 tons of radioactive water from Fukushima enters the Pacific Ocean. The radioactive material that is being released will outlive all of us by a very wide margin, and it is constantly building up in the food chain. Nobody knows for sure how many people will eventually develop cancer and other health problems as a result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, but some experts are not afraid to use the word ''billions''.
  It has been well over two years since the original disaster, and now they are telling us that it could take up to 40 more years to clean it up. It is a nightmare of unimaginable proportions, and there is nowhere in the northern hemisphere that you will be able to hide from it. The following are 11 facts about the ongoing Fukushima nuclear holocaust that are almost too horrifying to believe'...
  #1 It is estimated that there are 1,331 used nuclear fuel rods that need to be removed from Fukushima. Because of all of the damage that has taken place, computer-guided removal of the rods will not be possible. Manual removal is much riskier, and it is absolutely essential that the removal of each of the 1,331 rods goes perfectly because a single mistake could potentially lead to a nuclear chain reaction.
  #2 According to Reuters, the combined amount of cesium-137 contained in those nuclear fuel rods is 14,000 times greater than what was released when the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. Other estimates put this number far higher.
  #3 Officials in Japan admit that 300 tons of radioactive water from Fukushima is entering the Pacific Ocean every 24 hours.#4 According to a professor at Tokyo University, 3 gigabecquerels of cesium-137 are flowing into the port at Fukushima Daiichi every single day'...
  Yoichiro Tateiwa, NHK reporter: [Professor Jota] Kanda argues government statistics don't add up. He says a daily leakage of 300 tons doesn't explain the current levels of radiation in the water.
  Jota Kanda, Tokyo University professor: According to my research there are now 3 gigabecquerels [3 billion becquerels] of cesium-137 flowing into the port at Fukushima Daiichi every day. But for the 300 tons of groundwater to contain this much cesium-137, one liter of groundwater has to contain 10,000 becquerels of the radioactive isotope.
  NHK: Kanda's research and monitoring by Tepco puts the amount of cesium-137 in the groundwater around the plant at several hundred becquerels per liter at most. He's concluded that radioactive isotope is finding another way to get into the ocean. He's calling on the government and Tepco to identify contamination routes other than groundwater.
  #5 According to Tepco, a total of somewhere between 20 trillion and 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium have gotten into the Pacific Ocean since the Fukushima disaster first began.#6 Something is causing fish along the west coast of Canada to bleed from their gills, bellies and eyeballs. Could Fukushima be responsible?
  #7 150 former sailors and Marines say that they now have radiation sickness as a result of serving on U.S. Navy ships near Fukushima and they are suing for damages.#8 The Iodine-131, Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 that are constantly coming from Fukushima are going to affect the health of those living the the northern hemisphere for a very, very long time. Just check out what Harvey Wasserman had to say recently'...
  Iodine-131, for example, can be ingested into the thyroid, where it emits beta particles (electrons) that damage tissue. A plague of damaged thyroids has already been reported among as many as 40 percent of the children in the Fukushima area. That percentage can only go higher. In developing youngsters, it can stunt both physical and mental growth. Among adults it causes a very wide range of ancillary ailments, including cancer.
  Cesium-137 from Fukushima has been found in fish caught as far away as California. It spreads throughout the body, but tends to accumulate in the muscles.
  Strontium-90's half-life is around 29 years. It mimics calcium and goes to our bones.
  #9 It is believed that the Fukushima nuclear facility originally contained a whopping 1760 tons of nuclear material.#10 It is being projected that the entire Pacific Ocean will soon ''have cesium levels 5 to 10 times higher'' than what we witnessed during the era of heavy atomic bomb testing in the Pacific many decades ago.
  #11 According to the Wall Street Journal, it is being projected that the cleanup of Fukushima could take up to 40 years to complete.
  Sadly, the true horror of this disaster is only starting to be understood, and most people have absolutely no idea how serious all of this is. What fallout researcher Christina Consolo told RT the other day should be very sobering for all of us'...
  We have endless releases into the Pacific Ocean that will be ongoing for not only our lifetimes, but our children's' lifetimes. We have 40 million people living in the Tokyo area nearby. We have continued releases from the underground corium that reminds us it is there occasionally with steam events and huge increases in radiation levels. Across the Pacific, we have at least two peer-reviewed scientific studies so far that have already provided evidence of increased mortality in North America, and thyroid problems in infants on the west coast states from our initial exposures.
  We have increasing contamination of the food chain, through bioaccumulation and biomagnification. And a newly stated concern is the proximity of melted fuel in relation to the Tokyo aquifer that extends under the plant. If and when the corium reaches the Tokyo aquifer, serious and expedient discussions will have to take place about evacuating 40 million people from the greater metropolitan area. As impossible as this sounds, you cannot live in an area which does not have access to safe water.
  The operation to begin removing fuel from such a severely damaged pool has never been attempted before. The rods are unwieldy and very heavy, each one weighing two-thirds of a ton. But it has to be done, unless there is some way to encase the entire building in concrete with the pool as it is. I don't know of anyone discussing that option, but it would seem much 'safer' than what they are about to attempt'...but not without its own set of risks.
  And all this collateral damage will continue for decades, if not centuries, even if things stay exactly the way they are now. But that is unlikely, as bad things happen like natural disasters and deterioration with time'...earthquakes, subsidence, and corrosion, to name a few. Every day that goes by, the statistical risk increases for this apocalyptic scenario. No one can say or know how this will play out, except that millions of people will probably die even if things stay exactly as they are, and billions could die if things get any worse.
  The area immediately around Fukushima is already permanently uninhabitable, and the truth is that a much wider area of northern Japan should probably be declared off limits for human habitation.But this just isn't about Japan. The cold, hard reality of the matter is that this is truly a disaster that is planetary in scope. The nuclear material from Fukushima is going to be carried all over the northern hemisphere, and countless numbers of people are going to become seriously ill as a result.
  And remember, this is a disaster that is not even close to being contained yet. Hundreds of tons of radioactive water continues to enter the Pacific Ocean every single day making the disaster that we are facing even worse.
  May God have mercy on us all.
  About the author: Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth. His new novel entitled ''The Beginning Of The End'' is now available on Amazon.com.
  BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW
A few views of Founding Fathers on Slavery
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: MRCTV - News & Politics
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 04:00
  MRC TV is an online platform for people to share and view videos, articles and opinions on topics that are important to them -- from news to political issues and rip-roaring humor.
  MRC TV is brought to you by the Media Research Center, a 501(c) 3 nonprofit research and education organization. The MRC is located at: 1900 Campus Commons Drive, Reston, VA 20194. For information about the MRC, please visit www.MRC.org.
  Copyright (C) 2013, Media Research Center. All Rights Reserved.
Feds Seized $2.9 Million in Bitcoin Funds from Mt. Gox
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: EconomicPolicyJournal.com
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 03:56
  A new filing in Baltimore federal court discloses the federal government seized $2,915,507.40 held in an account controlled by Dwolla, a third-party payment platform similar to PayPal, during a federal government seizure in May of the funds that belonged to Mutum Sigillum LLC, a U.S. subsidiary of Tokyo-based Mt. Gox, reports Gigaom. It's unclear what will become of the funds.
David Miranda detention legally sound, says Scotland Yard
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Hacker News
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 03:54
  19 August 2013Last updated at21:44 ETUsing the Terrorism Act to detain the partner of a Guardian reporter who wrote about US and UK security services was "legally and procedurally sound", Scotland Yard has said.
  It was responding to claims it misused its powers by holding David Miranda for nine hours at Heathrow on Sunday.
  Independent reviewer of terrorism legislation David Anderson QC has said the length of detention was "unusual".
  Mr Anderson will meet police later for an urgent briefing on the matter.
  He has been joined by senior British politicians in calling on police to explain why Mr Miranda, 28, was detained.
  The Brazilian was held at Heathrow on his way from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro, where he lives with his partner, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has published information from US whistleblower Edward Snowden.
  He was detained under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This allows police to hold someone at an airport, port or international rail station for up to nine hours for questioning about whether they have been involved with acts of terrorism
  Mr Miranda said he was kept in a room and questioned about his "whole life".
  Scotland Yard, which has not revealed on what grounds he was detained, said in a statement on Monday night that the "examination" of Mr Miranda was "subject to a detailed decision-making process".
  "The procedure was reviewed throughout to ensure the examination was both necessary and proportionate," it added.
  "Our assessment is that the use of the power in this case was legally and procedurally sound.
  Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
  David Miranda: "I was kept in a room with six agents... asking me about everything - my whole life"
  "Contrary to some reports, the man was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended.
  "No complaint has been received by the MPS at this time."
  In Germany, Mr Miranda had been staying with US film-maker Laura Poitras, who has also been working on the Snowden files with Mr Greenwald and the Guardian, according to the newspaper.
  The paper said Mr Miranda was stopped while he was "ferrying materials" between his partner and Ms Poitras.
  "I was kept in a room with six agents coming in and out and asking me about everything - my whole life," Mr Miranda told reporters when he arrived back in Brazil on Monday.
  "They took my computer, my video games, my mobile phone and memory cards - everything."
  'Heads up'In a separate interview with the Guardian, he said: "They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put in jail if I didn't co-operate.
  "They treated me like I was a criminal or someone about to attack the UK... it was exhausting and frustrating, but I knew I wasn't doing anything wrong."
  The US government has said British officials gave it a "heads up" about Mr Miranda's detention but said the decision to seize him was a British one taken "independent of our direction".
  Brazil's foreign minister Antonio Patriota has called the detention "not justifiable" and has sought answers from his UK counterpart, William Hague.
  Downing Street has said the case is an "operational matter for the police".
  Mr Greenwald said the British authorities' actions amounted to "bullying" and linked it to his writing about Mr Snowden's revelations concerning the US National Security Agency (NSA).
  Mr Snowden, who has been granted temporary asylum in Russia, leaked details of extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence services.
  According to the Guardian, he passed "thousands of files" to Mr Greenwald, who has written a series of stories about surveillance by US and UK authorities.
  Mr Greenwald said his partner's detention was "clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and [UK intelligence agency] GCHQ".
A Nuclear Reactor Competitive with Natural Gas
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: New on MIT Technology Review
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:35
  General Atomics has applied for DOE funds to commercialize a nuclear reactor that could lower electricity costs by 40 percent.
  A novel type of reactor could cut the cost of nuclear power by as much as 40 percent, making it far more competitive with fossil-fuel power plants. Designed by General Atomics, a San Diego''based company, the reactor could also be safer than existing reactors and reduce nuclear waste by 80 percent.
  General Atomics has been working on the reactor for five years. Now it is trying to win several hundred million dollars in funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, which the company says would be crucial to commercializing the technology. At least one other new design aims to substantially reduce the cost of nuclear power, but it's from a startup with limited funding (see ''Safer Nuclear Power, at Half the Price'').
  In the United States, where natural gas is cheap, the main thing keeping utilities from building nuclear plants is their expense. While some other new reactor designs lower the up-front cost of nuclear power, they don't necessarily lower electricity costs (see ''Can Small Reactors Ignite a Nuclear Renaissance?''). Estimates from the Energy Information Administration suggest that if the General Atomics design cuts the cost of electricity by 40 percent as the company claims, new nuclear power plants would be economically competitive with natural-gas plants.
  John Parmentola, senior vice president of the Energy Group at General Atomics, says the new reactor will be safer than many conventional ones. In the case of a power failure, it is designed to shut down and cool off without the need to continuously pump in coolant. This is accomplished in part by using ceramics that can withstand very high temperatures without melting.
  To reduce costs, General Atomics is making the reactor smaller than conventional ones. Several other manufacturers are taking the same approach, but this design goes further by substantially increasing the efficiency of the power plant. Using helium as a coolant instead of water allows the plant to operate at higher temperatures, and the reactor also incorporates a new gas turbine for producing electricity. Thanks to these changes, the technology can generate more power from a given amount of heat produced in the reactor core. While conventional reactors convert 32 percent of the energy in heat to electricity, this one is expected to convert 53 percent.
  Although the biggest cost savings will come from the reduction in size, the reactor will also save money by burning less fuel. That's in part because it is more efficient and in part because it's designed to burn up elements that are normally tossed away as nuclear waste.
  Some experts are skeptical about General Atomics' claims. Mujid Kazimi, a professor of nuclear and mechanical engineering at MIT, says that while the new design is likely to be more efficient and produce electricity at a lower cost than conventional reactors, ''I doubt that the cost reduction would reach 40 percent.''
  Licensing the design could also be difficult, since it's very different from most nuclear reactors. Helium-cooled reactors have been built before'--two operated in the U.S. in the 1980s'--but they're rare and had technical issues. ''There were several problems in the U.S. reactors, which led to shutting them down after only a few years of operation,'' Kazimi says. ''I think that led the power companies to avoid them.''
  Yet newer helium-cooled reactors designs have proved attractive'--at least in China. The country recently built and started operating a small 10-megawatt helium-cooled reactor, and it is building a commercial version now that's scheduled to be ready by 2017. If General Atomics gets the DOE award, it says it plans to have a commercial reactor operating within 12 years.
Radiation levels in Fukushima bay highest since measurements began - reports
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: RT - News
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:45
  Readings of tritium in seawater taken from the bay near the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant has shown 4700 Becquerels per liter, a TEPCO report stated, according to Nikkei newspaper. It marks the highest tritium level in the measurement history.
  Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has detected the highest radiation level in seawater collected in the harbor of the crippled nuclear plant in the past 15 days, Nikkei reports.
  TEPCO said the highest radiation level was detected near reactor 1. Previous measurements showed tritium levels at 3800 becquerels per liter near reactor 1, and 2600 becquerels per liter near reactor 2. The concentration of tritium in the harbor's seawater has been continuously rising since May, according to Nikkei.
  Also on Monday, a leak of highly contaminated water was discovered from a drain valve of a tank dike located on the premises of the nuclear plant, according to Fukushima's operator responsible for the clean-up.
  The level of radiation at the site was estimated at 100 millisieverts per hour, while the safe level of radiation is 1-13 millisieverts per year, according to ITAR-TASS news agency. The plant's operator is currently investigating reasons for the leak, TEPCO said in a statement.
  Earlier, Tepco admitted that an estimated 20 to 40 trillion becquerel's of tritium may have flowed into the Pacific Ocean since the nuclear disaster.
  Three of the plant's reactors suffered a nuclear meltdown in March 2011 after a massive earthquake struck the area, triggering a tsunami. The plant has been accumulating radioactive water ever since, as groundwater passing through the premises becomes contaminated.
  Protective barriers installed to prevent the flow of toxic water into the ocean have failed to do so. The level of contaminated water has already risen to 60cm above the barriers, which has been a major cause of the daily leak of toxic substances, TEPCO admitted.
  Japan's Ministry of Industry recently estimated that around 300 tons of contaminated groundwater has been seeping into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis. TEPCO has promised to reinforce protective shields to keep radioactive leaks at bay.
License plate readers used to record attendees at political rallies
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: RT - USA
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 03:50
  Heeding the demands of the Secret Service, state police in Virginia recorded and collected the whereabouts of potentially millions of people in an effort to monitor attendees at political rallies in 2008 and 2009.
  Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Richmond Times-Dispatch in the Virginia state capital show that police agencies utilized license plate readers in order to record information about people traveling to at least three politically-charged events during the 2008 presidential election season.
  According to the documents obtained by the paper, Virginia State Police logged license plate data for every vehicle leaving the state en route to neighboring Washington, DC during President Barack Obama's first inauguration ceremony in January 2009. Three months earlier, the police ran a similar operation to coincide with campaign rallies in Leesburg, Virginia being held by then-candidate Obama and Sarah Palin, the Republican Party's nominee for vice president.
  Mark Bowes, a reporter with The Dispatch, wrote that the United States Secret Service directed state police to use a license plate reader positioned at the Pentagon in Arlington, VA to ''to capture and store the plate images as an extra level of security for the inauguration.'' Similar requests were made for the preceding rallies outside of DC, he reported.
  The Dispatch has not published information about how many vehicles had their location recorded and logged, but Bowes noted that an estimated 1.8 million people attended Pres. Obama's inauguration in Jan. 2009.
  How much of that information still exists, if any, remains a mystery, however. In February, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli authorized legislation forcing the state police to stop storing data in a ''passive matter,'' and intelligence is now erased after 24 hours unless investigators believes it's relevant to an ongoing criminal case. When Cuccinelli made that directive in February, it impacted the information from roughly 8 million license plates scanned over the span of 2010 through early 2013. Bailey McCann wrote for CivSource online, though, that the data is likely still accessible since it was collected per the orders of the Secret Service, the federal law enforcement agency that provides security detail for US presidents and other persons of high-importance and serves as a function of the Department of Homeland Security.
  The Dispatch's revelation comes amid growing concerns of federal-ordered surveillance within the US, as well as a recent report from the American Civil Liberties Union detailing how law enforcement agencies across America are increasingly relying on license plate scanners as a crime-fighting tool. But despite proponents of the technology calling the devices instrumental in finding criminal suspects and stole vehicles, scanners like the ones used in Virginia have raised a number of privacy questions from the likes of the ACLU and others.
  ''At first the captured plate data was used just to check against lists of cars law enforcement hoped to locate for various reasons,'' ACLU staff attorney Catherine Crump wrote in July when her non-partisan group published their profile on the scanners. ''But increasingly, all of this data is being fed into massive databases that contain the location information of many millions of innocent Americans stretching back for months or even years.''
  ''As it becomes increasingly clear that ours is an era of mass surveillance facilitated by ever cheaper and more powerful computing technology, it is critical we learn how this technology is being used,'' Crump wrote. ''License plate readers are just one example of a disturbing phenomenon: the government is increasingly using new technology to collect information about all of us, all the time and to store it forever '' providing a complete record of our lives for it to access at will.''
  Claire Gasta±aga, the executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, told The Dispatch that she found recording information pertaining to attendees of political rallies ''pretty astounding.''
  ''It's a situation where you're collecting a lot of information on a lot of people to potentially use if something bad happens at some unspecified future time and some unspecified situation,'' Gasta±aga said. According to her, that reasoning ''would justify a camera on every street corner recording all of our movements at all times, because it would be expedient to be able to have that to refer back to if there's a bank robbery there two years from now.''
  As RT reported last month, DC's Metropolitan Police Department currently has over 300 cameras that can be used to record car and pedestrian traffic on city roadways, and the department is currently pushing on a way that will allow more city cops the ability to monitor those video feeds in real-time.
Kerry Clears Benghazi Officials Clinton Punished - The Daily Beast
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:52
  Secretary of State John Kerry has determined that the four State Department officials placed on administrative leave by Hillary Clinton after the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi do not deserve any formal disciplinary action and has asked them to come back to work at the State Department starting Tuesday.
  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pounds on her table while testifying on the September attack on U.S. diplomatic sites in Benghazi, Libya during a hearing held by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on January 23, 2013. (Jason Reed/Reuters, via Landov)
  Last December, Clinton's staff told four mid-level officials to clean out their desks and hand in their badges after the release of the report of its own internal investigation into the Benghazi attack, compiled by the Administrative Review Board led by former State Department official Tom Pickering and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Ret. Adm. Mike Mullen. Those four officials have been in legal and professional limbo, not fired but unable to return to their jobs, for eight months'... until today.
  Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell, the only official from the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs bureau to lose his job over the Benghazi attack, told The Daily Beast Monday he received a memo from the State Department's human resources department informing him his administrative leave status has been lifted and he should report for duty Tuesday morning.
  ''No explanation, no briefing, just come back to work. So I will go in tomorrow,'' Maxwell said. ''I know what Hosni Mubarak must feel.''
  Maxwell previously told The Daily Beast that the reasons for his administrative leave designation had never been explained to him. He contended that he had little role in Libya policy and no involvement whatsoever in the events leading up to the Benghazi attack.
  ''The overall goal is to restore my honor,'' Maxwell had said.
  While not a formal discplinary action, Maxwell regarded his treatment as punishment because he was not able to work and was publicly identified as being blamed for the tragedy that cost the lives of four Americans, including his friend Ambassador Chris Stevens.
  Maxwell had filed grievances regarding his treatment with the State Department's Human Resources Bureau and the American Foreign Service Association, which represents the interests of foreign-service officers. The other three officials placed on leave were in the Diplomatic Security Bureau, including then Assistant Secretary Eric Boswell and Deputy Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb.
  A senior State Department official confirmed to The Daily Beast Monday that all four officials placed on administrative leave were now returned to regular duty and would not face any formal disciplinary action. The administrative leave designation was not a formal punishment, but did prevent the officials from working while the Kerry team, which inherited the Benghazi issue from the Clinton team in February, reviewed their cases.
  ''As soon as he came into the department, Secretary Kerry wanted to invest the time to review the ARB's findings and match those against his own on-the-job findings about security,'' the senior State Department official said. ''He's been hands-on focused on building on the lessons learned from the Benghazi attack to strengthen security at missions world-wide and continue the ARB's security paradigm shift.''
  As part of this process, Kerry asked his high command to complete a thorough review of the ARB's findings. At the time of the report's release, Pickering said the ARB had determined that blame for the security failures leading up to the Bengazi attack should be placed at the Assistant Secretary level but that no officials had committed breaches of duty that would warrant outright termination.
  After consideration, Kerry reaffirmed the ARB's finding that no employee breached their duty or should be fired but rather that some should be reassigned, the official said. NEA Assistant Secretary Beth Jones was never placed on administrative leave. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson has been nominated to replace her.
  Kerry and his team also considered the long records of the four individuals and the circumstances leading up the Benghazi attack when considering what to do with the sidelined officials, the official said. None of the officials will be able to get their old jobs back and Boswell will not return as the head of diplomatic security.
  ''[Secretary Kerry] studied their careers and studied the facts,'' the official said. ''In order to implement the ARB and to continue to turn the page and shift the paradigm inside the Department, the four employees who were put on administrative leave last December pending further review, will be reassigned inside the State Department.''
  There was also concern in Congress that only mid-level officials with little direct responsibility for the Benghazi attack had been taken out of their jobs following the ARB report release.
  ''The ARB tried to blame everyone but hold no one responsible, except for some of the lower level people who were not in control of the situation,'' Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), chairman of the House Oversight National Security subcommittee, told The Daily Beast in May.
lkYyaui.png (610—437)
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:11
  ½PNG IHDRb½Z½½½ IDATx½½½gW½Ù¶½ "T½½@½½½½ ½ ½½"½½½½½½*½ ½c½½Am½v½½{">>Ï¹½q?½y½½y}½|½}½½½½{wk½}½5½½u]5×¼Ö'kÎµ½ ½diÉ‰I$½5$jUjU*½½½JP½½ A½BP½T*4jjU½½Z½F½%Q½½- j5Z½½FM½ZM½&½½4½½½j4 *½ m½½½½d½½A½FP½Q*½(½Q+½$)½$+½IV½IQÆ'½½½½*A½½V ½½½½Q$½4*½?½½j½H½*½j½h½ T½D½½½½J½Z½@½V½R½#½½Qi½Ñª½½(½½½x½*½½½F½G½½½½mMT½I½I½½*½)h½½A½F½G½½½½(h½½Q½3y½*%j½½½JT½P½U½½*T*j½½Z½J½½ÏA½½× V $½?C½R@+hUB½?>@F½½Z½D½½ *½ %j½½½\½M½?4½½7½½3½½3½½3½½3½½Ó‡½Û½Ó‹½Þ½½½½½½½½ng'ng'g'^G.s7nSnsK/^[>½~½0½^½ n½½V½V½v½½ ½Í½a½½à±›½m½}N½;.½½ÓŠ½½d,½#½x½>½A?½P½½½ ½½Ç½½drr½½½I½½' ½B½½½366F(" ' ½z½½½½½½½~½½?½½>B^!½½I½½ ½½1½½1½½½×ƒ½½½½v½r½q:l½½½½½½v½t½½½..½½ÍŽ½j½a½½q½q½-8,F½½a,½½½½½½½d½½½½½½½w?`½½!½xÔŽ½½Æ.½½1½½½@o'½}½½½bt½½½&½6½½‚½½!½0131É'½9½=~‹g½y½½½^½½½½7½~½7½½½½½½½Õ‹½½|½½½½_½½½+Þ¼zÍW½x½½%/^½½½½WÆ…½½h9½½½'h9~½½½G½½½½½S'½|½8W½Nr½½½½N½½t½K½i=½HË½½;½½s'½v½½[½q½½E½q½½;W½}x½½½v½½2F½0½c½½>Úe½½@½~C½½½½pG½½F½ZØ¬F½6½½Óµ8½½!½½1½'½½c|]½z½k½½½½B]½&½PS½ A!#"!AË"½½½½½y½BA&½~½½^½½½ ½½w½½9½x½|v½½=L½½½8½ ½½½2;`n2½½½83!f½C½N½3½A½&Ç½cf*½½t½½½1½'Ç½cr2½½½IS½&fB~#A½½s½½½½½½½½½½~½½½GxÝ½{½ ½½ ½½½½2a½½Çƒ½½½½½½½½½x½n½^/>½½×‡½½ ½½½Û…½½½c½½0½½½1Ü‹}½½P½½^l½}X½{0va½½:Ü‹a½½½½½A½½a,½L½a½½½ÓŠ½m'0>>½½½8½½3|5½½½O½.a½^½½í›¯y½½½½½[½½½=½|½-_½5½Þ¾½½½7½~½×¯^½½½Þ½{½½×¯y½½e/'½½½S½LL½½½É(C)i&'½½½p½\8½.~½½Ë…½½½½½½vyp;½x\^
VIDEO-Obama Failed - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:48
Gupta 662 not in demo Cable News Ratings For Saturday-Sunday, August 10-11, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:27
  Live + Same Day Cable News Ratings for Saturday & Sunday, August 10-11, 2013Saturday:
  Net5PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCFIVE, THE 788 174 276CNNCNN NEWSROOM 530 88 163MSNBCEd Show 323 117 140CNBCPAID PROGRAMMING 12 6 9HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 266 112 119Net6PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCAMERICAS NEWS HQ 849 144 221CNNCNN NEWSROOM 320 75 110MSNBCMSNBC SPECIAL 238 98 110CNBCPAID PROGRAMMING 13 5 11HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 293 121 133Net7PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCFOX REPORT SATURDAY 1,014 147 282CNNPARTS UNKNOWN 267 101 128MSNBCMSNBC SPECIAL 382 173 184CNBCCNBC TITANS: G. FOREMAN 54 33 44HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 311 157 166Net8PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCHUCKABEE 1,346 132 324CNNCNN NEWSROOM 463 127 167MSNBCMSNBC SPECIAL 455 204 167CNBCAMERICAN GREED 100 42 47HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 328 133 119Net9PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCJUSTICE W/ JUDGE JEANINE 1,059 153 282CNNCNN NEWSROOM 568 144 218MSNBCMSNBC INVESTIGATES 473 244 207CNBCTHE SUZE ORMAN SHOW 249 68 102HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 353 147 184Net10PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCGERALDO AT LARGE 766 121 353CNNCNN FILMS 303 85 154MSNBCMSNBC INVESTIGATES 582 283 236CNBCPROFIT, THE 125 43 61HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 360 158 215Net11PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCRED EYE 622 141 307CNNCNN FILMS 284 134 188MSNBCMSNBC INVESTIGATES 667 352 315CNBCAMERICAN GREED 130 47 69HLNNancy Grace MYSTERIES 374 144 223Sunday:
  Net5PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCAMERICAS NEWS HQ 700 94 214CNNCNN NEWSROOM 703 125 266MSNBCEd Show 375 96 178CNBCPAID PROGRAMMING 13 4 5HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 386 124 136Net6PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCFOX NEWS SUNDAY 785 140 220CNNCNN NEWSROOM 436 80 153MSNBCMSNBC SPECIAL 177 70 69CNBCPAID PROGRAMMING 16 2 5HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 367 122 136Net7PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCFOX REPORT SUNDAY 864 107 221CNNPARTS UNKNOWN 431 139 196MSNBCMSNBC SPECIAL 395 205 190CNBCON THE MONEY/ M BARTIROMO 41 15 26HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 552 158 260Net8PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCHUCKABEE 898 129 239CNNSANJAY GUPTA REPORTS 1,200 472 662MSNBCMSNBC SPECIAL 535 264 274CNBC60 Minutes ON CNBC 150 42 84HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 551 191 296Net9PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCFNR: FOOD STAMP BINGE 1,039 173 341CNNCRIMES OF THE CENTURY 585 198 274MSNBCMSNBC SPECIAL 425 219 233CNBCTWITTER REVOLUTION 96 30 52HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 336 140 176Net10PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCSTOSSEL 917 154 352CNNINSIDE MAN 494 227 265MSNBCMSNBC INVESTIGATES 424 223 257CNBCAMERICAN GREED 164 71 80HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 303 128 177Net11PMP2+ (000s)25-54 (000s)35-64 (000s)FNCHUCKABEE 760 95 247CNNSANJAY GUPTA REPORTS 627 279 293MSNBCMSNBC INVESTIGATES 425 235 241CNBC60 Minutes ON CNBC 155 59 92HLNWEEKEND MYSTERIES 340 130 196
  -For other days cable news ratings click here.
  P2+ = viewers over the age of 2
  (25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing
  (35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing
  Prime Time = 8-11pm
  LIVE+SD: The number that watched a program either while it was broadcast OR watched via DVR on the same day [through 3AM the next day] the program was broadcast. For more information see Numbers 101.
  Scratch = when a show's audience fails to meet minimum Nielsen reporting levels. For more information go here.
  Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of July, 2012)
  CNN/HLN: 99.727 million HHs
  CNBC: 97.497 million HHs
  FNC: 97.981 million HHs
  MSNBC: 95.526 million HHs
  Fox Business: 68.407 million HHs
  -
In classified cyberwar against Iran, trail of Stuxnet leak leads to White House
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: BlackListedNews.com
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:19
  Source: Washington Times
  The Obama administration provided a New York Times reporter exclusive access to a range of high-level national security officials for a book that divulged highly classified information on a U.S. cyberwar on Iran's nuclear program, internal State Department emails show.
  The information in the 2012 book by chief Washington correspondent David E. Sanger has been the subject of a yearlong Justice Department criminal investigation: The FBI is hunting for those who leaked details to Mr. Sanger about a U.S.-Israeli covert cyberoperation to infect Iran's nuclear facilities with a debilitating computer worm known as Stuxnet.
  A New York Times story adapted from the book, ''Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,'' quotes participants in secret White House meetings discussing plans to unleash Stuxnet on Iran.
  The scores of State Department emails from the fall of 2011 to the spring of 2012 do not reveal which officials told Mr. Sanger, but they do show an atmosphere of cooperation within the administration for a book generally favorable toward, but not uncritical of, President Obama. For example:
  Read More...
  Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
VIDEO-NPR CEO Gary Knell is stepping down >> Nieman Journalism Lab
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:58
  This would qualify as surprising news if it weren't for the fact that NPR CEOs never seem to last much longer than it takes Click & Clack to diagnose what ails a 1978 Subaru Brat. (Knell was the sixth CEO in eight-plus years.) Many of those previous problems came because of tensions with NPR's board, which (broadly speaking) means tension between the network and its member stations; NPR's ace media reporter David Folkenflik says that doesn't seem to be the case this time.
  Now's as good a time as any to look through our past conversations with Knell: our story upon his hiring in October 2011, our Q&A in March 2012, and his talk at the Nieman Foundation last October. (Video of that's embedded below, followed by the press release.)
  NPR President and CEO Gary E. Knell Announces Decision to Accept Leadership Position at the National Geographic Society
  August 19, 2013; Washington, D.C. '' The Board of Directors of NPR announced today that it has been informed by President and Chief Executive Officer Gary E. Knell that he will leave this fall to become President and CEO of the National Geographic Society. Knell will remain with NPR until then to work with the Board to ensure a smooth transition as it launches a search for his successor.
  ''Gary and the management team have worked effectively to strengthen NPR as a world-class media organization, technological innovator and industry leader,'' said Kit Jensen, Chair of the Board. ''NPR has built a firm foundation for providing the highest quality journalism and programming. We will be working closely with Gary over the next few months, and deeply appreciate the lasting impact he has made.''
  In a letter to employees, Knell expressed confidence that the team at NPR is charting ''an ambitious path'' for the organization's future and that he had decided to accept the unsolicited offer to become chief executive officer at National Geographic following ''a great deal of personal reflection.''
  ''NPR is and will always be a beacon of journalistic integrity, commitment and courage,'' Knell said. ''Thank you for giving me the opportunity to work with you.''
  Knell became President and CEO of NPR in 2011. He and the leadership team have been developing a strategic plan to strengthen the organization by engaging NPR's extensive network of Member Stations, generating high-quality cross-platform journalism and programming, finding new sources of philanthropic and corporate underwriting support, and attracting new audiences.
  NPR is one of the nation's premier news organizations. Since 2012, the organization has won more than twenty-five industry awards, including two George Foster Peabody Awards and two Gracie Awards.
  About NPRA thriving media organization at the forefront of digital innovation, NPR creates and distributes award-winning news, information, and music programming to a network of 975 independent stations. Through them, NPR programming reaches 27 million listeners every week, and nearly 23 million monthly on digital platforms. Visit npr.org to find local stations, listen to programs, music and stories, and learn more.
  '-- Joshua Benton
VIDEO-GMA: Government Shutdown Sure to Backfire on Republicans | MRCTV
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:56
  If the player does not load, please check that you are running the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.
  Former Democratic operative turned journalist George Stephanopoulos on Sunday parroted Barack Obama's talking points, insisting that a shutdown of the government would would a "weak" Republican Party for a "generation." On Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos touted the President for "cutting his vacation short" due to unrest in Egypt.
  After allowing that Obama has "little leverage" over House Republicans, he narrated that the White House believes "the Republican Party is in an even weaker position, that if they shut down the government, say, over their cause to defund Obamacare, they will relegate themselves to minority status for a generation." Playing the role of administration cheerleader, the journalist pointed out that Obama has a big Autumn coming up, "which is why he cut his vacation short. He only went eight days this year instead of the normal two weeks."
  Video cross-posted at NewsBusters.
Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy: Helping Communities Prepare for the Impacts of a Changing Climate
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: White House.gov Blog Feed
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:51
  Ed. note: This is cross-posted from hud.gov. See the original post here.
  From New Orleans to Cedar Rapids to Tuscaloosa to Minot '' I have walked the streets and looked in the eyes of families whose lives have come crashing down around them under nature's wrath.
  But nothing prepared me to come back home to New York City last October and look in the eyes of my friend who lost his daughter to Hurricane Sandy. Nothing prepared me to see neighborhoods'--many of which had served as the backdrop of my childhood'--completely unrecognizable.
  This was all due to the devastating storm that hit our shores in the fall with a power and a fury unlike anything most of us had ever seen before. Entire neighborhoods were flooded. Families and small business owners lost everything in a single night. Infrastructure was torn apart. In short, it was one of the most painful chapters in the region's history and the Obama administration has been committed to helping communities turn the page.
  We have worked closely with State and Local governments up and down the East Coast to help prepare for and respond to the storm. Within a week of Sandy making landfall we had 17,000 federal responders on the ground, helping displaced families find shelter and getting communities back on their feet.
  In addition, the scope of the damage made clear that more assistance was needed, which is why the President fought for, and Congress ultimately passed, a supplemental funding bill providing tens of billions of dollars to help rebuild impacted communities.
  The President also knew that we needed to do two key things: cut red tape to get assistance where it was needed as quickly as possible, and coordinate the efforts of all of the Federal agencies to support local communities as they rebuilt in a way that made them more resilient.
  That's why he created the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, which I have the honor to chair.
  For the past six months we have worked closely with our Federal partners to find ways to get funding and other assistance where it's needed more effectively and efficiently. To date, the Administration has provided assistance to nearly 255,000 people and thousands of businesses. FEMA alone has provided $12 billion in funding to individuals and communities.
  Additional funding from the supplemental funding bill continues to flow into the region.
  And, today, I'm proud to release the Hurricane Sandy Task Force's Rebuilding Strategy'' which will help guide the investment of these funds and, in the bigger picture, assist communities across the nation in preparing for the increasing risks caused by extreme weather.
  The President has been clear '' most recently in his Climate Action Plan '' that we have an obligation to protect the planet for the next generation, just as our parents and grandparents handed us a better planet. He has outlined a plan to cut carbon pollution that harms our health and our planet '' and that is contributing to greater risks of asthma attacks and more severe floods and heat waves that drive up food prices.
  He has also been clear that, as we take responsible steps to cut carbon pollution, we must prepare communities across the country for the impacts of climate change, many of which are already being felt.
  The Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force's Rebuilding Strategy lays out a series of recommendations that will help the Sandy-impacted region rebuild in a way that will prepare them for these impacts '' and that will serve as models for communities across the country.
  For highlights from the Rebuilding Strategy, click here.
  To read the entire Rebuilding Strategy, click here.
  Related Topics:
VIDEO- Award Winning iWATCH Army Public Service Announcement - YouTube
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:38
Amazon.com: Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy: Michael T. Klare: Books
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:37
  0805091262,0805055762,0393071618,1250023971,0143116835,039308180X,158367019X,0805079386,0801450799,1594202834,1439110123,0143114875,1555875769,0143121944,0520257510,1606230697,1594484848,0262513080,0815769199,0393337197,0812221664,0745633536,0805055754,0670023469,B002KAORUW,0691141193,B00AK2ZGLG,0801866537,0742508889,1848858396,0844743283,0865716951,0309146402,069115239X,1597260932,0195398637,0029035910,0671510991,0521727324,0393326470,0872899667,0231126999,0262517698,0393931536,0618826122,0805073132,0801450020,0470393742,1405824697,0199790655,0140245227,0822334429,0805071342,1594488827,0801882796,1594201277,0415592518,0802082602,0521715253,0143117009,0691145458,0375506144,0262662035,0896087824,0199759464,1594203350,0192802186,1603580557,0393329682,0231125372,0140275010,0195177533,B00A7KVMWI,1610910370,0674010906,0295985933,0982039204,0465028284,1844678512,0061311227,0156033720,0205082939,0393341283,0470721448,1595583424,0878147993,0307272168,0691100497,1400069831,1568586000,047092764X,0262661896,0307719219,039332933X,1603583718,0312541198,0415252911,089206479X,0143038273
What The US And Russia Are Really Quarreling Over: Pipelines | StratRisks
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:33
  Source: MintPress
  Nearly two months ago, former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden handed smoking-gun documents on the international surveillance apparatus to The Guardian and The Washington Post in what's become one of the most captivating stories in recent memory.
  Snowden now lives in Russia after a Hollywood-like nearly six-week-long stint in a Moscow airport waiting for a country to grant him asylum.
  NSA leaker Edward Snowden leaves Sheremetyevo airport outside Moscow on Thursday, Aug. 1, 2013, after being granted asylum in Russia for one year. (AP/Russia24 via Associated Press Television)
  Journalists and pundits have spent countless articles and news segments conveying the intrigue and intensity of the standoff that eventually resulted in Russia granting Snowden one year of asylum. Attention now has shifted to his father, Lon Snowden, and his announced visit of Edward in Russia.
  Lost in the excitement of this ''White Bronco Moment,'' many have missed the elephant in the room: the ''Great Game''-style geopolitical standoff between the U.S. and Russia underlying it all, and which may have served as the impetus for Russia to grant Snowden asylum to begin with. What's at stake? Natural gas.
  Russia, of course, has its own surveillance state and has been described by The Guardian's Luke Harding as a ''Mafia State'' due to the deep corruption that reportedly thrives under Putin's watch.
  It all comes as the U.S. competes with Russian gas production thanks in part to the controversial drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing '-- ''fracking'' '' transforming the United States into what President Barack Obama has hailed as the ''Saudi Arabia of gas.''
  Russia produced 653 billion cubic meters of gas in 2012, while the U.S. produced 651 billion cubic meters, making them the top two producers in the world.
  Creating a ''gas OPEC''Illustrating this elephant in the room is the fact that when, on July 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin first addressed whether he would grant Snowden asylum, he did so at the annual meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) in Moscow, which unfolded July 1-2.
  ''If he wants to stay here, there is one condition: he must stop his work aimed at harming our American partners, as strange as that sounds coming from my lips,'' Putin stated at GECF's annual summit.
  Paralleling the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) '-- The New York Times calls it a ''gas OPEC'' '-- GECF is a bloc of countries whose mission is to fend off U.S. and Western power dominance of the global gas trade. The 13 member countries include Russia, Iran, Bolivia, Venezuela, Libya, Algeria and several others.
  GECF has held informal meetings since 2001, becoming an official chartered organization in 2008 and dominated in the main by Russia. GECF Secretary General Leonid Bokhanovskiy is also the former VP of Stroytransgaz, a subsidiary of Russian oil and gas giant Gazprom.
  Depicting the close proximity between Putin's regime and GECF's leadership is the fact that Gennady Timchenko '' a member of ''Putin's inner circle,'' according to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism '' owns an 80-percent stake in Stroytransgaz.
  A 21st-century ''gas Cold War'' has arisen between the U.S. and Russia, with Edward Snowden serving as the illustrative protagonist. President Obama, upset over Russia's asylum offer to Snowden, recently cancelled a summit with President Putin.
  With access to the free flow of oil and gas resources a central tenet of U.S. national security policy under the Carter Doctrine, there's no guarantee this new Cold War will end well.
  Fracked gas exports fend off Russia, but for how long?Fracking is in the process of transforming the U.S. from a net importer of gas to a net exporter, with three liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals on the Gulf Coast already rubber-stamped for approval by the U.S. Department of Energy.
  Industry cheerleaders as well as President Obama and other like-minded politicians say there are ''100 years of natural gas'' under the United States, a geopolitical game-changer to say the very least.
  But independent petroleum geologists and investors alike see it differently, concluding perhaps 15-20 years of gas exist at current diminishing, ''exploration treadmill'' rates of return.
  ''More and more wells must be drilled and operated to maintain production as the average productivity per well is declining,'' David Hughes, a Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute explains in his report ''Drill Baby, Drill.'' ''Since 1990, the number of operating gas wells in the United States has increased by 90 percent while the average productivity per well has declined by 38 percent.''
  This means there likely won't be enough gas to fend off GECF and Russian dominance of the global gas market in the long term, particularly because Russia relies on easier-to-obtain conventional gas, as opposed to tough-to-obtain unconventional shale gas.
  Despite the reality of the ''exploration treadmill,'' myriad politicians have backed the notion of the U.S. serving as a global supplier of gas via LNG exports. Congress has already introduced two bills in 2013 '' the Expedite our Economy Act of 2013 and the Expedited LNG for American Allies Act of 2013 '' calling for expedited approval of the remaining LNG export terminal proposals.
  ''[T]he timeline for considering these applications may jeopardize our ability to retain a competitive position against other natural gas exporting nations who are also working diligently to export LNG,'' a bipartisan cadre of 34 U.S. Senators wrote in a July 9 letter to U.S. Department of Energy head Ernest Moniz urging the DOE for to speedily approve LNG export terminal applications. ''There is a global race for market share underway,'' the letter continued. ''American competitors have been at a disadvantage for the past year and a half because the Department of Energy has delayed action on pending applications.''
  Sometimes politicians are vague when it comes to the rationale for expedited LNG exports, using phrases like the ability to maintain a ''competitive position'' against ''other natural gas exporting nations'' but not calling out those nations by name.
  Others, however, take off the kid gloves and name names. ''Our bill will also promote the energy security of key U.S. allies by helping reduce their dependence on oil and gas from countries, such as Russia and Iran,'' said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), co-sponsor of the Expedited LNG for American Allies Act of 2013, of the rational behind the bill's January 2013 introduction.
  Months later, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) wrote similarly in a June 2013 Houston Chronicle op-ed piece. ''Aside from unquestionable economic benefits, there are also geopolitical considerations that make exporting LNG to our friends and allies a no-brainer,'' Poe wrote. ''The risk of high reliance on Russian gas has been a principal driver of European energy policy in recent decades '... From the U.S. perspective, cheap but reliable natural gas would reduce Moscow's clout while shoring up goodwill amongst our allies.''
  Faced with diminishing returns on shale gas basins nationwide, U.S. strategic planners haven't put all of their eggs in one basket, and have a backup plan in mind to fend off Russia and GECF.
  Enter U.S. gas ''anchor,'' AzerbaijanThe LNG for NATO Act was another key bill introduced in December 2012 by now-retired U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.). That legislation's introduction came alongside the release of a key Senate Foreign Relations Committee report titled, ''Energy and Security from the Caspian to Europe.''
  First discussed at a press event hosted by the influential Atlantic Council '' then headed by current Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel '' the premise of the report was simple: many NATO member states rely on Russia for gas imports.
  Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, gestures to Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev as they walk along an embankment in Baku, Azerbaijan on Tuesday, Aug. 13, 2013. (AP/RIA Novosti Kremlin/Mikhail Klimentyev/Presidential Press Service)
  And Russia is the main power player alongside China overseeing the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which effectively operates as NATO's foil. Thus, the report concludes, NATO must find a way to wean itself off of Russian gas.
  ''This strategic U.S. initiative would advance U.S. interests by alleviating Russian gas-fueled pressure against NATO allies, bolstering bilateral relations in the Caspian Sea region, and further isolating Iran,'' Lugar wrote in introducing the report.
  One of the report's solutions calls for undermining the DOE's LNG export approval process for fracked gas exports to NATO allies due to the U.S. having '-- wait for it '-- a ''100-year supply'' of gas.
  ''As a first step, we should allow exports of U.S. natural gas, now abundant thanks to shale gas, to all our NATO allies,'' Lugar wrote in an op-ed summarizing the report's conclusions. ''At current consumption rates, we have an estimated 100-year supply, and prices have fallen so low that new drilling activity is drying up. We easily could export some of this surplus as LNG without causing consumer gas prices to spike here at home.''
  Perhaps knowing the ''100-year supply'' is more fiction than fact, the report does point to something ''even more important'': Azerbaijan's robust supply of conventional gas.
  Azerbaijan, ruled by a human-rights-violating authoritarian regime and bordered by the Caspian Sea to the east and Iran to the south, has the 24th highest proven reserves of natural gas in the world and maintains friendly relations with the U.S. and NATO countries.
  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee report refers to Azerbaijan as an ''anchor'' gas supplier for NATO countries, a key source of imported gas in particular for European Union countries seeking to fend off reliance on Russian gas.
  Given Azerbaijan's strategic importance, the report calls for expedited building of the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, set to pipe Azeri gas from the Shah Deniz gas field in the Caspian to Turkey and eventually into EU member states.
  ''TAP will transport natural gas from '... Shah Deniz '... in Azerbaijan, via Greece and Albania, and across the Adriatic Sea to Southern Italy, and further to Western Europe,'' the TAP website explains. ''TAP offers the shortest and most direct link from the Caspian region to the most attractive European markets.''
  The importance of Azerbaijan as an ''anchor'' and TAP is explained bluntly in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report and was recently praised in a State Department press release.
  ''Fully committed to energy trade with the West, Azerbaijan is [a] pivotal supplier,'' the report explains. ''For the past two decades, Azerbaijan's leadership has made the strategic calculation to use [TAP] to forge closer ties with the West, a decision that was by no means inevitable given the substantial cost of vast new pipeline infrastructure and geopolitical pressures from neighboring Iran and Russia. However, Azerbaijan's main alternative to westward trade would be with Russia, which is not an attractive prospect.''
  The report closes by recommending the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank to finance construction of LNG import terminals for NATO countries. It also recommends the creation of a full-time U.S. Envoy for Eurasian Energy Security position.
  Contextualizing the recent big Azerbaijan junketOne of the recommendations the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report offers in its report is maintaining closer ties with SOCAR '-- the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic '-- ''to minimize future miscommunications.''
  This lends an explanation as to why many former Obama upper-level staffers, along with Stratfor founder George Friedman, state politicians from across the U.S., Vice President Joe Biden's wife Jill and former World Bank head and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz all attended a key gathering in Azerbaijan in late May, officially titled, ''USA-Azerbaijan: Vision for the Future.''
  Ted Poe, who weeks after returning from the event wrote the Houston Chronicle op-ed praising fracked gas exports, was also among the attendees.
  SOCAR sponsored the event. So too did BP, KBR, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron, all companies deeply invested in fracking in the U.S.
  ''No doubt this was among the biggest concentrations of American political star power ever seen in the Caucasus '-- 317 delegates from 42 states, including 11 sitting members of Congress and 75 state representatives,'' a Washington Diplomat reporter who got inside the conference explained of the nature of the event.
  Russia excluded from State Dept. fracking ''missionary force''In August 2010, President Obama's first-term State Department established the Global Shale Gas Initiative (GSGI), now referred to as the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program.
  A worker checks a dipstick to check water levels and temperatures in a series of tanks at a fracking operation at a gas drilling site outside Rifle, Colorado. (AP/Brennan Linsley)
  Its purpose: creating a so-called ''missionary force,'' showing other countries fracking's ''best practices'' based on the U.S. experience.
  ''The GSGI uses government-to-government policy engagement to bring federal and state governments' technical expertise, regulatory experience in ensuring the safety of water supplies and air quality, and diplomatic capabilities to bear in helping selected countries understand their shale gas potential and the responsibilities of governments,'' the State Department explains on its website.
  State Department officials have spent time instructing Ukraine, Poland, China and India how to do fracking ''safely and economically.'' This tutelage agenda is yet another way to wean NATO countries off of Russian gas in an attempt to further isolate it economically.
  Noteworthy is the fact that though Russia possesses a shale gas prize of its own '-- the massive western Siberian Bazhenov Shale field '-- the State Department has not included the country under its Global Shale Gas Initiative/Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program umbrella.
  Snowden standoff part of gas ''race for what's left''The lion's share of media coverage surrounding Edward Snowden has focused on both the intrigue of his asylum standoff and the pervasiveness of the global surveillance apparatus alone.
  Missed in the discussion is what Hampshire College professor Michael Klare refers to as ''Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet'' in his book titled precisely that, on full display in the Snowden asylum standoff milieu.
  That is, a relentless battle royale ensuing between the global powers for the world's quickly diminishing, increasingly difficult-to-obtain and ecologically hazardous forms of ''extreme energy,'' like shale gas fracking.
  ''Make no mistake: Rising powers/shrinking planet is a dangerous formula. Addressing the interlocking challenges of resource competition, energy shortages, and climate change will be among the most difficult problems facing the human community,'' he writes in the book's conclusion.
  ''If we continue to extract and consume the planet's vital resources in the same [...] fashion as in the past, we will, sooner rather than later, transform the earth into a barely habitable scene of desolation.''
Adam Gadahn, al Qaeda spokesman, calls for attacks on U.S. diplomats - CNN.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:32
  By Leslie Bentz, CNN
  updated 1:29 AM EDT, Mon August 19, 2013
  STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  He urges wealthy Muslims to offer militants rewardsHe posted his statement on jihadist websitesHe has a $1 million bounty on his headWashington (CNN) -- American-born al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn is calling for attacks on U.S. ambassadors around the world.
  In a 39-minute video, Gadahn praised the death of Libya's U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens on September 11 last year -- and urged wealthy Muslims to offer militants rewards so they can kill others, according to SITE, a jihadist monitoring group.
  Specifically, he referenced a bounty set for the death of U.S. Ambassador to Yemen, Gerald Feierstein.
  "These prizes have a great effect in instilling fear in the hearts of our cowardly enemies," Gadahn who has a $1 million dollar bounty on his head, says in the video. "They also encourage hesitant individuals to carry out important and great deeds in the path of Allah."
  The California-raised Islamic convert, also known as Azzam the American, spoke entirely in Arabic throughout the video, "The Exploits of Muslims and Infamies of the Criminals." It was produced by al-Qaeda's as-Sahab Media Foundation and posted to jihadi websites.
  "The dead American ambassador Christopher Stevens wasn't a friend of Libya" Gadahn asserts, saying instead he was "representative of the empire of evil and corruption, America".
  Multiple American embassies across North Africa and the Middle East were closed earlier this month in light of intelligence information suggesting a possible attack. All have reopened.
  Gadahn has made similar videos in the past.
  In 2007, he also called for attacks on U.S. diplomats, vowing that al Qaeda would target American diplomats and embassies in retaliation for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Terrorism Act 2000 section 7
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:28
  Section 53.
  This schedulenoteType=Explanatory Notes has no associated
  Modifications etc. (not altering text)
  InterpretationE+W+S+N.I.1(1)In this Schedule ''examining officer'' means any of the following'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)a constable,
  (b)an immigration officer, and
  (c)a customs officer who is designated for the purpose of this Schedule by the Secretary of State and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
  (2)In this Schedule'--
  ''the border area'' has the meaning given by paragraph 4,
  ''captain'' means master of a ship or commander of an aircraft,
  ''port'' includes an airport and a hoverport,
  ''ship'' includes a hovercraft, and
  ''vehicle'' includes a train.
  (3)A place shall be treated as a port for the purposes of this Schedule in relation to a person if an examining officer believes that the person'--
  (a)has gone there for the purpose of embarking on a ship or aircraft, or
  (b)has arrived there on disembarking from a ship or aircraft.
  Power to stop, question and detainE+W+S+N.I.2(1)An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).E+W+S+N.I.
  (2)This paragraph applies to a person if'--
  (a)he is at a port or in the border area, and
  (b)the examining officer believes that the person's presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland [or his travelling by air within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland].
  (3)This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived [at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).]
  (4)An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).
  3An examining officer may question a person who is in the border area for the purpose of determining whether his presence in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Northern Ireland.E+W+S+N.I.
  4(1)A place in Northern Ireland is within the border area for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 if it is no more than one mile from the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.E+W+S+N.I.
  (2)If a train goes from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, the first place in Northern Ireland at which it stops for the purpose of allowing passengers to leave is within the border area for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3.
  5A person who is questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 must'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)give the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests;
  (b)give the examining officer on request either a valid passport which includes a photograph or another document which establishes his identity;
  (c)declare whether he has with him documents of a kind specified by the examining officer;
  (d)give the examining officer on request any document which he has with him and which is of a kind specified by the officer.
  6(1)For the purposes of exercising a power under paragraph 2 or 3 an examining officer may'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)stop a person or vehicle;
  (b)detain a person.
  (2)For the purpose of detaining a person under this paragraph, an examining officer may authorise the person's removal from a ship, aircraft or vehicle.
  (3)Where a person is detained under this paragraph the provisions of Part I of Schedule 8 (treatment) shall apply.
  (4)A person detained under this paragraph shall (unless detained under any other power) be released not later than the end of the period of nine hours beginning with the time when his examination begins.
  SearchesE+W+S+N.I.7For the purpose of satisfying himself whether there are any persons whom he may wish to question under paragraph 2 an examining officer may'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)search a ship or aircraft;
  (b)search anything on a ship or aircraft;
  (c)search anything which he reasonably believes has been, or is about to be, on a ship or aircraft.
  8(1)An examining officer who questions a person under paragraph 2 may, for the purpose of determining whether he falls within section 40(1)(b)'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)search the person;
  (b)search anything which he has with him, or which belongs to him, and which is on a ship or aircraft;
  (c)search anything which he has with him, or which belongs to him, and which the examining officer reasonably believes has been, or is about to be, on a ship or aircraft;
  (d)search a ship or aircraft for anything falling within paragraph (b)
  [(e)search a vehicle which is on a ship or aircraft;
  (f)search a vehicle which the examining officer reasonably believes has been, or is about to be, on a ship or aircraft.]
  (2)Where an examining officer questions a person in the border area under paragraph 2 he may (in addition to the matters specified in sub-paragraph (1)), for the purpose of determining whether the person falls within section 40(1)(b)'--
  (a)search a vehicle;
  (b)search anything in or on a vehicle;
  (c)search anything which he reasonably believes has been, or is about to be, in or on a vehicle.
  (3)A search of a person under this paragraph must be carried out by someone of the same sex.
  9(1)An examining officer may examine goods to which this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether they have been used in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.E+W+S+N.I.
  [(2)This paragraph applies to'--
  (a)goods which have arrived in or are about to leave Great Britain or Northern Ireland on a ship or vehicle, and
  (b)goods which have arrived at or are about to leave any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland on an aircraft (whether the place they have come from or are going to is within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).]
  (3)In this paragraph ''goods'' includes'--
  (a)property of any description, and
  (b)containers.
  (4)An examining officer may board a ship or aircraft or enter a vehicle for the purpose of determining whether to exercise his power under this paragraph.
  10(1)An examining officer may authorise a person to carry out on his behalf a search or examination under any of paragraphs 7 to 9.E+W+S+N.I.
  (2)A person authorised under this paragraph shall be treated as an examining officer for the purposes of'--
  (a)paragraphs 9(4) and 11 of this Schedule, and
  (b)paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 14.
  Detention of propertyE+W+S+N.I.11(1)This paragraph applies to anything which'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)is given to an examining officer in accordance with paragraph 5(d),
  (b)is searched or found on a search under paragraph 8, or
  (c)is examined under paragraph 9.
  (2)An examining officer may detain the thing'--
  (a)for the purpose of examination, for a period not exceeding seven days beginning with the day on which the detention commences,
  (b)while he believes that it may be needed for use as evidence in criminal proceedings, or
  (c)while he believes that it may be needed in connection with a decision by the Secretary of State whether to make a deportation order under the Immigration Act 1971.
  Designated portsE+W+S+N.I.12(1)This paragraph applies to a journey'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)to Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or any of the Islands,
  (b)from Great Britain to any of those places,
  (c)to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland or any of the Islands, or
  (d)from Northern Ireland to any of those places.
  (2)Where a ship or aircraft is employed to carry passengers for reward on a journey to which this paragraph applies the owners or agents of the ship or aircraft shall not arrange for it to call at a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland for the purpose of disembarking or embarking passengers unless'--
  (a)the port is a designated port, or
  (b)an examining officer approves the arrangement.
  (3)Where an aircraft is employed on a journey to which this paragraph applies otherwise than to carry passengers for reward, the captain of the aircraft shall not permit it to call at or leave a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland unless'--
  (a)the port is a designated port, or
  (b)he gives at least 12 hours' notice in writing to a constable for the police area in which the port is situated (or, where the port is in Northern Ireland, to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary).
  (4)A designated port is a port which appears in the Table at the end of this Schedule.
  (5)The Secretary of State may by order'--
  (a)add an entry to the Table;
  (b)remove an entry from the Table.
  Embarkation and disembarkationE+W+S+N.I.13(1)The Secretary of State may by notice in writing to the owners or agents of ships or aircraft'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)designate control areas in any port in the United Kingdom;
  (b)specify conditions for or restrictions on the embarkation or disembarkation of passengers in a control area.
  (2)Where owners or agents of a ship or aircraft receive notice under sub-paragraph (1) in relation to a port they shall take all reasonable steps to ensure, in respect of the ship or aircraft'--
  (a)that passengers do not embark or disembark at the port outside a control area, and
  (b)that any specified conditions are met and any specified restrictions are complied with.
  14(1)The Secretary of State may by notice in writing to persons concerned with the management of a port in the United Kingdom (''the port managers'')'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)designate control areas in the port;
  (b)require the port managers to provide at their own expense specified facilities in a control area for the purposes of the embarkation or disembarkation of passengers or their examination under this Schedule;
  (c)require conditions to be met and restrictions to be complied with in relation to the embarkation or disembarkation of passengers in a control area;
  (d)require the port managers to display, in specified locations in control areas, notices containing specified information about the provisions of this Schedule in such form as may be specified.
  (2)Where port managers receive notice under sub-paragraph (1) they shall take all reasonable steps to comply with any requirement set out in the notice.
  15(1)This paragraph applies to a ship employed to carry passengers for reward, or an aircraft, which'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)arrives in Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or any of the Islands,
  (b)arrives in Northern Ireland from Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland or any of the Islands,
  (c)leaves Great Britain for the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or any of the Islands, or
  (d)leaves Northern Ireland for Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland or any of the Islands.
  (2)The captain shall ensure'--
  (a)that passengers and members of the crew do not disembark at a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland unless either they have been examined by an examining officer or they disembark in accordance with arrangements approved by an examining officer;
  (b)that passengers and members of the crew do not embark at a port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland except in accordance with arrangements approved by an examining officer;
  (c)where a person is to be examined under this Schedule on board the ship or aircraft, that he is presented for examination in an orderly manner.
  (3)Where paragraph 27 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (disembarkation requirements on arrival in the United Kingdom) applies, the requirements of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above are in addition to the requirements of paragraph 27 of that Schedule.
  CardingE+W+S+N.I.16(1)The Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring a person to whom this paragraph applies, if required to do so by an examining officer, to complete and produce to the officer a card containing such information in such form as the order may specify.E+W+S+N.I.
  (2)An order under this paragraph may require the owners or agents of a ship or aircraft employed to carry passengers for reward to supply their passengers with cards in the form required by virtue of sub-paragraph (1).
  (3)This paragraph applies to a person'--
  (a)who disembarks in Great Britain from a ship or aircraft which has come from the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or any of the Islands,
  (b)who disembarks in Northern Ireland from a ship or aircraft which has come from Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland, or any of the Islands,
  (c)who embarks in Great Britain on a ship or aircraft which is going to the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or any of the Islands, or
  (d)who embarks in Northern Ireland on a ship or aircraft which is going to Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland, or any of the Islands.
  Provision of passenger informationE+W+S+N.I.17[(1)This paragraph applies to a ship or aircraft which'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)arrives or is expected to arrive in any place in the United Kingdom (whether from another place in the United Kingdom or from outside the United Kingdom), or
  (b)leaves or is expected to leave the United Kingdom.]
  (2)If an examining officer gives the owners or agents of a ship or aircraft to which this paragraph applies a written request to provide specified information, the owners or agents shall comply with the request as soon as is reasonably practicable.
  (3)A request to an owner or agent may relate'--
  (a)to a particular ship or aircraft,
  (b)to all ships or aircraft of the owner or agent to which this paragraph applies, or
  (c)to specified ships or aircraft.
  (4)Information may be specified in a request only if it is of a kind which is prescribed by order of the Secretary of State and which relates'--
  (a)to passengers,
  (b)to crew, . . .
  (c)to vehicles belonging to passengers or crew [,or
  (d)to goods.]
  (5)A passenger or member of the crew on a ship or aircraft shall give the captain any information required for the purpose of enabling the owners or agents to comply with a request under this paragraph.
  (6)Sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) shall not require the provision of information which is required to be provided under or by virtue of paragraph 27(2) or 27B of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.
  Amendments (Textual)
  Commencement Information
  Marginal Citations
  OffencesE+W+S+N.I.18(1)A person commits an offence if he'--E+W+S+N.I.
  (a)wilfully fails to comply with a duty imposed under or by virtue of this Schedule,
  (b)wilfully contravenes a prohibition imposed under or by virtue of this Schedule, or
  (c)wilfully obstructs, or seeks to frustrate, a search or examination under or by virtue of this Schedule.
  (2)A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to'--
  (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months,
  (b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or
  (c)both.
  Table Designated Ports Great Britain
  SeaportsAirportsArdrossan
  Cairnryan
  Campbeltown
  Fishguard
  Fleetwood
  Heysham
  Holyhead
  Pembroke Dock
  Plymouth
  Poole Harbour
  Port of Liverpool
  Portsmouth Continental Ferry Port
  Southampton
  Stranraer
  Swansea
  Torquay
  Troon
  Weymouth
  Aberdeen
  Biggin Hill
  Birmingham
  Blackpool
  Bournemouth (Hurn)
  Bristol
  Cambridge
  Cardiff
  Carlisle
  Coventry
  East Midlands
  Edinburgh
  Exeter
  Glasgow
  Gloucester/Cheltenham (Staverton)
  Humberside
  Leeds/Bradford
  Liverpool
  London-City
  London-Gatwick
  London-Heathrow
  Luton
  Lydd
  Manchester
  Manston
  Newcastle
  Norwich
  Plymouth
  Prestwick
  Sheffield City
  Southampton
  Southend
  Stansted
  Teesside
  Northern Ireland
  SeaportsAirportsBallycastle
  Belfast
  Larne
  Port of Londonderry
  Warrenpoint
  Belfast City
  Belfast International
  City of Derry
VIDEO-AUDIO-BBC News - David Miranda detention: MP asks police for explanation
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:24
  19 August 2013Last updated at13:38 ETPlease turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
  David Miranda: "I was kept in a room with six agents... asking me about everything."
  Pressure is mounting on police to justify the detention of a journalist's partner under terror laws.
  Senior politicians and an independent reviewer have said police must explain why David Miranda was detained for nine hours at Heathrow Airport.
  Mr Miranda's partner is a journalist who published documents leaked by US whistleblower Edward Snowden.
  Police have not said why Mr Miranda was held, but he said he was kept in a room and quizzed by "six agents".
  Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said police must explain why terrorism powers were used.
  Brazil's foreign minister Antonio Patriota said he would call his UK counterpart William Hague to tell him the detention of Mr Miranda - a Brazilian national - was "not justifiable" and ask him to ensure it "won't happen again".
  Questions 'about everything'Mr Miranda, 28, was held at Heathrow on Sunday on his way from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro, where he lives with his partner, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald.
  "I remained in a room, there were six different agents coming and going, talking to me," Mr Miranda said.
  "They asked questions about my entire life, about everything.
  "They took my computer, video game, mobile phone, my memory cards, everything."
  In Germany, Mr Miranda had been staying with US film-maker Laura Poitras, who has also been working on the Snowden files with Mr Greenwald and the Guardian, according to the newspaper.
  Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
  His flights were being paid for by the Guardian. A spokesman said he was not an employee of the newspaper but "often assists" with Mr Greenwald's work.
  Mr Miranda was detained under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This allows police to hold someone at an airport for up to nine hours for questioning about whether they have been involved with acts of terrorism.
  Anyone detained must "give the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests". Any property seized must be returned after seven days.
  The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, said it was very unusual for someone to be held for the full nine hours, and he wanted to "get to the bottom" of what had happened.
  He said he had asked the Home Office and Scotland Yard for a full briefing.
  'Bullying'The Guardian said it was "dismayed" by the detention and was "urgently seeking clarification from the British authorities" as to why it had happened.
  Continue reading the main storyThe stopping of David Miranda was highly unusual and will be just as controversial.
  These powers are often used to have a look at an individual heading in or out of the country to see if there is any evidence linking them to terrorism. That may involve questioning and a search of their belongings.
  In this case the search will likely be the key aspect. Police may well have been looking for any classified information originating from British and American intelligence and obtained by Edward Snowden.
  But this was not a random stop by a policeman on the ground. So who wanted him searched? Was it British intelligence? Or could it have been a request from the US? That's something it has denied although it won't stop questions.
  Another controversy will be over the stretching of counter-terrorism powers for something which doesn't look like it has anything to do with terrorism. Powers are often justified on the basis of stopping terrorist attacks. But what will the reaction be when they are used for something else?
  Add to this the fact the Brazilian government is clearly unhappy and that Glenn Greenwald says he will now go after British intelligence more aggressively in his journalism and you have to wonder if the person who made the decision might just be wondering if it was worth it.
  The Metropolitan Police confirmed a 28-year-old man was held from 08:05 BST until 17:00 BST on Sunday under schedule 7 and was not arrested.
  According to the Home Office, more than 97% of examinations under schedule 7 last less than an hour.
  Mr Greenwald said the British authorities' actions in holding Mr Miranda amounted to "bullying" and linked it to his writing about Mr Snowden's revelations concerning the US National Security Agency (NSA).
  He said it was "clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and [UK intelligence agency] GCHQ".
  He told the BBC police did not ask Mr Miranda "a single question" about terrorism but instead asked about what "Guardian journalists were doing on the NSA stories".
  Mr Greenwald said he would respond by writing reports "much more aggressively than before".
  "I have lots of documents about the way the secret services operate in England," he said.
  "I think they are going to regret what they did."
  'Extraordinary'Mr Snowden, who has been granted temporary asylum in Russia, leaked details of extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence services.
  According to the Guardian, he passed "thousands of files" to Mr Greenwald, who has written a series of stories about surveillance by US and UK authorities.
  Mr Vaz said police must "of course" question people if they have "concerns" about what they are doing in the UK.
  Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
  "What is extraordinary is they knew he was the partner [of Mr Greenwald] and therefore it is clear not only people who are directly involved are being sought but also the partners of those involved," he said.
  "Bearing in mind it is a new use of terrorism legislation to detain someone in these circumstances... I will write to the police to ask for the justification of the use of terrorism legislation - they may have a perfectly reasonable explanation."
  Ms Cooper said the situation must be "investigated and clarified urgently", adding: "The public support for these powers must not be endangered by a perception of misuse."
  In a statement, the Liberal Democrats said police should use schedule 7 powers "proportionately and for good reason".
  Journalism 'not terrorism'Dr David Lowe, a former counter-terrorist detective, said the length of the detention might be explained by the "volume of documentation" carried by Mr Miranda.
  He said the amount of information revealed by Mr Snowden to the Guardian was not yet known, but police might have kept Mr Miranda for the full nine hours allowed because they had lots of data to go through.
  Dr Lowe also said Mr Miranda might have been targeted because of the "top secret" information police thought he was carrying, rather than because of his relationship with Mr Greenwald.
  But journalists' groups have accused authorities of misusing terrorism laws.
  Bob Satchwell, of the Society of Editors, said the incident was "another example of the dangerous tendency" for authorities to "assume that journalists are bad when in fact they play an important part in any democracy."
  He added: "Journalism may be embarrassing and annoying for governments but it is not terrorism."
Experts Surer Than Ever of Manmade Global Warming - The Jakarta Globe
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:49
  Oslo. Climate scientists are surer than ever that human activity is causing global warming, according to leaked drafts of a major UN report, but they are finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades.
  The uncertainty is frustrating for government planners: the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the main guide for states weighing multibillion-dollar shifts to renewable energy from fossil fuels, for coastal regions considering extra sea defenses or crop breeders developing heat-resistant strains.
  Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities '' chiefly the burning of fossil fuels '' are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
  That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.
  That shifts the debate onto the extent of temperature rises and the likely impacts, from manageable to catastrophic.
  Governments have agreed to work out an international deal by the end of 2015 to rein in rising emissions.
  ''We have got quite a bit more certain that climate change '... is largely manmade,'' said Reto Knutti, a professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. ''We're less certain than many would hope about the local impacts.''
  And gauging how warming would affect nature, from crops to fish stocks, was also proving hard since it goes far beyond physics. ''You can't write an equation for a tree,'' he said.
  The IPCC report, the first of three to be released in 2013 and 2014, will face intense scrutiny, particularly after the panel admitted a mistake in the 2007 study which wrongly predicted that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
  Experts say the error far overestimated the melt and might have been based on a misreading of 2350.
  The new study will state with greater confidence than in 2007 that rising manmade greenhouse gas emissions have already meant more heatwaves. But it is likely to play down some tentative findings from 2007, such as that human activities have contributed to more droughts.
  Almost 200 governments have agreed to try to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, seen as a threshold for dangerous changes including more droughts, extinctions, floods and rising seas that could swamp coastal regions and entire island nations.
  The report will flag a high risk that global temperatures will increase this century by more than that level, and will say that evidence of rising sea levels is now ''unequivocal''.
  For all that, scientists say it is proving harder to pinpoint local impacts in coming decades in a way that would help planners.
  Drew Shindell, a NASA climate scientist, said the relative lack of progress in regional predictions was the main disappointment of climate science since 2007.
  ''I talk to people in regional power planning. They ask: 'What's the temperature going to be in this region in the next 20-30 years, because that's where our power grid is?''' he said.
  ''We can't really tell. It's a shame,'' said Shindell. Like the other scientists interviewed, he was speaking about climate science in general since the last IPCC report, not about the details of the latest drafts.
  Warming Slowing
  The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial emissions by China and other emerging nations.
  An IPCC draft says there is ''medium confidence'' that the slowing of the rise is ''due in roughly equal measure'' to natural variations in the weather and to other factors affecting energy reaching the Earth's surface.
  Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.
  ''It might be down to minor contributions that all add up,'' said Gabriele Hegerl, a professor at Edinburgh University. Or maybe, scientists say, the latest decade is just a blip.
  The main scenarios in the draft, using more complex computer models than in 2007 and taking account of more factors, show that temperatures could rise anywhere from a fraction of 1 degree Celsius to almost 5C this century, a wider range at both ends than in 2007.
  The low end, however, is because the IPCC has added what diplomats say is an improbable scenario for radical government action '' not considered in 2007 '' that would require cuts in global greenhouse gases to zero by about 2070.
  Temperatures have already risen by 0.8C since the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century.
  Experts say that the big advance in the report, due for a final edit by governments and scientists in Stockholm from Sept. 23-26, is simply greater confidence about the science of global warming, rather than revolutionary new findings.
  Sea Levels
  ''Overall our understanding has strengthened,'' said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor at Princeton University, pointing to areas including sea level rise.
  An IPCC draft projects seas will rise by between 29 and 82 cm by the late 21st century '' above the estimates of 18 to 59 cm in the last report, which did not fully account for changes in Antarctica and Greenland.
  The report slightly tones down past tentative findings that more intense tropical cyclone are linked to human activities.
  Warmer air can contain more moisture, however, making downpours more likely in future.
  ''There is widespread agreement among hurricane scientists that rainfall associated with hurricanes will increase noticeably with global warming,'' said Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  ''But measuring rainfall is very tricky,'' he said.
  Reuters
Russia: Anti-Gay Row 'Invented' By Western Media
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:44
  Russian sports minister Vitaly Mutko says the controversy over his country's anti-gay propaganda law is "an invented problem" by Western media.
  The new legislation, which makes it illegal to give under-18s information about homosexuality, has led to calls for a boycott of next year's Winter Olympics in Russia.
  Debate over the law, which was introduced in June, has intensified during the World Athletics Championships in Moscow.
  But Mr Mutko, who is chairman of the Moscow 2013 Organising Committee, told a press conference today the issue has been blown out of all proportion.
  "I think this is kind of an invented problem," he said. "We don't have a law banning non-traditional sexual relations, we have a different law.
  "It is the informational protection of the young generation. We want to prevent the young generation, whose psyche has not been formulated.
  "We want to protect them against drunkenness, drugs and non-traditional sexual relations. We want them to grow up and when they become adults they have to define what they want."
  The news came as two female Russian athletes kissed on the winner's podium at the World Athletics Championships yesterday - sparking a huge debate on Twitter and other media about whether it was in protest at the government's anti-gay law.
  But sources in the Russian camp claimed Kseniya Ryzhova and Tatyana Firova - who had just won gold in the 4x400 metres relay - were just exchanging a congratulatory kiss and there was no political message involved.
  Critics say Isinbayeva should be axed as a Youth Olympics ambassadorOn Friday, Russian pole vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva claimed she was "misunderstood" when she apparently spoke out in support of her country's controversial new laws on homosexuality.
  Isinbayeva, 31, made her comments after other athletes made statements and gestures - including painting their nails in rainbow colours - opposing the Russian law.
  "It's disrespectful to our country, disrespectful to our citizens because we are Russians," Isinbayeva told a news conference - in English - after Swedish athlete high jumper Emma Green-Tregaro criticised the law.
  "Maybe we are different than European people and people from different lands."
  However, a day later, Isinbayeva suggested she was misunderstood because English is not her first language.
  "What I wanted to say was that people should respect the laws of other countries particularly when they are guests," she said in a statement.
  "But let me make it clear I respect the views of my fellow athletes, and let me state in the strongest terms that I am opposed to any discrimination against gay people on the grounds of their sexuality (which is against the Olympic charter)."
  Opponents of the law have called on the International Olympic Committee to remove Isinbayeva from her role as an ambassador for the Youth Olympics.
  Ryzhova and Firova won gold in the 4x400 metres relayThe double Olympic gold medallist is also due to be the mayor of the main athletes' village at the Sochi Games.
  US runner Nick Symmonds became the first international athlete to stand against the laws, dedicating his world 800m silver medal to his gay and lesbian friends.
  The Russian authorities have said all athletes will be free and safe to compete at Sochi regardless of their sexual orientation, but must obey Russian law.
  Foreigners found guilty of violating the law can be fined up to 5,000 rubles (around £100) and face administrative arrest of up to 15 days and eventual deportation.
  Broadcaster Stephen Fry has led growing calls for a boycott of the event, comparing President Vladimir Putin's treatment of gay people to Adolf Hitler's treatment of Jews.
  He said allowing the Games to go ahead in Russia would be comparable to the decision to hold the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany.
  :: In Italy, a local politician has been forced to resign for saying Yelena Isinbayeva ''should be taken and raped in a square" after she appeared to back Russia's anti-gay legislation.
  Gianluigi Piras, who served in a small municipality in Sardinia, apologised for his Facebook comments, saying he only meant them as a ''paradox''.
November 2013 - America's "Power Grid" Scheduled for Nationwide "Drill" - 12160
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:23
  Frank Franklin II/Associated Press
  New York City during a blackout in 2003. More than 150 companies and groups will take part in a drill that will simulate attacks on the power grid.
  This is why thousands of utility workers, business executives, National Guard officers, F.B.I. antiterrorism experts and officials from government agencies in the United States, Canada and Mexico are preparing for an emergency drill in November 2013 that will simulate physical attacks and cyberattacks that could take down large sections of the power grid.
  They will practice for a crisis unlike anything the real grid has ever seen, and more than 150 companies and organizations have signed up to participate.
  ''This is different from a hurricane that hits X, Y and Z counties in the Southeast and they have a loss of power for three or four days,'' said the official in charge of the drill, Brian M. Harrell of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, known as NERC. ''We really want to go beyond that.''
  One goal of the drill, called GridEx II, is to explore how governments would react as the loss of the grid crippled the supply chain for everyday necessities.
  ''If we fail at electricity, we're going to fail miserably,'' Curt H(C)bert, a former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said at a recent conference held by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
  Mr. Harrell said that previous exercises were based on the expectation that electricity ''would be up and running relatively quick'' after an attack.
  Now, he said, the goal is to ''educate the federal government on what their expectations should or shouldn't be.'' The industry held a smaller exercise two years ago in which 75 utilities, companies and agencies participated, but this one will be vastly expanded and will be carried out in a more anxious mood.
  Most of the participants will join the exercise from their workplaces, with NERC, in Washington, announcing successive failures. One example, organizers say, is a substation break-in that officials initially think is an attempt to steal copper. But instead, the intruder uses a USB drive to upload a virus into a computer network.
  The drill is part of a give-and-take in the past few years between the government and utilities that has exposed the difficulties of securing the electric system.
  The grid is essential for almost everything, but it is mostly controlled by investor-owned companies or municipal or regional agencies. Ninety-nine percent of military facilities rely on commercial power, according to the White House.
  The utilities play down their abilities, in comparison with the government's. ''They have the intelligence operation, the standing army, the three-letter agencies,'' said Scott Aaronson, senior director of national security policy at the Edison Electric Institute, the trade association of investor-owned utilities. ''We have the grid operations expertise.''
  That expertise involves running 5,800 major power plants and 450,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines, monitored and controlled by a staggering mix of devices installed over decades. Some utilities use their own antique computer protocols and are probably safe from hacking '-- what the industry calls ''security through obscurity.''
  But others rely on Windows-based control systems that are common to many industries. Some of them run on in-house networks, but computer security experts say they are not confident that all the connections to the public Internet have been discovered and secured. Many may be vulnerable to software '-- known as malware '-- that can disable the systems or destroy their ability to communicate, leaving their human operators blind about the positions of switches, the flows of current and other critical parameters. Experts say a sophisticated hacker could also damage hard-to-replace equipment.
  In an effort to draw utilities and the government closer, the industry recently established the Electricity Sub-Sector Coordinating Council, made up of high-level executives, to meet with federal officials. The first session is next month.
SPIEGEL Interview: Russia Today Editor in Chief Margarita Simonyan - SPIEGEL ONLINE
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:08
  Russian President Vladimir Putin has created an anti-CNN for Western audiences with the international satellite news network Russia Today. He commissioned the network in order to "break the monopoly of the Anglo-Saxon mass media." The government seems to be succeeding in its task, with the network gaining more viewers in major cities in the United States that any other foreign broadcaster.
  In Washington, 13 times as many viewers tune in to Russia Today than they do its German equivalent Deutsche Welle. A total of 2 million Brits watch the program. On Youtube, the Moscow-based broadcaster recently broke the one-billion-hit barrier, becoming the first broadcaster in the world to do so. Editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan, 33, views the broadcaster as a sort of ministry of media defense for Russia.
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: Your network sees itself as a counterweight to the major US broadcasters. How did you manage to poach CNN legend Larry King, 79, of all people?Simonyan: You'd have to ask him that question, but I do know that he is happy to get back into the game.
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: What can Russia Today offer King that others can't?
  Simonyan: I can quote him from an interview he gave recently: "I thought I could retire, but I love my job. I thought I wouldn't miss it, but I do."
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: Your network is funded by the Russian government. What is its mission statement?
  Simonyan: If you tune in to CNN or the BBC on a regular day, 80 or 90 percent of the stories are identical. We want to show that there are more stories out there than the 10-a-day that you usually encouter. I'm not saying that you should watch only our program; I'm saying that you should also watch it.
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: The Russian media have a slightly more dramatic take on your objectives. Many are comparing the network to the Ministry of Defense. You said it yourself, when Russia goes to war '...
  Simonyan: '... then we will join them in battle, yes. That goes for the country's real, armed conflicts. Do you remember the August war of 2008? Back then, most Western media outlets acted as if they were Georgia's ministry of defense.
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: In 2008, Russian troops invaded Georgian territory after President Mikheil Saakashvili gave the order to attack South Ossetia, a separatist republic with close ties to Russia.
  Simonyan: All of the Western broadcasters gave only the Georgian side of the story. Saakashvili was featured on all the networks; his statements were broadcast on all the programs. It was said that Russia started the war.* It was said the country's troops bombed a busy market in the provincial town of Gori. We immediately sent our correspondents out there, who found no trace of either shootings or bombings. Western broadcasters focused their entire coverage on the suffering of Georgian civilians. There was no mention of South Ossetians, meanwhile, who were suffering nightly artillery attacks at the hands of Saakashvili. It was pro-Georgian propaganda, pure and simple.
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: It wasn't that one-sided. SPIEGEL, for one, reported at an early stage that it was Saakashvili who had fired the first shot. A European Union committee came to the same conclusion.
  Simonyan: Sure, afterwards! But how many people actually ended up reading the EU report? The majority of people to this day believe that Russia started the war totally unprovoked. The evil Russia pounces on poor little Georgia.
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: It is not uncommon to see Russia in the role of the aggressor.
  Simonyan: Objection! Russia hadn't started a war with another country in 20 years. How many armed conflicts has America engaged in in the same period of time? How many wars has Europe taken part in?
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: How do you explain Russia's negative image?
  Simonyan: The West never got over the Cold War stereotype. One thing that only few journalists understand is that Russia started dissolving the Soviet Union of its own accord. We were the ones to realize that Communism was a failure. We understood that it was wrong to impose our will on other nations. We released the Eastern bloc into freedom. We are a different country today, one with a different mentality -- which is something that Western journalists sometimes find difficult to comprehend. You, for example, stated earlier that Russia was acting aggressively without backing it up with facts.
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is Russia Today's goal to provide objective reporting? Or is it first and foremost just about offering a perspective different from that of Western media?
  Simonyan: Have you already seen many examples of objective reporting in general?
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: Efforts are made to be objective. But your network only covers one side, offering Syrian dictator Bashar Assad a platform for his political message.
  Simonyan: There are people who refer to Assad's political opponents as the "democratic opposition." Even the rebels, however, have raped women and murdered children. Take Saakashvili, for example. He is held up as a hero by the BBC. For others, he represents an oppressor of freedom. There is no objectivity -- only approximations of the truth by as many different voices as possible.
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: The Russian opposition is rarely featured on your network, except as a target of smear campaigns. You even accused Russian blogger and dissident Rustem Adagamov of pedophilia without so much as a scrap of evidence.
  Simonyan: Why did we report about Adagamov? Because he was publicly positioning himself as a campaigner for justice.
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: The accusations leveled against him are based solely on statements coming from his ex-wife, who says that he sexually abused an underage girl in Norway many years ago. The authorities declined to bring charges against him due to a lack of evidence.
  Simonyan: We didn't prosecute him; we merely broadcast a report. We also tried to get a statement from the wife and from Adagamov, too. Would the German media refrain from giving coverage to a political activist accused of sexually abusing a 12-year-old girl? I spoke to the wife myself, and I certainly didn't get the impression that she was crazy.
  SPIEGEL ONLINE: How did it come about that your network was the first to broadcast images of the arrest of a CIA spy in Moscow in May? How closely do you work with the authorities?
  Simonyan: We received those images from an agency in the same way that every other Russian television network does. It wasn't exclusive material. We were simpler quicker to publish it than others.
  *Due to a translation error, an earlier version of this interview suggested that Simonyan said that Russia started the war with Georgia. In actuality, she said that Western media blamed Russia for starting the war. We apologize for the error.
Margarita Simonyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:07
  Margarita Simonyan (Russian: Ð'Ð°ÑÐ"Ð°ÑÐ¸ÌÑ‚Ð° ÐÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾ÌÐ½Ð¾Ð²Ð½Ð° ÐÐ¸Ð¼Ð¾Ð½ÑŒÑÌÐ½) (born 6 April 1980 in Krasnodar, Soviet Union) is a Russian journalist of Armenian descent. She is the Editor-in-Chief of the English-language, autonomous non-profit, government-funded[1] global multilingual television news network RT (formerly "Russia Today").[2][3][4]
  Simonyan was born in Krasnodar, Russia, just northeast of the Black Sea. She is from a working class family and decided at an early age she wanted to become a journalist. She first worked for the local newspaper, and then for a local television station while studying journalism at Kuban State University.[5]
  Simonyan spent a year in Bristol, New Hampshire in a student exchange program visit.[4] She says during that time she discovered Russians and Americans "are so much alike in terms of culture, in terms of family values, ways of life, reactions, sense of humor".[5][6]
  Simonyan covered the Second Chechen War and serious flooding in Russia's south for her local television station, receiving an award for "professional courage". In 2002, she became a regional correspondent for Russia's national Rossiya television channel and covered the 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis.[7] Simonyan, one of the first journalists to arrive at the scene, witnessed the killing of 334, 186 of them children. She told an interviewer "It was the worst thing that ever happened to me," and that she cried frequently while trying to write about it. She then moved to Moscow and joined Rossiya's pool of Kremlin reporters.[5][6]
  She was the first Vice-President of the Russian National Association of TV and Radio Broadcasters and a member of The Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation. In 2010 her first book, ''Heading to Moscow!'' was published.[4][8]
  Simonyan was only 25 when appointed editor-in-chief in 2005, but had been working in journalism since she was 18.[9] Some sources describe her as a Kremlin loyalist[10] who is close to the Putin regime.[11][12][13][14] She admits that Vladimir Putin once sent her flowers,[9] Though when asked about the flowers incident Simonyan played it down "At a press conference, where President Putin was talking with the President of Tajikistan. It was my twenty-fifth birthday, which is a special anniversary. The other journalists were talking about it, the President heard them, and that was how I received the flowers. It was very spontaneous. I don't think that you can call it a presidential high regard".[15] Simonyan has explained to reporters that after the fall of the Soviet Union many older Soviet journalists were not wanted by new media enterprises which preferred less experienced young journalists, thus the youth of most of the staffers.[6][9]
  RT started broadcasting on 10 December 2005 with a staff of 300 journalists, including approximately 70 from outside Russia.[16] Simonyan frequently addresses media questions about RT's journalistic and political stands. At its launch, Simonyan stated that RT's intent was to have a "professional format" like the BBC, CNN and Euronews that would "reflect Russia's opinion of the world" and present a "more balanced picture" of Russia.[17] She also told a reporter that the government would not dictate content and "Censorship by government in this country is prohibited by the constitution."[18] She later told the Moscow Times that RT started to grow once it became provocative and that controversy was vital to the station. She said that RT's task was not to polish Moscow's reputation.[19]
  She discussed her views of RT's coverage of the 2008 South Ossetia war, where Russia backed South Ossetia against the country of Georgia, with the Washington Times. She stated that among English speaking channels, only RT was giving the South Ossetian side of the story. She rejected the allegation of Will Dunbar, an RT correspondent who left after alleging RT was downplaying Russian bombing raids, and denied his claims of censorship. She stated that compared to some other stations, "We are not making a secret out of the fact that we are a Russian station, and, of course, we see the world from a Russian point of view. We are being much more honest in that sense."[6]
  ^James Painter, The boom in counter-hegemonic news channels: a case study of Telesur, (undated, circa 2006), Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University.^Is RT state-run?, Rt.com website, June 16, 2011.^"Viruses Penetrated Image of Russia". Kommersant. 13 December 2005. Retrieved 4 December 2011. ^ abcMargarita Simonyan biography, NewsExchange.org, accessed September 20, 2012.^ abcIoffe, Julia (September / October 2010). "What is Russia Today?". Columbia Journalism Review. ^ abcdRowland, Kara (Monday, October 27, 2008). "Russia Today: Youth served". The Washington Times. ^Zagorodnov, Artem (September 25, 2008). "Today's woman who needs to be heard". The Moscow Times. ^Margarita Simonyan book event photographs, Ria Novosti media library.^ abcStephen Heyman, A Voice of Mother Russia, in English, New York Times, May 18, 2008.^Elder, Miriam (25 January 2012). "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's TV show to be aired on Russian channel". The Guardian. ^Barry and Schwirtz, Ellen and Michael (May 6, 2012). "Arrests and Violence at Overflowing Rally in Moscow". NYT. ^Ioffe, Julia (September / October 2010). "What is Russia Today?". Columbia Journalism Review. ^Walker, Shaun (14 December 2011). "Why the Russian revolution is being televised at last". ^Osborn, Andrew (August 16, 2005). "Russia's 'CNN' wants to tell it like it is". The Age. ^Russia Today is the face of Russia today (interview with Margarita Simonyanpassportmagazine.ru January 2007^Julian Evans, Spinning Russia, Foreign Policy, December 1, 2005.^RIA Novosti launches a TV channel, Russia Today, RIA Novosti, June 7, 2005.^Beth Knobel "Russian News, English Accent: New Kremlin Show Spins Russia Westward", CBS News, 12 December 2005^Russia Today courts viewers with controversy. The Moscow Times. March 23, 2010.PersondataNameSimonyan, MargaritaAlternative namesShort descriptionJournalistDate of birth6 April 1980Place of birthKrasnodar, Soviet UnionDate of deathPlace of death
Margarita Simonyan became a mother | Russian news and facts
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:06
  Last night at known journalist Margarita Simonyan who heads Russia Today TV channel, daughter Maryana was born.
  ''3335 g, height of 49 cm, - happy mother reported. - Sleeps, eats, cries, smiles, says hello. Everything is ok.
  We called Margarita'...
  - Rita, Komsomolskaya Pravda, and loves everything who knows you, with all the heart congratulate on the birth of the daughter!
  - Thanks.
  - How Maryana feels?
  - Everything is all right. Here lies near.
  - And you have what feelings?
  - I feel very happy.
  - And why the daughter named Maryana?
  - Simply beautiful name. Very much it is pleasant to me.
  - And to whom it is similar?
  - On me!
  Margarita, we are glad for you, this your most outstanding work! We wish you and the baby, all your family of pleasure and good!
  READ ALSO: Margarita Simonyan: We with Ooze won't be impartial In air there was the first release of the new talk-show ''Iron Ladies''. Usually the talk-show are conducted by one person. Most often it, certainly, man. In this program all differently. Instead of men two fine, but more than programs of the woman justifying the name - Tina Kandelaki and the editor-in-chief of the Russia Today channel Margarita Simonyan
Old Saybrook Residents Receive False Terror Warning | NBC Connecticut
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:54
  advertisement
  Residents of Old Saybrook received quite a shock after hearing the area was under a terrorist attack over the Connecticut town's public address system on Sunday afternoon.
  The Office of Emergency Management said a dispatcher accidentally made a series of errors, which caused the message to play over speakers placed around town. The message also warned residents to seek shelter.
  "It's concerning that there was somebody making that sort of mistake," said Old Saybrook resident David Olsen.
  Olsen was home at the time of the broadcast, but said he couldn't make out any of the words.
  "I said, 'That's odd,' and I heard it again maybe 30 seconds or a minute later. I came to the door, opened up the door and didn't hear anything at all," said Olsen.
  Reverse 911 calls were made through the Everbridge Emergency Notification System apologizing for the error and saying in part, "There is no emergency, and there is no homeland security crisis in or near the Town of Old Saybrook."
  The Office of Emergency Management said it takes the matter very seriously and an internal investigation has begun into that dispatcher's actions.
  Get the latest headlines sent to your inbox!
RED BOOK:Airline Charges Passengers by the Pound | Obese Airline Passengers | LiveScience
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:51
  In a first for the travel industry, Samoa Air has started charging its passengers by the pound.
  The airline generally flies smaller aircraft that seat up to 12 people, according to Gizmodo, so passengers and their luggage make up a greater proportion of the aircraft's weight than on larger jumbo jets.
  "This is the fairest way of travelling," said Chris Langton, chief executive of Samoa Air, told Australia's ABC Radio. "There are no extra fees in terms of excess baggage or anything '-- it is just a kilo is a kilo is a kilo."
  To book a flight, passengers on Samoa Air must enter their total weight '-- luggage plus body weight '-- onto the airline's website. They are then charged per pound, depending on the length of the flight.
  At the airport, passengers and their luggage are weighed to ensure there's no fibbing, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.
  Langton pointed out that the new pricing system has been a pleasant surprise for families with children. "A family of maybe two adults and a couple of midsized kids ... can travel at considerably less than what they were being charged before," he said, as quoted in the Herald.
  Samoans have rates of obesity that are among the highest in the world. A 2004 report from the Journal of Development and Social Transformation stated that obesity rates as high as 75 percent have been found in the populations of Nauru, Samoa, American Samoa, the Cook Islands, Tonga and French Polynesia.
  The World Health Organization reports that much of this obesity can be attributed to the speed with which the traditional diet of the region has been replaced in recent years with imported, processed food.
  Will Samoa Air's new pricing plan spread to other airlines? The idea has gained traction since the March 2013 publication of a controversial report by Bharat P. Bhatta, professor of economics at Sogn og Fjordane University College in Norway.
  Writing in the March 2013 issue of the Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Bhatta proposes three pricing options: one simple price per pound, a fixed low fare with a surcharge for heavier passengers or a discount for lighter passengers, FoxNews reports.
  "Charging according to weight and space is a universally accepted principle, not only in transportation, but also in other services," Bhatta wrote. Much of his argument is based on the extra fuel charges and other costs that airlines assume when flying heavier people and baggage.
  Some airlines, such as United and Southwest, now require that all passengers fit within the 17 inches between their armrests; if they don't fit, they must buy a second seat. American Airlines' website suggests that passengers unable to properly buckle their seatbelt "address their seating needs when booking the original reservation."
  Follow Marc Lallanilla onTwitterandGoogle+. Follow us@livescience,Facebook&Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com.
47 USC 151: Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created-Taxes on Internet access.
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:47
  §151. Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission createdFor the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission'', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
  (June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title I, §1, 48 Stat. 1064; May 20, 1937, ch. 229, §1, 50 Stat. 189; Pub. L. 104''104, title I, §104, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 86.)
  References in TextThis chapter, referred to in text, was in the original ''this Act'', meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.
  Amendments1996-Pub. L. 104''104 inserted '', without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex,'' after ''to all the people of the United States''.
  1937-Act May 20, 1937, inserted ''for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication''.
  Moratorium on Internet TaxesPub. L. 105''277, div. C, title XI, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681''719, as amended by Pub. L. 107''75, §2, Nov. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 703; Pub. L. 108''435, §§2''6A, Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2615''2618; Pub. L. 110''108, §§2''6, Oct. 31, 2007, 121 Stat. 1024''1026, provided that:
  ''SEC. 1100. SHORT TITLE.''This title may be cited as the 'Internet Tax Freedom Act'.
  ''SEC. 1101. MORATORIUM.''(a) Moratorium.-No State or political subdivision thereof may impose any of the following taxes during the period beginning November 1, 2003, and ending November 1, 2014:
  ''(1) Taxes on Internet access.
  ''(2) Multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.
  ''(b) Preservation of State and Local Taxing Authority.-Except as provided in this section, nothing in this title shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede, or authorize the modification, impairment, or superseding of, any State or local law pertaining to taxation that is otherwise permissible by or under the Constitution of the United States or other Federal law and in effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1998].
  ''(c) Liabilities and Pending Cases.-Nothing in this title affects liability for taxes accrued and enforced before the date of enactment of this Act, nor does this title affect ongoing litigation relating to such taxes.
  ''(d) Exception to Moratorium.-
  ''(1) In general.-Subsection (a) shall also not apply in the case of any person or entity who knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors unless such person or entity has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors-
  ''(A) by requiring use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number;
  ''(B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age; or
  ''(C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology.
  ''(2) Scope of exception.-For purposes of paragraph (1), a person shall not be considered to [be] making a communication for commercial purposes of material to the extent that the person is-
  ''(A) a telecommunications carrier engaged in the provision of a telecommunications service;
  ''(B) a person engaged in the business of providing an Internet access service;
  ''(C) a person engaged in the business of providing an Internet information location tool; or
  ''(D) similarly engaged in the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication made by another person, without selection or alteration of the communication.
  ''(3) Definitions.-In this subsection:
  ''(A) By means of the world wide web.-The term 'by means of the World Wide Web' means by placement of material in a computer server-based file archive so that it is publicly accessible, over the Internet, using hypertext transfer protocol, file transfer protocol, or other similar protocols.
  ''(B) Commercial purposes; engaged in the business.-
  ''(i) Commercial purposes.-A person shall be considered to make a communication for commercial purposes only if such person is engaged in the business of making such communications.
  ''(ii) Engaged in the business.-The term 'engaged in the business' means that the person who makes a communication, or offers to make a communication, by means of the World Wide Web, that includes any material that is harmful to minors, devotes time, attention, or labor to such activities, as a regular course of such person's trade or business, with the objective of earning a profit as a result of such activities (although it is not necessary that the person make a profit or that the making or offering to make such communications be the person's sole or principal business or source of income). A person may be considered to be engaged in the business of making, by means of the World Wide Web, communications for commercial purposes that include material that is harmful to minors, only if the person knowingly causes the material that is harmful to minors to be posted on the World Wide Web or knowingly solicits such material to be posted on the World Wide Web.
  ''(C) Internet.-The term 'Internet' means collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating software, which comprise the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
  ''(D) Internet access service.-The term 'Internet access service' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers. The term 'Internet access service' does not include telecommunications services, except to the extent such services are purchased, used, or sold by a provider of Internet access to provide Internet access.
  ''(E) Internet information location tool.-The term 'Internet information location tool' means a service that refers or links users to an online location on the World Wide Web. Such term includes directories, indices, references, pointers, and hypertext links.
  ''(F) Material that is harmful to minors.-The term 'material that is harmful to minors' means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that-
  ''(i) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
  ''(ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and
  ''(iii) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
  ''(G) Minor.-The term 'minor' means any person under 17 years of age.
  ''(H) Telecommunications carrier; telecommunications service.-The terms 'telecommunications carrier' and 'telecommunications service' have the meanings given such terms in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153).
  ''(e) Additional Exception to Moratorium.-
  ''(1) In general.-Subsection (a) shall also not apply with respect to an Internet access provider, unless, at the time of entering into an agreement with a customer for the provision of Internet access services, such provider offers such customer (either for a fee or at no charge) screening software that is designed to permit the customer to limit access to material on the Internet that is harmful to minors.
  ''(2) Definitions.-In this subsection:
  ''(A) Internet access provider.-The term 'Internet access provider' means a person engaged in the business of providing a computer and communications facility through which a customer may obtain access to the Internet, but does not include a common carrier to the extent that it provides only telecommunications services.
  ''(B) Internet access services.-The term 'Internet access services' means the provision of computer and communications services through which a customer using a computer and a modem or other communications device may obtain access to the Internet, but does not include telecommunications services provided by a common carrier.
  ''(C) Screening software.-The term 'screening software' means software that is designed to permit a person to limit access to material on the Internet that is harmful to minors.
  ''(3) Applicability.-Paragraph (1) shall apply to agreements for the provision of Internet access services entered into on or after the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1998].
  ''SEC. 1102. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.''(a) Establishment of Commission.-There is established a commission to be known as the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce (in this title referred to as the 'Commission'). The Commission shall-
  ''(1) be composed of 19 members appointed in accordance with subsection (b), including the chairperson who shall be selected by the members of the Commission from among themselves; and
  ''(2) conduct its business in accordance with the provisions of this title.
  ''(b) Membership.-
  ''(1) In general.-The Commissioners shall serve for the life of the Commission. The membership of the Commission shall be as follows:
  ''(A) 3 representatives from the Federal Government, comprised of the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the United States Trade Representative (or their respective delegates).
  ''(B) 8 representatives from State and local governments (one such representative shall be from a State or local government that does not impose a sales tax and one representative shall be from a State that does not impose an income tax).
  ''(C) 8 representatives of the electronic commerce industry (including small business), telecommunications carriers, local retail businesses, and consumer groups, comprised of-
  ''(i) 5 individuals appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate;
  ''(ii) 3 individuals appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate;
  ''(iii) 5 individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
  ''(iv) 3 individuals appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
  ''(2) Appointments.-Appointments to the Commission shall be made not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1998]. The chairperson shall be selected not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
  ''(3) Vacancies.-Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
  ''(c) Acceptance of Gifts and Grants.-The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or grants of services or property, both real and personal, for purposes of aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts or grants not used at the expiration of the Commission shall be returned to the donor or grantor.
  ''(d) Other Resources.-The Commission shall have reasonable access to materials, resources, data, and other information from the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative. The Commission shall also have reasonable access to use the facilities of any such Department or Office for purposes of conducting meetings.
  ''(e) Sunset.-The Commission shall terminate 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1998].
  ''(f) Rules of the Commission.-
  ''(1) Quorum.-Nine members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for conducting the business of the Commission.
  ''(2) Meetings.-Any meetings held by the Commission shall be duly noticed at least 14 days in advance and shall be open to the public.
  ''(3) Opportunities to testify.-The Commission shall provide opportunities for representatives of the general public, taxpayer groups, consumer groups, and State and local government officials to testify.
  ''(4) Additional rules.-The Commission may adopt other rules as needed.
  ''(g) Duties of the Commission.-
  ''(1) In general.-The Commission shall conduct a thorough study of Federal, State and local, and international taxation and tariff treatment of transactions using the Internet and Internet access and other comparable intrastate, interstate or international sales activities.
  ''(2) Issues to be studied.-The Commission may include in the study under subsection (a)-
  ''(A) an examination of-
  ''(i) barriers imposed in foreign markets on United States providers of property, goods, services, or information engaged in electronic commerce and on United States providers of telecommunications services; and
  ''(ii) how the imposition of such barriers will affect United States consumers, the competitiveness of United States citizens providing property, goods, services, or information in foreign markets, and the growth and maturing of the Internet;
  ''(B) an examination of the collection and administration of consumption taxes on electronic commerce in other countries and the United States, and the impact of such collection on the global economy, including an examination of the relationship between the collection and administration of such taxes when the transaction uses the Internet and when it does not;
  ''(C) an examination of the impact of the Internet and Internet access (particularly voice transmission) on the revenue base for taxes imposed under section 4251 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 4251];
  ''(D) an examination of model State legislation that-
  ''(i) would provide uniform definitions of categories of property, goods, service, or information subject to or exempt from sales and use taxes; and
  ''(ii) would ensure that Internet access services, online services, and communications and transactions using the Internet, Internet access service, or online services would be treated in a tax and technologically neutral manner relative to other forms of remote sales;
  ''(E) an examination of the effects of taxation, including the absence of taxation, on all interstate sales transactions, including transactions using the Internet, on retail businesses and on State and local governments, which examination may include a review of the efforts of State and local governments to collect sales and use taxes owed on in-State purchases from out-of-State sellers; and
  ''(F) the examination of ways to simplify Federal and State and local taxes imposed on the provision of telecommunications services.
  ''(3) Effect on the communications act of 1934.-Nothing in this section shall include an examination of any fees or charges imposed by the Federal Communications Commission or States related to-
  ''(A) obligations under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.); or
  ''(B) the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104''104, see Short Title of 1996 Amendment note set out under section 609 of this title] (or of amendments made by that Act).
  ''(h) National Tax Association Communications and Electronic Commerce Tax Project.-The Commission shall, to the extent possible, ensure that its work does not undermine the efforts of the National Tax Association Communications and Electronic Commerce Tax Project.
  ''SEC. 1103. REPORT.''Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1998], the Commission shall transmit to Congress for its consideration a report reflecting the results, including such legislative recommendations as required to address the findings of the Commission's study under this title. Any recommendation agreed to by the Commission shall be tax and technologically neutral and apply to all forms of remote commerce. No finding or recommendation shall be included in the report unless agreed to by at least two-thirds of the members of the Commission serving at the time the finding or recommendation is made.
  ''SEC. 1104. GRANDFATHERING OF STATES THAT TAX INTERNET ACCESS.''(a) Pre-October 1998 Taxes.-
  ''(1) In general.-Section 1101(a) does not apply to a tax on Internet access that was generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998, if, before that date-
  ''(A) the tax was authorized by statute; and
  ''(B) either-
  ''(i) a provider of Internet access services had a reasonable opportunity to know, by virtue of a rule or other public proclamation made by the appropriate administrative agency of the State or political subdivision thereof, that such agency has interpreted and applied such tax to Internet access services; or
  ''(ii) a State or political subdivision thereof generally collected such tax on charges for Internet access.
  ''(2) Termination.-
  ''(A) In general.-Except as provided in subparagraph (B), this subsection shall not apply after November 1, 2014.
  ''(B) State telecommunications service tax.-
  ''(i) Date for termination.-This subsection shall not apply after November 1, 2006, with respect to a State telecommunications service tax described in clause (ii).
  ''(ii) Description of tax.-A State telecommunications service tax referred to in subclause (i) is a State tax-
  ''(I) enacted by State law on or after October 1, 1991, and imposing a tax on telecommunications service; and
  ''(II) applied to Internet access through administrative code or regulation issued on or after December 1, 2002.
  ''(3) Exception.-Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to any State that has, more than 24 months prior to the date of enactment of this paragraph [Oct. 31, 2007], enacted legislation to repeal the State's taxes on Internet access or issued a rule or other proclamation made by the appropriate agency of the State that such State agency has decided to no longer apply such tax to Internet access.
  ''(b) Pre-November 2003 Taxes.-
  ''(1) In general.-Section 1101(a) does not apply to a tax on Internet access that was generally imposed and actually enforced as of November 1, 2003, if, as of that date, the tax was authorized by statute and-
  ''(A) a provider of Internet access services had a reasonable opportunity to know by virtue of a public rule or other public proclamation made by the appropriate administrative agency of the State or political subdivision thereof, that such agency has interpreted and applied such tax to Internet access services; and
  ''(B) a State or political subdivision thereof generally collected such tax on charges for Internet access.
  ''(2) Termination.-This subsection shall not apply after November 1, 2005.
  ''(c) Application of Definition.-
  ''(1) In general.-Effective as of November 1, 2003-
  ''(A) for purposes of subsection (a), the term 'Internet access' shall have the meaning given such term by section 1104(5) of this Act, as enacted on October 21, 1998; and
  ''(B) for purposes of subsection (b), the term 'Internet access' shall have the meaning given such term by section 1104(5) of this Act as enacted on October 21, 1998, and amended by section 2(c) of the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (Public Law 108''435).
  ''(2) Exceptions.-Paragraph (1) shall not apply until June 30, 2008, to a tax on Internet access that is-
  ''(A) generally imposed and actually enforced on telecommunications service purchased, used, or sold by a provider of Internet access, but only if the appropriate administrative agency of a State or political subdivision thereof issued a public ruling prior to July 1, 2007, that applied such tax to such service in a manner that is inconsistent with paragraph (1); or
  ''(B) the subject of litigation instituted in a judicial court of competent jurisdiction prior to July 1, 2007, in which a State or political subdivision is seeking to enforce, in a manner that is inconsistent with paragraph (1), such tax on telecommunications service purchased, used, or sold by a provider of Internet access.
  ''(3) No inference.-No inference of legislative construction shall be drawn from this subsection or the amendments to section 1105(5) made by the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007 [Pub. L. 110''108] for any period prior to June 30, 2008, with respect to any tax subject to the exceptions described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2).
  ''SEC. 1105. DEFINITIONS.''For the purposes of this title:
  ''(1) Bit tax.-The term 'bit tax' means any tax on electronic commerce expressly imposed on or measured by the volume of digital information transmitted electronically, or the volume of digital information per unit of time transmitted electronically, but does not include taxes imposed on the provision of telecommunications.
  ''(2) Discriminatory tax.-The term 'discriminatory tax' means-
  ''(A) any tax imposed by a State or political subdivision thereof on electronic commerce that-
  ''(i) is not generally imposed and legally collectible by such State or such political subdivision on transactions involving similar property, goods, services, or information accomplished through other means;
  ''(ii) is not generally imposed and legally collectible at the same rate by such State or such political subdivision on transactions involving similar property, goods, services, or information accomplished through other means, unless the rate is lower as part of a phase-out of the tax over not more than a 5-year period;
  ''(iii) imposes an obligation to collect or pay the tax on a different person or entity than in the case of transactions involving similar property, goods, services, or information accomplished through other means;
  ''(iv) establishes a classification of Internet access service providers or online service providers for purposes of establishing a higher tax rate to be imposed on such providers than the tax rate generally applied to providers of similar information services delivered through other means; or
  ''(B) any tax imposed by a State or political subdivision thereof, if-
  ''(i) the sole ability to access a site on a remote seller's out-of-State computer server is considered a factor in determining a remote seller's tax collection obligation; or
  ''(ii) a provider of Internet access service or online services is deemed to be the agent of a remote seller for determining tax collection obligations solely as a result of-
  ''(I) the display of a remote seller's information or content on the out-of-State computer server of a provider of Internet access service or online services; or
  ''(II) the processing of orders through the out-of-State computer server of a provider of Internet access service or online services.
  ''(3) Electronic commerce.-The term 'electronic commerce' means any transaction conducted over the Internet or through Internet access, comprising the sale, lease, license, offer, or delivery of property, goods, services, or information, whether or not for consideration, and includes the provision of Internet access.
  ''(4) Internet.-The term 'Internet' means collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating software, which comprise the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
  ''(5) Internet access.-The term 'Internet access'-
  ''(A) means a service that enables users to connect to the Internet to access content, information, or other services offered over the Internet;
  ''(B) includes the purchase, use or sale of telecommunications by a provider of a service described in subparagraph (A) to the extent such telecommunications are purchased, used or sold-
  ''(i) to provide such service; or
  ''(ii) to otherwise enable users to access content, information or other services offered over the Internet;
  ''(C) includes services that are incidental to the provision of the service described in subparagraph (A) when furnished to users as part of such service, such as a home page, electronic mail and instant messaging (including voice- and video-capable electronic mail and instant messaging), video clips, and personal electronic storage capacity;
  ''(D) does not include voice, audio or video programming, or other products and services (except services described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (E)) that utilize Internet protocol or any successor protocol and for which there is a charge, regardless of whether such charge is separately stated or aggregated with the charge for services described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (E); and
  ''(E) includes a homepage, electronic mail and instant messaging (including voice- and video-capable electronic mail and instant messaging), video clips, and personal electronic storage capacity, that are provided independently or not packaged with Internet access.
  ''(6) Multiple tax.-
  ''(A) In general.-The term 'multiple tax' means any tax that is imposed by one State or political subdivision thereof on the same or essentially the same electronic commerce that is also subject to another tax imposed by another State or political subdivision thereof (whether or not at the same rate or on the same basis), without a credit (for example, a resale exemption certificate) for taxes paid in other jurisdictions.
  ''(B) Exception.-Such term shall not include a sales or use tax imposed by a State and 1 or more political subdivisions thereof on the same electronic commerce or a tax on persons engaged in electronic commerce which also may have been subject to a sales or use tax thereon.
  ''(C) Sales or use tax.-For purposes of subparagraph (B), the term 'sales or use tax' means a tax that is imposed on or incident to the sale, purchase, storage, consumption, distribution, or other use of tangible personal property or services as may be defined by laws imposing such tax and which is measured by the amount of the sales price or other charge for such property or service.
  ''(7) State.-The term 'State' means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
  ''(8) Tax.-
  ''(A) In general.-The term 'tax' means-
  ''(i) any charge imposed by any governmental entity for the purpose of generating revenues for governmental purposes, and is not a fee imposed for a specific privilege, service, or benefit conferred; or
  ''(ii) the imposition on a seller of an obligation to collect and to remit to a governmental entity any sales or use tax imposed on a buyer by a governmental entity.
  ''(B) Exception.-Such term does not include any franchise fee or similar fee imposed by a State or local franchising authority, pursuant to section 622 or 653 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 542, 573), or any other fee related to obligations or telecommunications carriers under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
  ''(9) Telecommunications.-The term 'telecommunications' means 'telecommunications' as such term is defined in section 3(43) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153(43) [now 153(50)]) and 'telecommunications service' as such term is defined in section 3(46) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 153(46) [now 153(53)]), and includes communications services (as defined in section 4251 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4251)).
  ''(10) Tax on internet access.-
  ''(A) In general.-The term 'tax on Internet access' means a tax on Internet access, regardless of whether such tax is imposed on a provider of Internet access or a buyer of Internet access and regardless of the terminology used to describe the tax.
  ''(B) General exception.-The term 'tax on Internet access' does not include a tax levied upon or measured by net income, capital stock, net worth, or property value.
  ''(C) Specific exception.-
  ''(i) Specified taxes.-Effective November 1, 2007, the term 'tax on Internet access' also does not include a State tax expressly levied on commercial activity, modified gross receipts, taxable margin, or gross income of the business, by a State law specifically using one of the foregoing terms, that-
  ''(I) was enacted after June 20, 2005, and before November 1, 2007 (or, in the case of a State business and occupation tax, was enacted after January 1, 1932, and before January 1, 1936);
  ''(II) replaced, in whole or in part, a modified value-added tax or a tax levied upon or measured by net income, capital stock, or net worth (or, is a State business and occupation tax that was enacted after January 1, 1932 and before January 1, 1936);
  ''(III) is imposed on a broad range of business activity; and
  ''(IV) is not discriminatory in its application to providers of communication services, Internet access, or telecommunications.
  ''(ii) Modifications.-Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed as a limitation on a State's ability to make modifications to a tax covered by clause (i) of this subparagraph after November 1, 2007, as long as the modifications do not substantially narrow the range of business activities on which the tax is imposed or otherwise disqualify the tax under clause (i).
  ''(iii) No inference.-No inference of legislative construction shall be drawn from this subparagraph regarding the application of subparagraph (A) or (B) to any tax described in clause (i) for periods prior to November 1, 2007.
  ''SEC. 1106. ACCOUNTING RULE.''(a) In General.-If charges for Internet access are aggregated with and not separately stated from charges for telecommunications or other charges that are subject to taxation, then the charges for Internet access may be subject to taxation unless the Internet access provider can reasonably identify the charges for Internet access from its books and records kept in the regular course of business.
  ''(b) Definitions.-In this section:
  ''(1) Charges for internet access.-The term 'charges for Internet access' means all charges for Internet access as defined in section 1105(5).
  ''(2) Charges for telecommunications.-The term 'charges for telecommunications' means all charges for telecommunications, except to the extent such telecommunications are purchased, used, or sold by a provider of Internet access to provide Internet access or to otherwise enable users to access content, information or other services offered over the Internet.
  ''SEC. 1107. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.''(a) Universal Service.-Nothing in this Act [probably means ''this title''] shall prevent the imposition or collection of any fees or charges used to preserve and advance Federal universal service or similar State programs-
  ''(1) authorized by section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254); or
  ''(2) in effect on February 8, 1996.
  ''(b) 911 and E''911 Services.-Nothing in this Act [probably means ''this title''] shall prevent the imposition or collection, on a service used for access to 911 or E''911 services, of any fee or charge specifically designated or presented as dedicated by a State or political subdivision thereof for the support of 911 or E''911 services if no portion of the revenue derived from such fee or charge is obligated or expended for any purpose other than support of 911 or E''911 services.
  ''(c) Non-Tax Regulatory Proceedings.-Nothing in this Act [probably means ''this title''] shall be construed to affect any Federal or State regulatory proceeding that is not related to taxation.
  ''[SEC. 1108. Repealed. Pub. L. 110''108, §5(b), Oct. 31, 2007, 121 Stat. 1026]''SEC. 1109. EXCEPTION FOR TEXAS MUNICIPAL ACCESS LINE FEE.''Nothing in this Act [probably means ''this title''] shall prohibit Texas or a political subdivision thereof from imposing or collecting the Texas municipal access line fee pursuant to Texas Local Govt. Code Ann. ch. 283 (Vernon 2005) and the definition of access line as determined by the Public Utility Commission of Texas in its 'Order Adopting Amendments to Section 26.465 As Approved At The February 13, 2003 Public Hearing', issued March 5, 2003, in Project No. 26412.''
  [Pub. L. 110''108, §7, Oct. 31, 2007, 121 Stat. 1027, provided that: ''This Act [enacting provisions set out as a note under section 609 of this title and amending title XI of div. C of Pub. L. 105''277, set out above], and the amendments made by this Act, shall take effect on November 1, 2007, and shall apply with respect to taxes in effect as of such date or thereafter enacted, except as provided in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act [title XI of div. C of Pub. L. 105''277] (47 U.S.C. 151 note).'']
  [Pub. L. 108''435, §8, Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2619, provided that: ''The amendments made by this Act [amending title XI of div. C of Pub. L. 105''277, set out above] take effect on November 1, 2003.'']
  Stylistic ConsistencyPub. L. 104''104, title I, §101(c), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 79, provided that: ''The Act [Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.)] is amended so that-
  ''(1) the designation and heading of each title of the Act shall be in the form and typeface of the designation and heading of this title of this Act [110 Stat. 61]; and
  ''(2) the designation and heading of each part of each title of the Act shall be in the form and typeface of the designation and heading of part I of title II of the Act [110 Stat. 61], as amended by subsection (a).''
  Study of Telecommunications and Information GoalsPub. L. 97''259, title II, §202, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1099, provided that:
  ''(a) The National Telecommunications and Information Administration shall conduct a comprehensive study of the long-range international telecommunications and information goals of the United States, the specific international telecommunications and information policies necessary to promote those goals and the strategies that will ensure that the United States achieves them. The Administration shall further conduct a review of the structures, procedures, and mechanisms which are utilized by the United States to develop international telecommunications and information policy.
  ''(b) In any study or review conducted pursuant to this section, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration shall not make public information regarding usage or traffic patterns which would damage United States commercial interests. Any such study or review shall be limited to international telecommunications policies or to domestic telecommunications issues which directly affect such policies.''
  Commission on Governmental Use of International TelecommunicationsAct July 29, 1954, ch. 647, 68 Stat. 587, established the Commission on Governmental Use of International Telecommunications to examine, study and report on the objectives, operations, and effectiveness of information programs with respect to the prompt development of techniques, methods, and programs for greatly expanded and far more effective operations in this vital area of foreign policy through the use of foreign telecommunications. The Commission was required to make a report of its findings and recommendations on or before Dec. 31, 1954, and the Commission ceased to exist 90 days after submission of its report to the Congress.
  Communication Privileges to Participants in World Telecommunication ConferencesAct May 13, 1947, ch. 51, 61 Stat. 83, provided that nothing in this chapter, or in any other provision of law should be construed to prohibit United States communication common carriers from rendering free communication services to official participants in the world telecommunications conferences which were held in the United States in 1947.
  Executive Order No. 10460Ex. Ord. No. 10460, eff. June 18, 1953, 18 F.R. 3513, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 10773, eff. July 1, 1958, 23 F.R. 5061; Ex. Ord. No. 10782, eff. Sept. 8, 1958, 23 F.R. 6971, which related to the performance of telecommunication functions by Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, was revoked by section 4 of Ex. Ord. No. 10995, eff. Feb. 16, 1962, 27 F.R. 1519.
Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2013
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:46
  113 S31 IS: Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2013 U.S. Senate 2013-01-22 text/xml EN Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
  II 113th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 31 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 22 (legislative day, January 3), 2013 Ms. Ayotte introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance A BILL To make the moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce permanent.
  1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2013. 2.Permanent moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce (a)In generalSection 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking taxes during the period beginning November 1, 2003, and ending November 1, 2014: and inserting taxes:. (b)Effective dateThe amendment made by this section shall apply to taxes imposed after the date of the enactment of this Act.
CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran's Coup - By Malcolm Byrne | Foreign Policy
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:28
  Sixty years ago this Monday, on August 19, 1953, modern Iranian history took a critical turn when a U.S.- and British-backed coup overthrew the country's prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The event's reverberations have haunted its orchestrators over the years, contributing to the anti-Americanism that accompanied the Shah's ouster in early 1979, and even influencing the Iranians who seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran later that year.
  But it has taken almost six decades for the U.S. intelligence community to acknowledge openly that it was behind the controversial overthrow. Published here today -- and on the website of the National Security Archive, which obtained the document through the Freedom of Information Act -- is a brief excerpt from The Battle for Iran, an internal report prepared in the mid-1970s by an in-house CIA historian.
  The document was first released in 1981, but with most of it excised, including all of Section III, entitled "Covert Action" -- the part that describes the coup itself. Most of that section remains under wraps, but this new version does formally make public, for the first time that we know of, the fact of the agency's participation: "[T]he military coup that overthrew Mosadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy," the history reads. The risk of leaving Iran "open to Soviet aggression," it adds, "compelled the United States ... in planning and executing TPAJAX."
  TPAJAX was the CIA's codename for the overthrow plot, which relied on local collaborators at every stage. It consisted of several steps: using propaganda to undermine Mossadegh politically, inducing the Shah to cooperate, bribing members of parliament, organizing the security forces, and ginning up public demonstrations. The initial attempt actually failed, but after a mad scramble the coup forces pulled themselves together and came through on their second try, on August 19.
  Why the CIA finally chose to own up to its role is as unclear as some of the reasons it has held onto this information for so long. CIA and British operatives have written books and articles on the operation -- notably Kermit Roosevelt, the agency's chief overseer of the coup. Scholars have produced many more books, including several just in the past few years. Moreover, two American presidents (Clinton and Obama) have publicly acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup.
  But U.S. government classifiers, especially in the intelligence community, often have a different view on these matters. They worry that disclosing "sources and methods" -- even for operations decades in the past and involving age-old methods like propaganda -- might help an adversary. They insist there is a world of difference between what becomes publicly known unofficially (through leaks, for example) and what the government formally acknowledges. (Somehow those presidential admissions of American involvement seem not to have counted.)
Final Rule: Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:26
  Through the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act championed by theFirst Lady and signed by President Obama, USDA is making the firstmajor changes in school meals in 15 years, which will help us raise ahealthier generation of children.
  The new standards align school meals with the latest nutrition scienceand the real world circumstances of America's schools. These responsiblereforms do what's right for children's health in a way that's achievable inschools across the Nation.
Pinellas students to use palm scanners in lunch line | wtsp.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:23
  LARGO, Florida - A trip down the school lunch line will be quicker for Pinellas students and staff this school year. "It's two seconds to buy a meal. Literally, two seconds," says Edward Rutenbeck, senior user support analyst with Pinellas Schools Food Services.
  This school year, middle and high school students in Pinellas will be the first in the nation to use palm scanning technology to pay for lunch. Rutenbeck says, "This gives children more time to eat lunch instead of waiting in line with their trays. They put their hand down and they're done."
  Staff will use it too and enrolling is easy. The program is also voluntary.
  "We choose to enroll on the screen and chose a student's name. They place their hand on scanner, wait for two seconds, lift it up, and place it again for two more seconds," explains Rutenbeck.
  The Fujitsu PalmSecure technology uses infrared light to read each student's and employee's unique vein pattern and ties it to their meal plan.
  "It's a true identification. Who else is going to have a palm like mine?" says Sharon Ingram, a Pinellas School District secretary, just after being enrolled. District officials say the system also protects students from identity theft.
  The palm scanning technology is not new to the Bay area. In 2008, BayCare Health System implemented the program and became the first in the state to register and track patients. It has used biometrics to register 610,000 patients.
  "It was important for us to have a medical record that was continuous. If a patient had more than one visit, the clinical provider had information of that previous visit," says Candace Gray, director of Registration for BayCare Health System.
  Cafeteria cashier Lisa Buis works at Largo High School where up to 1,000 students go through the lunch line in a day. Buis says she looks forward to the new system. "It's going to be smooth sailing."
  The district has ordered 300 palm scanners at a cost of $120,000. The palm scanners will replace the district's finger imaging technology that was implemented in 2005. District officials say the finger imaging system has not been reliable. Since student fingers' made contact with the scanner, after a while the scanner would break down and would need to be replaced.
  Students will not be touching the palm scanner, but they will hold their hands over a black box several inches away from the sensor. The contactless palm vein authentication is said to be hygienic and non-invasive.
  Later this year, cafeteria workers will clock in and clock out using the palm scanners.
  You May Also Like...
School Lunch Nutrition Planning Software | MCS Software
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:21
  When it comes to efficient cafeteria operations, MCS lightens your load with software that's easy to use and works great. That's why four of the nation's top six school districts are already using it.
  Your day is not a piece of cake.Moving students through school lunch lines quickly, serving nutritious meals, ensuring accurate reports, controlling expenses, meal planning and complying with regulations. That's a lot for any school food service director to handle.
  The School Nutrition Experts. Since 1998, MCS Software has earned an expert reputation among K-12 schools. We were the first to introduce game-changing innovations like online application scanning, POS palm scanning and biometrics in vending machines. We have consulted with the USDA as they updated regulations, are approved as a TIPS TAPS vendor, and offer our customers reliable support that's so rare these days. MCS's Menus & Inventory module is USDA-approved for use in certification of compliance with the new School Lunch Program meal patterns now in place. We're ready to work with your District to ensure compliance with all the regulations.
  We understand what's important to you. At MCS, we make it our mission to create new and better ways to help make school lunch programs more efficient. Our satisfied customers are proof that we are doing just that. In fact, 99% of MCS customers say they would refer MCS to their colleagues.
  We make it easy. Changing software programs can be daunting. That's why we have a painless transition process that takes less than three days. Once you install MCS software, we are sure that you will never buy another food service software program from anyone else.
IsraCampus.Org.il
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:40
  Home
  About IsraCampus
  Search
  ××‘×¨××ª
  Ð ÑƒÑÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹
  Ben Gurion U
  Hebrew U
  Tel Aviv U
  U of Haifa
  Other Schools
  A-C
  D-G
  H-K
  L-N
  O-R
  S-V
  W-Z
  Israeli Academic Extremism
  Israeli Academic Extremists outside Israel
  Anti-Israel Petitions Signed by Israeli Academics
  ALEF Watch
  IDI Watch
  IsraCampus Essays
  How to Complain
  Contact Us
  Anti-Israel Petitions Signed by Israeli AcademicsIsraeli Academics Sign up for "Jews for Justice for Palestinians"Jews for Justice for PalestiniansWE BELIEVE THATPeace in the Middle East will only come about with mutual recognition and respect and must be seen as just by both sides.Peace requires the end of illegal occupation and settlement.Violence against civilians is unacceptable.Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza are breeding hatred and resentment.It is crucial that Jews speak out for Palestinians' human rights.The humanitarian values of Judaism have been corrupted by the Israeli state's human-rights abuses½WHO WE AREJews for Justice for Palestinians is a network of Jews who are British or live in Britain, practising and secular, Zionist and not. We oppose Israeli policies that undermine the livelihoods, human, civil and political rights of the Palestinian people.
  We support the right of Israelis to live in freedom and security within Israel's 1967 borders.
  As well as organising to ensure that Jewish opinions critical of Israeli policy are heard in Britain, we extend support to Palestinians trapped in the spiral of violence and repression½
  Israeli Academics among the list of signatories:Prof Emeritus Moshe MachoverProf Haim BresheethDavid NewmanAmir Paz-FuchsEyal Weizman
  http://jfjfp.com/?page_id=2
  Jews for Justice for Palestinians
  "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole Torah, the rest is commentary."RABBI HILLEL
  WE BELIEVE THATPeace in the Middle East will only come about with mutual recognition and respect and must be seen as just by both sides.Peace requires the end of illegal occupation and settlement.Violence against civilians is unacceptable.Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza are breeding hatred and resentment.It is crucial that Jews speak out for Palestinians' human rights.The humanitarian values of Judaism have been corrupted by the Israeli state's human-rights abuses.A lasting peace must be seen as just by both sides.Britain, the EU, the USA, Russia and the UN must be persuaded to implement UN resolutions on Palestine.IF YOU AGREEthen link up with over one thousand six hundred other Jews in Britain who make up Jews for Justice for Palestinians
  The Torah teaches: 'Justice, justice, you shall pursue' (Deuteronomy 16:20).To secure a lasting settlement to the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis so they can live in peace and security, thrive side by side, and co-operate together, Jews today are obligated to pursue justice on behalf of both peoples."
  RABBI ELIZABETH TIKVAH SARAH
  WHO WE AREJews for Justice for Palestinians is a network of Jews who are British or live in Britain, practising and secular, Zionist and not. We oppose Israeli policies that undermine the livelihoods, human, civil and political rights of the Palestinian people.
  We support the right of Israelis to live in freedom and security within Israel's 1967 borders.
  As well as organising to ensure that Jewish opinions critical of Israeli policy are heard in Britain, we extend support to Palestinians trapped in the spiral of violence and repression. We believe that such actions are important in countering antisemitism and the claim that opposition to Israel's destructive policies is itself antisemitic.
  We cooperate with other organisations on specific issues without necessarily endorsing everything they do.
  We work to build world-wide Jewish opposition to the Israeli Occupation, with like-minded groups around the world and are a founding member of European Jews for a Just Peace, a federation of Jewish groups in ten European countries whose principles include:
  condemnation of all violence against civilians in the conflict, no matter by whom it is carried out;recognition of Israel's 1967 'green line' borders;commitment to the Palestinians' right to a state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza;calling on Israel to acknowledge its part in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem and its obligation to negotiate a just, fair and practical resolution of the issue."Israel must withdraw from all the settlements and dismantle the wall within Palestinian territory.Then, perhaps, we may at last see some justice for Palestinians."
  MIRIAM KARLIN OBE
  At the end of 2010, our over 1,600 signatories included six rabbis; 110 professors (including five Fellows of the Royal Society and two fellows of the British Academy); 150 medical and academic doctors; several OBEs, CBEs and MBEs, six knights, one Member of Parliament and one member of the House of Lords.
  The list includes Helen Bamber OBE, Prof Zygmunt Bauman, Sir Geoffrey Bindman, Rex Bloomstein, Sir Anthony Caro, Prof Stan Cohen, Jenny Diski, Moris Farhi MBE, Bella Freud, Stephen Fry, Prof Eric Hobsbawm, Dr Julian Huppert MP, Prof Mary Kaldor, Nicolas Kent, Beeban Kidron, Baroness Oona King, Prof Francesca Klug OBE, Mike Leigh, Miriam Margolyes OBE, Mike Marqusee, Dr Jonathan Miller, Rabbi Jeffrey Newman, Sophie Okonedo OBE, Prof Susie Orbach, Prof Jacqueline Rose FBA, Mike Rosen, Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah, Alexei Sayle, Prof Lynne Segal, Will Self, Sir Antony Sher, Prof Avi Shlaim FBA, Gillian Slovo, Sir Tom Stoppard, Dame Janet Suzman and Zo½ Wanamaker CBE
  "Jews for Justice for Palestinians gives expression to the many alternative views within the community."
  MICHAEL ROSEN
  All our signatories can be found here.
  What we do"Jews for Justice for Palestinians is concerned for justice for them½and us!Without justice for Palestinians, there is no hope forIsrael."
  RABBI JEFFREY NEWMAN
  We support many Israeli peace and human-rights organisations morally and financially including:ACRI (Association for Civil Rights in Israel), Adalah, Breaking the Silence, Coalition of Women for Peace, Gisha, Gush Shalom, ICAHD (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions), Machsom (Checkpoint) Watch, New Profile, PHR-I (Physicians for Human Rights), PCATI (Public Committee Against Torture in Israel), Rabbis for Human Rights, Ta'ayush (Arab-Jewish Partnership), Yesh Gvul (There is a Limit) and Zochrot (Remembrance).
  We organise meetings across the UK and produce information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict½both printed and web-based at www.jfjfp.org
  We lobby on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often in association with Palestinians.
  We publish adverts occasionally about important current issues in the national and Jewish press
  We promote boycott, divestment and sanctions initiatives against Israeli and foreign companies profiting from the illegal occupation.
  We support a wide range of Palestinian peace and humanitarian organisations.
  We channel humanitarian aid through the British Shalom Salaam Trust, an independent grant-giving charity.
  We provide practical support to the Palestinian economy: planting olive trees, supporting Zaytoun, a fair-trade organisation marketing Palestinian olive oil, and encouraging fact-finding trips to the area.
  "The work that Jews for Justice for Palestinians has done is of profound importance for the human rights of Palestinians and Israelis and for reaffirming the long association between Jewish people and the struggle for human rights everywhere."
  FRANCESCA KLUG OBE
  HOW YOU CAN HELPEncourage Jewish friends, relatives and colleagues to join our growing list of signatories.Get involved with other signatories where you live. There are very large numbers in the London region, and clusters of signatories in Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Hertfordshire, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford, Newcastle, Norwich, the West Midlands, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Contact us for information on local groups including Just Peace Leicester, Justice for Palestinians-West Midlands, Merseyside Jews for Peace and Justice, Norfolk Jewish Peace Group and Scottish Jews for a Just Peace.Write letters to the local and national press ½ JfJfP can help.Help organise meetings in your synagogue or area ½ JfJfP can supply speakers.Join in fundraising for humanitarian and campaigning activities.Lobby your MP to speak out against the Occupation.Support boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against those profiting from the occupation.Help distribute information on JFJFP events, campaigns and relevant issues.For further information visit jfjfp.com e-mail info@jfjfp.org or write to JFJFP, PO Box 46081, London W9 2ZF
  Students can contact the student group at students@jfjfp.org
  OrganisationEveryone who adds their name is included on two mailout lists: one a weekly summary of postings made to the website, the other is occasional with notices of campaigns and actions, but do ask if you don't want to receive them. If you are not on email, please send us 5 stamped addressed A4 envelopes for our monthly postal mailouts.
  There is no membership fee, but donations to support our work will be gratefully received. We hold regular meetings in London and Manchester and work with others in Scotland and in Liverpool, Leicester, Norfolk and elsewhere. JfJfP is a national network; you can be a signatory as well as a member of one of these other groupings.
  Some contact details:Scottish Jews for a Just Peace ½ info@sjjp.org.ukManchester JfJfP ½ mjfjfp@tiscali.co.ukMerseyside Jews for Peace and Justice ½ via info@jfjfp.orgJust Peace Leicester ½ via info@jfjfp.orgNorfolk Jewish Peace Group ½ via info@jfjfp.org
  JfJfP In the Community
  JfJfP signatories include Jews from across the religious and political spectrum. We value contributions to the struggle for justice for Palestinians by Jews from every background, in Britain, Israel, and across the world.
  It is sometimes difficult for us to make our voices heard within formal Jewish structures. Too often we are misrepresented as 'traitors', 'self-hating Jews', or worse. Yet among JfJfP signatories, and those who share our vision of justice for Palestinians, are Jews who play an active role in numerous synagogues and other Jewish groups. They know that their views do not compromise their identity, but enrich their commitment to Jewish life. This is true for Jews from all traditions: secular and religious, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, identifying with any or none of the denominational groups.
  Despite the claims of some communal figures, there is no consensus among British Jews about the political situation in Israel and Palestine. The last authoritative research on the subject, undertaken by the UJIA in 2004, showed that 22% supported the policies of the then government of Ariel Sharon, and 28% opposed them. The views of the remaining 50% were 'not sure' or' mixed'. Furthermore, 31% of British Jews described themselves as 'often very critical' of Israeli government policies.
  For JfJfP signatories and sympathizers, honest discussion about Israel and Palestine often risks painful disagreements with family, friends and colleagues. That is why JfJfP has launched a series of grassroots initiatives designed to help British Jews who want to express their commitment to justice for Palestinians within their own communities.
  If you want to know more about this work, or to discuss how you can make your voice heard within your community, please contact community@jfjfp.org
  http://jfjfp.com/?page_id=9
  A number of signatories have died over the years and we wish to remember their commitment to the cause of justice for Palestinians. They are listed here.
  Please join us ½ read the statementJews for Justice for Palestinians is a network of Jews who are British or live in Britain, practising and secular, Zionist and not. We oppose Israeli policies that undermine the livelihoods, human, civil and political rights of the Palestinian people.
  There are 1707 signatoriesat 31 January 2013
  ========================================
  Articles appearing on IsraCampus.Org.il are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the opinion of IsraCampus.Org.il
Killing Kasztner: The Jew Who Dealt With Nazis (2009) Synopsis - Plot Summary - Fandango.com
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:19
  To an even greater degree than Oskar Schindler, Dr. Israel Kasztner played a key role in saving the lives of well over 1,000 Jews from the Holocaust (1,600 in Kasztner's case; 1,200 in Schindler's), but a fascinating and deeply sad irony lay buried in the differences between the men's stories: Schindler was a Nazi party member who manipulated the Gestapo in such a way that it enabled him to save the said individuals, and he died a veritable hero; Kasztner was a Jew who bargained with Adolf Eichmann for the salvation of the 1,600 (whom he shuttled off to Switzerland on a train), and was not ultimately laurelled as a hero, but branded a traitor by his own people. This occurred largely because the notion of bargaining with the Nazis struck many as morally unacceptable (indeed, a greater moral infraction, in the eyes of some, than simple party membership). Kasztner's tale thus speaks volumes about the complex loyalties, conflicting allegiances, and deep-seated confusion at the heart of World War II, and those are the gray areas explored by director Gaylen Ross in this penetrative documentary account of Kasztner's life. The film ultimately poses key questions about the extent to which collaboration with the enemy is morally acceptable in a time of war; it reveals the extent to which Kasztner touched innumerable lives, and features deeply moving interviews with Kasztner's family (who are still attempting to restore his legacy), even as it also features conversations with Kasztner's political opponents and detractors. ~ Nathan Southern, Rovi
Seth Tabaznik Take One Action - people and movies that are changing the world | Even The Rain
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:17
  Sundance Best Doc about Palestinian father and filmmaker Emad Burnat
  Emad Burnat & Guy Davidi France, Israel, Netherlands, Palestinian Territory, Occupied 2011 90mins
  Age group: 15+
  Winner, Best Documentary, Sundance 2012''Startlingly intimate and direct''Village Voice
  When Emad Burnat buys a video camera to record the birth of his son, little does he know that he will suddenly be drawn into an extraordinary new role in his village of Bil'in in the West Bank. Overnight Bil'in has become the centre of an international campaign to halt the seizure of land and olive groves for Israeli settlers: one that the world must not be allowed to see. Navigating a dangerous path between truth and propaganda, family and friends, life and justice, Emad, and his camera, stay firmly in the firing line throughout this extraordinary film that shows the price of freedom steadily going up and up.
  We are delighted to welcome the award-winning star and director of 5 Broken Cameras, Emad Burnat, to Edinburgh and Glasgow for Q&As following all screenings of this film. With Barrie Levine (Scottish Jews for A Just Peace).
  Region: North Africa/Middle EastKey themes: Mid East/Isr-PalestineStrand:Please book for the following shows using the links below, or telephone the relevant venue box office: Edinburgh Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, Glasgow Film Theatre 0141 332 6535.
  Fri 28 Sept, 3.15pm (bargain matinee)Edinburgh FilmhousePlus director Q&A
  Sat 29 Sept, 3pmGlasgow Film TheatrePlus director Q&A
  Sat 29 Sept, 8.15pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus director Q&A
  The World On Your Plate weekend / UK Premiere, plus discussion
  Kalyanee Mam Cambodia 2013 83mins
  Age group: 12+
  ''BREATHTAKINGLY BEAUTIFUL'... BREAKS NEW GROUND'' HUFFINGTON POST
  FILM SYNOPSISIntimate, moving and stunningly filmed by director Kalyanee Mam (of the Oscar-winning Inside Job), A River Changes Course vividly captures the profound interdependence between Cambodian river, forest and farm peoples and the foods they harvest. While moments of great beauty, grace and humour shine through, Mam witnesses the growing effects of debt, international land grabs and urbanisation on the families' means of survival and happiness, finally begging both filmmaker and audience to break the silence and speak out from behind the screen.
  A powerful reflection on the frontline impacts of our global food system, this mesmerizing film deservingly walked away with the Grand Jury Prize for World Documentary at Sundance.
  PANEL DISCUSSION The lay of the landScreening followed by discussion responding to the film and touching on the state of global land rights protections, with Humza Yousaf MSP (Minister for International Development) and Judith Robertson (Head of Oxfam Scotland).
  TAKE ONE ACTION DIALOGUESWant to make your film experience even better? Many of you have been asking us to create space for small audience conversations over a cuppa or a glass of wine after our screenings. In response, we're launching Take One Action Dialogues - 60 minute facilitated conversations for up to 8 people at/near Filmhouse - a chance to explore the issues raised by the films in a more relaxed and personal way immediately after panel discussions. It's free, and the first drink is on us. No catch, except that you must register to take part - and please show up if you do - as it costs us. Sorted. To register for A River Changes Course (8.30 to 9.30pm), email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or phone 0131 553 6335.
  Region: AsiaKey themes: globalisation, hunger/food issuesStrand:Thur 30 May, 18:00-20:25Film plus discussionFilmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh
  Screening + Panel Discussion
  Frank Piasechi Poulsen Denmark 2010 82mins
  Age group: 12A cert
  What's the price of a text message? This is the question that takes director Frank Poulsen on a hugely personal journey in this rollercoaster IDFA hit to connect Africa's ''heart of darkness'' with the ivory towers of European multinationals. In the past 15 years, five million people have died in Congo's civil war. The UN has consistently reported a connection between the conflict and control of the international trade in minerals used in products such as mobile phones. Reaching the dangerous and normally inaccessible Bisie mine area, Poulsen's extraordinary journey reveals child labourers in death-defying conditions before he returns home to ask his phone company, the largest in the world, just what are they doing to halt the cycle of poverty and conflict?
  Region: Congo, Dem Rep of theKey themes: consumerism, corporate responsibilityStrand:Call the Filmhouse box office on 0131 228 2688 or using our link below.
  BLOOD IN THE MOBILESat 26 Nov, 20:15Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by panel discussion and audience Q&A.
  Edinburgh's year-round hub for independent cinema, including Take One Action and the Edinburgh International Film Festival
  Key themes: cult classics, Scotland, world-changing filmPartner location: Edinburgh Scottish premiere / Exclusive UK preview
  Frank Poulsen Denmark 2010 82 mins
  Age group: not certified
  "tightly constructed... A courageous piece of investigative reportage''Variety
  What's the price of a text message? This is the question that takes director Frank Poulsen on a hugely personal journey in this rollercoaster IDFA hit to connect Africa's ''heart of darkness'' with the ivory towers of European multinationals.
  In the past 15 years, five million people have died in Congo's civil war. The UN has consistently reported a connection between the conflict and control of the international trade in minerals used in products such as mobile phones. Reaching the dangerous and normally inaccessible Bisie mine area, Poulsen's extraordinary journey reveals child labourers in death-defying conditions before he returns home to ask his phone company, the largest in the world, just what are they doing to halt the cycle of poverty and conflict?
  All screenings will be followed by Q&A with director Frank Poulsen, with evening screenings followed by free drinks in the bar (retain ticket). On Saturday 24th September, Frank will be joined by Clare Short, former UK Secretary of State for International Development who currently serves as Chair of the global Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.
  Region: Congo, Dem Rep of theKey themes: corporate responsibility, human rights, work/labourStrand:Land and Freedom BLOOD IN THE MOBILEFri 23 Sept, 15:30Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by Q&A with director Frank Poulsen.
  BLOOD IN THE MOBILEFri 23 Sept, 18:00Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose Street, Glasgow G3 6RB
  Followed by Q&A with director Frank Poulsen and Kathy Galloway, director of Christian Aid Scotland. Followed by free drinks in the bar (retain ticket).
  BLOOD IN THE MOBILESat 24 Sept, 20:20
  Followed by Q&A with director Frank Poulsen and Clare Short, former UK Secretary of State for International Development who currently serves as Chair of the global Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Followed by free drinks in the bar (retain ticket).
  You've Been Trumped
  A billionaire, a golf course and a community collide'...
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, environment (general), world-changing film
  Age group: 12A cert
  When China Met Africa
  An intimate and provocative view of China's growing role in Africa
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, democracy/political systems, international development
  Age group: 12+
  Clare Short in Conversation
  An opportunity to dialogue with one of the world's most outspoken poverty campaigners and one time key player in Blair's goverment.
  Key themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, work/labour
  Age group: not certified
  The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) protects and promotes journalists and journalism reporting across our world.
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, media issues, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, work/labour, world-changing filmPartner location: Scotland-wide, Glasgow Christian Aid is a development organisation that insists the world can and must be swiftly changed to one where everyone can live a full life, free from poverty.
  Key themes: climate change, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide Fri 23 Sep '' Sat 24 Sep
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Family Screening
  Petr Oukropec, Bohdan Slma Czech Republic 2012 90 mins
  Age group: 8+
  Johanka and Matyas's playground is the lush botanical garden in the old quarter of a Czech city. When the new mayor reveals his intention to scrap the garden and modernize, Johanka's terrific imagination takes hold and the pair plan to stop him. Suddenly rumours of a mysterious Blue Tiger in the city circulate. Can they protect him from the Mayor and save the garden? This heart-warming Czech film, a hit on the indie festival circuit, explores play, environment and social responsibility themes with bags of charm.
  With activities for younger viewers led by Take One Action's Andy McCoy and special guests.
  Interactive bike-powered screening(Glasgow only)Join us (and join in) under the stars as we pedal through the film at Glasgow's Hidden Gardens. Please bring warm clothing and a waterproof as rain cover is limited.
  Region: Czech RepublicKey themes: environment (general), youth/family friendlyStrand:Please book for the following shows using the links below. Tickets for The Hidden Gardens screening are only available online in advance (£4/£2). To book Edinburgh Filmhouse tickets over the phone telephone 0131 228 2688.
  Sat 22 Sept, 3.15pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus activities for younger viewers
  Fri 5 Oct, 7pmThe Hidden Gardens, GlasgowBike-powered outdoor screeningPlus activities for younger viewers
  Exclusive UK Preview : Bicycle powered moonlit screening
  Peter Gilbert UK 2010 79 mins
  Age group: not certified
  In the month that the UN reinforces its warning that hundreds of millions of people will be made homeless by climate change this century, this exclusive outdoor screening asks whether tackling climate change is a science... or an art? In 2008, 45 scientists and artists '' including Jarvis Cocker, Robyn Hitchcock, Martha Wainwright, KT Tunstall, Marcus Brigstocke and Ryuichi Sakomoto '' joined together on a Cape Farewell expedition to Disko Bay, Greenland to set about answering this question.
  Our exclusive UK preview of this gentle documentary bears witness to their journey and subsequent performances of new material at Latitude Festival and elsewhere.
  At the Botanic Gardens, pedal-power the film under the stars to stay warm and keep this event "off the grid". With additional storytelling activities and art exhibition 'Tarnished Earth' in the gardens.
  Also showing at Edinburgh University on Weds 21 September, see below.
  Region: ArcticKey themes: climate changeStrand:Green Shoots In association withRoyal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh, The Co-operative, Edinburgh Woodcraft Folk, Transition Edinburgh SouthBURNING ICEMon 19 Sep, 19:00Royal Botanic Gardens, 20A Inverleith RowDress for the outdoors and pedal the cinema to keep warm! Additional storytelling activities and art exhibition 'Tarnished Earth' in the gardens.
  BURNING ICEWed 21 Sep, 19:45George Square Lecture Theatre (Indoors)
  Tickets £5/£3 on the door
  There Once Was An Island
  A centuries old island community in the Pacific ocean is going under water
  Key themes: climate change, consumerism, environment (general)
  Age group: 12+
  SCIAF, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, is the official aid and development agency of the Catholic Church in Scotland, working in 16 countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America to support the poorest people.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, HIV and AIDS, trade/economic justicePartner location: Scotland-wide, Glasgow The Co-operative Group is a unique business democratically run and owned by its members to meet their common needs and aspirations.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, fair trade, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide Sat 1 Oct '' Sun 1 Jan
  Event location: -Organised by
  Type of event: Film screeningKey themes:Age group:Full event address: -Event website address:-
  Tue 20 Sep
  Event location: EdinburghOrganised by
  Do you want to find out more about the positive role that business can play in international development? NIDOS, the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland, is bringing together businesses and charities alike who are finding ways of working together for mutual benefit. We'll also hear from Scotland's former chief economic advisor, Dr Andrew Goudie, on the Scottish Government's role in business and development. The seminar will be followed by our AGM, which is for NIDOS members only.
  Type of event: OtherKey themes: international development, trade/economic justiceAge group: not certifiedFull event address: Radisson Blu Hotel, Royal Mile, EdinburghEvent website address:www.nidos.org.uk/events/event.asp?id=328
  Please download a booking form from our website for details of ticket prices for non-members and to book your place. Please note that the event is free to attend for NIDOS members. For more information please contact us on 0131 243 2680 or email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
  Scottish premiere - Edinburgh only
  Katherine Fairfax Wright & Malika Zouhali-Worrall Uganda, USA 2012 87mins
  Age group: 15+
  "connects the dots perfectly to show how personal and global struggles are inextricably linked"IndieWire
  Uganda has become ground zero in the Evangelical church's war on the ''homosexual agenda.'' Enter David Kato, a veteran activist who's been working tirelessly to repeal his country's homophobic laws and liberate his fellow gay and transgendered citizens'--called ''kuchus'''--from persecution. Kato's mission is intensified when a new anti-homosexuality bill proposing death for HIV-positive gay men is introduced. Meanwhile, the country's newspapers are outing kuchus under headlines such as ''HOMO TERROR! We Name and Shame Top Gays in the City.'' Kato is one of the few to publicly denounce these actions, insisting ''if we keep on hiding, they will say we are not here.'' Call Me Kuchu documents the courageous efforts of Kato and his team to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. The result is both a hard-won victory and a devastating loss for the international gay community.
  Followed by discussion about the issues raised in the film with special guest speakers including Ugandan activist John Bosco and The Rt Rev Dr John Armes, Bishop of Edinburgh.
  Region: UgandaKey themes: empowerment/activism, gender and powerStrand:Fri 5 Oct, 8.25pm
  Edinburgh Filmhouse
  Plus discussion
  Edinburgh and Glasgow 3 hrs
  Age group: adult training
  Actively seeking change on the issues you care about can take many forms, but it can also be fun and hugely rewarding. These informative and empowering beginners guides to changing the world will give you the confidence to make a real difference. Meet experienced campaginers, get to grips with the building blocks of developing a campaign and hear directly from politicians who might be on the receiving end of your future action.
  Both workshops will be followed by screenings of Our Generation at the Edinburgh Filmhouse and Glasgow Film Theatre. There will be an opportunity for participants to meet director Sinem Saban beforehand to hear about her own campaign work. Tickets for the film should be purchased through the relevant box office.
  Region: globalKey themes: empowerment/activismStrand:Green Shoots Land and Freedom Faces of Change CAMPAIGNING FOR BEGINNERSSat 1 Oct, 10.00 - 13.00Barclay Church, TollcrossFollowed by Our Generation at Edinburgh Filmhouse. Tickets for the film should be purchased through the box office (0131 228 2688)
  CAMPAIGNING FOR BEGINNERSSun 2 Oct, 13:00 - 16:00Ogilvie Centre, 25 Rose StreetFollowed by Our Generation at the Glasgow Film Theatre. Tickets for the film should be purchased through the box office (0141 332 6535)
  You've Been Trumped
  A billionaire, a golf course and a community collide'...
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, environment (general), world-changing film
  Age group: 12A cert
  Our Generation
  Groundbreaking documentary igninitng a people power movement across Australia
  Key themes: empowerment/activism, environment (general), world-changing film
  Age group: 15+
  Clare Short in Conversation
  An opportunity to dialogue with one of the world's most outspoken poverty campaigners and one time key player in Blair's goverment.
  Key themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, work/labour
  Age group: not certified
  Sat 1 Oct '' Sun 2 Oct
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event: WorkshopKey themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  The World On Your Plate weekend / Scottish Premiere, plus discussion
  Katja Gauriloff Finland 2012 81mins
  Age group: 15+
  GRIERSON AWARD NOMINEE - LONDON FILM FESTIVAL 2012
  FILM SYNOPSISAs horsemeat scandals urge us to ask who really benefits from the food market, this visually arresting 30,000-kilometre journey tracing the life of a can of ravioli in Europe and beyond starts to look for answers. A dream-like voyage, the story opens with a single mother toiling in one of the biggest open pit mines in Brazil and ends on the shelf of a western supermarket. Along the way, the workers whose hands mine, raise and harvest each ingredient reveal their dreams and hopes, like the Danish pig farmer who loves his sows but longs for a girlfriend, and the tomato picker who wants to stay healthy long enough to pay her daughter's way through university.
  Profound and visually explosive cinema, Canned Dreams opens the cupboard to ask: what is sustainable, healthy and fair?
  PANEL DISCUSSION European food rulz... ok!?Screening followed by discussion touching on the sustainability of industrial food production in Europe, with guests including George Lyon MEP (former President NFU Scotland, now EU Agriculture Committee), Jim McLaren (chair, Quality Meat Scotland) and Pete Richie (Nourish/Whitmuir Organics).
  Region: EuropeKey themes: corporate responsibility, globalisation, hunger/food issuesStrand:Tickets through Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, £8.20/£6 concessions inc first 20 Co-op members when booked in person at the Filmhouse box office.
  SHOWINGFri 31 May, 17:45-19:55Film plus discussionFilmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh
  Scottish Premiere + panel discussion
  Raed Andoni Palestinian Territory, Occupied 2010 98 mins
  Age group: 15+
  "Engaging and proactive"Variety Official Selection Cannes Film Festival 2010
  Raed Andoni has a tension headache'--one that has lasted generations and isn't going to end soon. That's because he is a Palestinian filmmaker living in Ramallah, where the prospects for a creative life are elusive.
  One of the unspoken weapons in the occupation in Palestine is boredom and the obscuring of everyday Palestinian identity and creativity outside the narrative confines of the conflict zone. In Fix ME (official selection, Cannes 2010), we follow Andoni through twenty therapy sessions as he explores the internal terrain of displacement and alienation that mimics the reality for thousands of Palestinians. Ironic in tone, stylishly shot, told with sly humour and a lingering score, this haunting doc explores the meaning of individuality in culture dominated by collective consciousness, as well as the filmmaker's irrepressible longing for a way back home.
  Followed by discussion with speakers including Barry Levine (Scottish Jews for a Just Peace in Palestine) and David Pratt (Foreign Editor, The Sunday Herald, author of Intifada: The Long Day of Rage).
  Region: Israel, Palestinian Territory, OccupiedKey themes: conflict/reconciliation, Mid East/Isr-PalestineStrand:Land and Freedom FIX MEFri 30 Sep, 17:45Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by discussion with speakers including Barry Levine (Scottish Jews for a Just Peace in Palestine)
  Position Among The Stars
  Vibrant, funny and moving, it throws colour into the debate about globalisation
  Key themes: globalisation
  Age group: 12+
  Even The Rain
  Opening night gala: Official UK premiere, with Paul Laverty
  Key themes: democracy/political systems, historical profile, trade/economic justice
  Age group: not certified
  UNISON is Scotland's biggest and liveliest trade union, representing 150,000 members delivering public and related services across Scotland
  Key themes: climate change, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, trade/economic justice, work/labourPartner location: UK-wide Fri 30 Sep
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Scottish Premiere/Bike-powered (Glasgow only); also at Filmhouse
  Robbie Gemmel USA 2011 86mins
  Age group: 12+
  "Exasperatingly funny"The Boston Globe
  Dazzling, surreal and hilariously intimate from the start, Cape Spin follows the tragicomic battle over America's most scandal-driven renewable energy project, Cape Wind. Set to become the US's first offshore windfarm, strange alliances have formed for and against the project in NIMBY central, Martha's Vineyard, New York. Kennedys, journalists, grassroots and sponsored campaigners do battle with the developer and green groups over the future of American power. Fuelled by full access to both sides, a commitment to impartial storytelling and a fantastic soundtrack, Cape Spin foregrounds powerful questions about what works, and what is acceptable, when people campaign for things they are passionate about, or have a vested interest in?
  Followed by discussion about campaigning, lobbying and spin with special guest speakers including Linda Butcher, Chief Executive, Sheila McKechnie Foundation: connecting, supporting and informing campaigners across the UK.
  Audience Discussion (Edinburgh)Followed by discussion about campaigning, lobbying and spin with special guest speakers including Jolyon Rubinstein and Heydon Prowse (stars of BBC3's The Revolution Will Be Televised), Linda Butcher (Chief Executive, Sheila McKechnie Foundation) and Peter Facey (Chief Exec, Unlock Democracy): connecting, supporting and informing campaigners across the UK.
  Interactive bike-powered screening (Glasgow only)Join us (and join in) under the stars as we pedal through the film at Glasgow's Hidden Gardens. Please bring warm clothing and a waterproof as rain cover is limited.
  Region: Northern AmericaKey themes: empowerment/activism, environment (general), media issuesStrand:Please book for the following shows using the links below. Tickets for The Hidden Gardens screening are only available online in advance. To book Filmhouse tickets over the phone telephone 0131 228 2688.
  Fri 28 Sept, 7.30pmThe Hidden Gardens, GlasgowBike-powered outdoor screeningOnline booking only
  Thur 4 Oct, 8.25pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus discussion
  Raising funds and awareness with the Refugee Survival Trust
  Michael Nash USA 2010 60mins
  Age group: 12+
  Take One Action, The Ceilidh Collective andRefugee Survival Trust present the award-winning film Climate Refugees, plus dinner and a fabulous night of dancing, at the Rudolph Steiner School.
  6pm - an organic two-course seasonal dinner with bespoke organic events, plus a one-hour film presentation during dinner by Take One Action
  8pm - a wild and furious ceilidh with the Cosmic Ceilidh Band
  The film is Ê>>Climate RefugeesÊ¼ - an award-winning documentary film about Ê>>the human face of climate change. Ceilidhing to all the traditional tunes plus a few more exotic numbers such as the Dancing Queen and Jungle Book theme tune, until 1am! Licensed organic bar throughout the evening. Tickets £20, concsessions available. 100% profits from dinner, film, bar, door and raffle go to directly to destitute asylum seekers through the RST (SC 024328).
  Region: globalKey themes: climate change, refugees/asylumStrand:Green Shoots Sat 29 Oct, 6pm
  Rudolph Steiner School 60 Spylaw Road, Edinburgh
  Sat 29 Oct
  Event location: EdinburghOrganised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Scottish Premiere/Bike-powered (Edinburgh only); also at CCA Glasgow
  Jeff Orlowski USA 2012 75mins
  Age group: 12 cert
  Best Cinematography Sundance 2012, Audience Award SXSW 2012''a big screen phenomenon that simultaneously terrifies, astounds, entertains, and educates''Sandy Cannon-Brown
  When National Geographic photographer James Balog asked, ''How can one take a picture of climate change?'' his attention was immediately drawn to ice. Soon he was asked to do a cover story on glaciers that became the most popular and well-read piece in the magazine's recent history. But for Balog, this marked the beginning of a much longer project that would reach epic proportions. In his breathtakingly beautiful documentary, filmmaker Jeff Orlowski follows the indomitable photographer as he brings to life the Extreme Ice Survey (EIS)'--a massive photography project that placed 30 cameras across three continents to gather visual evidence of the earth's melting ice. The story of a visionary artist who, in facing his own mortality, bequeaths the magic of photography and the adventure of the expedition to a new generation and captures the most visible sign of climate change on the planet today.
  Interactive bike-powered screening(Edinburgh only)Join us (and join in) under the stars as we pedal through the film at the Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh. Please bring warm clothing and a waterproof as rain cover is limited.
  We are also running school screenings of this film in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Click herefor details.
  Region: ArcticKey themes: climate change, world-changing filmStrand:Please book for the following shows using the links below. Tickets for the Edinburgh Botanic Gardens screening are only available online in advance. To book CCA tickets over the phone telephone 0141 352 4900.
  Tues 25 Sept, 7:30pmCCA (Centre for Contemporary Art), Glasgow350 Sauchiehall Street, G2 3JD
  Thur 27 Sept, 7pmRoyal Botanic GardensJohn Hope Gateway entranceArboretum Place, EdinburghBike-powered screening event
  Scottish Premiere plus discussion/activities - Edinburgh & Glasgow
  Jeff Orlowski USA 2012 75mins
  Age group: 12+
  Best Cinematography Sundance 2012, Audience Award SXSW 2012''a big screen phenomenon that simultaneously terrifies, astounds, entertains, and educates''Sandy Cannon-Brown
  When National Geographic photographer James Balog asked, ''How can one take a picture of climate change?'' his attention was immediately drawn to ice. Soon he was asked to do a cover story on glaciers that became the most popular and well-read piece in the magazine's recent history. But for Balog, this marked the beginning of a much longer project that would reach epic proportions.
  In his breathtakingly beautiful documentary, filmmaker Jeff Orlowski follows the indomitable photographer as he brings to life the Extreme Ice Survey (EIS)'--a massive photography project that placed 30 cameras across three continents to gather visual evidence of the earth's melting ice. The story of a visionary artist who, in facing his own mortality, bequeaths the magic of photography and the adventure of the expedition to a new generation and captures the most visible sign of climate change on the planet today.
  Viewing guidance:No graphic images or language. Thematically suitable for 12+ audiences.
  Region: ArcticKey themes: climate change, world-changing filmStrand:Please book for the following free schools' screenings by contacting the relevant venue box: Edinburgh Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, Glasgow Film Theatre 0141 352 8613.
  Tues 25 Sept, 10amEdinburgh FilmhousePlus activities for S3+
  Wed 3 Oct, 10.15amGlasgow Film TheatrePlus activities for S3+
  Wang Quan'an China 2011 97 mins
  Age group: 12 cert
  In his follow-up to the Berlin Golden Bear winner Tuya's Marriage, director Wang Quan'an has fashioned a bittersweet late life romance, reuniting former lovers separated some fifty years earlier by the end of China's civil war.
  When a political thaw permits surviving veterans in Taiwan to return to Shanghai to visit their families, ex nationalist soldier Liu returns to his native city Shanghai to find the first love of his life, Qiao, who he left behind pregnant five decades earlier. In the meantime, Qiao has married and built a family, but Liu tracks her down and is determined to get the family's approval to take her away with him. Made with support from the Chinese government, Apart Together marks a new frontier in representations of China's history and its relationships with the outside world.
  Winner '' Best Screenplay, Berlin International Film Festival
  Region: AsiaKey themes: conflict/reconciliationStrand:Faces of Change Tickets available through the Filmhouse box office.
  0131 228 2688
  Ticket dealsQuote ''China On The Move flyer offer'' over the telephone to get £1 off every ticket you buy.See 3 films (or more) and get 15% off when you book over the phone or in person at the Filmhouse
  Sat 28 Jan, 18:00Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by a panel discussion
  Edinburgh's year-round hub for independent cinema, including Take One Action and the Edinburgh International Film Festival
  Key themes: cult classics, Scotland, world-changing filmPartner location: Edinburgh Lixin Fan China 2009 85 mins
  Age group: 15 cert
  Every spring, China's cities are plunged into chaos, as all at once, a tidal wave of humanity attempts to return home by train. It is the Chinese New Year. The wave is made up of millions of migrant factory workers, and the homes they seek are the rural villages and families they left behind to find work in the booming coastal cities. It is an epic spectacle that tells us much about China, as it rapidly modernises and increases its global economic dominance. Last Train Home draws us into the fractured lives of a single migrant family caught up in this annual migration. Intimate and candid, the film paints a human portrait of the dramatic changes sweeping China.
  Winner '' Best Feature Documentary, International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam
  Region: AsiaKey themes: poverty (global), work/labourStrand:Faces of Change Tickets available through the Filmhouse box office.
  0131 228 2688
  Ticket dealsQuote ''China On The Move flyer offer'' over the telephone to get £1 off every ticket you buy.See 3 films (or more) and get 15% off when you book over the phone or in person at the Filmhouse
  Thur 26 Jan, 20:15Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by a panel discussion
  Edinburgh's year-round hub for independent cinema, including Take One Action and the Edinburgh International Film Festival
  Key themes: cult classics, Scotland, world-changing filmPartner location: Edinburgh Dogwoof is the UK's leading distributor of films with a global and ethical focus, such as The Age of Stupid, Black Gold, Burma VJ and Food Inc.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, human rights, world-changing filmPartner location: UK-wide Jennifer Baichwal Canada, China 2008 90 mins
  Age group: U cert
  In this series of extraordinary visual portraits, renowned artist Edward Burtynsky travels through China photographing the evidence and effects of its massive industrial revolution and the implicit impact on the environment. Director Jennifer Baichwal captures the artist at work amid some of the most surreal landscapes of the 21st century: the mountains of 'ewaste' in China where 50% of the world's computers end up to be recycled; the Yangtze Valley where whole towns are being demolished to make way for the Three Gorges Dam and the crowded skyline of Shanghai which has recently attracted millions of new inhabitants.
  Winner '' Best Canadian Film, Toronto International Film Festival
  Region: AsiaKey themes: consumerism, environment (general)Strand:Faces of Change Tickets available through the Filmhouse box office.
  0131 228 2688
  Ticket dealsQuote ''China On The Move flyer offer'' over the telephone to get £1 off every ticket you buy.See 3 films (or more) and get 15% off when you book over the phone or in person at Filmhouse.
  Sun 29 Jan, 18:00Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by a panel discussion
  Edinburgh's year-round hub for independent cinema, including Take One Action and the Edinburgh International Film Festival
  Key themes: cult classics, Scotland, world-changing filmPartner location: Edinburgh Han Jie China 2011 88 mins
  Age group: 15 cert
  This double prize winner at Shanghai Film Festival is a complex reflection on the challenges and questions arising from China's rapidly changing rural economy. The film charts a year in the life of Mr Shu (aka Tree), a Chinese man with learning difficulties whose life allegorically mirrors the social and economic development of his home-town. Generally viewed as a benign but lazy idiot, Shu loses his job after a workplace accident but at the same time transcends community hierarchies, giving the viewer a unique insight into the ties between local leaders, families, workers, businessmen, and even the past and future. When in parallel, a locally-run mining company starts to relocate the townspeople, and Shu gets drawn into doomed marriage with a deaf mute girl, the town's carefully maintained boundaries between order and disorder begin to unravel. Although it is never clear whether the dangers associated with a changing China are merely a mental disturbance or situated more widely, the film nonetheless begs the question: where is China going?
  Region: AsiaKey themes: health, poverty (global), work/labourStrand:Faces of Change Tickets available through the Filmhouse box office.
  0131 228 2688
  Ticket dealsQuote ''China On The Move flyer offer'' over the telephone to get £1 off every ticket you buy.See 3 films (or more) and get 15% off when you book over the phone or in person at the Filmhouse
  Wed 25 Jan, 20:15Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by a panel discussion
  Edinburgh's year-round hub for independent cinema, including Take One Action and the Edinburgh International Film Festival
  Key themes: cult classics, Scotland, world-changing filmPartner location: Edinburgh Free schools screening
  Weijun Chen China 2007 52mins
  Age group: PG cert
  Although millions of Chinese recently voted in China's version of Pop Idol, political elections in China currently only take place only inside the Communist Party. Against this background, Please Vote For Me follows the experiment of one grade 3 class in an elementary school in the Chinese city of Wuhan, where three eight year old candidates stand for election to the coveted position of class monitor. As their campaigns progress, they are abetted and egged on by teachers and their doting parents, whose actions start to influence the results.
  Director Weijun Chen's film explores how, if democracy came to China, it would be received. Is democracy a universal value that fits human nature or do elections inevitably lead to manipulation? Please Vote for Me paints a portrait of a society and a town through a school, its children and its families.
  Region: AsiaKey themes: democracy/political systemsStrand:Faces of Change Tickets are free to school pupils and teachers, but please register your places in advance through the Filmhouse box office - call 0131 228 2688 and ask for the Duty Manager.
  For details on this screening please contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
  Wed 25 Jan, 10:30Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFilm followed by additional activities
  Edinburgh's year-round hub for independent cinema, including Take One Action and the Edinburgh International Film Festival
  Key themes: cult classics, Scotland, world-changing filmPartner location: Edinburgh Fringe Event
  90 mins
  Age group: not certified
  "Behind the exterior of political harridan...beats a heart that isn't so much bleeding as haemorrhaging for her fellow men and women, combined with an intellect guided by deeply held opinions"Independent on Sunday"I'm going to try to be good but I can't help it, I have to be me"Clare Short, on being elected to the UK cabinet
  A unique opportunity to dialogue with one of the world's most outspoken anti-poverty campaigners and one-time key figure in Tony Blair's government until her angry resignation in 2003 over Britain's role in the Iraq War.
  For six years Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short finally resigned the Labour whip in 2006, having a year before accused the UK of spying on senior United Nations officials, an instituti...on she is a passionate defender of. Short finally stood down as an MP in 2010 and was elected Chair of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. She also serves as a trustee for a number of charities working on issues such as gay rights, African governance and the defence and rebuilding of Palestinian homes.
  Exploring the commitments and controversies that have defined Short's career in politics, this special conversation event guarantees a lot of food for thought.
  Region:Key themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, work/labourStrand:Faces of Change CLARE SHORT IN CONVERSATIONFri 24 Sep, 16:00Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Pink Saris
  Too many Indian women face entrenched abuse. Enter the Gulabi Gang'...
  Key themes: empowerment/activism, gender and power
  Age group: 15+
  Blood in the Mobile plus director Q&As
  Expose of mineral mining practices in Congo for mobile technologies
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, human rights, work/labour
  Age group: not certified
  Sat 24 Sep
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event: TalkKey themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Sat 19 May
  Event location: EdinburghOrganised by World Development Movement
  Come and learn about the history of resistance movements across the globe from author Tim Gee, and find out the latest on World Development Movement campaigns on financial speculation and climate debt from our head of campaigns Hannah Griffiths. Also featuring West African drumming workshop from internationally renowned 'Pete the Beat' and workshop on the history of protest songs from John Powles of 'Giving Voice' and curator of the Janey Buchan Political Song Collection at Glasgow University. There will also be workshops on local food networks and on WDM's current campaigns on food and climate debt. A lunch of soup and sandwiches, plus tea and coffee, will be provided for a £3 donation. After the event, WDM is working in partnership with Take One Action films to show 'Four Horsemen' at the Edinburgh filmhouse with a panel discussion chaired by Lesley Riddoch. More information about the film from: http://www.fourhorsemenfilm.com/about/ or look on the Take One Action website.
  Type of event: WorkshopKey themes: hunger/food issuesAge group: all agesFull event address: St. George's West Church, Shandwick Place, Edinburgh EH2 4RTEvent website address:www.wdm.org.uk/events/dancing-different-beat-campaigns-stories-and-songs-resistance-99
  Gala screening + Official UK Premiere
  Ic­ar Bolla­n Bolivia 2010 103 mins
  Age group: not certified
  "Intensely moving... at once subtle and shattering"Hollywood Reporter
  Nominated for 13 Goyas (Spain's Oscars), Iciar Bollain's dramatic rollercoaster penned by Take One Action patron Paul Laverty (Looking for Eric) stars Gael Garc­a Bernal as Sebastian, a filmmaker caught up in Bolivia's mass protests of spring 2000 against the government's decision to privatise the national water compa...ny.
  As Sebastian vainly tries to tell the story of Columbus' colonisation of the new world, his cast and crew get drawn into a contemporary version of events, blurring the boundaries between past and present, fiction and reality. In fact, the cost of water in Bolivia had gone up by three hundred per cent. But although Bollain's story is finally one of the triumph of the people, the privatisation of basic public services remains at the centre of a powerful debate about poverty and development across the globe..
  Preceded by music from Chilean-Scottish band Voces Del Sur, and followed by Q&A with screenwriter Paul Laverty.
  Region: BoliviaKey themes: democracy/political systems, historical profile, trade/economic justiceStrand:Land and Freedom EVEN THE RAINWed 21 Sep, 20:20Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  EVEN THE RAINThu 22 Sep, 18:00Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose Street, Glasgow G3 6RB
  Our Generation
  Groundbreaking documentary igninitng a people power movement across Australia
  Key themes: empowerment/activism, environment (general), world-changing film
  Age group: 15+
  Blood in the Mobile plus director Q&As
  Expose of mineral mining practices in Congo for mobile technologies
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, human rights, work/labour
  Age group: not certified
  The World Development Movement (WDM) tackles the underlying causes of poverty. We lobby decision makers to change the policies that keep people poor.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, empowerment/activism, globalisationPartner location: Scotland-wide, Edinburgh, Glasgow UNISON is Scotland's biggest and liveliest trade union, representing 150,000 members delivering public and related services across Scotland
  Key themes: climate change, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, trade/economic justice, work/labourPartner location: UK-wide Wed 21 Sep '' Thu 22 Sep
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  with live music and discussion
  Ic­ar Bolla­n Spain 2010 103min
  Age group: 15+
  FREE COMMUNITY SCREENING in Blantyre Miners' Welfare Community Resource Centre
  Nominated for 13 Goyas (Spain's Oscars), Iciar Bollain's dramatic rollercoaster penned by Take One Action patron Paul Laverty (Looking for Eric) stars Gael GarciÌa Bernal as Sebastian, a filmmaker caught up in Bolivia's mass protests of spring 2000 against the government's decision to privatise the national water company. As Sebastian vainly tries to tell the story of Columbus' colonisation of the new world, his cast and crew get drawn into a contemporary version of events, blurring the boundaries between past and present, fiction and reality. In fact, the cost of water in Bolivia had gone up by three hundred per cent. But although Bollain's story is finally one of the triumph of the people, the privatisation of basic public services remains at the centre of a powerful debate about poverty and development across the globe.
  We will be joined by acclaimed Edinburgh-based Valentina and Voces del Sur, playing songs of exile, love and social change, inspired by tango and folk music traditions from Latin America.
  Join us after the film for discussion with guest speakers Stephen Smellie (UNISON Scotland), Mark Langdon, (Glasgow Media Access Centre), and other guests.
  Region: Southern AmericaKey themes: democracy/political systems, empowerment/activism, poverty (global)Strand:Followed by director Q&A + special message from Archbishop Desmond Tutu
  Holly Lubbock South Africa, UK 2009 80 mins
  Age group: 12+
  ''A remarkable story'' The Evening Standard ''Warm-hearted and heart warming''The Observer
  Charting one teacher's inspirational quest to take 77 young musicians onto the world stage, Fezeka's Voice, by first time director HollyLubbock, offers a heartwarming glimpse of what empowerment can really mean.
  The Fezeka High School Choir may be national champions, but their school sits in one of the most deprived areas in South Africa. Guguletu township, like most ghettos within South Africa, is affected by many of the hardships brought on by material poverty. But the children of today's South Africa face an even greater hurdle: the challenge of learning beyond the confines of their segregated history and the positions it has put them in.
  No one understands this more than high school music teacher Phumi Tsewu, raised during the apartheid era, who knows that the only way for black South Africans to claim their right to a free and just society is to teach its children that they are worthy of it.
  All screenings will be preceded by a special message from Take One Action Hero Archibishop Desmond Tutu, and followed by Q&A with director Holly Lubbock.
  Region: South AfricaKey themes: education, empowerment/activismStrand:Faces of Change FEZEKA'S VOICEWed 28 Sep, 20:30Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose Street, Glasgow G3 6RB
  Followed by Q&A with director Holly Lubbock.
  FEZEKA'S VOICEThu 29 Sep, 15:00Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Followed by Q&A with director Holly Lubbock.
  FEZEKA'S VOICEThu 29 Sep, 20:25Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Followed by Q&A with director Holly Lubbock.
  You've Been Trumped
  A billionaire, a golf course and a community collide'...
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, environment (general), world-changing film
  Age group: 12A cert
  Our Generation
  Groundbreaking documentary igninitng a people power movement across Australia
  Key themes: empowerment/activism, environment (general), world-changing film
  Age group: 15+
  New Internationalist is for people seeking an independent, intelligent and international perspective. Our magazine explores current global issues with thought, depth and insight, to give you the complete picture.
  Key themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, globalisationPartner location:Wed 28 Sep '' Thu 29 Sep
  Event location: -Organised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: -Event website address:-
  Wed 21 Mar '' Fri 23 Mar
  Event location: GlasgowOrganised by www.fairpley.com
  Wednesday 21 March, 1.00pm Films: UCS 1 and UCS: 40th Anniversary Panel: Ann Guedes, Susan Morrison, Dr Chik Collins. Tickets £5 Thursday 22 March 7.30pm Films: UCS 1 and UCS: 40th Anniversary Panel: Ann Guedes, Mike Kirby (STUC President), Pat Rafferty (UNITE). Tickets £6 Friday 23 March 7.30pm Film: Class Struggle: Film from the Clyde Panel: Ann Guedes, David Hayman. Tickets £7.50 After each showing the films will be followed by a Q&A with special guest, film-maker, Ann Guedes, plus an invited panel. Ann Guedes - Independent cinema in Britain is unthinkable with- out the achievements of the innovative film collective Cinema Action, which was set up in the late 1960s and crystallised around a core of three cultural dynamos: Ann Guedes, Gustav Lamche and Eduardo Guedes. Ann has made 15 documentary films, many with International Film Festival Awards, Berlin, London, Madrid, Portugal, Leipzig and the jury prize at the Moscow Film Festival. Her 90-minute feature documentary So That You Can Live was selected for the opening day of Channel 4. Ann's feature films include:Rocinante (1986), starring John Hurt and Ian Dury, which won 6 international film awards; Bearskin (1989), starring Tom Waits and Ian Dury; and Talk of Angels (1998).
  Type of event: Film screeningKey themes: work/labourAge group: PG certFull event address: Mitchell Theatre, GlasgowEvent website address:www.fairpley.com
  Tickets available from www.glasgowconcerthalls.com
  Ross Ashcroft UK 2012 97 mins
  Age group: 12+
  ''There are thoughts here of such profundity you feel the need to reach for the rewind button''Time Out
  Synopsis''Malnutrition on the one hand, obesity on the other. What kind of system have we created?'' Clear, cleverly illustrated and profoundly thought-provoking, these Scottish premieres (plus director Q&As) bring a brand new lens to the global financial crisis through the eyes of some of the world's most influential thinkers. Voices range from UK government advisers and Financial Times editors to senior Bush administration staff and international ecologists. Moving through a concise dissection of the here and now, its protagonists challenge viewers to set aside preconceptions about global conflict, inequality, consumerism, welfare and progress. But while the ''Four Horsemen" warn of the passing from one civilisation to another, they invite us who live on the cusp of change to transform the systems we live by ("What is created by humans, can be changed by humans'') with hope, urgency and wisdom.
  Speaker information- St Andrews New Picturehouse, Friday 18th May, followed by a Q&A with director Ross Ashcroft, plus Louise Giblin from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (on behalf of UNISON). Chaired by Simon Bateson (Take One Action).- Edinburgh Filmhouse, Saturday 19th May, followed by a Q&A with director Ross Ashcroft, plus special guests including Tim Gee, author of Counterpower: making change happen. Chaired by Lesley Riddoch.- Glasgow Film Theatre, Sunday 20th May, followed by a Q&A with director Ross Ashcroft, plus special guests. Chaired by Mark Langdon (GMAC).
  Region: globalKey themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, trade/economic justiceStrand:Please book tickets through the venues below by clicking the links or phoning:- New Picturehouse, St Andrews, 01334 474902- Edinburgh FIlmhouse, 0131 228 2688- Glasgow Film Theatre, 0141 332 6535.
  Fri 18th May, New Picturehouse, St Andrews, 8.10pmScreening followed by a Q&A with director Ross Ashcroft, plus special guests. Chaired by Simon Bateson (Take One Action).
  Sat 19th May, Edinburgh Filmhouse, 8.15pmScreening followed by a Q&A with director Ross Ashcroft, plus special guests including Tim Gee, author of Counterpower: making change happen. Chaired by Lesley Riddoch.
  Sun 20th May, 3pm (tbc), Glasgow Film TheatreScreening followed by a Q&A with director Ross Ashcroft, plus special guests. Chaired by Mark Langdon (GMAC).
  The World On Your Plate weekend
  8pm to 11pm
  Age group: 15+
  A delicious home-cooked, seasonally sourced dinner with Edinburgh Community Food. Fantastic animated and short films celebrating all things food will slot between courses, followed by a spirit-lifting ceilidh with Edinburgh's stella Cosmic Ceilidh Band! Vegetarian and vegan options.
  Region:Key themes:Strand:Tickets £12/£10 concessions (includes deliciious two course meal at 8pm, drinks by donation). Advance booking essential at www.freshandwild. eventbrite.com
  EVENT TIMESFri 31 May, 20:00-23:00Meal plus ceilidhLauriston Hall, 28 Lauriston St, Edinburgh
  Representing poverty and social change
  3 hours
  Age group: 12+
  Our first ever shorts programme is world class thanks to a brand new partnership with Encounters, the UK's leading short film and animation festival (encounters-festival.org.uk). Blending delightful comedy, moving drama and eye-opening short docs on a range of social themes, the screenings will transition into discussion in the Filmhouse Guild Room about how poverty and development issues are represented on film and in the media in Scotland and beyond. This is also your chance to tell Take One Action what kind of programming would be even more empowering for you at future festivals. With Brenda Davis (direct, Sister), Seth Tabatznik (Bertha Foundation for film concerned with social change) and Gillian Wilson (Co-ordinator, Network of International Development Organisations, Scotland).
  Featuring:Roger the Real Life Superhero (Cathy MacDonald, UK 2011, 10mins) Bagong Silang (Zena Merton, UK 2011, 10mins)Carta a Sasha (Javier Reverte, Andoni Ja(C)n, Spain 2012, 15mins) Hombre Mquina (Roser Corell a, Alfonso Moral, Spain 2011, 14mins)Kin (l'Atelier Collectif, Belgium 2011, 11mins)Unravel (Meghna Gupta, UK/India 2012, 14mins)
  As part of Representing Poverty Night, this event will be followed by a screening of The Woman in the Septic Tank, ''the most outstanding directorial debut in Philippine cinema this year" The Hollywood Reporter. A joint ticket for both events is available through the Filmhouse box office for just £10/£8. To buy tickets for The Woman in the Septic Tank separately, and for details/trailer, click here.
  Region: globalKey themes: poverty (global)Strand:Please book for this event using the link below, or telephone Edinburgh Filmhouse 0131 228 2688 to book by phone or to take advantage of the joint ticket deal with The Woman in the Septic Tank.
  Tues 25 Sept, 2pmEdinburgh FilmhouseFollowed by discussion 3.30pm '' 5pm
  Representing poverty and social change
  3 hours
  Age group: 12+
  Our first ever shorts programme is world class thanks to a brand new partnership with Encounters, the UK's leading short film and animation festival (http://www.encounters-festival.org.uk). Blending delightful comedy, moving drama and eye-opening short docs on a range of social themes, the screenings will transition into discussion at GMAC about how poverty and development issues are represented on film and in the media in Scotland and beyond. With Brenda Davis (director, Sister), Morag Gillespie (Scottish Poverty Information Unit, Glasgow University) and Val Morgan (Press and Communications, SCIAF, Scoland's development agency).
  Featuring:American Water (Nick Jordan, UK 2011, 9mins)Roger the Real Life Superhero (Cathy MacDonald, UK 2011, 10mins)Bagong Silang (Zena Merton, UK 2011, 10mins)Bendito Machine IV (Jossie Malis Alvarez, Spain 2012, 10mins)Ever Hear A Postman Whistle? (Bexie Bush, UK 2011, 3mins)Bon Voyage (Fabio Friedli, Switzerland 2012, 6mins)Dura Lex (Anke Blond(C), Belgium 2011, 18mins)Unravel (Meghna Gupta, UK/India 2012, 14mins)
  Follow the link at the bottom of this page to book tickets for this event only.
  Ticket deals/related screeningsAfter a short break, this event will be followed at GMAC at 6pm by an exclusive screening of Half Revolution winner of Best Film at the 2012 Al Jazeera Film Festival, and a Q&A with the film's Danish-Palestinian director Omar Shergawi. Buy a joint ticket for both events for just £8/£6, or to buy tickets for Half Revolution separately click here for further details and to book tickets.
  If you want to further explore the representations of poverty theme in Glasgow, The Woman in the Septic Tank will screen the day before (Weds 26th Sept) at the Glasgow Film Theatre at 8.15pm: ''the most outstanding directorial debut in Philippine cinema this year" The Hollywood Reporter. Bizarre, hilarious and shocking in equal turns, this extraordinary spoof-drama breaks the mould of Philippino cinema and begs the question ''When does real social issue drama become poverty porn?'' Click here for further details and to buy tickets.
  Region: globalKey themes: poverty (global)Strand:Tickets for Global Encounters (and the joint ticket offer with Half Revolution) are only available online in advance.
  Thurs 27 Sept, 2pmGlasgow Media Access CentreTrongate 103Followed by discussion 3.30pm '' 5pm
  Part of Nourishing Global Communities: food, music, films and discussion
  Simon Cunich Australia 2011 60mins
  Age group: 12+
  Edinburgh only.
  Why are hundreds of millions of people living in hunger when we know there is enough food to satisfy everyone? With a sideways glance at the global systems maintaining the status quo '' the industrialization of agriculture, land grabbing and financial speculation '' this spirited film then turns full face towards the community projects in Venezuela that are challenging them. Leaving the debate around Hugo Chavez aside, we are introduced to ordinary people bringing about change in a beautiful land: cooperatives breaking the country's reliance on imports; cocoa producers involved in the local processing of chocolate rather than just exporting raw beans; fisherfolk who are benefiting from new regulations that ban industrial trawling; urban populations growing healthier on their own organic produce. Full of inspiring characters, thought provoking insights, stunning scenery and ideas to transform the food system, Growing Change celebrates the power or community in stories that could be mirrored around the world.
  Introduced by Liz Murray of The World Development Movement.
  Wonderful world foodThis film is showing as part of Nourishing A Global Community: food, music, films and discussion. Full details here. A delicious world food buffet meal is included with your ticket price.
  Region: Venezuela, Bolivarian Rep ofKey themes: empowerment/activism, hunger/food issuesStrand:Sun 23 Sept, 12pm to 4.30pmOut of the Blue Drill Hall, Edinburgh32 Dalmeny Street, EH6 8RGBuffet 12pm, films 1pm, discussion 3pm
  Bike-powered screening / Scottish Premiere plus fun food activities
  UK 2010 52 mins
  Age group: not certified
  Homegrown is the inspiring true story of one family living ''off the grid'' on an organic urban homestead in the heart of Pasadena city, California. On less than a quarter of... an acre, they harvest over 6000 pounds of produce every year, feeding themselves and their friends, making their own biodiesel, and harnessing solar power for pretty much everything else. What sets them apart is how they take what is familiar to so many'' time, space and relationships in the city '' to make something grow that most of us wouldn't think possible...until now.
  Dress for outdoor weather and pedal power to stay warm!
  Region: USAKey themes: climate change, empowerment/activism, youth/family friendlyStrand:Green Shoots HOMEGROWNTue 20 Sep, 19:00Royal Botanic Gardens, 20A Inverleith Row
  World Food Day - Sun 16 Oct, Leith
  Eat your way to a better world in honour of World Food Day!
  Key themes: climate change, empowerment/activism, hunger/food issues
  Age group: all ages
  UK Premiere - Enjoy Your Meal
  Where does your food come from and what could it mean for the planet?
  Key themes: environment (general), hunger/food issues
  Age group: not certified
  Oxfam Scotland works to improve the lives of the world's poorest people, both at home and abroad.
  Key themes: climate change, fair trade, health, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide Tue 20 Sep
  Event location: -Organised by
  Type of event: Film screeningKey themes:Age group:Full event address: -Event website address:-
  Glasgow Film Theatre (Wed 7 March) and Edinburgh Filmhouse (Thur 8 Mar). Plus discussions.
  Micha X. Peled India, USA 2011 88 min
  Age group: not certified
  A billion people go to bed hungry every night around the world. Women are often hit hardest with climate change, agricultural pressures and land grabs combining to make the current food system untenable. Marking International Women's Day, Bitter Seeds offers an "affecting, character-driven portrait" (Variety) of Manjusha Amberwar, a young Indian who hopes to get her debut article published in the local paper. Taking her first step as a journalist is not easy for the village girl, whose entire family opposes her ambition, and her chosen topic provides even less reason for joy. Her father was one of many Indian cotton farmers who have committed suicide because of the pressures heaped on rural farmers by changing food systems. Manjusha hopes that by drawing attention to their plight, she can bring an end to this epidemic. But where do the real solutions lie?
  The film will be followed by discussions:
  In Glasgow, with director Micha Peled (via Skype), and Sarah Watson, Oxfam Scotland Campaigner.
  In Edinburgh, with Joanna Blythman, an award-winning investigative journalist and author of six landmark books on food issues, and Sarah Watson, Oxfam Scotland Campaigner. Chaired by Lesley Riddoch, an award winning journalist, commentator and broadcaster who writes regularly for the Scotsman and Guardian.
  Region: globalKey themes: climate change, consumerism, gender and power, globalisation, poverty (global), work/labourStrand:Please book online by clicking the links below or telephone the appropriate venue:Glasgow Film Theatre, 0141 332 6535Edinburgh FIlmhouse, 0131 228 2688
  Wednesday 7 March 18:00Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose St, GlasgowFollowed by discussion (see above).
  Thursday, 8 March 17:45Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by discussion (see above).
  Free Fringe Event
  Running time 13:00 - 16:00
  Age group: 15+
  Across the world - from Donald Trump's Aberdeen golf course and the soya fields rapidly replacing Amazonian rainforest, to the internationally fuelled conflicts over land and minerals in Africa - ordinary communities are struggling to retain control of how their land and resources are being used.
  For some able to capitalise on the opportunities of globalisation, the standard of life is arguably improving. To most, power and wealt...h seem to be concentrating in the hands of a global minority. And yet the voices of civil society groups and concerned filmmakers have grown stronger the world over. There is a growing debate about what sustainable development really means, and about the tools, ethics and regulation needed to keep it in check.
  Land Rights, Land Wrongs brings this debate to Edinburgh as part of the Take One Action Film Festival, inspired by a special stand of new world class feature films entitled Land and Freedom. Join Mozambican land rights campaigner Isilda Nhantumbo, author Andy Wightman(The Poor Had No Lawyers), West Papuan musician and campaigner Benny Wanda, director Anthony Baxter (You've Been Trumped), Jill Wood (Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund), Hannah Kitchen (Friends of the Earth Scotland) and others. Explore the issues raised by these films and to draw inspiration from the stories of social movements around the world addressing the question: how should the earth we all live on be owned and used?
  The Drill Hall Arts Cafe will be open during the afternoon, selling hot and cold drinks and food. Delivered in partnership with Friends of the Earth Scotland, Christian Aid, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, and UNISON Scotland.
  This event will be followed by an exclusive screening of You've Been Trumped at the Filmhouse, preceded by original live music by Karine Polwart.
  Region: globalKey themes: democracy/political systems, empowerment/activism, environment (general)Strand:Green Shoots Land and Freedom In association withFriends of the Earth Scotland, Christian Aid, SCIAF, Unison ScotlandLAND RIGHTS, LAND WRONGSSun 2 Oct, 13:00 - 16:30Out of the Blue, 36 Dalmeny Street EH6 8RG
  You've Been Trumped
  A billionaire, a golf course and a community collide'...
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, environment (general), world-changing film
  Age group: 12A cert
  When China Met Africa
  An intimate and provocative view of China's growing role in Africa
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, democracy/political systems, international development
  Age group: 12+
  UK Premiere - Enjoy Your Meal
  Where does your food come from and what could it mean for the planet?
  Key themes: environment (general), hunger/food issues
  Age group: not certified
  Scottish Premiere The End of Poverty
  Interrogating the our economic system from the perspectives of the poorest.
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, international development, trade/economic justice
  Age group: 15+
  Our Generation
  Groundbreaking documentary igninitng a people power movement across Australia
  Key themes: empowerment/activism, environment (general), world-changing film
  Age group: 15+
  Cannes/Palestine premiere FIX ME
  Raed attempts to get to the bottom of a headache that has lasted generations
  Key themes: conflict/reconciliation, Mid East/Isr-Palestine
  Age group: 15+
  Blood in the Mobile plus director Q&As
  Expose of mineral mining practices in Congo for mobile technologies
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, human rights, work/labour
  Age group: not certified
  UNISON is Scotland's biggest and liveliest trade union, representing 150,000 members delivering public and related services across Scotland
  Key themes: climate change, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, trade/economic justice, work/labourPartner location: UK-wide SCIAF, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, is the official aid and development agency of the Catholic Church in Scotland, working in 16 countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America to support the poorest people.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, HIV and AIDS, trade/economic justicePartner location: Scotland-wide, Glasgow Christian Aid is a development organisation that insists the world can and must be swiftly changed to one where everyone can live a full life, free from poverty.
  Key themes: climate change, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide Sun 2 Oct
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event: WorkshopKey themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  10th Anniversary Double Bill Screening + Panel Discussion
  Stephanie Black USA 2001 80 mins
  Age group: not certified
  ''A documentary that should be mandatory viewing for anyone interested in one of the most contentious issues of our times''The Guardian
  A decade on from the mass rallies that took place at the G8 summit in Birmingham which made third world debt a global issue, and five years since Bob Geldof announced that it had been dealt with, this rare tenth anniversary screening of Stepanie Black's award-winning film a unique opportunity to ask whether debt justice has really been achieved.
  In 1977,15 years after its break from British colonial rule, Jamaica is forced to borrow $4.5 billion from the IMF to service its development. In a story echoed in dozens of countries across the world, the self-interested trading controls then attached to these loans by IMF credtors forced Jamaica into ever greater poverty.
  Caputured with poetic insight, we see the ports developed exclusively for foreign company trading, and meet the local workers forced out of jobs by the influx of cheap, untaxed imports flooding the market. At once a tribute to the ingenuity and strength of the people who defy the odds of survival, Life and Debt is also a classic example of successful agitprop cinema, and an ongoing call to scrutinise the march of Western history.
  Showing as a double bill with The End of Poverty (see ticket deal below). Followed by discussion with John Christenson (Director, The Tax Justice Network), Alys Mumford (Jubilee Scotland) and Andrew Millson (Scottish Business in the Community).
  Region: JamaicaKey themes: poverty (global), trade/economic justiceStrand:Faces of Change LIFE AND DEBTTue 27 Sep, 20:20Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Scottish Premiere The End of Poverty
  Interrogating the our economic system from the perspectives of the poorest.
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, international development, trade/economic justice
  Age group: 15+
  UK Premiere - Enjoy Your Meal
  Where does your food come from and what could it mean for the planet?
  Key themes: environment (general), hunger/food issues
  Age group: not certified
  Jubilee Scotland is a coalition of faith groups, charities, unions and other civil society groups who campaign together, and as part of the international debt movement, for the total and unconditional cancellation of all unjust and unpayable poor country debt.
  Key themes: globalisation, poverty (global), trade/economic justicePartner location: Scotland-wide, Edinburgh Tue 27 Sep
  Event location: -Organised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: -Event website address:-
  Scottish Premiere - Edinburgh & Glasgow
  Avie Luthra South Africa 2011 100 mins
  Age group: 15+
  ''delicate and real'...extraordinarily touching''Variety
  One of the most nuanced and arresting portrayals of the impact of HIV on children in South Africa, Avie Luthra's acclaimed drama follows ten year old Lucky as he struggles to honour a promise at his mother's grave to make something of himself. Leaving the security of his remote Zulu village for the big city with the hope of going to school, Lucky accidentally falls in with an elderly Indian woman with an inherent fear of Africans, who takes him in as she would a stray dog. Together, unable to speak each other's language, they develop an unlikely bond forged through greed, loneliness, and ultimately, a renewed sense of belonging.
  We are delighted to welcome director Avie Luthra to Scotland for Q&As following these screenings, alongside other voices on global access to health and education.
  Region: Southern AfricaKey themes: education, HIV and AIDS, poverty (global)Strand:Please book for the following shows using the links below, or telephone the relevant venue box office: Edinburgh Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, Glasgow Film Theatre 0141332 6535.
  Sat 22 Sept, 5.30pmGlasgow Film TheatrePlus Q&A with director Avie Luthra
  Sat 22 Sept, 8.15pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus Q&A with director Avie Luthra
  Arts and crafts, street theatre and a classic Disney film
  Robert Stevenson UK, USA 1964 120 mins
  Age group: U cert
  Mary, Mary, quite contrary, how does your garden grow?
  This special and free Take One Action event introduces and explores ideas of money and social responsibility for all ages.
  Kicking off with arts, crafts and indoor street theatre (from pleasesquad.blogspot.co.uk) before we all fall down and watch one of the great classics of Western cinema. Promises to be a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious family event. Don't miss it!
  ''The sets are luxuriant, the songs lilting,the scenario impeccably sentimental, and the case...perfection" Time
  Region: United KingdomKey themes: corporate responsibility, youth/family friendlyStrand:Sat 29 Sept, 12pm to 4pmPlatform Community Arts, Glasgow1000 Westerhouse Road, G34 9JW
  Sun 30 Sept, 2pm to 5pmOut of the Blue Drill Hall, Edinburgh32 Dalmeny Street, EH6 8RG
  Scottish Premiere + International Activist Q&A
  Kyaw kyaw Oo Germany 2009 90 mins
  Age group: 15+
  Official Selection IDFA 2011
  A rare opportunity to bear witness to one of the great hidden populations and stories of the twentieth century, Nargis: when time stopped breathing captures the devastation wrought by the cyclone of the same name which killed more than 140,000 people in May 2008 and left two and half million Burmese homeless.
  While Burma's ruling miltary, propped up by oil, was slow in responding and refused international aid, a group of undercover filmmakers set out for the rural Delta and main cities to tell the full story. Their images speak for themselves: a wilderness of water and greenery that would be paradisiacal if not for the ravage of fallen trees, blown-away huts, and collapsed houses... bewildered widows and orphans... and the slow, steady, painful work of beginning to piece back shelters, find parents, and come to terms with their leaders' apparent silence, and the world's.
  Both screenings will be followed by panel discussions with speakers including author and renowned Burmese activist in exile Zoya Phan, and in Edinburgh Sarah Boyack MSP.
  Ticket deal: The Edinburgh screening is preceded by Zoya Phan in Conversation at 16:00. Buy a combined ticket to hear Zoya talk about her work AND see Nargis for just £10/£8 when booking through Filmhouse on 0131 228 2688 or in person.
  Region: Asia, MyanmarKey themes: climate change, democracy/political systems, historical profileStrand:Land and Freedom Faces of Change NARGIS: WHEN TIME STOPPED BREATHINGSat 1 Oct, 17:45Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZScreening will be followed by panel discussion with speakers including renowned author and activist-in-exile, Zoya Phan and Sarah Boyack MSP.
  NARGIS: WHEN TIME STOPPED BREATHINGSat 1 Oct, 20:30Glasgow CCA, 350 Sauchiehall StreetScreening will be followed by panel discussion with speakers including renowned author and activist-in-exile, Zoya Phan.
  NARGIS: WHEN TIME STOPPED BREATHINGSun 2 Oct, 13:00Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Zoya Phan in Conversation
  A chance to dialogue with a leading campaigner for human rights in Burma
  Key themes: democracy/political systems, empowerment/activism, human rights
  Age group: 12+
  Sat 1 Oct '' Sun 2 Oct
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event: Film screeningKey themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Jarreth Merz Ghana, Switzerland, UK 2011 89 mins
  Age group: 12+
  ''My Brothers and sisters, we want no violence, we want no cheating. We don't want any bloodshed.''
  Fresh from success at Sundance and Berlin International Film Festival, this acclaimed documentary follows the key players in the 2008 presidential elections in Ghana, West Africa. In a continent where elections are often tarnished by allegations of corruption, fraud and violence, the two political parties in this race will do almost anything to win. But will democracy prevail?
  Director Jarreth Merz spent three months gaining unprecedented access to the political, economic and social forces at work in Ghana, capturing each unexpected twist and turn in the contest. The result is an intriguing and suspenseful look behind-the-scenes at the complex, political machinery of African democracy in the twenty-first century.
  ''One of the most gripping documentaries showcased at this years Sundance Film Festival'' Hollywood Reporter
  Presented by Take One Action, this screening on 2nd December will be followed by a discussion with special guest speakers about the issues raised in the film.
  Region: Southern AfricaKey themes: democracy/political systems, international developmentStrand:Faces of Change Please book online through the links below or call Edinburgh Filmhouse on 0131 228 2688.
  An African ElectionFri 2 Dec, 20:25Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by panel discussion.
  Dogwoof is the UK's leading distributor of films with a global and ethical focus, such as The Age of Stupid, Black Gold, Burma VJ and Food Inc.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, human rights, world-changing filmPartner location: UK-wide Food, films, music & discussion - Edinburgh only
  n/a
  Age group: 12+
  Can we eat our way to a better world?Following on from last year's sell-out world food day event, join Take One Action and friends in Leith to further explore Scotland's food chain and its relation to people across the globe: all centred around a fantastic world food buffet. We kick off with lunch, stalls, a brand new photo exhibition about Scotland's links with the developing world, and live music '' your chance to kick back under the Drill Hall's wonderful glass roof, alongside others curious and expert about a range of food and justice issues.
  From 1pm we have two exclusive film screenings. The Dancing Forest (Reykjavik International Film Festival Environmental Award) celebrates the extraordinary women of rural Togo who are taking back their food system from overseas control; while our premiere of Growing Change draws similar inspiration from urban settings in Venezuela.
  The afternoon wraps up with an interactive open discussion featuring Alex Renton (The Guardian), James O'Nions (WDM, Red Pepper) and you! Mmmm. If you don't leave belly-full of inspiration for more wholesome relationships with the wider world, we'll eat our hats.
  In partnership with The Co-operative, NIDOS and The World Development Movement
  Region: globalKey themes: empowerment/activism, hunger/food issuesStrand:In association withWorld Development Movement, NIDOS, The Co-operative Membership, World Kitchen in Leith, Out of The BlueSun 23 Sept, 12pm to 4.30pmOut of the Blue Drill Hall, Edinburgh32 Dalmeny Street, EH6 8RGBuffet 12pm, films 1pm, discussion 3pm
  Cycle-powered Cinema
  Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud France 2011 1hr 44mins
  Age group: 8+
  Disney Nature's ''Oceans'' takes us beneath the waves with narrator Pierce Brosnan to tell the epic tale of our blue planet. With short films beforehand and activities and refreshments before the music starts.
  Region: globalKey themes: climate change, environment (general)Strand:Green Shoots Sat 25 Feb, 18:00-21:45St. Peters Hall, Lutton Place EH8 9PE
  Scottish Premiere + Director Q&A
  Sinem Saban Australia 2010 73 mins
  Age group: 15+
  ''A very fine piece of work... Truthful and eloquent'' John Pilger "Knowledge... passion... much to admire''The Guardian
  Made in unique collaboration with its subject community, Our Generation is a groundbreaking new documentary which is igniting a people-power movement across Australia.
  Northeast Arnhem Land is one of the last heartlands of traditional Aboriginal culture and law in Australia, and the ancestral home of the yidaki, or didgeridoo. Here, despite high profile government apologies for ''historical'' abuses, its people are themselves accused of abuse by the state '' systemic abuse of children '' in a final, extraordinary bid to remove them from their land.
  The reason? Despite centuries of slavery and disempowerment, the Yolngu are still clinging to territory which contains some of the most prized export minerals in Australia. But can their resistance hold out? Or will the oldest living culture on earth soon have the ground pulled from under their feet?
  All screenings followed by Q&A with director Sinam Saban, plus special guests. Evening screenings in Edinburgh and Glasgow followed by drinks in the cafe-bar (please retain your ticket).
  Edinburgh and Glasgow screenings are preceded by A Beginner's Guide To Campaigning. Find out more here...
  Region: AustraliaKey themes: empowerment/activism, environment (general), world-changing filmStrand:Green Shoots Land and Freedom OUR GENERATIONFri 30 Sept, 18:00Dundee Contemporary Arts, 152 Nethergate, DundeeFollowed by discussion with the film's director, Sinem Saban.
  OUR GENERATIONSat 1 Oct, 13:30Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by discussion with the film's director, Sinem Saban.
  OUR GENERATIONSat 1 Oct, 20:30Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by discussion with the film's director, Sinem Saban and post-screening drinks in the cafe-bar (please retain your ticket).
  OUR GENERATIONSun 2 Oct, 17:00Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose Street, G3 6RBFollowed by discussion with the film's director, Sinem Saban and post-screening drinks in the cafe-bar (please retain your ticket).
  When China Met Africa
  An intimate and provocative view of China's growing role in Africa
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, democracy/political systems, international development
  Age group: 12+
  Nargis: When Time Stopped Breathing
  Witness one of the most hidden populations and devasting stories of modern times
  Key themes: climate change, democracy/political systems, historical profile
  Age group: 15+
  New Internationalist is for people seeking an independent, intelligent and international perspective. Our magazine explores current global issues with thought, depth and insight, to give you the complete picture.
  Key themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, globalisationPartner location:Fri 30 Sep '' Sun 2 Oct
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Scottish Premiere + Director Q&A
  Kim Longinotto UK 2010 100 mins
  Age group: 15+
  ''A multilayered, psychologically complex portrait of both a woman and a moment''Variety
  India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. But too many of its women still face entrenched abuse.
  Enter ''stage left'' the Gulabi Gang, a group of remarkable vigilante women from the lowest social caste who resist being treated as such. And enter ''stage right'' their formidable champion Sampat Pal, who charges head first into endless cases of discrimination and domestic abuse - often perpetrated by the women's husbands' extended families, with whom they're forced to live.
  Declaring 'what do women have but their tears?', Sampat Pal has learnt from experience. In circumstances that are far from unusual, she married young. Beaten by her in-laws for disobedience, she fought back, escaped and developed a hardened resolve never to be under any man's control again. Now beleaguered women from throughout Uttar Pradesh seek her out, in awe of her strength.
  We hope to be joined by award-winning director Kim Longinotto for a Q&A following this screening.
  Region: IndiaKey themes: empowerment/activism, gender and powerStrand:Faces of Change PINK SARISWed 28 Sep, 20:20Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by discussion with the film's award-winning director Kim Longinotto.
  Fezeka's Voice
  Music teacher Phumi Tsewu takes his high school choir on an inspiring journey'...
  Key themes: education, empowerment/activism
  Age group: 12+
  Clare Short in Conversation
  An opportunity to dialogue with one of the world's most outspoken poverty campaigners and one time key player in Blair's goverment.
  Key themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, work/labour
  Age group: not certified
  The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) protects and promotes journalists and journalism reporting across our world.
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, media issues, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, work/labour, world-changing filmPartner location: Scotland-wide, Glasgow NIDOS is a network of international development organisations based in Scotland. We aim to strengthen the contribution of Scottish organisations to reducing inequality and poverty worldwide.
  Key themes: human rights, international development, poverty (global)Partner location: Scotland-wide, Edinburgh Wed 28 Sep
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event: Film screeningKey themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Exclusive UK Preview + Panel Discussion
  Leonard Helmrich Netherlands 2010 109 mins
  Age group: 12+
  ''Wildly expressionistic'...a canvas so vast that people, fighting fish and cockroaches complete a bizarre ecosystem of co-dependence''LA Weekly
  One of the most extraordinary visual insights into any country, we're delighted to include this exclusive UK preview of Sundance hit and overall IDFA winner to throw colour onto the debate about the impact of globalisation in a changing world.
  Filmed in Helmrich's trademark Single Shot style '' symphonic, uninterrupted cinema with no interviews or voice-over '' this is the final installment of a vibrant, funny and often moving trilogy.
  We rejoin the Christian-Islamic Sjamsuddin family as grandmother and grandaughter leave the countryside to join the girl's uncle in Jakarta. A microcosm of the life under globalisation the world over, contrasts and conflict abound '' between the modern and traditional, religion and capitalism, wealth and poverty '' before some devastating wisdom from the unlikeliest of sources brings the family back to where they started.
  Region: IndonesiaKey themes: globalisationStrand:Faces of Change POSITION AMONG THE STARSThu 22 Sep, 20:20Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  POSITION AMONG THE STARSFri 23 Sep, 18:00Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  POSITION AMONG THE STARSFri 23 Sep, 18:00Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose Street, Glasgow G3 6RB
  Nargis: When Time Stopped Breathing
  Witness one of the most hidden populations and devasting stories of modern times
  Key themes: climate change, democracy/political systems, historical profile
  Age group: 15+
  Even The Rain
  Opening night gala: Official UK premiere, with Paul Laverty
  Key themes: democracy/political systems, historical profile, trade/economic justice
  Age group: not certified
  Christian Aid is a development organisation that insists the world can and must be swiftly changed to one where everyone can live a full life, free from poverty.
  Key themes: climate change, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide Tue 27 Sep
  Event location: -Organised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: -Event website address:.
  Fri 30 Sep
  Event location: EdinburghOrganised by
  Come along between 10 am and 12 for a chance to get help with your mending, learn some basic sewing techniques, have a go on a sewing machine, help our community patchwork grow a bit, or just have a coffee and a chat. All welcome. Our drop-in sessions are continuing every Friday, at the South Bridge Resource Centre on Infirmary Street (behind Blackwells).
  Type of event: WorkshopKey themes: environment (general)Age group: all agesFull event address: South Bridge Resource CentreEvent website address:http://remadeinedinburgh.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://remadeinedinburgh.blogspot.com/
  Just turn up!
  One day conference
  Afternoon event
  Age group: not certified
  World hunger is increasing. Citizen movements are growing. Climate change is threatening tens of millions in the poorest nations. How can journalists, charities and filmmakers work better together?
  In the midst of this, multinationals and charities are as present as ever, some achieving success, others causing problems. And meanwhile UK and Scottish overseas aid budgets have been ringfenced or increased, but with limited public u...nderstanding.
  But what role does the changing face of UK journalism have to play in these issues? And how best can others collaborate with the sector to hold international development to account and increase its impact?
  This special conference invites reporters, filmmakers, students, academics, charity workers and campaigners to consider, debate and be inspired by these questions and to connect with like-minded people trying to answer them.
  Session One 14.00 - 17.00 : Dialogue with award-winning filmmakers and journalists. Plus a workshop with a host of experts on the industry and the role of media and social media in fundraising, campaigning and reporting conflict.
  Session Two 17:00 - 19:00: Networking plus keynote speakers, and our main debate on the state of reporting on international development. With Paul Holleran (National Union of Journalists) and others.
  Region: globalKey themes: international developmentStrand:Faces of Change REPORTING INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTWed 28 Sep, 14:00 - 17:00 and 17:00 - 19:00Edinburgh College of Art, Main Building, Lady Lawson Street Gateway
  When China Met Africa
  An intimate and provocative view of China's growing role in Africa
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, democracy/political systems, international development
  Age group: 12+
  Nargis: When Time Stopped Breathing
  Witness one of the most hidden populations and devasting stories of modern times
  Key themes: climate change, democracy/political systems, historical profile
  Age group: 15+
  Scottish Documentary Institute is an internationally recognised documentary research centre at Edinburgh College of Art specialising in documentary training, production and distribution.
  Key themes: media issues, Scotland, world-changing filmPartner location: Edinburgh The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) protects and promotes journalists and journalism reporting across our world.
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, media issues, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, work/labour, world-changing filmPartner location: Scotland-wide, Glasgow NIDOS is a network of international development organisations based in Scotland. We aim to strengthen the contribution of Scottish organisations to reducing inequality and poverty worldwide.
  Key themes: human rights, international development, poverty (global)Partner location: Scotland-wide, Edinburgh New Internationalist is for people seeking an independent, intelligent and international perspective. Our magazine explores current global issues with thought, depth and insight, to give you the complete picture.
  Key themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, globalisationPartner location:Wed 28 Sep
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event: WorkshopKey themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Simon Bright UK 2011 84min
  Age group: 15+
  Robert Mugabe... What Happened? charts the Shakespearean rise and fall of the man who built a successful African country and then destroyed it. Damned as a terrorist, knighted by Queen Elizabeth and then suspended from the Commonwealth, Mugabe remains in power after 30 years. The film explores what happened through interviews with some of Mugabe's closest comrades, and draws on a unique collection of southern African archive that powerfully evokes his reign. This is a complex and compelling view of Zimbabwe the country and Mugabe the man.
  Presented by the Take One Action and Africa in Motion Film Festivals, the 6pm screenings on Wednesday 30 May and Thursday 31 May will be followed by Q&As with the film's producer Michael Auret, plus special guests.
  Region: ZimbabweKey themes: democracy/political systemsStrand:Please book online by clicking the links below or telephone the appropriate venue: Filmhouse 0131 228 2688.
  Wed 30 May, 18:00Edinburgh FilmhousePlus Q&A with producer Michael Auret
  Thurs 31 May, 18:00Edinburgh FilmhousePlus Q&A with producer Michael Auret
  followed by discussion on the issues raised in the film
  Iciar Bollain France, Mexico, Spain 2010 103 Minutes
  Age group: 15+
  Spain conquered the new world for gold, 500 years later, water is gold.
  Nominated for 13 Goyas (Spain's Oscars), Iciar Bollain's dramatic rollercoaster penned by Take One Action patron Paul Laverty (Looking For Eric) stars Gael Garcia Bernal as Sebastian, a filmmaker caught up in Bolivia's mass protests of spring 2000 against the government's decision to privatise the national water company.
  As Sebastian vainly tries to tell the story of Columbus' colonisation of the new world, his cast and crew get drawn into a contemporary version of events, blurring the boundary between past and present, fiction and reality. In fact, the cost of water in Bolivia has gone up by three hundred percent, and although Bollain's story is finally one of triumph of the people, the privatisation of basic public services remains at the centre of a powerful debate about poverty and development across the globe.
  Winner - Silver Ariel for Best Latin American Film, Ariel Awards, MexicoWinner - Panorama Audience Award, Berlin International Film FestivalWinner - Bridging the Borders Award, Palm Springs International Film Festival
  Region: Southern AmericaKey themes: democracy/political systems, historical profileStrand:Tickets £8.50 / £5.50
  Please book online through the links below or by calling the venue on:
  booking 0871 902 5721
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:30Belmont Picture House 9 Belmont Street, AB10 1JS Aberdeen, United Kingdom
  Followed by a panel discussion
  UNISON is Scotland's biggest and liveliest trade union, representing 150,000 members delivering public and related services across Scotland
  Key themes: climate change, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, trade/economic justice, work/labourPartner location: UK-wide Creative Scotland is the new national leader for Scotland's arts, screen and creative industries. It's our job to help Scotland's creativity shine at home and abroad.
  Key themes: world-changing filmPartner location: Scotland-wide The Co-operative Group is a unique business democratically run and owned by its members to meet their common needs and aspirations.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, fair trade, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide followed by discussion on the issues raised in the film
  Iciar Bollain France, Mexico, Spain 2010 103 Minutes
  Age group: 15+
  ''A powerful, richly layered indictment of the plight of Latin America's dispossessed.'' Variety
  Spain conquered the new world for gold, 500 years later, water is gold.
  Nominated for 13 Goyas (Spain's Oscars), Iciar Bollain's dramatic rollercoaster penned by Take One Action patron Paul Laverty (Looking For Eric) stars Gael Garcia Bernal as Sebastian, a filmmaker caught up in Bolivia's mass protests of spring 2000 against the government's decision to privatise the national water company.
  As Sebastian vainly tries to tell the story of Columbus' colonisation of the new world, his cast and crew get drawn into a contemporary version of events, blurring the boundary between past and present, fiction and reality. In fact, the cost of water in Bolivia has gone up by three hundred percent, and although Bollain's story is finally one of triumph of the people, the privatisation of basic public services remains at the centre of a powerful debate about poverty and development across the globe.
  Winner - Silver Ariel for Best Latin American Film, Ariel Awards, MexicoWinner - Panorama Audience Award, Berlin International Film FestivalWinner - Bridging the Borders Award, Palm Springs International Film Festival
  Region: Southern AmericaKey themes: democracy/political systems, historical profileStrand:Tickets are available at the door for £2.00
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Tickets are available on the door for £2.00
  Saturday 18th February 2012 19:30Ashfield Village Hall, nr Dunblane Stirlingshire FK15
  Followed by a panel discussion
  UNISON is Scotland's biggest and liveliest trade union, representing 150,000 members delivering public and related services across Scotland
  Key themes: climate change, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, trade/economic justice, work/labourPartner location: UK-wide Creative Scotland is the new national leader for Scotland's arts, screen and creative industries. It's our job to help Scotland's creativity shine at home and abroad.
  Key themes: world-changing filmPartner location: Scotland-wide The Co-operative Group is a unique business democratically run and owned by its members to meet their common needs and aspirations.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, fair trade, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide Briar March New Zealand 2010 80mins
  Age group: 12 cert
  A unique Pacific Island community face the first devastating effects of climate change, including a terrifying flood. Will they decide to stay with their island home or move to a new and unfamiliar land, leaving their culture and language behind forever?
  Takku, a unique, centuries old island community in the Pacific Ocean, is going under water. Its gardens have become polluted by salt water, its homes are being washed away, and the scientists who have come to visit say it is irreversible.
  Briar March's multi award winning, beautiful account of the effects of climate change gently explores the impact of this devastating news on the island population. One by one, families must choose between resettling to an alien mainland hundreds of kilometres away or staying to defend their culture, and watch their paradise disintegrate.
  Winner of Best Documentary Award, Raindance Film Festival
  Region: PacificKey themes: climate changeStrand:Tickets available for £2 on the door.
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)) quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Saturday 18th February 2012, 16:00
  Ashfield Village Hall, Ashfiled, Nr Dunblane, FK15
  Follwed by a panel discussion on the issues raised in the film.
  Follwed by a panel discussion on the issues raised in the film.
  Anthony Baxter UK 2011 95 Minutes
  Age group: 12+
  In this funny, inspiring and shocking David and Goliath story for the 21st century, a group of proud Scottish homeowners take on billionaire celebrity tycoon Donald Trump as he buys up one of Scotland's last wilderness areas to build a golf resort.
  After the Scottish Government overturns its own environmental laws to give Trump the green light, the stage is set for an extraordinary summer of discontent, as the bulldozers spring into action, water gets shut off and the police descend on the home owners who, in direct homage to the film Local Hero, refuse to sell their land.
  With a stunning score by Sigor Ross frontman Jonsi, this is a rare and revealing glimpse into absolute power on Scottish soil that raises the enormous question: whose rules rule in Scotland today?
  Region: United KingdomKey themes: democracy/political systems, empowerment/activism, environment (general)Strand:Please book online through the links below or by calling the venue on 01330 825 431
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Friday, 24 February 2012 19:30
  Woodend Barn, Burn O' Bennie, Banchory AB31 5QA
  Followed by a panel discussion
  A David and Goliath story for the 21st century
  Anthony Baxter UK 2011 95 Minutes
  Age group: 12+
  In this funny, inspiring and shocking David and Goliath story for the 21st century, a group of proud Scottish homeowners take on billionaire celebrity tycoon Donald Trump as he buys up one of Scotland's last wilderness areas to build a golf resort.
  After the Scottish Government overturns its own environmental laws to give Trump the green light, the stage is set for an extraordinary summer of discontent, as the bulldozers spring into action, water gets shut off and the police descend on the home owners who, in direct homage to the film Local Hero, refuse to sell their land.
  With a stunning score by Sigor Ross frontman Jonsi, this is a rare and revealing glimpse into absolute power on Scottish soil that raises the enormous question: whose rules rule in Scotland today?
  Winner - Best Feature, EdindocsWinner - Green Award, Sheffield Doc FestWinner - Special Jury Prize, Michael Moore's Traverse City Film FestivalWinner - Audience Award, Sidewalk Film Festiva
  Region: United KingdomKey themes: corporate responsibility, environment (general), ScotlandStrand:Land and Freedom Tickets available for £4 on the door
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Saturday 18th February 2012, 16:00
  Rob Roy Visitor Centre, Ancaster Square, Callander
  Follwed by a panel discussion on the issues raised in the film.
  A David and Goliath story for the 21st century
  Anthony Baxter UK 2011 95 Minutes
  Age group: 12+
  In this funny, inspiring and shocking David and Goliath story for the 21st century, a group of proud Scottish homeowners take on billionaire celebrity tycoon Donald Trump as he buys up one of Scotland's last wilderness areas to build a golf resort.
  After the Scottish Government overturns its own environmental laws to give Trump the green light, the stage is set for an extraordinary summer of discontent, as the bulldozers spring into action, water gets shut off and the police descend on the home owners who, in direct homage to the film Local Hero, refuse to sell their land.
  With a stunning score by Sigor Ross frontman Jonsi, this is a rare and revealing glimpse into absolute power on Scottish soil that raises the enormous question: whose rules rule in Scotland today?
  Winner - Best Feature, EdindocsWinner - Green Award, Sheffield Doc FestWinner - Special Jury Prize, Michael Moore's Traverse City Film FestivalWinner - Audience Award, Sidewalk Film Festiva
  Region: ScotlandKey themes: democracy/political systems, empowerment/activism, environment (general)Strand:Tickets are available on the door for £4.50 adult and £2.50 under 16
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Wednesday, 22 February 2012 19:30
  Comrie WRI Hall, Drummond Street, Comrie, Perthshire PH6 2DY
  Followed by a panel discussion
  Follwed by a panel discussion on the issues raised in the film.
  Briar March New Zealand 2010 80 Minutes
  Age group: 12+
  A unique Pacific Island community face the first devastating effects of climate change, including a terrifying flood. Will they decide to stay with their island home or move to a new and unfamiliar land, leaving their culture and language behind forever?
  Takku, a unique, centuries old island community in the Pacific Ocean, is going under water. Its gardens have become polluted by salt water, its homes are being washed away, and the scientists who have come to visit say it is irreversible.
  Briar March's multi award winning, beautiful account of the effects of climate change gently explores the impact of this devastating news on the island population. One by one, families must choose between resettling to an alien mainland hundreds of kilometres away or staying to defend their culture, and watch their paradise disintegrate.
  Winner of Best Documentary Award, Raindance Film Festival
  Region: PacificKey themes: climate changeStrand:Tickets available for £4 on the door.
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)) quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Saturday 18th February 2012, 16:00Duirinish Media & Culture Club, c/o Ceol na mara, Dunvegan, Isle of Skye, IV558wa
  Follwed by a panel discussion on the issues raised in the film.
  Follwed by a panel discussion on the issues raised in the film.
  Anthony Baxter UK 2011 95 Minutes
  Age group: 12+
  In this funny, inspiring and shocking David and Goliath story for the 21st century, a group of proud Scottish homeowners take on billionaire celebrity tycoon Donald Trump as he buys up one of Scotland's last wilderness areas to build a golf resort.
  After the Scottish Government overturns its own environmental laws to give Trump the green light, the stage is set for an extraordinary summer of discontent, as the bulldozers spring into action, water gets shut off and the police descend on the home owners who, in direct homage to the film Local Hero, refuse to sell their land.
  With a stunning score by Sigor Ross frontman Jonsi, this is a rare and revealing glimpse into absolute power on Scottish soil that raises the enormous question: whose rules rule in Scotland today?
  Winner - Best Feature, EdindocsWinner - Green Award, Sheffield Doc FestWinner - Special Jury Prize, Michael Moore's Traverse City Film FestivalWinner - Audience Award, Sidewalk Film Festival
  Region: EuropeKey themes: democracy/political systems, empowerment/activism, environment (general), ScotlandStrand:Tickets available for £2.50 at the door
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Saturday, 3 March 2012 19:30
  Duirinish Media & Culture Club, c/o Ceol na mara, Dunvegan, Isle of Skye, IV558wa
  Followed by a panel discussion
  Follwed by a panel discussion on the issues raised in the film.
  Frank Poulsen Denmark 2010 82 Minutes
  Age group: 15+
  What is the price of a text message? This is the question that takes director Frank Poulsen on a hugely personal journey in this rollercoaster hit documentary to connect Africa's 'heart of darkness' with the ivory towers of European multinationals.
  In the past 15 years, five million people have died in Congo's civil war. The UN has consistently reported a connection between the conflict and the control of the international trade in minerals used in products such as mobile phones and computers. Reaching the dangerous and normally inaccessible Bisie mine area, Poulsen's extraordinary journey reveals child labourers in death-defying conditions, before he returns home to ask his phone company, Nokia, the largest in the world, just what they are doing to halt the cycle of poverty and conflict.
  Winner of the Cinema for Peace Justice Award 2011, Berlin
  Region: Southern Africa, EuropeKey themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, environment (general)Strand:Please book online through the links below
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Tuesday, 28 February 2012 19:30
  Eden Court Cinema, Bishop's Road, Inverness
  Followed by a panel discussion
  followed by discussion on the issues raised in the film
  Iciar Bollain France, Mexico, Spain 2010 103 Minutes
  Age group: 15+
  ''A powerful, richly layered indictment of the plight of Latin America's dispossessed.'' Variety
  Spain conquered the new world for gold, 500 years later, water is gold.
  Nominated for 13 Goyas (Spain's Oscars), Iciar Bollain's dramatic rollercoaster penned by Take One Action patron Paul Laverty (Looking For Eric) stars Gael Garcia Bernal as Sebastian, a filmmaker caught up in Bolivia's mass protests of spring 2000 against the government's decision to privatise the national water company.
  As Sebastian vainly tries to tell the story of Columbus' colonisation of the new world, his cast and crew get drawn into a contemporary version of events, blurring the boundary between past and present, fiction and reality. In fact, the cost of water in Bolivia has gone up by three hundred percent, and although Bollain's story is finally one of triumph of the people, the privatisation of basic public services remains at the centre of a powerful debate about poverty and development across the globe.
  Winner - Silver Ariel for Best Latin American Film, Ariel Awards, MexicoWinner - Panorama Audience Award, Berlin International Film FestivalWinner - Bridging the Borders Award, Palm Springs International Film Festival
  Region: Southern AmericaKey themes: democracy/political systems, historical profileStrand:Tickets available at the door
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Monday, 27th February 2012 19:30Little Theatre Cinema, King Street, Nairn IV12 4MP
  followed by a panel discussion
  Follwed by a panel discussion on the issues raised in the film.
  Anthony Baxter UK 2011 95 Minutes
  Age group: 12+
  In this funny, inspiring and shocking David and Goliath story for the 21st century, a group of proud Scottish homeowners take on billionaire celebrity tycoon Donald Trump as he buys up one of Scotland's last wilderness areas to build a golf resort.
  After the Scottish Government overturns its own environmental laws to give Trump the green light, the stage is set for an extraordinary summer of discontent, as the bulldozers spring into action, water gets shut off and the police descend on the home owners who, in direct homage to the film Local Hero, refuse to sell their land.
  With a stunning score by Sigor Ross frontman Jonsi, this is a rare and revealing glimpse into absolute power on Scottish soil that raises the enormous question: whose rules rule in Scotland today?
  Winner - Best Feature, EdindocsWinner - Green Award, Sheffield Doc FestWinner - Special Jury Prize, Michael Moore's Traverse City Film FestivalWinner - Audience Award, Sidewalk Film Festiva
  Region: ScotlandKey themes: democracy/political systems, empowerment/activism, environment (general), ScotlandStrand:Tickets: £5 on the door, or booking online through the links below
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Friday, 2 March 2012 19:30
  An Lanntair Kenneth Street, HS1 2DS Stornoway
  Followed by a panel discussion
  Follwed by a panel discussion on the issues raised in the film.
  Frank Poulsen Denmark 2010 82
  Age group: 15+
  What is the price of a text message? This is the question that takes director Frank Poulsen on a hugely personal journey in this rollercoaster hit documentary to connect Africa's 'heart of darkness' with the ivory towers of European multinationals.
  In the past 15 years, five million people have died in Congo's civil war. The UN has consistently reported a connection between the conflict and the control of the international trade in minerals used in products such as mobile phones and computers. Reaching the dangerous and normally inaccessible Bisie mine area, Poulsen's extraordinary journey reveals child labourers in death-defying conditions, before he returns home to ask his phone company, Nokia, the largest in the world, just what they are doing to halt the cycle of poverty and conflict.
  Winner of the Cinema for Peace Justice Award 2011, Berlin
  Region: Southern Africa, EuropeKey themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, environment (general)Strand:Tickets are available on the door for £4
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Saturday, 25 February 2012 19:30
  Tullynessle & Forbes Hall, Tullynessle
  Followed by a panel discussion
  A David and Goliath story for the 21st century
  Anthony Baxter UK 2011 95 Minutes
  Age group: 12+
  n this funny, inspiring and shocking David and Goliath story for the 21st century, a group of proud Scottish homeowners take on billionaire celebrity tycoon Donald Trump as he buys up one of Scotland's last wilderness areas to build a golf resort.
  After the Scottish Government overturns its own environmental laws to give Trump the green light, the stage is set for an extraordinary summer of discontent, as the bulldozers spring into action, water gets shut off and the police descend on the home owners who, in direct homage to the film Local Hero, refuse to sell their land.
  With a stunning score by Sigor Ross frontman Jonsi, this is a rare and revealing glimpse into absolute power on Scottish soil that raises the enormous question: whose rules rule in Scotland today?
  Winner - Best Feature, EdindocsWinner - Green Award, Sheffield Doc FestWinner - Special Jury Prize, Michael Moore's Traverse City Film FestivalWinner - Audience Award, Sidewalk Film Festiva
  Region: ScotlandKey themes: democracy/political systems, empowerment/activism, environment (general), ScotlandStrand:Tickets available on the door for £5 adult, £3 concessions
  We have 3 pairs of FREE TICKETS available for each event for Co-operative members - email us quoting your co-op membership number and the film/venue you would like to attend.
  Thursday, 1 March 2012 19:30Macphail Centre Mill St Ullapool IV26 2UN
  Followed by a panel discussion
  Fri 8 Feb
  Event location: InvernessOrganised by Network of INternaitonal Development Organisations in Scotland (NIDOS), World Development Movement (WDM)
  The event starts with a lilm screening of 'Growing Change' - a spirited film about the problems with the current food system and the food revolution taking place in Venezuela. Full of inspiring characters, stunning landscapes and thought provoking insights into how we might transform our food system. This is followed by a panel discussion with John Finnie MSP; Jo Hunt, Nourish (Scotland's local food network); and Liz Murray, World Development Movement. Chaired by Gillian Wilson, Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland (NIDOS). During the evening, the exhibition, Scotland v Poverty, will be on show - it celebrates Scotland's strong tradition of working for global justice. This collection of images and stories from 34 Scottish international development charities highlights the voices of people who lifted themselves out of poverty with our support across the world.
  Type of event: Film screeningKey themes: hunger/food issuesAge group: all agesFull event address: The Spectrum Centre, 1B Margaret Street, Inverness IV1 1LS1Event website address:www.scotlandvpoverty.org
  The event runs from 6 - 8pm on the 8th of February 2013. It is a free event (as is viewing the exhibition during the day fromm 9 - 13 February) but please email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or ring 0131 243 2680 to book as we need to arrange catering for the right numbers.
  10 year anniversary screening. Part one of our Towards A New Economy double bill with 'Life and Debt'.
  Phillipe Diaz USA 2009 106 mins
  Age group: 15+
  ''Never loses sight of the human cost of global capitalism''Village Voice
  Can we really end poverty within our current economic system? Narrated by activist and actor Martin Sheen, this award-winning film presents a bold and thorough challenge to the status quo from the perspective of the bottom billion.
  What we think of today as global poverty didn't come from nowhere. Colonialism, past and present, the expropriation of land and labour, have unsettled many great societies which we now lump together as ''the developing world''. It serves a system in which 20% of the planet's population uses 80% of its resources and consumes 30% more than it can regenerate. But the system is breaking.
  Filmed in the slums of Africa and the barrios of Latin America, this critically acclaimed manifesto for change features compelling interviews with the world's leading political and social theorists including Joseph Stiglitz, John Christensen, Susan George and the leaders of social movements in Brazil, Venezuela, Kenya and Tanzania. The question is, where do you come in?
  Discussion with John Christenson, director the Tax Justice Network, featured in the film, and other guests will follow the later screening of Life and Debt as part of the evening's double bill.
  Region: globalKey themes: corporate responsibility, international development, trade/economic justiceStrand:Faces of Change THE END OF POVERTYTue 17 Sep, 18:00Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Life and Debt
  Insightful analysis of the effects of an IMF loan to the tune of $4.5 billion'...
  Key themes: poverty (global), trade/economic justice
  Age group: not certified
  Blood in the Mobile plus director Q&As
  Expose of mineral mining practices in Congo for mobile technologies
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, human rights, work/labour
  Age group: not certified
  Jubilee Scotland is a coalition of faith groups, charities, unions and other civil society groups who campaign together, and as part of the international debt movement, for the total and unconditional cancellation of all unjust and unpayable poor country debt.
  Key themes: globalisation, poverty (global), trade/economic justicePartner location: Scotland-wide, Edinburgh The Co-operative Group is a unique business democratically run and owned by its members to meet their common needs and aspirations.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, fair trade, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide Tue 27 Sep
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  European Premiere - Edinburgh & Glasgow
  Brenda Davis Cambodia, Haiti, USA 2012 94mins
  Age group: 15+
  Official Selection, Montreal Film Festival
  Lack of transport, communication, education and investment in healthcare mean that Ethiopia, Cambodia and Haiti have an average maternal mortality rate of one in forty women. With tenderness, incredible access and a real-life cast of heroes Sister tells the unheard story of three health workers from these countries, exploring how they and their colleagues find hope and meaning against all the odds. Following them through home visits, deliveries and moments of quiet reflection, their stories honour strategies and skills that demand greater understanding, appreciation and investment as a matter of urgency.
  We are delighted to welcome director Brenda Davis to Scotland for Q&As following these screenings. With Ruth Dawson in Glasgow (Senior Maternal Health Advsier, UK Department for International Development) and in Edinburgh Nepali nurse and Edinburgh University research associate associate of Radha Adhikari.
  Region: globalKey themes: health, poverty (global)Strand:Please book for the following shows using the links below. Tickets for the screening at Yorkhill Hospital Glasgow are only available online in advance. To book Edinburgh Filmhouse tickets over the phone telephone 0131 228 2688.
  Wed 26th September, 6pmYorkhill Hospital, MediCinemaDalnair St, Glasgow G3 8SJPlus director Q&A
  Fri 28 September, 6pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus director Q&A
  Sat 10 Mar
  Event location: GlasgowOrganised by Voluntarily initiated by Mark Langdon and Susan Pettie, 'we just have to do something!'. We are eager to get others involved, are you interested?
  We want folk to vote in May at the local council elections. If there is no one you want to vote for, we want to encourage you to ask someone you trust to stand. We are showing the film 'Gnarr' as an inspiration of what is possible in politics when people have had enough of the status quo and stand up for justice. The purpose of the event is to provide a focus for discussion and action on reinvigorating local democracy, encouraging people to stand for May's Local Government elections on a social justice platform. Information on how to stand will be available. Discussion will begin on how we can work together to offer an alternative to the current party political system of UK democracy. The details of the day are still being finalised, don't expect dogma and vitriol but do bring positivity and ideas. We'd love this to be the launch of a new Communitarian Movement.
  Type of event: Film screening, TalkKey themes: ScotlandAge group: adult trainingFull event address: Centre for Contemporary Arts, 350 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, G2 3JDEvent website address:www.facebook.com/CommunitarianMovement
  Film Screening at 1pm, Panel Discussion & information sharing after. Finish at 4pm. Free but ticketed. Call the CCA on 0141 352 4900. For more info email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
  The World On Your Plate weekend / UK theatrical premiere + discussion
  Christoffer Guldbrandsen Denmark 2012 17:45 - 20:15
  Age group: 12+
  FILM SYNOPSISStarbucks, Amazon, Google'... Household names accused of avoiding tax that could have benefitted Britain. Map it onto Africa '' where a lack of transparency enables multinationals to extract $9 for every $1 given in overseas aid '' and the tax question and its link to global hunger becomes positively dystopian. Stealing Africa brings this to life. It contrasts a surreal Swiss village whose coffers are overflowing with donations from global copper giant Glencore, with Zambia, where Glencore's mines make profit disappear before the eyes of a population 80% unemployed and hungry. A compelling film, backed by 60 global broadcasters, this is timely and essential viewing.
  PANEL'DISCUSSION Investing against hungerFirst screening followed by discussion touching on the links between food security and corporate social responsibility. With Fiona O'Donnell MP (International Development Select Committee) and Chris Hegarty (co-ordinator, Enough Food for Everyone If - Scotland).
  DOUBLE BILL CONTINUED AFTER DISCUSSIONCOUSCOUS ISLANDF Amato & S Scarafia, Italy 2012, 27 mins, suitable for ages 12+Pitted against environmental degradation and illegal overfishing by European companies off the Senegalese coast, Couscous Island shines a light on the kinds of indigenous African food projects '' couscous co-ops and mangrove conservation '' working on a scale that truly empowers across social divides.
  TAKE ONE ACTION DIALOGUESWant to make your film experience even better? Many of you have been asking us to create space for small audience conversations over a cuppa or a glass of wine after our screenings. In response, we're launching Take One Action Dialogues - 60 minute facilitated conversations for up to 8 people at/near Filmhouse - a chance to explore the issues raised by the films in a more relaxed and personal way immediately after panel discussions. It's free, and the first drink is on us. No catch, except that you must register to take part - and please show up if you do - as it costs us. Sorted. To register for the Stealing Africa dialogue (8.15 to 9.15pm), email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or phone 0131 553 6335.
  Region: Southern AfricaKey themes: corporate responsibility, environment (general), hunger/food issuesStrand:Tickets through Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, £8.20/£6 concessions inc first 20 Co-op members when booked in person at the Filmhouse box office.
  Sat 1 June, 17:45 to 20:15Film plus discussionFilmhouse, 88 Lothian Road
  Edinburgh only
  n/a
  Age group: 15+
  ''The audience had doubled from last year and the pre-film atmosphere in the cinema was buzzing''2011 attendee
  Take the plunge and join us for the final screening of Take One Action 2012 as voted for at the festival by you from our host of critically acclaimed European, UK and Scottish premieres. Followed by music and drinks with the festival team. It could be a Sundance or Berlin winner, a gripping feature drama or an eye-popping comedy. What's certain is it will have fired the imagination and social spirit of hundreds of festival goers in the preceding days and weeks: so don't miss it.
  Go for £1. Present a ticket stub from another Take One Action 2012 festival film at the Edinburgh Filmhouse box office any time up to Friday 5th October to get your Audience Award Screening ticket for just £1. One reduced price ticket per stub. Tickets can also be bought for £1 at the same time as purchasing another festival ticket. They can also be purchased without another ticket at normal Edinburgh Filmhouse prices. All tickets bought for this event are non-refundable.
  Region: n/aKey themes: world-changing filmStrand:To take advantage of the £1 offer, present a stub at the Edinburgh Filmhouse Box Office, or to book at normal prices follow the link below or telephone the Filmhouse on 0131 228 2688.
  Sat 6 Oct, 6pmEdinburgh FilmhouseFollowed by music and drinks
  Scottish Premiere/Opening night screening - Edinburgh & Glasgow
  Mattieu Roy Canada 2012 86 mins
  Age group: 12+
  ''bristles with provocative insights and probing questions about humanity''LA Times
  "The scary thing about where we are now in history is that for the first time there's only one system... So what happens when it goes wrong?" With dazzling imagery and an immersive soundtrack, Surviving Progress (exec produced by Martin Scorsese) launches us on a rollercoaster journey of the mind to contemplate our evolution from cave-dwellers to space explorers. Technological progress vs. the fundamentals of wellbeing'... Improving global livelihoods vs. protecting the environment: the film presents the story of social advancement as a spectacular, awe-inspiring and double-edged sword, without ever straying into clich(C). Can we in the twenty-first century continue in this way?
  We are delighted to welcome the film's co-director and co-writer Harold Crooks to Scotland for Q&As following screenings in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Supported by our associate Christian Aid and partner SCIAF. Followed in Edinburgh by opening night drinks and music in the Filmhouse caf(C)-bar, open to all.
  Region: globalKey themes: environment (general), globalisationStrand:Please book for the following shows using the links below, or telephone the relevant venue box office: Edinburgh Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, Glasgow Film Theatre 0141 332 6535 .
  Fri 21 Sept, 8.15pmEdinburgh Filmhouse
  Plus Q&A with co-director and writer Harold Crooks
  Instance 2Sun 23 Sept, 3pmGlasgow Film TheatrePlus Q&A with co-director and writer Harold Crooks
  Closing night after the Audience Award
  180mins
  Age group:
  Following our surprise Audience Award screening, join the Take One Action team, volunteers and other audience members you've been sharing screen time with to celebrate our 5th birthday, and to honour the spirit of all the filmmakers and others (you included) who are daring to dream of a better world.
  In traditional Scottish style we'll be dancing with a fantatis c(C)ilidh band, raising a glass, and welcoming in a new season of optimism and change. Come dance with us.
  Get in thereBefore the ceilidh, enjoy the best film of the festival - as voted for by you - just down the road at Filmhouse. Tickets from £1.
  Region:Key themes:Strand:Advance booking essentia. Please register using the link below.
  Sat 6 Oct, 8pm to 11pmLauriston Hall, Edinburgh28 Lauriston Street, EH3 9DJ
  European Premiere - Edinburgh only
  Amy Miller Canada 2012 84mins
  Age group: 15+
  Opening in Midlothian, this groundbreaking documentary moves across the globe to meet the impoverished ''beneficiaries'' of our carbon trading market: a multi-billion dollar industry nicknamed "green gold" by its backers. Incinerators burning garbage in India. Deforestation in Brazil. Oil barons and militias on the rise in Panama. What do these stories have in common? Their causes are all hailed and receiving Western support because they are ''offsetting'' pollution created here in Scotland and other parts of Europe. Many situations the filmmakers encounter along the way are so topsy-turvey they could have come from the Mr Men books. But this is no joke, and there is, as yet, no happy ending. With direct links back to Scotland, where carbon emissions are rising rather than falling, the need to re-examine our choices has never been more critical.
  Interactive bike-powered screeningJoin us (and join in) under the stars as we pedal through the film at the Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh. Please bring warm clothing and a waterproof as rain cover is limited.
  Region: global, ScotlandKey themes: corporate responsibility, environment (general)Strand:Wed 26 Sept, 7pmRoyal Botanic GardensJohn Hope Gateway entranceArboretum Place, Edinburgh
  World Aids Day special screening
  Maggie Betts USA, Zambia 2010 88 mins
  Age group: 15 cert
  The Carrier / Maggie Betts / 2010 / 88 mins
  When 28-year-old Mutinta Mweemba first shares all the hopes and dreams she once nurtured as a child, her aspirations seem no different from many other young women around the world. She dreamed of falling in love, being married and raising children, and hopefully one day providing those children with a better life than her own. But Mutinta's soft-spoken husband came with two other wives, and the remote Zambian village that she calls home is being ravaged by a deadly new epidemic - a mysterious disease called AIDS. When Mutinta learns that she's become pregnant again, her quest to the save her baby from her disease, becomes the family's last hope for redemption.
  A beautiful and powerful documentary, The Carrier is a a story of hope and renewal, of love and dignity, told through the eyes of an increasingly determined young woman who refuses to be overwhelmed by the forces that surround her.
  The film will be presented by Take One Action Film Festival and will be accompanied by a post screening discussion.
  Region: ZambiaKey themes: health, HIV and AIDS, world-changing filmStrand:In association withAfrican Caribbean Network GlasgowFree Event at the University of Glasgow
  Thursday 1st December18:00University of GlasgowBoyd Orr Building 412 (Lecture Theatre B), University Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8QQFollowed by a panel discussion
  Part of Nourishing A Global Community: food, music, films and discussion
  Brice Lain(C) Togo, UK 2008 52mins
  Age group: 8+
  Environmental Award, Reykjavik International Film FestivalEdinburgh only
  This powerful story about sustainable food production and community development in Africa champions hope, self-reliance and change in the face of seemingly unconquerable forces. When S(C)da and Tiy(C)da returned to their native village in Togo, they found it on the brink of ruin, devastated by decades of bleak economic prospects and an increasingly infertile land. Yet armed with their unshakable faith in the riches and ways of their ancestors, they empowered hundreds of local women in an indigenous project that revolutionized life in the community and made harvests rich again. Bursting with West Africa's vibrant sights and sounds, The Dancing Forest goes beyond the usual African story of desolation and poverty to unveil a world of dignity and hope '-- a world where forests can dance.
  Introduced by Gillian Wilson of NIDOS (the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland).
  Wonderful world foodThis film is showing as part of Nourishing A Global Community: food, music, films and discussion. Full details here. A delicious world food buffet meal is included with your ticket price.
  Region: Southern AfricaKey themes: gender and power, hunger/food issuesStrand:Sun 23 Sept, 12pm to 4.30pmOut of the Blue Drill Hall, Edinburgh32 Dalmeny Street, EH6 8RGBuffet 12pm, films 1pm, discussion 3pm
  The World On Your Plate weekend / Exclusive preview + discussion
  Yung Chang Canada 2013 17:45 - 20:15
  Age group: 12 cert
  ''FASCINATING... THOROUGHLY ENJOYABLE'' SCREEN'DAILY
  FILM SYNOPSISThis lush celebration of food, as close to smell-o-vision as you'll come this year, travels across culture, history and geography to show howintertwined we are with the fruits we eat. Our guides are devoted fruit fanatics. Movie star Bill Pullman's obsession leads him on a crusade to create a community orchard in the Hollywood Hills. Adventurers Noris and Richard scour the jungle for rare mangos, hoping to intervene before they are steamrolled by industrialisation. And pioneering scientist Juan Aguilar races to breed bananas resistant to a fungus that threatens the worldwide crop. Above all hang the fruits themselves, presented in such mouthwatering glory, it will have you running for the hills.
  DISCUSSIONFollowed by discussion with special guest speakers - tbc
  Region: globalKey themes: globalisation, hunger/food issuesStrand:Tickets through Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, £8.20/£6 concessions inc first 20 Co-op members when booked in person at the Filmhouse box office.
  Sun 2 June, 17:45-20:15Film plus discussionFilmhouse, 88 Lothian Rd, Edinburgh
  Premiering in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling... + discussions
  Jon Shenk USA 2012 100 mins
  Age group: 12A cert
  ''Essential... As informative as it is stimulating'' Time Out New York"What a wonderful doc... plays out like a thriller" Awards Daily
  StoryNearly 2,000 Maldive islands are being engulfed by rising sea levels and changing weather patterns caused by climate change. This visually stunning and politically potent film (''Astonishing access'... Superb'' Variety) pits the US, China and India against one man '' former President Nasheed of the Maldives '' as he single-handedly challenges the international community's muddled response to reducing global carbon emissions. Against a wonderful soundtrack by Radiohead and Stars of the Lid, we follow Nasheed (who increasingly starts to resemble a kind of James Bond hero in an all-too-real thriller) as he moves from playful underwater publicity stunts to an extraordinary behind-the-scenes climax at the contentious 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen.
  Discussions (see below for times and to book)Glasgow, with Ahmed Moosa, featured in the film, former Maldives special envoy on climate change to the UK, plus campaigners Alexis Barnett (SCIAF) and Diane Green (Christian Aid).Edinburgh, with Paul Roberts, featured in the film, former adviser on International Media and Communications to President Nasheed, plus Diane Green (Christian Aid) and Patrick Grady (advocacy manager, SCIAF).Stirling, with campaigners Alexis Barnett (SCIAF) and Diane Green (Christian Aid). Supported by Christian Aid, SCIAF and Stop Climate Chaos Scotland.Region: AsiaKey themes: climate change, democracy/political systems, environment (general)Strand:Green Shoots Please book tickets through the venues below by clicking the links or phoning:- Edinburgh FIlmhouse, 0131 228 2688- Glasgow Film Theatre, 0141 332 6535- MacRobert Cinema, Stirling, 01786 466 666.
  Glasgow Film TheatreTuesday 10th April, 8pmPlus discussion with Ahmed Moosa, featured in the film, former Maldives special envoy on climate change to the UK, plus campaigners Alexis Barnett (SCIAF) and Diane Green (Christian Aid).
  Edinburgh FilmhouseFriday 13th April, 8.15pmPlus discussion with Paul Roberts, featured in the film, former adviser on International Media and Communications to President Nasheed, plus Diane Green (Christian Aid) and Patrick Grady (SCIAF).
  MacRobert, StirlingSaturday 21st April, 5pmPlus discussion with campaigners Alexis Barnett (SCIAF) and Diane Green (Christian Aid).
  UK Premiere + Director Q&A
  Cosima Dannoritzer France, Spain 2010 75 mins
  Age group: 12+
  Once upon a time products were made to last... Planned Obsolescence was the name given by businessmen in the early twentieth century to the deliberate shortening of product life spans in order to guarantee consumer demand. Cosima Dannoritzer's compelling film combines investigative research and rare archive footage to trace one of the defining stories of our age: from its beginnings in the 1920s with a secret cartel set up expressly to limit the life span of light bulbs, to contemporary high street brands such as Apple. The story moves between France, Germany, Spain and the US to find witnesses of a business practice which has become the basis of the modern economy, and brings back disquieting pictures from Africa where our discarded electronic waste is piling up..
  Region: globalKey themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, environment (general)Strand:Green Shoots THE LIGHTBULB CONSPIRACYThu 29 Sep, 17:45Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by discussion with the film's director, Cosima Dannoritzer, plus hands-on activities with Remade in Edinburgh.
  THE LIGHTBULB CONSPIRACYFri 30 Sep, 12:30Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by discussion with the film's director, Cosima Dannoritzer.
  THE LIGHTBULB CONSPIRACYMon 3 Oct, 19:00Chaplaincy, Bristo Square, Edinburgh EH8 9ALFollowed by hands-on activities with People and Planet. £5/£3 on the door.
  Burning Ice
  Bike-powered, moonlit garden screening: celebs engage with climate change
  Key themes: climate change
  Age group: not certified
  Thu 29 Sep '' Mon 3 Oct
  Event location: -Organised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: -Event website address:-
  The World On Your Plate weekend / Exlcusive UK Preview plus discussion
  Andy Heathcote UK 2013 98mins
  Age group: 12+
  "BLESSED WITH A TRULY WINNING PROTAGONIST, THIS FILM WILL CHARM'' HOLLYWOOD REPORTER
  FILM SYNOPSISIn the bucolic English countryside, Stephen Hook runs the family dairy farm, Hook and Son, a lo-fi, raw-milk anomaly resisting hi-fi, high-consumption norms. Farming is a hard life and an even harder business, but Stephen and his family make it work by staying small and offering services like home delivery... And it's not just a profession for Stephen: each cow has a name and is lovingly cared for, especially the farm's resident ''cover girl,'' Ida. It becomes quite clear that Stephen's unconventional and heartwarming friendship with his herd is what really enables the farm to survive. Mirroring his subject, director Andy Heathcote takes a gentle, genial, light-touch approach ''all the more watchable because of it'' (ScreenInternational).
  Q&A: Farmer stories: the UK lensScreening followed by discussion responding to the film and touching on the prospects for small and medium scale farming and alternative food markets in the UK, with The Moo Man director Andy Heathcote and protagonist Stephen Hook, plus Gary Mitchell, chair of NFU Scotland's Milk Committee.
  TAKE ONE ACTION DIALOGUESWant to make your film experience even better? Many of you have been asking us to create space for small audience conversations over a cuppa or a glass of wine after our screenings. In response, we're launching Take One Action Dialogues - 60 minute facilitated conversations for up to 8 people at/near Filmhouse - a chance to explore the issues raised by the films in a more relaxed and personal way immediately after panel discussions. It's free, and the first drink is on us. No catch, except that you must register to take part - and please show up if you do - as it costs us. Sorted. To register for The Moo Man dialogue (4.40 to 5.40pm), email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or phone 0131 553 6335.
  Region: United KingdomKey themes: hunger/food issues, work/labourStrand:Tickets through Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, £8.20/£6 concessions inc first 20 Co-op members when booked in person at the Filmhouse box office.
  Sat 1 June, 14:00 to 16:35Film plus discussionFilmhouse, 88 Lothian Rd, Edinburgh
  Scottish Premiere - Edinburgh only
  Mimi Chakarova USA 2011 72mins
  Age group: 15+
  "Fearlessly researched and undeniably urgent"Variety
  According to UN estimates, each year around 1.5 million women are taken abroad to serve as sex slaves. 25% of these come from Eastern Europe where the collapse of communism left an increasing number vulnerable to economic instability and the sex traffickers' promises of prosperity. Having left Bulgaria as a teenager in search of a better life, The Price of Sex is director Mimi Chakarova's nine-year effort to infiltrate a world in which many women of her generation were left behind. Filming undercover and gaining extraordinary access, she illuminates how even though some women escape to tell their stories, sex trafficking remains a multi-billion dollar global concern.
  We are delighted to welcome director Mimi Chakarova to Scotland for a Q&A alongside award-winning human rights journalist Billy Briggs (The Observer, The Scotsman) and Jenny Kemp (co-ordinator, Zero Tolerance).
  Region: EuropeKey themes: gender and powerStrand:Sun 23 Sept, 6pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus Q&A with director Mimi Chakarova
  Special screening plus discussion - Edinburgh only
  Larysa Kondracki Canada 2010 112mins
  Age group: 15 cert
  Winner, best director Seattle International Film Festival''A great example about how a film can help create change''IndieWire
  Inspired by true events, Kathy (Rachel Weisz) is an American police officer who takes a job working as a UN peacekeeper in post-war Bosnia. Her expectations of helping to rebuild a devastated country are dashed when she uncovers a dangerous reality of corruption, cover-up and intrigue that implicates US and British contractors and multinational diplomats in protecting sex trafficking. As she comes ever closer to the truth, the real-life implications escalate: for her, for the women she is trying to defend, and for the British press and company at the heart of the story.
  Followed by discussion with special guest speakers including Jenny Kemp (co-ordinator, Zero Tolerance) about the multi-billion dollar sex trafficking industry and what Scotland can do to limit it.
  Whistleblower Night: ticket dealThe Whistleblower is preceded by a special screening of Wikileaks: secrets and lies. Whistleblowing been protected in UK law since 1998. These two true-life stories that shook the world explore the rights and wrongs of a powerful tool for social change. Buy a joint ticket for both events for just £10/£8 when booked together through the Filmhouse Box Office. To book separately, follow the link below.
  Region: EuropeKey themes: gender and power, historical profileStrand:Sun 30 Sept, 8.10pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus discussion
  UK Premiere - Edinburgh & Glasgow
  Marlon Rivera Philippines 2011 87 mins
  Age group: 15+
  Official Selection, Berlin International Film Festival 2012''the most outstanding directorial debut in Philippine cinema this year"The Hollywood Reporter
  Bizarre, hilarious and shocking in equal turns, this extraordinary spoof-drama breaks the mould of Philippino cinema and begs the question ''When does real social issue drama become poverty porn?'' Rainier, Bingbong and Jocelyn are three film school graduates dead set on making the Phillipines' Oscar film nomination. Their natural choice of subject to win the hearts of juries around the world? Poverty, and specifically the tricky subject of child sex tourism. In the course of one day, as they venture to secure the Phillipines top actress Eugene Domingo, the movie-within-a-movie gets reborn in a host of increasingly ridiculous ways until finally, tragedy strikes.
  Followed by discussion with special guest speakers about representations of poverty in the media.
  Buy a joint ticket for Global Encounters (Edinburgh) and The Woman in the Septic Tank for just £10 (£8 concessions) when booked together through the Edinburgh Filmhouse Box Office. We've left an hour between these events so you can enjoy an early dinner or drink in the Filmhouse caf(C)-bar.
  Region: PhilippinesKey themes: media issues, poverty (global)Strand:Please book for the following shows using the links below, or telephone the relevant venue box office: Edinburgh Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, Glasgow Film Theatre 0141 332 6535.
  Tues 25 Sept, 6pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus discussion
  Weds 26 Sept, 8.15pmGlasgow Film TheatrePlus discussion
  Scottish Premiere
  Briar March New Zealand 2010 80 mins
  Age group: 12+
  Best Documentary Raindance 2011 "Intimately and quietly passionate... and object lesson in documentary filmmaking"New Zealand Herald
  Takuu, a unique, centuries old island community in the Pacific ocean, is going under water. Its gardens have become polluted by salt water. Homes are being washed away. And the scientists who have come to visit say it is irreversible.
  Briar March's multi-award winning, beautiful account of the effects of climate change gently explores the impact of this devastating news on the island population. One by one, families must choose between resettling to an alien mainland hundreds of kilometres away or staying to defend their culture, and watch their paradise disintegrate. This is a uniquely human and poignant view of a situation which '' if we do not turn the tide '' will soon be felt by hundreds of millions across the planet.
  These screenings will be accompanied by discussion with leading climate change campaigners.
  Region: PacificKey themes: climate change, consumerism, environment (general)Strand:Green Shoots THERE ONCE WAS AN ISLAND
  Fri 23 Sept, 20:30
  Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Followed by discussion with leading climate change campaigners.
  THERE ONCE WAS AN ISLAND
  Sat 24 Sept, 13:30
  Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Followed by discussion with leading climate change campaigners.
  THERE ONCE WAS AN ISLAND
  Sat 24 Sept, 16:00Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose Street, Glasgow G3 6RB
  Followed by discussion with leading climate change campaigners.
  The Lightbulb Conspiracy
  A compelling film investigatin the origins and rationale of Planned Obsolescence
  Key themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, environment (general)
  Age group: 12+
  UK Premiere - Enjoy Your Meal
  Where does your food come from and what could it mean for the planet?
  Key themes: environment (general), hunger/food issues
  Age group: not certified
  The World Development Movement (WDM) tackles the underlying causes of poverty. We lobby decision makers to change the policies that keep people poor.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, empowerment/activism, globalisationPartner location: Scotland-wide, Edinburgh, Glasgow Christian Aid is a development organisation that insists the world can and must be swiftly changed to one where everyone can live a full life, free from poverty.
  Key themes: climate change, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide Fri 23 Sep '' Sat 24 Sep
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Mojtaba Mirtahmasb & Jafar Panahi Iran, Islamic Rep of 2011 74mins
  Age group: U cert
  ''a samizdat cine-poem in defence of cinema and freedom''The GuardianScreening in Edinburgh only
  Does censorship work? You have to wonder when you consider that Jafar Panahi's extraordinary satire, rated as the number one film of 2011 by Rotten Tomatoes, has hardly been seen in the UK'... and that he is still under house arrest, perhaps as a result. One of three films in this year's festival ''Contextualising the Arab Spring'' (with 1/2 Revolution and Zero Silence), the film follows a day in the life of Panahi as he defies the Iranian Government's filming ban and the threat of six years in prison for supporting the opposition in the 2009 election. Shot on his iPhone and a cheap DV camera and smuggled into France in a cake for a last-minute submission to Cannes, the film offers a humble, utterly compelling and visceral statement about creativity, freedom and civilization that should be seen by everyone.
  Followed by discussion with special guest speakers including Yassamine Mather (Hands Off The People of Iran) and special guest speakers about Iran, censorship and the campaign to free Jafar Panahi. Supported by NUJ Scotland.
  Region: North Africa/Middle East, Iran, Islamic Rep ofKey themes: historical profile, world-changing filmStrand:Wed 26 Sep, 6pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus discussion
  UK Premiere + panel discussion
  Walter Grotenhuis Netherlands 2010 89 mins
  Age group: not certified
  Journey from your local restaurant to Kenya via the Amazon rainforest and the Phillipines, to discover the twenty-first century social and environmental cost of your favourite meal.
  Thousands of us work with or simply enjoy diverse food. But while some parts of society push for more sustainable, local eating habits, the momentum in the world as a whole is very much in the opposite direction. This creative and engaging doc reveals the Indian tribes made homeless as huge tracts of rainforest are burned to grow Soya beans, the main food for the piglet and the growing agro-fuels industry. Meanwhile, local fishermen in Asia and subsistence farmers in Kenya struggle to come to terms with the industrial use of the same water their livelihoods depend on. The food on our plate says more than we know about who we are.
  Both screenings will be followed by panel discussions with leading food journalists and campaigners.In Edinburgh: Joanna Blythman (Radio 4, The Sunday Herald), Ryan McQuigg (Oxfam) and Christine Haigh (WDM). In Glasgow: Alex Renton (The Guardian, The Times) and Mike Small (The Fife Diet).
  Region: globalKey themes: environment (general), hunger/food issuesStrand:Green Shoots ENJOY YOUR MEALFri 30 Sep, 20:25Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Followed by discussion with Joanna Blythman (Radio 4, The Sunday Herald), Ryan McQuigg (Oxfam) and Christine Haigh (WDM).
  ENJOY YOUR MEALSat 1 Oct, 17:45Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose Street, G3 6RB
  Followed by discussion with Alex Renton (The Guardian, The Times) and Mike Small (The Fife Diet).
  Homegrown - cinema under the stars
  Self-sufficiency in the city? One family shows us how it's done.
  Key themes: climate change, empowerment/activism, youth/family friendly
  Age group: not certified
  Burning Ice
  Bike-powered, moonlit garden screening: celebs engage with climate change
  Key themes: climate change
  Age group: not certified
  The World Development Movement (WDM) tackles the underlying causes of poverty. We lobby decision makers to change the policies that keep people poor.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, empowerment/activism, globalisationPartner location: Scotland-wide, Edinburgh, Glasgow Oxfam Scotland works to improve the lives of the world's poorest people, both at home and abroad.
  Key themes: climate change, fair trade, health, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide Fri 30 Sep '' Sat 1 Oct
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event: Film screeningKey themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  UK Premiere plus discussion/activities - Edinburgh & Glasgow
  Kim Nguyen Canada 2012 90mins
  Age group: 15+
  UK Premiere / Best narrative feature, Tribeca 2012
  Beautiful imagery, humour and incredible acting from its young cast give the horrors of Kim Nguyen's acclaimed tale of child soldiers a poignancy and empathy absent in similar films. Preceded by discussion and activities contextualizing the issues for S5/S6.
  This is the story of Komona: a 14-year-old girl who has been kidnapped from her village to become a rebel. For over a year she is forced to take part in a war that seems to have no goal, until eventually she escapes with an older albino soldier. Together, at last, they experience the joys of a peaceful and loving life. But it cannot last. Before long fresh tragedy forces Komona to confront and fight the ghosts that have been haunting her.
  A gripping and elegiac love story about the evils that guns and poverty still write large across many countries, not only in Africa.
  Viewing guidance:Contains strong themes, including moderate violence suitable for 15+ audiences. In French with slow, readable English subtitles.
  Region: Southern AfricaKey themes: conflict/reconciliation, poverty (global)Strand:Please book for the following free schools' screenings by contacting the relevant venue box: Edinburgh Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, Glasgow Film Theatre0141 352 8613.
  Weds 26 Sept, 10amEdinburgh FilmhousePlus activities for S5/S6
  Tues 2 Oct, 10.15amGlasgow Film TheatrePlus activities for S5/S6
  Plus discussion - Edinburgh & Glasgow
  Kim Nguyen Canada 2012 90mins
  Age group: 15+
  Best narrative feature, Tribeca 2012"A genre benchmark and a breakout work for writer-director Kim Nguyen"The Hollywood Reporter
  Beautiful imagery, humour and incredible acting from its young cast give the horrors of Kim Nguyen's uncompromising tale of child soldiers a poignancy and empathy absent in similar films. This is the story of Komona: a 14-year-old girl in a conflict ravaged African state who has been kidnapped from her village to become a rebel. For over a year she is forced to take narcotics and kill in a war that seems to have no goal, until eventually she escapes with an older albino soldier. Together, at last, they experience the joys of a peaceful and loving life. But it cannot last. Before long fresh tragedy forces Komona to confront and fight the ghosts that have been haunting her. A gripping and elegiac love story about the evils that guns and poverty still write large across many countries, not only in Africa.
  Both screenings will be followed by discussions. We hope to be joined by Kenny McAskill, Minister for Justice (Edinburgh only), as well as Jamie Livingstone (Campaigns Manager, Oxfam).
  We are also running school screenings of this film in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Click here for details.
  Region: Southern AfricaKey themes: conflict/reconciliation, poverty (global)Strand:Please book for the following shows using the links below, or telephone the relevant venue box office: Edinburgh Filmhouse 0131 228 2688, Glasgow Film Theatre 0141 332 6535.
  Tues 2 Oct, 5.45pmGlasgow Film TheatrePlus discussion
  Wed 3 Oct, 8.20pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus discussion
  Plus discussion with BBC3's Jolyon Rubenstein and guests - Edinburgh only
  Karin Hayes & Victoria Bruce USA 2012 81mins
  Age group: 12+
  Official selection, Sundance 2012
  We're Not Brokeis the globally resonant story of the financial crisis in America, the lobbyists who sought to capitalize on it, and the campaign movements that are opposing it. With the world in the grip of the worst recession since the Great Depression, the conclusion that massive public spending cuts are inevitable seems unquestionable. But is that the whole story? This searing expos(C) reveals the infuriating facts that brand name corporations are trying to hide: not least their secreting away trillions of dollars in taxation and relationships with government that, according to the filmmakers, are directly responsible for the middle class shrinking and the poor getting poorer.
  We are delighted to welcome Jolyon Rubenstein, star of BBC3's new political satire The Revolution Will Be Televised, for discussion after this screening alongside Dave Watson (Scottish Organiser, UNISON) and Paul Brannen (Christian Aid).
  Region: Europe, USAKey themes: corporate responsibility, democracy/political systemsStrand:Tues 2 Oct, 8.30pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus discussion
  Scottish Premiere plus director Q&A
  Nick and Marc Francis UK 2010 74 mins
  Age group: 12+
  "A rare grass-roots view into one of the most important economic developments of the age"The Times
  A historic gathering of over 50 African heads of state in Beijing reverberates in Zambia where the lives of three characters unfold in this new film from the makers of one of the world's most widely seen documentaries, Black Gold.Mr Liu is one of thousands of Chinese entrepreneurs who have settled across the continent in search of new opportunities. he has just bought his fourth farm and business is booming. in northern Zambia, Mr Li, a project manager for a multinational Chinese company is upgrading Zambia's longest road. Pressure to complete the road on time intensifies when funds from the Zambian government start running out. Meanwhile Zambia's Trade Minister is on route to China to secure millions of dollars of investment... But on what terms? Through the intimate portrayal of these characters, the expanding footprint of a rising global power is laid bare '' pointing to a radically different future, not just for africa, but also for the world.
  These screenings will be followed by Q&As with director Marc francis, named a ''Rising Star'' by The Observer and Harper's Bazaar Magazine, and from Zambia, good governance campaigner Sheila Kambobe. Also in Edinburgh Natascha Gentz, director of the Confucius institute for Scottish-Chinese relations.
  Region: Southern AfricaKey themes: corporate responsibility, democracy/political systems, international developmentStrand:Land and Freedom Faces of Change WHEN CHINA MET AFRICASun 25 Sept, 15:15Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose Street, G3 6RBFollowed by Q&A with director Marc francis, named a ''Rising Star'' by The Observer and Harper's Bazaar Magazine, and from Zambia, good governance campaigner Sheila Kambobe.
  WHEN CHINA MET AFRICASun 25 Sept, 20:30Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by Q&A with director Marc francis, named a ''Rising Star'' by The Observer and Harper's Bazaar Magazine; from Zambia, good governance campaigner Sheila Kambobe; and Natascha Gentz, director of the Confucius institute for Scottish-Chinese relations.
  Our Generation
  Groundbreaking documentary igninitng a people power movement across Australia
  Key themes: empowerment/activism, environment (general), world-changing film
  Age group: 15+
  SCIAF, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, is the official aid and development agency of the Catholic Church in Scotland, working in 16 countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America to support the poorest people.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, HIV and AIDS, trade/economic justicePartner location: Scotland-wide, Glasgow NIDOS is a network of international development organisations based in Scotland. We aim to strengthen the contribution of Scottish organisations to reducing inequality and poverty worldwide.
  Key themes: human rights, international development, poverty (global)Partner location: Scotland-wide, Edinburgh Sun 25 Sep
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Upgrade! seminar: social media activism
  60mins
  Age group:
  Social media was largely credited for much of the mobilsation in the Arab Spring. The internet has changed the boundaries of media reporting, as evidenced by Wikileaks, and of film production and distribution. E-campaigning groups in the UK like 38 Degrees and Avaaz are reaching millions with quick-fire actions and debate. And governments are trying to engage with online pressure groups through ePetitions.
  But where's it going? How is it changing how we think about the world and take responsibility for the issues that effect us, and others? What are the downsides? And what support and resource is there in Scotland to go further?
  At this special, free 1hour event Take One Action is delighted to be joined by campaigners, journalists, artists and online gurus setting the scene of this major global culture change - before we open up the debate for audience questions and ideas. This event is an Upgrade! seminar part of the Inspace season: Remediating the Social.
  About our contributors:ALEX RENTON has been a campaigns director at Avaaz - a global civic organisation operating in almost 200 countries promoting activism to "close the gap between the world we have and the world most people want". Alex is also an award-winning journalist (The Guardian, The Times) specialising in a range of global issues including food culture, poverty and development across the world.
  LILIA WESLATY is a Tunisian journallist and campaigner and a key actor at the epicentre of the Arab Spring. She works with the multi-award-winning organisation Nawaat - an independent collective blogging platform for debate and dissident voices, bridging the gap between social media activism and more traditional protest movements. Lilia features in the film Zero Silence, showing in Inspace later on the 4th October (starting 7.30pm) - book tickets here.
  JOE TREE is the founder of Blipfoto - the BAFTA-winning social networking site for people who don't like social networking! The site started life as a personal-photo-a-day-journal and is now an online community connecting people in over 160 countries, inspiring creativity and - according to it's founder, a former TEDx speaker - "nurtures real and positive change".
  We also hope to be joined by Jolyon Rubinstein and Heydon Prowse, the stars of BBC3's acclaimed new comedy show The Revolution Will Be Televised.
  What a great line-up! We're looking forward to hearing more... from Alex, Lilia, Joe, Jolyon, Heydon - and you!
  DON'T MISS: Zero Silence: 7.30pm, InspaceWhy not grab some food from the Mosque Kitchen and return for our screening of Arab Spring/social media movie Zero Silence at 7.30pm - will include discussion with Lilia Weslaty (see above) and David Pratt (Foreign Editor, The Herald)
  Region: globalKey themes: empowerment/activismStrand:Thu 4 Oct 5:30pm,Inspace, Edinburgh University1 Crichton Street, EH8 9AB
  Scottish Premiere, plus discussion - Edinburgh only
  Patrick Forbes Germany, UK 2011 75mins
  Age group: 12+
  Official selection SXSW 2012''Thought-provoking and adroitly constructed"Variety
  The definitive account of the 'wiki-saga', featuring the first major interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who at the time of press is still awaiting the outcome of the events described in this extraordinary film under the protection of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Award-winning film-maker Patrick Forbes goes behind the headlines, exclusively meeting the global actors at the heart of stories that shook first the US and then the world. Sulphurous, personal and moving, it documents history in the making and the problematic frontier between new technology and traditional journalism.
  We are delighted to welcome director Patrick Forbes and Sunday Herald journalist Rob Edwards for discussion as part of this event about Wikileaks and the ethics of public interest disclosure in a new media age.
  Whistleblower Night: ticket dealWikileaks: secrets and lies is followed by a special screening of The Whistleblower starring Rachel Weisz about European sex trafficking. Whistleblowing been protected in UK law since 1998. These two true-life stories that shook the world explore the rights and wrongs of a powerful tool for social change. Buy a joint ticket for both events for just £10/£8 when booked together through the Filmhouse Box Office. To book separately, follow the link below.
  Region: global, United KingdomKey themes: historical profile, media issuesStrand:Sun 30 Sept, 5.40pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus discussion
  Sat 10 Mar
  Event location: AberdeenOrganised by This event is in collaboration with the University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Women's Alliance, Grampian Women's Aid, Grays' School of Art, Belmont Picturehouse and the local performance artist Merlyn Riggs.
  To celebrate International Women's Day in Aberdeen this year we will be screening 'Women Art Revolution' (2010). For over forty years, director Lynn Hershman Leeson has collected hundreds of hours of interviews with visionary artists, historians, curators and critics who shaped the beliefs and values of the Feminist Art Movement and reveal previously undocumented strategies used to politicize female artists and integrate women into art structures. This will be followed by a series of academic talks, live debate, dance, music and comedy performances from 4pm at the Bar Below in the Belmont.
  Type of event: OtherKey themes: gender and powerAge group: not certifiedFull event address: Belmont Picturehouse, 49 Belmont Street, AberdeenEvent website address:www.facebook.com/events/329846143726744/
  Tickets to the screening itself will be £5. Tickets will be available for purchase from the Belmont Picturehouse or on their website www.picturehouses.co.uk/cinema/Belmont_Picturehouse/Whats_On/All/Date_10_3_2012/ . Attendance for non-ticket holders to the talks and performances in the Bar Below is free but spaces may be limited. Arrive by 4pm to avoid disappointment.
  Discussion, action workshops, scrummy homebakes
  14:00 - 21:00
  Age group: 15+
  Standing with the billion people now classified as hungry, millions are starting to ask what needs to change. Drawing on ideas generated by the film events in this programme, join this short discussion with award-winning food journalist and campaigner Alex Renton (The Guardian, The Times) followed by a choice of practical workshops asking: what can I celebrate, learn from and take forward here in Edinburgh to support a better food system for everyone?
  With workshops on G8 action, community gardening and transforming the city's food culture, this is a simple opportunity to make stronger connections into the stories you are already part of. What seeds will you take away?
  Precedes The Fruit Hunters - UK Preview.
  Region: global, ScotlandKey themes: empowerment/activism, hunger/food issuesStrand:SUN 2 JUNE 2pm to 5pmSt John's Episcopal Hall, Princes St(right of main church door)
  Food, music, talks, workshops and stalls
  Afternoon Event 3hrs
  Age group: all ages
  Join Take one Action, Leith World Kitchen, Out of the Blue, Oxfam Scotland and The World Development Movement, plus a host of local food projects and eat your way to a better world in honour of October 16th, World Food Day.
  Coupled with talks, workshops and live music, this special meal will also provide an opportunity to consider how sustainable our global food system really is.
  Explore the impacts of international politics and economics on the food supplies and health of people in Scotland and around the world. And discover what you can do to make a difference: through how you shop, grow-your-own and take action in solidarity with a billion people around the world.
  Region: globalKey themes: climate change, empowerment/activism, hunger/food issuesStrand:Green Shoots In association withWorld Development Movement, Oxfam, Transition Edinburgh South, Out of the BlueFree entry. World food buffet £5 on the door. No need to register in advance. Please be aware that the food is first come first served.
  WORLD FOOD DAYSun 16, 12:15 - 16:30Out of the Blue 36 Dalmeny Street EH6 8RG
  UK Premiere - Enjoy Your Meal
  Where does your food come from and what could it mean for the planet?
  Key themes: environment (general), hunger/food issues
  Age group: not certified
  The World Development Movement (WDM) tackles the underlying causes of poverty. We lobby decision makers to change the policies that keep people poor.
  Key themes: climate change, corporate responsibility, empowerment/activism, globalisationPartner location: Scotland-wide, Edinburgh, Glasgow Oxfam Scotland works to improve the lives of the world's poorest people, both at home and abroad.
  Key themes: climate change, fair trade, health, poverty (global)Partner location: UK-wide Sun 16 Oct
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event: Social eventKey themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Exhibition private-view with cycle-powered movie premiere
  Ben Evans USA 2011 Movie: 121mins
  Age group: 12+
  Private-view of Hard Rain: What Scotland is Doing exhibition followed by a cycle-powered UK Premiere screening of YERT: Your Environmental Road Trip.
  A very special Take One Action evening in celebration of our year of Green Shoots Action and WWF Earth Hour.
  YERT: Your Environmental Road Trip. 50 States. 1 Year. Zero Garbage? Called to action by a planet in peril, three friends hit the road - traveling with hope, humour, and all of their garbage - to explore every state in America (the good, the bad...and the weird) in search of the extraordinary innovators and citizens who are tackling humanity's greatest environmental crises.
  Please arrive promptly at 6.30pm at the John Hope Gateway (West Gate), Arboretum Place. Be prepared for the weather and dress warmly.
  The event is step-free. A limited number of wheelchairs are available on site, if possible please contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or 01315 536 335 to inform us of your needs in advance.
  Presented by Take One Action, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, and the Woodcraft Folk's Geurilla Cinema.
  Region:Key themes: climate changeStrand:Green Shoots Fri 30 Mar, 18:30
  Royal Botanic Garden, John Hope Gateway (West Gate), Arboretum Place, Edinburgh
  Exclusive UK preview plus director Q&A
  Anthony Baxter UK 2011 95 mins
  Age group: 12A cert
  ''A runaway success"The Times "A shattering expose"The Toronto Star
  Funny, inspiring and shocking in equal measure, this gripping feature doc charts the arrival and conquest of donald trump's golf course and hotel development project in an area of Special Scientific interest on Scotland's Aberdeenshire coast.
  When first proposed, the billionaire's planning application is decisively rejected by the local authority. But in an unprecedented move the Scottish Government overturns the decision and gives the project the go-ahead '' arguing the case for economic development and inward investment. From this point on, the stage is set for an extraordinary summer of discontent, as the bulldozers spring into action, water gets shut off and the police descend on the home owners who, in direct homage to Local Hero, refuse to sell their land. With an stunning score by Sigor ros frontman Jonsi, this is a rare and revealing glimpse into absolute power on Scottish soil that raises the enormous question: whose rules rule in Scotland today?
  Both screenings will be followed by a Q&A with director Anthony Baxter. Introduced in Edinburgh with an exclusive orginal performance by Karine Polwart ("exceptionally subtle and melodic" Q Magazine)
  Region: ScotlandKey themes: corporate responsibility, environment (general), world-changing filmStrand:Green Shoots Land and Freedom YOU'VE BEEN TRUMPEDFri 30 Sept, 17:45Glasgow Film Theatre, 12 Rose Street, G3 6RBFollowed by Q&A with director Anthony Baxter
  YOU'VE BEEN TRUMPED
  Sun 2 Oct, 20:20
  Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Introduced with an exclusive orginal performance by Karine Polwart and followed by Q&A with director Anthony Baxter
  Our Generation
  Groundbreaking documentary igninitng a people power movement across Australia
  Key themes: empowerment/activism, environment (general), world-changing film
  Age group: 15+
  The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) protects and promotes journalists and journalism reporting across our world.
  Key themes: corporate responsibility, media issues, Mid East/Isr-Palestine, work/labour, world-changing filmPartner location: Scotland-wide, Glasgow Fri 30 Sep '' Sun 2 Oct
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event:Key themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Special screening plus panel discussion and director Q&A
  Anthony Baxter UK 2011 95 mins
  Age group: 12+
  ''A runaway success" The Times "A shattering expose" The Toronto Star
  Funny, inspiring and shocking in equal measure, this gripping feature doc charts the arrival and conquest of Donald Trump's golf course and hotel development project in an area of Special Scientific interest on Scotland's Aberdeenshire coast.
  When first proposed, the billionaire's planning application is decisively rejected by the local authority. But in an unprecedented move the Scottish Government overturns the decision and gives the project the go-ahead '' arguing the case for economic development and inward investment. From this point on, the stage is set for an extraordinary summer of discontent, as the bulldozers spring into action, water gets shut off and the police descend on the home owners who, in direct homage to Local Hero, refuse to sell their land. With an stunning score by Sigur Ros frontman Jonsi, this is a rare and revealing glimpse into absolute power on Scottish soil that raises the enormous question: whose rules rule in Scotland today?
  This screenings will be followed by a Q&A with director Anthony Baxter, and a panel discussion about the issues raised in the film.
  Region: ScotlandKey themes: corporate responsibility, environment (general), Scotland, world-changing filmStrand:Green Shoots Land and Freedom YOU'VE BEEN TRUMPEDFri 18 Nov, 20:15Edinburgh Filmhouse, 88 Lotahian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZFollowed by panel discussion and Q&A with director Anthony Baxter
  Edinburgh's year-round hub for independent cinema, including Take One Action and the Edinburgh International Film Festival
  Key themes: cult classics, Scotland, world-changing filmPartner location: Edinburgh Fri 18 Nov
  Event location: n/aOrganised by n/a
  n/a
  Type of event: Film screeningKey themes: corporate responsibilityAge group: not certifiedFull event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  n/a
  Scottish Premiere/Bike-powered (Glasgow only); also at Edinburgh Inspace
  Javeria Rizvi Kabani, Alexandra Sandels Sweden 2011 57mins
  Age group: 15+
  "as relevant to the west as it is to the Arab Spring"Sheffield Doc/Fest, Official Selection
  Balanced, inspiring and beautifully filmed, Zero Silence presents portraits of six young people from Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria who have taken to the streets, the airwaves and the internet since the start of 2011 to fight for change in their societies. Female activist Lilia walks us through downtown Tunisia, sharing memories of the single act of protest that started all the others. In Egypt, journalists, musicians and artists cast light on the critical role of underground media in Mubarak's fall. In Lebanon, we hear of a movement that is rising above religious divisions with the purpose of ending them. As the film points towards a new battle beginning to raging in Syria, it powerfully reminds us that political freedom must be the inheritance of this generation of Arab youth.
  We are delighted to welcome Lilia Weslaty at both screenings (pictured above) a Tunisian activist who features in the film, alongside David Pratt (Foreign Editor, The Herald) in Edinburgh, and other guests. Screened with support from Edinburgh Woodcraft Folk's Guerrilla Cinema.
  Interactive bike-powered screening(Glasgow only)Join us (and join in) in the underground as we pedal through the film at Glasgow's Glue Factory.
  Region: North Africa/Middle EastKey themes: empowerment/activism, historical profileStrand:Please book for the following shows using the links below. Tickets for are only available online in advance (£6/£4).
  Wed 3 Oct, 7.30pmThe Glue Factory, Glasgow22 Farnell Street, Garscube Industrial EstateMaryhill, G4 9SE
  Thu 4 Oct 7:30pm,Inspace, Edinburgh University1 Crichton Street, EH8 9AB
  Fringe Event
  Event time 1hr 15mins
  Age group: 12+
  ''The most powerful political activist for Burma living in Britain"The Daily Telegraph
  A unique opportunity to dialogue with one of the world's leading campaigners for human rights and democracy in Burma, 30 year-old author, TED fellow and exiled activist Zoya Phan.
  Aged just 14, Zoya Phan was forced to escape Burma during the military regime's brutal offensive against the Karen people. She spent her teenage years in refugee camps on the Thai-Burmese border before coming to England in 2005 to study.
  The daughter of ...the General Secretary of the Karen National Union, Zoya was politically active at an early age, and soon joined the staff of the UK Burma Campaign where she became the movement's outspoken advocate for greater international pressure and sanctions on the Burmese regime: a message she has taken to Downing Street and the airwaves with gusto.
  In 2009, Zoya published her memoir of Burma, Little Daughter, and was in the same year awarded an honorary TED fellowship and Young Global Leader Award by the World Economic Forum.
  Buy a joint ticket for Zoya Phan in Conversation and Nargis: When Time Stopped Breathing for just £10 (£8 concessions) when booked together by phone or in person.
  Region: n/aKey themes: democracy/political systems, empowerment/activism, human rightsStrand:Land and Freedom Faces of Change ZOYA PHAN IN CONVERSATIONSat 1 Oct, 16:00 - 17:15Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ
  Nargis: When Time Stopped Breathing
  Witness one of the most hidden populations and devasting stories of modern times
  Key themes: climate change, democracy/political systems, historical profile
  Age group: 15+
  Clare Short in Conversation
  An opportunity to dialogue with one of the world's most outspoken poverty campaigners and one time key player in Blair's goverment.
  Key themes: consumerism, corporate responsibility, work/labour
  Age group: not certified
  Sat 1 Oct
  Event location: n/aOrganised by
  Type of event: TalkKey themes:Age group:Full event address: n/aEvent website address:n/a
  Scottish Premiere Edinburgh & Glasgow
  Omar Shargawi & Karim El Hakim Denmark 2011 72mins
  Age group: 15+
  Winner of Best Film at Al Jazeera Film Festival
  "A timely movie unlikely to lose its power anytime soon" Indiewire
  When waves of protests escalate outside their window during the first chaotic days of the Egyptian Revolution, directors Omar Shargawi and Karim El Hakim take to the streets to capture the extraordinary events unfolding around them. Overnight, as in countless other homes across the city, terror and excitement spill over into once safe havens and force them to choose between staying with the action and looking after their families. Perhaps the most powerfully immersive film to emerge from the Arab Spring, ½ Revolution was the deserving winner of Best Film at this year's Al Jazeera Film Festival. Followed by the short film Phone call from Cairo (Yiotis Vrantzas, Greece 2012).
  We are delighted to welcome award-winning director Omar Shargawi to Scotland for Q&As following this screening.
  Follow the link at the bottom of this page to book tickets for this event only.
  Ticket deals/related screeningsGlasgow: Preceded at GMAC by Global Encounters: shorts and workshop. Buy a joint ticket for both events for just £8/£6 at halfrevolution.eventbrite.com. We've left 60 minutes between these events so you can grab a quick bite or drink in the caf(C)-bar.
  Edinburgh: Preceded at Filmhouse by This Is Not A Film. Buy a joint ticket for both events for just £10/£8 when booked together through the Filmhouse Box Office. We've left 35 minutes between these events so you can grab a quick bite or drink in the Edinburgh Filmhouse caf(C)-bar.
  Region: North Africa/Middle East, EgyptKey themes: democracy/political systems, empowerment/activismStrand:Please book for the following shows using the links below. Tickets for the screening at GMAC Glasgow are only available online in advance. To book Edinburgh Filmhouse tickets over the phone telephone 0131 228 2688.
  Wed 26 Sept, 8.45pmEdinburgh FilmhousePlus director Q&A
  Thur 27 Sept, 6pmGlasgow Media Access CentreTrongate 103
Shadows of Liberty (Documentary 2012) - Cast & Crew - IMDb
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 05:11
  Dan Cantagalloco-producer
  Tony Tabatznikexecutive producer
  Jean-Philippe Tremblayproducer
  Go to: Movies | TV | Celebs | News | Charts | Showtimes & Tickets | Message Boards | Your Watchlist | Your Ratings | Your Check-ins | Road to the Oscars 2013Text: Small | Medium | LargeSign InView IMDb in: Mobile | DesktopFeedbackHelp & Terms | (C) 1990-2013 IMDb.com, Inc.
Commission Announces Revised Filing Thresholds for Clayton Act Antitrust Reviews; Following Review, Commission Decides to Retain the Amplifier Rule; FTC Approves Final Consent Orders in Cases Against Six Businesses That Claimed to Comply With an Internati
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:59
  For Your Information: 01/19/2010
  Commission Announces Revised Filing Thresholds for Clayton Act Antitrust Reviews
  The Federal Trade Commission, by a vote of 4-0, has approved a Federal Register notice announcing the revised thresholds for the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Antitrust Improvements Act, which requires premerger notification for certain large transactions. The FTC is required to revise the filing thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. Certain related thresholds and limitations in the HSR rules also are adjusted by this notice. This year, the threshold for reporting proposed mergers and acquisitions decreased from $65.2 million to $63.4 million. The additional revised thresholds, which can be found as a link to this press release and on the FTC's Web site, will apply to all transactions that close on or after the effective date of the notice. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will become effective 30 days after publication. (FTC File No. P859910; the staff contact is Michael Verne, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3100.)
  Also, by a vote of 4-0, the FTC has approved a Federal Register notice announcing the revised thresholds that trigger the prohibition on interlocking directorates under Section 8 of the Clayton Act. The Act requires that the Commission revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in the level of gross national product. The new thresholds are $25,841,000 for Section 8(a)(1) and $2,584,100 for Section 8(a)(2)(A). The notice announcing the revisions will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be effective upon publication. (FTC File No. P859910; the staff contact is James F. Mongoven, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2879.)
  Following Review, Commission Decides to Retain the Amplifier Rule
  The Federal Trade Commission announced it will retain an FTC rule put in place in 1974 to help consumers compare audio amplifiers by setting testing and disclosure standards for manufacturers. The FTC reached this decision after completing a periodic regulatory review. The Rule, formally called the ''Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products,'' and more commonly known as the Amplifier Rule, helps consumers compare the power outputs of competing amplifiers used in home entertainment products.
  As part of the review, the FTC considered whether the Rule should be modified to address methods of rating the power output of multichannel ''home theater'' amplifiers, sometimes marketed as ''surround sound.'' Based on the comments received, the FTC has determined not to amend the Rule. The FTC has, however, issued guidance concerning the testing requirements under the Rule for measuring power ratings of multichannel amplifiers.
  The FTC vote approving the Federal Register notice announcing the retention of the Amplifier Rule was 4-0. The notice can be found on the FTC's Web site and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. P974222; the staff contact is Jock K. Chung, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2984; see related press release dated February 22, 2008, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/02/amp.shtm.)
  FTC Approves Final Consent Orders in Cases Against Six Businesses That Claimed to Comply With an International Privacy Framework
  Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved final consent orders in the six matters concerning Collectify LLC; Progressive Gaitways, LLC; Onyx Graphics, Inc.; ExpatEdge Partners, LLC; Directors Desk LLC; and World Innovators, Inc. The staff also responded to members of the public who submitted comments in the Directors Desk and World Innovators matters. In each case, the final consent settles charges that the defendants falsely claimed to have complied with the Safe Harbor privacy framework that provides a means for U.S. companies to transfer data from the European Union to the United States, in keeping with EU and U.S. law.
  The FTC vote approving each final order was 4-0. (FTC File Nos. 092-3142, 092-3141, 092-3139, 092-3138, 092-3140, and 092-3137; the staff contact is Molly Crawford, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-3076; see press release dated October 6, 2009, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/safeharbor.shtm.)
  FTC Approves Final Consent Order in Matter Concerning Watson Pharmaceuticals and Arrow Pharmaceuticals
  Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final consent order regarding Watson Pharmaceuticals' recent acquisition of Arrow Pharmaceuticals. The final order settles charges that the transaction as it originally was proposed would have harmed consumers by eliminating future competition for important generic drugs used to treat Parkinson's disease and the side effects of chemotherapy.
  The FTC vote approving the final order was 3-0, with Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour not participating. (FTC File No. 091-0116; the staff contact is Stephanie C. Bovee, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2083. See press release dated December 2, 2009, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/watsonarrow.shtm.)
  Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.
  MEDIA CONTACT:Office of Public Affairs202-326-2180 (FYI 4.2010.wpd)
Anthony Tabatznik: Executive Profile & Biography - Businessweek
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:56
  August 19, 2013 12:56 AM ET
  PharmaceuticalsCompany Overview of Arrow Group ApSExecutive ProfileAgeTotal Calculated CompensationThis person is connected to 1 Board Members in 1 different organizations across 4 different industries.65--BackgroundMr. Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik, Tony is the Founder of The Generics Group Ltd. Mr. Tabatznik is the Founder of Robin Hood Holdings, Ltd. Mr. Tabatznik is a Founder of Arrow Group ApS and serves as its Chief Executive Officer. He founded Arrow Group Ltd. and served as its Chief Executive Officer. He serves as the Chairman of Merck Generics Ltd. He served as the Chairman of Generics (UK) Ltd. until December 1999. He serves as a Director of Merck Generics Group BV (Generics ...Group BV ) and Robin Hood Holdings Limited. Mr. Tabatznik served as a Director of Actavis, Inc. (formerly Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), since 2009 until January 24, 2013.
  Stock Quotes
  Market data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
  COMPETITOR COMPENSATIONThere is no Competitor Compensation data available.
  Sponsored Financial Commentaries
  Sponsored Links
Gaza | Rabbibrian's Blog
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:43
  We've just uploaded the transcript of Ta'anit Tzedek's recent rabbical conference call with Judge Richard Goldstone. As I wrote in my previous post this conversation with Judge Goldstone was extraordinary. He reflects on his growing up in South Africa under Apartheid, his reasons to take on this Fact Finding Mission in Gaza, and the evidence that led to the commission's determination that Israeli forces had intentionally targeted civilians in Gaza. This Shabbat/Sabbath we read about Noah who the Torah describes as a righteous person in his generation. Listening to the audio or reading the transcript, you will hear a decent human being explain how he has pursued righteousness in his life.
  See below for a cleaned up, very slightly edited version. You can also listen to an audio file of the entire interview here.
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Thank you very much indeed, Rabbi Walt. First, I'd like to thank you and Rabbi Rosen for having arranged this call. I'm deeply appreciative, and I say good evening to all of the people listening in. As Rabbi Walt suggested, I'm going to spend a few minutes just talking about where I've come from and say a few words about the Gaza mission.
  Firstly, as Rabbi Walt mentioned, I was born and grew up in South Africa. My parents were born in South Africa and my one grandmother was born in South Africa. The others came as very young children in the 1880s. And I grew up in a very typical upper middle-class white South African Jewish home. It was a Zionist home very much. My mother was very active in the Zionist movement from way back in the 1950s, before I was born. And that was the atmosphere in which I grew up. My parents opposed racial discrimination and apartheid but they were not activists at all, and I certainly met no black South Africans in my home. And indeed, until I went to university, to Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg, I'd met no black South Africans as peers. So I grew up with the prejudices that were dominant in the white South African community generally, and that applied pretty much to 95% of the Jewish community.
  The other point I'd make '' and I'm sure Rabbi Walt would agree '' I think the South African Jewish community is possibly unique, possibly not, but certainly in the South African Jewish community there's no split between being Jewish and being Zionist as the two go together and I think are pretty much the two sides of the same coin. And that was certainly my understanding of the position '' if one was Jewish, one was a Zionist and one supported Israel. And certainly I did that for my youngest days at university. I became, I think, the first chairman of the Younger [unintelligible] Association and then in 1966 I was recruited and became involved with World ORT. And that was my major commitment in Jewish life, to World ORT. I served for many years as the chairman of South African ORT. I joined the executive committee of World ORT [unintelligible] in 1967 and rose through the ranks to become President of World ORT for seven years. And at the end of that, I'm still the President Emeritus of World ORT.
  I don't believe that being Jewish has shaped my views particularly towards racism and racial oppression. As I mentioned, until I went to university I'd never met black South Africans and it was a watershed event for me. My first week at university was the first time in my life meeting black South Africans as equals, as peers, and striking up friendships and having lunch together in the university cafeteria. And I became angry and frustrated in that very first week at the inequity and unfairness of black students being equals on the campus but the minute they stepped off into the street they lived in a completely different world. They had to carry special ID documents, called passes. If they forgot them at home they were liable to be picked up and put in prison for the night. They went home to enforced segregated poorly developed black townships in Soweto, Alexandra Township. Many of them didn't have electricity. Many of them didn't have running water. And when I went home to a comfortable home in a white suburb with tarred roads and parks and electricity,they had to go to these very poor living conditions. And it was really in that first week that I became actively involved in the student anti-apartheid movement. And that, I think, shaped the rest of my adult career.
  I'd like to think that being Jewish played a role. I've certainly had difficulty in understanding how Jews who have been persecuted for over two millennia can themselves be in support at all of any form of irrelevant discrimination, whether on grounds of color or religion or race and so forth. And yet I suppose we all are products of our own homes and the overwhelming majority of South Africans, if they didn't actively support apartheid, certainly felt comfortable with it. And did very little to stop the racial oppression in South Africa.
  The question of collective punishment was raised by Rabbi Rosen in his introductory remarks and, again, one of the things that shocked me in coming to Gaza was to see how collective had been visited on the people of Gaza, and saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears the affect of the blockade. And I fully support the action that your movement is taking in that regard. I've been involved, as Rabbi Walt indicated, with investigating war crimes and serious crimes against humanity not only in my own country but in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda '' in Kosevo in particular. I was involved in investigations into the highest level of government when I joined Paul Volcker in the investigation into the United Nations Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. I have for five years now been a co-chair of the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute, and I co-sign letters just about every week protesting a human rights violation in many countries around the world, including China and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc. So it's been part of my adult life, and particularly in the last fifteen or twenty years, to be actively involved in this area and particularly with violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
  It was in that context that I found it difficult to reject a plea I received from the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, who is fellow South African I've known for at least the last twenty years. Initially, as is well know, I refused to become involved in the Gaza mission because I was not prepared to get involved with a mandate I considered not to be evenhanded, a mandate that suggested that only Israel had committed violations in the context of Operation Cast Lead. And I thought that was the end of it. But it wasn't, because I was asked to meet with the High Commissioner and, more importantly perhaps, the President of the Human Rights Council, who was then the Ambassador from Nigeria, who asked me what I would consider to be an evenhanded mandate. And I informed him I would consider an evenhanded mandate an investigation into all relevant violations in the context of Operation Cast Lead, whether committed before, during or after the military operations launched by the Israel Defense Force. And the mandate that I explained was given to me by the President of the Human Rights Council and he said, ''Well, if that's the mandate that you think is evenhanded it's my job to set up the fact-finding mission. That's the mandate I'll give you and I'm sure it will be accepted by the Human Rights Council.'' Well, I wasn't so sure about that, but in fact the President took it to a plenary meeting of the Human Rights Council and there was no objection to the expanded mandate. And I then discussed the mandate with the four sponsoring ambassadors, the four nations that sponsored the original resolution, and they had no objection.
  I think that explains why the Human Rights Council last week adopted the whole report. I was always nervous that the Human Rights Council might treat the repor as a sort of a-la-carte menu and approve those parts which were condemning of Israel and would reject those parts which were condemning of the Palestinians, whether Hamas or Fatah. But in fact, those of you who would have seen or read about the resolution know that it adopted the whole report, which obviously includes the findings of serious human violations and humanitarian law violations '' war crimes '' on the part of Hamas.
  It was a more difficult decision, I think, for me as a Jew to accept the leadership of the Commission. I knew there would be strong and negative opposition to my doing it on the part of members of the Jewish community and particularly the government of Israel and its supporters in Israel and the Diaspora. But I really felt that to live with myself and to live with my own conscience, I couldn't justify having gotten involved in the investigations in many other countries and because I was Jewish refuse to use the same norms and the same principles in relation to Israel.
  Let me say, to conclude this part, that I really did believe '' perhaps naively, in hindsight '' that the government of Israel would cooperate. I thought this was the first time that the Human Rights Council had ever given an evenhanded mandate in a matter relating to the Middle East. I thought this was a new direction '' and it is a new direction, but I thought that the government of Israel would see it in that light and would cooperate. Unfortunately, when I wanted to discuss this with the Israeli Ambassador in Geneva my overtures were rejected. I sent further letters asking for a reconsideration of the initial rejection on grounds that were incorrect. The first rejection was on the basis of the original mandate, which I had rejected.
  And I pointed out that that was incorrect and requested the Ambassador to bring this to the attention of his government. I then wrote a letter personally to Prime Minister Netanyahu, offering to come at short notice to meet with him or any members of his government who were relevant to discuss how the mandate should be approached. I requested their advice as to what incidents we should look into and their advice as to how our mission should implement the mandate. There was no response for almost two months, until I received a letter from the Israeli Ambassador in Geneva saying on his own behalf and on behalf of the Prime Minister '' and without reflecting on my own integrity and reputation '' the Israel government was not able to work with us, or to cooperate.
  So I think that's the sort of general background of where I was coming from and how I got involved.
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: Thank you, Judge Goldstone, so much, in particular for your comments in speaking personally as a South African Jew. I think towards the end we'd like to talk to you a little bit more to reflect on your experience in that regard. But we'd like to have our first set of questions really focus on the report itself, and in particular the methodology that you used to gather the information for the report. I think the first place that would probably be most helpful would be for us to hear you reflect a bit about how you gathered your information, and in particular how you verified the veracity of the information that you gathered. That was the subject of a number of questions that we received.
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, for any of you that have the report, the methodology we adopted is set out in some detail in paragraphs 151 to 174, beginning on Page 41 of the report. But in general '' let me first deal with Gaza. I'll deal separately with the West Bank and with Southern Israel, and I make the distinction because we were allowed to go to Gaza but we weren't allowed into Southern Israel and we weren't allowed into the West Bank because of the attitude of the Israeli government. But in respect to Gaza, we interviewed many people. We conducted roughly a hundred interviews in Gaza: with victims, with organizations, with the United Nations, agencies, and so forth. We saw many of the witnesses in the office we were given in the U.N, in the UNWRA offices. We saw many of the witnesses at their own homes and people from the area came to see us in their circumstances.
  Let me immediately refute with every conviction that I can muster the mischievous and untruthful suggestion that there was any Hamas presence anywhere near the places where we interviewed witnesses. It just isn't true. Had it been so, I would have found that completely unacceptable and would have immediately stopped the process. So that just didn't happen. The suggestion was made '' I see there's an Op-Ed in answer to an Op-Ed I've just published in the Jerusalem Post this morning in Israel on Monday suggesting that we were directed or influenced by Hamas in who we saw. Again, that is without any truth at all. We had our own independent staff. We had a staff of about sixteen, almost all lawyers. And in addition, we had interpreters obviously, from Arabic and from Hebrew. But our professional staff were '' very few, maybe two or three, came from the permanent staff of the High Commissioner's Office in Geneva. The other staff were recruited specially and came from about twelve countries, including Italy and the United Kingdom, Scotland and various other countries '' South America '' people really without any particular history or contract with the Middle East, but people who were experienced in investigations. Some of them had worked for the International War Crimes Tribunal, the International Criminal Court. And they spent some time in Gaza before we got there consulting and finding out what sort of incidents there were that we should consider looking into.
  And we were given a very long menu of incidents, from which we chose thirty-six. It could have been 136. We had a very limited timeline of two to three months to investigate. And we decided to choose those situations which appeared to us to be the most serious, where there were the highest fatalities and injuries, to investigate in situations which didn't appear to involve difficult decisions being taken by soldiers in what's being called ''the fog of war.'' We wanted to look at situations that appeared, on the face of it, clearly to involve attacks on civilians in situations that didn't appear to have any military justification. So obviously we chose what we wanted to look into, and that was the main guidelines on which we operated. We received documentation. We looked at thousands of pages of reports of other organizations. Because we got there fairly late '' by the time we got there, there were investigations by Amnesty International, by Humans Rights Watch, by the John Dugard's Arab League Report, and Ian Martin's [unintelligible] Report on behalf of the Board of Inquiry that was set up by the Secretary-General into attacks on the United Nations facilities.
  So we had a mass of written information, which we familiarized ourselves with. And we then started meeting witnesses, and obviously we asked questions of them. We inquired whether they had any Hamas connections. We obviously didn't take at face value answers we got '' we checked to the extent we could on the information we got. We tested it against information which some of the same people we saw had given previously. We checked for consistency. Obviously, all four members of the mission had had experience in this sort of activity and I think after having been a judge for twenty-three years I've got a pretty good idea of weighing up the veracity of people. I'm obviously not a psychologist, and mistakes can be made. But we certainly applied our best efforts in deciding on the credibility of witnesses we heard, the logical rationality of the information they gave us.
  In addition, we commissioned UNOSAT, which is the United Nations satellite facility, to give us a full satellite report, which is part of our report. It's a thirty-four page report with satellite photographs of Gaza before and after the Israeli Defense Force campaign. And we used that to corroborate or not corroborate a lot of the information we got with regard to damage.
  So that generally is the approach we took.
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: To follow up on the issue of the interviews and the veracity of the interviews, Ambassador Michael Oren has stated publicly that he believes the report is flawed because the only people interviewed were Palestinians and that the witnesses had to testify publicly, which meant they may well have been intimidated into providing false evidence. So how would you respond to such a claim?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, I reject the claim absolutely. The fact that we only spoke to Palestinians in Gaza speaks for itself. But even that is incorrect '' obviously the victims were Palestinian, but we spoke to many members of the international community in the United Nations and in the foreign few embassies [unintelligible] representation to journalists.
  And very importantly, we spoke to a number of really outstanding non-governmental organizations, both Palestinian and Israeli. I just have the highest regard and respect for some of the '' particularly, perhaps, the Israeli NGOs who have been involved in Gaza with tremendous courage and commitment. And obviously, a lot of the information we got from them was important. A lot of photographs '' a lot of photographic information, because these NGOs realized the importance of taking photographs immediately, actually during the war itself. And that provided important corroboration.
  To give you just one example, I was very distressed at some of the graffiti I saw that we were told had been written on the walls of destroyed or damaged homes by the Israeli Army, in Hebrew and in Russian. And one of the questions I asked our staff was: how do we know this wasn't put there afterwards as propaganda by the Hamas or Palestinians? And we were shown photographs taken really within very few hours of the damage being done, showing this graffiti on the wall. So it's that sort of corroboration that's very important.
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: I think for many people who don't understand how these kinds of investigations work, there's this sense or concern that you're only able to get to partial information '' that you're not able to get the whole picture. And I think it's important for people to understand that you're able to get the picture given the restrictions that exist during the investigations. To that point, Judge Goldstone, you were quoted recently as saying that you personally wouldn't be embarrassed if any of the allegations in your report eventually turn out to be disproved down the line. And some are suggesting that this means you may well be backing away from the findings in your missions report.
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, you know, I've read that. It's a complete, I suppose, misunderstanding. But certainly, it's a wrong understanding of what I was saying. We weren't conducting a judicial investigation, obviously. It wasn't even a quasi-judicial investigation. It was a fact-finding mission. We didn't make our findings according to the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We didn't adopt any formal standard, but I would say it was a prima facie case, reasonableness on weighing up the evidence.
  And in most of the incidents we had a look at, the evidence went all one way. But obviously, if there were a criminal investigation and if some of the allegations were found to be true were rejected by a court of law or not being proven beyond a reasonable doubt '' well, I would absolutely accept that and it wouldn't be surprising. The information we've got would not be admissible as evidence in a criminal court.
  I was in exactly the same position when I arrived at the Yugoslavia Tribunal. We had volumes of evidence and very strong findings made by an expert team on a fact finding mission that had been set up by the Security Council '' allegations, hundreds of allegations of rape and torture and murder in Bosnia and Herzegovina '' a very similar investigation to ours. We used that, as I mentioned in my interview with the Forward, as a roadmap '' which was very useful, to be able to know where to go to investigate. And I see our report being useful in the same way. I still very much hope that by an open and transparent domestic inquiry in Israel and in Gaza the findings we made in our report, I'm sure, will be very helpful to investigators. But if a court of law came to a different conclusion, I wouldn't have any problem about that.
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: Thank you. I want to now refer back to a comment you made in your introduction, vis- -vis the Human Right's Council's endorsement of the report last week. And maybe this is an opportunity for you to clear up a little bit of confusion. I believe it was quoted in your Forward interview, an interview you made with a Swiss newspaper in which you said that the HRC's endorsement of your report was unfortunate because it only included censure of Israel and not of Palestinians. But you said in your introduction that it included both. I wanted to make sure ''
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Let me explain what happened. I was at a conference in Berne in Switzerland, an annual conference organized by the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This was on Wednesday of this last week, and I was sent the then draft resolution that was being put before the Human Rights Council the next afternoon. And in fact, I got it early on Thursday morning, if I remember correctly. It could have been Wednesday night. But I was concerned, because I read a roughly thirty-six-paragraph resolution that was in three parts, and only one part '' Part B '' dealt with the report. And there wasn't a word in this resolution other than condemnation of Israel. I was concerned, and I'm still disappointed, that the resolution dealing with our report wasn't a separate resolution. I think it should have been. It shouldn't have been mixed in with condemnations about East Jerusalem and other matters that were not relevant to our report.
  But it was in that context that I spoke. At the conference I was on a plenary panel and also had a press conference with the Swiss media, and I said that I was saddened by the fact that the whole resolution only condemned Israel, where our report also condemned Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups.
  As a result of my complaint, the matter was taken up in Geneva. And it resulted in an additional paragraph being inserted into the section dealing with the report, condemning the targeting of any civilians and calling for accountability of all parties. And that was a clear reference to all sides. Even if it might not have gone as far as I would have liked, it seemed to me that that at least put into the resolution findings that involved both sides. So we're talking about, in fact, two different resolutions '' the original draft, which I objected to, and the resolution that ultimately went before the Council, which had the additional paragraph.
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: Well, thank you. That's helpful to clarify. Brian, would you like to take over?
  Rabbi Brian Walt: Judge Goldstone, I think we want to move to the second area of questions, and I'd like to ask you more about the substance of the report and particularly about this question of intention, which has become such a big issue. For Israelis and for many supporters of Israel, there is a legitimate conversation about how one wages a war and how mistakes can happen in a war where civilians are hurt, and especially in a war where it's between a nation state and a resistance group or what some people call terrorists. In your report, the report does go further and suggests some level of intentionality on the part of the IDF and I'd like you to elaborate on: what's the evidence that led you to this claim? What do you have to back up the claim?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, I think there are two aspects one must look at. The one is in respect of the intent to attack civilian targets in urban areas, in built-up areas. The example I've been giving, because it struck me particularly in a very hard way, was the mortar shelling of a mosque during a service. The mosque was full of worshippers in the combined morning and afternoon service. They were combined because of war and a mortar shell came through the front door of the mosque and killed fifteen people and injured many more. That clearly is unacceptable under any interpretation of the law of war. Now, the evidence by the Israel Defense Force in all the reports they put out '' and we studied them carefully '' is that they've got the sort of munitions and the technology that that doesn't happen in error. And in the absence of any explanation to justify it, we came to the conclusion '' certainly on the balance of probability '' that that was intentional.
  When we saw the terrible destruction Gaza, five thousand homes wholly or partially destroyed '' in fact, many more partially destroyed '' that's not by error. That's by design. The Parliament building, which was completely destroyed, the American school was completely destroyed '' these are civilian targets. It wasn't a mistake. The Israeli Defense Force doesn't do those things by error.
  And it's consistent with that approach that there was this terrible damage to the infrastructure of Gaza. On what basis does one plow up, bulldoze, fields '-- huge tracts of agricultural land? On what basis does one bomb the water works? On what basis does one destroy a large part of the egg-producing capacity of Gaza? Tens of thousands of chickens killed. On what basis does one destroy the only flour factory in Gaza? And so on.
  Now, all of those things were done intentionally. And there's certainly been no response '' our report has been out five weeks, over five weeks, and there's been no, no explanation of any of the events to which I've been referring.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: And do you draw a distinction, then, between the attacks on the infrastructure and the attacks on human life, or do you regard them as the same?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, it seems to me to be consistent '' there's one thread running through, and that was to punish the people of Gaza. It was a collective punishment. And I don't believe that sufficient distinction was made between civilians and combatants in that respect.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: So let me ask you about another question that has come up. These questions all have come from the rabbis and also from Rabbi Rosen and I collecting all those questions. This is a question that was submitted by a rabbi who's participating in the call, and it's the concern that the IDF claims that Hamas uses Gazan civilians as human shields in staged attacks from the midst of civilian areas '' from schools, from mosques '' and it goes directly to the question you just addressed, because the Israeli government claims that Hamas was hiding in these civilian structures. And furthermore, one of our questioners cited video evidence that has shown up on YouTube of Palestinians using rocket launchers from a school compound. Now, your report seems to suggest that you didn't find much indication of this.
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, the incidents we investigate '' that's true. And we said very clearly in our report that we didn't exclude that that may have happened in situations that we didn't investigate. So that certainly, as far as our report is concerned, is an open question. But certainly, as an international humanitarian lawyer '' and incidentally, the YouTube reference that was made '' we had a look at those photographs and other photographs we were sent. There's absolutely no basis on which one can say when those photographs were taken. So if that happened three or four years ago, that would have no relevance, obviously, to Operation Cast Lead.
  But to give you example, if three or four Hamas militants come onto a school ground, assuming they came onto the grounds of the American school in Gaza City and launched mortars from there and then ran away there's no basis '' there could be absolutely no justification for bombing and destroying the whole school. I obviously recognize the difficulty of fighting what's being called an asymmetric war '' a war between the Israel Defense Force on the one hand and non-state actors on the other. It's very difficult, especially in a built-up area like Gaza. But by the same token, the laws of war require that the principle of distinction that is fundamental to the law of war, the distinction between civilians and combatants, has to be taken into account.
  We investigated one situation, in fact, where homeowners that we consulted with described to us how two Hamas militants came with rocket launchers into their back garden, to their backyard, and were busy erecting the mortars. And the homeowner chased them out and said, ''Don't you dare do this from here. You're going to endanger us.'' And they left. But assuming that they had, at gunpoint, stopped being chased away and refused to be chased away and launched their mortars and then ran away I don't believe that any international lawyer would justify the bombing of the home of those civilians who objected to this happening.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: But the one way in which it doesn't seem completely irrelevant '' for instance, you say that the photographs don't have any relevance or that of course if someone came and then ran away it doesn't give justification to bomb the school. But it does in some way give some understanding as to how an army that's fighting that war could make a mistake or could attack a particularly civilian structure that has been used by armed forces, by non-state armed combatants.
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, of course mistakes can be made, as I say, in the fog of battle. But then it's a matter to put before an investigation.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: Right. And so you believe that what you found there is significant, is overwhelming evidence that you could safely say that this was not error, it was ''
  Judge Richard Goldstone: It was by design.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: By design.
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Correct.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: That's correct. Okay. And what you're saying now is that what you would recommend is an investigation to really investigate that claim and the incidents that you describe in the report and in other reports and have a judicial investigation eventually.
  Judge Richard Goldstone: That's correct. Now, I would add another dimension, which is very important. We didn't investigate because it wasn't our mandate and we didn't have the ability to investigate, on the assumption that these acts or any of them were deliberate, who was responsible. The question of individual guilt is a matter that seems to me to be calling out, crying out for investigation. Who gave the orders to bomb the American school? For what reason? I mean, we didn't investigate the American school, but I drove past it on a few occasions. And it seemed to me to be a strange incident because the American school, on my understanding and from what we were told, was an anathema to Hamas. The American school stood for the United States Imperialism, for not teaching Islam, and it was a sort of focal point of opposition on the part of Hamas. And frankly, I would love to know why the Israeli Defense Force decided to completely destroy the whole school. I mean, it's really razed to the ground.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: Thank you so much. To end this section '' I'm watching the time '' many people claim that the report focuses in an unbalanced way on Israel. And in one particular way there seems to be consensus, or a large body of opinion, that Hamas or the armed groups in Gaza will never launch an internal investigation. And on the other hand, Israel has in the past launched an internal investigation, and there is reason to hope that Israel could, if it chose to, launch such an investigation. Do you think there are any sanctions that can realistically be placed upon Hamas and do you believe there's any reasonable chance that they would carry out an internal investigation?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, I think if Israel carried out an internal investigation there would be huge pressure on Hamas to do the same. I think politically it would be difficult for them. The impression I got was that certainly some leaders of Hamas would like nothing more than to be recognized by the international community. They want to become part of negotiations and it seems to me from the cooperation that they indicated that certainly we got, in facilitating our visit to Gaza '' and obviously, we couldn't have come into Gaza if Hamas had said, ''We're not having you here.'' Obviously, our lives would have been in imminent danger from the minute we set foot into Gaza. It's the de facto government of the Gaza strip. So I think there would be tremendous pressure on them to do that. And I've been asked whether I thought that Hamas administration in Gaza is capable of an open and transparent investigation into the firing of rockets and mortars into Israel and, frankly, I don't know. All I know is that they do have an operating justice system. They have murder trials and they sentence people to be executed and they're caught, and there's a very active Palestinian bar. But if they're not then it's a matter, it seems to me, for the international community '' and particularly the United Nations '' to insist that the investigation in Gaza should be done locally but certainly with strong international assistance. There would be enough lawyers and judges in the Arab world to make it possible. It's a question of political will, not a question of ability.
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: Judge Goldstone, if I might, just one final question about the substance of the report '' this is reference something you mentioned earlier in reference to Israeli actions against Palestinians in occupied territory other than Gaza, namely the West Bank. The question is: if this was really a report focusing on potential war crimes during the period of Cast Lead, what would the relevance be in focusing any attention on Israeli actions in the West Bank?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, the mandate related to violations in the context of Operation Cast Lead. For example, one of the areas we looked at were actions taken by Fatah, by the Palestinian authority, to put down pro-Hamas demonstrations during Operation Cast Lead. The assassination of Hamas members on the West Bank, the detention and torture of Hamas or perceived Hamas members '' this reached a crescendo during Operation Cast Lead and were clearly human rights violations that were associated with it.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: So, Brant, can we move on to the next set?
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: Yes, absolutely.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: We have one mass set and then some final questions. The last set focuses more on what you started with, which was so moving, your description about how you were asked ''I didn't actually put this all together, that the person who asked you originally was herself South African, and then Nigerian '' and the wrestling inside yourself about how you, as a Jew, speak out about Sri Lanka and China and all other countries in the world. And you were being asked to do something that challenging, which was about a country with which you had particular connection as a Jew.
  We have several questions about this from the participants in this call, and I will just read you one that came to me. Do you think the fact that you are Jewish played any role in you being chosen to head the Commission? Did your Jewish identity play any role in your own experience of the investigation or writing the report? You answered that fully in the first part. But some people have criticized you for allowing yourself to be used, if in fact you were chosen to head the Commission partly because you were Jewish. There are people who are critical of you for having allowed yourself to be used by the United Nations as a Jew to help to do this investigation about Israel, and thus giving them cover. What do you say to such criticism?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, I reject that completely. I don't believe I was chosen to lead the mission because I'm Jewish at all. Firstly, I wasn't the first person approached. I happen to have been the first person that insisted on and managed to get an evenhanded mandate. But I was chosen obviously because of the experience I've had with investigating war crimes. This was the reason. And my Jewishness obviously would have been taken into consideration by the President of the Human Rights Council, whose decision it was. But certainly, being Jewish, I would have imagined '' if I were in his position '' would have been more negative than positive. I think I would have been, if I were in his shoes, concerned '' as I'm sure he must have been, and as I was '' that being Jewish would make me unacceptable to the Palestinians. And the immediate reaction from Hamas was a negative one. One senior Hamas member rejected the mission because it was being headed by a Jew. So the suggestion that I was, as it were, co-opted to '' being misused or manipulated, I really can't accept at all.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: I wanted to ask: as a committed Jew, were you surprised by what you saw in Gaza? In what way did it differ from what you expected, and has it affected the way you think about Jews in Israel?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, certainly I was shocked. I've been shocked twice in my life in that context. The first was my first visit to Sarajevo after I became the prosecutor of the Yugoslavia Tribunal, where I'd read many reports about the damage done to Sarajevo and the bombing of mosques and so on. I'd seen video films of it but I wasn't prepared for what I saw when I was flown over it in a helicopter during the war. It was a really dangerous trip, but I couldn't believe mile after mile of absolute destruction. And it came back to me on the visit to Gaza, because one can't drive a block in Gaza City or in Rafah or any of the other areas without seeing destroyed buildings, without seeing people living in makeshift tents. Because this is the one shocking aspect, as far as I'm concerned, and that is that the thousands and thousands of homes that have been destroyed are still in the condition they were at the time of Operation Cast Lead some six months before we went there because no rebuilding can be done because of the blockade and no building materials are allowed in. So it was the extent of the destruction that shocked me.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: And how has that affected the way you -
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, you know, it hasn't obviously affected my attitude to Israel. My love for Israel remains unaffected. I'm critical of the Israeli government. I'm critical of the leaders of the Israel Defense Force. I understand the position of the foot soldiers. They take instructions and pretty much are affected by the philosophy that is applied to them.
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: To the extent that you're comfortable talking about this, the intense personal criticism that you're receiving now from Israel, from American Jews, and even perhaps from South Africans as well '' could you reflect a little bit about how that affected you, if you expected this response, and how you understand the intensity of this attack?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, certainly I expected criticism. But I didn't expect the venom and the personal, what I consider really to be unfair, attacks. It's saddened me. It's upset me. It's the sort of thing that keeps me awake at night '' and not only for myself, but even more for my family because this obviously has had a tremendous affect on them. They live in Jewish communities; one in South Africa and one in Canada, and this obviously has a very serious affect on them.
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: Is this the first time you've experienced something in this regard?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: No, no, it's not, not at all. I went through a very similar situation when I was investigating violence in South Africa, with huge criticism from many people in the white community '' and in the Jewish community, who thought that what I was doing was unnecessary: why should a Jew get involved in these things? And that was still during the apartheid or towards the end of the apartheid era. So there were also '' I got typed letters and there were letters to newspapers criticizing me for doing this, not so much as a Jew but as a white South African.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: And do you understand that, Judge Goldstone, to be somewhat similar in structure in that you were then being criticized because you were breaking with your racial group ''
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Breaking ranks '' absolutely.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: '' and now you're breaking rank with your tribe, with your people, the Jewish people?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Absolutely. And one's treated as a sort of traitor.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: But that somehow your commitment to '' not somehow, but your commitment to a universal ethic of human rights transcends those?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, absolutely. And this is why I admire what you're doing, because I think as rabbis it's very important to have that commitment to morality and to the norms '' certainly I'm not an expert on Judaism or Judaic philosophy, but certainly I've grown up to believe that the Jewish tradition is a highly moral system and certainly one that recognizes the humanity of all people.
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: You know, as Rabbi Walt and I have talked about this with one another, one of the things that occurs to us as rabbis is that there are these two Jewish values that often feel in conflict. One is this notion '' Kol Yisrael arevim zeba'ze''' '' that, you know, we have a responsibility to our tribe, to our people. And on the other hand, there's a very central Jewish value of Divine image and are worthy of dignity and justice. And how we as Jews work out that tension, I think, is very important. I'd love to hear if you have any thoughts about this '' in your work, both as someone who's a committed Jew but also someone who is committed to universal human rights, if you feel that tension as well.
  Judge Richard Goldstone: I understand that. But I think at the end of it, one's got to have one's own moral '' one has one's own moral norms. And certainly, I hope that they're consistent with Jewish ethics and Jewish teaching.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: We want to honor your timeframe. You gave us an hour and we're extending it a little bit and we're almost at the end, so I really appreciate you spending the time with us. If we can just go on a little bit with some final questions, is that all right with you?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Yes, absolutely.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: Thank you. These are some final questions. A question was submitted to us by a rabbi who notes that it was submitted by his grandson, who's a student in international relations at Johns Hopkins and asked him to pose the question: how do you think your report, with its harsh condemnation of Israel for responding militarily to rocket attacks from an evacuated territory, affects the likelihood that the Israeli public would be willing to risk further withdrawals from any place in Palestine?
  And Israel has warned, the Israeli government has warned, along the way that acceptance of your report will damage '' I'm now going beyond the question. Israel has warned that acceptance of your report will damage the peace process. How do you respond to this charge, and how do you understand the connectionb etween the pursuit of peace and human rights?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Well, firstly, I really strongly believe '' and it's not just a fancy phrase '' I really do believe that there can't be any enduring or lasting peace without justice. I think you're not going to get peace before victims are acknowledged '' victims on all sides. I think that the victims of Southern Israel need acknowledgement. The evidence that was given to us in Geneva and the telephone calls '' many phone calls were made by our staff to victims and people in Southern Israel to get their views. And we took advice as to whom we should speak '' they were community leaders. It's very important for them to get that acknowledgement. And it's saddened me that Israel has completely downgraded to the point of ignoring, I think, a pretty full treatment of the victimization and the terror caused by thousands of rockets and mortars to the people of Sderot and Ashkelon and other parts of Southern Israel. I think the people there need that acknowledgement. They've suffered grievously. Their children are in fear and terror every day of hearing air raid sirens giving them less than forty-five seconds to get into shelters. You know, it's really amazing that the death toll in Southern Israel has been as low as it is. It's pure happenstance and luck. If one of those rockets had hit a kindergarten during school hours, the death toll could have been in hundreds.
  So it's really important, and I don't believe that you can really have a lasting peace until these things have been put on the table, looked at, investigated, opened, the people responsible being prosecuted or a form of truth and reconciliation commission, as we had in South Africa '' it needs to be done officially. And you can't brush it under the table. You may get a ceasefire, but you're not going to get peace. And that's my firm belief from the experience I've had in South Africa and Yugoslavia and Rwanda and what I've read about and seen in Chile and other countries around the world.
  As far as the Israeli public is concerned and stopping the occupation, this was a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. So it wasn't done in pursuance of a peace negotiation or a peace treaty '' it was driven by the politics of the situation. It wasn't done out of any motive of giving freedom or recognizing the right of self determination for the people in Gaza at all. It had the effect of splitting Gaza from the West Bank and it was seen for what it was, a political maneuver. And if anybody thought that was going to bring peace and quiet from Gaza, obviously it wasn't. And I don't believe that there was ever any chance of that.
  And as far as the Israeli government's attitude to our report inhibiting the peace process '' I mean, this is a shallow and I believe false allegation. What peace process are they talking about? There isn't one. The Israeli Foreign Minister doesn't want one '' at all. The whole question over one state or a two-state solution '' you know, what peace process are they talking about that is going to be impeded?
  Rabbi Brian Walt: What do you think now are the possible scenarios of what will happen over the next six months regarding the report and what do you think would be the ideal scenario over the next six months?
  Judge Richard Goldstone: You know, I hate being a prophet. I don't have a crystal ball that I can trust. But certainly, it's my hope '' if you ask me what I hope will happen, it's certainly domestic inquiries in Israel and in Gaza. There seem to be more calls for inquiries coming from Israel, and I see one of the Kadima members of the Knesset has called for an inquiry today. And I just published an Op Ed in the Jerusalem Post, as I mentioned, and there's already a response from Allen Baker, formerly of the Foreign Office '' who is, not surprisingly, highly critical of me, but ends off by also suggesting that there should be an inquiry, an investigation, in Israel.
  If the Israeli government set up an appropriate open investigation, it would really be the end of the matter. That's where the report would end as far as Israel is concerned, certainly with respect to most of the recommendations we've made. The other recommendations I think should go forward. There are questions that we looked at of environmental damage done by Operation Cast Lead, and we believe that should be looked at by appropriate United Nations experts. And it's not only environmental damage to Gaza but also to Southern Israel, so Israel has got an interest in it. But certainly, the heart of the report would become pretty irrelevant if there were a bona fide open investigation.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: I want to just thank you. Brant, I think we're at that point, right?
  Rabbi Brant Rosen: Yes.
  Rabbi Brian Walt: I want to thank you so much, Judge Goldstone, for spending this time with us. I'd like to ask the people on the call to stay on the call. We have a few things we still want to cover about what we are going to do in relationship to this call. But I just want to say that for all of us it is such a gift. There are people on the call that are part of Taa'nit Tzedek, there are people who are not, there are people of different points of view on the call, and our intention was exactly what happened tonight '' just to hear directly from you about your thinking about this and the values that informed you. And also the facts of the matter, because in the controversy there are a lot of charges being made that aren't necessarily true. And I can't thank you enough for your generosity in giving time to Taa'nit Tzedek and to our cosponsors and to the rabbis on this call.
  Obviously we, as rabbis, are charged with being moral leaders of the Jewish people. And I know you along the way said you're not an expert in Judaic ethics and so on. I must say I disagree '-- I think you're an embodiment of Jewish ethics, but that's my own particular evaluation of the work that you've done that I just find totally admirable and very inspiring in terms of your courage and your conviction about the idea that all human beings are entitled to human rights, and to protect an international humanitarian law that in some way draws a lot of its energy from the terrible experience that our people had during the Holocaust. So I really want to thank you so much.
  Judge Richard Goldstone: Rabbi, thank you. Thanks to both Rabbi Rosen and Rabbi Walt for having set this up and for the most enjoyable hour and a quarter. I must say the time went very quickly.
Anthony Tabatznik - Forbes
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:37
  Log in with your social account:Or, you can log in or sign up using Forbes.New Posts+6 posts this hourMost PopularNFL's Richest TeamsListsTop Innovative CompaniesVideoVegas' DJ WarsFREE REPORT: 12 Stocks to Sell Now!Help|Connect
  |Sign up|Log in
anthony selwyn tabatznik - Google Search
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:31
  Anthony Tabatznik - Forbeswww.forbes.com/profile/anthony-tabatznik/- CachedAnthony Selwyn Tabatznik, age 64, was a founder of the Arrow Group, aninternational group of generic pharmaceutical companies, and served as adirector of ...Mr Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik - Company Checkcompanycheck.co.uk/director/901184123
  Free Director Summary for ANTHONY SELWYN TABATZNIK including Current,Resigned and Dissolved company appointments. Buy a Director Risk Report for ...Mr Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik, European Healthcare Group Plc ...https://www.duedil.com/director/916719731/anthony-tabatznik- CachedBrowse a time-line of Anthony Tabatznik's directorships for free at companiessuch as from DueDil.Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik - Businessweekinvesting.businessweek.com/research/stocks/.../person.asp?...- CachedMr. Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik, Tony is the Founder of The Generics Group Ltd.Mr. Tabatznik is the Founder of Robin Hood Holdings, Ltd. Mr. Tabatznik is a ...Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik - London N12 - full address - 192.comwww.192.com/atoz/people/tabatznik/anthony/n12/4087396317/- CachedWe have a record for a Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik living at an address in LondonN12. The record includes the full address, along with information about the ...Insider Trading - Tabatznik Anthony Selwyn - Form 4 SEC Filingswww.secform4.com/insider-trading/1477671.htm- CachedTabatznik Anthony Selwyn form 4 sec filings insider trading and stock options:reveal insider stocks held, purchased, sold, and stock options awarded filed with ...Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik (Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.) - PassFailwww.passfail.com/.../anthony-selwyn-tabatznik/anthony-selwyn-tabatznik. htm- Cached13 Oct 2012 ...Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik (NYSE:WPI) Buying or selling stock? Hear yourinvestment community's opinion on Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik of ...Anthony Selwyn Tabatznik profile | free company director checkwww.companydirectorcheck.com/anthony-selwyn-tabatznik-3- CachedAnthony Selwyn Tabatznik business profile. Past and present positions ofAnthony Selwyn Tabatznik. Free company director profile.anthony selwyn tabatznik - uk company director searchwww.ccdni.com/director-anthony-selwyn-tabatznik-2- Cached
  Rating: 5 - 1 voteANTHONY SELWYN TABATZNIK business informations. Free company directorprofile of ANTHONY SELWYN TABATZNIK. CCDNI.com is free database ...Actavis (ACT) - TABATZNIK, ANTHONY SELWYN. - All Types ...www.investorpoint.com/.../TABATZNIK,%20ANTHONY%20SELWYN./ All%20Types/- CachedSymbol: ACT, Name: Actavis, Title: Actavis (ACT) - TABATZNIK, ANTHONYSELWYN. - All Types.
Truthdigger of the Week: Laura Poitras
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:28
  Truthdigger of the Week: Laura PoitrasPosted on Aug 18, 2013By Alexander Reed Kelly
  Every week the Truthdig editorial staff selects a Truthdigger of the Week, a group or person worthy of recognition for speaking truth to power, breaking the story or blowing the whistle. It is not a lifetime achievement award. Rather, we're looking for newsmakers whose actions in a given week are worth celebrating. Nominate our next Truthdigger here.
  At some point in the last decade we entered a new era of investigative journalism. Ubiquitous government surveillance made possible by the pervasiveness of digital communication has made the task of cultivating unauthorized sources inside official organizations more difficult and dangerous than perhaps it's ever been.
  For evidence of this, ask Pfc. Bradley Manning, who faces possible life imprisonment for giving classified records showing government wrongdoing to the watchdog publisher WikiLeaks. Or ask Barrett Brown, the journalist who has been in prison for almost a year without trial for linking to an archive of 5 million emails that happened to contain credit card information stolen from a hack on the intelligence contractor Stratfor. Or ask documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras.
  Poitras is the reporter who along with Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald began breaking stories of bulk domestic and international NSA surveillance at the beginning of the summer. It was Poitras whom the source of those reports, Booz Allen Hamilton contractor-turned-whistle-blower and fugitive Edward Snowden, contacted when he failed to get Greenwald to take him seriously. Snowden had read an article by Greenwald saying the U.S. had detained Poitras more than 40 times at airports for interrogations related to her work. In a lengthy profile of Poitras published last week, New York Times writer Peter Maass'--who spent time with Poitras and Greenwald at Greenwald's home in Rio de Janeiro'--wrote that Snowden ''figured that [Poitras] would understand the programs he wanted to leak about and would know how to communicate in a secure way.''
  Snowden was right. Since Poitras began filming U.S. abuses of power in Iraq in 2004, she has been routinely harassed by authorities. In 2006 the government began marking her tickets on domestic flights with ''SSSS'''--Secondary Security Screening Selection. The designation means Poitras faces extra scrutiny. On one occasion in Vienna she was briefed by an airport security agent who dared to speak openly about what was happening to Poitras. While officers seized and examined her bags, she says one of the guards told her: ''You're flagged. You have a threat score that is off the Richter scale. You are at 400 out of 400.'' Poitras responded: ''Is this a scoring system that works throughout all of Europe, or is this an American scoring system?'' He said no, ''this is your government that has this and has told us to stop you.''
  The filmmaker was placed on something like the terrorist watch list the government began compiling after 9/11, a roster that was estimated at one point to contain nearly a million names. Officials have seized and held her computers, cellphones, paper documents and other equipment for weeks. Poitras has written to members of Congress and submitted multiple Freedom of Information Act requests, but she has never received any explanation as to why she was put on a list.''It's infuriating that I have to speculate why,'' Maass quotes her as saying. ''When did that universe begin, that people are put on a list and are never told and are stopped for six years? I have no idea why they did it. It's the complete suspension of due process.'' She added: ''I've been told nothing, I've been asked nothing, and I've done nothing. It's like Kafka. Nobody ever tells you what the accusation is.''
  These intrusions into Poitras' life and work caused her to begin thinking about how to protect herself. She would ask traveling companions to carry her laptop, leave notebooks with friends overseas or in safe deposit boxes, and wipe her computers and cellphones clean so the authorities wouldn't be able to get at anything when they grabbed them. Soon enough she began encrypting her data. Then she cut down use of her cellphone, which gives monitors a user's location at any given point in time. When Snowden began contacting her in 2013, she developed new precautions. ''[S]he began using different computers for editing film, for communicating and for reading sensitive documents (the one for sensitive documents is air-gapped, meaning it has never been connected to the Internet),'' Maass writes.
  New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
  Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
China's PLA aerobatic team to star at Moscow airshow
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: Global Times
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:24
  The Bayi Aerobatic Team of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force left here for Moscow on Sunday to stage its first overseas airshow with J-10 jet fighters.The team will join with its Russian counterpart at the 11th Moscow Airshow at the Ramenskoye Airport between Aug. 27 and Sept. 1.
  Since it was established 51 years ago, the team has performed for 668 delegations from 166 countries and regions, but the Moscow tour marks the team's first show abroad.
  The participation will help strengthen political ties, mutual military trust, and cooperation between the armed forces of China and Russia, said Zhuang Kezhu, commander of the air force of the Beijing Military Area Command.
  The Bayi team was initially equipped with J-5's and has been gradually updating the fleet. The third generation of home-built J-10 fighters made their maiden appearance at the 7th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in 2008.
  By leaving a comment, you agree to abide by all terms and conditions (See the Comment section).
Feds: More Americans selling their food stamps for cash | Fox News
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:23
  The percentage of Americans selling their food stamps back to stores for cash has increased by 30 percent over the past several years, according to a new Agriculture Department study.
  The study on food stamps trafficking -- which the agency said included ''covert investigation'' in stores -- compared the periods of 2006 -2008 to 2009 -2011.
  Despite the increase, trafficking has declined since the 1990s, when the rate was nearly 4 percent of food stamps, also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs benefits.
  The total amount of SNAP benefits is now at roughly $858 million, compared to $330 million annually in the 2006-2008 period.
  The increase reflects the overall growth in SNAP participation and benefits, the agency said in the August 2013 report.
  Recipients typically sell back their benefits at a discount, according to the agency, which said its undercover investigations and research into electronic SNAP transactions focused on stores that showed ''suspicious activities.''
  However, the numbers were later adjusted to reflect activity within the entire program.
  While the trafficking doesn't directly increase costs for the federal government, it diverts taxpayer money intended to help low-income families get access to a nutritious diet.
  About 10.5 percent of all authorized SNAP stores engaged in trafficking, the study found, compared 8.2 percent in the 2006-2008 review.
  The study also found the likelihood of trafficking varied by store characteristics and settings.
  Small grocery or convenience stores, for example, accounted for about 15 percent of all redemptions but 85 percent of trafficking redemptions.
  In addition, trafficking was more likely to occur in privately owned stores compared to publicly owned shops and was more likely among retailers in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.
US Aid to Egypt Is About Keeping Suez Canal Open to Warships
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: News From Antiwar.com
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:21
  The US government's position on Egypt is constant. They backed Mubarak until the moment it was clear he was going, then jumped ship to back the revolution. They then backed the elected government, until last month's coup was in progress. Now they're on the junta's bandwagon, overtly violating a US law that requires ending aid in the event of coups, and looking the other way during massacres of civilian protesters.
  Whoever is in power can count on the Obama administration's support so long as their hold on power seems secure. They can also count on $1.5 billion in funding. Officially, this is to maintain ''influence,'' but since the administration clearly doesn't care what the junta or anyone else does in power, it never seems to want to exercise any of that influence.
  The reality is a lot more cynical than that, and analysts who support keeping the aid flowing say that it's mostly about keeping the US military's access to the Suez Canal unquestioned, something which is particularly important with the US ever looking to start new wars in the region.
  In a way this puts the US in the same boat as it is with Bahrain, willing to look the other way for pretty much anything so long as whoever happens to be in power remains effectively for sale.
  Egypt aid has its roots in the Camp David Accords, and since then the US has essentially agreed to buy off Egypt to keep them willing to give Israel veto power over operations in the Sinai Peninsula. In practice, this means less and less, since Israel is pretty pro-junta and pro-crackdown, but the tradition of throwing money at Egypt has gained a momentum of its own, and it will take a lot of work to end it.
  Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
How far we've fallen. Russia's constitution protects better than ours: Gmail violates Russia's constitution '' senator
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Source: RT - News
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 03:59
  A Russian senator has challenged Internet giant Google to explain its use of clients' personal Gmail data, and claimed that the e-mail service violates individuals' right to the secrecy of correspondence under the country's constitution.
  Google's position on data protection is that it ''reserves the right to get access to correspondence of Gmail users and to use this data,'' Senator Ruslan Gattarov said in a letter to Google Russia, which was obtained by Itar-Tass.
  Gattarov also cited a Google court filing in the US, in which the company says that ''a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.''
  This, Gattarov says, violates Russia's personal data protection law and Article 23 of the Russian constitution, which guarantees the ''right to the inviolability of private life'' and ''to the privacy of correspondence.''
  In his letter to Google to be sent Monday, Gattarov asks representatives of the California-based corporation to explain how and when the company filters and reads users' e-mails, as well as the usage of collected data for creating ads and blocking spam.
  A meeting between a group of Federation Council senators investigating alleged Russian user-data leaks and Google executives is expected to take place in Russia mid-September, Gattarov said Sunday.
  In July, Gattarov '' who chairs the Federation Council's committee on the development of information society '' filed an official request to the Prosecutor General's Office to investigate Google's activities in Russia, alleging that was violating the country's laws.
  Google, in response, said it was ready to cooperate with Russia in investigating alleged Russian user-data leaks and requested a meeting with the Federation Council's working group. During the meeting, Carlo d'Asaro Biondo '' Google's vice president for Southern, Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa business '' assured that the company did not provide access to their systems ''to any authority.''
  ''For us, our presence in Russia is fundamental. We want to be a Russian citizen in Russia. We are convinced that we respect the laws in Russia, that we welcome the analysis that the Senate will do and we will cooperate fully and openly,'' Biondo stated, the Voice of Russia reported.
Clinton Foundation '-- An Open Letter From Bill Clinton
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 03:53
  The Clinton Foundation was founded on the belief that we could help people in the United States and around the world solve problems and seize opportunities faster, better, and at lower cost. The Foundation works with governments, businesses, NGOs, and private citizens on a wide variety of health, economic, energy, and other activities that enable people to live better lives.
  Over the last 12 years, as a result of our programs:
  More than 5 million people worldwide have access to low cost, high quality AIDS treatment, including more than 500,000 children '' that's more than 75 percent of the total number of children on treatment. In South Africa alone, CHAI-negotiated drug prices have saved more than $950 million since 2010. More than 21,000 farmers in Malawi have received lower-cost, higher-quality seed and fertilizer for their crops. As a result, they have increased their production two and a half times, and their incomes have increased more than 5 times. Soon we will be serving 100,000 farmers.More than 5,000 people have been trained in marketable job skills in Colombia.In the fight against childhood obesity at home, the Alliance for a Healthier Generation brokered agreements with soft-drink and juice companies, resulting in a 90% reduction in calories from drinks served in school cafeterias and vending machines. And because of our work in 18,000 schools in all 50 states to improve exercise and nutrition programs, the Alliance was asked to play a leading role in the implementation of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move Active Schools program.With the measures they have already undertaken or committed to, cities in the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which works in partnership with the Clinton Climate Initiative, are on track to reduce their collective annual emissions by 248 million tons by 2020.To date, CGI members have made more than 2,300 commitments, which are already improving the lives of more than 400 million people in over 180 countries. When fully funded and implemented, these commitments will be valued at $73.5 billion. Because of the commitments made possible through our unique model, more than 35 million people have gained access to information technologies; nearly 40 million children have access to a better education; more than 6 million people have increased access to capital and finance; and nearly 59 million people have increased access to maternal and child health survival programs. Over the years that CGI has grown, our staff has increased their capacity to help people develop commitments, find partners, and keep their commitments. At each meeting we are spending more and more time giving updates on existing commitments as well as announcing new ones. CGI America and CGI University are doing well, and this year we will resume holding meetings abroad with a CGI meeting in Brazil in December.And this is just a sample of our work.
  Our Financial Position
  The New York Times recently reported that the Foundation ran a deficit of $40 million in 2007 and 2008 and $8 million in 2012.
  The reporting requirements on our tax forms, called 990s, can be misleading as to what is actually going on. Here's why. When someone makes a multi-year commitment to the Foundation, we have to report it all in the year it was made. In 2005 and 2006 as a result of multi-year commitments, the Foundation reported a surplus of $102,800,000 though we collected nowhere near that. In later years, as the money came in to cover our budgets, we were required to report the spending but not the cash inflow. Also, if someone makes a commitment that he or she later has to withdraw we are required to report that as a loss, though we never had the money in the first place and didn't need it to meet our budget. In other words, for any foundation with a substantial number of multi-year commitments, the 990s will often indicate that we have more or less money than is actually in our accounts.
  Like many foundations, we were hit by the economic slowdown in 2007 and the crash in 2008. Thankfully, we had the cash reserves to cover our largest budgets, in our HIV/AIDS, malaria, and health training programs, and we decided to do it because so many lives were at stake.
  For 2012, the reported deficit of $8 million is incorrect, and was based on unaudited numbers included in our 2012 annual report. When the audited financials are released, they will show a surplus.
  Our Management and Organization
  In 2011, after ten years of rapid growth, we decided we needed to review our organization and management practices. As many companies and organizations have done, we engaged an outside firm '' Simpson Thacher '' to help us review both our governance approach and internal operating practices.
  Essentially, the review said we needed stronger management staff full-time in New York, where most of our U.S.-based staff are located, and a larger, more independent board. We currently have 2,100 staff and volunteers in a total of 36 countries. The review told us that my passion to keep overhead costs down '' at about a low 8 percent for most of the last decade, rising only to above 11 percent in 2012 as we invested to support our growth '' had gone on too long and that the Foundation needed better coordination without dampening the entrepreneurial spirit that infuses all our initiatives. In essence, CHAI, CGI, the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, our Haiti project, and other projects were still running too much like stand-alone startups. They were very effective but not sustainable over the long run.
  Over the last two years, we have strengthened our Foundation's leadership and structure, including Bruce Lindsey's transition to chairman of the board and Eric Braverman coming on as CEO. They have established a good working relationship and are proceeding with the rest of our planned changes, including consolidating the Foundation's separate New York City offices in one location in midtown to maximize collaboration and efficiency.
  In so many ways, CHAI's growth and development have been amazing. It could not have happened without Ira Magaziner's hard work, dedication and innovative vision. Starting with the agreements to lower the costs of high quality AIDS drugs, tests, and lab equipment, CHAI has expanded its activities to include lowering costs of malaria medicines, preventing mother-to-child HIV transmission, providing more than one million HIV tests for infants, and reducing the price of reversible contraceptives for women by 55%. It has worked with several governments to train thousands of health care workers. In Rwanda, CHAI has enlisted 19 American medical, nursing, and health management schools to retrain the entire workforce at an overhead cost of just 7%, by far the lowest ever charged by an American NGO. On my recent trip to Africa, I announced a new CHAI initiative to reduce malnutrition among young children. These efforts have attracted strong support from the Gates Foundation and many others, as well as a large number of foreign governments.
  Like the rest of the Foundation, CHAI's significant growth required changes in its management and financial structure. Because of its size and range of activities, creating a separate governance structure made sense. CHAI has brought on a new President and CFO as well as improved its reporting procedures to ensure its growth '' both programmatically and organizationally '' are keeping pace with its needs.
  I continue to serve as chairman of the CHAI board, with Ira Magaziner as vice-chair. CHAI also has two advisory boards with distinguished membership: one to help with its management in more than 30 countries, and one to evaluate and help implement new initiatives.
  I am immensely proud of what we've accomplished in the last 12 years, and I want it to continue beyond the time when I can raise the annual budget, and be as personally involved in as many of the initiatives as I have been. Thanks to a large number of committed supporters in the U.S. and around the world, including individuals, large foundations like the Gates Foundation, the Dutch Postcode Lottery and others, foreign governments, and our dedicated staff, we're in a good position. We are in the process of appointing a larger, more independent board and we need an endowment, which our family and friends are working to raise.
  Our recent trip to Africa renewed my conviction in the importance of our cooperative, problem-solving approach and my energy for our work ahead. I want to thank our supporters and invite other interested people to join us.
  You can read the executive summary of Simpson Thacher's review of the Clinton Foundation on our website at www.clintonfoundation.org.
  Read President Clinton's official letter here.
The Internet: We're Doing It Wrong - TechCrunch
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Mon, 19 Aug 2013 01:34
  This week Facebook's ban-bot went berserk; Github went down; and all Google services collapsed for a few minutes, taking 40% of the Internet with them. Just another week on the Internet, then. We love our centralized services, until they let us down.
  Bruce Sterling calls them ''the Stacks'': Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft. In his most recent (always riveting) State of the World conversation, he wrote:
  In 2012 it made less and less sense to talk about ''the Internet,'' ''the PC business,'' ''telephones,'' ''Silicon Valley,'' or ''the media,'' and much more sense to just study Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft. These big five American vertically organized silos are re-making the world in their image.
  Other proto-Stacks want to join that number. Once upon a time, Twitter was essentially a protocol: then they became aware of ''the increasing importance of us providing the core Twitter consumption experience through a consistent set of products and tools.'' Meaning they want to be a Stack. Github used to just host git repositories; now it does issue tracking, project management, and more. Call it a specialized business Stack for software development. And Yahoo is either a second-tier Stack or a Stack wannabe, depending on how generous you're feeling today.
  They don't want much, those Stacks. Just your identity, your allegiance, and all of your data. Just to be your sole provider of messaging, media, merchandise, and metadata. Just to take part in as much of your online existence as they possibly can, and maybe to one day mediate your every interaction with the world around you, online or off.
  The essay ''Android is better'' was all over my Internet this week. Its money quote:
  Most services I rely on daily are owned by Google. My world revolves around GMail and Google search. I could start listing Android features I adore, but this succinctly states why Android makes sense for me: The number of Google products I use each day boggles my mind. No other company has embedded itself this deeply into my life.''
  Indeed. It's very convenient to live in a Stack. It's easy, it's seamless, it's comfortable. And it means putting much, or very nearly all, of our increasingly important online existences into the hands of a few titanic megacorporations. It means relying on their benevolence, not just today, but for the foreseeable future. Remember back in the early days of Google Plus, when Google started disabling users' accounts for violating Google Plus's astonishingly poorly-thought-out real-name policy? Remember how betrayed those users sounded?
  They believed in Google. And then Google turned on them. Just like it recently turned on and banished people who wanted to run their own servers'...or, in other words, wanted to build their own personal nanoStack.
  But life inside the Stacks is so much easier, so much better, so much more comfortable, than life in the untracked wilderness outside. Better to live amid the comforts of city-states ruled by benevolent tyrants than to have to hunt your own food, make your own camp, and maintain your own mail servers, amid the beasts and bandits in the trackless wastes outside their walls.
  That's why the hackers who want to jailbreak the Internet will never be more than a curiosity, right? That's why App.net (which really wants to be a Stack itself, anyway, just a classier one) only just hit 1% of 1% of the population of Facebook'...after it introduced a free tier. That's why new initiatives like Trrst, ''a secure and distributed blog platform for the open web,'' which is raising money on Kickstarter, will never get anywhere significant. Right?
  These online anarchists, these idealists, don't just claim that people should control their own data, and where it lives, and who's allowed to access it; they claim that people want to. They claim that people don't, and shouldn't, trust for-profit megacorporations. They claim that client-server Stacks are only big because they're good for business, while really, in a pure true noble world untrammeled by money and capitalism, everything would be purely peer-to-peer.
  Unfortunately these claims are nonsense. Webmail is inherently insecure; and yet, among a group of those people most aware and most perturbed by this fact''the clients of Silent Circle's recently shuttered email service''
  98% of Silent Mail customers opted to let Silent Circle hold the encryption keys, which made using the service much easier. When users manage their own keys, they have to log into a special system to exchange cryptographic keys with each person they want to email with.
  Most damning of all, look at Github. It's a great site, great service, great business. I use it every day. But its name and very existence are also, in a way, fundamental oxymorons:
  The sad truth is that the overwhelming majority of people, including highly technical capable people, don't want peer-to-peer protocols. They don't want to own their own data. They just want ease. Convenience. Someone else to take over and take care of their data problems. They want the Stacks.
  '...Mostly.
  However. There have been a couple of odd and interesting exceptions.
  Consider Skype. It was brilliantly peer-to-peer'...for a while. But a few years ago it too turned to centralized servers. Not, its principle architect maintains, to make surveillance easier, but because in today's mobile world, where any given node is very likely a phone with limited battery, bandwidth, and processing power, peer-to-peer protocols are less effective. But is that only a temporary truth? Might they raise their hydra heads again in five or ten years, when even phones can serve as supernodes?
  Consider Bitcoin.
  Most of all, consider BitTorrent, and the hundreds of millions of users of its distributed swarming protocol. It is the anti-Stack; it is immensely popular; and it is a sign that another way is possible. Might the city-states yet be overrun by Khan-like nomads? Might you you one day only need to install a StackSeed app on your phone, or computer, in order for it to become a node in one of several ever-shifting peer-to-peer clouds, striping multiple copies of your encrypted data to a motley crew of other member devices, flickering chaotically around the planet like weather?
  Maybe. But only if, somehow, ad-hoc encrypted peer-to-peer services become as seamless and easy to use as today's Stacks. It seems unlikely, yes; but look at Skype, look at BitTorrent. It doesn't seem inconceivable. Maybe, just maybe, the reign of the Stacks will be temporary after all.
  Image credit:Wikimedia Commons.
Nuance - Home
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:52
  Nuance - Home Let's work together. Or
  Looking to partner with some of the brightest minds in the industry?Search careers
tony tabatznik wikipedia - Google Search
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 18 Aug 2013 21:39
  WebImagesMapsShoppingMoreAny timePast hourPast 24 hoursPast weekPast monthPast yearAll resultsVerbatimBertha Foundationwww.berthafoundation.org/- Cached - SimilarBertha Foundation dreams of a more just world and supports forms of activismthat aim to bring about change. We champion those using media, law and ...Lara Tabatznik: Philanthropy Is More Art Than Science - TakePart'–º
  www.takepart.com/video/lara-tabatznik-philanthropy-more-art-science4 Oct 2011Subscribe to me on YouTube · COMMENT. Topics. Action + Impact, Education, Innovation, Lara ...Cosmetic World featurewww.cosmeticworld.com/Feature.../02.../BeyondBeauty2012.html- CachedElizabeth Arden's Francine Gingras with PCPC's Lezlee Westine and Mary Foster. SPWI Group's Shira White and The Bertha Foundation's Tony Tabatznik with ...Independent Lens . EROICA! . Film Credits | PBSwww.pbs.org/independentlens/eroica/credits.html- CachedTony Tabatznik Firstar Foundation, Inc. Additional funding for this program wasprovided by: John Dunivent Horace Nichols Regional Arts Commission Kenneth ...Film Institute / Fund - Guest List 2012 | IDFA 2013www.idfa.nl/industry/festival/guest-list-2012.aspx?...- CachedTony Tabatznik. Bertha Philanthropies Services Film Institute / Fund, Otherfinancier / Third sector. Attending 18-23 Nov. IDFA The FORUM ...London Jewish Cultural Centre - Patronswww.ljcc.org.uk/about/patrons- Cached - SimilarTony Tabatznik. Supporters. Andor Trust. Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust.Edmond J Safra Philanthropic Foundation. Leonard Eppel CBE and BarbaraEppel.Who Are We? - BRITDOC Foundationbritdoc.org/britdoc/who-are-we- Cached... film foundation supported by Channel 4, Bertha Foundation ...UCT GSB centre to nurture better business | Leader.co.zawww.leader.co.za/article.aspx?s=6&f=1&a=3146- Cached2 Oct 2011 ... Lara Tabatznik, president and founder of the Bertha Foundation Philanthropies,says: ''We hope to inspire and grow a social conscience in ...Images for tony tabatznik bertha foundation12345678910NextAdvanced searchSearch HelpSend feedback
  Google HomeAdvertising ProgramsBusiness SolutionsPrivacy & TermsAbout Google
A Bitter Pill For Glaxo? - Businessweek
  Link to Article
  Archived Version
  Sun, 18 Aug 2013 21:32
  Industries
  A BITTER PILL FOR GLAXO?
  To the titans of the pharmaceutical industry, the Tabatznik family's little generic-drug outfit has been like an annoying insect buzzing around their ankles. Operating from bases in Britain and South Africa, the family has earned a hard-nosed reputation by winning fights with big drugmakers in Europe and Australia. But with sales estimated at less than $100 million, the Tabatzniks hardly seemed a threat to the big multinationals.
  Until now. A tiny Canadian arm of the Tabatznik group is challenging the main U. S. patent protecting ulcer remedy Zantac, the world's biggest-selling prescription drug and the mainstay of Britain's Glaxo Holdings PLC. While Glaxo vows a vigorous defense, many patent lawyers think the publicity-shy Tabatzniks have an even chance of winning. And while any generic copy could not hit the market for four more years, the battle already has the industry abuzz and is casting a cloud over Glaxo's future earnings prospects. No wonder: Glaxo gets half its revenues (chart) and perhaps two-thirds of its profit from Zantac.
  At the heart of the dispute are two key Zantac patents. The first, filed in 1977, covers the basic drug. It's called Form 1. Normally, that would have protected Zantac until 1995. But Glaxo in 1985 won a second U. S. patent for a more useful crystalline variant, Form 2. It's this compound that ulcer sufferers are swallowing in ever-increasing amounts--$1.4 billion worth in the U. S. last year, $2.5 billion worldwide.
  Glaxo insists the second patent will shield its blockbuster until 2002. But with such a tantalizing market, nearly every major generic drugmaker has been mulling how to break the monopoly after 1995. The Tabatzniks moved first, at least a year before analysts had expected any action.
  Those who know the Tabatzniks aren't surprised. The family, of South African origin, has built a privately held group of generic makers in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. In each country, they have targeted drugs that are vulnerable to copycatting. The family has even clashed with Glaxo -- and won. In the mid-1980s, they fought all the way to the European Court of Justice to import to Britain a cheap Italian form of Ventolin, an asthma drug. In a rare interview, family leader Anthony S. "Tony" Tabatznik told BUSINESS WEEK: "It's not in our interest, or in the public's interest, to have high drug prices."
  This aggressive stance can be traced to patriarch David Tabatznik, described by a former associate as a "very small man but a very tough guy" and a "walking encyclopedia" of the industry. Now in his early 70s, he lives in Johannesburg and is still involved in the company. But he has given day-to-day control to Tony, who says he moved to Britain 22 years ago for "political reasons." One colleague describes Tony as "very clear-headed about objectives."
  POWERFUL ALLY. Rivals also give the Tabatzniks high marks. In Canada, the family's Genpharm Inc. is only some five years old. But it already has applied for at least 40 licenses and won the right to sell a generic form of the diabetes drug Diabeta. "This is a company that knows what it's doing," says Jack Kay, executive vice-president at Apotex Inc., Canada's leading generic drugmaker.
  Even so, the Tabatzniks have not escaped the controversy that has dogged the generic industry. In 1986, David Tabatznik was a director and vice-chairman of Zenith Laboratories Inc., a New Jersey generic maker, when it ran afoul of the Food & Drug Administration. The FDA faulted its manufacturing practices, saying they differed from those detailed in regulatory filings. No safety questions arose, but Zenith briefly recalled 33 of its 54 drugs. Tabatznik quit the board in April, 1988, a month before Zenith filed for Chapter 11. It emerged a year later under new managers.
  In Australia, a Tabatznik affiliate, Alphapharm Ltd., was targeted by a 1987 government probe into the accuracy of drug testing done for it by a South African company. The government advised doctors to restrict prescriptions of the company's drugs, but Alphapharm notes it was quickly cleared after submitting new test data.
  None of this deterred a powerful ally from joining the Tabatzniks: Lord Jacob Rothschild. In 1989, RIT Capital Partners PLC, a London investment company that Rothschild chairs, put up $14 million in return for about 20% of the Tabatznik holding company, Amerpharm Holdings. "We think it's a very entrepreneurial group, with a very good ability to identify what drugs to go for," says Andrew Stafford-Deitsch, a director of Rothschild's firm who sits on the board of Amerpharm. He cautions anyone who doubts that the Tabatzniks have the funds to pursue their Zantac case that "Amerpharm and its shareholders are substantial people."
  Tony Tabatznik says he's hoping to exploit a clause in the 1984 Waxman-Hatch Act that liberalized generic drugs. Under it, any company that succeeds in invalidating a patent may win exclusive rights to market a generic form of a drug for six months, after which the gates are thrown open to any generic company. "It's a reward for anybody to spend the money on a legal challenge if they think the patent isn't valid," says Tabatznik. He's hoping to invalidate the Form 2 patent, thus permitting a generic Zantac after the Form 1 patent expires in late 1995.
  WINDFALL. Given that generics usually take about 50% of the market within a year, that six months could bring a huge windfall to the Tabatzniks. "They have no downside except the cost of the lawsuit," notes Apotex' Kay. "This could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars."
  Glaxo's defense rests in part on asserting that Form 2 is distinct enough from Form 1 to deserve a separate patent. That's a matter of some debate, given their chemical similarity. Also, at least some of Glaxo's testing was done with Form 1. "It's a winnable case," says U. S. patent attorney Alfred B. Engelberg. Canadian patent lawyer Malcolm Johnston calls the Form 2 patent "absolute rubbish. It's a distinction without a difference."
  But others point out that U. S. courts are loath to invalidate a patent without clear evidence that it was faulty. Moreover, if the case is appealed, it will be heard in Washington. George Repper, a drug-patent specialist at Washington's Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Kurz, says this appellate court "leans very strongly to the patent holder." He gives the Tabatzniks less than a 50-50 chance.
  Glaxo's stock, which had jumped 30% in London trading since Jan. 1, fell by 4% on news of the suit. It later rebounded, and some analysts think investors haven't realized the importance of the Zantac challenge. Jo Walton, analyst at Lehman Brothers International in London, figures Glaxo stock is "fully reflecting the best possible" outcome. If the Tabatzniks win, many investors could get burned. And an obscure South African family will get very, very rich.Mark Maremont in London and William C. Symonds in Toronto, with Joseph Weber in Philadelphia and bureau reports