Thursday, 29 January 2015

Telling A Lie For A Noble Cause
Julian Assange:-
The Man In The Iron Mask*
(The European Union's Foremost Political Prisoner*)

[''We Steal Secrets''**]



Monitoring the movements and activities of political and economic rivals or terrorists is certainly nothing new. Until about 40 years ago humint (human intelligence) was still the main cornerstone of operational activities. Today it is heavily anchored in cyberspace.
Did you know that, in the past, in places where the presence of others would be too obvious or too sensitive, Mossad sometimes had a well placed source (or asset) at key international transit routes from Nicaragua to Cape Verde to Rio to Dublin Airports?
The operative was never an Israeli and sometimes in order to identify who exactly that individual was you had to perform a number of tasks – one of which was to be able (or possess the capability) to dig back into every employees past a very long way – to a time before when records became computerized and it was impossible for all but those who knew how to dot the ''i's'' and cross the ''t's'' to put the pieces together.  The more senior the individual the further you sometimes had to reach back.
The digital era availability of mass security data sharing by transnational agencies makes this no longer necessary – at least not in it's old format.
It was exactly the same for Soviet moles within British Intelligence. That's a historical fact and not my say so.   In fact it was much easier than that above as many of their past activities, if carefully looked into, would have easily unearthed affiliations which, if those individuals had not such impeccable progeniture and family connections within 'established' circles, a red flag would immediately have gone up, at least for careful monitoring after appointment.
The point I am making here is that once a secret is 'outed' you cannot put the genie back into the bottle.   It's out there and available for everyone (including any astute eager researcher) for better or for worse.   If, like me, your sources or contacts are long vanished because the passage of time has so blurred events, or no written records have been kept as evidence (or for security reasons have been destroyed) even they have become untraceable, with the footprints long dusted over, then identification or outing becomes an impossible task for the outsider.
When handling contentious information which you are convinced is genuine, you also need to have (almost) a sixth sense with regard to the timing of it's release.
There is always a difference in timing between the right to know and national security.    This is no more evidently displayed today in open democratic societies than in the perennial legal tug-of-wars (or dance of death) between the 'free' press and government.
Sometimes a little prudence (rather than humility) is desirable to ensure balanced sensitivities.

Masters of War
Many years ago (at least 30, probably more) I had the opportunity to join a firm, Tripower, at a United Kingdom office located in the prestigious Regent Street.
[One of the few opportunities I ever had to join a private sector firm where the salary was beyond even my dreams.]
I knew a little about the technical aspects of military hardware so would have been an ideal recruit as minimal training would have done the rest.
[The firm was, of course, a front for another group and it's only existence you will now find is at Companies House and nothing beyond that is now traceable.  You will not find it listed as a company which dealt in military hardware but something more 'politically correct' - even for that time. ] 
I felt that I needed to take spiritual' guidance (one of the uniquely few times in my life!) as I would be involved in supplying weapons (arms) to countries and non-State entities in different parts of the world.   That guidance was not, of course, from a guy in a cassock and dog collar but more an 'inner guidance' as to where I thought I wanted to be with my existence.   [Having said that, if my trusted and saintly Primary school teacher, Sister - - , had still been alive, I might very well have sought her opinion.]
At that time I was pretty desperate for money. That's also probably an understatement. In the end I decided to politely decline the tentative offer of engagement.
Looking back now, I have absolutely no regrets and know that, if I was still alive, I would be a very different person to the one I am today had I been engaged in this profession.   But somebody took the job.   Somebody's life was otherwise changed by the experience.   My decision did not prevent weapons being used for evil or for good.   It simply meant that someone else other than myself was the supplier of the shipments or cargoes.   Yes if we lived on a planet where we are all linked spiritually and can all experience each other's pain, then nobody would ever engage in such harmful activities.   The point is that we do not.   We live in a world where if you don't do the job, then it's likely that someone even uglier and more brutal, less caring and humane than you will step up to the mark.   Who knows, perhaps supplying armaments to a non-State entity might actually end up saving more lives than the opposite.

A Cry In the Dark
It was evident that Private Bradley Manning had cried out for help but nobody was listening outside cyberspace.   Julian Assange stepped in to fill the void.
In the new era digital age, 'advisors', 'agony aunts' and 'confessors' are to be found at anonymous sites online.
Manning, when in, could not find a way out – and the pain was too much to bear. 
So who should have been on trial?   The Army, Manning, Assange or all three?

Sweden – The 'Deep' State
I have said the above to explain why I stand by Julian Assange and again say, as I did when I was Secretary of the Chartered Institute of Journalists, that his continued detention is unjust, unreasonable, that attempts to extradite him to Sweden are, in the context of the totality of events and the public interest, not desirable.  Those involved in the extradition proceedings in Sweden might well find themselves joining Assange at some future time in the spotlight of the murky underworld where truth is just as evasive and blurred beyond recognition as were Olof Palme's assassins.
Neither do I believe that it is desirable for the perception of the United States worldwide, after Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, that Assange be extradited for, what would become, a McCarthy-era show trial.
The whole world already knows what the verdict - by a 'hanging' judge and jury - would be in such a case.   There would be an international uproar if the case was tried by a judge without a jury – no doubt to the delight of Russia Today [''the Bullhorn of President Putin'']as it's ratings on coverage of such a circus would likewise soar into the stratospheric billions – making it the most popular (or watched) news channel by far on the planet.  So ironically, a 'show trial' [Soviet-era style] of Assange in the United States could 'make' Russia Today, as it 'milks' the event for all it's worth, to no end.
In the Court of World Public Opinion what would be on trial in the world's greatest democracy, would be, in effect, the American justice system itself, and the verdict on that by the international community at grass roots levels, is already, likewise, also predictable.
Sweden is a classic 2084 (not 1984) country where the 'deep state' is already invisible.   At least in the U.S. there is the Freedom Of Information Act.*** In Sweden everything is kept securely under lock and key, almost forever.  Don't believe the hype about 'transparency' in Sweden.    It was just a mirage.
The assassination of Olof Palme and the twilight world of international arms dealing, mining contracts and other activities have been securely buried in the fog and haze of Swedish secrecy, never to see the light of day for fear of the embarrassment of those influential Swedish individuals, associate beneficiaries and whatever other governments might also be implicated. 
So perhaps there are also other reasons, closer to home, why Sweden wants Assange and his database shut down.
Unfortunately for Mr Assange, the lists of so many governments, agencies and individuals with their own personal agendas as to why they would like to see his database either offline or protected online are so numerous and polarized, that there is no room for compromise.
As to the merits of the release of classified data in the way it was done by Wikileaks, the balance between the right to know and national security is always a very heavy responsibility.   In my view (which likewise has not changed) Assange got the balance terribly wrong.
But isn't it a strange world that he should be incarcerated, virtually tried and convicted 'in absentia' and in unison by the Left and the Right – including by a former President of Harvard Law Review - without due process and that his only 'loyal' supporter superpowers are the economic, military and political rivals of the United States for world supremacy – Russia and China - or countries such as Brazil and Ecuador - which themselves have appalling human and civil rights records - with journalists being routinely murdered extra-judicially and such assassinations sanctioned by the government, as in Brazil. [I have covered the fact (in other blogs) that it's African-Brazilian population, some 80% of the country, live in conditions of virtual slavery.   But I would never expect Mr Assange nor his colleagues to be taking up the shield of justice for the poor and the dispossessed.]
He has yet to realise it but Mr Assange is safer in The United Kingdom than he could ever be as a 'free man' in Ecuador or Brazil or Russia.

A Dogs Dinner or
(''here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!'')***
I am sometimes told that I am strong on criticisms but weak on solutions so I want to 'take a position' on this occasion.   My humble advice to the British Government, if I had the capability to so do, would be that it release Mr Assange to a country of his choosing before Britain is left, in the Court of World Public Opinion, 'holding the baby' – everybody else with any common sense having long since 'bailed out' (or cut their losses) for reasons of political expediency, leaving Great Britain 'to go down with the ship' as 'the fall guy', rather embarrassingly, preventing, by force of arms, Mr Assange, as Europe's most prominent political dissident and prisoner, from fleeing 'across The Iron Curtain' to 'the free world'; to the 'freedom' and welcoming arms of 'democratic' Russia, Ecuador or Brazil.


©Patrick Emek, 2015



For anyone interested in Julian Assange with regard to motives for Wikileaks, some understanding can be gained by watching following documentary:
''We Steal Secrets'' (2013, Alex Gibney and James Ball)

[I would guess that this is a documentary Julian Assange certainly does not approve of as it attempts to analyse personal motives as opposed to being a pure critique of Wikileaks. It also gives some insights into the personality of Mr Assange, which are likewise quite useful.]

title and subtitle of this blog ''Telling A Lie For A Noble Cause'' are taken from a comment made in the documentary''We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks'' (see above)
a review (of sorts) of this documentary can be found at:
*subtitle idea: from The Man in the Iron Mask (Wordsworth Classics) by Alexandre Dumas


secondary subtitle: ''We Steal Secrets'' taken from a comment made in the documentary of the same name (see above.)



secrets within secrets within enigmas:
"Shortly after Palme was killed, I was told by three independent sources that recruiters for the killing -variously described as a group of Swedish businessman, with Finns and Germans also involved, possibly financed by a South African group, had approached mercenaries and arms dealers in London in order to find a suitable 'hitman'. All the sources agreed that the former SAS (Special Air Service) and other possible killers approached had turned down the contract, and had then passed details of the approaches to Special Branch or to MI6 contacts. In turn, MI6 passed a warning to Sapo (SAK), the Swedish secret police. One source said that the purpose of the killing was to destabilise Sweden and its powerful liberal stance on such matters as apartheid. A senior Special Branch, Detective Chief Inspector David Palmer-Hall, liases directly with the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6.) A former Special Branch commander, Rollo Watts, also works for Saldin1 (sic) Security, the cover company for the private British mercenary service KMS Ltd. KMS which is registered in Jersey was most recently and controversially used by Colonel Oliver North to assist in guerrilla missions with Contra forces in Nicaragua." 
(June 17, 1988, p.7).............................................


full transcript to be found at:

if removed you can obtain a copy of the original transcript from:
















at

Thursday, 22 January 2015

''Selma''

Oscar Snub For It's Director, Ava DuVernay


Another person who didn't make the cut for an Oscar this year was Ava DuVernay, the Director of 'Selma'.
''Maybe the Academy just didn’t think she was one of the five best directors of 2014. If true, she’d be in great company: David Fincher (Gone Girl), Christopher Nolan (Interstellar), and Clint Eastwood (American Sniper) didn’t make the cut this year either. ''*
Personally I think the Oscar Academy Panel are more embarrassed by DuVernay's frank and blistering naked portrayal of modern day racism in America than the denial of her skills as a great director – which are unquestionable.
It's a powerful and compelling film. If you are interested in justice, civil rights and the dignity of those impoverished and dispossessed, it's a must to watch.
The film is about the golden quest of the African-American population for justice and civil rights, the role of Martin Luther King, Jr. and all those unnamed and unknown civil rights supporters and activists whom together made a difference to the course of history.
It is about a local issue in an Alabama town (Selma) which had profound national and international implications. [In an eerily similar way that Ferguson, Missouri, will, historically, demonstrate to have been decades henceforth.]
In reality, with Southern and Mid-West States applying voter identification laws to disenfranchise poor Whites, Hispanics, Latinos, Chicanos, it's a damning indictment of racist voter gerrymandering which is widespread to this very day in the form of modern equivalent of Slavery Laws barring minorities from exercising their right to vote – by creating loops and hoops which make it impossible for the poor and dispossessed to comply with.   DuVernay's portrayal of how the historical blunt application of racism prevented African-Americans from exercising their civil rights and by implication, the subtleties of racism which continue with a vengeance today, were, in my view, too much for the Oscar Nominations Panel to digest.
It's a sickening portrayal of hypocrisy and put Thomas Jefferson's famous statement
''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness '' on trial in the year 2014 - since evidently these principles are not shared by voter suppressionists who are making a comeback today in several Southern and some Mid-Western States.
A whole industry of disenfranchisement is growing up in America – and a growing tsunami of like-minded Americans are finally taking up the challenge to defend justice liberty and voting rights for all it's citizens.
In view of the above, it's no surprise that the Oscar Academy Awards Panel has shelved DuVernay – but her genius will outlive the Panel – probably to be posthumously awarded her rightful title – when all Americans finally arrives at the promised land: - ''Land of the Free and The Home of The Brave.''

[The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.
For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots.[5]**]


I could walk you through the movie.   From the racist firebombing of a Christian Church to voter suppression and rejection, to the role of LBJ (which I have always said, and stand on record for saying ,40 years ago, was undervalued) but it's much better that you judge the film for yourself and you decide what side of the tracks you are on.
I would say that the role of J. Edgar Hoover has, in my opinion, been misrepresented.   He was a bit of a tyrant but he was also a patriot – and a fair patriot – if that makes any sense?

Ironically I think that DuVernay and Eastwood have a lot in common as 'no compromise' 'raw flesh' 'tell it as it is' directors of the human condition.
It would be a powerful combination to see both collaborate on a movie.
But sadly, this will never happen.

A film you must see - or miss a priceless piece of American history - in it's most honest portrayal.


©Patrick Emek, 2015



''Selma'' Directed by Ava DuVernay







The Daily Show (Jon Stewart) with Eva DuVernay
or if you are in the U.K.




at

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

American Sniper

American Sniper is reported to be the highest grossing film of any recent New Year.
I can understand why the film's title is likely to provoke strong emotions.
The gun enthusiasts will flock to see it because it glorifies their deity, the anti-gun and anti-war lobby will vilify it as a personification of everything wrong with America.
It is about Chris Kyle, a Navy Seal who is reputed to have the highest number of  'kills' in recent history.
I made up my mind there and then not to go out of my way to watch the film but to read the original book.  You always get a better 'feel' of where the writer's mind really is (or was) when you read the original book rather than watch a 'jazzed up' version – which a film inevitably has to be.   I have an admiration for the work of Clint Eastwood both as an actor and as a director so it's no disrespect to him but more a desire to get 'closer' to the 'essence' of the story that I chose to read the book.   I read it cover to cover in about 4 hours.   It's a fascinating read.   As someone who has been in war zones without weapons nor the physical protection of armed forces I can relate to part of what the author, Chris Kyle, says.
One does get an impression of the heavy hand of censorship as the book lacks considerable operational methodology and detail - again to be expected since insurgency groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIL and their supporters worldwide do a lot of reading and research on tactics to be more effective and efficient in their jobs.   So if you think you will learn a lot about SEAL strategy and tactics, then this book will be a disappointment.

Sympathy For The Devil
The whole theme of the book appears, in my opinion, more to be skewed toward a disdain of Arabs than 'just doing my job'.  (Note I have said 'disdain' rather than 'hatred'.) Perhaps you need that kind of 'motivator' to become inured to the absence of empathy nor compassion for the enemy's 'position' or 'perception' whereas as a journalist, it's important, regardless of personal feelings, to keep a sense of balance if you want to give your readers or viewers a 'fair' account of what is really going on?    Yes I know we are dealing with bloodthirsty devils who would not hesitate for a moment to cut off the heads of women, babies and children (and journalists) if they refuse to cooperate and submit to their demands.
So to be frank, in a war against Al Qaeda and ISIL for example, you need to have your Special Forces (SF) and regulars operating with as little empathy as is possible – to 'get the job done'.
[ISIL make it very easy to motivate our Special Forces as their methods and tactics bring out 'what are the best qualities' of the likes of Chris Kyle – thereby ensuring even more highly 'energized' or focused teams for the future.]
Again, perhaps, this is what is required to do your job effectively, without remorse and without conscience.
The occasions Chris Kyle did not 'kill' were occasions when he appeared to be more worried about the future legal implications of  'taking the shot' rather than any other motivation.  This is one 'onerous' detail which the enemy - Al Qaeda and ISIL - never have to worry about.

Runaway – And The Politics Of Survival
Don't misunderstand what I have said above.  Chris Kyle saved many Americans from becoming orphans and widows, Moms and Dads without sons and daughters, sisters without brothers, through his quick-thinking actions by taking out an enemy who otherwise would have killed American troops.   For that alone he deserves not just Bronze and Silver but Purple.   [As he admits himself, decisions to award medals are often more governed by politics than valor in the field.  I would also add that the same applies to the field of journalism.]

We learn a little about GROM [Polish Special Forces] in the book and it is clear that Kyle developed a  respect for their loyalty, discipline and operational effectiveness.  [Polish vodka is also given the 'thumbs up'!]
A bond of friendship was also formed with team members as 'brothers in arms'.
Rather disparagingly, the British SF always seem to arrive either too late or be 'pulling up the drawbridge' [when they thought Kyle and his colleagues had been gassed, British Forces refused him entry to a compound for fear of contamination, even though he and his team were desperate for sanctuary.]

Coping On Civvy Street
The personality of a Sniper [not an assassin – and please don't confuse the two] is well covered by Kyle. The effect on family relationships, the tragedy, marital breakdown, and, to a lesser extent, flashbacks are also covered.  I sense that Kyle is not being altogether honest when talking about the numbers of flashbacks and psychological trauma he experienced afterwards – but such is natural as I expect you need to put that chapter behind you, move on with your life and become a better husband (or wife) and dad to your children and a functioning responsible member of your community.

Keep Your Distance
Chris Kyle doesn't strike me as one of the 'deepest' readers of literature and displays little or no interest in the history of Iraq.   As far as he was concerned since he was there to get a job done, probably better that he knows as little as possible about the history of the enemy as such might 'impair' his clarity of vision – and I do mean this both metaphorically and literally [and without irony nor sarcasm.]
Being able to improvise at critical moments and being 'lucky' are also important factors to staying alive and getting the job done.  This is also covered in 'American Sniper'.
Contractors
What is also of note in ' American Sniper' is a lack of interest in the invaluable contribution which mercenaries or 'contractors' have made to recent conflicts in the Gulf and in Afghanistan.  These are the journalistic equivalent of 'freelancers' except that freelance journalists don't get paid anything like mercenaries and they certainly get none of the credit nor glory.  In fact, most do it neither for the money nor for the kudos.  [I would go even further and say that many freelance journalists don't get paid at all.]
Kyle mentions the traumas which enlisted veterans experience on their return home - and many experience not just family breakups but long-term psychological illnesses resulting in their inability to cope with 'normal' life, becoming homeless, jobless and ending up as addicts on Skid Row or it's equivalent in major cities and towns where they become the anonymous dispossessed and impoverished.
Sadly Chris Kyle begrudges them 'positive discrimination' in statutory legislation preferring instead that they are given a 'hand-up' or 'helping hand' from the private sector than any assistance from the State.
When you come from an ethnocentic background (or one of privilege)  it's not always possible to appreciate the value of legislation to protect the rights of either minorities or of those less fortunate than yourself or your own 'tribal' 'religious' or 'ethnic' group.   [This, incidentally, is very much 'in tune' with Clint Eastwood's politics so in that regard 'connect' very well with the philosophies being 'communicated' through 'American Sniper'.]
At least VA will attempt to assist regular forces but there is nobody there for the contractors when they are demobbed – and many face bleak uncertain futures - far worse than returning regular veterans – coming home often to communities which treat them like pariahs, with a morbid curiosity and with contempt, projecting everything that went wrong onto the 'evil' mercenaries.
So there is no heroes return for the contractors – just an ignorant community which treats them as less than garbage.   They will not get the 'breaks' Chris Kyle did when pulled over by a Police Patrol nor when they appear before a judge on D&D[DUI] or GBH charges.  There's no sympathy world nor glory for the returning mercenary.  Perhaps that is why their plight is ignored in 'American Sniper'?  Their reward was to be paid 3 (or much more) times a regular so perhaps it's considered 'fair game' that they 'roll with the punches' when demobbed?

In conclusion, the book is certainly not glorification of the life of a Sniper.
It's about an individual doing a job, trying to do it as best he can, making mistakes along the way and paying the price for those errors of judgement.
I highly recommend that you read the book.    It's probably a better representation of events than the film could ever be.

No doubt Clint Eastwood's skills will bring added glamor and embellishment to compress what is a fascinating book into the limited timeframe of the screen.


© Patrick Emek, 2015


American Sniper
ISBN: 9780062082350
EPub Edition January 2011 ISBN: 9780062082374






at

Friday, 16 January 2015

Pope Francis:
''You Cannot Poke Fun at Someone's Faith''

''Pro Archia Poeta''

I respect where the Pope is coming from but the job of Satirists has always been to poke fun- at everything and anything where
the hypocrisy justifies satire.

I am not sure if the Pontiff studied Latin at school but if he did, and I assume he did, we were both reading very different textbooks [or hymn sheets.]
The personalities I studied, from about 100 B.C. had sex, drugs, wild music, wild parties, and of course, satire as key ingredients to their misplaced existences.
So in fact the characters I was reading about in Latin spent [as W.C. Fields, said about himself*] half of their money on alcohol, gambling and wild women, and the other half they wasted.
I'll leave out the sex, drugs and rock n' roll and just focus on the
'Charlie Hebdo' of that day:
One of my greatest influences from childhood was the work of
Marcus Tullius Cicero. His 'Pro Archia' I learnt off by heart – and memorized every page. I think in my textbook it was about 53 pages.
Licinius Archias was a poet and satirist who had 'insulted' Senators and famous individuals by 'ridiculing' them in his works.
In actual fact such was never the case so no charges of this nature could ever be brought against him. 
This was never done the Charlie Hebdo 'in your face' manner
but through flowing lines of beautiful poetry where the virtues and deeds of say, one general in battle, were obliquely contrasted with those less courageous or less virtuous (always by inference never by direct charge – but the educated could easily decipher (or indeed imagine) the coded 'messages' in the flowing lines of laudation and inferential scorn for those less worthy of praise.)

I think in this instance Wikipedia may be mistaken in just referring to Archias as 'a poet' - ''Pro Archia Poeta''.**
 He was much much more than an ordinary poet. He was a poet and a satirist and had 'politely' ridiculed many (by inference) in his poems. Unfortunately he made one powerful enemy too many. One such person it is believed he may have inadvertently (or deliberately) ridiculed was the very powerful Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.

Archias also had one particular influential supporter.  Marcus Tullius Cicero had been his pupil and remained a loyal friend throughout.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was the equivalent of a powerful political godfather and kingmaker having excelled as a warrior general and came from a very wealthy and noble family, well connected in Rome and in the Senate. His aspiration was ultimate power.   So he was someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth, proved himself in battle, used to getting his own way and not used to being insulted, especially by 'Barbarians' (Archias was not originally Roman but Greek) and decided to 'teach' Archias a lesson in 'respeto' and the meaning of power when exercised by one of 'the untouchables'.
It may well have been that the objective was, through this prosecution, to teach all 'Barbarians' (or non-Romans granted citizenship) to 'know their place' respect power, not to 'cross the line' and most important of all, never in your wildest dreams think of crossing Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus because he would not suffer fools nor satirists gladly and would, through this prosecution, send his own legal not so flowing 'message' to the educated, and to the poets and wannabe satirists.
There may also have been some jealously about the fact that Archias wrote such beautiful poetry about his patron (and sponsor, incidentally, for Roman citizenship) the Roman General Lucius Licinius Lucullus, and there was, in effect nobody of any worth to write such memorable lines about himself - [the great] Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
Pompey and Lucullus were also bitter rivals for power and influence in the Senate.
So there may well have been much more behind the case which
was 'engineered' against Archias – it has been suggested by experts and noted historical researchers.
That Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was using this trial of Archias to get at (and ultimately destroy) his arch rival for power and influence in the Senate - Lucius Licinius Lucullus - is very plausible.
There was, of course, a legal basis to bring charges against Archias.   It would have been to the ridicule and have caused eternal laughter amongst the Senators and Plebes for Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus to claim that a [Barbarian] poet had insulted him – it would also have been 'beneath his station'. The general public would have thought he had 'lost the plot' if he had directly accused Archias accordingly.
What was contrived were charges that Archias was not a Roman citizen and should therefore be expelled from Rome on these grounds.
The Lex Papia de Peregrinis (65 B.C.) gave authorities full powers to expel foreigners falsely claiming to have Roman citizenship.
[You might call it today a power to expel non-EU nationals and forcibly send them back home.]
The introduction of this law in itself, was, some noted historians and experts agree, yet another plot – this time against Caesar - who supported the claim of the Latin colonies north of the River Po.
[You need to appreciate that there were so many plots by Senators, Generals, aspirants for power and influence, and by their financial supporters (lobbyists) and backers, that it's a wonder any work ever got done in the Senate(!); does this remind you of somewhere more contemporary?]
Marcus Tullius Cicero was a lawyer, a poet, philosopher, a consul, a constitutionalist and a political theorist.
He is also considered one of Rome's greatest ever orators and prose writers.
Cicero had been a pupil of Licinius Archias so it was perhaps natural that he would be defending his former teacher against
the crime of non-citizenship.
In any event, Cicero's defense of Archias ('Pro Archia') was and still is today, regarded as one of the greatest pieces of prose oration ever produced by mankind and it has become
synonymous with mastery of 'style' – the equivalent of YSL,
Jean Paul Gaultier or Karl Lagerfeld in how to use words and
sentences with style, to convey powerful ideas, meanings and philosophies.
Interestingly, we do not know the outcome of Cicero's defense of his teacher but any educated Judge (or Senator) reading Cicero's defense, if not moved to tears from the beauty of the oration and evidence, would, I have no doubt, have dismissed the case against Archias as 'frivolous' so as not to end up 'on the wrong side of history' - as the one-time butchers of the now 'Lazarus' resurrected  Charlie Hebdo, most certainly have.


©Patrick Emek, 2015



Epilog:
Archias The Poet
So little has survived of Archias' works that we must piece it all together based both on the evidence available and what we can most likely infer.
Historians will argue that there is no evidence Archias was a satirist – and I cannot refute this based on the works which have survived to this day.
As evidence of his genius my basis is his onetime pupil, Cicero,
whom everyone agrees was a genius.  But where did Cicero first learn then build upon such masterful skills in poetry, satire and oration?   'Pro Archia' one could easily dismiss as a mere exercise in his own masterful skills – but I read something more than this.  Historically Archias was a poet, full stop.  My argument is that as a 'newcomer' he might only impart such contentious skills in his own complex use of speech to exceptionally talented acolytes – of which Cicero was one.

PE


 

“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.”


― W.C. Fields

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/678820-i-spent-half-my-money-on-gambling-alcohol-and-wild




**http://en.wiki2.org/wiki/Pro_Archia_Poeta

 







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey







at
''Can We Have All The Cryptography Keys Please?''

British Prime Minister David Cameron is widely reported to be in the United States, amongst other reasons, to request 100% intelligence sharing on issues of cryptography.
There is no doubt that secure communications are an invaluable tool in the hands of anyone.
Cryptography, is invaluable for, say, dissidents in North Korea to let the outside world know what is happening without being shot as spies.
I recall many years ago visiting a country within the sphere of influence of the former Soviet Union.
The computer connection for the outside world was never working at the hotel and likewise at all the other hotels.
Excuses were always made why it was 'OUT OF ORDER' – despite my polite requests to see if I could look at and possibly fix one of the computers – which offers were always politely declined.
I recall from history books when intelligence sharing was at a high level after World War II between the U.S. and Great Britain. Little did most Americans know that the British Secret Service (MI6) was riddled with Soviet spies and there was hardly anything the Soviet Union was unaware of as soon at it landed on a British desk anywhere in the world.
Today there is no reason not to think that there are many Edward Snowdens well placed within many countries who would relish the thought of compromising commercial intelligence to, say for example, China and Russia.
For the U.S. to order cryptography companies to cooperate with foreign intelligence services – or indeed for the NSA to share all it's keys with allies– would be sheer madness – and I have no doubt, from historical precedents, would be a death sentence for dissidents in many different parts of the world as details of their online activities became available to their governments.

The truth of the matter is that cryptography is more valuable as a business tool than it is for terrorists.
More countries (especially totalitarian) worldwide are privately more up in arms about their inabilities to read secure citizens and business communications than they ever were about terrorism.  Countries such as China and Russia are having to invest such vast resources simply into codebreaking where the algorithms have become so complex (quantum genetic algorithms and intelligent molecular genetic systems for example) to make their cracking very time consuming , very costly and way beyond the reach of small nations.

You recall how 9/11 was used by so many diverse U.S. government departments to 'snoop' on
everyone, worldwide?   'Fishing' expeditions and 'trawling' became the order of the day.
The effects of such are still being felt in terms of new legislation, worldwide, to this very day.
Some might even argue that a new financial system was evolving during the course of 2002-2006 which would have profound effects on world economies later on.
So too today this issue of secure communications is being used to open the floodgates to every type of intrusion of privacy.
My concern is more the fact that such information sharing by the NSA will most certainly result in this information yet again ending up in the hands of the very totalitarian regimes and business competitors – China and Russia - but even more serious is that dissidents living under such regimes will have absolutely nowhere to hide nor to communicate with the outside world as none will feel safe and secure online.

The U.S. government has 'betrayed' so many of it's allies recently (see my previous blog) is yet another betrayal just around the corner?
Very soon the U.S. will have not a single ally (or to be more precise, interest) it can trust as all will fear being 'sold out' or 'outed' 'at the drop of a hat'.



©Patrick Emek, 2015

Many countries are developing their own 'autonomous' and 'firewalled' internet and intranet systems completely shielded or configured with narrow ports of entry and exit. North Korea is one of such countries.  I have chosen it in this blog purely as an example of the dilemma which dissidents worldwide face.



https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/11283/CJRieserVTPhDEEDissertation101804.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
at

Thursday, 15 January 2015

Rendition

Some years ago, by sheer accident, I became aware that a number of sensitive operations were being conducted out of an international airport, somewhere in the world, on behalf of an unnamed U.S. government agency.
This was at a time when the project was unknown to the general public.
This project was with the full knowledge of the Intelligence Oversight Committee (SSCI) but with only limited 'need to know' availability of information given to senior politicians (including the Prime Minister) of the country through which the flights were routed in transit.
From information now publicly available, key players appear to have been engaged on a 'need to know' basis.

A number of very sensitive operations went through this international airport. I was only aware of 3 but there may have been more.  All were vital to the (then) security interests of the United States and another unnamed country.  Two were rendition stop overs, the third was completely unrelated but a component part of the War On Terrorism and involved yet another interloped country - again with the approval and full knowledge of certain elements the government of that country and the United States.  The government of that country, to this day, denies all knowledge for the latter and, when issues came to light, conducted it's own 'impartial' investigation, which found absolutely nothing of relevance.  For this component operation the full cooperation of trusted individuals was essential for it to succeed.  
 It has not been made public to this day the extent of involvement or knowledge of the U.S. government of this component operation but certainly it's success was/would have been/ extremely beneficial to the global fight against terrorism.
Whilst the operation, sadly, did not bring about peace in a particular part of the world, certainly the operation itself was an effort to ultimately bring about conditions which might have led to peace.   It is because the motives were just and the ideals of world peace is something, in my view, we should all always be striving towards in the democratic world, for these reasons there is little point in giving full details.
In any event, I kept no written record as I was not intending to use it for any particular purpose and had no responsibility to do so for any party nor employer.
Fortunately  the names of many individuals in allied countries involved in assisting the U.S. in the war on terrorism have not been released by Senate Oversight Reports which have examined  activities of government departments following on from 9/11.   To do so would deal a mortal blow to U.S. allies whose future cooperation may, even at this moment, be in doubt should another 9/11 (or crisis of similar or greater proportion) ever happen.    This is because most assumed that the details of the sensitive assistance given to the U.S. by friends (countries) and allies (countries) in the aftermath of 9/11 would never be made public - at least not for thirty or so years – giving everybody a chance to 'work out' their chosen careers and professions before the proverbial s**t hit the fan.
[In certain instances, however, enough details have been released to enable an astute researcher to put the pieces together.]
Some countries (and politicians) have been, to date, unluckier than others in this regard.
I am not sure whether Congressional Representatives really do appreciate (or even care) how much goodwill has been lost by unnecessarily revealing details of countries participating in assisting the United States in the War on Terrorism.
One can argue whether rendition of terrorism suspects was the right program (for my part, as one who has never worked for the U.S. government, I have always thought it was not) but to give location details of detention facilities worldwide and other even more sensitive information with regard to levels of participation and cooperation of governments will, in my opinion, negatively impact on future security cooperation in sensitive matters – especially if such countries are yet again being requested, at very short notice, to participate in another American 'project' at some stage in the future.   If I were a politician and U.S. ally, I would certainly think again before saying 'yes' to a friend who had 'outed' next to everyone involved within a few years of what were supposed to be secret operations.
I would go further and say that even Senior Staff of Government Departments would be reluctant to 'follow orders' if there is even the slightest chance that they will be prosecuted for either 'war crimes', 'revealing sensitive information', or some other spurious grounds to get politicians 'off the hook' for failed programs (failed, because those same politicians failed to provide the necessary levels of logistical support and even failed to provide moral support, leaving their protégé 'swinging in the wind' in order to save their own political careers or indeed to deflect from oversight and scrutiny their very own failures, as politicians, to take advice from those commanding in the field – resulting in debacles, setbacks and humiliation for serving officers.)
[There is also a certain hypocrisy whereas senior politicians reserve certain rights and privileges with regard to the release of classified information for their own personal memoirs and then the same ham-fist subordinates doing likewise in efforts to smother (or snuff out) conflicting opinions (historical viewpoints) as to why certain events did or did not succeed and their impact on the course world history.]

Asking commanders to fight wars, then, subsequently, either because of political infighting resulting in paralysis or in the interests of political expediency, telling them it will have to be accomplished with one or both hands tied behind their backs might not be so easy for U.S. politicians to achieve in the future.  The best candidates for the (future) job may withdraw if they think that 'failure is not an option' policy might not be accompanied by sufficient resources to get the job done – or indeed if they are likely to be 'the patsy' anointed to conceal political incompetence.

While certainly there has to be accountability and public scrutiny of political decisions and their impacts on events and individuals worldwide in any democracy I fail to be persuaded that such should extend to the damaging of allied cooperation by revealing such detail as to render the War on Terrorism ineffectual – and then for those very same politicians [and media]] to say how ineffectual the War on Terrorism actually was (!)

If politicians are going to routinely scapegoat their field commanders (as historically, Empires  always have) then, in an interconnected world such as the one we are in, they should not be surprised if such 'patsies' 'bite back' to defend their reputations from the (metaphorical) ' death of a thousand cuts' regardless of what gagging restrictions the politicians attempt to impose to save their own reputations (sic. their actions) from that same public (sic. electoral) scrutiny as they attempt to conceal their own shortcomings and halfhearted support for tasks they simply do (did) not have the stomach, the (political) courage, the (political) time nor can they stand 'the heat' to see controversial decisions they have 'Okayed' (or nodded) through to completion.

©Patrick Emek, 2015

at

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

The Roots of Modern Islamic Extremism In Europe:
The Roubaix Gang

Some decade or so ago I attended briefings with (former) colleagues at U.S. Naval Headquarters in a major European city.
After one such briefing we were treated to a 'Buffalo Burger' reception. [Yep politically correct folks, Buffalo was on the menu -and it tasted great!]
Between munching on my burger and a beer I had the opportunity to chat with a Navy Commander (that evening soon to return to active duty.)
He asked my opinion of what should happen in Bosnia, now that the conflict was ending.
I said that the first priority must be to get rid of (sic. forcibly repatriate) Jihadi militants from Chechnya and elsewhere who had ensconced themselves with local communities (even inter-marrying and taking local names of missing or presumed dead citizens to attempt to avoid detection – this I had learnt from my own trip to Bosnia.)





To return to the U.S. Naval headquarters chat, we were both in agreement and I was hopeful that the politicians would equally share our sentiments.
This was not to be the case and the Jihadist fighters who had (and have) infiltrated Bosnia now use this as their hidden 'Al Qaeda' (base) for operations into Europe.

One of the problems was that they (Muslim Jihadi extremist fighters from Chechnya) had so well blended into local communities - being assisted by Bosnian Muslim politicians – that they were untraceable.   These same 'tactics' [see above] have been used in other parts of the world to 'blend in' to avoid detection.  Most simply 'disappear' into very 'tight-knit' supportive local communities.

These are individuals who have direct links back to extremists in Chechnya and other regions of the Caucuses.

As with most modern terrorist groups they seed-financed their organization with several major armed robberies - in this particular case along the French-Belgian border. They were already very well armed and seasoned fighters.   As most were European (Caucasian) in appearance there was nothing which would make them 'stand out' in a crowd.  This was to be their ace in evading capture – and almost blowing up the G7 Lille Conference.  Most were eventually either captured or killed but their leader, Lionel Dumont, a Muslim convert, successfully evaded capture and death by fleeing back through Bosnia.   He may have been offered the opportunity of a new life in the Caucuses – a reward for his 'services – but declined (this latter is speculation and should not be taken as actual fact) stayed in Bosnia, later fled to Japan and was eventually extradited back to France.

(Don't confuse the 'foot soldiers' such as those involved in the Charlie Hebdo and Kosher Store Market slaughters with their instigators and 'spiritual' motivators.)

The point I am making here is that modern Islamic terrorism in Europe can be directly traced back to our failure to understand exactly who these 'volunteer' Jihadist fighters in support of their 'Muslim' brothers actually were and what their hidden agendas for Bosnia and eventually the rest of Europe are at present.

Failures to dot the 'i's' and cross the 't's' are responsible for our current dilemmas.
Generations of Muslims who came to Europe (or as I refer to it, Christendom) were not radicalised.
This was a problem for extremists since there was nobody who could be 'trusted' so 'fear' became the key to their success.  Fortunately Imams from Saudi Arabia would provide this key ingredient.
As clerics they were above suspicion and could travel freely the length and breadth of the European continent, identifying potential recruits (initially other clerics) or individuals susceptible to radicalization and setting up 'support' networks (cells).  Part of the strategy involves fear – terrorizing Muslims to have as little as necessary contact with Christians because of their 'polluting' and 'degenerate' values.
Fear of fatwas (excommunication and death) are classic psyop tactics to instil order and obedience of the masses and such extremists have used them with remarkable effectiveness – operating 'below the radar' for decades simply because the traditional law and order forces have other priorities than questioning the motives of clerics and well-dressed bespoke, law-abiding polite individuals – which some of the most (effective) 'sleepers' are.

France's ghettoization of it's Muslim population and the denial of equal rights and opportunities for it's French Muslim youth together with the racism many will tell you they experience in every aspect of French life and society, a denial of their culture and existence in all aspects of French institutions, all adding to this radical 'recruitment drive' both in terms of alienation and being fertile grounds for extremist Islamic preachers - offering as they do an 'explanation' for Muslim 'suffering'  [in rather similar manners to the reasons for 'suffering' of the ordinary Germans which the National Socialist (Nazi) Party successfully exploited through their 'bible', Mein Kampf ; likewise the 'suffering' of all Muslims, worldwide, can be explained [solely] through radical Imams [exclusive and narrow] interpretation of the Hadith of the Koran.  If you have no hope, no future, no work and no perceived value in any society be it Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Hindu, or indeed Atheist declared countries, such 'call to prayers' and to 'have faith' can be very powerful motivators.

Most of the popular media consists of journalists who have little real 'experience' of war zones, terrorism and counterinsurgency tactics. Many simply 'piggy-back' their Muslim extremist stories with one feeding the other until you get a crescendo of anti-Muslim rhetoric (usually disguising racism and mirroring their own grievances.) The problem here is that the public are misled and deflected away from the source of the issues – a failure of the politicians (our Christian politicians) to solve problems; a failed policy in the Bosnia and a failure to get the Saudis to 'play ball' across a variety of world issues; And, of course, conflicts just on the periphery of Christendom (North Africa and The Levant) all of which are converging in chaos as we appear so hopelessly unable to solve any of these crises only increasing instabilities with every failed policy – and resulting in an exodus of terrified refugees from (mainly) Muslim lands – which only add to the problems.

When you ask yourself 'why?' - why does the West not put pressure on, say, the Saudis – who bear a heavy responsibility for much of the Muslim extremist sentiments in the world, not just in Europe, then you are on the path to understanding the problem. Only then, when you can answer these questions – and if the politicians listen - will it ever be possible to work out solutions to radical Islam.


©Patrick Emek, 2015

There are so many examples of the 'thinking ' in Saudi Arabia and it's negative
influence on the Muslim world , I will add just one current example of what is 
the normative of thought is amongst most Saudis:
(I have given less frivolous examples elsewhere but I chose this current one to emphasize
how extremist Islam is a world apart from Christendom and no amount of appeasement will ever satisfy such extremists.)

Saudi cleric condemns building of snowmen as the work of 'Satan' and the 'West':

 http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/offbeat/saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic/ar-AA84xyX?ocid=mailsignoutmd
at