KSA couldn’t be justifying enough to silence the list of atrocities it has been committing over decades in the region.
KSA ambassador to UN Faisal Trad asked the head of the session held on June 15, 2016 at UN, in Geneva to discontinue the presentation of the Kuwaiti MP and Human Right Prominent Activist Abdul Hameed al Dashti.
Al Dashti was highlighting in his presentation how the Middle East has been left behind concerning any sustainable development amid nonstop crises, conflicts and wars plotted by the kingdom.
He also stressed the kingdom’s atrocities over decades in the region specially in Bahrain and Iraq. Al Dashti described KSA war against Yemen as a barbaric and savergary aggression.
KSA representative claimed the right of not being taken by camera.
The head replied: “[the cameraman is a member of the press and I think he can take your photo.”
USA speaker urged the head of the session to let al Dashti continue.
Al Dashti remaining seven sentences bolded KSA continuous attacks against pilgrimages in al Haj in Mecca.
سفير السعودية وعبارته المضحكة “حقي” قاطع سفير السعودية كلام عبد الحميد الدشتي الذي كان يستعرض قائمة الانتهاكات السعودية في المنطقة واصفا الحرب على اليمن بالبربرية والوحشية. وحين ادار المصور البحريني كاميرته لتوثيق ردة فعل السعودي اعترض عليه مدعيا “ليس من حقه ان تصورني” وعندما انتهى المترجم مع ترجمة عبارته ليقرر الجلسة ابتسم وقال: “انه صحافة ومن حقه ان يصور.” فادعى السعودي “الصورة من حقي” فاكد له “انه صحافة ومن حقه ان يصورك. ودعا الدشتي الى اتمام جمله السبعة الاخيرة فاستعرض فيها انتهاكات السعودية لحجاج بيت الله الحرام خلال عقود.
Watch “شاهد: السفير السعودي في جنيف يفقد أعصابه ويطالب بمنع الإعلامي موسى عبدعلي من تصويره” on YouTube
Awaiting documentary part 2
The end of world crisis
#broadcast #translation #TV #Script
The Greatest Obstacle to Anti-Muslim Fearmongering and Bigotry: Reality – The Intercept
Note the so called ‘Jihadists’ that cause threat to Americans are al Qaeda.
U.S. operation that supplied the Bosnian forces with weapons
Saudi-backed Wahhabism first made itself visible in Bosnia during the 1992-95 war, when up to 6,000 “Arab Afghan” volunteers arrived in the country and enlisted in combat. While bin Ladenite propagandists, as well as Western journalists, have expended a vast quantity of ink on the topic of the Bosnian “mujahideen,” in reality they played almost no perceptible role in the war.
Source: Wahhabism and al-Qaeda in Bosnia-Herzegovina | The Jamestown Foundation
New research: 11-point plan for protecting journalism sources in the digital age
Free Expression & the Law
5 June 2015
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
This statement was originally published on wan-ifra.org on 3 June 2015.
Acts of journalism should be shielded from targeted surveillance, data retention and handover of material connected to confidential sources. That’s a key early finding of a study on the state of journalistic source protection in 121 countries undertaken for UNESCO by the World Editors Forum (within WAN-IFRA). Preliminary outcomes from the research were launched in Washington DC today during the World News Media Congress.
The legal frameworks that protect the confidential sources of journalism – essential to reporting information in the public interest that may otherwise never come to light – are under significant strain around the world in the digital era. There’s now a need to revise and strengthen them – or introduce them where they don’t exist, according to the forthcoming UNESCO-commissioned study: Protecting Sources of Journalism in the Digital Age.
More than 100 countries had some form of source protection framework in place in 2007 according to the Privacy International report Silencing Sources. In many of the 121 countries examined in this new study (authored by WAN-IFRA Research Fellow Julie Posetti) it was found that legal source protection frameworks are being actually or potentially:
– Eroded by national security and anti-terrorism legislation,
– Undercut by surveillance – both mass and targeted,
– Jeopardised by mandatory data retention policies and pressure applied to third party intermediaries (like ISPs, telcos, search engines, social media platforms) to release data,
– Outdated when it comes to regulating the collection and use of digital data. Examples include: the admissibility, in court, of information recorded without consent between a journalist and a source; the extent to which existing source protection laws also cover digitally stored material gathered by journalistic actors.
The study also found that source protection frameworks are challenged by questions about entitlement to claim protection, such as: “Who is a journalist?” and “What is journalism?” – which are matters that increasingly require case-specific assessments.
What happens when source protection is compromised?
Where source protection is compromised, the impacts can include:
– Pre-publication exposure of journalistic investigations which may trigger cover-ups, intimidation, or destruction of information,
• revelation of sources’ identities with legal or extra-legal repercussions on them,
– Sources of information running dry,
– Self-censorship by journalists and citizens more broadly. Many journalists are now adapting their work in an effort to shield their sources from exposure, sometimes even seeking to avoid electronic devices and communications altogether. However, while such tactics do help, they may be insufficient if legal protections are weak, encryption is disallowed, and sources themselves are unaware of the risks.
Four conditions for source protection
If confidential sources are to confidently make contact with journalists, the study proposes four conditions:
– Systems for transparency and accountability regarding data retention policies and surveillance (including both mass surveillance and targeted surveillance) – as recommended by the UN General Assembly,
– Steps taken by UNESCO States to adopt, update and strengthen source protection laws and their implementation for the digital era,
– Training of journalistic actors in digital safety and security tactics,
– Efforts to educate the public and sources in secure digital communications.
The study concludes that editors and publishers can play an important role in promoting public understanding of these issues, and in advocating for change at all levels.
An 11-point framework for assessing source protection in the digital era
A major output of the study is an 11-point assessment tool for measuring the effectiveness of legal source protection frameworks in the digital era.
It was concluded that a model framework should:
1. Recognise the value to the public interest of source protection, with its legal foundation in the right to freedom of expression (including press freedom), and to privacy. These protections should also be embedded within a country’s constitution and/or national law,
2. Recognise that source protection should extend to all acts of journalism and across all platforms, services and mediums (of data storage and publication), and that it includes digital data and meta-data,
3. Recognise that source protection does not entail registration or licensing of practitioners of journalism,
4. Recognise the potential detrimental impact on public interest journalism, and on society, of source-related information being caught up in bulk data recording, tracking, storage and collection,
5. Affirm that State and corporate actors (including third party intermediaries), who capture journalistic digital data must treat it confidentially (acknowledging also the desirability of the storage and use of such data being consistent with the general right to privacy),
6. Shield acts of journalism from targeted surveillance, data retention and handover of material connected to confidential sources,
7. Define exceptions to all the above very narrowly, so as to preserve the principle of source protection as the effective norm and standard,
8. Define exceptions as needing to conform to a provision of “necessity” and “proportionality” — in other words, when no alternative to disclosure is possible, when there is greater public interest in disclosure than in protection, and when the terms and extent of disclosure still preserve confidentiality as much as possible,
9. Define a transparent and independent judicial process with appeal potential for authorised exceptions, and ensure that law-enforcement agents and judicial actors are educated about the principles involved,
10. Criminalise arbitrary, unauthorised and wilful violations of confidentiality of sources by third party actors,
11. Recognise that source protection laws can be strengthened by complementary whistleblower legislation.
The study responds in part to acknowledgement in both the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council of “the particular vulnerability of journalists to becoming targets of unlawful or arbitrary surveillance or interception of communications in violation of their rights to privacy and to freedom of expression.” It also contributed to a global UNESCO study of Internet-related issues.
Protecting Journalism Sources in the Digital Age is expected to be published by UNESCO midyear.
The preliminary findings were launched during a Pew Research Centre-sponsored breakfast at the World News Media Congress today, during which Pew Journalism’s Research Director Amy Mitchell joined the Director of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists Gerard Ryle, UNESCO’s Director of Freedom of Expression and Media Development Guy Berger, senior DC media lawyer Charles Tobin and Julie Posetti.
Note: Other academic researchers who contributed to the study are Dr Marcus O’Donnell (University of Wollongong), Professor Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Barazil), Professor Ying Chan (China, Hong Kong), Doreen Weisenhaus (China, Hong Kong). Lead Research Assistants were: Federica Cherubini, Angelique Lu and Alice Matthews.
Disclaimer: While the research was conducted for UNESCO and funded by Sweden, with the support of the University of Wollongong (Australia), the ideas, opinions and findings are those of its author, Julie Posetti, they do not necessarily reflect those of UNESCO or Sweden and do not commit these parties.
Download the study.
protecting_journalism_sources_wanifra.pdf (2031 KB)
Dude, where’s my Humvee? Iraq losing equipment to Islamic State at staggering rate
By Peter Van Buren June 2, 2015
Tags: HUMVEE | IRAQ | ISLAMIC STATE | M-1A1 TANKS | MOSUL | RAMADI
A view of humvees parked at a courtyard at Camp Liberty in Baghdad, September 30, 2011. REUTERS/Mohammed Ameen
Iraqi security forces lost 2,300 Humvee armored vehicles when Islamic State overran the northern city of Mosul in June 2014, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Sunday in an interview with Iraqiya state television. Coupled with previous losses of American weapons, the conclusion is simple: The United States is effectively supplying Islamic State with tools of war the militant group cannot otherwise hope to acquire from its patrons.
In addition to the Humvees, Iraqi forces previously abandoned significant types and numbers of heavy weapons to Islamic State. For example, losses to Islamic State include at least 40 M1A1 main battle tanks, as well as small arms and ammunition, including 74,000 machine guns, and as many as 52 M198 howitzer mobile gun systems.
“We lost a lot of weapons,” Abadi admitted.
To help replenish Iraq’s motor pool, the U.S. State Department last year approved a sale to Iraq of 1,000 Humvees, along with their armor upgrades, machine guns and grenade launchers. The United States previously donated 250 Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers (MRAPs) to Iraq, plus unaccountable amounts of material left behind when American forces departed in 2011. The United States is currently in the process of moving to Iraq 175 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, 55,000 rounds of main tank-gun ammunition, $600 million in howitzers and trucks, $700 million worth of Hellfire missiles and 2,000 AT-4 rockets.
The Hellfires and AT-4′s, anti-tank weapons, are presumably going to be used to help destroy the American armor in the hands of Islamic State. The United States is also conducting air strikes to destroy weapons seized by Islamic State. It’s a surreal state of affairs in which American weaponry is being sent into Iraq to destroy American weaponry previously sent into Iraq. If a new sequel to Catch-22 were to be written, this would be the plot line.
The United States also continues to spend money on training the Iraqi military. Some 3,000 American soldiers are currently in Iraq preparing Iraqi soldiers to perhaps someday fight Islamic State; many of the Americans are conducting the training on former military bases abandoned by the United States following Gulf War 2.0. In addition, some $1.2 billion in training funds for Iraq were tucked into an omnibus spending bill that Congress passed earlier this year. This is in spite of the sad reality that from 2003 to 2011, the United States spent $25 billion training Iraqi security forces.
The return on these training investments? The Iraqi army had 30,000 soldiers in Mosul, who ran away in the face of about 1,000 Islamic State fighters. The same thing happened just a few weeks ago in Ramadi, where 10,000 Iraqi soldiers, collapsing faster than a cardboard box in the rain, fled ahead of only 400 Islamic State fighters. The Iraqis left behind more weapons.
In an interview with me a year ago, Chris Coyne, professor of economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, predicted this exact scenario well before the United States sent troops back into Iraq:
“The United States government provided significant amounts of military hardware to the Iraqi government with the intention that it would be used for good. However, during the Islamic State offensive, many of the Iraqis turned and ran, leaving behind the United States-supplied hardware. This weapons windfall may further alter the dynamics in Syria.
“Now the United States government wants to provide more military supplies to the Iraqi government to combat Islamic State. But I haven’t heard many people recognizing, let alone discussing, the potential negative unintended consequences of doing so. How do we know the weapons and supplies will be used as desired? Why should we have any confidence that supplying more military hardware to a country with a dysfunctional and ineffective government will lead to a good outcome either in Iraq or in the broader region?”
The impact of all these heavy weapons falling into Islamic State hands is significant for American foreign policy goals in the Middle East. A report prepared for the United Nations Security Council warns that Islamic State possesses sufficient reserves of small arms, ammunition and vehicles to wage its war in Syria and Iraq for two more years.
And that presumes the United States won’t be losing more tools of war to Islamic State, thanks to the Iraqi army.