2014/03/10

#SniperGate

I published this news thread about #SniperGate  first in a comment of the previous article, using Google +.  This comment has been shortly censored by Google (I asked to put it under review, but it is not visible until the end of the review process - up to some days).
Thus I decided to publish it into a new article.

This practice is very often used by Western surveillance apparatus in order to avoid a story to become viral, as reported by Greenwald based on Snowden documents.

 So far, no Western media has reported EU declaration 03/07 calling for an international and independant investigation. Only a few others newspapers did it (see in red below).

_______________________


Kiievi kokkupõrgetes kaotas elu vähemalt kolm meeleavaldajat 
02/18/2014 
http://www.postimees.ee/2701392/kiievi-kokkuporgetes-kaotas-elu-vahemalt-kolm-meeleavaldajat
Olga Bogomolets' words reported by news portal Ukrainska Pravda this day :
Kiievi kesklinnas toimunud kokkupõrgete ajal sai surma kolm inimest, kelle surnukehad asuvad praegu Ohvitseride majas olevas medpunktis.
«Meie medpunktis, mis asub Ohvitseride majas, on juba kolm hukkunut. Paljud on vigastatud, neist kümmekond raskelt,» rääkis Olga Bogomolets uudisteportaalile Ukrainska Pravda.
Naise sõnul surid need inimesed sellepärast, et neil ei õnnestunud saada õigeaegset abi. «Kiirabiautosid ei lubata sissesõidu ega väljapääsu juurde. Inimesed surevad, kuna neile ei saa osutada õigeaegset abi.»
Bogomoletsi sõnul oli kõigil kolmel kuulihaavad. Neid oli nii peas, kui südames, lisas ta.

Ukraine crisis: British forensic experts in Kiev 
02/25/2014 

Ukraine: Secretive Neo-Nazi Military Organization Involved in Euromaidan Sniper Shootings 
03/03/2014 

Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders - leaked EU's Ashton phone tape 
03/05/2014 

В интернет выложили разговор Эштон и главы МИД Эстонии о снайперах в Киеве
03/05/2014
http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/03/5/7017758/
The commentary of Ольга Богомолец (Dr. Olga Bogomolets) as reported by Ukrainian Pravda:
В то же время доктор Ольга Богомолец также прокомментировала этот разговор: "За все время противостояний в Киеве, я не имела доступа к погибшим правоохранителям, поэтому не могла комментировать характер их ранений".
"Я врач, а не судебный медицинский эксперт для того, чтобы давать такого рода оценки", - отметила она.
"18-20 февраля мне пришлось общаться с огромным количеством людей и сложно сейчас вспомнить всех и особенно, о чем мы тогда говорили. Но упомянутую тему точно не обсуждала по телефону и никогда не обсуждаю политические темы по телефону" , - добавила Богомолец.
Украинская правда

Ukraine crisis: March 5 as it happened
03/05/2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10677370/Ukraine-Russia-crisis-live.html
Our correspondent, Damien McElroy, has spoken to the doctor at the centre of the claims that snipers that shot people in Kiev were hired by Maidan leaders:
Olga Bogomolets said she had not told Mr Paet that policemen and protesters had been killed in the same manner.
"Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people," she told The Telegraph. "I have no access to those people."
But she said she had asked for a full forensic criminal investigation into the deaths that occurred in the Maidan. "No one who just sees the wounds when treating the victims can make a determination about the type of weapons. I hope international experts and Ukrainian investigators will make a determination of what type of weapons, who was involved in the killings and how it was done. I have no data to prove anything.
"I was a doctor helping to save people on the square. There were 15 people killed on the first day by snipers. They were shot directly to the heart, brain and arteries. There were more than 40 the next day, 12 of them died in my arms.
"Our nation has to ask the question who were the killers, who asked them to come to Ukraine. We need good answers on the basis of expertise."
Mr Paet's assertion that an opposition figure was behind the Maidan massacre was not one she could share.
"I think you can only say something like this on the basis of fact," she said. "Its not correct and its not good to do this. It should be based on fact."
She said the new government in Kiev had assured her a criminal investigation had begun but that she had not direct contact with it so far.
"They told me they have begun a criminal process and if they say that I believe them. The police have not given me any information on it."

 Les snipers à Kiev ont été enrôlés par les dirigeants de l' EuroMaïdan
03/05/2014 

Call raises questions about Ukraine attacks
03/05/2014 
http://www.kspr.com/news/nationworld/Call-raises-questions-about-Ukraine-attacks/21051646_24830882

Is hacked phone call of Ukraine sniper attacks evidence of exopolitics conflict?
03/05/2014 
http://www.examiner.com/article/is-hacked-phone-call-of-ukraine-sniper-attacks-evidence-of-exopolitics-conflict

British EU chief Ashton hears Ukraine shooting claim in bugged call 
03/05/2014 

Maidan: Handelten Scharfschützen im Auftrag der neuen Koalition?
03/05/2014 
03/05/2014 

Välisminister Urmas Paeti ja EL välispoliitika juhi Catherine Ashtoni telefonikõnest 
03/05/2014 

Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked call on Kiev snipers 
03/05/2014 

Ukraine Protests: Leaked EU Phone Call Suggests Kiev Snipers Were Hired by Opposition Coalition
03/05/2014 

Ukraine: Kiev snipers reportedly hired by opposition leaders not Yanukovich according to 'bugged call' 
03/05/2014 

Kiev snipers hired by new coalition, not Yanukovych - Estonian FM to Ashton 
03/05/2014 

Ucraina. Estonia: confermata telefonata Paet-Ashton su cecchini Kiev
03/05/2014 

Estonia FM: Kiev snipers from new Ukrainian coalition
03/05/2014
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/kiev-snipers-were-opposition-hitmen/article5754177.ece

Un ministro de Estonia informó a Ashton que la represión en Kiev fue obra de francotiradores de la oposición
03/05/2014 

Ukraine crisis: bugged call reveals conspiracy theory about Kiev snipers 
03/05/2014 

Estonia denies leaked call implicates Ukraine protesters in killings 
03/05/2014 

L’agression de la Russie via l’Ukraine par le bloc occidentaliste euro-transatlantique menace la paix mondiale, dont le maintien dépend de la détermination de Vladimir Poutine.   Comité Valmy
Urmas Paet et Catherine Ashton ou la nécessité d’enquêter sur les snipers de Kiev 
03/05/2014 

Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked phone call discussing how Kiev snipers who shot protesters were possibly hired by Ukraine's new leaders

Abgehörtes Telefonat nährt Spekulationen über Maidan-Scharfschützen
03/05/2014 
http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2014-03/kiew-ukraine-telefonat-ashton-paet

BUSTED: Leaked Phone Tape with EU’s Ashton reveals, Kiev Snipers hired by Maidan Leaders
03/05/2014 

Geleaktes Telefonat: Maidan-Regierung für Scharfschützen verantwortlich
03/05/2014 

Scharfschützen auf dem Maidan: Heikles Telefonat zwischen Ashton und estnischem Minister veröffentlicht
03/05/2014

Brisantes Telefonat Mit Catherine Ashton Angeblich Abgehört  
Scharfschützen! Was wussten die Maidan-Chefs?
03/05/2014

Wer schoss auf dem Maidan?


03/05/2014
http://www.tageblatt.lu/nachrichten/welt/story/Wer-schoss-auf-dem-Maidan--19201818

Brisantes Telefongespräch abgehörtWer waren die Kiewer Scharfschützen?
03/05/2014
http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Wer-waren-die-Kiewer-Scharfschuetzen-article12403406.html

Estland bestätigt Authentizität des Gesprächs über Scharfschützen auf Maidan
03/05/2014

Ukraine: Scharfschützen von Maidan-Anführern angeheuert
03/05/2014
Heikles Telefonat mit Ashton: Estland besorgt über Kiewer Regierung
03/05/2014
http://www.tt.com/home/8038001-91/heikles-telefonat-mit-ashton-estland-besorgt-%C3%BCber-kiewer-regierung.csp

MAIDAN-SCHARFSCHÜTZEN SCHOSSEN AUF POLIZISTEN UND DEMONSTRANTEN
03/05/2014

«I cecchini a Kiev? Mandati dall’opposizione». La frase shock del ministro estone con lady Ashton
03/05/2014 

Leaked phone tape raises claim that opposition involved in sniper attacks in Kiev
03/06/2014 
http://www.panorama.am/en/popular/2014/03/06/leaked-phone-talk/

Kamen die Scharfschützen aus der Opposition?
03/06/2014 
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/41/41162/1.html

Abgehörtes Telefonat mit Ashton
Ein Gespräch, das nichts beweist
03/06/2014 

Un législateur russe décrit la préoccupation de l'UE sur la démocratie ukrainienne comme "fausse" 
03/06/2014 

Ukraine Opposition Behind Snipers in Kiev According to a Leaked Phone Call 
03/06/2014 

ESTONIE - Catherine Ashton piratée
Le ministre des Affaires étrangères estonien confirme le contenu
03/06/2014
http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2014/03/06/catherine-ashton-piratee

Wer heuerte die Maidan-Todesschützen wirklich an?
03/06/2014
http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/wer-toetete-100-demonstranten-die-schwierige-suche-nach-den-moerdern-vom-maidan_id_3668731.html

Ukraine: Maidan, tödliche Schüsse und ein Telefonat
03/06/2014
http://de.euronews.com/2014/03/06/ukraine-maidan-toedliche-schuesse-und-ein-telefonat/

Zwischen Catherine Ashton und dem estnischen Außenminister
Abgehörtes Telefonat sorgt für Aufsehen
03/06/2014
http://www.rp-online.de/politik/ausland/catherine-ashton-und-urmas-paet-abgehoertes-telefonat-sorgt-fuer-aufsehen-aid-1.4087162

Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders: leaked Ashton phone tape
03/06/2014
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1572792

Who Were the Kiev Snipers?
03/06/2014 
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march062014/kiev-snipers-mm.php

Die Kiewer Eskalationsstrategie
03/06/2014 

Leaked call raises questions about who was behind sniper attacks in Ukraine
03/06/2014

Ukraine : une rumeur accuse l’opposition d‘être les snipers de Maïdan 
03/06/2014 

Les tireurs d'élite de Kiev engagés par l'opposition? 
03/06/2014 

Et si l'opposition avait fait appel aux snipers? 
03/06/2014 

Recorded call reveals Ukraine opposition snipers, not Yanukovych, fired on protestors in Kiev
03/06/2014 
http://www.prnewschannel.com/2014/03/06/recorded-call-reveals-ukraine-opposition-snipers-not-yanukovych-fired-on-protestors-in-kiev/

Estonian FM denies leaked call blamed opposition
03/06/2014 
http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/06/estonian-fm-denies-leaked-call-blamed-opposition/

L’Estonie confirme une conversation piratée avec Catherine Ashton 
03/06/2014 

The founder of the Civil Platform party, billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov calls for international inquiry into Kyiv snipers
03/06/2014 

Wer hat auf dem Maidan geschossen?
03/06/2014 

Ashton Telephone Leak : Russian Parliament to Investigate Kiev Sniper Shootings
03/06/2014 

Spekulationen über die Maidan-Scharfschützen
03/06/2014

Wer hat die Demonstranten auf dem Maidan erschossen?
03/06/2014
http://www.welt.de/politik/article125501429/Wer-hat-die-Demonstranten-auf-dem-Maidan-erschossen.html

Ukraine/snipers: l'UE propose d'ouvrir une enquête
03/07/2014 

Wer schoss auf die Demonstranten in Kiew?
03/07/2014 
http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/politik/article125525185/Wer-schoss-auf-die-Demonstranten-in-Kiew.html

Wer ist für die Todesschüsse verantwortlich?
03/07/2014 
http://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/specials/id_68374062/ukraine-wer-ist-fuer-die-todesschuesse-auf-dem-maidan-verantwortlich-.html

Abgehörte Telefone im Informationskrieg
03/07/2014
http://www.20min.ch/ausland/news/story/Abgehoerte-Telefone-im-Informationskrieg-25211064

100 Tote auf dem MaidanWer ist für die Todesschüsse verantwortlich?
03/07/2014
http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/926200.maidan-aerztin-weist-scharfschuetzen-verdacht-zurueck.html

Scharfschützen vom Maidan – Untersuchungsergebnisse sollen demnächst präsentiert werden
03/07/2014
03/07/2014 

Russia and Ukraine give different versions of sniper tragedy that drove Yanukovych from power
03/07/2014 
03/08/2014 

Russia calls for OSCE probe into Kiev sniper deaths
03/08/2014 

Latest reports about Kiev 'snipers' affair' cannot be 'swept under carpet' - Lavrov
03/08/2014 

Russia wants probe into Kiev sniper 'cover-up'
03/08/2014
http://www.news24.com/World/News/Russia-wants-probe-into-Kiev-sniper-cover-up-20140308

La Russie demande une enquête sur l'affaire des snipers à Kiev
03/08/2014
https://www.medias24.com/filafp/afp-761-La-Russie-demande-une-enquete-sur-l-affaire-des-snipers-a-Kiev.html

Russia calls for OSCE probe into Kiev sniper deaths
03/08/2014 

Moscow and Kiev spar over who was to blame for deadly sniper attacks
03/08/2014 

On whose side were the Kiev snipers? Russia and Ukraine trade blame
03/08/2014 
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.578576

Prominent Ukrainian doctor is no ordinary revolutionary
03/08/2014 
Dr. Olga Bogomolets spoke at length with The Globe and Mail about her frustration with the government’s response to Maidan and the pressure she is facing to run for president in May. The new government brought “in a few new faces, but our goal was not to change the faces,” she said. “We are just coming back to what was before, just a different picture, a little bit of a different picture."

La Russie demande une enquête sur l'affaire des snipers à Kiev 
03/08/2014 

Russian envoy at UN calls for thorough investigation of regime change in Kiev
03/08/2014
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/722744

Russia wants OSCE to probe Kiev sniper 'cover-up' as mission is turned away from Crimea
03/08/2014
http://tribune.com.pk/story/680466/russia-wants-osce-to-probe-kiev-sniper-cover-up-as-mission-is-turned-away-from-crimea/

Russia, Ukraine feud over sniper carnage 
03/08/2014 

L'UPR demande au gouvernement de s'associer à la demande de la Russie d’une enquête de l'OSCE sur l'affaire des snipers à Kiev 
03/08/2014 

Kiev: la Russie veut une enquête de l'OSCE 
03/08/2014 

Agence France-Presse
Russia wants OSCE probe into Kiev sniper 'cover-up'
03/08/2014
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140308/russia-wants-osce-probe-kiev-sniper-cover

EU has joined Russia in calling for an investigation into deadly sniper attacks in the Ukrainian capital Kiev last month 
03/09/2014 

Moscou demande une commission d’enquête 
03/09/2014 

Ukraine: chez Russia Today la guerre Médiatique est une chose vulgaire 
03/09/2014 

Mystery over identity of snipers who caused city bloodbath
03/09/2014 
http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/mystery-over-identity-of-snipers-who-caused-city-bloodbath-1-3333574

Violent events that led to change of power in Ukraine must be investigated - Russia's UN envoy
03/09/2014 

'Who the EU is Supporting in Kiev Will Worry Europeans'
03/10/2014 
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921217001427

Gündemi sarsan ses kaydı: "Maydan'da muhalefetin sniper'lari iki tarafa ateş açtı"
03/12/2014 
http://www.turkrus.com/64615-gundemi-sarsan-ses-kaydi-maydanda-muhalefetin-sniperlari-iki-tarafa-ates-acti-xh.aspx

Kiev snipers shooting from bldg controlled by Maidan forces – Ex-Ukraine security chief
03/13/2014
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-snipers-security-chief-438/

Washington sanctioning Democracy and hailing Nazism
03/20/2014 

Kiev snipers, the regime and Yanukovych
04/03/2014


(All dates are using MM/DD/AAAA format)



Share/Bookmark

Auteur : Dr. Conscience Sociale A 15:28
Libellés : , , , , ,


Click to read ~~>> commentaires

2014/03/06

Russia, the Budapest memorandum, and the crisis of representativeness


Steven Blockmans published today a short commentary on Russia and the Budapest Memorandum. It is an assault against Russia foreign politics, and he wrote in his conclusion:
"So far, the Kremlin has not bothered to seriously rebut allegations by the US and the EU that it has violated the terms of the Budapest memorandum.

More worryingly, the Moscow allows itself to be inconsistent with its own commitments and is reneging its own words.

This has all the trappings of a panicking dictatorship, which crushes dissent at home and portrays confidence in winning a great battle with the enemy abroad. How can anybody trust what Putin’s Russia says or commits to in the future?"
My comments:

1) As a Professor of Law, he started with the Budapest Memorandum, but he failed to discuss the Helsinki CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE (CSCE) Final Act mentioned in Article 1. This one states:
The participating States [...] Have adopted the following:
I Prior notification of major military manoeuvres They will notify their major military manoeuvres to all other participating States through usual diplomatic channels in accordance with the following provisions:
Notification will be given of major military manoeuvres exceeding a total of 25,000 troops, independently or combined with any possible air or naval components (in this context the word "troops" includes amphibious and airborne troops). In the case of independent manoeuvres of amphibious or airborne troops, or of combined manoeuvres involving them, these troops will be included in this total. Furthermore, in the case of combined manoeuvres which do not reach the above total but which involve land forces together with significant numbers of either amphibious or airborne troops, or both, notification can also be given.
Notification will be given of major military manoeuvres which take place on the territory, in Europe, of any participating State as well as, if applicable, in the adjoining sea area and air space.
You read correctly: no notification are required below 25,000 troops. 16,000 is lower.

More: Because of the agreement signed on 21 April 2010 between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents, Russia is allowed to maintain thousands of troops in Crimea, without mentioning others in surrounding coasts (Gudauta, Krasnodar Kra).

2) Professor of Law Steven Blockmans failed to mention that M. Yanukovich has not resigned, is still alive and is still constitutionally the current legitimately elected Ukraine President, whatever Kiev may claim. No current power in Kiev is legitimate. Thus, they cannot claim themselves to be "the Ukraine government" and claim from this position that Russia has invaded Crimea. Moreover, Crimea is an autonomous republic within Ukraine, electing its own parliament. Crimea political representatives have not claimed to be invaded by Russia.

There was an armed seizure of power in Kiev and a legitimately elected president was overthrown. This was a violation of Ukraine’s constitution. Who cannot agree with this fact? 

3) Steven Blockmans failed to mention that Leaked EU Phone Call Suggests Kiev Snipers Were Hired by Opposition Coalition not former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich (read this news thread in the comments section of this article). He would have remarked that Ms Ashton did not express any human sentiment whatsoever about 94 persons killed at Maidan events by neo-nazis and that she failed so far to report this publicly since this phone call 26 February, and to call for an international investigation about these crimes. 
Steven Blockmans, this is the most important international law and you failed to protect it. It is justified to say that human rights and fundamental freedoms were violated by fascists and neo-nazis in Kiev which seized power by unconstitutional means.

4) Steven Blockmans failed to mention that US department of State supported the ukrainian opposition, the ones who killed innocents and accused Yanukovich, with "more than $5 billion" during years as claimed by Ms Nuland on a leaked phone call (1, 2).

5) Steven Blockmans failed to mention the fascist way of doing politics the ukrainian opposition leaders nowadays (3, 4). Who does he really want to protect with his comments in Law: ukrainian citizens or fascists, terrorists and neo-nazis? 

6) Steven Blockmans failed to mention how Klitschko betrayed Ukraine for money to NATO (5, 6)

Conclusion at this step:

Thus, if the international community, and Western in particular, is encouraging those acts, who is going to protect the rule of law? What does it means for Western citizens?

So far, the US and the EU representatives have not bothered to seriously rebut allegations by the Kremlin that ukrainian opposition has violated the ukrainian Constitution and human rights.

More worryingly, the US and the EU allow themselves to be inconsistent with their own commitments and are reneging their own words.

This has all the trappings of panicking dictatorships, which crush dissent at home and abroad and portrays confidence in willing to support the citizens' fascist enemy abroad. How can thus anybody trust what the US and the EU representatives say or commit to in the future?

Europeans citizens, our political and civil society representatives who supports the Kiev neo-nazi coup are all attempting to violate our deepest and most honorable values. Will you let them do that there and inevitably after in your country by your own government (the same who declare to support the Kiev coup)? Don't you understand not only the historical shame for us but the deadly path for our societies on this road? 

Without common values there is no trust, no society. No european spirit whatsoever would remain for a long time: it would be split.




Share/Bookmark

Auteur : Dr. Conscience Sociale A 14:58
Libellés : , , , , , , , , , , ,


Click to read ~~>> commentaires

2014/03/03

The Test of Citizenship: The speech that no US President can no longer give


This speech is copied as much as possible from President John F. Kennedy’s speech “The President and the Press” given before the American Newspaper Publishers Association at Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961 [1]. 

JFK's original speech has to be understood in the perspective of President Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell address January 17, 1961 and ten days after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion April 17, 1961 because of the CIA. But also in the perspective of President F.D. Roosevelt's speech "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies" April 29, 1938 who stated :
"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.
Both lessons hit home.
Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."

My modified version has to be understood following Edward Snowden's and all others whistleblowers' revelations. The inner politics behind what is revealing nowadays has been summarized in a previous political anticipation.

All the differences (in strikeout text) or additions (in italics) made by me to the original text are clearly indicated inline.

__________________

 


Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

     I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard many complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed except by whistleblowers. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers technical systems information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage;
that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the so-called enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites countries were followed spied required its alteration and control at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of national security journalism and not the tests of national security citizenship. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the citizens' freedom in this nation?” after asking "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.


[1] source: JFKLibrary


Share/Bookmark

Auteur : Dr. Conscience Sociale A 18:35
Libellés : , , , , , , ,


Click to read ~~>> commentaires

2014/02/26

Israël et la Palestine dans le monde d'après

Le retrait soudain de la part des U.S.A. de la volonté d'offensive armée sur la Syrie le 10 Septembre 2013 a aussi signé le retrait de l'influence U.S. dans tout le Moyen-Orient. Depuis, ses alliés les plus proches, l'Arabie Saoudite et Israël, se détournent de lui. 
Laurent Fabius avait peu après exigé une refondation des moyens d'études stratégiques pour la politique étrangère de la France. [4]
Les positions du "jeu" au Moyen-Orient se sont depuis déjà déplacées pour accompagner le retrait inévitable des U.S.A.

Le Moyen-Orient constitue en effet une géographie très importante de la politique de voisinage de l'UE. Un retrait d'un soutien fort menace rapidement la stabilité d'un état dans un équilibre très précaire comme Israël, et les répercussions incontrôlables dans cette zone sont à craindre. Par effet d'entraînement les conflits pourraient dépasser les puissances régionales. On l'a vu avec la pression mise par les BRICS dans le conflit en Syrie: le Moyen-Orient est aussi une affaire stratégique pour la politique de voisinage de la Chine et de la Russie, directement au travers de leur allié Iranien.

Si l'UE se désintéressait complètement du Moyen-Orient, le retrait du support américain laisserait en prise directe Israël et l'Iran (avec l'Arabie Saoudite pour attiser les flammes). Ce serait une politique du désastre.

Dans le cas d'Israël, on doit constater qu'un nouvel allié est déjà en place: il s'agit de l'Euroland, c'est à dire en premier lieu du couple franco-allemand. Le service de Mme Ashton est complètement absent, ainsi que le Royaume-Uni. Le terme UE n'est présent dans les discours que comme un raccourci sémantique. Le L.E.A.P. a déjà longuement analysé la nécessaire reconstruction de l'UE autour du noyau Eurolandais. [2]
La co-construction du Moyen-Orient dans le monde d'après la crise représente donc l'acte de naissance d'une politique étrangère visible et affirmée de l'Euroland.

Après la visite de Hollande à Jérusalem ET à Ramallah (Palestine) le 18 novembre 2013 [1], on a en effet assisté à:
  • Merkel à Jérusalem [9], avec une position de soutien équilibrée [6]
  • Le président de l'Autorité palestinienne Mahmoud Abbas rencontre Hollande à Paris [7]
  • La représentation diplomatique d'Israël dans certains pays sera assurée par l'Allemagne [8]
Concernant la stabilisation des relations entre Israël et Palestine et les principes de construction d'une paix durable - c'est à dire équilibrée - ceux-ci ont déjà été définis par Franck Biancheri en 2008 [3]. Vous pourrez constater du maintien de leur complète pertinence aujourd'hui. C'est un des avantages quand on réfléchit à une stratégie sur le temps long. 

Israël et la Palestine: la route est longue, mais désormais dans le monde d'après il peut y avoir une route, dès l'instant où les positions sont équilibrées et que l'Europe n'utilise ni boycott, ni soutien à la colonisation [5].

C'est ce même élan d'une politique étrangère Euro-BRICS (mais avec la Pologne, et sans les U.S. ni la Commission Européenne) qu'il faudrait utiliser pour la résolution de la crise en Ukraine. Une partie de cette configuration est déjà en place.

Sources:

Share/Bookmark

Auteur : Dr. Conscience Sociale A 09:34
Libellés : , , ,


Click to read ~~>> commentaires
Inscription à : Articles (Atom)