When Is A Boot On The Ground Not A Boot On The Ground?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/03/2016 13:16 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-03/when-boot-ground-not-boot-ground

Authored by AP's Lolita Baldor, via Military.com,
No one disputes that U.S. military forces are fighting in combat in Iraq and Syria -- except maybe President Barack Obama and some members of his administration.
The semantic arguments over whether there are American "boots on the ground" muddy the view of a situation in which several thousand armed U.S. military personnel are in Iraq and Syria. Obama has said more than a dozen times that there would be no combat troops in Iraq and Syria as the number of service members in those countries grows; last week, Defense Secretary Ash Carter acknowledged the military personnel there were in combat and "we should say that clearly."
So, when is a military boot on the ground? And what does it all mean?

Are U.S. military troops in Iraq?

Yes. More than 5,500 U.S. service members. The Pentagon, however, counts them in different ways. Obama recently authorized an increase in the number of troops that can deploy to Iraq to advise and assist Iraqi forces in fighting the Islamic State. The cap was increased last week from 3,870 to 4,087.
But a number of troops aren't counted against the cap because of the military's personnel accounting system. For example, troops assigned to the U.S. Embassy for security or those sent to Iraq for temporary, short-term assignments are there in addition to the 4,087.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in Stuttgart, Germany for a change-of-command ceremony Tuesday, revealed that a serviceman had been killed in combat near Irbil in Iraq. A U.S. military official, speaking on grounds of anonymity, said the American was killed while performing his duty as an adviser to Kurdish Peshmerga troops. He was killed by "direct fire" after Islamic State forces penetrated the Peshmerga's forward line. The official said the American was three to two to three miles behind the front line.

Are U.S. military troops in Syria?

Yes. Last week the Pentagon announced an increase in the number of U.S. forces working in Syria from 50 to 300. Those troops are working with local Syrian forces and are mainly Army special forces, but the latest increase will also include medical and logistics units.

So, that would mean there are U.S. "boots on the ground" in Iraq and Syria, wouldn't it?

Yes it would. In Iraq there are advisers, trainers, special operations forces and others stationed at Iraqi bases, working with the Iraqi forces. Last week, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that some advisers would begin working with Iraqis at the brigade and battalion level. They had been working with Iraqis at the division headquarters level. The change would embed those teams of advisers with smaller units, who would likely be closer to the fight.
In Syria, the U.S. has about 50 special operations forces going into Syria from a base in a neighboring country to meet with local Syrian opposition forces. They aren't based in Syria, so they travel in and out, sometimes staying in the country for several days at a time. According to officials, the additional 250 forces will do the same thing. They will not be based in Syria, but will instead work out of neighboring countries, such as Iraq or Turkey. And they are not there to fight alongside the Syrians, they are there to provide advice and other assistance.

What about air strikes? Aren't pilots flying combat missions?

Yes they are. Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made it clear during a Senate hearing last week that U.S. fighter jets conducting airstrikes in Iraq and Syria are conducting combat missions.

Why does the administration say there are no U.S. boots on the ground?

Obama administration officials have consistently told the American public since 2013 that there will be no combat "boots on the ground" in Iraq and Syria. Their argument is based on the idea that there are no conventional U.S. ground forces in large units fighting the Islamic State militants in direct combat. Saying there are "no U.S. boots on the ground" — while inaccurate — is meant to convey the administration's view that U.S. troops are not on the front lines waging the war. Instead, U.S. troops are advising and assisting the Iraqi and Syrian forces, providing training, intelligence, and logistical support from behind the battlefront.
The parsing of words is meant to differentiate the latest Islamic State conflicts from earlier wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when thousands of U.S. troops were battling the enemy in small units and in close combat.
Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that U.S. troops are not going to war to substitute for the local forces, but are trying "to get them powerful enough that they can expel ISIL with our support. And when we provide that support, we put people in harm's way. We ask them to conduct combat actions."

Aren't special operations forces in direct combat in Iraq or Syria?

A: Probably. But the Pentagon doesn't talk about the often highly classified operations that U.S. commandos -- including Army Delta Force or Navy SEALs -- are doing no matter where they are. And Army special forces — or Green Berets — are in many war-torn countries providing training and assistance, because that's one of their key jobs.
In some cases, U.S. officials have acknowledged special operations missions to capture or kill high-value targets or to try and rescue hostages.
But those are not considered "boots on the ground" because they often move in and out quickly, and stay for short periods of time.

Microsoft Sues Obama Administration "To Keep Secrecy The Exception, Not The Rule"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/14/2016 12:51 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-14/microsoft-sues-obama-administration-keep-secrecy-exception-not-rule
The "most transparent administration ever" appears to be making no friends in the tech industry. Following its debacle with Apple, the Obama administration now faces a suit from Microsoft that, in their words, stands up for "customers’ constitutional and fundamental rights – rights that help protect privacy and promote free expression." As Microsoft's Brad Smith notes, with rare exceptions consumers and businesses have a right to know when the government accesses their emails or records, and the suit centers around the fact that since cloud storage accelerated, it’s becoming routine for the U.S. government to issue orders that require email providers to keep these types of legal demands secret. Microsoft believe that this goes too far.
As Bloomberg reports, Microsoft Corp. sued the U.S. Justice Department in an attempt to stop the government from forcing it to turn its customers’ e-mails and other data over to law enforcement without their knowledge.

The lawsuit, which names the Justice Department and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, ratchets up the pressure by technology companies against the U.S. government and echoes a struggle by Apple Inc. to protect its customers’ privacy by refusing to undermine the encryption on its iPhones. Microsoft has been fighting the U.S. over customer privacy and its ability to disclose what it’s had to turn over to investigators for more than two years.

Microsoft called the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act unconstitutional, citing its own First Amendment free speech rights and its customers’ Fourth Amendment right to know if the government has searched or seized their property. The law essentially places the company under an unlimited gag order, according to the complaint filed Thursday in U.S. district court in Seattle. While it’s concerned with protecting civil liberties, Microsoft said it also wants to preserve its ability to sell Internet-based services that customers trust.

“It’s very important for businesses to know when the government is accessing their file room, whether the file room is down the hall or in the cloud," said Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith, noting that consumers and privacy groups have expressed concern about the issue. “People shouldn’t lose their rights simply because technology is moving to the cloud.”

Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft argues that the statute violates the company’s First Amendment free-speech rights by placing it under an unlimited gag order and customers’ Fourth Amendment right to know if the government has searched or seized their property.

The rapid growth of cloud computing, in which customer data is stored by providers like Microsoft, Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Google Inc. in the technology companies’ own data centers, has increased both the frequency of warrants seeking data and government abuse of its search powers, Microsoft said in the filing. The law in question predates the invention of the World Wide Web by three years, and was enacted more than two decades before widespread use of cloud computing, Microsoft said. But, according to the complaint below...

The government, however, has exploited the transition to cloud computing as a means of expanding its power to conduct secret investigations. As individuals and business have moved their most sensitive information to the cloud, the government has increasingly adopted the tactic of obtaining the private digital documents of cloud customers not from the customers themselves, but through legal process directed at online cloud providers like  Microsoft. At the same time, the government seeks secrecy orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) to prevent Microsoft from telling its customers (or anyone else) of the government’s demands.

These secrecy orders generally assert that abiding by the centuries-old requirement of seeking evidence directly from its owner would jeopardize the government’s investigation. Most of the time, these secrecy orders prohibit notification for unreasonably long (or even unlimited) periods of time, which Section 2705(b) permits whenever a court has “reason to believe” any of several adverse consequences might otherwise ensue—including any time notice would “seriously jeopardiz[e] an investigation or unduly delay[] a trial.”

As Microsoft details on their blog, Keeping secrecy the exception, not the rule: An issue for both consumers and businesses...

This morning we filed a new lawsuit in federal court against the United States government to stand up for what we believe are our customers’ constitutional and fundamental rights – rights that help protect privacy and promote free expression. This is not a decision we made lightly, and hence we wanted to share information on this step and why we are taking it.

An issue of fundamental rights

We believe that with rare exceptions consumers and businesses have a right to know when the government accesses their emails or records. Yet it’s becoming routine for the U.S. government to issue orders that require email providers to keep these types of legal demands secret. We believe that this goes too far and we are asking the courts to address the situation.

To be clear, we appreciate that there are times when secrecy around a government warrant is needed. This is the case, for example, when disclosure of the government’s warrant would create a real risk of harm to another individual or when disclosure would allow people to destroy evidence and thwart an investigation. But based on the many secrecy orders we have received, we question whether these orders are grounded in specific facts that truly demand secrecy. To the contrary, it appears that the issuance of secrecy orders has become too routine.

The urgency for action is clear and growing. Over the past 18 months, the U.S. government has required that we maintain secrecy regarding 2,576 legal demands, effectively silencing Microsoft from speaking to customers about warrants or other legal process seeking their data. Notably and even surprisingly, 1,752 of these secrecy orders, or 68 percent of the total, contained no fixed end date at all. This means that we effectively are prohibited forever from telling our customers that the government has obtained their data.

We believe these actions violate two of the fundamental rights that have been part of this country since its founding. These lengthy and even permanent secrecy orders violate the Fourth Amendment, which gives people and businesses the right to know if the government searches or seizes their property. They also violate the First Amendment, which guarantees our right to talk to customers about how government action is affecting their data. The constitutional right to free speech is subject only to restraints narrowly tailored to serve compelling governmental interests, a standard that is neither required by the statute being applied nor met by the government in practice here.

An issue with important practical consequences

The issue also has practical implications, and it’s important to consider them.

First, the issue has vital practical ramifications given the evolution of technology. Before the digital age, individuals and businesses stored their most sensitive correspondence and other documents in file cabinets and desk drawers. As computers became prevalent, users moved their materials to local computers and on-premises servers, which continued to remain within a user’s physical possession and control. In both eras, the government had to give notice when it sought a warrant to seize private information and communications, except in the rarest of circumstances.

Cloud computing has spurred a profound change in the storage of private information. Today, individuals increasingly keep their emails and documents on remote servers in data centers – in short, in the cloud. But the transition to the cloud does not alter people’s expectations of privacy and should not alter the fundamental constitutional requirement that the government must – with few exceptions – give notice when it searches and seizes private information or communications.

The same is true for businesses large and small. In the past, when a business’ email server was housed in its own building, the government by definition had to give notice in order to enter the building or otherwise require the business to produce an employee’s emails. Now businesses actively are migrating their information technology infrastructure to servers hosted by cloud service providers. In this new context, the government’s secrecy orders forbid cloud service providers from letting businesses know that the government has obtained their data. Not surprisingly, business customers regularly convey to us their strong desire to know when the government is obtaining their data. And not surprisingly, they want the opportunity for their own lawyers to review the situation and help decide whether to turn over information or contest the issue in court.

In 2013 we committed publicly to challenging individual secrecy orders for legitimate business customers, given our belief that the government can often obtain the information it needs from the headquarters of a business without notifying a specific individual there who is under investigation. In some cases we’ve convinced the government to redirect its request to our business customers. In other cases we’ve litigated the issue, and, in one recent situation, the government argued that we should be held in contempt for refusing to turn over email until a court ruled on the secrecy issue. Fortunately, we prevailed on the contempt issue in that case. But as we’ve monitored requests over time, we’ve concluded that this issue is recurring and needs to be considered in the context of the broader constitutional rights that are at stake.

It’s also important to consider the issue in the practical context of government investigations. Even if there is a solid basis for secrecy at the beginning of an investigation, circumstances can change. The government may drop the investigation or may take some step that alerts an individual to its existence. Yet even then these lengthy or permanent secrecy orders prevent cloud service providers from discussing with the customer the fact that his or her emails were accessed.

An issue that calls for a principled solution

Whenever we raise concerns such as these, we try to couple our focus on the problem with some suggestions for possible solutions. We definitely appreciate that we do not have all the answers and that others may offer better ideas than we have thought about so far. But we believe it’s important to help think constructively about possible steps forward.

While today’s lawsuit is important, we believe there’s an opportunity for the Department of Justice to adopt a new policy that sets reasonable limitations on the use of these types of secrecy orders. Congress also has a role to play in finding and passing solutions that both protect people’s rights and meet law enforcement’s needs. If the DOJ doesn’t act, then we hope that Congress will amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to implement reasonable rules. In fact, secrecy provisions in ECPA today are out of step with other U.S. laws that contain clearer limitations on secrecy provisions and allow law enforcement flexibility for extensions.

If policymakers update the rules governing secrecy orders, we hope they will be guided by three principles that we think are important for our customers and for law enforcement. First, transparency: People have a right to know as soon as reasonably possible when the government serves a provider with a legal demand to access their records or emails. Providers like Microsoft have a right to inform customers and be transparent with the public. Second, digital neutrality: Customers generally shouldn’t be entitled to less notice just because they have moved their emails to the cloud. And finally, necessity:  Secrecy orders should be adapted to what’s necessary for the investigation, and no more. If there’s a good reason to justify a secrecy order initially and that reason continues, prosecutors should be able to extend the order based on necessity. If not, we should be able to tell our customer what happened.

As I noted at the beginning, we don’t take lightly this type of action – filing a lawsuit against any government. We only do so when we believe that critical principles and important practical consequences are at stake. Today’s lawsuit is the fourth public case we’ve filed against the U.S. government related to our customers’ right to privacy and transparency. The first lawsuit resulted in a good and appropriate settlement allowing us to disclose the number of legal requests we receive. The second resulted in the government withdrawing a National Security Letter after we challenged a non-disclosure order attached to the letter. The third, a challenge to a U.S. search warrant for customer email in Ireland belonging to a non-US citizen, is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Today’s suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, can be found here.

Ultimately, we view this case as similar to the other three that we have filed. It involves the fundamental right of people and businesses to know when the government is accessing their content and our right to share this information with them.

Indictment Looms As FBI Declares 22 Clinton Home-Server Emails "Top Secret"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/29/2016 14:56 -0500

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-29/indictment-looms-fbi-declares-22-clinton-emails-top-secret

Just as we warned, and she must have known, it appears at least 22 of the emails found on Hillary Clinton's private email server have been declared "top secret" by The FBI (but will not be releasing the contents) according to AP.

Clinton has insisted she never sent or received information on her personal email account that was classified at the time. No emails released so far were stamped "CLASSIFIED" or "TOP SECRET," but reviewers previously had designated more than 1,000 messages at lower classification levels for public release. Friday's will be the first at the top secret level.

And because the administration believes strongly in transparency and accountability, you won't get any information about just what kind of state secrets were passed on a non-secure server:

• STATE DEPT WON'T SPEAK ON CONTENT OF TOP SECRET E-MAILS: KIRBY
• KIRBY: SOME CLINTON-OBAMA E-MAIL EXCHANGES ARE BEING WITHHELD

As AP reports,

The Obama administration is confirming for the first time that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some closely guarded secrets, including material requiring one of the highest levels of classification.

The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.

The State Department will release more emails from Clinton's time as secretary of state later Friday.

But The Associated Press has learned that 7 email chains are being withheld in full for containing "top secret" material.

The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called "special access programs" — a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

Department officials wouldn't describe the substance of the emails, or say if Clinton had sent any herself.

Spokesman John Kirby tells the AP that no judgment on past classification was made. But the department is looking into that, too.

For those that Clinton only read, and didn't write or forward, she still would have been required to report classification slippages that she recognized.

Possible responses for classification infractions include counseling, warnings or other action,State Department officials said, though they declined to say if these applied to Clinton or senior aides who've since left the department. The officials weren't authorized to speak on the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity.

However, as we previously noted, the implications are tough for The DoJ - if they indict they crush their own candidate's chances of the Presidency, if they do not - someone will leak the details and the FBI will revolt... The leaking of the Clinton emails has been compared to as the next “Watergate” by former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova this week, if current FBI investigations don’t proceed in an appropriate manner. The revelation comes after more emails from Hilary Clinton’s personal email have come to light.

“[The investigation has reached] a critical mass,” DiGenova told radio host Laura Ingraham when discussing the FBI’s still pending investigation. Though Clinton is still yet to be charged with any crime, DiGenova advised on Tuesday that changes may be on the horizon. The mishandling over the classified intelligence may lead to an imminent indictment, with DiGenova suggesting it may come to a head within 60 days.

“I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general,” he said.

"The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges."

The FBI also is looking into Clinton's email setup, but has said nothing about the nature of its probe.Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that she intended to break any laws.

"What I would hope comes out of all of this is a bit of humility" and an acknowledgement from Clinton that "I made some serious mistakes," said Bradley Moss, a Washington lawyer who regularly handles security clearance matters.

Legal questions aside, it's the potential political costs that are probably of more immediate concern for Clinton. She has struggled in surveys measuring her perceived trustworthiness and an active federal investigation, especially one buoyed by evidence that top secret material coursed through her account, could negate one of her main selling points for becoming commander in chief: Her national security resume.

Former CIA Deputy Director Gives A Stunning Reason Why Obama Has Not Attacked ISIS' Oil Infrastructure

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/29/2015 22:42 -0500
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-29/former-cia-deputy-director-gives-stunning-reason-why-obama-has-not-attacked-isis-oil
As we pointed out a week ago, even before the downing of the Russian jet by a Turkish F-16, the most important question that nobody had asked about ISIS is where is the funding for the terrorist organization coming from, and more importantly, since everyone tacitly knows where said funding is coming from (as we have revealed in an ongoing series of posts "Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President", "How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence" and "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection") few on the US-led Western Alliance have done anything to stop the hundreds of millions in oil sale proceeds from funding the world's best organized terrorist group.
We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"
To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son, Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.
This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers, to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn’t order the bombing of ISIS’s oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about environmental damage.
Yes, he really said that:

We didn’t go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn’t want to do environmental damage, and we didn’t want to destroy that infrastructure.

In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.
Brilliant.
As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II.
But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.
Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that … look, we don’t want to destroy these oil tankers because that’s infrastructure that’s going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn’t there anymore, and it’s going to create environmental damage. And we didn’t go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn’t want to do environmental damage and we didn’t want to destroy that infrastructure, right.”
Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we’re hitting oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."
Of course, the lunacy gets even more ridiculous when one recalls that none other than one of the democrat frontrunners for president, Bernie Sanders, suggested in all seriousness that the real cause for terrorism is climate change, an allegation subsequently echoed by both UK's Prince Charles and none other than the chief of the UN, Ban Ki-moon himself.
So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.
We are truly speechless at this idiocy.
Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.
For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.

How The US Government Is Raiding A Citizen Victim Relief Fund To Pay For General Expenses

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/03/2015 10:45 -0500
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-03/how-us-government-raiding-citizen-victim-relief-fund-pay-general-expenses
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
One of the primary “talking points” used by the Department of Justice to defend its practice of systematically deeming corporate criminals above the law via its used of deferred prosecution agreements, has been an emphasis on how much money it has earned in fines from criminal corporations. These fines were supposed to be distributed to help victimized American citizens. Not any more.
The Wall Street Journal reports that:

WASHINGTON—The government’s just-approved budget deal takes $1.5 billion from a fund for crime victims and uses it instead to help pay for federal spending, drawing on a growing reserve collected from settlements with banks and major corporations.

The unprecedented transfer, part of closed-door negotiations between the Obama administration and congressional leaders, has raised the ire of advocates. They say it violates the integrity of a decades-old program that funds safe havens for domestic violence victims, counseling for abused children and financial aid for murder victims’ families, among other programs.

The administration and Republican congressional leaders averted a partial government shutdown by striking a two-year budget deal approved by Congress last week. As part of the pact the Crime Victims Fund will lose $1.5 billion to the general treasury, Obama administration officials said.

Since the fund’s creation in 1984 by the Victims of Crime Act, it has gathered money from fines imposed on criminals and set it aside to pay for services for crime victims.

But during the Obama administration, as major banks and corporations paid large sums to settle Justice Department investigations, the fund ballooned from about $3 billion to nearly $12 billion at the end of the 2014 budget year, according to the department.

The fund’s growing size has presented policy makers with a dilemma. When the fund began, the government paid out almost every dollar it received. But in 2000, Congress began capping the amount paid each year to ensure a steady stream of money for victims’ services.

From 2000 to 2008, the fund grew from $1 billion to $3 billion. As its balance kept rising, White House accountants were able to use the cash in an accounting move to offset government spending. Now, Congress and the White House have struck a deal to go further, by agreeing to withdraw some 10% of the money to directly fund the government.

Victims’ advocates say the move could set a dangerous precedent and encourage lawmakers to keep dipping into a pot of money intended to help crime victims, not to pay government bills.

Two years ago, the fund distributed about $745 million for victims services. That jumped last year to almost $2.4 billion, most in grants to state and local groups that provide counseling, aid or other services.

The proposed White House budget for fiscal 2016, which started Oct. 1, would give $1 billion to victim-services groups. Budget officials said it was a coincidence that the proposed reduction from last year’s $2.4 billion is about the same as the amount to be transferred out of the fund to general spending.

And once again, the U.S. citizenry gets steamrolled by its own corrupt government.

Obama administration accuses Israel of terrorism, ‘excessive force’

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, left, meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Israel, Wednesday, July 23, 2014. (Associated Press)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/obama-admin-accuses-israel-terrorism-excessive-for/
The Obama administration says Israel might be using excessive force and possibly committing acts of terrorism to deal with a string of violent stabbing attacks, drawing harsh criticism from senior Israeli Cabinet ministers.
Rising Israeli-Palestinian tensions have led to a wave of violence in Israel, including multiple stabbing incidents in Jerusalem. The attacks have prompted the Israeli government to deploy troops to assist police forces countering the violence. Israeli police have also encouraged citizens to arm themselves to prevent further attacks.
The Obama administration on Wednesday sought to equate both sides in the conflict, telling reporters that Israel is guilty of terrorism.
“Individuals on both sides of this divide are — have proven capable of, and in our view, are guilty of acts of terrorism,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters after questions about the spike in violence.
Mr. Kirby added that the administration has heard “credible reports” of Israelis using excessive force to deal with the Palestinian attacks.
“We’re always concerned about credible reports of excessive use of force against civilians, and we routinely raise our concerns about that,” Mr. Kirby said. 
The comments drew sharp criticism from Israeli officials.
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon accused Washington of misreading the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and said that shooting knife-wielding Palestinians was self-defense. Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan called the U.S. remarks “foolish,” Reuters reported.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry is set to travel to the Middle East soon to try to calm the violence, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered Cabinet members not to give any further public comment on the Obama administration’s remarks.
Seven Israelis and 32 Palestinians have been killed in the past two weeks of violence, including 10 assailants, as well as children and protesters shot in anti-Israeli demonstrations.
The violence has been partly triggered by Palestinians’ anger over what they see as increased Jewish encroachment on Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque compound, which is also revered by Jews as the site of two destroyed biblical Jewish temples.

The IRS scandal just got even worse

By Post Editorial Board

July 7, 2015

http://nypost.com/2015/07/07/the-irs-scandal-just-got-even-worse/

Former IRS official Lois Lerner Photo: AP

So the Obama IRS wasn’t just persecuting right-leaning nonprofits — it was out to prosecute them, too. And with the help of the Obama Department of Justice and FBI.
Via Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, the watchdog group Judicial Watch just got evidence of the plot. A “DOJ Recap” on an Oct. 8, 2010 meeting tells how officials from the three agencies discussed “several possible theories to bring criminal charges under FEC law” against groups “posing” as tax-exempt nonprofits.
As part of the project, the IRS handed the FBI 21 computer disks with 1.23 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit 501(c)(4) groups — nearly every 501(c)(4). This, though federal law generally bans the IRS from sharing such data.
The evidence shows “that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” noted Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his re-election. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information.”
The IRS scandal surfaced years ago — and for all the administration talk of a full investigation, this huge news is only surfacing now, and only thanks to Judicial Watch.
The news of FBI and Justice involvement in the IRS scandal makes the need for some special prosecutor to probe this mess even more obvious.
After all, as Judicial Watch’s Fitton asks: “How can the Justice Department and the FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”

Another Conspiracy Theory Becomes Fact: The Entire Oil Collapse Is All About Crushing Russian Control Over Syria

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/04/2015 10:45 -0500

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-03/another-conspiracy-theory-becomes-fact-entire-oil-collapse-all-about-crushing-russia

While the markets are still debating whether the price of oil is more impacted by the excess pumping of crude here, or the lack of demand there, or if it is all just a mechanical squeeze by momentum-chasing HFT algos who also know to buy in the milliseconds before 2:30pm, we bring readers' attention back to what several months ago was debunked as a deep conspiracy theory.
Back then we wrote about a certain visit by John Kerry to Saudi Arabia, on September 11 of all days, to negotiate a secret deal with the now late King Abdullah so as to get a "green light" in order "to launch its airstrikes against ISIS, or rather, parts of Iraq and Syria. And, not surprising, it is once again Assad whose fate was the bargaining chip to get the Saudis on the US' side, because in order to launch the incursion into Syrian sovereign territory, it "took months of behind-the-scenes work by the U.S. and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority."


We concluded:

Said otherwise, the pound of flesh demanded by Saudi Arabia to "bless" US airstrikes and make them appear as an act of some coalition, is the removal of the Assad regime. Why? So that, as we also explained last year, the holdings of the great Qatar natural gas fields can finally make their way onward to Europe, which incidentally is also America's desire - what better way to punish Putin for his recent actions than by crushing the main leverage the Kremlin has over Europe?

Because at the end of the day it is all about energy. We made as much very clear one month later when in mid-October we said "If The Oil Plunge Continues, "Now May Be A Time To Panic" For US Shale Companies." The panic time has long since come, but only after we laid out the problem clearly enough for all to grasp:

... while we understand if Saudi Arabia is employing a dumping strategy to punish the Kremlin as per the "deal" with Obama's White House, very soon there will be a very vocal, very insolvent and very domestic shale community demanding answers from the Obama administration, as once again the "costs" meant to punish Russia end up crippling the only truly viable industry under the current presidency.

As a reminder, the last time Obama threatened Russia with "costs", he sent Europe into a triple-dip recession.

It would truly be the crowning achievement of Obama's career if, amazingly, he manages to bankrupt the US shale "miracle" next.

Of course, all of the above was purely in the realm of the conspiratorial, because the last thing the administration would admit is that the tradeoff to its bargain with Saudi Arabia to implement a (largely failed) foreign policy regarding ISIS (which has grown in size since the coalition campaign) was to put at risk the entire US shale miracle, a miracle which is evaporating in front of everyone's eyes. And all thanks to that "closest" of US allies in the middle east: Saudi Arabia.
It was conspiratorial, that is, until today, when thanks to the far less "tinfoil" NYT one more conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact, following a report that "Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices."
From the NYT:

Saudi Arabia and Russia have had numerous discussions over the past several months that have yet to produce a significant breakthrough, according to American and Saudi officials. It is unclear how explicitly Saudi officials have linked oil to the issue of Syria during the talks, but Saudi officials say — and they have told the United States — that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices."

As we predicted, correctly, in September: it was all about Syria:

“If oil can serve to bring peace in Syria, I don’t see how Saudi Arabia would back away from trying to reach a deal,” a Saudi diplomat said. An array of diplomatic, intelligence and political officials from the United States and Middle East spoke on the condition of anonymity to adhere to protocols of diplomacy.

So what would it take for the price of oil to finally jump? Not much: Putin's announcement that Syria's leader Bashar is no longer a strategic ally of Russia.

Any weakening of Russian support for Mr. Assad could be one of the first signs that the recent tumult in the oil market is having an impact on global statecraft. Saudi officials have said publicly that the price of oil reflects only global supply and demand, and they have insisted that Saudi Arabia will not let geopolitics drive its economic agenda. But they believe that there could be ancillary diplomatic benefits to the country’s current strategy of allowing oil prices to stay low — including a chance to negotiate an exit for Mr. Assad.
...
"Russia has been one of the Syrian president’s most steadfast supporters, selling military equipment to the government for years to bolster Mr. Assad’s forces in their battle against rebel groups, including the Islamic State, and supplying everything from spare parts and specialty fuels to sniper training and helicopter maintenance."

Will Putin relent?

"Mr. Putin, however, has frequently demonstrated that he would rather accept economic hardship than buckle to outside pressures to change his policies. Sanctions imposed by the United States and European countries have not prompted Moscow to end its military involvement in Ukraine, and Mr. Putin has remained steadfast in his support for Mr. Assad, whom he sees as a bulwark in a region made increasingly volatile by Islamic extremism."

Actually that's not it: Syria, as we have been explaining for nearly two years is the critical transit zone of a proposed natural gas pipeline, originating in Qatar, and one which would terminate somewhere in central Europe. The same Qatar which was the "mystery sponsor of weapons and money to Syrian mercenary rebels" who eventually became ISIS. The same Qatar which is now directly funding ISIS. Of course, if Putin were to handover Syria to the Saudi princes (and to Qatar), he would effectively shoot himself in the foot by ending any leverage Gazprom has over Europe.
This too is very well known to Putin. For now he has shown that he has no intention of abdicating Syria, and losing critical leverage when it comes to being the provider of last resort of European gas:

The Saudis have offered economic enticements to Russian leaders in return for concessions on regional issues like Syria before, but never with oil prices so low. It is unclear what effect, if any, the discussions are having. While the United States would support initiatives to end Russian backing for Mr. Assad, any success by the Saudis to cut production and raise global oil prices could hurt many parts of the American economy.

After the meeting in Moscow in November between Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, and Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov rejected the idea that international politics should play a role in setting oil prices.

“We see eye to eye with our Saudi colleagues in that we believe the oil market should be based on the balance of supply and demand,” Mr. Lavrov said, “and that it should be free of any attempts to influence it for political or geopolitical purposes.”

Which, in retrospect puts the Ukraine conflict, and the western isolation of Russia in a very simple spotlight - the whole point is to inflict as much pain as possible, so Putin has no choice but to hand over Syria.

Russia is feeling financial pain and diplomatic isolation because of international sanctions stemming from its incursion into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, American officials said. But Mr. Putin still wants to be viewed as a pivotal player in the Middle East. The Russians hosted a conference last week in Moscow between the Assad government and some of Syria’s opposition groups, though few analysts believe the talks will amount to much, especially since many of the opposition groups boycotted them. Some Russia experts expressed skepticism that Mr. Putin would be amenable to any deal that involved removing support for Mr. Assad.

Saudi Arabia’s leverage depends on how seriously Moscow views its declining oil revenues. “If they are hurting so bad that they need the oil deal right away, the Saudis are in a good position to make them pay a geopolitical price as well,” said F. Gregory Gause III, a Middle East specialist at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service.

As for Assad, the Syrian president "has shown no inclination to step aside. He said in a recent interview with Foreign Affairs magazine that the true threat in Syria comes from the Islamic State and Qaeda-affiliated groups that, in his words, make up the “majority” of rebellion. American and Arab officials said that even if Russia were to abandon Mr. Assad, the Syrian president would still have his most generous benefactor, Iran. Iranian aid to the Syrian government has been one of the principal reasons that Mr. Assad has been able to hold power as other autocrats in the Middle East have been deposed.

And as a major oil producer, Iran would benefit if Saudi Arabia helped push up oil prices as part of a bargain with Russia.

“You are going to strengthen your enemy whether you like it or not, and the Iranians are not showing any flexibility here,” said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center who is close to the Saudi royal family.

But the military aid that Russia provides to Syria is different enough from what Damascus receives from Iran, its other major supplier, that if “Russia withdrew all military support, I don’t think the Syrian Army could function,” a senior Obama administration official said.

The conclusion:

A number of Arab nations have been pushing for the Saudis and Russians — polar extremes in their positions toward Mr. Assad — to find common ground on the matter as a step toward ending the carnage of Syria’s civil war, now almost four years old. But, as one Arab diplomat put it, “This decision is ultimately in Putin’s hands.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the great oil collapse of 2014/2015 is all about. For those who want to know when to buy oil, the answer is simple: just after (or ideally before) Putin announces he will no longer support the Assad regime. If, that is, he ever does because that act will effectively destroy all leverage Putin may ever have over Europe, and in the process, also end - quite prematurely - his career.
Until then, every single HFT-induced spike in oil is one to be ultimately faded, because as the past few months have shown, it is the Saudis who set the price, and they will not take no for an answer, even if it means crippling the entire US shale, and energy, industry in the process.

White House Set To Extend Obamacare Deadline By 1 Year

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/04/2014 
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-04/white-house-set-extend-obamacare-deadline-1-year

inShare

 

With the world distracted by Putin and ICBM launches, The White House, according to the WSJ, is about to extend Obamacare deadlines by another year:

• *U.S. MAY GRANT 1-YR EXTENSION ON HEALTH LAW REQUIREMENTS: WSJ
• *WSJ CITES INDUSTRY OFFICIAL ON INSURANCE COS., HEALTH CARE LAW

Allowing insurers to keep selling policies that do not meet standards for another year. It seems, if you like your healthcare policy, you can keep it for one more year... (most importantly past the Midterms)


Via WSJ,

The Obama administration plans to allow insurers to continue selling policies that don't meet the federal health law's requirements for at least another year, an insurance industry official confirmed Tuesday.
 ...
 The move would push a potential political furor over canceled insurance plans past this year's midterm elections. It would extend a policy reversal announced by President Barack Obama in November, in which he said insurance commissioners could let health plans reinstate for one year policies they had canceled because they didn't meet the Affordable Care Act's new standards.
The abrupt shift came after millions of Americans received cancellation notices from their carriers but were unable to use the HealthCare.gov website to apply for new coverage. That created a firestorm because Mr. Obama frequently promised during the passage of the health law that "if you like your plan, you can keep it."
 ...
 Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, an elected Republican who has been supportive of some parts of the federal health law, ... said Tuesday commissioners remained worried that allowing people who are typically healthier to keep skimpy policies would leave a riskier population in the main insurance market, which in turn would drive up rates.

Source: Cagle

Wednesday, Jan 15, 2014 10:21 AM EST

Leaked TPP documents: Administration may give up key environmental protections

The Obama administration appears to be sacrificing the environment in its push to fast-track a deal

Lindsay Abrams

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

In its urgency to reach agreement on an ambitious international trade agreement, the Obama administration may give up on key environmental protections, documents obtained by Wikileaks reveal. Obama has indicated that the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping deal being negotiated between the U.S. and eleven other Pacific Rim nations, is a top priority, and the push to fast-track the negotiations, the leaked documents indicate, appears to be coming at the cost of protections such as legally binding pollution control requirements, logging regulations and a ban on harvesting shark fins.

While the U.S. has been pushing for tough environmental provisions, the other nations working on the deal, which include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru, oppose them. And they currently have the upper hand, The New York Times reports:

As of now, the draft environmental chapter does not require the nations to follow legally binding environmental provisions or other global environmental treaties. The text notes only, for example, that pollution controls could vary depending on a country’s “domestic circumstances and capabilities.”

In addition, the draft does not contain clear requirements for a ban on shark finning, which is the practice of capturing sharks and cutting off their fins — commonly used in shark-fin soup — and throwing back the sharks to die. The dish is a delicacy in many of the Asian negotiating countries. At this point the draft says that the countries “may include” bans “as appropriate” on such practices.

…“Bilateral negotiations are a very different thing,” said Jennifer Haverkamp, the former head of the United States trade representative’s environmental office. “Here, if the U.S. is the only one pushing for this, it’s a real uphill battle to get others to agree if they don’t like it.”

The World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council have released their own analysis of the leaked documents, which they say fail meet the standard set by Congress back in 2007, when a bipartisan agreement to include an environmental provision in all American free-trade deals was reached.
“The lack of fully-enforceable environmental safeguards means negotiators are allowing a unique opportunity to protect wildlife and support legal sustainable trade of renewable resources to slip through their fingers,” Carter Roberts, President and CEO of WWF, said in a statement. ”These nations account for more than a quarter of global trade in fish and wood products and they have a responsibility to address trade’s impact on wildlife crime, illegal logging, and overfishing.”