Bradley Manning says United States is ‘obsessed with killing’

“I felt I accomplished something that would allow me to have a clear conscience.”

By DANIEL HALPER | WEEKLY STANDARD | MARCH 1, 2013

Bradley Manning pleaded guilty today to leaking classified material. “Army Pfc. Bradley Edward Manning pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 charges that he illegally acquired and transferred U.S. government secrets, agreeing to serve 20 years in prison for leaking classified material to WikiLeaks that described U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

… He also admitted that he leaked confidential file assessments of detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and five classified records from a U.S. bombing in the Farah Province of Afghanistan, which killed up to 30 civilians.

In all, the 5-1/2-year veteran once assigned to Operation Station Hammer near Baghdad in Iraq pleaded guilty to 10 counts, each drawing two years in prison.

Manning, however, pleaded not guilty to the more serious charges. “The 25-year-old soldier, however, pleaded not guilty to 12 more serious charges, including  espionage for aiding the enemy, meaning that his criminal case will go forward at a general court-martial in June. If convicted at trial, he risks a sentence of life in prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.”

Though he ultimately gave the documents to WikiLeaks, he tried first to send them to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Politico.

“Bradley Manning has revealed to his court-martial at Fort Meade, Maryland, that he tried to leak US state secrets to the Washington Post, New York Times and Politico before he turned in frustration to the new anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks,” reports the Guardian.

Is the U.S. stepping up Internet control push over unproven hacking allegations?

By BARRY GREY | WSW | FEBRUARY 21, 2013

The Obama administration is utilizing unsubstantiated charges of Chinese government cyber-attacks to escalate its threats against China. The past two days have seen allegations of hacking into US corporate and government web sites, hyped by the US media without any examination of their validity, employed to disorient the American public and justify an expansion of the Obama administration’s drive to isolate China and prepare for an eventual military attack.

The accusations of hacking against China will also be used to justify increased domestic surveillance of computer and Internet communications, as well as an expanded use of cyber warfare methods internationally.

The New York Times, functioning once again as a conduit for the Pentagon and the CIA, has taken the lead in the latest provocation against Beijing. On Tuesday it published a bellicose front-page article headlined “China’s Army Seen as Tied to Hacking Against US,” and carrying the ominous subhead “Power Grid is a Target.”

The article drips with cynicism and hypocrisy. It is well known that the United States is the world’s most ruthless practitioner of cyber warfare. The article itself acknowledged that the US worked with Israel to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program by introducing the Stuxnet virus into Iran’s computer systems. That bit of sabotage—itself an illegal act of aggression—was accompanied by a series of assassinations of Iranian scientists carried out by Israel with Washington’s support.

The sprawling front-page article, which continued on an entire inside page of the newspaper, was based on a 60-page report released that day by a private computer security firm with close ties to the Times, as well as to the US military and intelligence agencies. The report by Mandiant—founded by a retired Air Force officer and based in Alexandria, Virginia—provides no real evidence to substantiate its claim that a unit of China’s People’s Liberation Army based in Shanghai is directing hacking attacks on US corporations, organizations and government institutions.

In its report, Mandiant claims to have tracked 141 cyber attacks by the same Chinese hacker group since 2006, 115 of which targeted US corporations. On the basis of Internet footprints, including Internet provider addresses, Mandiant concludes that 90 percent of the hacking attacks come from the same neighborhood in Shanghai. It then notes that the headquarters of Unit 61398 of the People’s Liberation Army is located in that neighborhood. From this coincidence, Mandiant draws the entirely unwarranted inference that the cyber-attacks are coming from the PLA building.

As the Times admits in its article, “The firm was not able to place the hackers inside the 12-story [PLA Unit 61398 headquarters] building…” The newspaper goes on to report that “Mandiant also discovered an internal China Telecom memo discussing the state-owned telecom company’s decision to install high-speed fiber-optic lines for Unit 61398’s headquarters.” One can only assume that Mandiant “discovered” this memo by carrying out its own hacking of Chinese computers.

Chinese spokesmen have denied any involvement by the government or the military in hacking attacks and dismissed the Mandiant report as lacking any proof of its charges. The Chinese Ministry of Defense released a statement Wednesday pointing out that Internet provider addresses do not provide a reliable indication of the origin of hacking attacks, since hackers routinely usurp IP addresses. A Foreign Ministry spokesman pointed out that China is constantly being targeted by hackers, most of which originate in the US.

The Chinese position was echoed by Dell Secureworks cyber-security expert Joe Stewart, who told the Christian Science Monitor: “We still don’t have any hard proof that [the hacker group] is coming out of that [PLA Unit 61398’s] building, other than a lot of weird coincidence pointing in that direction. To me, it’s not hard evidence.”

The Obama administration followed up the Times article, which sparked a wave of frenzied media reports of Chinese cyber-attacks, by announcing on Wednesday that it would step up diplomatic pressure and consider more punitive laws to counter what it described as a wave of trade secret theft by China and other countries. The Associated Press reported that the administration was discussing “fines, penalties and tougher trade restrictions” directed against China.

The latest propaganda attack points to an escalation of the US offensive against China that went by the name “pivot to Asia” in Obama’s first term. That policy included whipping up territorial disputes in the East China and South China seas between China and a series of countries in East Asia, including Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines.

It has also included the establishment of closer military ties and new US installations in a number of countries, including India and Australia, to militarily encircle China.

The Times concluded its article by reporting that “The mounting evidence of state sponsorship… and the growing threat to American infrastructure are leading officials to conclude that a far stronger response is necessary.” It cited Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, as saying that Washington must “create a high price” to force the Chinese to back down.

In an editorial published Wednesday, the Times noted that the administration has decided to give US Internet providers and anti-virus vendors information on the signatures of Chinese hacker groups, leading to a denial of access to US networks for these groups. It also reported that President Obama last week signed an executive order authorizing increased sharing of information on cyber threats between the government and private companies that oversee critical infrastructure, such as the electrical grid.

The Wall Street Journal in its editorial called for “targeted sanctions” against Chinese individuals and institutions.

The background to this new salvo of anti-China propaganda underscores that it is part of an aggressive expansion of US military capabilities, both conventional and cyber-based. Obama raised the issue of cyber war in his February 12 State of the Union address, accusing US “enemies” of seeking to “sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions, our air traffic control systems,” and insisting that action be taken against such attacks.

In the same speech, he defended his drone assassination program, which is based on the claim that the president has the unlimited and unilateral power to order the murder of anyone anywhere in the world, including US citizens.

Last October, Obama signed an executive order expanding military authority to carry out cyber-attacks and redefine as “defensive” actions that would previously have been considered acts of aggression—such as the cutting off of computer networks. Around the same time, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave a bellicose speech in which he warned of a “cyber Pearl Harbor.” Panetta told Time magazine: “The three potential adversaries out there that are developing the greatest capabilities are Russia, China and Iran.”

At the end of January, the New York Times accused Chinese authorities of hacking into its news operations, a charge that was quickly seconded by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. That same week, the Washington Post reported that the US military had approved a five-fold increase of personnel in its Cyber Command. Days later, the Times reported on its front page that the Obama administration had concluded that the president had the power to authorize pre-emptive cyber war attacks.

This bellicose posture toward China and expansion of cyber warfare methods goes hand in hand with growing threats to democratic rights at home. The cyber war plans include options for military action within the US. The Times reported earlier this month that the military “would become involved in cases of a major cyber-attack within the United States” under certain vaguely defined conditions.

Efforts to increase government control of the Internet and surveillance of Internet communications are being stepped up. Just last week, Rep. Rogers of Michigan and Democratic Senator Dutch Ruppersberger of California reintroduced the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). The bill died in the Senate last year in the midst of protests over provisions allowing the government to spy on emails and other Internet-based communications.

Mandiant Internet Security accuses Chinese Army unit of cyber attacks on U.S.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | FEBRUARY 19, 2013

A secret unit of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China is behind a number of attacks suffered by businesses and organizations in the United States, according to a report released by the U.S. company Mandiant Internet security.

The document says that research conducted by Mandiant in the last three years shows that groups that cyber attacked government agencies, companies and American newspapers “are based mainly in China and that the Chinese government is aware of them.”

The report commissioned by The New York Times and other media, that sought to track down and clean up their computer systems, identifies PLA Unit 61398, based in Shanghai, as one of the entities responsible for the attacks. Digital signatures of the so-called ‘virtual raids’, says Mandiant, were traced to a 12-story building in the financial district of Pudong in Shanghai.

According to Mandiant, this division of the Chinese Army is kept up by thousands of employees, and English proficient programming techniques and network management. The unit has stolen “hundreds of terabytes of data from at least 141 organizations in a wide range of industries since 2006”.

Most victims are located in the United States, according to the report. There is also, though in smaller numbers, victims in Canada and the UK. The stolen information ranges from details of business transactions, such as mergers and acquisitions, to emails from senior managers, according to the study released in the U.S. on Monday.

“The nature of the work carried out by Unit 61398 is considered a state secret in China. However, we believe that is involved in harmful Computer Network Operations “, the report said. “It’s time to admit that the threat originated in China, and we wanted to make our contribution to arm and equip security professionals in order to combat this threat effectively.”

The report focuses in particular on a group, which it calls APT1, or Advanced Persistent Threat, which, has removed vast amounts of information and has targeted critical infrastructure. the report alleges.

“We believe APT1 can continue a campaign of cyber espionage in large part because it receives direct support from the Chinese government,” says Mandiant, identifying APT1 with Unit 61398.

In recent weeks cyber attacks on U.S. newspapers like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, as well as others made to Twitter, have supposedly been linked to Chinese hackers. The New York Times said that hackers stole passwords and accessed the personal computers of 53 employees, after the newspaper published information on the family fortune amassed by the Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao.

A report by the U.S. Congress last year said that increasingly dexterous entities backed by the Chinese government are trying to enter the U.S. systems, and called China “the most threatening player in cyberspace.”

China has repeatedly rejected the allegations and says that the country is also a victim of hackers. “The hacker attacks are transnational and can be hidden. Determining their origin is difficult. We do not know how they can stand support the evidence on that report,” said Hong Lei, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of China.

“Arbitrary criticism, based on rudimentary data is irresponsible, unprofessional and does not help solve the problem … China is strongly opposed to piracy,” Lei said, while emphasizing that China “is a major victim of cyber attacks” and that “of all of the attacks that the country suffers, most come from the United States.”

The questions that remains is, if both governments are so sure that their they are mutually responsible for the cyber attacks, why haven’t they sorted out the problem? Instead, China and the U.S. resort to censorship and internet power grabs in order to combat an invisible enemy, they say, which requires that everyone surrenders their ability to freely navigate the world wide web.

Everyone knows that cyber wars are conducted by the strongest players in world affairs in an attempt to exercise dominance against each other. No bread and butter hacker has the capacity to penetrate the kind of security set at Pentagon or the Chinese government. It is clear that the cyber terrorists are the governments themselves, therefore it is absurd that average internet users are obligated to be spied on because of these governments’ cyber terror activities.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

The Genetically Modified Seed Monopoly

How biotechnology companies monopolize seed markets, escalate seed prices, and eliminate farmer choice

By KEN ROSEBORO | THE ORGANIC REPORT | FEBRUARY 18, 2013

This is the first of a 2-part series

The introduction of genetically modified crops has corresponded with increasing monopolization of seed by biotechnology companies and higher seed costs that have led to tragedies in some countries, while pushing out conventional, non-GMO seeds, and reducing farmer seed choices. These impacts are being seen in the United States, Brazil, India, the Philippines, and South Africa, and even Europe.

Seed monopoly

According to Philip Howard, a researcher at Michigan State University, economists say that when four firms control 40% of a market, it is no longer competitive. According to AgWeb, the “big four” biotech seed companies—Monsanto, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciences—own 80% of the US corn market and 70% of the soybean business.

Monsanto has become the world’s largest seed company in less than 10 years by capturing markets for corn, soybean, cotton, and vegetable seeds, according to a report by the Farmer to Farmer Campaign. In addition to selling seeds, Monsanto licenses its genetically modified traits to other seed companies. As a result, more than 80% of US corn and more than 90% of soybeans planted each year contain Monsanto’s patented GM traits.

Other factors that have led to industry domination by a few players include purchase of smaller seed companies by larger companies, weak antitrust law enforcement, and Supreme Court decisions that allowed GM crops and other plant materials to be patented, while prohibiting seed saving by farmers.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated Monsanto’s dominance of the seed market after holding public meetings in 2010 where farmers described the company’s practices. But at the end of 2012, DOJ announced it had “closed its investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in the seed industry.”

Diana Moss, vice president of the American Antitrust Institute, told Mother Jones food blogger Tom Philpott, “To have a two-year investigation and close it without a peep in our view does a disservice.”

Tamara Nelsen, senior director of commodities at the Illinois Agricultural Association, compares Monsanto to Microsoft, a company that was prosecuted by DOJ for anti-trust violations. “Ninety-three percent of soybean production is Roundup Ready,” Nelsen told Nature Biotechnology. “It’s still like everyone is on a Microsoft system—at least, that’s how farmers feel.”

Escalating GM seed prices

Another indication that the seed market has become monopolized is the escalating prices for GM seed. Moss points out that in competitive markets, technologies that enjoy widespread and rapid adoption—such as GM crops—typically experience steep declines in prices.

The opposite has occurred with GM crops. Charles Benbrook, research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington State University, writes that from 2000 to 2010 as GM soybeans came to dominate the market, the price for seed increased 230%. The cost for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready2 soybeans in 2010 was $70 per bag, a 143% increase in the price of GM seed since 2001.

According to the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, the average per-acre cost of soybean and corn seed increased 325% and 259%, respectively, between 1995 and 2011. This is roughly the time period when acreage of GM corn and soy grew from less than 20% to more than 80-90%

Moss says that the escalating prices for GM seeds are outstripping increases in grain prices earned by farmers, resulting in farmers being squeezed by higher costs with less returns.

“Destroying the lives of many farmers around the world”

Problems resulting from escalating prices for GM seed are seen most dramatically—and tragically—in developing countries. According to a study by Consumers International, an estimated 270,000 small-hold farmers in the Philippines are being forced to grow GM corn and ending up in debt. The cost of corn seeds has risen 282% from its introductory price and accounts for 18-21% of a farmer’s total cost of production. Farmers are at the mercy of seed suppliers and lenders who are one and the same in the country and refuse to provide lending unless the farmers grow GM corn.

The impacts of high GM seed prices are even worse in India where more than 250,000 peasant farmers have committed suicide since 1998, or about one every 30 minutes. Indian farmers grow GM Bt cotton, which accounts for 95% of all cotton acres in the country. According to a report by the New York Times, the seeds can cost between 700 to 2,000 rupees ($38) per bag or about three to eight times the cost of conventional seeds. Similar to the situation in the Philippines, Indian farmers go into debt to buy the expensive GM seeds and pesticides. If their crops fail, many farmers kill themselves by drinking pesticides.

The suicides began before the introduction of GM cotton, but GM cotton has exacerbated the problem, according to an advisory from the Indian government, which stated, “Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011–12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.” A PBS documentary, “Seeds of Suicide,” has also implicated expensive GM seeds and pesticides in the indebtedness and resulting suicides.

According to John Vandermeer, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Michigan, genetically modified seeds are “destroying the lives of many farmers around the world right now.”

(Part two of this series next month will focus on restricted availability of non-GMO seeds and reduced farmer choices in the United States, Europe, Brazil, and South Africa)

References:

• Philip Howard. “Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996–2008.” Sustainability 2009, 1(4), pg. 1266-1287.
• Sara Shafer. “Behind the Seed Scene.” AgWeb. July 28, 2012.
• Kristina Hubbard, Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering. “Out of Hand: Farmers Face the Consequences of a Consolidated Seed Industry.” December 2009.
• Tom Philpott. “DOJ Mysteriously Quits Monsanto Antitrust Investigation.” Mother Jones. December 1, 2012.
• Charles Benbrook. “The Magnitude and Impacts of the Biotech and Organic Seed Price Premium.” December 2009.
• Daniel Grushkin. “Threat to Global GM Soybean Access as Patent Nears Expiry.” Nature Biotechnology. January 2013, Vol 31: 10-11.
• Vivekananda Nemana. “In India, GM Crops Come at a High Price.” New York Times. October 16, 2012.
• Z. Haq. “Ministry Blames Bt Cotton for Farmer Suicides.” Hindustan Times. March 26, 2012.

Stanford Organic Food Study Flawed

The research asserted that there was no difference between conventional and organic food.

By LISA GARBER | NATURAL SOCIETY | OCTOBER 17, 2012

We broke the story of Stanford’s ridiculous organic food study the very night of its publication. Now, a month later, the media is catching on to the study’s flaws; New York Times Opinion columnist Mark Bittman apologized for hoping—in vain—that the study would have little impact on the media. “That was dumb of me,” he says, “and I’m sorry.”

Narrow Definitions and Egregious Oversights

The study suggests that organic animal and plant products are no healthier than conventionally grown varieties. Bittman puts it beautifully: “By providing ‘useful’ and ‘counterintuitive’ information about organic food, [the study authors] played right into the hands of the news hungry while conveniently obscuring important features of organic agriculture.”

The study authors narrowly—and misleadingly—defined the word “nutritious” and “healthy,” and on numerous occasions contradicted themselves. How can food that the authors admit “may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria” also be no more or less healthy than foods that don’t? How can foods that put less waste and toxins into the groundwater be no more or less healthy for us than foods that pollute our water and harm those—animals and human—who drink it? We already know of the many nasty effects of pesticides and dangers of GMOs.

Even within its narrow constructs, the study authors erred. Newcastle University researcher Kirsten Brandt last year published a similar analysis of studies to conclude that organic foods do contain more nutrients. How did Stanford miss this? By misspelling a critical class of nutrients found in produce that changed the results of the research: flavonols.

Accusations of Elitism Misplaced

Shortly after the study’s publication, fellow New York Times writer Roger Cohen “cheered” for its results and collectively called organic consumers narcissists. He does admit that organic farming is “probably better for the environment,” but crucifies it for being “an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype.”

Cohen’s accusation may be true for the likes of Whole Foods executives, who scream “buy organic” while filling their pretty stores with GMO-laden or GMO-supporting foods like Larabar, owned by General Mills, which has contributed over $500,000 to defeat Proposition 37. (If you haven’t seen the undercover ‘Organic Spies’ video about Whole Foods and GMOs, check it out in the past link.)

But the truth is this: organic farming is better for the earth and better for us. The cost of this can be quite high; that’s why we must join together to promote organic, biodynamic farming across the globe rather than subjecting farmers in Africa to Monsanto corn, debt, and health problems. Monsanto doesn’t care about underprivileged farmers. They care about lining their pockets.

Organic living should be available to all of us. It may seem like pie in the sky to some, but it isn’t. And we certainly shouldn’t be stopping the revolution.

To top it off, it’s worth noting that Stanford may have downplayed the benefits of food in response to a hefty donation from Cargill, the biggest private company in the US. Although connections to a political or financial body may not indicate guilt, it’s certainly not helping.

So, who’s elitist now?