Ban Ki-Moon Worked With Israel To Undermine UN Report

The General Secretary of United Nations (UN) Ban Ki-Moon collaborated in secret with Israel and the United States to weaken the effects of a Board of Inquiry's report accusing Israel of human rights violations in Gaza in Dec. 2008 – Jan. 2009.

Wikileaks released documents on Friday that revealed that Ban wrote a letter to the UN Security Council asking its members not to take recommendations by the UN Board of Inquiry about Israeli bombings in Gaza into account.

The report demonstrated that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) had a direct role in seven of the nine attacks against buildings of the UN in Gaza strip, and accused Israel of having breached the inviolability and immunity of UN premises.

According to Wikileaks, Susan Rice, White House National Security Advisor, spoke at least four times with Ban Ki Moon “to discuss concerns over the Board of Inquiry's report on incidents at UN sites in December 2008 and January 2009".

The report's recommendations included the need for a deeper and impartial investigation into the recent “incidents”, and into the bombings of UN facilities.

According to Wikileaks, Rice first asked Ban not to include the recommendations in the final report's summary, supposed to be transmitted to the UN Security Council on May 5.

Ban responded that “he was constrained in what he could do since the Board of Inquiry is independent; it was their report and recommendations and he could not alter them”.

In the second conversation, “Rice urged the Secretary-General to make clear in his cover letter when he transmits the summary to the Security Council that those recommendations exceeded the scope of the terms of reference and no further action is needed."

Ban then replied that "his staff was working with an Israeli delegation on the text of the cover letter”.

He confirmed in the last phone call that “a satisfactory cover letter” had been completed. In the letter,

Internet Surveillance and Free Speech: The UN Makes The Connection

Frank La Rue, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion delivered this week a landmark report [PDF] on state surveillance and freedom of expression. In preparation, the Special Rapporteur reviewed relevant studies, consulted with experts including EFF, and participated in the state surveillance and human rights workshop we organized last year.  Today, EFF's Katitza Rodriguez has been taking part in the first detailed conversation about State Surveillance and Human Rights at the U.N., held by the 47 member states of the Human Rights Council during the U.N.'s 23th session in Geneva.

At a time when efforts by states to conduct communications surveillance are rapidly proliferating across the globe, La Rue makes the case for a direct relationship between state surveillance, privacy and freedom of expression:

The right to privacy is often understood as an essential requirement for the realization of the right to freedom of expression. Undue interference with individuals’ privacy can both directly and indirectly limit the free development and exchange of ideas. … An infringement upon one right can be both the cause and consequence of an infringement upon the other.

La Rue’s landmark report could not come at a better time. The explosion of online expression we've seen in the past decade is now being followed by an explosion of communications surveillance.  For many, the Internet and mobile telephony are no longer platforms where private communication is shielded from governments knowing when, where, and with whom a communication has occurred.  

The report acknowledges the benefits of technological innovations that have enabled rapid, anonymous, cross-cultural dialogues around the world. Nevertheless, the report warns that these same technologies can open a Pandora's box of previously unimaginable state surveillance intrusions.

“The Internet has facilitated the development of large amounts of transactional data by and about individuals. This information, known as communications data or metadata, includes personal information on individuals, their location and online activities, and logs and related information about the e-mails and messages they send or receive.”

The report explains how metadata can reveal sensitive information that can be easily accessed, stored, mined and exploited.

Communications data are storable, accessible and searchable, and their disclosure to and use by State authorities are largely unregulated.  Analysis of this data can be both highly revelatory and invasive, particularly when data is combined and aggregated. As such, States are increasingly drawing on communications data to support law enforcement or national security investigations. States are also compelling the preservation and retention of communication data to enable them to conduct historical surveillance.”

As La Rue indicates, it is the capacity of new technologies to instantly aggregate and analyze data makes it a beacon of one’s online presence. EFF believes that “metadata”1—information logging individuals’ communication activities—is as sensitive as the content of communication and therefore deserves strong human rights protections.

For example, with all the amount of information and evolving surveillance technologies, law enforcement agencies now can:

• Directly observe people's relationships and interactions and make inferences about their intimate and protected relationships. 
• Examine millions of people's communications and rapidly identify precise communications interactions on any given topic.
• Track any person's physical movements almost all of the time and draw conclusions about one’s professional, sexual, political, and religious activities, and attitudes from individuals' associations and Internet traffic.
• Routinely retain data for decades, so that statements and interactions can be searched, analyzed, and recalled long after they have been made. 
• Do all of the above simultaneously.

La Rue reminds States that in order to meet their human rights obligations, they must ensure that the rights to free expression and privacy—and metadata protection in particular—are at the heart of their communications surveillance frameworks. To this end, the Special Rapporteur urges states to review national laws regulating surveillance and update and strengthen laws and legal standards:

Communications surveillance should be regarded as a highly intrusive act that potentially interferes with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy and threatens the foundations of a democratic society.

Legislation must stipulate that State surveillance of communications must only occur under the most exceptional circumstances and exclusively under the supervision of an independent judicial authority.

   

At present, access to communications data has been conducted by a variety of public bodies for a broad range of purposes, often without judicial authorization and independent oversight. Such overbroad access threatens basic democratic values.

La Rue recommends that legal frameworks to ensure that communication surveillance measures:

Are prescribed by law, meeting a standard of clarity and precision that is sufficient to ensure that individuals have advance notice of and can foresee their application,

Are strictly and demonstrably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim,

Adhere to the principle of proportionality, and are not employed when less invasive techniques are available which have not yet been exhausted.

EFF could not agree more that individuals have a legal right to be notified when they have been subjected to communications surveillance and have had their communications data accessed by the state. We celebrate La Rue’s invaluable recommendations and will begin immediately using his report in our own advocacy work throughout the world. EFF will continue to blog about additional findings in the La Rue's report in the following days.

You can access the report delivered by Frank La Rue to the Human Rights Council here:

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf

UN Calls For Closure Of Guantanamo Prison

The U.N. human rights chief called on the United States to close down the Guantanamo prison camp, saying the indefinite imprisonment of many detainees without charge or trial violated international law.

Navi Pillay said the hunger strike being staged by some inmates at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in southeastern Cuba was a "desperate act" but "scarcely surprising".

"We must be clear about this: the United States is in clear breach not just of its own commitments but also of international laws and standards that it is obliged to uphold," the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said in a statement.

Pillay voiced deep disappointment at the U.S. government's failure to close Guantanamo despite its repeated commitments.

About half of the current 166 detainees have been cleared for transfer either to home countries or third countries for resettlement, Pillay said. "As a first step, those who have been cleared for release must be released," she said.

"Others reportedly have been designated for further indefinite detention. Some of them have been festering in this detention center for more than a decade," she said.

Guantanamo detainees accused of crimes should be tried in civilian courts, especially as the military commissions "do not meet international fair trial standards" , said Pillay, a former U.N. war crimes judge.

Of the 166 remaining detainees, only nine have been charged or convicted of crimes, according to military records. The 166 detainees are from 23 countries, the Red Cross says.

An ICRC team of 13 now there are discussing issues including the hunger strike separately with authorities and in private interviews with inmates, ICRC spokesman Alexis Heeb said.

"Detainees can raise any problem they want to bring to our attention, this can be issues of detention, Koran issues, requests for medical attention," Heeb told Reuters.

The ICRC has a clear position of being opposed to forced feeding or forced treatment and upholds the principle of leaving the right to detainees to choose his or her fate, he said.

UN Arms Trade Treaty’s Deadly Loophole

By Nile Bowie

Foundation fellows and diplomats have lauded the overwhelming approval of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) by the General Assembly of the United Nations, with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon describing it as a means to obstruct the illicit arms flow to warlords, pirates, terrorists, criminals and the like.

Many who have critically monitored the situation in Syria and the ramifications of foreign intervention in Libya may have difficulty swallowing Ban’s words, as some would argue that the UN has itself been complicit in these crises for turning a blind eye to arms and funding going to al-Qaeda-linked rebels in various countries.

Twenty-three countries abstained from the vote (representing half the world’s population), including Russia, China, India, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Egypt, while three – Syria, Iran, and North Korea – voted no. Iran’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Gholam-Hossein Dehqani called the treaty a political document disguised as an Arms Trade Treaty, and with highly legitimate reasons for doing so.

“The right to acquire and import arms for their (importer states’) security needs is subject to the discretionary judgment and extremely subjective assessment of the exporting states. That is why this text is highly abusable and susceptible to politicization, manipulation and discrimination,” said Dehghani, referring to conditions that arms exporting states would be able to impose on importing states.

The pact prohibits the export of conventional arms to countries deemed guilty of violating international human rights laws and committing crimes against humanity – sure, this appears to be ethical and just at first glance, but more careful reflection is required. If we assume that the United Nations makes the call on which states qualify as human rights abusers and which states do not, then Israel would not be hindered from purchasing conventional weapons, but a country like Syria would be barred from purchasing arms to defend itself and its territorial sovereignty.

What makes the treaty not only toothless, but also particularly dangerous, is the fact that it lacks any explicit prohibitions regarding arms proliferation to terrorists and unlawful non-state actors.

"Without such provisions, the ATT would in fact lower the bar on obligations of all states not to support terrorists and/or terrorists acts. We cannot allow such a loophole in the ATT," said Sujata Mehta, India's lead negotiator for the ATT in a statement.

What this means is that NATO and Persian Gulf states that supply arms to opposition groups in Syria will retain the flexibility to continue to do so, while at the same time having a greater say over whether individual importing states can arm themselves in accordance with their legitimate defense and national security interests. There is no doubt that certain states would take advantage of this loophole’s vast potential for misuse.

The treaty does not recognize the rights of all states to acquire, produce, export, import and possess conventional weapons for their own legitimate security purposes. In theory, this treaty gives the United States, the world’s largest arms exporter with heavy sway over the UN, much greater ability to influence whether or not an individual country is allowed to obtain weapons for its own defense. The treaty, in its glaring bias and predictability, completely fails to prohibit the transfer of arms to countries engaged in military aggression against other nations, such as Israel.

“Somebody probably wants to have free rein to send arms to anti-government groups in countries ruled by regimes they consider inconvenient... When we started work on the document, the General Assembly set the task of establishing the highest possible international standards in the area of arms transfers. In reality though, the treaty has established minimally acceptable standards,” said Russian treaty negotiator Mikhail Ulyanov in a recent interview.

The treaty applies to the transfer of conventional weapons such as battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, small and light weapons, while the proliferation of UAV drones and other modern military technology is not addressed or scrutinized. While feel-good rhetoric prevails and politicians pat themselves on the back, the United Nations by its own admission concedes that the treaty does not ban or prohibit the export of any type of weapon. It is clear that the countries that rely most on the illicit trafficking of arms to execute their foreign policy objectives have had noticeable influence over the contents of this treaty. The treaty depends on how stringently individual countries implement it, and international arms transfers that involve barter deals or leases are also not scrutinized.

While many call it a welcomed development and the first step in regulating the $70 billion global conventional arms trade, there is little evidence that it will accomplish anything more than increase the frequency of illicit transfers under different guises and further legitimize the ‘Good Terrorist-Bad Terrorist’ dichotomy – it also contains no language concerning the right to self-determination by people who are under occupation, as is the case in Palestine. The treaty contains some reasonable common-sense measures, such as introducing national systems that monitor arms circulation in countries that lack such systems, but the absence of progressive processes lends credence to accusations that the text is highly industry-friendly and serves to reinforce the status quo.

Most importantly, the treaty pays no focus to actually reducing the sale of arms by limiting global production, which should rightfully be the objective of a treaty that uses global mass causality figures to legitimize itself. According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, armed violence kills more than half a million people each year, a figure that should rightfully strengthen calls to regulate and decrease global production rather than solely focusing simply on trade. Rather, the treaty institutionalizes and legalizes the arming of good terrorists while denying arms to unfriendly governments. Until the UN can cease being an appendage of a handful of the most powerful arms exporting states, there is little hope that any international arms trade treaty can reduce human suffering and have a meaningful impact on the lives of the most vulnerable in conflict zones around the world and elsewhere. 

World Plans Post-Assad Syria Deployment

Exclusive Al Jazeera Report Details World Body's Plans For Troop Deployment If Bashar Al-Assad's Regime Falls.

For more than two years, the world has stood by as the violence in Syria has intensified.

Both Bashar al-Assad's government and the opposition seem determined to fight to the death.

Arab and Western capitals have watched the events with horror, but there is little appetite for intervention: Neither the humanitarian price of well over a million registered refugees - although the real figure is much larger - nor a death toll of at least 70,000 have proved to be "tipping points" for the international community.

Nevertheless, world leaders have been drawing up contingency plans in case the situation in Syria decisively changes.

Most commentators believe that in the end, Assad's regime will collapse. Opposition forces have been regularly capturing small villages and patches of land, and the Assad regime has lost effective control of large parts of the country and many of its supply lines.

Conversations in recent weeks with ministers, ambassadors, international leaders and military commanders make clear that detailed planning is now being carried out for what comes next.

Here is what the main stakeholders in Syria are planning in the event of a major change in the conflict:

UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations has a project codenamed "Syria - The Day After". Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has put his deputy, Jan Elliason, in charge of the response. After wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies have no appetite to get directly involved in the reconstruction of Syria, meaning that by default, the UN will probably have to take the lead.

UN planners have been looking at a range of options. They fear that if Assad is eventually defeated, there could be widespread retribution against his minority Alawite sect, and the swift deployment of human rights observers and UN monitors is one possibility.

UN peacekeepers held by fighters near Syria

Humanitarian and medical supplies are being stockpiled in the region. Officials are well-aware that Syrians are dying not only as a direct result of the fighting, but due to lack of treatment for battlefield injuries and from disease.

UN officials would even consider deployment of a peacekeeping force in Syria as another option if the circumstances were right. But deploying such a force would take considerable time, and would require the authorisation of the UN Security Council, which continues to be deeply divided on all Syrian matters.

The UN has a great deal of experience working in Syria. It has had one peacekeeping operation, the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), in the Golan Heights for almost 40 years. UN and Arab League Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has one of his headquarters in Damascus. In neighbouring Lebanon, the UN has a major logistical hub, and another, larger peacekeeping force in the south of the country.

But the UN's experience in Syria in recent weeks underlines the daunting task it faces. Last month, 21 UNDOF peacekeepers were taken hostage. They were freed after negotiations, but the Japanese and Croatian contingents have already withdrawn from the mission, and much of its patrolling work is now no longer possible. And Brahimi's international staff was withdrawn from Damascus last month due to safety fears.

Many UN officials believe the next chapter in the Syrian conflict could be bloodier than this one. They will not deploy any personnel if they believe the risks are too great.

"Our humanitarian workers have already paid a price," Elliason told Al Jazeera. "We have lost … eight to nine people in our operations. It's very dangerous; to reach the most difficult areas is a risky project."

THE WESTERN POWERS

Despite growing calls on Capitol Hill for some US involvement, the Obama administration has shown no inclination towards intervention.

France and the UK are toying with the idea of sending arms to the opposition, but are currently prevented from doing so by European Union rules.

Military planners are left with the unenviable task of "second-guessing" their political masters. They know that when there is eventually an abrupt shift on the ground in Syria, events could suddenly move extremely fast, in which case they will need to have plans.

Some fear Syria could eventually split into a number of different fiefdoms, creating the possibility that the borders of surrounding countries may also be redrawn.

Securing Assad's arsenal of chemical weapons is seen as the top priority for Western powers. They fear these weapons could be used in a "last stand" by the Assad regime, or captured by armed groups. The Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah is widely thought to have operatives in Syria. A number of opposition groups, particularly those that fight under the banner of Jabhat al-Nusra, share the ideology of al-Qaeda.

It is also feared that some within Assad's military or the opposition may be ready to sell chemical munitions to the highest bidder.

In recent weeks, some US units have been involved in chemical warfare training. But Western military sources believe Assad's chemical arsenal is dispersed across numerous sites in Syria. Recovering them all would require a major military operation, involving hundreds of troops. One official told me: "The danger is that this would look like a full-scale invasion."

The US and its allies are deeply concerned about the crisis spreading. The growing humanitarian crisis could overwhelm Syria and Jordan. Last month, the number of refugees - both those registered and those awaiting registration - topped one million. As of April 1, the figure stood at more than 1.2 million.
The refugee crisis has caused worries about the stability of Syria and neighbouring countries whose borders were carved out of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. Some fear Syria could eventually split into a number of different fiefdoms, creating the possibility that the borders of surrounding countries may also be redrawn.

NATO has categorically repeated over the past two years that it has no plans to intervene in Syria. However, if any of its major member nations decided to intervene, NATO may be pressured to rubber-stamp the operation.

TURKEY


This NATO member has more at stake than any other, and is deeply concerned about the situation across its southern border. The conflict has left Turkey with nearly 300,000 Syrian refugees, and there are thought to be many more unregistered refugees inside Turkish cities.

Ankara is also concerned about the course Syria's Kurdish minority will take, and will want to have a role in shaping the future of its neighbouring country, which is awash in weapons and increasingly hardened fighters.

Some generals in the Turkish military, which has the second-largest army in NATO, have drawn up contingency plans to take control of parts of Syria. Some reportedly have what has been described as "Ottoman ambitions".

However, there remains great distrust between the AKP, Turkey's ruling party, and the country's generals. As a result, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan may not trust the military enough to authorise some of its more expansionist plans.


THE GULF STATES

The Gulf nations, particularly Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are deeply involved in the Syrian conflict. There are no indications that they intend to put their own troops on the ground, but they will try to influence the future direction of the country with flows of money and weapons to the opposition.

ISRAEL


Israel is deeply worried about the situation in Syria. Bashar Assad, and his father Hafez before him, publicly declared themselves to be implacable enemies of Israel. Yet the reality is that since end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Syrian front has been one of Israel's quietest.

A closer relationship with Turkey is a major part of Israel's plan to protect itself from fallout in Syria.
Israel has been particularly unnerved by the collapse of stability in the Golan Heights, which it occupies. The UN force (UNDOF) is virtually confined to its base, and a number of Syrian opposition groups have been firing towards Israel. On one occasion, the Israeli military responded with a rocket strike.

The Israelis maintain that they do not want to enter Syria. But Al Jazeera has been told there are contingency plans for "containment zones" inside Syria, and, if needed, in southern Lebanon too.

RUSSIA

Russia has been a strong ally of Syria for decades, and is believed to be providing supplies for Assad's military.

Talk to Al Jazeera: Nabil el-Araby

Russia has military personnel inside Syria at its Tartus naval base on the Mediterranean Sea.

Despite a number of evacuation missions, there are still believed to be many Russian citizens living in Syria. Getting all of their citizens out in the event of a decisive change in Syria will be a key priority for Russia.

Despite the vastly divergent views on Syria held by the US and Russia, and the deadlock in the UN Security Council, there is at least one open channel of communication.

So-called "3B" meetings have taken place regularly over the last two years. The meetings are named after the three participants: UN and Arab league envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov. They are believed to have discussed a wide range of issues pertaining to Syria, including the securing of chemical munitions.

IRAN


Iran has long been Syria's closest ally. There are always representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Damascus, and it is safe to assume they continue to be present, providing advice.

Lebanese Shia party Hezbollah is believed to have fighters in Syria, particularly in the border areas.
If Assad falls, Iran will be concerned about loss of influence in both Lebanon and Syria. It is unlikely to take an overt military role, but instead will rely on proxy armed groups and covert action.

Iran, like Russia, knows that if Assad is toppled, or if his regime loses control in Damascus, things could change very fast. The regime has remained strong for so long because of its apparatus of control and repression, particularly in the capital. Once that crumbles, a new chapter will have begun in Syria. But many fear this new phase could be just as violent.

UN: US Drone War In Pakistan Is Illegal

SEBASTIAN ABBOT reports in Chron that,

The head of a U.N.team investigating casualties from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan declared after a secret research trip to the country that the attacks violate Pakistan's sovereignty.

Ben Emmerson, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, said the Pakistani government made clear to him that it does not consent to the strikes — a position that has been disputed by U.S. officials.

The strikes have caused growing controversy because of the secrecy surrounding them and claims that they have caused significant civilian casualties.

According to a U.N. statement that Emmerson emailed to The Associated Press on Friday, the Pakistani government told him it has confirmed at least 400 civilian deaths by U.S. drones on its territory. The statement was initially released on Thursday, following the investigator's three-day visit to Pakistan, which ended Wednesday. The visit was kept secret until Emmerson left.

Imtiaz Gul, an expert on Pakistani militancy who is helping Emmerson's team, said Friday that the organization he runs, the Centre for Research and Security Studies, gave the U.N. investigator during his visit case studies on 25 strikes that allegedly killed around 200 civilians.

The U.N. investigation into civilian casualties from drone strikes and other targeted killings in Pakistan and several other countries was launched in January and is expected to deliver its conclusions in October.

Pakistani officials regularly criticize the attacks in public as a violation of the country's sovereignty, a popular position in a country where anti-American sentiment runs high.

"The position of the government of Pakistan is quite clear," said Emmerson. "It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

The drone campaign "involves the use of force on the territory of another state without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty," he said.

Pakistan claimed the drone strikes were radicalizing a new generation of militants. 

A major reason why the U.S. has stepped up drone attacks in Pakistan is because it has failed to convince the government to target Taliban militants using its territory to launch cross-border attacks against American troops in Afghanistan.

Emmerson met with a variety of Pakistani officials during his visit, as well as tribal leaders from the North Waziristan tribal area — the main target for U.S. drones in the country — and locals who claimed they were injured by the attacks or had lost loved ones.

The tribal leaders said innocent tribesmen were often mistakenly targeted by drones because they were indistinguishable from Taliban militants, said Emmerson. Both groups wear the same traditional tribal clothing and normally carry a gun at all times, he said.

"It is time for the international community to heed the concerns of Pakistan, and give the next democratically elected government of Pakistan the space, support and assistance it needs to deliver a lasting peace on its own territory without forcible military interference by other states," said Emmerson.

French Military Presence In W Africa After Mali War

France has devised a scenario to station a rapid reaction force in West Africa after its war on Mali ends, UN-based diplomats privy to the plan say.

French diplomats have started briefing the UN, the US and other major powers on a plan for a so-called “beyond the horizon” force which will purportedly be tasked with conducting necessary future operations against the fighters in Mali. 

France has not informed its allies of the exact location of the force, but diplomats say it will probably be stationed in Senegal, Niger, or Chad, where France has military bases. 

On January 11, France launched a war in Mali under the pretext of halting the advance of fighters who had taken control of the north of the West African country. The United States, Canada, Britain, Belgium, Germany, and Denmark have aided France in its war on the African country. 

Meanwhile, French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud has been in contact with his counterparts to inform them that France does not intend to abruptly end its military presence in Mali over the coming weeks but plans a gradual withdrawal.

Via: "Press TV"

U.N. Launches Drone Investigation Into Legality Of U.S. Program

Image by: Teacher Dude

The United Nations opened a major new investigation into the United States' use of drones and targeted assassinations.

The U.N. investigation, led by special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights Ben Emmerson, is expected to focus on the legal justification for America's expansive drone program, which has largely remained secretive and unexamined.

"The exponential rise in the use of drone technology in a variety of military and non-military contexts represents a real challenge to the framework of established international law," Emmerson said in a statement released by his office.

"It is therefore imperative that appropriate legal and operational structures are urgently put in place to regulate its use in a manner that complies with the requirements of international law, including international human rights law, international humanitarian law (or the law of war as it used to be called), and international refugee law."

Human rights observers have long objected to the use of drones to target suspected terrorists because they often result in wider civilian deaths than administration officials have acknowledged.

But more practical concerns -- about the legality and efficacy of the program, as well as the White House's lack of transparency -- have also been growing.

The United States is by far the leading user of drones and unmanned vehicles for targeted assassinations, but it is not the only one. Drone use is expected to expand widely around the world -- China and Iran already are known to have the capability -- and there have been growing calls for the U.S. to clarify its own internal rules for the appropriate use of the technology.

In a recent conference call organized by the Council on Foreign Relations this week, Dennis Blair, the former director of national intelligence under President Barack Obama, urged the administration to make more of its drone policies public.

"There's been far too little debate" about the tactic, Blair said in the call. "The United States is a democracy, we want our people to know how we use military force and that we use it in ways the United States is proud of."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been waging a years-long effort to compel the Obama administration to release its internal legal considerations, welcomed the U.N. investigation, and urged the U.S. to participate in it.

“Virtually no other country agrees with the U.S.’s claimed authority to secretly declare people enemies of the state and kill them and civilian bystanders far from any recognized battlefield," said Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement. "To date, there has been an abysmal lack of transparency and no accountability for the U.S. government’s ever-expanding targeted killing program.”

Via: "The Huffington Post"

Online Freedom: Who Should Control What?

Delegates from 193 countries are meeting in Dubai to discuss the future of the internet. They will be negotiating a new International Telecommunications Treaty - which has not been updated since 1988.

The main debate at the conference is over internet freedom. The US and Europe want less internet regulation, while countries like Russia and China are accused of wanting more.

But the possibly bigger question of who controls the internet is also in play. The US in particular is criticised for dominating the way the internet is run.

Since 1947 a UN body called the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has been in charge of international technical standards.

Delegates from 193 countries have regulated everything from radio frequencies to satellite orbits. Their mission is to make sure networks and technologies easily interconnect. But according to internet giant Google, the ITU could be about to take steps to reduce the free flow of information on the web.

"There is a mood to change the governance structure of the internet from one that is multi-stakeholder system to one that is inter-governmental. And I think the fear is that the internet repression and censorship that is already going and the throttling of the speed of communication and widespread surveillance in certain countries will be legitimised if they change the system." - Richard Rogers, University of Amsterdam

It says if proposals being heard at the ITU conference in Dubai are accepted, there will be an increase in censorship and national regulation.

But other countries censor content on the internet as well.

Known as the 'Great Firewall of China', the People's Republic has perhaps the world's most impressive example of online control. In addition to banning social networking sites, China also has tens of thousands of monitors who snoop and often hack into people's emails.

Following protests in 2009, the Iranian government intensified its efforts to censor the web. It has rounded up and jailed bloggers and internet dissidents. The country also often shuts down access to the internet when it expects anti-government protests.

In Belarus, the government has also noticed the opposition's use of the internet. Websites are sometimes blacked out, opposition voices are monitored and the government even uses websites like Twitter to intimidate journalists and activists.

And last month, the United Arab Emirates showed where it stands on internet censorship. It issued a decree making it a crime to insult or criticise the country's leaders online.

We ask should limits be placed on the web? And if so, how and by whom? What does it all mean for freedom of speech online and is it being threatened with over-regulation?

UN Calls On Israel To Open Nuclear Facilities To Inspection

The Dimona nuclear reactor as viewed from satellite (photo credit: courtesy of United States Government)

Resolution Urges Israel To Sign Non-Proliferation Treaty ‘Without Further Delay’

John Glaser reports:

The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling on Israel to open its nuclear program for inspection “without further delay.”

Israel’s advanced nuclear arsenal has long been understood to exist, although it hasn’t been officially admitted by the Israeli government. 

Many have argued Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is what drives the accelerated Iranian program and causes other regional instability.

The resolution was approved on Monday by a vote of 174-6 with 6 abstentions and calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty immediately and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

It also offered support for a high-level conference to ban nuclear weapons from the Middle East which was just canceled by the US and Israel, in order to protect Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly.

If Israel agreed to dismantling its vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons and to a deal enforcing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East – a deal Iran and Israel’s Arab neighbors have repeatedly proposed – the supposed threats Israel faces in the region would virtually disappear.

But Israel refuses to give up its nuclear monopoly, insistent on maintaining its excuse to build up its military and distract from the Palestinian issue.

Via: "Anti-War"