Malaysian Passenger Jet Shot Down Over Ukraine

[Big RR]

If we don't do the obvious things required to stand up to this thug, do you think things are going to get better?

And if we do, you think things are going to get better?

What a profound lack of understanding of history it would require to reach that conclusion...

Many times we are far better off with the devil we know than in orchestrating an ouster of him/her. Putin is bad, but I don't see the people (or the oligarchs) putting anyone better in his place should he fall; indeed, an appeal to nationalism could put in someone much worse.

We cannot just act, "without regard to what mistakes may have been made" for the sake of acting; reaction with no plan rarely works well. We need a cogent policy, but we can't even agree on simple things in the government, let alone a policy going forward.

[Econoline]

We can make up for any gas loss hte EU may have. It should be told to those people in play.

Wrong.

Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass facility (in Louisiana) is the United States' only fully permitted new liquefied natural gas export project; it's currently under construction and plans to start exporting gas in 2015. The next export facility to be ready, Freeport LNG in Quintana Island, Texas, has conditional authorization from the Dept. of Energy and still needs approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; it's expected to begin exports in 2017. (Freeport already has preliminary 20-year contracts to sell much of the export facility's capacity to Chubu Electric Power Co., Osaka Gas Co., and BP Energy Co.)

And hey, wasn't all that gas fracking supposed to be our ticket to U.S. energy independence?

[Lord Jim]

Putin is bad, but I don't see the people (or the oligarchs) putting anyone better in his place should he fall

If Putin is driven from power because of the economic pain his foreign adventurism brought to Russia, he may very well be replaced by someone who's every bit as much an authoritarian kleptocrat, but he is certain to be less of a threat internationally. It would make zero sense for the power elites, (or the Russian people generally) to replace Putin with another imperialist, since that's what would have gotten them in the fix in the first place. Putin's popularity has been strong throughout this precisely because he has been able to achieve objectives with little or no cost.

If you want to see an example of how well the "The US should do nothing" strategy works, take a good look at Syria. We've been doing nothing there splendidly since the beginning of the uprising and the result is a terrorist run pseudo-state that stretches from Syria to Iraq and threatens to spread to Jordan and Lebanon.

I see where President "Day late and a dollar short" Obama is now finally asking for 500 million dollars for military aid for the pro-Western rebel factions. Within the first months of the beginning of the uprising, (which was initially begun by pro-democracy non-sectarian elements) we should have established a no-fly zone near the Turkish border and trained and equipped these forces. Once they were really ready to take the fight to Assad, we should then have used air power to give them a level playing field.

Instead we followed the "do nothing" strategy and today these forces are back on their heels while the most anti-western, anti-democratic groups hold the upper-hand. (And of course our do nothing strategy has earned us the anger of the Syrian people as well, as we stood around with our thumb up our butt while hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians were mowed down by Assad.)

I had really hoped that the clear and stark results of Do-Nothingism in Syria would help to wake up some of the hand-wringing defeatists, but so far opinion polls have been discouraging on that score...(They don't seem to be learning their lesson from the results of the Do-next-to-Nothingism approach in Ukraine either.)

It should also be noted that amongst the most odious terroristic elements in Syria are thousands of people with US and European passports...

Anyone seriously think they're planning to stay there forever? When a battle hardened, weapons and explosive trained Islamo-facist returns to the US, what should we expect? That he'll abandon his philosophy, open up a hardware store, and join the local Kiwanis Club?

And of course if the Rand Pauls of the world have their way, we will have no way to track or pursue these characters since the intelligence programs which have enabled us to do so ,and foil numerous terrorist plots, (and also which have intensive oversight from all three branches of government, and about which there has never been a single serious allegation of abuse) will be eliminated. Thank God for that great patriot Edward Snowden...

But not to worry, at least we'll be safe from that grave threat of government drones shooting us at Starbucks...

[Big RR]

It would make zero sense for the power elites, (or the Russian people generally) to replace Putin with another imperialist

Since when do people make sense in choosing their leaders? Did Thieu make sense after Diem? Hitler after the fall of the german government? Castro 2 after Castro1? Franco after the Spanish republic? sometimes people vote their emotions and don't make sense.

And of course if the Rand Pauls of the world have their way, we will have no way to track or pursue these characters since the intelligence programs which have enabled us to do so ,and foil numerous terrorist plots, (and also which have intensive oversight from all three branches of government, and about which there has never been a single serious allegation of abuse) will be eliminated.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. Foil numerous terrorist plots? anme them. Intnesive oversight from all three branches? Identify the oversight and show where the courts or legislature (other than impeachment) can reign in presidential power in matters of national security. We live in a time when the president can act as judge, jury, and executioner and order an American citizen executed without trial (and not in a fire fight, giving at least a colorable defense of self defense). You may be happy to keep this in the name of "security", I am not. I am no fan of Rand Paul, but I do support him in shedding light on this issue.

But not to worry, at least we'll be safe from that grave threat of government drones shooting us at Starbucks...

Poke all the fun you want, but I never thought a president could order an American executed by drone on his own authority, yet it has happened. What prevents the president from doing the same domestically? Nothing I can see. You might be content to trust in the integrity of the occupant of the oval office, I am not. That's precisely why we have laws, to limit the power of those who occupy high offices.

[Lord Jim]

Officials: Surveillance programs foiled more than 50 terrorist plots

The U.S. government’s sweeping surveillance programs have disrupted more than 50 terrorist plots in the United States and abroad, including a plan to bomb the New York Stock Exchange, senior government officials testified Tuesday.

The officials, appearing before a largely friendly House committee, defended the collection of telephone and Internet data by the National Security Agency as central to protecting the United States and its allies against terrorist attacks. And they said that recent disclosures about the surveillance operations have caused serious damage.

“We are now faced with a situation that, because this information has been made public, we run the risk of losing these collection capabilities,” said Robert S. Litt, general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “We’re not going to know for many months whether these leaks in fact have caused us to lose these capabilities, but if they do have that effect, there is no doubt that they will cause our national security to be affected.”

The hearing before the House Intelligence Committee was the third congressional session examining the leaks of classified material about two top-secret surveillance programs by Edward Snowden, 29, a former NSA contractor and onetime CIA employee.

Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the head of the NSA, told the committee that the programs had helped prevent “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11.” He said at least 10 of the disrupted plots involved terrorism suspects or targets in the United States.

Alexander said officials do not plan to release additional information publicly, to avoid revealing sources and methods of operation,[it would be absurd to expect them to do so] but he said the House and Senate intelligence committees will receive classified details of the thwarted plots.

Newly revealed plots

In testimony last week, Alexander said the surveillance programs had helped prevent an attack on the subway system in New York City and the bombing of a Danish newspaper. Sean Joyce, deputy director of the FBI, described two additional plots Tuesday that he said were stopped through the surveillance — a plan by a Kansas City, Mo., man to bomb the New York Stock Exchange and efforts by a San Diego man to send money to terrorists in Somalia.

The officials said repeatedly that the operations were authorized by Congress and subject to oversight through internal mechanisms and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose proceedings are secret.

Alexander said that more than 90 percent of the information on the foiled plots came from a program targeting the communications of foreigners, known as PRISM. The program was authorized under Section 702 of a 2008 law that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The law authorizes the NSA to collect e-mails and other Internet communications to and from foreign targets overseas who are thought to be involved in terrorism or nuclear proliferation or who might provide critical foreign intelligence. No American in the country or abroad can be targeted without a warrant, and no person inside the United States can be targeted without a warrant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

Government Privacy Board Says Controversial NSA Surveillance Program Is Constitutional


A government privacy oversight board's draft report, released Tuesday night, finds the National Security Agency's use of a controversial surveillance authority is constitutional, but says some aspects of it edge up to violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches or seizures.

The report from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent agency within the federal government's executive branch, centers on programs revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that the NSA uses to pick up communications of foreigners that may also involve a U.S. citizen. The programs rely for legal authority on a law passed in 2008 to bring former President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program under judicial oversight.

Critics charge that the NSA, in collecting the foreign targets' communications under its PRISM and upstream collection programs, incidentally picks up far too many Americans' emails and phone calls. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has raised alarm about what happens with Americans' communications once they're collected, because the NSA believes it can search through them without a warrant.

The privacy board's harsh January report on the NSA's separate domestic telephone metadata collection program provided ammunition for critics looking to end it. But in its new report, the privacy board largely accepts the government's assurances that NSA surveillance under the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is well-grounded. The board is set to vote on whether to finalize the draft report on Wednesday.

"Overall, the Board has found that the information the program collects has been valuable and effective in protecting the nation’s security and producing useful foreign intelligence," the report reads. The program, it says, "has been subject to judicial oversight and extensive internal supervision, and the Board has found no evidence of intentional abuse."

The board acknowledges that the two NSA surveillance programs revealed by Snowden that make use of the 2008 law -- PRISM, which sends specific search terms to electronic communications service providers, and "upstream collection," in which the NSA searches the Internet backbone -- may incidentally sweep up an untold number of Americans' communications.

"The collection and examination of U.S. persons’ communications represents a privacy intrusion even in the absence of misuse for improper ends," the report finds.

Its authors express frustration that the NSA and other government agencies have been unable to furnish estimates of the incidental collection of Americans' communications, which "hampers attempts to gauge whether the program appropriately balances national security interests with the privacy of U.S. persons."

But without signs of abuse, the board concludes privacy intrusions are justified in protecting against threats to the U.S.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/0 ... 50010.html

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Continue NSA call-records program

The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight. Above all, the program has been effective in helping to prevent terrorist plots against the U.S. and our allies. Congress should adopt reforms to improve transparency and privacy protections, but I believe the program should continue.

The call-records program is not surveillance. It does not collect the content of any communication, nor do the records include names or locations. The NSA only collects the type of information found on a telephone bill: phone numbers of calls placed and received, the time of the calls and duration. The Supreme Court has held this "metadata" is not protected under the Fourth Amendment.

This program helps "connect the dots" — the main failure of our intelligence before 9/11. Former FBI director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that if this program existed before 9/11, it likely would have identified the presence inside the U.S. of hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar.

The NSA uses these records to identify connections between known and suspected terrorists (as well as terror conspirators and supporters). The overwhelming majority of records are never reviewed before being destroyed, but it is necessary for the NSA to obtain "the haystack" of records in order to find the terrorist "needle."

Only a strictly limited number of NSA analysts (among the thousands of professionals at the agency) may search the phone records database and only after articulating a specific reason that must be approved by a senior official. Those decisions are reviewed regularly by the Justice Department, Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, which imposes strict privacy protections.

To be effective, the NSA must be able to conduct these queries quickly, without regard to which phone carrier a terrorist or conspirator uses. And the records must be available for a few years — longer than phone companies need them for billing purposes.

Since its inception, this program has played a role in stopping roughly a dozen terror plots and identifying terrorism supporters in the U.S. Given the threats we face from al-Qaeda and others, we need all legal tools at our disposal.

The Senate Intelligence Committee will soon consider legislation to add public reporting requirements and more court review, and to codify existing procedures into law. I hope this will restore public confidence to a program that continues to protect the homeland from terrorism.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... s/3112715/

[Big RR]

[quote]Alexander said officials do not plan to release additional information publicly, to avoid revealing sources and methods of operation,[it would be absurd to expect them to do so]/quote]

Perhaps, but I am not going to cheer on victories which are only reported by some government hack (who has an agenda to cover his ass and that of the NSA) without any evidence.

As for the opinion of an anonymous board and that of Feinstein, opinions are like assholes... You may trust their opinions are justified, I do not.

[Lord Jim]

As for the opinion of an anonymous board and that of Feinstein, opinions are like assholes...

Well, in Feinstein's case, we're talking about the opinion of the Chairman of The Senate Intelligence Committee, so presumably she knows a thing or two about how these programs and the oversight for them work, and how effective they've been...more than the average asshole...(Since she's been directly involved in those operations)

Basically it boils down to this:

You can believe that the President, and all the relevant cabinet officials and agency heads, and top military brass, and a bi-partisan commission, and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees (from both parties; people who rarely agree on anything) are all lying...

And that the only one telling the truth is a cowardly, narcissistic thief who put his tail between his legs and ran off to Putin's Russia...

Or not...

Personally, I'm going with "or not"...

[Big RR]

And that the only one telling the truth is a cowardly, narcissistic thief who put his tail between his legs and ran off to Putin's Russia...

Snowden is not asking us to believe him (other than as to his motives, and even I have problems with that; kind of like I did with the motives of John Dean coming forward in Watergate), he exposed the truth and lies and we can draw our own conclusions.

You can believe that the President, and all the relevant cabinet officials and agency heads, and top military brass, and a bi-partisan commission, and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees (from both parties; people who rarely agree on anything) are all lying...

Or may be all lying; that's the reason we do things in the open out in the US--to allow the citizenry to see what is being done. there are many times in our history where people who rarely agree on anything are complicit in a lie or a cover up because it suits their interests. This may well be one of them.

[Lord Jim]

We were watching Casino Royale last night, and I was struck by this...(apparently I'm not the only one to notice it...)

Separated at birth?

[Lord Jim]

Now as Gaza begins to cool down, Ukraine begins to heat up:

Russian troop increase at Ukraine border raises concerns

Donetsk, Ukraine (CNN) -- A new buildup of Russian troops along the Ukraine border raised concerns Tuesday that Moscow might be contemplating another intervention like the one that annexed Crimea earlier this year.

According to a NATO official, Russia now has about 20,000 troops stationed "in an area along the entire border with eastern Ukraine." The buildup nearly doubled the troop deployment in the last week by adding 8,000 more forces to 12,000 already there, the official said.

It comes a week after the United States and the European Union increased economic sanctions on Russia for supporting pro-Russian separatists fighting Ukraine government forces in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, along the border with Russia.

In addition, Russia's Defense Ministry is staging a week of military exercises involving air troops and anti-missile defense forces. The exercises are taking place in Russia's southern Astrakhan region, roughly 500 miles from the border with Ukraine.

Similar military exercises in the region preceded Russia's annexation of Crimea in March, which escalated the Ukraine conflict following the ouster of pro-Moscow Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych a month earlier.

Donetsk braces for offensive

Meanwhile, Ukraine government security officials said Monday they were preparing for a "massive assault" on Donetsk city, state media reported. Inside the city, a rebel stronghold for months, shelling has already pushed some residents underground into cellars and half-built basements.

Russia's Foreign Ministry claimed in a statement Monday that the Ukrainian military was firing missiles and using multiple rocket systems in and around the city.

It accused Ukraine's government of wanting to continue the war and called for talks to find a political situation to the crisis.

With escalated fighting and Ukrainian forces making gains, the Russian deployment at the border could portend an intervention under the banner of a peacekeeping operation.

"On a human scale, the situation in the east -- particularly in Donetsk and Luhansk -- is disastrous. Today, with all certainty, there's a need to speak about a true war," Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, said Tuesday.

The NATO official said Russian forces gathering at the Ukraine border included a "spectrum" of assets: infantry, mechanized divisions, armor, a lot of artillery, conventional and air defense, and special forces and logistics.

"They are very capable Russian regular units and can move in a matter of hours and could significantly disrupt the situation" in eastern Ukraine, the official said.

The Ukrainian government and Western leaders accuse Russia of fomenting instability in its neighbor by arming and supporting the rebels there, which Russia denies.

The downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17 exacerbated the situation.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/05/world/eur ... ne-crisis/

I've thought for the the past couple of weeks, as it has become increasingly apparent that the Ukrainian military has become more effective and put the Putinistas on their heels, (this was happening even before the thugs downed MH17, but the process has accelerated since then) that Putin would be faced with a basic question...

His original plan is not going to work...

No matter how much weaponry he provides these thugs, no matter how much support he tries to give them from across the border, and no matter how much command and control his special forces on the ground provide...

At the end of the day, they're an undisciplined rabble, and they're going to lose against an increasingly well organized and effective Ukrainian military force...(a force which has a lot of popular support even in the portion of the country that Putin wants to carve off...)

So here's the choice Putin is facing:

Accept the failure of the "fly under the radar screen" strategy for the slow motion annexation of eastern Ukraine, (which got pretty much blown all to hell when his proxies downed a civilian jet liner) and accept that the "Donetsk People's Republic" is headed for history, cut his losses and maybe try to fight another day...

Or...

Throw pretense to the wind, and move in directly with his own troops in force to occupy the area...

And accept even more political and economic isolation, and a more punishing round of economic sanctions...

I have no doubt, that left to his own devices, Shorty's first impulse would be to do the latter; consequences be damned...

The question is, are there enough countervailing pressures left on him in Russia, (among the oligarchs, etc.) to get him to stay his hand...

We'll find out pretty soon...

[Lord Jim]

If Putin thinks that a "military exercises" display of force on the border will cow the Ukrainians, I think he's in for a surprise...

I think at this point, that even if he puts 100,000 troops on the border, the lawful, elected government of Ukraine will continue to press their offensive to push his thugs out of Donetsk, and every other last stronghold they may try to hang on to in Ukraine's sovereign territory...

He won't be able to stop this from happening through low cost intimidation; the only way he'll be able to stop it is through massive direct military intervention, with all the costs that will bring...

[Econoline]

David Remnick, in this looong article in The New Yorker, quotes former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who wonders how much of his own anti-American propoganda Putin actually believes:

Although McFaul feels a deep sense of outrage about Putin, he also understood the mind-set of resentment and conspiracy. “Has the U.S. used covert operations to foment regime change? The answer is yes. I don’t want to get in trouble or go to jail, but has the U.S. supported the opposition to bring about political change? Serbia is a paradigmatic case: direct money to the opposition to destabilize things, and it was successful.” He also cited the overthrow of Mossadegh, in 1953, in Iran, and the support for the Nicaraguan Contras.

“Putin has a theory of American power that has some empirical basis,” McFaul went on. “He strongly believes this is a major component of U.S. foreign policy. He has said it to the President, to Secretary Kerry. He even believes we sparked the Arab Spring as a C.I.A. operation. He believes we use force against regimes we don’t like. . . . By the way, he damn well knows that the government of the Soviet Union used covert support. He worked for one of the instruments of that policy. He really does kind of superimpose the way his system works onto the way he thinks our system works. He grossly exaggerates the role of the C.I.A. in the making of our foreign policy. He just doesn’t get it. Or maybe he does get it and doesn’t portray it that way. I struggle with that: is he really super-clever and this is his psych op, or does he believe it”

[Lord Jim]

Ukraine Says It Destroyed Russian Armored Vehicles Seen Crossing Border

Ukraine said it destroyed much of a column of Russian armored vehicles that had rolled over the border into territory held by pro-Moscow rebels, marking the most direct military clash between the ex-Soviet neighbors since the conflict began.

Western officials said the apparent incursion lays bare Russia's role in stoking the conflict in eastern Ukraine, where government forces have battled the insurgents for four months.

Russia denied Friday sending fighters and vehicles across the border, and complained that Kiev was trying to prevent its humanitarian aid convoy from reaching conflict-torn regions.

Elsewhere, Russian columns of as many as several dozen armored vehicles cruised along roads near the border on the Russian side Friday in plain sight of Western reporters following the aid convoy.

"This is another example of the Russians saying that they want to de-escalate the situation but taking action that clearly has the opposite effect," said Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said his forces' artillery had destroyed a large part of the column that apparently crossed the border late Thursday, and stood ready to fight any incursion.

"We won't tolerate any invasion!" read a message on his Twitter feed.

No immediate evidence of Ukraine's alleged attack on the Russian column surfaced, and Russia's Defense Ministry dismissed the allegation of Russian armored vehicles crossing the border as "some kind of fantasy."

In a phone call with U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu also "guaranteed" that the Russian military was not involved in the humanitarian convoy—nearly 300 trucks parked a few miles from the border—and that the relief effort was not intended as a pretext for further Russian intervention, according to the Pentagon.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/ukraine- ... 1408092018

I really like this new Ukrainian President; he definitely seems to be up to the job...

He's pulled the Ukrainian military together to the point that they've now got Putin's goons back on their heels; they've been on the offensive, taking back territory, and it's probably just a matter of time before they take back Donetsk.

And he also knows that he can attack any Russian troop convoys or heavy weapons that cross the border with impunity because Shorty denies that they are even there...

He's got Shorty in a box on this, because Shorty can't very well retaliate for the attack on soldiers and weapons that he says don't exist...

It was blatantly obvious from the moment this offer of "humanitarian assistance" was made that Shorty would use it to try to pull a fast one; he doesn't do anything out of "the goodness of his heart"...(That would be pretty much impossible, since he has no goodness and he has no heart...)

If Shorty really gave a damn about the humanitarian crisis in the region, (a crisis which was entirely his creation) he could withdraw his heavy weapons and Spetznaz forces and cut off all further military support to his stooges. Then he could give them the choice of moving to Russia, (which is where they belong anyway, since that's where their loyalty lies) or stay on their own to face either death or imprisonment at the hands of the rapidly improving Ukrainian military.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Flash news.... my daughter cleaned her van. She found the 'plane.