The spokesman for Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), Nikolai Zakharov, said Thursday that in October 2011 the FSB officially warned the CIA station chief in the country that “if provocative recruitment efforts aimed at Russian security service employees continued, the FSB would take ‘mirror’ measures.”
“The CIA crossed a red line and we were forced to react,” Zakharov stated.
On May 14, Russian authorities detained a US diplomat, identified as Ryan Fogle, on allegations of attempting to recruit a Russian national to spy for the CIA. Fogle was ordered to leave Russia.
The FSB said that at the time of capture Fogle had been carrying “special technical equipment and written instructions for recruiting a Russian citizen.”
Zakharov also stated that in 2011, the FSB had named Russian officers who had been approached by the US spy agency, and the CIA operatives who had targeted them, adding that the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, had been “made aware of this issue.”
“The CIA did not take our concern over the situation into account” and went on with its efforts to recruit Russians, the FSB spokesman said.
Zakharov said in December 2012 another US diplomat, who was a third secretary at the US embassy in Moscow, had been caught red-handed when he was trying to recruit a Russian agent.
The diplomat, identified as Benjamin Dillon, left Russia on January 15 after being declared persona non grata.
However, the US embassy did not comment on whether an employee was expelled in January.
The Russian Federal Security Service said it knew Fogle worked for the CIA when he entered Russia in April 2011.
“In the hope that the CIA leadership would draw the necessary conclusions, we did not make this case public. But apparently the adherence by the FSB to the principles of professional ethics was not properly appreciated,” Zakharov said.
The issue of Fogle came days after Russian President Vladimir Putin and US Secretary of State John Kerry said in Moscow that the relationship between Moscow and Washington was improving.
Presstv
In a move that makes clear the direction that our country is increasingly heading towards, the Department of Defense has published an update to a US code that outlines military power during civil unrest.
The code, ““Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies,” was slightly altered during a May 13th update which now allows the military to unilaterally declare martial law without presidential approval.
Multiple sections of the code outline plans and policies for a martial law scenario and should be considered a must read for any American worried about their freedoms in what has become a hostile American police state.
The rule seems to actually contradict itself, in one part claiming that the military can only be used during extreme circumstances with Presidential approval and then, in an updated part of the code, declaring that the military can put troops on the streets without approval from the president or local law enforcement.
The primary restriction on DoD participation in civilian law enforcement activities is the Posse Comitatus Act. It provides that whoever willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute U.S. laws, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, shall be fined under title 18, U.S.C., or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Section 182.6 (a) describes in detail the assistance that the Department of Defense may and may not provide civilian law enforcement agencies.
b. Support During Civil Disturbances
The President is authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States to employ the Armed Forces of the United States to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence under various conditions and circumstances. Planning and preparedness by the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense, for civil disturbances is important due to the potential severity of the consequences of such events for the Nation and the population. The employment of Federal military forces to control civil disturbances shall only occur in a specified civil jurisdiction under specific circumstances as authorized by the President, normally through issuance of an Executive order or other Presidential directive authorizing and directing the Secretary of Defense to provide for the restoration of law and order in a specific State or locality.
A little further down within the code the above text is made completely irrelevant. (emphasis mine)
Domestic emergencies. Emergencies affecting the public welfare and occurring within the 50 states, District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, U.S. possessions and territories, or any political subdivision thereof, as a result of enemy attack, insurrection, civil disturbance, earthquake, fire, flood, or other public disasters or equivalent emergencies that endanger life and property or disrupt the usual process of government. Domestic emergencies include civil defense emergencies, civil disturbances, major disasters, and natural disasters.
[[Page 21829]]
Emergency authority. A Federal military commander’s authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances
because:
(1) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order; or
(2) Duly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions.
Most worrying is that the examples given as possible reasons for when the military would need to use their, “emergency authority,” are so broad and open to interpretation that it essentially gives them the power to declare martial law whenever they choose.
A recent piece published by the Long Island Press further expanded on the repercussions of these “subtle” changes to the US code.
The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement.
By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
What exactly giving the power of martial law to a military commander actually means was also explained:
One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.”
According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”
As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.)
In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”
“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.
This power grab comes at a time when police forces throughout the country are already becoming increasingly militarized, with the recent police response during the manhunt for one of the Boston Bombings suspects being a prime example.
Rather than a force of peacekeepers, the police looked more like troops on the battlefield, and in many ways they acted like it. This has all been made possible by little reported on Pentagon programs that give military gear to police forces.
The focus on the DoD regulatory change obscures the creeping militarization that has already occurred in police departments across the nation.
Even prior to the NDAA lawsuit, journalist Chris Hedges was critical of domestic law enforcement agencies saying, “The widening use of militarized police units effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.”
This de facto nullification isn’t lost on the DoD.
The DoD official even referred to the Boston bombing suspects manhunt saying, “Like most major police departments, if you didn’t know they were a police department you would think they were the military.”
According to this official there has purposely been a “large transfer of technology so that the military doesn’t have to get involved.” Moreover, he says the military has learned from past events, such as the siege at Waco, where ATF officials mishandled military equipment. “We have transferred the technology so we don’t have to loan it,” he states.
This so called large transfer of technology has allowed law enforcement to basically change their entire purpose by implementing gear and weaponry that twenty years ago would never have been considered for use on the American people.
Sadly, America is increasing becoming eerily similar to many different dictatorships throughout history. From unilateral powers to declare martial law, to the ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge, the powers that be have truly moved towards an American police state.
Shift Plan
Russia sold advanced Yakhont antiship cruise missiles to Syrian President Bashar Assad, outfitted with an advanced guidance system that makes them more effective than the older version of the missile Russia sold to Syria, The New York Times cited two American officials as saying on Thursday.
These missiles will allow Syria to thwart any attempt by international forces to reinforce Syrian rebels by imposing a naval embargo or no fly zone, Nick Brown the editor in chief of IHS Jane's International Defense Review told The New York Times.
“It enables the regime to deter foreign forces looking to supply the opposition from the sea, or from undertaking a more active role if a no-fly zone or shipping embargo were to be declared at some point,” Brown said, “It’s a real ship killer,” he added.
According to the Times report, Syria ordered the coastal defense version of the Yakhont system from Russia in 2007 and received the first units in early 2011.
Jeffrey White, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior American intelligence official, told the Times that by strengthening Syria's arsenal Russia was signalling its "commitment to the Syrian government."
In a separate report on Thursday, the Wall Street Journalcited US and European officials as saying that Russia sent at least a dozen warships to its Tartus naval base in Syria, in a move partly meant to send a message to Israel and the West not to intervene militarily in the country, .
"It is a show of force. It's muscle flexing," the Journal quoted a senior US defense official as saying. "It is about demonstrating their commitment to their interests."
Facing international criticism for his country's decision to sell the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday contended that the arms deal would not alter the balance of power in the region.
During a meeting in Sochi, Russia with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Lavrov was quoted by AFP as saying "this does not in any way alter the balance of forces in this region or give any advantage in the fight against the opposition."
Lavrov claimed that Russia's arms deals with Syria do not violate international agreements. "I do not understand why the media is trying to create a sensation out of this," AFP quoted him as saying.
"We have not hidden that we supply weapons to Syria under signed contracts, without violating any international agreements, or our own legislation," he added.
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni on Friday criticized Russia for sending arms to the Syrian regime, stating that "the transfer of arms to Syria is clearly not positive and does not contribute to the stability of the region," according to AFP.
"Israel has the right to defend itself," AFP quoted Livni as saying.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reportedly urged Russian President Vladimir Putin in a summit in Sochi on Tuesday not to sell the state-of-the-art S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria.
Israeli officials declined to comment on Lavrov’s latest interview, which appeared to contradict a statement he made last week that Russia would not sell the S-300 advanced air defense system to Syria.
Jerusalem Post
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly warned Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday that Moscow’s sale of a sophisticated missile defense system to President Bashar Assad could push the Middle East into war.
Netanyahu, who flew to meet Putin for emergency talks in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, told the Russian president that the S-300 had no relevance to Assad’s civil-war battles against rebel groups, and urged Moscow not to deliver the systems, Channel 2 reported on Wednesday night.
He said that if acquired by Assad, the S-300 — a state-of-the-art system that can intercept fighter jets and cruise missiles — “is likely to draw us into a response, and could send the region deteriorating into war,” the Channel 2 report said.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, asked last week about possible sales of the S-300 to Assad, said cagily: “Russia is not planning to sell. Russia has been selling for a long time, has signed contracts and is completing deliveries of technology that consists of anti-aircraft systems.”
Lavrov said the weapons were to help Syria defend itself against air attacks. Israel suspects that Russia plans to sell Damascus six S-300 missile batteries, as well as 144 missiles, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
The Times of Israel
Human cloning has been used to produce early embryos, marking a "significant step" for medicine, say US scientists.
The cloned embryos were used as a source of stem cells, which can make new heart muscle, bone, brain tissue or any other type of cell in the body.
The study, published in the journal Cell, used methods like those that produced Dolly the sheep in the UK.
However, researchers say other sources of stem cells may be easier, cheaper and less controversial.
Opponents say it is unethical to experiment on human embryos and have called for a ban.
Stem cells are one of the great hopes for medicine. Being able to create new tissue might be able to heal the damage caused by a heart attack or repair a severed spinal cord.
There are already trials taking place using stem cells taken from donated embryos to restore people's sight.
However, these donated cells do not match the patient so they would be rejected by the body. Cloning bypasses this problem.
The technique used - somatic cell nuclear transfer - has been well-known since Dolly the sheep became the first mammal to be cloned, in 1996.
Dolly's birth in 1996 was seen as a major scientific breakthrough
Skin cells were taken from an adult and the genetic information was placed inside a donor egg which had been stripped of its own DNA. Electricity was used to encourage the egg to develop into an embryo.
However, researchers have struggled to reproduce the feat in people. The egg does start dividing, but never goes past the 6-12 cell stage.'Real deal'
Now a team at the Oregon Health and Science University have developed the embryo to the blastocyst stage - around 150 cells - which is enough to provide a source of embryonic stem cells.
Dr Shoukhrat Mitalipov said: "A thorough examination of the stem cells derived through this technique demonstrated their ability to convert just like normal embryonic stem cells, into several different cell types, including nerve cells, liver cells and heart cells.
"While there is much work to be done in developing safe and effective stem cell treatments, we believe this is a significant step forward in developing the cells that could be used in regenerative medicine."
Chris Mason, a professor of regenerative medicine at University College London, said this looked like "the real deal".
"They've done the same as the Wright brothers really. They've looked around at where are all the best bits of how to do this from different groups all over the place and basically amalgamated it.
"The Wright brothers took off and this has actually managed to make embryonic stem cells."
BBC
