Category Archives: Human Rights Violations United Nations

Court Case Reveals What Google Does to You

Posted on by

There are countless companies across America that are harvesting your online data without your knowledge or permission. Once the data is collected, it is analyzed and it is sold. Institutions know more about you than you know about you as even predictions are made about your life and family. Hide the kids, well you cant do that either. Can you opt out? Kinda. Can you find alternatives for a search engine? Kinda. Is this legal? Kinda.

Courts docs show how Google slices users into “millions of buckets

Jeff Gould

Jeff Gould, CEO Peerstone Research

The online giant probably knows more about you than the NSA — including things you might not even tell your mother

The first law of selling is to know your customer. This simple maxim has made Google into the world’s largest purveyor of advertisements, bringing in more ad revenue this year than all the world’s newspapers combined. What makes Google so valuable to advertisers is that it knows more about their customers — that is to say, about you — than anyone else.

Where does Google get this knowledge? Simple. It watches most everything you do and say online — reads your email (paying special attention to purchase confirmations), peers over your shoulder while you browse, knows what you watch on YouTube, and — by tracking your devices — even knows where you are at this very moment. Then it assembles all these bits of information into a constantly updated profile that tells advertisers when, where and what you may hanker to buy.

Your Google profile contains far more than basic facts such as age, gender and product categories you might be interested in. It also makes statistically plausible guesses about things you didn’t voluntarily disclose. It estimates how much you earn by looking up IRS income data for your zip code. It knows if you have children at home — a trick it performs by surveying hundreds of thousands of parents, observing their online behavior, then extrapolating to millions of other users. Google also offers advertisers over 1,000 “interest-based advertising” categories to target users by their web browsing habits. When advertisers are ready to buy ads they can review all these attributes in a convenient browser interface and select exactly the users they want to target.

But these explicit attributes only scratch the surface. The online ad giant knows much more about you than it can put into a form easily understandable by humans. Just how much it knows came to light last year, when a Federal judge ordered the publication of some remarkable internal Google emails discussing how Gmail data mining works. Google’s lawyers fought the disclosure tooth and nail, but they were ultimately overruled. The emails reveal that Gmail can sort users not just into a few thousand demographic and interest categories, but into literally millions of distinct “buckets”. A “bucket” is just a cluster of users, however small, who share some feature in common that might interest advertisers.

Gmail profiling is performed by a mysterious device known as the Content OneBox, or COB for short. The COB’s inner workings are shrouded in mystery — the court documents describing it are heavily redacted. But we know that it deploys many distinct data mining methods to place users into these “buckets”. In addition to exploiting demographic or interest-based observables, the COB tries to understand the actual meaning of email messages with advanced “machine learning” algorithms.

The COB lets Google peer into the most intimate aspects of your life. To see why, think about the math. Gmail has a billion users who collectively receive several trillion messages per year (not counting spam). The COB analyzes every one of those messages, even the ones it classifies as spam and the ones you delete before opening. With such a vast sea of data pouring into its algorithms every day, Google can make incredibly fine-grained distinctions among users. Inevitably some of these distinctions will correspond to sensitive personal attributes that few of us would voluntarily disclose. Most “buckets” that Google creates have no names — they are just nodes in a vast network of associations. But Google can also sort advertising messages into the same buckets and then match them to similar users, without the need for overt labels. All it takes to connect an advertiser to the right customer is a fleeting pattern of affinity between some group of users and a particular sales pitch.

Google doesn’t allow advertisers to target explicitly on sensitive categories such as race, religion, health status or sexual preference. But nothing prevents the COB’s matching algorithms from performing such targeting implicitly. When you have millions of target buckets and can perform thousands of statistical experiments every day, you can achieve the same result. Want to attract young gay men of color in certain tough urban neighborhoods to your new line of expensive athletic shoes? Google won’t let you target those keywords directly, but millions of buckets can do it for you — implicitly. Want to offer fast food discount coupons to overweight single women with children, heart surgery to middle-aged men with chest pain and high incomes, or steroid pills to teenage body builders? Millions of buckets can do that too.

In the ten years since it was launched Gmail has morphed from a simple email service into a gigantic user profiling machine. The power of its profiling algorithms increases each year as new ideas from machine learning research are made operational. At the same time, the amount of data the algorithms have to work on swells constantly. Google execs say that Gmail will soon reach one billion users.

Today the market for such data-mined personal profiles is essentially unregulated. Neither Congress nor the FTC know what to do about it. A few state legislatures, notably California, have put stakes in the ground trying to protect consumers and especially vulnerable populations such as school children. The European Union is also debating new, stricter regulations. At the same time, surveys shows that consumers care about privacy but are easily lured into giving it up for free services.

This wild west of unrestrained online profiling can’t go on indefinitely. It is particularly ironic that the National Security Agency — despite all the recent controversy — is subject to far tighter legal oversight than online advertisers like Google or Facebook. Sooner or later regulation must come to online profiling. Europe is likely to lead the way, though not necessarily in a manner that meshes well with American views on innovation and freedom of expression. In the United States, considering Congressional gridlock and the risk of inconsistency among state legislatures, the best near-term hope for regulation that is both reasonable and effective may lie with the FTC or perhaps even the White House. Time will tell, but time is growing short in a world where machines grow more intelligent every day.

 

Obama/Kerry Omit Iran Violations

Posted on by

No single country is a more destabilizing force globally than Iran. Iran is a proven funder of terrorism, has militant armies deployed in several corners of the globe and is building a nuclear weapons program unfettered.

The Obama administration declared they will have full access to all military locations in Iran for inspections when that has never before been the case. Simply put, Iran lies and obstructs. All parties involved in the talks have the historical evidence on Iran’s program(s) while there is no real reason to be in the talks at all.

Per an SME that has tracked funding and transactions:

“Iran is the lead sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism throughout the world today. At the same time, President Obama and his administration are in the process of negotiating an agreement with Iran that would end current economic sanctions, allowing an estimated $50 billion to enter their economy. “These funds will be nearly impossible to keep out of the hands of terrorist groups. This administration must not strike a deal with Iran that allows them to contribute more financial resources to radical Islamic terrorists across the globe.”

Iran’s foreign minister Zarif declared that nothing was sacrosanct with regard to the deal, the sanctions or the timelines.

UN Report: Iran Trying To Buy Nuclear Technology Through Blacklisted Firms

ran is actively trying to buy nuclear technology through blacklisted companies, according to a confidential UN report that surfaced April 30.

The allegations were reported to the UN by Britain. If confirmed, they would violate UN sanctions and add to concerns over whether Tehran can be trusted to adhere to any negotiated agreement to restrict sensitive nuclear work.

The report comes just weeks after world powers reached a framework deal with Iran on curbing its nuclear program.

Britain informed the UN sanctions panel on April 20 that it “is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company and Kalay Electric Company,” according to the report, which was shown to AFP and Reuters on April 30.

Both Iranian companies have been blacklisted because of their nuclear activities. The UN panel said it has not as yet investigated the allegations, which it received on April 21.

“The UK government informed the Panel on 20 April 2015 that it ‘is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC)’,” the panel said in the report. Both TESA and KEC have been hit with international sanctions because they are believed to have ties with Iran’s nuclear program. In order to evade tight international trade sanctions, Iran typically uses businesses as fronts in order to procure needed materials on the sly.

Iran Steps Up Covert Action in Latin America

U.S., Latin American leaders meet to discuss threat
The Iranian government is significantly boosting its presence and resources in Latin America, posing a national security threat to the region, according to a group of U.S. and Latin American officials who met earlier this week in Florida to discuss Iran’s covert actions.While Iran has long had a foothold in the Western hemisphere, these officials warned that the Islamic Republic has invested significant resources into its Latin American operations in a bid to increase its sway in the region.

Iran’s growing influence in the region—and its effort to exert influence over governments there—has fostered pressing security concerns as the Iranians inch closer to the United States’ southern border, according to these U.S. officials and Latin American leaders, who met for several days this week at a summit organized by the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF).

“It is troubling in some of the briefings we get, particularly on the classified side, to see Iranian influence in Latin America,” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs, told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview. “A lot of these [Latin American officials] share the concern.”

“It’s a security risk for all of us,” DeSantis said.

DeSantis was one of several members of Congress and 20 Latin American lawmakers from 14 different countries who met during the IAF summit, which began on Sunday and ran until Tuesday morning.

Iran is becoming increasingly open about its presence in Latin America and providing its officials with passports from Venezuela and other countries, giving them free rein to travel throughout South America.

Iran has forged close ties with countries such as Argentina, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia, among others.

Luis Heber, a member of the Uruguayan senate, said that Iranian agents—who some suspect are members of the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—have been spotted in his country holding Venezuelan passports.

Officials have determined that there is “a clear penetration of Iran in our country,” Heber said during remarks Sunday before U.S. lawmakers and other Latin American officials.

“We’ve also seen Venezuelan passports in the hands of Iranians,” he revealed. “The penetration of Venezuela by Iran is clear. There is overwhelming information on this.”

Heber said Uruguayan officials have spotted at least 10 Iranians carrying Venezuelan passports.

They “can enter anywhere in Latin America because the passports are legal,” he explained.

Iran’s goal, in part, is to establish deep ties in these countries in order to influence their policies toward America, Israel, and other Western allies, officials said.

“The threat level has increased, it’s more open,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), vice-chair of the House’s Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

“The Iranian threat comes not from espionage as much, but from influencing the ideology of their host country,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “That’s what they’re aiming for and penetrating [these countries] so they have a presence in Latin America right at the foothold of the U.S.”

Iran establishes consulates in these countries and then uses them as a base to conduct espionage and other covert activities, Ros-Lehtinen said.

“How is it they have Iranian consulates in Latin America?” she asked. “It’s ridiculous to think all of sudden Latin Americans want to travel to Iran. They’re not using it to issue their visas. Something is happening that Iran is penetrating the Western Hemisphere and it’s not for cultural exchanges or approval of travel docs.”

“This makes no sense … other than espionage, subterfuge, and illicit activities,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

This activity has intensified of late, several officials said.

“There’s no question we’re seeing an uptick in Iranian influence in the Western Hemisphere,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R., Ariz.), a House Foreign Affairs Committee member, said during a meeting with the Latin American leaders in attendance.

“Unfortunately, the U.S. administration, our administration, seems to be willing to turn a blind eye towards what’s happening,” he said.

“There have been instances where Iranian agents have crossed the U.S. border,” Salmon claimed, referring to past reports by members of Hezbollah being arrested attempting to cross the Mexican border.

Iran currently hosts at least 80 so-called cultural centers in the region and has doubled the number of embassies in the region since 2005.

Ros-Lehtinen warned that this activity has become “more pronounced and open” in the past few years.

“Now they’re in the open, above board, advertising and letting the world know, ‘We’re right in your front and back yard,’” Ros-Lehtinen said.

If Obama’s Legal Team Wins, Your Church May Lose

Posted on by

If you have never been to the Supreme Court to hear cases argued, they are fascinating. This week, there is an case regarding marriage of gays. The oral presentations and responses by the U.S. Solicitor General and his staff would have you shaking your head. So, if you would like to read the transcripts which is for sure suggested, here is the document.

But when it comes to the SCOTUS decision on fundamentally redefining the institution of marriage, it could trickle down to your personal church losing. That fundamental transformation of America is underway, without so much as a whimper for you.

Obama Admin: Religious Organizations Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status If Supreme Court Creates Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage

When arguing before the Supreme Court, a lawyer normally takes pains to convince the Justices that ruling in his or her favor in that particular case would not have dramatic consequences elsewhere. In Hobby Lobby, for example, Paul Clement urged that exempting his clients from part of HHS’s contraceptive mandate would not open the doors to a flood of other exemptions. Or in DC v. Heller, Alan Gura argued that the Court’s recognition of the Second Amendment’s personal right to own ordinary firearms would not entitle people to own “machine guns” or “plastic, undetectable handguns.”

A similar dynamic was seen, sometimes, at yesterday’s oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases, Obergefell v. Hodges. Lawyers arguing that same-sex couples should have a federal constitutional right to state marriage licenses suggested that establishing such a right would not result in ministers being forced to conduct same-sex marriages. “No clergy is forced to marry any couple that they don’t want to marry,” the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mary Bonauto told Justice Scalia. “We have those protections” under the First Amendment.

But given that such concerns surround this case — say, for wedding photographers or cake bakers — it was rather stunning to see Solicitor General Verrilli leave open the door to what could be the most significant consequences to eventually flow from the creation of a constitutional right to same sex marriage: namely, that religious organizations could eventually lose their tax-exempt status if they do not embrace the new constitutional right.

Such concerns are based on the Supreme Court’s approach in Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), where the Court held that the IRS could strip two private religious schools of their tax-exempt status because the schools maintained racially discriminatory policies abhorrent under the Fourteenth Amendment. Bob Jones University, for example, prohibited its students from inter-racial dating.

“Entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common-law standards of charity,” wrote the Court; “namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.” To receive a tax exemption, the institution must “demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest.” And because, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education thirty years earlier, America had adopted “a firm national policy to prohibit racial segregation and discrimination in public education,” neither the Tax Code nor the First Amendment allowed the schools to receive tax benefits while maintaining their repugnant racist policies. The Court’s analysis was correct in that case, given how well-established and widely respected the constitutional right against racial discrimination was. But how would the IRS and courts apply such themes in other cases, involving other constitutional rights?

To that end, in recent years some have asked whether the Supreme Court’s recognition of same-sex marriage as a fundamental constitutional right could have similar impacts on religious organizations that refuse to participate in or otherwise support same-sex marriage.

Liberal proponents of same-sex marriage rights have tried to downplay those concerns. Writing in Slate two years ago, Emily Bazelon argued that States’ recognition of same-sex marriages would not affect religious organizations’ tax-exempt status, at least not until “we’re as united about the pernicious nature of anti-gay discrimination as we are about racial discrimination.” (“Maybe we should be there,” she added, “But I don’t need to tell you we’re not.” Not yet.)

But that is, of course, the core theme in favor of same-sex marriage rights: that a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is no less fundamental than a right to inter-racial marriage. It has been at the heart of same-sex marriage litigation for years.

Surely the question of IRS tax exemptions came up at the “moot court” practice sessions preparing the Solicitor General for yesterday’s oral argument. If the Administration wanted to assure the Justices that the IRS — either its current leadership, or under a future Administration — would not strip, say, Catholic charities of their tax-exempt status, then the Solicitor General would have a well-rehearsed answer. Especially in light of the Obama administration’s treatment of conservative groups seeking tax exemptions, not to mention the Administration’s efforts — rejected unanimously by the Court — to use federal regulations to trump religious’ schools doctrinal authority.

But when Justice Alito posed this obvious question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Verrilli offered no reassurances:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I — I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I — I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.

Wait, the tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations is “certainly going to be an issue?”

One would have preferred that the administration could have sorted this “issue” out ahead of time. If the scenario really were as far-fetched as Bazelon and others suggest, then it would have been easy for the Obama administration to simply say so.

And so it will fall to the Justices to grapple with the issue before announcing any broad new constitutional right. They took such pains in Hobby Lobby, in Heller, and in other such cases. We can only hope they’ll do it again here.

 

War in Afghanistan is NOT over, Forbids Release of Detainee

Posted on by

Finally some real truth from the Department of Justice?

Especially compelling is the notion that this detainee is from Yemen, a country that is over-run with an AQAP militant faction as well as the Houthi, an Iranian terror group presently engaged in hostilities with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, where the United States is playing an intelligence role.

Muktar Yahya Najee al Warafi is a 40- or 41-year-old citizen of Yemen. As of April 27, 2015, he has been held at Guantánamo for 12 years 11 months. As of January 2010, the Guantánamo Review Task Force had recommended him for transfer to Yemen provided that certain security conditions were met.* The Department of Defense assessment of this detainee can be found here.

The Justice Department Just Declared That the War in Afghanistan Is Not Over

The war in Afghanistan is not ending, US government attorneys said in court documents unsealed Friday, undercutting statements President Barack Obama made last December and in his State of the Union address a few weeks later when he formally declared that “the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.”

But Obama didn’t really mean that the war was over, the government now argues.

“Simply put, the President’s statements signify a transition in United States military operations, not a cessation …” Andrew Warden, a Justice Department attorney, wrote. “Although the United States has ended its combat mission in Afghanistan, the fighting there certainly has not stopped.”

Warden made the argument in a 34-page motion (viewable below as a PDF) filed in US District Court for the District of Columbia in response to a legal challenge by Guantanamo detainee Mukhtar Yahi Naji al-Warafi. The detainee asked a federal court to grant his writ of habeas corpus and set him free because Obama said the war in Afghanistan is over and the legal authorization the US has relied upon to hold him for the past 13 years is no longer valid.

Muktar Yahya Najee al Warafi

“The government’s position is incoherent,” David Remes, al-Warafi’s Washington, DC-based attorney, told VICE News. “The president says the war is over. The brief says the war isn’t over and will never be over. And the government says they are being consistent with what the president said. They are twisting the president’s own words. Obama was clearly making the point that the war was over, that hostilities have ended.”

Al-Warafi, a Yemeni national held by the US solely on the basis of his alleged Taliban membership, is one of a handful of Guantanamo captives who have filed so-called end of hostilities challenges in federal court arguing that Obama’s formal declaration signifying an end to the war in Afghanistan paves the way toward their immediate release from Guantanamo.

“Since the US war with the Taliban in Afghanistan is over, the government has to let a Taliban-only detainee go. There’s no need to debate whether the US war with other groups is over,” Remes told VICE News last month when he filed the habeas petition.

But the Obama administration is now arguing that the US military is still very much engaged in hostilities in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and that the war there is unlikely to end anytime soon. Justice Department attorneys have filed hundreds of pages of documents to support their conclusion.

‘The president says the war is over. The brief says the war isn’t over and will never be over.’

Because the fighting is ongoing, the US argues they can continue to detain al-Warafi and other prisoners at Guantanamo under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), in which Congress granted the president the power to detain certain prisoners “under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities.”

The government goes on to argue that, despite Obama’s statements declaring an end to the war in Afghanistan, Congress did not repeal or amend the 2001 AUMF, indicating that lawmakers are in agreement with the executive branch that “hostilities have not ceased” and the power to indefinitely detain war on terror detainees is on solid legal ground.

The government said al-Warafi has misinterpreted Obama’s statements about the Afghan war’s conclusion and has failed to understand that the “relevant inquiry is whether active hostilities have ceased not whether a particular combat mission has ended.”

“The President has not declared that active hostilities against al-Qaeda, Taliban have ceased or that the fighting in Afghanistan has stopped,” Warden wrote in the government’s motion. “Rather, the President’s public statements made clear that, in light of the continuing threats faced by the United States in Afghanistan, counterterrorism and other military operations would continue even after the end of the combat mission … [Al-Warafi’s] motion should be denied because active hostilities against al-Qaeda, Taliban and associated forces remain ongoing and have not ceased.”

Marty Lederman, a Justice Department attorney during Obama’s first term, opined in a blog post last month when al-Warafi filed his habeas petition that if the government argued that hostilities in Afghanistan are not over, then “the court would then be confronted with at least two fundamental questions: (i) What are the criteria for determining whether an armed conflict has ended, for purposes of international law (which in turn affects AUMF and other domestic-law authorities)? And (ii) who decides?

“As for the substantive question of how to determine when the conflict has ended, well… it’s very complicated, to say the least,” Lederman continued. “The intensity and regularity of hostilities between the relevant parties would certainly be important determinants. If, for example, the US and the Taliban rarely exchange fire (or other forms of attack) for an extended period of time, it would become increasingly difficult to sustain the notion that the armed conflict continues between those parties.”

The attorney added that “there’s no easy formula that explains where, exactly, to draw the line separating ‘war’ from ‘the end of the conflict,” and that the question “is typically determined by the political branches.”

The Justice Department attorneys argue that the US can still hold al-Warafi even while the administration is trying to fulfill Obama’s campaign pledge to shutter the Guantanamo detention facility and repatriate dozens of detainees by the end of the year before Congress implements measures to block transfers, according to a report published last week by the Washington Post.

The government’s position in al-Warafi’s case could conflict with Obama’s larger goal of permanently shutting down the detention facility.

“This goes beyond whether Obama closes Guantanamo or keeps it open,” Remes said. The government’s brief “is one with the administration’s position that it can detain its captives in the war on terror indefinitely. The brief provides a rationale for continuing to hold detainees captured when there in fact was a war.”

Last month, Obama announced that, at the request of Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani, the US would slow the withdrawal of military personnel from the country and leave about 9,800 troops, “at 21 military bases across Afghanistan,” according to the court documents.

And if there is any doubt that US military will continue fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda, the government secured a sworn declaration from Navy Rear Adm. Sinclair M. Harris, the vice director for operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that while the US combat mission in Afghanistan known as Operation Enduring Freedom has formally ended, the US military has “commenced a new support and counterterrorism mission” in the country, dubbed Operation Freedom’s Sentinel.

Operation Freedom’s Sentinel “is executed under specified rules of engagement that delineate the circumstances and conditions under which the U.S. forces may engage [redacted],” Harris wrote, noting that the 9,800 troops who will stay behind in Afghanistan will be used to support the new mission.

Harris even laid out the timeframe for when “hostile engagements” the US will participate in will begin, which he said demonstrates why the US still considers Afghanistan “as an area of active hostilities” and why al-Warafi is wrong to assume that the war is over and he should be released.

“The height of ‘fighting season’ in Afghanistan generally lasts from April until October,” he said. “Although it is difficult to predict with specificity, it is probable that instances of hostilities between the United States and enemy forces in Afghanistan will increase throughout the coming months.”

A decision in al-Warafi’s case is expected later this year. If you want to read the DoJ’s legal findings, click here for the full document.

Muslim Brotherhood Pay-rolled by Clinton Foundation

Posted on by

Per the Muslim Brotherhood website:

The  Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is reporting that Gehad El-Haddad, described as “spokesperson of the Muslim Brotherhood”, was sentenced to life imprisonment in a 2103 case known as “the media trial”.

April 13, 2015 On April 11, 2015, Gehad El-Haddad, spokesperson of the Muslim Brotherhood, was sentenced to life imprisonment in case 317 for the year 2013 known as “the media trial”.
Fourteen defendants received death sentences while thirty seven including Gehad were sentenced to life in prison. Among the convicted are 15 journalists and spokespersons.


According to the case evidence list (pp. 25 – 26, excerpts attached in Arabic), the evidence against Gehad is that he “conducted three interviews for the New York Times, an American TV channel (PBS), and a Spanish newspaper (Elmundo)”.
In the NYT interview, Gehad said that the MB group came “close to annihilation once under Nasser, but this is worse.” He also added that the crisis “is creating a new tier of youth leaders” and that this “happened at Rabaa.”
El-Mundo published a lengthy interview with Gehad in Spanish in which he said “we remain committed to non-violence and will continue the peaceful struggle to restore democracy.” He also added that he cannot give in to offers that exchange the freedom of the country with personal safety and that he “would rather die for the country he wishes to live under the tyranny of a dictator.”
“I’m a wanted man for saying my opinion and for standing politically in opposition to the coup” these were Gehad’s statements to the PBS. He added “They’re trying to wipe the existent, decapitate the Muslim Brotherhood. And they can’t do that. It’s an idea. You can’t kill an idea”.
Gehad’s family will appeal the verdict.
In August 2013, the GMBDW reported on the arrest of Gehad El-Haddad by Egyptian security forces. At the time, we noted that although we were the first and only Western source known to have reported on El-Haddad’s employment by the Clinton Foundation, mainstream media reports mentioning this employment failed to credit the GMBDW.

Gehad El-Haddad, the the son of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader Essam El-Haddad, was a Senior Adviser on Foreign Affairs to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ‘s Freedom and Justice Party, a position he held since May 2011. His resume also says that he was is a Senior Adviser & Media Spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood as well as a Steering Committee Member of the Brotherhood’s Renaissance (Nahda) Project. Mr Haddad was also the Media Strategist & Official Spokesperson for the presidential campaign of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. Gehad El-Haddad’s resume reports that he was the City Director for the William J. Clinton Foundation from August 2007 – August 2012. Among his duties at the Foundation were representing the Foundation’s Clinton Climate Initiative in Egypt, setting up the foundation’s office in Egypt and managed official registration, and identifying and developing program-based projects & delivery work plans.

*** It came down to Human Abedin, whose own family is deeply steeped in the Brotherhood and Sisterhood movement in Egypt and Qatar.

A senior Muslim Brotherhood operative recently arrested in Egypt worked for years at the William J. Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has also received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and a foundation that is an Iranian regime front.

The current Egyptian government, which was put in power after the military overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood, has launched a sweeping crackdown on the Brotherhood and calls it a terrorist organization. One of the senior officials arrested is Gehad (Jihad) el-Haddad.

From 2007 to 2012, el-Haddad was the Egyptian director for the Clinton Foundation. El-Haddad’s father is Essam el-Haddad, a member of the Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau.