Refugees Have Temporary Status in U.S. but not under DHS

The United States has been taking in refugees, migrants and asylees from Latin America and several dozen countries for decades. This is supposed to be a temporary condition but the truth is it has never been temporary.

Image result for manbij

Now with 45 million people from just 2015 displaced from their home countries around the world, there is a crisis that is hard to define much less solve. The United Nations is the lead organization that is under pressure to find solutions and world leaders are not in any kind of collective agreement. Meanwhile, there are people, mostly innocent that are suffering. This is a historical time, one that was in fact not only predictable but solvable if civil war, conflicts and terrorism was addressed long before it manifested.

At issue is the total cost of war where there is no end in sight but more, the cost of creating a viable and living long term solution for migrants to include education, healthcare, law enforcement, jobs, entitlements to list a few. No country is monetarily prepared for the future costs many yet to be known, studied or funded.

Related reading: Bodies found off coast of Libya as migrant toll climbs

The United States had every opportunity in 2011 to launch humanitarian action missions to offset refugee conditions especially as Islamic State was born, and predicted to become a global terror operation directly after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed. He is the original father of Islamic State…al Qaeda in Iraq.

Image result for zarqawi

As a result of the long war in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, the complete damage to cities and towns where normal infrastructure has been destroyed, there is no viable location to go back to. There are no schools, hospitals, roads, buildings and commerce has stopped except for black markets and smuggling. Further, no countries are stepping up with funds to help rebuild or as many call it, nation building.

In summary, refugees are in fact a new permanent status for wherever they are located, including the United States.

Consequently, the United Nations is chartered with drafting a global solution with world leaders.

The first cut a the draft is found here.

In part from the NewYorkTimes: Refugees and migrants will be the biggest issue at the gathering of world leaders at the United Nations next month. President Obama plans to lead a meeting at the General Assembly in an effort to nudge countries to take in more refugees and contribute to countries that have taken them in for years.

The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, also plans to hold a meeting on the plight of refugees and migrants. The document under negotiation will be the centerpiece of his meeting.

While the draft text has no force of international law, every sentence has been argued and negotiated. The resulting language is sometimes so vague that it is likely to bring little comfort to the millions of men, women and children who are seeking safety and opportunity abroad.

Eritrea, for instance, recently complained that the many references to human rights in the document were “redundant.” (A United Nations committee earlier this year accused Eritrea of atrocities against its own citizens.)

Russia resisted a sentence that called for countries to share in the “burden” of taking in refugees. (Russia takes in very few, except lately, from parts of Ukraine.)

The United States suggested a phrase asserting that detention is “seldom” good for children. Activists for immigrants and refugees found that suggestion so appalling that they fired off a letter on Friday to President Obama. They argued that any international agreement should make clear that detention is “never in the best interests of children” and should commit to ending the practice. (The United States detains children who arrive from Mexico without legal papers.)

Amnesty International said in a statement over the weekend that “with some states trying to dilute the agreement to suit their own political agendas, we may end up with tentative half-measures that merely reinforce the status quo or even weaken existing protection.”

This draft agreement sets out a long list of principles, most already enshrined in existing laws. It says refugees deserve protection and should not be sent back to places where they could face war or persecution. It urges countries to allow refugees to work and to let their children attend school, though it stops short of saying refugees have a right to either jobs or schools.

It asserts that migration can be good for the world, which is wording that migrant-sending countries wanted. It also calls for countries to take back their citizens if they travel illegally and fail to get asylum, which is what migrant-receiving countries, especially in Europe, wanted.

An early draft had proposed a global compact to allocate where refugees could be permanently resettled, but that proposal failed. African and Latin American countries wanted to know why the compact was on refugees alone, according to diplomats involved in the negotiations. Why not also have a compact on the rights of migrants, they asked.

The latest draft sets a 2018 deadline for two compacts — one for refugees, a second for migrants.

The draft text also says nothing about the rights of the 40 million people who are displaced in their own countries, or about those who are leaving their homes because of climate change.

 

 

Hillary’s Relationship with Russia is Approved Espionage

Dealing with evil, the evil empire as President Reagan declared. Quite actually under the Barack Obama administration it is nothing more than groveling with the Kremlin.

The United States has an Open Skies Treaty. and one must question why. Further, the Russians have taken full advantage of it.

Then there was the red line threat by Obama where it was later dismissed and handed over to Putin to handle those chemical weapons in Syria for removal.

Then we heard about the Bill and Hillary deal with the Canadian operative on Uranium One giving over rights of U.S. uranium supply to Russia.

But now we have yet another operation concocted by the White House and the Hillary State Department and this one is a blockbuster as noted by going back in history through the original WikiLeaks cables.

It is highly suggested to read the full document below, as it summarizes how Hillary allowed trade secrets and professional Russian espionage within the United States.

****

The full document is here.

FROM RUSSIA WITH Money

Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism

NYPost: Key players in a main component of the reset — a Moscow-based, Silicon Valley-styled campus for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies called “Skolkovo” — poured tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation, the report by journalist Peter Schweizer alleges.

As the Obama administration’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton was at the center of US efforts on the reset in general and Skolkovo in particular, Schweizer argues.

Yet, “Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors” or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.

“It raises the question — do you need to pay money to sit at the table?”

In one example cited by Schweizer, Skolkovo Foundation member and then-Cisco CEO John Chambers donated between $1 million and $5 million in personal and corporate cash to the Clinton Foundation, the report says.

But Skolkovo wound up making America less safe, Schweizer argues, because it shared advanced US technology that Russia can develop for both civilian and military applications, a concern raised already by Army and FBI officials.

Many of Skolkovo’s research projects involved “dual-use” technologies, meaning they would have both civilian and military uses, the report said, citing one in particular — a hybrid airship called an “Atlant” developed at the Skolkovo Aeronautical Center.

“Particularly noteworthy is Atlant’s ability to deliver military cargoes,” including “radar surveillance, air and missile defense and delivery of airborne troops,” the Skolkovo Foundation bragged in a document Schweizer cites.

Hillary Clinton personally launched the State Department’s efforts toward a Russian reset, presenting her Russian then-counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, with a prop reset button in Geneva in 2009.

The reset petered out by the end of 2011, when Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Hillary of fomenting Russian protests over suspicions of fraud in that year’s parliamentary elections.

But by then, the damage had already been done, Schweizer feels.

“I think the idea that you’re going to help develop a Russian version of Silicon Valley, which, by the way, will be controlled by the Russian government, and then not to expect that the technology will be siphoned off for military uses, is incredibly naive,” Schweizer said.

As early as 2010, cybersecurity experts also expressed deep concerns about Russia using Skolkovo to develop hacking capabilities.

Russia’s FSB spy agency — the successor to the KGB — reportedly keeps two of its information warfare “security centers” at Skolkovo, the report says.

“There certainly is an irony that as we are now concerned about Russian cyber-attacks on the US, that the reset played a role in enhancing their cyber-capabilities,” Schweizer said.

In this latest report, as in his book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” Schweizer concedes he found no “smoking gun” evidence that any of the donors who poured cash into the Clinton coffers actually were promised, or received, any State Department favors in return.

“We don’t have an email or a pirated voice mail message saying, ‘We’ll give you money if you help us with Skokovo,’” Schweizer told The Post. “But what we do have is a pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors.

“I think that everybody at the Russian reset table seems to walk away with something,” he added.

“The Clintons, they get their donations and speaking fees in the millions of dollars. The Russians get access to advanced US technology. The tech companies [that participated in the reset, including Cisco, Intel, Microsoft] get special access to the Russian market and workforce.

“But the American people get nothing. In fact, we get a rival — Russia — with enhanced technological capabilities. At best, that makes them a tougher competitor [in legitimate commerce],” Schweizer said.

“At worst, they get a more robust military, with technologies that we helped develop, and that can be sold to our enemies.”

The Clinton Foundation is sure to be a sore spot in Hillary’s campaign for the presidency, Schweizer predicted — tainted as it is, despite its laudable philanthropy.

“At the entire Democratic convention, they did not mention the Clinton Foundation once,” he said. “And it’s been the Clintons’ life work for 16-plus years.”

The Clinton campaign did not respond to requests from The Post for comment on the report.

“All I ask is that people look at the money. Who made the deals, who benefited from the deals,” Schweizer said. “We can’t get inside people’s heads as to why they did something, but we should follow the money.”

 

‘Breaking the Cross’, When not If…

U.K. Police Chief Says Attack Is a Matter of ‘When, Not If’

In part from Newsweek: U.K. police are treating the prospect of an attempted extremist attack on home soil as an inevitability said the head of the Metropolitan police, The Guardian reports.

Over the last 12 months France, Germany, Belgium and Turkey have experienced deadly attacks claimed by militant group Islamic State (ISIS). Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said he wanted to offer reassurance to the British public that the trend would not endanger the U.K., and said police vigilance has not changed.

“I know that with each new outrage and especially those on our doorstep in Europe, there is a greater sense of fear that Britain will be the next victim in this wave of cruel and mindless mass murder,” he said.

“Our threat level has been at severe for two years—it remains there. It means an attack is highly likely. You could say it is a case of when, not if.”

Hogan-Howe spoke as Britain’s most senior counter-terrorism police officer, assistant commissioner Mark Rowley, said the greatest advantage U.K. police had in preventing attacks was public assistance. The BBC reported that relevant hotlines receive over 3,600 calls a day and Rowley said even more input was appreciated. More here.

Breaking the Cross: Latest ISIS Magazine Aimed At Christians

Russian spies claim they can now collect crypto keys

Filed under Vlad’s Glad…ah ha ha

Russian spies claim they can now collect crypto keys—but don’t say how

Putin gave KGB’s successor agency two weeks to deal with encrypted services.

ArsTechnica: Russia’s intelligence agency the FSB, successor to the KGB, has posted a notice on its website claiming that it now has the ability to collect crypto keys for Internet services that use encryption. This meets a two-week deadline given by Vladimir Putin to the FSB to develop such a capability. However, no details have been provided of how the FSB is able to do this.

The FSB’s announcement follows the passage of Russia’s wide-ranging surveillance law, which calls for metadata and content to be stored for six months, plus access to encrypted services, as Ars reported back in June.

The new capability seems to go even further, since the FSB notice (in Russian) speaks of obtaining the “information necessary for decoding the electronic messaging received, sent, delivered, and (or) processed by users of the ‘Internet’ network.”

Being able to decode Internet communications would seem to imply getting hold of any crypto keys that are used. However, as an article on The Daily Dot points out, it is still not clear what the new laws will require: “No one seems to know what this new law means in the slightest. Or, more accurately, the people who do know are keeping mum.”

Three of the services that are likely to be most affected by the new requirements are Facebook’s WhatsApp, Telegram, and Viber. Ars has asked all three for clarification on what the Russian authorities have asked for, and what information the companies are or will be providing, but has not yet received any reply. This post will be updated with responses when they are received.

Related reading: Is the U.S. Hacking Back? Uh Huh

The Daily Dot quotes Russian technologist Anton Nesterov as saying that it’s not even clear whether the new legislation applies to VPNs or basic SSL keys, nor whether mainstream electronic payment systems must hand over their keys as a matter of routine.

Nesterov also points out the dangers involved in providing this information, not least because leaks of such valuable data are always a risk.

***** 

In part from CSO: Networks at some 20 organizations in Russia — including scientific and military institutions, defense contractors, and public authorities — were found to be infected with the malware, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) said Saturday. The range of infected sites suggests that the targets were deliberately selected as part of a cyber-espionage operation, the FSB said.

Analysis of the attack showed that filenames, parameters and infection methods used in the malware are similar to those involved in other high-profile cyber-espionage operations around the world.

The software was adapted to the characteristics of each PC targeted, and delivered in a malicious email attachment, the FSB said.

Once installed, it downloaded additional modules to perform tasks such as monitoring network traffic, capturing and transmitting screenshots and keystroke logs, or recording audio and video using the PC’s microphone and webcam.

The FSB is working with ministries and other government agencies to identify all the victims of the malware, and to limit its effects, it said.

Russia is said to be the source, not the target, of another government-related cyber-attack. Last week, evidence emerged suggesting Russian involvement in an attack on computers at the Democratic National Committee, where recent data leaks have tarnished the campaign of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

 

 

UK Report: Charities Funding Terror

At least the police in the UK noticed something and asked officials for an inquiry. An investigation was performed and you gotta hand it to the Brits, they are so proper and careful, but did the right thing. Question is, was it enough. Further, we must look inward and ask if our own State laws and the IRS are doing the same thing when it comes to charities and foundations? Two come to mind immediately, the Clinton Foundation(s) and those that are advocates of Islamic organizations when the Holy-land Foundation case left many un-indicted co-conspirators.

UK charities that raised cash for ISIS and promoted Al-Qaeda struck off

TWO British charities that raised cash for ISIS and promoted Al-Qaeda respectively have been struck of the register after separate investigations by the regulator.
The Charity Commission has released reports on two separate organisations that claimed to be raising cash to help victims of the war in Syria, and Kurdish Muslims in Birmingham, but were in fact funding and promoting terrorists.

In one case, charities set up by Adeel Ul-Haq, 21, of Sutton-in-Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, raised money through social media that was used to buy a high-powered laser pointer, night-vision goggles and a secret waterproof money pouch.

Ul-Haq was jailed for 12 months in February after a separate police investigation found he funded terrorism by sending money to an ISIS fighter in Syria.
Ul-Haq used Twitter to appeal for cash “to help people in war-torn Syria crisis, but instead sent it to the ISIS fighter.

He was jailed for a further five years for helping another person travel to Syria.

The Charity Commission report said the regulator was unable to account for much of £12,500 raised by Ul-Haq, but at least some of it went into another unnamed person’s bank account.
Some of this cash was then used to buy the specialist items oneBay, that the watchdog suspected would be used for terrorism.
The report said: “While recognising that it is not illegal to purchase such items, the inquiry was extremely concerned by the use of charitable funds to purchase a night-vision scope and its potential usage given that it can be used for hunting or surveillance.”

Ul-Haq never registered any charities with the commission, but the regulator took action as he was effectively acting as an official trustee and he had taken the donations on trust that they would help people in Syria.

The regulator found Ul-Haq breached his fiduciary duty to protect and apply charitable funds for the purposes for which they were raised and that there was evidence the second trustee had committed misconduct and mismanagement by allowing the charitable funds to be mixed in the same account as her own personal funds.

The second, unnamed, female trustee was ordered to repay any other charitable money in her account to Ul-Haq’s account, which was frozen by the commission at the start of the investigation.

However, she faced no police charges.

This cash and remaining funds in Ul-Haq’s account, plus money seized in a police raid of his home, totalled about £4,500, and was donated to two genuine charities working in Syria, which the commission has not named.
Ul-Haq been disqualified from acting as a charity trustee in the future.

At least £2,000 of money had been sent to a genuine charity, it was found.

A second charity probed by the commission was the Birmingham-based Didi Nwe Organisation.

Its website featured articles by Mullah Krekar, viewed as an associate of Al-Qaeda by the United Nations.

Didi Nwe also paid £14,000 to its chair of trustees between May 2010 and February 2013 and could not explain why, according to a statutory inquiry report published by the commission.

The charity trustees were found to have committed misconduct and mismanagement, failed to keep financial records, and were unable to show how the charity was furthering its causes of providing education and relieving poverty among Kurdish Muslims in Birmingham, the report said.

The commission launched an inquiry after the charity’s chair, referred to only as Trustee A, was stopped by police returning to the UK from France with around £1,800 in cash, which he claimed were charitable donations. Read more here.  The report is found here.

Conclusions

The commission concluded that the First Trustee had solicited charitable funds from the public via Twitter for a specific purpose but had breached his fiduciary duty to protect and apply those funds properly for the purposes for which they were raised. The commission concluded that the items the First Trustee purchased on eBay with the charitable funds, including a laser pen, a money wallet and night vision scope, could not be used for furthering the charitable purposes for which the funds were raised and raised serious concerns about what the intended purpose of their use was.

There was evidence of misconduct and mismanagement by the Second Trustee in mixing charitable funds with her own personal funds.

Charitable funds raised by or donated to the First Trustee were not accounted for; there was a serious risk of further misapplication, in breach of duty, to any remaining funds or any funds which could be recovered if the First Trustee was to remain a trustee of the funds. The commission took regulatory action to remove the First Trustee as a trustee, the effect of which was to disqualify him from beinga trustee.

On 10 February 2016 the First Trustee was convicted under section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (preparation of terrorist acts) and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (entering into or becoming concerned in a terrorist funding arrangement) and received 5 years imprisonment. The commission issued a public statement following this conviction.