Iran sends warships to Yemen coast after US attack on Houthis

Iranian destroyers sent to 'protect trade vessels', hours after US warship fires cruise missiles on Houthi radar sites

Yemen's Houthi rebels deny that they fired on the USS Mason (Reuters)

Thursday 13 October 2016

Iran sent two warships to the Gulf of Aden on Thursday, the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported, establishing a military presence in waters off Yemen where the US military launched cruise missile strikes on areas controlled by Iran-backed Houthi forces.

"Iran's Alvand and Bushehr warships have been dispatched to the Gulf of Aden to protect trade vessels," Tasnim reported. The Alvand and Bushehr are both destroyers.

Saudi Arabia accuses Tehran of providing support to the Houthi political movement, a charge it denies.

Tasnim said the Iranian ships will patrol the Gulf of Aden, south of Yemen, which is one of the world's most important shipping routes.

The announcement comes hours after the US said it had fired cruise missiles at three Houthi-contolled radar stations after anti-ship missiles were fired at a US Navy destroyer.

The missile launches from the USS Nitze on Thursday morning mark the first time the US had directly attacked the Houthi rebels in Yemen. 

“These limited self-defence strikes were conducted to protect our personnel, our ships and our freedom of navigation in this important maritime passageway,” the US defence department said. “The US will respond to any further threat to our ships and commercial traffic."

It added: “Initial assessments show the sites were destroyed.”

The US strike came after a second missile launch from rebel-held territory in Yemen had targeted a US destroyer, a Pentagon official said on Wednesday.

However, Houthi rebels issued a statement denying that they had fired a missile at the US vessel.

"Those claims are baseless," the rebel-controlled Saba news agency quoted a military official as saying.

"Such claims aim to create false justifications to step up attacks and to cover up for the continuous crimes committed by the (coalition) aggression against the Yemeni people."

Wednesday's attack involved a "coastal defence cruise missile" fired from a Houthi-controlled area south of al-Hudaida, the US official said. 

The USS Mason used countermeasures after detecting the missile at about 6pm local time on Wednesday.

"It is unclear if the countermeasures caused the missile to hit the water, or if it would have hit the water on its own," said the official.

The ship was not hit.

On Sunday, two missiles fired from rebel-held territory in Yemen fell short of the Mason as it patrolled the Red Sea off the coast of the war-torn country.

Both missiles hit the water before reaching the ship and no one was injured in that incident, officials said.

On Monday, the Saudi-led coalition accused the rebels of firing a ballistic missile towards the southwestern Saudi city of Taif, hundreds of kilometres from the Yemeni border.

The missile was one of two that the coalition intercepted on Sunday - the other was launched toward Marib, east of Yemen's rebel-held capital Sanaa.

The incidents come after the United Arab Emirates said last Wednesday that Yemeni rebels struck a "civilian" vessel in the strategic Bab al-Mandab waterway, wounding crewmen. Rebels did claim that attack, which was carried out on 1 October.

The UAE is a key member of a Saudi-led coalition that has been pounding Yemen since March of last year.

Coalition warships have imposed a naval blockade on rebel-held ports along Yemen's Red Sea coast allowing in only UN-approved aid shipments.

Also, Houthi rebels fired a missile at the main Saudi air base used by the Arab coalition in its bombing campaign but it was intercepted, the coalition said on Wednesday. 

It was the second such missile launch since a coalition air strike killed more than 140 people attending a wake in Sanaa on Saturday, prompting threats of revenge.

Air defence forces "intercepted a ballistic missile, launched by the Houthi militias toward the city of Khamis Mushait and destroyed it without any damage", a coalition statement said.

Khamis Mushait is home to the air base that has been at the forefront of the coalition bombing campaign against Houthi rebels and their allies.

It is about 100km from the Yemeni border

Former Miss Arizona: Trump ‘just came strolling right in’ on naked contestants

Former Miss Arizona Tasha Dixon claimed Donald Trump came “waltzing in” while contestants were nude or half-nude as they changed into bikinis. Trump owned the Miss USA pageant when Dixon was a contestant in 2001. (Reuters)

Updated with response from Trump campaign.

By Fred Barbash October 12 at 10:31 PM

On an April 11, 2005, airing of “The Howard Stern Show,” Donald Trumpbragged about some of the special perks he enjoyed while he was owner of the Miss USA pageant. They came not in a locker room but a dressing room.

“I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said. “And you know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it.”

Stern replied, “You’re like a doctor.”

Trump responded: “Is everyone okay? You know they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”


 In the Oct. 9 presidential debate, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump denied acting on the sexual touching he described in video released by The Washington Post. Now, several women say he forced himself on them. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

CNN broke the story of his Stern show comments.

CBS 2 Los Angeles did a little fact-checking and, guess what, this time, noPinocchios. Tasha Dixon, Miss Arizona in 2001, told the TV station that Trump just came “waltzing in” while contestants were nude or half-nude as they changed into bikinis.

Separately, BuzzFeed News reported Wednesday that four women in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Trump walked into their dressing room while they were changing. Some were as young as 15, BuzzFeed reported.

Three spoke anonymously, and one allowed her name to be used. “I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,'” Mariah Billado, a former Miss Vermont Teen USA, told BuzzFeed.

Trump, she told BuzzFeed News, said “something like ‘Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.'”

And BuzzFeed reported that 11 more women who had been contestants in the 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant said they “did not recall seeing Trump in the dressing room. Some said they do not believe he could have been there.”

A spokesman for the Trump campaign denied all the claims late Wednesday in a statement:

These accusations have no merit and have already been disproven by many other individuals who were present. When you see questionable attacks like this magically put out there in the final month of a presidential campaign, you have to ask yourself what the political motivations are and why the media is pushing it.

As for Tasha Dixon, she only confirmed what Trump told Howard Stern, except with detail. She described to the Los Angeles TV station her experience with Trump as a contestant in 2001 in a dressing room where she and others were changing into bikinis:

He just came strolling right in. There was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless. Others girls were naked. 

Our first introduction to him was when we were at the dress rehearsal and half naked changing into our bikinis. 

To have the owner come waltzing in, when we’re naked, or half naked, in a very physically vulnerable position and then to have the pressure of the people that worked for him telling us to go fawn all over him, go walk up to him, talk to him, get his attention.

 
Following a Friday report by The Washington Post on a 2005 video of the GOP presidential nominee, various Republicans have said they no longer plan to vote for him and some call for him to drop out.

Trump responded: “Is everyone okay? You know they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”

She suggested that such opportunities were among the reasons Trump owned beauty pageants.

I’m telling you Donald Trump owned the pageant for the reasons to utilize his power to get around beautiful women. Who do you complain to? He owns the pageant. There’s no one to complain to. Everyone there works for him.

The former Miss Teen USA contestant, Billado, told BuzzFeed News she saw Trump’s intrusion as “more of a pompous ‘I own this place’ rather than a perverted thing.”

The Trump campaign spokesman, in addition to denying the claims, noted that the Buzzfeed news article quoted “many other contestants” who “disputed the veracity” them.

Trump faced additional accusations Wednesday as per this story by the Post’s Sean Sullivan:

Three women accused Donald Trump of groping or kissing them without their consent in news reports published Wednesday, just days after the Republican presidential nominee insisted in a debate that he had never engaged in such behavior.

Below you can hear Trump and Stern in their own voices:

Iceland Jail Top Bankers For 46 Years, Europe ‘Outraged’

Iceland has differed from the rest of Europe and the US by allowing bankers to be prosecuted as criminals, rather than treating them as a protected species.

Iceland has found nine top bankers guilty and sentenced them to decades in jail for crimes related to the 2008 economic crash.

Posted on October 8, 2016 by Baxter Dmitry-October 13, 2016 

On Thursday Iceland’s Supreme Court returned a guilty verdict for all nine defendants in the Kaupthing market manipulation case, after a long running court trial which began in April last year.

Kaupthing was a big international bank headquartered in Reykjavik, Iceland. It expanded internationally for years, but collapsed in 2008 under huge debts, crippling the small nation’s economy.

By demanding that bankers be subject to the same laws as the rest of society, Iceland opted for a very different strategy in the wake of the financial crisis to rest of Europe and the US, where banks were fined nominal amounts, and directors and chief executives escaped punishment altogether

While the US and UK governments provided bail outs and government stakes for their big banks with tax-payers’ money – essentially giving bankers the green light to continue behaving in the same way – Iceland adopted a different approach, declaring it would let the banks go bust, weed out and punish the criminal element at the top of the banks, and protect the savings of the people.

Former director of the bank, Hreiðar Már Sigurðsson, who was found guilty and jailed last year, was also given a six-month extension to his sentence on Thursday.

According to Iceland Monitor, the bankers are found guilty of crimes relating to deceitfully financing share purchases – the bank lent money for the purchase of the shares while using its own shares as collateral for the loans.

They are also found guilty of creating a misleading demand for Kaupthing shares by means of deception and pretence.

The Icelandic Approach

These guilty verdicts are just the latest in Iceland’s unprecedented clampdown since the economic crash. Authorities have been pursuing bank bosses, chief executives, civil servants and corporate looters for crimes ranging from insider trading to fraud, money laundering, misleading markets, breach of duties and lying to officials.

Meanwhile the economy that collapsed so spectacularly has rebounded after letting its banks go bust, imposing capital controls and protecting its own citizens rather than the elite bank bosses responsible for the mess.

This determination to hold people to account for actions that caused intense financial misery contrasts strongly with the U.K., the rest of Europe and the US. Yes, fines were imposed on the 20 biggest banks for transgressions such as market manipulation, money-laundering and mis-selling mortgages, but these costs fall on shareholders and, by hampering the banks’ ability to lend, they also punish the rest of society.

Meanwhile the guilty senior bankers, thanks to government bail outs, carry on making enormous profits and collecting their obscene bonuses as though nothing happened.

Last year, the International Monetary Fund declared that Iceland had achieved economic recovery “without compromising its welfare model” or unduly punishing its citizens for crimes committed by its bankers.

Iceland is right to jail it’s bankers – and the US and Europe is wrong to merely slap a few wrists and give the green light to future outrages.

Philippines: Duterte to visit China amid worsening ties with Washington

In this Sept 7, 2016 file photo, Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang, left, and Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte link arms during the ASEAN Plus Three summit in Laos. Pic: AP.

 12th October 2016 

PHILIPPINE President Rodrigo Duterte and about 250 business executives from Manila will pay a visit to China next week, adding more strain to the country’s fraying ties with the United States.

A report by Shanghai daily quoted the president saying yesterday that he will also visit Russia, highlighting again his marked shift away from the Philippines’ decades-old alliance with Washington.

“China has repeatedly invited me. I have accepted the offer. After Japan, probably I will go to Russia,” he was quoted saying.

SEE ALSO: Duterte to US: ‘Withdraw your aid, we will not beg for it’

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang confirmed the visit at a daily press briefing on Wednesday, adding that Beijing had always in the past said it would welcome Duterte.

“We hope that he can make this visit at an early date. The two sides are in close communication on this.

“We commend President Duterte’s attachment of importance to China-Philippines relations, and believe that high-level exchanges will contribute to bilateral friendly cooperation and regional peace, stability, development and prosperity,” he said, according to a transcript of the press conference posted China’s Foreign Affairs Ministry’s website.

He also confirmed that Beijing and Manila were willing to improve bilateral relations for the sake of developments that would mutually benefit both countries.

“We are ready to join hands with the Philippines to improve and develop bilateral relations.

“We are also willing to enhance pragmatic cooperation across the board, achieve mutually beneficial and win-win results, and deliver benefits to the two countries and peoples,” he said.

SEE ALSO: Duterte says China ‘worried’ about him, offered Philippines airplanes

According to Reuters, the visit from Oct 18 to 21 will see Duterte meet with President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang.

Also in the Philippine president’s delegation will be 250 business executives, who the wire agency said were eager to talk with Chinese business leaders and government officials regarding deals in numerous sectors like rail, construction, tourism, agribusiness, power and manufacturing.

Since taking office in June, Duterte has had an uneasy relationship with the U.S. and President Barack Obama, as well as other world groupings, including the United Nations and more recently, the EU.

The former Davao city mayor has also stated his intention to foster better ties with China and Russia, and revamping the Philippine foreign policy that has long been pro-Washington. After making headlines for labeling Obama a “son of a bitch” and ordering U.S. troops to leave the Philippines, Duterte claimed of possible deals with China and Russia to boost his country’s military arsenal.

SEE ALSO: Philippines: Duterte tells Obama ‘You can go to hell’ in latest tirade

He recently said that this year’s wargames with the U.S., an annual event, would be the last event to be held with the global superpower, adding as well that his country would not participate in any joint drills in the South China Sea. The Philippines and U.S. are bound by the Mutual Defense Treaty, a 1951 agreement that states both parties are bound to protect each other from armed attacks.

On numerous occasions, however, U.S. officials have dismissed Duterte’s remarks, claiming they do not reflect ground realities.

Despite his harsh words, Duterte has himself repeatedly said that the Philippines will continue its military alliances.

SEE ALSO: US says Duterte’s harsh words ‘at odds’ with reality

Maldives quits Commonwealth, weeks after democracy warning

An aerial view shows the Maldives capital Male December 7, 2009. REUTERS/Reinhard Krause/Files

By Shihar Aneez- Thu Oct 13, 2016

The Maldives said on Thursday it will leave the Commonwealth, weeks after the organisation warned it could be suspended because of its lack of progress in promoting the rule of law and democracy.

Best known as a paradise for wealthy tourists, the Indian Ocean archipelago has been mired in political unrest since Mohamed Nasheed, its first democratically elected leader, was ousted in disputed circumstances in 2012.

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group last month warned the Maldives that in the absence of substantive progress in rule of law and democracy, it would consider its options, including suspension.

The Commonwealth comprises 53 states that were mostly former British colonies.

"The decision to leave the Commonwealth was difficult, but inevitable," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

"Regrettably, the Commonwealth has not recognised that progress and achievements that the Maldives accomplished in cultivating a culture of democracy in the country and in building and strengthening democratic institutions."

Commonwealth Secretary-General Patricia Scotland expressed sadness and disappointment over the decision.

"The Commonwealth Charter reflects the commitment of our member states to democracy and human rights, development and growth, and diversity," Scotland said in a statement.

"We hope that this will be a temporary separation and that Maldives will feel able to return to the Commonwealth family and all that it represents in due course."

Amnesty International said the Maldives authorities should address their own human rights situation rather than lashing out at legitimate criticism.

"Human rights have been in a complete freefall in the country over the past few years. The government has locked up opponents through politically motivated trials and led an unprecedented crackdown on independent media," Amnesty's South Asia Director Champa Patel said.

President Abdulla Yameen's administration reintroduced the death penalty in July, rejecting repeated requests by rights groups and the West. [L4N1AQ3VB]

Nasheed, in exile in Britain after being allowed out of jail to go there for medical treatment, formed the Maldives United Opposition in June with the aim of toppling Yameen.

Yameen's administration has arrested most of his opponents. The opposition says the administration is trying to cover up corruption including money laundering, accusations the government has denied.

(Reporting by Shihar Aneez; Editing by Nick Macfie and Mark Trevelyan)

Does hard Brexit equal Scottish Independence?

Does hard Brexit equal Scottish Independence?

Gary Gibbon on Politics-Thursday 13 Oct 2016

Nicola Sturgeon pulled off a clever piece of political craftsmanship at the start of the SNP Conference.

She threw some red meat to the faithful. There would be a draft second independence bill published on Monday and she would make preparations so Scotland could call a referendum before Britain leaves the EU in 2019.

That got an ovation and a roar of support.

But the First Minister also made sure the activists applauded another line in which she said “I can (count) on your support every step of the way” as she decides whether to delay the referendum beyond 2019.

She was trying to menace Theresa May ahead of a bruising set of negotiations (she wants to keep full membership of the Single Market and just about every power returned from Brussels to go straight to Holyrood – Whitehall sources say she can forget all claims on immigration, competition and VAT powers but could easily get agriculture, fisheries and some environment powers).

But Nicola Sturgeon was also trying to keep her wriggle room open. She wants the referendum threat to be credible but she doesn’t want to be boxed in.

Why?

There was a surge for two weeks after the Brexit vote in support for independence. Then the numbers subsided and the headline figures are now not far off where they were in the referendum in 2014. Nicola Sturgeon knows that the second firing of this gun has to hit the target.

She wants a decent sustained period of the independence cause leading in the polls and that’s not where things are at the moment. That could change.

The still waters of the headline poll figures conceal some serious churning in the depths. The British Election Study estimates that 37% of the Brexit vote in Scotland was made up of people who voted Yes to independence in 2014, about a third of the SNP’s vote in the 2015 general election. The demographic profile of the Scottish vote is similar to the English vote – generally older people with fewer educational qualifications. Here’s some work by the British Election Study.

SOURCE: BRITISH ELECTION STUDY

But there’s been some movement in the opposite direction too, middle class voters with more educational qualifications who backed No in 2014 but are now horrified by Brexit and ready to make the leap to the Yes camp in a future poll. Since the Brexit vote I’ve met people who worked at the heart of the No campaign who admit it could even include themselves.

Those middle class voters could be a more reliable addition than the working class voters who may not turn out as reliably. That’s certainly how the SNP see it; they feel they are winners in the churn so far and that enough of the others will though data on differential turnout is thin.

The SNP is working up a new economic case for independence. Some close to Nicola Sturgeon believe the last prospectus, “Scotland’s Future,” was a hurried piece of work not really worth more than 6/10. One SNP source said it simply didn’t convince. The best case scenario numbers have proved woefully optimistic. The party now faces the challenge of putting together an analysis that out-performs the last one but in more economically trying circumstances. Business opinion needs to be worked on and the black hole filled in. That will probably require not just an economic growth plan but some cuts in the size of the state as well.

Nicola Sturgeon has more time to achieve all that than a superficial reading of her speech today might suggest. As one aide put it, straight after the referendum on Europe she said the equivalent of “listen to us.” Today she said “listen to us or else.”

If she decides now isn’t the right time to pull the pin on the referendum grenade there’s every sign here that the membership will trust her judgement and leave the decision to her. The loyalty to the leadership was proved by the results of the deputy leadership contest, won by the man who was known to be her favoured candidate, Angus Robertson MP, very convincingly with 52.5% on the first ballot (there were 3 other candidates). The dissident voices you find who are impatient are quite often more recent joiners – “lefties, not long marchers,” one close to Mrs Sturgeon said. “Those who’ve been around a long time know a mission like this isn’t something you launch on a whim,” Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t do much on whim. 

Today was necessary theatre but not much has changed in terms of SNP policy. But beneath the still waters they hope their time is drawing closer.

Women climb Africa's highest mountain to call for land rights

The African Union is campaigning for 30 percent of registered land to be owned by women by 2025

Kenya's Lands Minister Jacob Kaimenyi (5th L) and Mariamu El Maawy (7th L), principal secretary in the Lands and Physical Planning Ministry, flag off a bus of women who will climb Mount Kilimanjaro as part of a campaign for land rights in Nairobi, Kenya, October 13, 2016. Thomson Reuters Foundation/Katy Migiro/via REUTERS

By Katy Migiro-Thursday, 13 October 2016

NAIROBI, Oct 13 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - As soon as Ann Ondaye's husband died, his two brothers took all the Kenyan widow's possessions: the television, bicycle, a fishing boat and nets and even her late husband's trousers.

Ondaye and her three young daughters were allowed to remain in their home in western Kenya's Homa Bay for six years while she nursed her late husband's mother.

But when her mother-in-law died in 2006, the brothers returned to oust Ondaye from her matrimonial home, saying her children were not entitled to inherit their father's land because they were girls.

With support from elders in her husband's Luo community and women activists, Ondaye fought to stay on the 2.5 hectare plot, which is in the names of her late husband and his father.

"Being that I know my rights, I know where to go, I know where to report, I am still on the land," said Ondaye, 46, who has trained as a paralegal to support other women's land claims.

"I am trying to get the title deed and then divide the land among my girls - for the first time in Luo culture," she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Ondaye is one of hundreds of women from more than 20 African countries meeting in Tanzania this week to write a charter of demands to improve their access to and control over land.

The fittest among them will climb to the peak of Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa's highest mountain, on Sunday to launch the charter, calling on African governments to implement it.

Improving women's land rights is key to reducing poverty and exposure to domestic violence, as well as providing collateral for loans and security in old age, campaigners say.

Recognising the importance of the issue, the African Union is campaigning for 30 percent of registered land to be owned by women by 2025.

"Land is everything in human life," Ondaye said, wearing a grey T-shirt with 'Women to Kilimanjaro' emblazoned on it.

"Land is where you live; you have your shelter. Land is where you till; you have food security."

STATUS QUO

More than 70 percent of Kenyan women live in rural areas, said Ruth Masime, ActionAid's head of policy in Kenya, yet only one percent of women in Kenya are registered land owners.

More than 40,000 Kenyan women came together to draw up a charter for Kenyan women, which they presented to officials on Thursday, calling for better representation in land institutions and more transparent administration.

Muhammed Swazuri, chairman of Kenya's National Land Commission, an independent government body set up to manage public land and investigate historical injustices, said the women's demands had already been addressed in legislation.

"Let's concentrate more on the obstacles that are making implementation difficult. And these are attitudes," he said.

Some rural women support the status quo, for example, declining offers to have their names on title deeds, he said.

In sub-Saharan Africa, property is often owned by the community, and culture dictates that men own land while women access it through male relatives, such as fathers or husbands.

On average, sub-Saharan women represent 15 percent of agricultural land owners, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said in 2010, a few percentage points better than in Asia and slightly lower than in Latin America.

"We have progressive laws (but)... the government has not been very gender sensitive," ActionAid's Masime said, calling for the introduction of mobile land courts to bring justice to villages.

Poor, uneducated rural women usually do not understand the law, speak English or have the money to file cases in urban courts, she said.

"Women should not go to our offices and be treated as beggars," Kenya's lands minister, Jacob Kaimenyi, told the campaigners, amid ululation and cheers.

"I support totally all of your demands and we will implement them gradually."

(Reporting by Katy Migiro; Editing by Katie Nguyen.; Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, property rights and climate change. Visit http://news.trust.org to see more stories.)

How to Win the Cyberwar Against Russia

BY JAMES STAVRIDIS-OCTOBER 12, 2016

The basic facts about Russia’s election-year hacking of the American political system are clear. For more than a year, the Russian government has repeatedly infiltrated the computers of both parties’ presidential campaigns to steal data and emails to influence the outcome of the election. In response, the Obama administration has promised a “proportional” response against Russia.

What’s much less clear is what a “proportional” response could mean. This is an unprecedented situation for the American national security establishment — which means the Obama administration’s response will set a precedent for future foreign-directed cyber-plots.

The first thing the U.S. government will have to determine is whether the Russian actions rise to the level of an attack — something that would require a direct U.S. response. There are many examples of cyber-infiltration that fall short of that designation, qualifying rather as nuisance activities or even garden-variety espionage. The activities in question, however, cross an important political and operational threshold by attempting to influence the American public on behalf of one of the candidates for the presidency. Most egregiously, the release of internal Clinton campaign emails violates a wide variety of U.S. laws, and the potential release of material related to her email server investigation late in the campaign season could have extraordinary impact on the election.

These are actions that affect the heart of the U.S. democratic process. They may not exhibit physical damage of the sort that we saw in North Korea’sattack on Sony Pictures, which did millions of dollars of damage to hardware. But the political and symbolic meaning of Russia’s actions nonetheless elevate them to something requiring a response.

When an attack has been identified, the next step is to attribute it — to determine whom to hold responsible. U.S. intelligence officials seem to have already done this, at least to the satisfaction of the White House. But it’s worth remembering that attribution is especially challenging in the world of cyber-conflict. The Russians have managed to cling to a veneer of deniability, at least in public, by relying on a clever pattern of cut-out agents, ranging from Russian cyber-criminals to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. This is a version of the hybrid warfare we’ve seen used so effectively in the attacks in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea — essentially using the cyber-equivalent of the unmarked soldiers (so-called little green men) that led the fight into Ukraine.

After attribution, the final step is to craft a response. The cybersphere is not immune to the universal legal norms that require a nation to respond to an attack in proportional fashion. In other words, you can’t destroy the Russian electric grid in response to email hacks. From a strategic perspective, the response should also be timely (although at a time and place of the responder’s choice) and distinctive — that is, it should bear a clear and specific relationship to the original attack that is recognizable to all.
With all this in mind, there are a variety of responses that the Obama administration should be considering against Russia.

The first response should be a definitive exposure of the Russian government’s presumably high-level involvement in the attacks.The U.S. case against Russia may be convincing, but the White House has chosen so far to keep parts of it classified.Revealing the names of the officials who authorized the cyberattacks against the United States would put Moscow in an extremely uncomfortable position. Ideally, the United States could reveal emails or conversations between Russian officials that demonstrated their intent to undermine the U.S. electoral process. Such revelations would likely lead to U.N. condemnations and further economic sanctions against Russia, inflicting additional damage to its economy. They would also potentially expose U.S. intelligence sources and methods, but there are ways to sanitize the material to minimize those risks.

Second, the United States could undermine the Russian government’s reliance on a wide variety of cyber-tools to censor the web within its own country by exposing them to the public. While not actively manipulating the Russian web, the National Security Agency could “out” the code and tool sets used by the Kremlin, thus permitting activists (and citizens) to avoid the manipulation and censorship more effectively. As a response to the Russian attacks on the U.S. democratic system, this would be both proportional and distinctive.

A third and more aggressive approach would be to use U.S. cyber-capabilities to expose the overseas banking accounts and financial resources of high-level Russian government officials, up to and including President Vladimir Putin, who is widely rumored to hold billions of dollars in offshore accounts shielded from his public. While Washington should refrain from destroying or manipulating financial records, which would be an escalation, simply exposing the level of corruption among the officials who authorized the political cyberattacks in the United States would be strategically and morally sound.

Fourth, the United States could use its own offensive cyber-tools to punish Russian hackers by knocking them off-line or even damaging their hardware. This response would be open to objections that it represents an unwarranted escalation. But under prevailing international law, if a nation has information of a nexus of offensive activity, has requested it to stop, and the offending nation declines to do so, that offensive center is liable for attack. The burden of proof for attribution would be higher in crafting such a response; it would be viable only if Washington had definitive information on the command and control centers that launched the hacking activity. But given the brazen level of Russian activity, this at least warrants a serious discussion by the U.S. government.

Fifth, and finally, the United States should think about how our allies can be helpful in this situation. NATO partners have significant capability and could be helpful in much of this.All democratic nations have a stake in pushing back against this blatant interference in the democratic political process.

All of this should be done in a very careful, measured fashion. The potential for miscalculation and escalation is high. But that potential pertains both to a possible overreaction as well as an under-reaction by the U.S. government. The president and his senior national security and economic teams will have to seriously (but, hopefully, swiftly) deliberate on a course of action. And the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command should prepare to carry out whatever actions they settle on. (Whatever else happens, these events have already proved why it’s to everyone’s benefit that Cyber Command will soon be elevated by the military to the status of a full combatant command.)

An old Russian saying is: “Probe with bayonets. If you encounter steel, withdraw. If you encounter mush, continue.” The bayonets of today are the bits of the cybersphere. The United States needs to show some steel or face much worse to come.

Photo credit: Etienne Oliveau/Getty Images

Marmite Brexit Shortage Is A Reminder That Unilever And Other Giants Own Most Of The Food We Buy

OXFAM AMERICA

Louise Ridley- 13/10/2016

‘It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it’s true.’

As Marmite and other products are pulled from Tesco in a post-Brexit vote pricing row, this sobering infographic is a reminder that a handful of companies own almost all of the food and drink brands in the world.

Unilever, the world’s second largest grocery manufacturer, has reportedly halted deliveries its products including Marmite, Flora, Pot Noodle and PG Tips after Tesco reportedly refused to pay more for them after the pound fell in value.

Unilever owns hundreds of brand including Ben & Jerry’s, Magnum, Coleman’s mustard, Lipton, Stork and Cornetto which are all not being sold online be Tesco at present.

According to Oxfam, Unilever is one of 10 companies that owns the vast majority of the global grocery industry - as evidenced by this infographic below.

The infographic, released in 2014, seems all the more pertinent as consumers realise that Unilever’s dispute with Tesco means a lot more than just Marmite will be leaving our shelves while the dispute remains unresolved.

When it released the infographic, Oxfam said: “It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it’s true: There really are 10 companies that control most of the food and drinks you’ll find in the grocery store. Between them, these giants—whose revenues add up to more than a billion dollars a day—own hundreds of common brands, from Cheerios to Odwalla to Tropicana.”

It released the image as part of its ‘Behind the Brands’ campaign calling on big businesses to be ethical.

The charity quoted a USA Today writer saying: “Why should these huge companies care about doing business responsibly? First, because their global operations touch countless lives. “These corporations are so powerful that their policies can have a major impact on the diets and working conditions of people worldwide, as well as on the environment.

“Second, because shoppers these days think about factors like fairness and sustainability—and we’re increasingly (and successfully) demanding that the brands we buy do the same. These food companies may be big, but no company is too big to listen to its customers.”

Marmite Shortage Is 'Just The Beginning' Of The Brexit Grocery Battle To Come

'This isn’t about Tesco, it’s every damn retailer in the UK'.

 The Huffington Post louiseridley  Oct 13

SRI LANKA REPORT TO UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE IS IN A DENIAL MODE – AHRC

12/10/2016

ALTERNATIVE REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE IN CONNECTION WITH THE 5TH PERIODIC REPORT OF SRI LANKA.

The necessity for a new approach for Elimination of Torture,in developing countries.

This report is submitted by Asian Legal Resource Centre, Hong Kong; Janasansadaya, Sri Lanka; 

Human Rights Office, Sri Lanka; Right to Life, Sri Lanka; Gampaha Citizen’s Committee, Sri Lanka; and Rule of Law Forum, Sri Lanka.

Introduction to the AHRC report to UN CAT:

5th Periodic Report by Sri Lanka as a state party was due in 2012.

It has been submitted on 16th October 2015.

The Report of the GOSL shows that it is in a denial mode. It rejects all the allegations of Sri Lanka being a country where widespread use of torture and ill-treatment exist.

The fact is that regarding the complaints against torture and ill-treatment, no credible complaint mechanisms exists. Though there is a law criminalising torture, by way of the CAT Act, No. 22 of 1994, no one is being prosecuted under this Act during the period relevant to this Report and thus impunity prevails. The remedy under the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution is not an effective remedy, in terms of Article 2 of the ICCPR, in that the declarations made by the Supreme Court under these provisions have no impact at all, and the process of litigation takes enormously long time. Even after this inordinate time, compensation, if at all offered, is just modicum in most cases.

Further, under this constitutional provision, the Supreme Court has no powers to release a person from custody, even if holding of such a person is found to be illegal. A large section of the Sri Lankan police force consists of officers who lack educational and professional qualifications to be policemen, and to conduct investigations into serious crimes. Such incompetence often leads to torture and illtreatment as a method of investigation into crime. The judicial process is beset with prolonged delays, which frustrates all attempts to seek an effective remedy. There is no effective legal aid system to assist victims. Despite there being a law on witness protection, such protection is envisaged to be carried out through the police themselves, who often are accused of engaging in acts of torture. The prisons are overwhelmingly overcrowded and the conditions of prisons themselves have created a situation of cruel and inhuman punishment on victims. And, due to incompetence of the police and poor supervision by the hierarchy of the police, illegal arrests take place all the time, and the Magistrates have a practice of remanding anyone, purely on the request of the police.

In short, structurally, the police, the prosecution, the Judiciary, and the armed forces, suffer very serious defects, without the correction of which the eradication of torture is impossible. And yet this list of defects is flatly denied by the GOSL in their Report.

The UN Special Rapporteurs – Juan E. Mendez, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, and Ms Monica Pinto, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers – have visited Sri Lanka recently and have made their preliminary findings public, on 7th May 2016.

In the preliminary report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, (dated 7th May 2016), Mr. Mendez categorically states that “… I am persuaded that torture is a common practice carried out in relation to regular criminal investigations in large majority by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the police….”

In fact, the Rapporteur, during his visit met many victims and also subjected some of them who claimed to have suffered torture and ill treatment to examination by forensic experts who have confirmed the fact of these persons were being tortured. The UN Rapporteur also visited places of detention and prisons and was able to see that these were places which are highly overcrowded and which do not provide basic ventilation and health facilities. He has arrived at the finding that conditions in these places amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment for those detained here. He has also observed the judicial process, which is beset with long years of delays, causing enormous
inconveniences to the victims. He has also come to the finding that no case has been filed under the CAT Act No. 22 of 1994 in recent times and that constitutional provisions under fundamental rights are inadequate and ineffective remedies. Impunity prevails, and there are many other findings which completely contradicts the denials by the GOSL.

The findings of the UN Rapporteur for the independence of judges and lawyers confirms that the judicial system, including the prosecutorial system and the investigative system, are all seriously flawed. They are agreed on the findings by the UN Rapporteur on torture and ill-treatment, that judicial oversight of police action is superficial and that “… The current legal framework and the lack of reform within the structures of the armed forces, police, Attorney-General’s Office and judiciary perpetuate the real risk that the practice of torture will continue. Sri Lanka needs urgent measures adopted in a comprehensive manner to ensure structural reform in the country’s key institutions… … A piecemeal approach will not be compatible with the soon-to-be-launched transitional justice process and could undermine it before it really begins.”

If this exercise before the CAT Committee, on examination of the 5th Periodic Report, is to be of any meaning and use, the GOSL must abandon its false position, of being in a state of denial about serious violations regarding torture and ill-treatment and the related matters mentioned above. The present Government that was elected through a Presidential election held on 8th January 2015 and a Parliamentary Election held on 17th August 2015 should have no difficulty at all in abandoning this mode of denial, as their election promises and the discussions were completely based on the allegation that under the previous regime, Sri Lanka has reached a state of lawlessness. The collapse of the policing system, the prosecutors system, and the judicial system, were all matters that were made a prominent part of the discourse prior to the elections. The GOSL would not want the country to believe or the world to believe that it has changed all that within the last one and half years. The government has not claimed that in Parliament or elsewhere. Therefore, the GOSL does not have any basis to maintain the denials on which it has based its Report. Instead, the wiser course of action for the GOSL, is to admit the obvious and begin a genuine dialogue with the CAT Committee on what corrective measures can be taken before the next periodic report in order that the abysmal lawlessness that prevails in the country can begin to be addressed and the defects of the police, the prosecution, the judiciary, and the armed forces, could be dealt with, to avoid the practice of torture in Sri Lanka.

If the GOSL would agree to begin this dialogue with the CAT Committee with that open and genuine spirit, this exercise can bring improvement of the situation within Sri Lanka. However, if the GOSL is unwilling and incapable of working outside its denial mode, then, the discourse during this Session will bear as little result as the previous discourses in the earlier Periodic Review Sessions.

The Asian Human Rights Commission’s submissions are made on the basis of completely justifiable findings of the two UN Special Rapporteurs mentioned above and we suggest that these findings should be treated as the common basis on which an effective discourse could be carried out for making improvements for the prevention of torture and ill-treatment, which would also contribute to the resurrection of the fallen legal system and rule of law

Read the full report as a PDF:alrc-anm-004-2016-01

Hong Kong/Sri Lanka, October 10, 2016.