Connect with us

Americas

Combating the Deep State Online

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

Now that President Donald Trump has declared an outright and open war on international terrorism all around the world, joining forces with Russian President Putin and Chinese Premier Xi, and scores of other world leaders to combat this enemy of civilization, in order to absolutely decimate violent actors around the planet who use destructive and disruptive means and methods other than political discourse to settle their differences, so too must he begin to now do, with regards to internet terrorism, slander, libel, defamation, terrorist threats, incitement to violence, and targeted harassment online.

As President Trump knows only too well, as he is a prime target of the Deep State/Oligarch/Global Terrorist Network online, with their relentless attacks on him, his wife, his family and his administration, when he developed the term “Fake News,” he is also the only one who can finally find the balance between the U.S. Constitution First Amendment and terrorism carried out online.

Trump has repeatedly promised to “look at the libel laws,” but what he should specifically look at is how to hold websites, their hosts, and their advertisers responsible and liable for their egregious taking advantage of the broad based immunities and protections afforded by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 Section 230 (aka “CDA 230“), drafted and passed by U.S. legislators such as Ron Wyden and Christopher Cox, which literally opened the floodgates to trillions of dollars of damage to individuals, small and large business, domestic and global relationships, national security, and global cohesion.

True enough, freedom of speech is paramount, and essential to the American constitutional experiment – but after 20 years of this “wild west” of internet speech, we know and have learned many things.

Various organized criminal enterprises have sprung up all over the world, extorting and blackmailing innocent people and businesses to pay them exorbitant amounts of money to remove/challenge anonymous, cowardly, false, defamatory, slanderous, libelous, terroristic, and incitement to violent threats online, always hiding behind the immunity and protection afforded by CDA 230 to both their own mafia-like “reputation management” websites, their web hosts, and their advertisers.

Much has also been revealed about the “ties” by and between these “reputation management” websites, and the offending websites themselves, so that if one pays one of these extortionate websites for “arbitration” or “challenging offending posts,” one will suddenly find a dramatic increase in the exact same or similar postings on other offending websites, thus increasing damages, exposure, and of course, the “costs” attendant to getting these offensive and threatening posts off of the internet.

This is a classic racketeering enterprise, and each and every country has their own rules and laws governing such type of criminal activity, and in the United States, the most lax and forgiving of all of these types of crimes, it is called “RICO,” or the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization act.

This RICO law is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.

Under RICO, a person who has committed “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 crimes – 27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes – within a 10 year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related to an “enterprise.”

Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.

In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.”

This statute could easily be used against most of the “reputation management” websites which, like the Mafia, literally aid and abet, if not “create” the online internet threats, targeting, harassment, incitement to violence, and terrorist threats in order to then charge a hefty “fee” to either “eradicate” or “combat” those self-created threats.

Indeed many business, banking, financial, communication, personal, and professional relationships can easily be discovered by and between these “reputation management” organized crime websites, and the other “offending websites” containing such illegal and unethical content.

The problem is that since at least 1996, the “Deep State” has successfully used the protections afforded by the CDA 230 to target their enemies online, discrediting and hobbling them at will, while simultaneously being able to weather the proverbial storm against themselves, because they are directly connected to the international central bankers with unlimited amounts of cash to survive personal or professional online destruction, while their targeted Deep State enemies are, by definition, “swimming upstream” against them, struggling barely to survive.

This is by no means a fair fight, and hundreds of millions of “dead” businesses and individuals have washed up on the shore in their wake, while Deep State connected individuals and businesses always seem to stay afloat.

So if President Donald Trump, arguably the greatest victim of the above referenced type of global online criminal activity on behalf of the Deep State, which is still relentlessly trying to destroy him, his family, his administration and his legacy, as well as average American individuals and businesses that he professes to care so much about, and if he is truly serious about “looking at the libel laws” as he has repeatedly stated/promised, then perhaps this is the best place for him to start.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

The Disturbing Discourses of the COVID 19 Pandemic

Sisir Devkota

Published

on

George Takei is not usually petrified by statements coming from the likes of Donald Trump; the Star Wars legend called for an offensive labelling against Chinese people for spreading the Corona virus, claiming that President Trump’s version of the Chinese virus could cause serious racist repercussions in the United States. The pandemic has claimed thousands of lives in a span of months, yet international response in terms of circulating consistent information and manufacturing a genuine vaccine is lacking pace. George Takei is talking from experience; his family were victims of a similar trouble during the second world war. The discourse of a Chinese virus is dangerous; especially coming from an American president that is himself unsure about policies to limit infections. Afterall, there is a difference between a virus that originated from China and a virus that can be labelled as “Chinese”. As a matter of fact, Covid-19 cases soared quickly in Italy than in China itself-the virus’s origin.

Donald Trump’s irritation at China’s irresponsibility can however not be understated. The world lost more than two months before it could verify that the virus’s family was transmitting via human hosts. The World Health Organization was kept in dark for most of the times; while China retorted to stubbornness in order to save international embarrassment; air travel aided in an unprecedented transfer of the virus across continents. Here lies the danger again. The unsung discourse of lacking access to inadequate knowledge about the virus and how it could possibly spread in all forms of hosts. President Trump lives on the tip of knife; the anti-Trump media club keep looking for reasons to ridicule the billionaire turned administrator. Despite the risks of another stereotypical discourse taking turns, it will be equally foolish to not examine all forms of cover-ups that has brought the world to a stand-still. Le Winliang will be remembered as the first whistle-blowing doctor who died after months of contracting the infection.

Here lies the danger again. Unlike Donald Trump, governments around the world are keeping mute over the virus, another discourse that could infiltrate great amount of mistrust and anxiety over the reality of the pandemic. By all fairness, the world is used to political transparency while it fits the need of specific interests; world leaders arrive with exceptional expressions against each other, mostly in inappropriate occasions. In such circumstances, the pandemic is no lesser than a cover up. People all over the world will spend weeks inside their homes; washing hands and keeping social distance is stressed among other precautionary measures; a discourse that can successfully distract curious eyes away from the phenomenon.

A global epidemic was never out of the question. Never out of possibilities, a global health disaster was more opportune than diffused wars taking place across different regions. After global markets crashed in the face of growing uncertainties, it was quoted that the global order would never be the same again. Here lies the greatest danger of living on manufactured discourses. For the sake of all honesty, the Covid pandemic would have been arrested with some help from technological reach and information transparency. A strategic contingency plan would have saved half the lives that have been lost. Actor Takei is feeling the tension, but the world will need to act quickly, act away from distractions of Trump’s hysteria. The World Health Organization is an international agency for a reason; it would be unsurprising if the pandemic at last rests on the most vulnerable of nations, kindling with the burden of additional aid and the politics that would follow next. Takei needs to calm, wash his hands and keep himself safe from possible transmission. That is enough for a response to his complaints like it is for Trump’s immaturity.

Continue Reading

Americas

Why the Justice Department Dropped Charges Over “Russian Interference”

Hunter Cawood

Published

on

When Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel dropped indictments against 13 Russian individuals and three companies for using social media “to interfere with the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election,” the American mainstream media class treated this as groundbreaking, indisputable evidence that Russia had indeed meaningfully interfered in the 2016 election. Headline after headline from then on accused Russian trolls of everything from suppressing the African American vote, to promoting Green Party Candidate Jill Stein, to recruiting “assets,” and ultimately “sowing discord” in the heart of American democracy.

Now that the smoke has cleared after two-plus years of unrestrained sensationalism, it seems that the evidence was never really groundbreaking nor indisputable. This is evidenced by the fact that last week, a federal judge allowed the Department of Justice to drop charges on Concord Catering and Concord Management & Consulting, two Russian companies previously accused of being the well-oiled machines that funded, in the words of Jonathan Alter, an attack “as bad as Pearl Harbor.”

Prosecutors described the rationale for this move to drop charges as being motivated by an interest to protect national security, but given the circumstances surrounding this case — it seems there are more than a few reasons to doubt this explanation. The fact is prosecutors had more than two years to come to this ad-hoc realization that this court case might threaten national security, that it would likely require them to provide evidence that would reveal their sources and methods. Why then did prosecutors spend two years of time and resources in pre-trial court proceedings just to abandon the litigation two weeks before the trial was set to start?

The more plausible answer is that the prosecution knew it was on route to losing at trial and that loss would come as a major embarrassment. Robert Mueller’s team never envisioned that this case would go to trial. It was obvious that the defendants would never step foot in the United States, and so the original indictments were never intended to deliver any striking form of justice. Instead, those indictments were meant to do two things: (1) justify the Special Counsel’s existence and (2) perpetuate the narrative of Russian interference by giving the media formal allegations that it could grab onto and treat as incontrovertible proof.

To this extent, the media played its role obediently. Personalities like Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times, and hundreds of other gatekeepers abandoned the American principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and automatically accepted the allegations as a verdict.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, not all the defendants played the assigned roles given to them in the original indictment. Shortly after the charges were announced, Concord Management & Consulting flipped the script. The company hired Reed Smith LLP, a high-powered American law firm that would go on to challenge the prosecution tooth and nail over what it argued was a “make-believe crime” that had no basis in existing law. Prosecutors from that point on did everything they could to avoid the inevitable fate of forfeiting.

First, the prosecution team attempted to postpone the case and the pretrial discovery by claiming Concord had not been properly served with the indictment. This precarious strategy didn’t work. There was no need for the company to be properly served the indictment because serving an indictment is a procedure meant to draw a defendant into court. In this case, Concord was already in court and ready to call the government’s bluff.

Then after that, when it finally came time for discovery, Mueller’s team moved to block the defense from accessing the relevant evidence that the law requires prosecutors to disclose, citing that it would be harmful to national security. This move predictably failed because that’s not how justice works in the United States. The government cannot simply allege a crime and then bar defendants from accessing the evidence needed to mount a credible defense. The United States, to its credit, has a well-functioning court system that largely respects the rule of law and places a high burden of proof on prosecutors, which is why the prosecution repeatedly failed to stymie the slow march to an eventual trial date.

Ultimately, the prosecution’s case was dead on arrival because of their own dereliction of duty. The original indictment wasn’t really an indictment at all. It was a press release dressed like an indictment intended to manufacture consent surrounding Russia’s role in the 2016 election. The crime it alleged was based on a warped theory that the defendants had “defrauded the United States” by failing to disclose their Russian identities and affiliations to government agencies in charge of enforcing a registry of foreign agents and campaign-finance laws. The problem with that theory is that there are no federal election laws or statutes that would possibly apply to Concord. They did not operate in the United States and they did not directly purchase any advertisements, which means they weren’t legally obligated to report that information.

The prosecution knew they had a weak case — that they were grasping at straws by applying this fragile legal theory that was really just a fill-in for the fact that nothing the troll farm did was inherently illegal. There is no federal election law or regulation prohibiting any person or group of persons, whether American or foreign, from conveying political speech on social media. There is likewise no law requiring a person online to be truthful or accurate about their identity. Prosecutors were well aware of this. Had they expected a fight in court, they wouldn’t have pursued charges on these grounds. But given that they were challenged in court, they knew that if they litigated this case to its conclusion, they weren’t just poised to lose — they were on a highway to humiliation.

As the pre-trial saga unfolded, it became clear that the Justice Department had wildly overstated its case. For example, there was no underlying evidence that Concord or the Internet Research Agency (IRA) were ever directed by the Russian government. And although the Mueller Report described the IRA campaign as “sweeping and systematic,” it turns out the troll farm’s social media activity was “small, amateurish, and mostly unrelated to the 2016 election.” The IRA spent $46,000 on Facebook ads before the election, or to put it another way, five-1,000ths-of 1 percent of the $81 million spent on Facebook ads by the Clinton and Trump campaigns combined. Of that $46,000, only $3,102 was spent across the three states (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) that swung Donald Trump the election. All the while, only 11% of that IRA content was related to the election.

Had a trial taken place, these facts about the alleged “Russian interference” would’ve come to light and the narrative that Russia meaningfully “sowed discord” or molded the outcome in the 2016 election would have fallen apart like a house of cards, shambolically and without a kernel of grace.

The most egregious aspect of this chapter in American history is the extent to which so much of the self-incurred pandemonium was nothing more than selective outrage that placed a singular focus on Russia, while willfully ignoring other, arguably more effectual examples of foreign interference and election meddling. If one is outraged over Russian interference, then logically, one should be outraged over Ukrainian interference or the influx of Israeli money into the American political system. The problem is the average American is either not outraged or not informed that these other examples exist, which speaks to a broader failure within the American media class to approach new stories with objectivity and journalistic integrity. That selective outrage is what led to this selective prosecution. New stories are no longer meant to inform. They’re meant to be weaponized unscrupulously against political rivals. The borderline neurosis that obsessed over Russian interference was never really driven by substance. It was always driven by a desire to tear down domestic opponents in the name of party politics.

This episode was no different.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Americas

The US-Iran Blame Game and Outbreak of Covid-19

Sonia Naz

Published

on

After emerging in Wuhan, China last December, the coronavirus (sometimes called COVID-19) has spread to at least 169 countries and regions around the globe, claiming over 16,500 lives as of Tuesday, while confirmed cases nearing 384,000. A total of 122 people in Iran have died of coronavirus over the last 24 hours, pushing the death toll up to 1,934, said an Iranian health official on Tuesday.  According to Iranian state TV, Health Ministry spokesperson Kianoush Jahanpour 1,762 new virus cases. In Iran, where most Middle Eastern coronavirus cases have originated, official statistics report that one citizen is dying from the virus every 10 minutes, with research warning that up to 3.5 million Iranians could die.

Despite so many deaths in Iran, the US and Iran are blaming each other for the spread of covid-19. According to the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Iranian authorities had contributed to the spread of the virus: by lying about the true scale of Iran’s coronavirus crisis, by continuing flights to China as covid-19 was spreading, by stealing money intended for medical supplies and by hoarding medical equipment such as masks and gloves to sell on the black market. Whereas, according to the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif the United States is “impeding” the global fight to contain the spreading covid-19 disease by sustaining its sanctions. The fight over responsibility for the coronavirus’s spread came as Iran and America both battle escalating rates of infection among their populations. Over the weekend, the United States overtook Iran and other nations to become the country with the third-largest number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the world, with more than 40,000 reported as of Monday.

According to the Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s healthcare has been compromised due to the sanctions imposed by the US. Mr Zarif says they have “drained Iran’s economic resources.” While the US has denied that its sanctions are restricting Iran’s ability to import medical supplies, pointing to an exemption for humanitarian goods. But Iran says companies find it difficult to process payments with banks unwilling to risk breaking the US rules and risk sanctions themselves. The country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali, Khamenei, acknowledged that the US had offered to help Iran fight the virus, but added that “experience shows the US can’t be trusted.”The government is now approaching the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for emergency assistance amounting to $5bn.

In a nutshell, Iran is the most affected state with coronavirus in Middle East hence it should accept medical help from any state in the world because it is the time to protect its people from the deadly virus. The number of new daily cases in Iran is still increasing. Nevertheless, the US is not looking interested to eliminate economic restrictions against Iran If, it does not lift it should reduce economic sanctions. Since Iran is facing hurdles to import medical equipment to cope with covid-19 owing to these prohibitions. Pakistan is also requesting to the US to lift economic ban against Iran on humanitarian grounds. Unfortunately, Pakistan is not economically strong like China and Russia to help Iran in medical equipment and medicine. Consequently, the world big powers like Russia, China, Japan and UK should send food, medicine, medical equipment and doctors to Iran on immediate basis. They should enhance their help for human security in Iran. Russia has provided Iran with tens of thousands of testing kits for  covid-19 but it should increase medical help for Iran.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending