Does America Know What It's Doing in the Middle East?

Christopher A. Preble

The United States has been heavily involved in the greater Middle East, including the Persian Gulf, parts of North Africa, the Horn of Africa and Afghanistan in Central Asia, for over forty-seven years. The U.S. foreign policy establishment seems determined to stay there for at least another half century, despite that fact that our strategic objectives are unclear at best, and our ability to achieve much beyond short-term military successes has proved wanting.

U.S. officials established an active military presence in the Persian Gulf in 1979 following the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Subsequently, the worst-case scenarios were averted—the collapse of the House of Saud, a Soviet victory in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein in possession of Kuwaiti oil fields. But Americans’ memories are also punctuated by tragedies and setbacks, from the Beirut bombing and the Mogadishu firefight, to the more recent disastrous war in Iraq and the ongoing fight against ISIS. These episodes often overshadow the day-to-day courage and sacrifice, as well as the individual acts of heroism, by the members of the U.S. military tasked with bringing order to a notoriously disordered part of the world.

Taken together, the missteps and follies evoke manager Casey Stengel’s question of the members of the 1962 Mets: “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

The difference, among many, is that the Mets were an expansion club, cobbled together from the castoffs from other Major League Baseball teams. The U.S. national security state of 2016 is a well-established juggernaut, nearly seven decades in the making. A team built for both speed and power, and that is able to draw on the vast wealth and talent of the United States of America, shouldn’t strike out so often, or make so many errors in the field.

And yet it does. Andrew Bacevich connects the dots in his latest book, America’s War for the Greater Middle East, which I recently reviewed at Barron’s.

A recurrent theme not covered in the review is the treatment of U.S. military officers who had the misfortunate of being on the wrong end of various tragedies. These include the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, the 1987 missile attack on the USS Stark, the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and the 2000 suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden. In each case, the post-incident reviews singled out the local commanders—Marine Col. Timothy Geraghty, the Stark’s Capt. Glenn R. Brindel, Air Force Brig. Gen. Terry Schwalier, and Navy Capt. Kirk Lippold, respectively—for failing to do more to prevent the attacks; the civilian policymakers responsible for putting U.S. military personnel in such vulnerable places, and in the service of dubious or ill-defined objectives, evaded accountability. Bacevich, a graduate of West Point and a Vietnam combat veteran, doesn’t conceal his contempt for this double standard.

He also shows that even clear-cut military victories have repeatedly failed to produce enduring strategic gains for the United States. Operation Desert Storm, the U.S.-led mission that evicted Iraqi forces from neighboring Kuwait, was portrayed as a victory so decisive that it paved the way to more frequent military interventions in the future. But George H. W. Bush, who allowed himself moments of euphoria, admitted to his diary that the war had not, in fact, produced “a clean end.” Bacevich observes, “within Iraq, U.S. intervention had produced conditions conducive to further violence and further disorder.” Twelve years later, the second Iraq War removed the murderous tyrant but unleashed bedlam. Similarly, in Afghanistan, a well-executed plan drove Al Qaeda out of the country, and their Taliban hosts out of power, but did not bring peace or order.

And yet a number of George W. Bush administration officials, foreign-policy elites and hawkish pundits believe that we had won in Iraq, and that victory is attainable in Afghanistan. Their faith in the efficacy of U.S. military power is as strong now as when Charles Krauthammer declared in January 2002 that “Afghanistan demonstrated that America has both the power and the will to fight, and that when it does, it prevails.”

From this logically flows the corollary, so evident in the narratives surrounding the United States’ many failures then and since: if we don’t achieve our objectives, it’s because we lacked the will to win.

Alas, it’s not that simple. It should be obvious by now that more U.S. troops deployed and more patience on the part of the American people will not fix what ails the region. More effort is meaningless if you’re playing with a flawed game plan.

Which brings us back to Casey Stengel. As the Mets compiled more losses than any other team in MLB history in 1962, he wondered aloud why they played so badly and what, if anything, he could do to fix it. Unfortunately, no such soul-searching is evident among the DC establishment, in part because there is no accountability. They continue to write columns for major newspapers, and they comprise the army of talking heads who grace our televisions 24/7. The American people seem generally disinterested in distant battles or in challenging those responsible for waging them.

That’s a recipe for continued disappointment—and occasional disaster.

Christopher A. Preble is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/does-america-know-what-its-doing-the-middle-east-18194

Drone operator job ads suggest US military is flying kill missions from Britain

Despite strenuous denials by the military, leaked job descriptions appear to show US drone operators are flying kill missions from UK soil.

If the claims by a humanitarian NGO are correct, the UK may be willingly hosting operations which breach international law.

While the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has blasted the allegation as a mere “conspiracy theory,” one ad seen by the charity Reprieve appears to be recruiting for an all source analyst to be based at RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire to support US military operations in Africa.

Read more

Killer drones policy defended by British govt after human rights committee probe

Despite its RAF prefix, Molesworth is used by the United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE). Plans have been made to draw down the US military presence in Britain – including at nearby RAF Lakenheath – but as of October 2016, they remain in American use.

The job being advertised requires the successful candidate to “perform a variety of advanced targeting operations… in support of employment of GPS guided weapons, weaponeering and collateral estimation, as well as utilizing the tools required for advanced targeting.”

A CV uploaded to a careers site and spotted by Reprieve reportedly features claims by the author that he was a MQ-9 Reaper ISR Mission Intelligence Coordinator at RAF Molesworth.

The Reaper is the main strike drone used by the US and is armed with Hellfire missiles and Paveway bombs.

Ads have also been spotted for intelligence-gathering operators and maritime specialists.

“Despite the continuing conspiracy theories and associated hype in the media, the reality is that there are no US Remotely Piloted Air System support facilities operating anywhere in the UK,” the MoD said in a statement to the Guardian.

Reprieve says the findings are the “strongest evidence yet that the US may be conducting its illegal, secret drone war from bases on British soil.” The charity said the MoD’s attempts at debunkery do not stand up to scrutiny.

“Simply to say that drones are not flown from the UK is missing the point, if it is personnel on British soil that are at the top of the so-called ‘kill chain’ and British agencies who are feeding targets into those lists,” said Reprieve’s staff attorney Jennifer Gibson said in a statement.

“The British government has questions to answer over its own involvement in this secret war.”

https://www.rt.com/uk/364821-job-drone-pilot-military/

Controversy over WikiLeaks Podesta Emails Opens a Debate for Future Journalism

by

Nozomi Hayase

In its 10th years of existence, WikiLeaks has been at the center of controversy. Ever since its global debut with the 2010 Apache helicopter gun-sight video depicting the killing of civilians in Baghdad, the whistleblowing site has consistently exposed the naked power of empire for the world to see. As a result, the organization has been subject to relentless retaliation. With banking blockades, a secret grand jury and constant character assassination of its founder Julian Assange, who remains arbitrarily detained in the Ecuadorian embassy, the U.S. government’s efforts to divert public attention from evidence of its own crimes have quickly escalated into a war on the First Amendment.

WikiLeaks’ publications influenced the outcome of a Kenyan election and played a role in instigating the Icelandic revolution. Now, by means of email leaks, they began informing U.S. voters of the real working of Corporate America’s tradition of lesser-evil politics.

After the DNC email leaks that led to the resignation of top DNC officials, WikiLeaks has intensified its activity. Since October 7, they began publishing emails from the private account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta. The archive contained transcripts of Clinton’s paid Goldman Sachs speeches that show her two faces and total disconnect from the middle class. It also revealed her private remarks dismissing climate activists. As usual, the leaks have been condemned by the status quo and Clinton loyalists. This time, a narrative that ‘Vladimir Putin was meddling in the election’ was used to discredit their publication, with the mainstream media creating an echo chamber of McCarthy-era style hysteria.

Over the years, as WikiLeaks grew, incorporating their evolving strategies, criticism against the organization has also changed. Back in the day, WikiLeaks was slandered with Pentagon official’s rhetoric of “blood on their hands”, and was depicted as reckless hackers putting innocents in danger. Proclaimed liberal media institutions such as The New York Times abandoned WikiLeaks, with then executive editor Bill Keller differentiating it from his kind of journalism.

Now, while the beam of transparency is focused on U.S. rigged contest for power, WikiLeaks is once again in the eye of media storms. Some criticize what they perceive as a politically driven information dump and question whether WikiLeaks has gone too far. This new sensation around WikiLeaks is now opening up a debate for all to examine the role of journalism and at the same time gives us an opportunity to understand how the organization’s efforts to open governments is changing the media landscape.

Role of Journalists

Criticism toward WikiLeaks latest publication also emerged from those who share similar values. The NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who once described WikiLeaks as fearless journalism that they “run towards the risks everyone else runs away from”, weighed in after release of the DNC emails this summer:

Democratizing information has never been more vital, and @Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 28, 2016

Now, renowned author and journalist Naomi Klein joined in this critique. In a recent interview with Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept (funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar), Klein expressed her view that the publication of the Podesta emails is not in the same category as the Pentagon papers and previous publications by WikiLeaks, such as chapters on the TPP trade agreements. Despite her acknowledging valuable and newsworthy stories in this material, she noted how indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal exchanges bring grave threat to privacy.

The crux of the criticism revolves around different views on redaction, which has been debated in past years between Assange and Greenwald, who has been an advocate for WikiLeaks. In May 2014, what came to be widely portrayed as a Twitter storm emerged.

Upon The Intercept’s publication that revealed the NSA interception of phone calls in the Bahamas, WikiLeaks began a series of tweets criticizing their decision to redact the name of a fifth country that was revealed by the Snowden files that was a target of NSA spying. Assange condemned The Intercept for censoring, noting how it is not the place for any media organizations to “deny the rights of an entire people to know they are being mass recorded.” WikiLeaks then announced that in 72 hours they would reveal the name of the fifth country that had been a prime target of NSA mass surveillance and as promised, they identified the fifth country as Afghanistan and provided the reason behind their publication.

The difference in their approach to publishing now came up again and brought out a particular perspective about the role of journalists. In his recent article titled “On WikiLeaks, Journalism, and Privacy”, Greenwald explored obligations of journalists for reporting controversial materials such as Podesta’s emails that are widely speculated to be hacked (in which WikiLeaks noted they have many sources and have not stated the methods they used to obtain each part). He explained how he thinks it should be reported.

In this, Greenwald countered the often held objections that “Journalists should not act as arbiters of privacy or gatekeepers of information.” He emphasized how all journalism is based on this determination of what should or should not be published and stated that “core purpose of the First Amendment’s free press guarantee was to add an additional safeguard against excess government secrecy by ensuring that others beyond government officials made decisions about what the public knows.”

Klein’s thoughtful criticism also appeals to this principle of journalism. In expressing her concern about privacy, she questioned “the subjectivity of who gets defined as sufficiently powerful to lose their privacy…” Implied in this concern is a need for a designated authority who could and should determine what information is to be withheld. The idea here is that certain ‘professionals’ should decide what is to be released in the ‘public interest’ and for her this is certainly the responsibility of journalists.

Scientific Journalism as New Checks and Balance

This traditional role of journalism as a safeguard against the authoritarian state has been under attack for decades. The assault against WikiLeaks and Obama’s war on whistleblowers has shown the dire state of press freedom, even in the West. With consolidation of media and infiltration of commercial and corporate interests, an oligarchic class has captured journalists, bringing them to defend the interests of those in power. As a result, free speech is often co-opted, becoming something that requires permission.

Once a position of authority is inserted, this often becomes a point of control used to violate the privacy and restrict information in favor of the rich and powerful. No matter how good the intentions of journalists are, the act of curating can become a slippery slope, where they engage in self-censorship with their own ingrained bias and act unconsciously as gatekeepers— apologists and stenographers for their patrons.

The question now emerges as to what would hold journalists accountable and how can the everyday citizen protect themselves from those who claim to act on their behalf. Unlike many other media organizations, WikiLeaks is fully independent, with its operation being funded by its readers. By engaging in scientific journalism, they lift the gates that guard the structure of power, while at the same time bringing a new form of checks and balance.

Assange explained this scientific journalism:

“Everything we do is like science. It is independently checkable because the information which has informed our conclusions is there, just like scientific papers which are based on experimental data and must make that experimental data available to other scientists and to the public if they want their papers to be published.”

Gavin MacFadyen, a mentor and staunch defender of WikiLeaks who recently passed away, noted how the good witness is a crucial element in investigative journalism and described this as “someone who bears a truthful account of something they witnessed,” and “can describe it with the same accuracy, hopefully, as they saw it.”

As described in their submission page, WikiLeaks accepts anonymous source material of “political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed.” They verify the authenticity of these documents and they always release the full source material related to any story, whether it is published by them or someone else. In this, full source documents that are confirmed in their authenticity give opportunity for the public to become a good witness that can provide a true account of events, and this collective witnessing can engage people in what the Czech novelist Milan Kundera once said, “the struggle of memory against forgetting.”

By connecting ordinary people directly to the documents, they replace the source of legitimacy that used to be journalists’ supposed ‘objectivity’ into the public’s understanding of the authentic documents. When the information that can lead to a conclusion is made available to the public, people can follow the process themselves and examine the validity of the disclosures and analysis so they can draw their own independent conclusions.

This allows the public to critically examine the legitimacy of those who claim to represent them and this brings accountability not only to those in positions of power but also to the media itself. It also makes the system of representation an option. Whether it is WikiLeaks or any other media organization, people can choose for themselves who they want to grant the authority to represent their interests.

The Invention of Anonymous Drop Box

At the core of WikiLeaks scientific journalism is a breakthrough of technological innovation. The invention of the anonymous drop box and mechanism of verifying documents without relying on a third party creatively solves the problem of corporate and state sponsored media. This foundation goes beyond just technology and into the philosophy of the Cypherpunks, a group who advocates the use of privacy-enhancing technologies for social and political change.

In Cypherpunk’s Manifesto, Eric Hughes, one of the founders of the movement, expressedhis distrust of illegitimate authority:

“We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak … We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place.”

Residents of the early Internet saw the enclosure of civil liberties and unaccounted power in the rise of the corporate state. Regulation and laws that are supposed to protect civil rights and maintain the function of democracy have shown to now be extremely ineffective. When law enforcement through the system of representation fails to protect the public, they sought for solutions in cryptography. In his speech titled “Computers, Freedom, and Privacy”, John Gilmore, the founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and one of the individuals on the Cypherpunk mailing list spoke how, “I want a guarantee - with physics and mathematics, not with laws - that we can give ourselves real privacy of personal communications.”

In 1991, as a response to the need for privacy, long before Snowden alerted the public about the looming dystopian vision of mass surveillance on the Internet, Philip R. Zimmermann invented and released PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) software that makes anonymous online communication possible.

Laws that are in favor of free speech have been increasingly weakened. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was constantly undermined (as proven in the case of Reuters not being able to obtain the footage of 2007 U.S. airstrikes in Iraq that were later released as Collateral Murder video by WikiLeaks). The Whistleblower Protection Act was also gutted. Now, a free press needs to be guaranteed not by laws but by strong math. WikiLeaks created an anonymous drop box that cryptographically ensured anyone to communicate and transfer information securely and made it possible for whistleblowers to exercise unhindered free speech.

With this new technical capability combined with the ethics of Cypherpunks, WikiLeaks built a robust platform of publishing. By making servers run through various countries that have strong source protection laws and by bouncing encrypted information through dozens of computers, they decentralized their infrastructure, making them resilient to censorship and legal attacks.

Preserving History

With scientific journalism, WikiLeaks challenges the traditional role of journalists, shifting it from a gatekeeper to a liberator of information – to facilitate the public to bear witness to what whistleblowers saw and bring concealed information back into the historical record.

Contrary to U.S. high officials denouncement of this new journalistic organization, WikiLeaks, founded on the values of the American Revolution liberated the First Amendment from the castle of this empire state. By doing so, it appears to fulfill the promise in the Declaration of Independence that ‘all men are created equal, with abolition of any single power that claims authority over history. But this time, it is at a global scale.

Assange once articulated this passionate conviction, reminding us how:

“History does not belong to institutions that is engaging in the world like National Security Agencies and the State Department. History does not belong to journalists. History does not belong to a media organization. History belongs to human civilization that understands in order to better itself.”

Then he added that history also doesn’t belong even to whistleblowers either, although they play a vital role. This commitment to preservation of history is shown in their approach to redaction. In addressing the issues of redaction at re:publica14, WikiLeaks editor Sarah Harrison (who facilitated the safe passage of Snowden out of Hong Kong) spoke about how the concept of redaction came to imply responsible journalism. She then pointed out that the process of redaction is often used to hide the deeds of those in power, where large companies’ names are redacted and not for the reasons stated. Harrison explained how through their past publication experience, WikiLeaks learned that the best approach is to start with the premise that the public deserves everything and thus everything should be given to them.

She stated how the concept that information itself causes harm is illogical. She did clarify how names of individuals that cause imminent threats and loss of someone’s life need to be redacted for a short period of time. Nevertheless, the organization believes that the public should have access to full source documents in order to see information in context as each part can change meaning in relationship.

As a critical part of preserving history, WikiLeaks believes that information needs to not only be accessible, but also usable. They teach the public how they can read and access documents, such as the Public Library of US Diplomacy or PlusD that contained Cablegate. By actively engaging the public to inform themselves, this publisher of last resort makes sure that no nation, president, political party or corporation -including journalists, can control the past, present or future of our civilization.

Insurgent Publisher of the Internet

In this new digital age, the role of media organizations is quickly changing. The Internet on one hand has become a terrain of surveillance and control. But, it also has fostered democratization of knowledge and free flow of information. Former Secretary of State John Kerry once said, “This little thing called the Internet … makes it much harder to govern.” Now, each person around the world can set up a blog or website and connect with social media and technically become their own media.

WikiLeaks is the iconic insurgent publisher of this new digital age. It ushers in a new journalism that is borderless, censorship resistant and participatory. In this, conventional lines between journalism and citizens dissolve and ordinary people are empowered to participate in history as authors of their own lives, as they themselves become watchdogs for force of power that omits, erases and alters history, in order to fight against collective amnesia.

With its Twitter account that has now close to 4 million followers, WikiLeaks actively interacts with its readers around the world. They now have created two new Twitter accounts, @WLTaskForce and @CommunityWL for the supporters to spread releases from WikiLeaks, verify facts and correct misinformation. Instead of top-down distribution of information, it encourages grassroots organizing and seeks for an awakening of civic power.

Despite massive attacks and threats coming from the Washington halls of power and its European allies, the organization remains relevant than ever. From creating sparks for uprisings in the Arab World to disrupting the scripted corporate sponsored charade of the current U.S. presidential election, WikiLeaks stays strong.

In its 10 years of activity, WikiLeaks publications have caused no harm. With a perfect record of authentication of documents, they are at the forefront of pushing the boundaries of free speech. WikiLeaks will continue to be in the spotlight, challenging our preconceived notions of journalism, law and governance, and inviting all to envision the future of democracy. Has WikiLeaks gone too far? Perhaps the real question that should be asked is how far can the rest of media organizations go to keep up with this world’s first truly global 4th estate.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Nozomi Hayase, Ph.D., is a former WikiLeaks Central contributing writer who has been covering issues of freedom of speech, transparency and decentralized movement. Her work is featured in many publications. Follow on Twitter: @nozomimagine

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/30/controversy-over-wikileaks-podesta-emails-opens-debate-future-journalism

At DAPL, Confiscating Cameras as Evidence of Journalism

by

Janine Jackson

 9 Comments

(Rob Wilson photo)

While elite media wait for the resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline to go away so they can return to presenting their own chin-stroking as what it means to take climate change seriously, independent media continue to fill the void with actual coverage.

One place you can go to find reporting is The Intercept  (10/25/16), where journalist Jihan Hafiz filed a video report from North Dakota, where the Standing Rock Sioux and their allies continue their stand against the sacred site–trampling, water supply–threatening project.

Hafiz reports that after a morning of prayer, Standing Rock activists

were attacked by police forces who used pepper spray and beat protesters with batons…. Dozens of officers, backed by military trucks, police vans, machine guns and nonlethal weapons, violently approached the group without warning.

As the demonstrators attempted to leave, the police began beating and detaining them. Several Native American women leading the march were targeted, dragged out of the crowd and arrested. One man was body-slammed to the ground, while another woman broke her ankle running from the police. The military and police trucks followed the protesters, as nearly a hundred officers corralled them into a circle. Among the arrested were journalists—including Hafiz—a pregnant 17-year-old and a 78-year-old woman.

Once jailed, Hafiz and others were refused phone calls and received no food or water for eight hours. Women were  strip-searched, two women fainted from low blood sugar and another had her medication taken away.

On her release, Hafiz was told, “Your camera is being held as evidence in a crime.”

That crime, of course, would be journalism. And it’s hard to believe law enforcement would feel so cavalier about treating it that way if more reporters were actually committing it.

Since the last time FAIR checked on how much coverage corporate media were giving the Dakota Access struggle (FAIR.org, 9/22/16), ABC and NBC have ended their blackout, airing one story apiece on their national news shows: NBC‘s Today show (10/11/16) had 71 words about the arrest of actor Shailene Woodley at the site, and ABC‘s Good Morning America (10/23/16) ran 70 words on how “a protest over construction of an oil pipeline turned violent.”

For news from Standing Rock, people would do better to follow #NODAPL on Twitter, and check out resources like SacredStoneCamp.org and Indian Country Today.

© 2016 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

Janine Jackson is FAIR's program director and and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s (Westview Press).

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/29/dapl-confiscating-cameras-evidence-journalism

As Media Gatekeeper, 70+ Groups Call on Facebook to End Censorship

"Because the stories that don't get shared are as important as the ones that do"

by

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

As Facebook comes under fire for its alleged censorship and tracking of activists and protesters, a coalition of more than 70 groups and individuals has demanded the social media behemoth "clarify its policy on removing video and other content, especially human rights documentation, at the request of government actors."

A letter (pdf)—whose signatories include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 350.org, Color of Change, and the Indigenous Environmental Network—sent Monday cites recent incidents including:

• the deactivation of Korryn Gaines' account,
• the removal of iconic photographs,
• reports of suppression of Indigenous resistance,
• continued reports of Black activists' content being removed,
• and the disabling of Palestinian journalists' accounts following your meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister.

"These instances of censorship clearly point to the gaps in Facebook's automation and content guidelines," said Nicole Carty of the consumer watchdog SumOfUs, which coordinated the letter. "In order to mitigate these issues, Facebook must recognize these broader policy failures as human rights and free speech issues. From Black Lives Matter in the United States to journalists in Palestine, Facebook's lack of transparency has resulted in reports of censorship on almost a weekly basis, which proves that this is not an individualized 'glitch' but a broader policy problem."

At the same time, the letter notes that with the launch of the live-streaming video function Facebook Live, the site "is taking on an increasingly central role in controlling media that circulates through the public sphere. News is not just getting shared on Facebook: it's getting broken there."

In turn, the letter reads,

we believe that taking urgent action to increase transparency and protect users is the first step to reaching our shared vision of the world. It is important not only for the integrity of its platform and the trust of its community of users, but also for the future of our media. Because the stories that don't get shared are as important as the ones that do.

"Social media platforms are increasingly becoming the avenues for free speech, which makes ending censorship by companies like Facebook all the more critical," added Chinyere' Tutashinda, national organizer at the Center for Media Justice. "We are calling on Facebook to create policies that protect the most marginalized voices on their platforms: communities of color and low-income communities in the U.S. and across the globe."

Specifically, the letter calls on Facebook to:

• Make policies about how Facebook makes decisions to censor content clear and accessible to the public: whether those requests are from third-party agencies or through its algorithm—especially with respect to live broadcasting and journalistic content.
• Create a public appeals platform where users can appeal content censored by Facebook.
• Undergo an external audit on the equity and human rights outcomes of your Facebook Live and content censorship and data sharing policies.
• Refuse to disclose customer content and data to third-party agencies unless required to by law.

Notably, the letter came on the same day that scores of Facebook users attempted to use the site's "check-in" feature as a way to help shield Dakota Access Pipeline opponents by confusing law enforcement. While the fact-checking website Snopes largely debunked the strategy, it also quoted representatives from Sacred Stone Camp as saying that they "support the tactic, and think it is a great way to express solidarity."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/31/media-gatekeeper-70-groups-call-facebook-end-censorship

STEPHEN HAWKING: GREED AND STUPIDITY ARE WHAT WILL END THE HUMAN RACE

Mary Bowerman 

Physicist Stephen Hawking says pollution coupled with human greed and stupidity are still the biggest threats to humankind.

During an interview on Larry King Now, the science superstar told King that in the six years since he’s spoken with the talk show host people haven't cleaned up their act.

“We certainly have not become less greedy or less stupid,” Hawking said. “The population has grown by half a billion since our last meeting, with no end in sight. At this rate, it will be eleven billion by 2100.

He noted that the massive problem of pollution has only grown in the last five years.

“Air pollution has increased over the past five years,” he said. “More than 80% of inhabitants of urban areas are exposed to unsafe levels of air pollution.”

USA TODAY

Stephen Hawking: Human race is in danger, and it's our fault

When asked what the biggest problem facing the world is, Hawking said climate change.

Hawking told King he wonders if we are past the point of no return.  "Will we be too late to avoid dangerous levels of global warming?"

There are some things even Hawking doesn't know.

Follow @MaryBowerman on Twitter.