Desligar ou reiniciar o smartphone? FBI explica qual a opção de maior segurança

Muito de nós sempre ouviu dizer que se deve desligar o telemóvel ou o smartphone pelo menos uma vez por semana ou, pelo menos, reiniciar o aparelho. A razão mudou ao longo dos anos mas, essencialmente, a operação promete melhorar a performance, ao eliminar processos de fundo desnecessários, limpar a memória RAM, evitar o sobreaquecimento, ou resolver bugs ou outros problemas momentâneos.

Contudo, cada vez mais se fala numa outra razão, ligada à cibersegurança, um tema tão importante nos dias de hoje. Aqui as opiniões também divergem. Desligar ou reiniciar o smartphone? O FBI e a NSA têm a resposta.

FBI e NSA explicam a melhor opção para a cibersegurança do teu smartphone

Ambas as agências são conhecidas por, entre outros elementos, serem peritas na coleção de informação digital, sendo capazes de alcançar qualquer pessoa e levantando questões sobre o acesso que determinadas entidades devem ter ao cidadão comum. No entanto, o positivo disto, é que são assim as melhores fontes de esclarecimento quanto a este assunto.

Durante anos, tanto o FBI quanto a NSA aconselhavam os utilizadores de telemovel ou smarthphone a desligar os aparelhos completamente pelo menos duas vezes por semana ou, pelo menos, reiniciar. Ambos os concelhos são válidos mas... não se aplicam propriamente aos modelos mais recentes.

Infelizmente, a verdade é que os atacantes estão cada vez mais sofisticados, e muito malware ou spyware consegue sobreviver ao desligar do smartphone. Assim, apesar de não ser completamente inútil, não é bem uma forma infalível de te manteres seguro. Então, qual a solução?

Outros conselhos de ciberseguranca para Android e iOS

Da mesma forma que os cibercriminosos e as empresas de smartphone estão constantemente a sofisticar os seus serviços, também a tua forma de encarar a cibersegurança tem de mudar. Já não estamos nos anos 90 ou 2000. No entanto, não desesperes. As soluções são fáceis de memorizar e é provável que já estejas a adotar algumas.

Por exemplo, é fundamental manteres o teu smartphone atualizado. Tanto a Android como a Apple lançam regularmente atualizações para os seus sistemas operativos, e nem todos são "apenas" bugs que foram corrigidos. Estes updates trazem muitas vezes otimizações no que toca à cibersegurança.

Quanto aos emails, nunca abras links diretamente das mensagens! A Netflix vai cancelar a tua subscrição? Vai ao site da plataforma, abre o teu perfil, e verifica se tens lá um aviso. Tens uma conta de internet para pagar? Vai ao site da operadora. Existe sempre uma forma de confirmares a informação sem teres de clicar em links. E sim, podes e deves confirmar sempre o endereço que enviou a mensagem mas até estes estão cada vez mais sofisticados, como mostrou o mais recente ataque da "Microsoft".

No aparelho em si, deves optar pela biometria ou reconhecimento facial como opção de desbloquear o smartphone ou tablet - até mesmo portáteis. Isto requer a tua presença física, tornando quase impossível o acesso não autorizado. De igual modo, quando crias uma conta em qualquer site, ativa a verificação em dois passos e escolhe passwords fortes e aleatórias - podes e deves usar um gestor de passwords.

Confessa, quantos destes passos de cibersegurança já aplicas no teu dia a dia? Lembra-te que um ataque pode colocar a tua informação pessoal em risco, incluindo cartões de crédito, acessos ao banco, e outros dados sensíveis.

Microsoft storing Israeli intelligence trove used to attack Palestinians

Microsoft Israel’s R&D Center, Herzliya

The Israeli army’s elite cyber warfare unit is using Microsoft’s cloud servers to store masses of intelligence on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza — information that has been used to plan deadly airstrikes and shape military operations, an investigation by +972 Magazine, Local Call, and the Guardian can reveal.

Unit 8200, roughly equivalent in function to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), has transferred audio files of millions of calls by Palestinians in the occupied territories onto Microsoft’s cloud computing platform, Azure, operationalizing what is likely one of the world’s largest and most intrusive collections of surveillance data over a single population group. This is according to interviews with 11 Microsoft and Israeli intelligence sources in addition to a cache of leaked internal Microsoft documents obtained by the Guardian.

In a meeting at Microsoft’s headquarters in Seattle in late 2021, the then-head of Unit 8200, Yossi Sariel, won the support of the tech giant’s CEO, Satya Nadella, to develop a customized and segregated area within Azure that has facilitated the army’s mass surveillance project. According to the sources, Sariel approached Microsoft because the scope of Israel’s intelligence on millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is so vast that it cannot be stored on military servers alone.

Microsoft’s immense storage and computing power capabilities enabled what multiple Israeli sources described as the project’s ambitious goal: to store “a million calls an hour.”

Following the 2021 meeting, a dedicated team of Microsoft engineers began working directly with Unit 8200 to build a model that would allow the intelligence unit to use the American company’s cloud services from within its own bases. According to one intelligence source, some of these Microsoft employees were themselves alumni of Unit 8200, which made the collaboration “much easier.”

According to the Guardian’s reporting, the leaked documents suggest that 11,500 terabytes of Israeli military data — equivalent to roughly 200 million hours of audio — were being stored on Microsoft’s servers in the Netherlands by July of this year, while smaller portions were being stored in Ireland and Israel. It is not possible to tell how much of this data belongs specifically to Unit 8200; as a previous investigation by +972, Local Call, and the Guardian revealed earlier this year, dozens of Israeli army units have purchased cloud computing services from Microsoft, and the company has a footprint in all major military infrastructures in Israel.

The leaked documents further reveal that before the current Gaza war, Microsoft’s leadership viewed the cultivation of the company’s relationship with Unit 8200 as a lucrative business opportunity and characterized it internally as “an incredibly powerful brand moment” for Azure. Nadella himself, during his 2021 meeting with Sariel, defined the partnership as “critical” for Microsoft, and committed to providing the resources to support it.

Microsoft has said publicly that it found “no evidence” that its technology was used to harm Palestinians in Gaza, and a spokesperson told us in response to this investigation that the company was unaware that its products had been used to aid the surveillance of civilians. But three Israeli intelligence sources stated that Unit 8200’s cloud-based intelligence trove has been used over the past two years to plan lethal airstrikes in Gaza, and that it often serves as a basis for arrests and other military operations in the West Bank.

‘Tracking everyone, all the time’

Sariel’s interest in upgrading Israel’s mass surveillance infrastructure dates back to 2015, when he was an intelligence officer in Israel’s Central Command. That year witnessed a wave of “lone-wolf” stabbing attacks in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and inside the Green Line — many of them carried out by Palestinian teenagers previously unknown to the security services, making the attacks particularly difficult to thwart.

“We found ourselves going … from funeral to funeral,” Sariel recalled in a book he published about artificial intelligence in 2021, the year he took over as head of Unit 8200 (he resigned last year).

“[A Palestinian] decides to perpetrate an attack using a kitchen knife to stab a victim, or the family vehicle to run people over,” he wrote. “Sometimes the person doesn’t even know a day before that he or she is going to commit such an attack. In these cases, traditional intelligence agencies are helpless. How can such an attack be predicted or prevented?”

Sariel’s solution, according to an intelligence officer who served under him at the time, was to start “tracking everyone, all the time.”

Over the next few years, he led a large-scale, well-funded project that dramatically expanded Israel’s surveillance of Palestinians and integrated multiple intelligence databases. “Suddenly, the public became our enemy,” another source who served in the unit under Sariel said.

In his book, Sariel wrote about the need for intelligence agencies to “migrate to the cloud” to deal with the problem of how to store increasingly vast amounts of data. +972 and Local Call previously revealed that the Israeli army has also used Amazon’s cloud computing platform, AWS, to store internal military data.

Sariel saw the collaboration with Microsoft as a breakthrough specifically because it would enable the mass storage of audio files. Multiple sources used the word “infinite” to describe the project’s scale.

Beforehand, Unit 8200 could store the calls of tens of thousands of Palestinians defined as “suspects” on its internal servers. The unit also developed a system called “noisy message,” which collects Palestinians’ text messages and assigns each of them a rating indicating their level of “danger.” But with the help of Azure, Unit 8200 was able to begin storing the calls of millions of Palestinians, vastly expanding its pool of data.

A senior source in Unit 8200 explained that Sariel viewed his relationship with Nadella, the Microsoft CEO, as a tool to advance “revolutions” in mass surveillance of Palestinians. “Yossi bragged a lot, even to me, about his connection with Satya,” the source said. (In response to this investigation, a Microsoft spokesperson stated that Nadella was only present in the 2021 meeting for 10 minutes, and that their only further contact was a condolence card Sariel sent after the death of Nadella’s son.)

Not everyone in the unit looked favorably on this partnership. One source familiar with the project said it was significantly more expensive to transfer data to Microsoft’s servers than it would have been to purchase servers and processors independently. Others in the unit felt uncomfortable about storing sensitive information overseas. But Sariel insisted, making clear his excitement for the project’s potential.

“For Yossi, ‘cloud’ and ‘Microsoft’ are buzzwords,” one intelligence source said. “He sold it internally and that’s how he got a huge budget. He said it was the solution to our problem in the Palestinian arena, and that this was the future.”

‘This isn’t leaving Azure anytime soon’

By early 2022, engineers from Microsoft and Unit 8200 were working quickly and closely to design a special model within the cloud that would be carefully tailored to the unit’s needs. “The rhythm of interaction with [8200] is daily, top down and bottom up,” one internal document noted.

As part of its effort to migrate vast amounts of its surveillance data to the cloud, the leaked documents reveal, Unit 8200 was prepared to “push the envelope” on the types of data it was willing to store on Azure. A significant portion of the raw intelligence was expected to reside initially in Microsoft data centers outside of Israel. But Israel’s Justice Ministry and Finance Ministry raised concerns about potential lawsuits against cloud service providers abroad, which could force them to hand over stored data if it was suspected of being used to violate human rights.

An internal legal opinion from the Justice Ministry in 2022 noted that both France and Germany required corporations to check for human rights violations in their supply chains by law. If it were to be revealed that these corporations are operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, such laws “may lead to the issuance of orders to prevent or restrict services” to Israel, it noted. The ministry warned that the Netherlands was working on similar legislation.

Since cloud service providers are “some of the largest and most powerful companies in the world,” one Justice Ministry document warned, a potential lawsuit would be particularly harmful to Israel. Despite these concerns, Unit 8200’s partnership with Microsoft continued, spearheaded by Sariel himself.

After Israel launched a war on the Gaza Strip in the wake of Hamas’ October 7 attack, it soon became clear that the enclave would remain under Israeli military control for a significant period. As a result, an intelligence officer explained, internal enthusiasm for storing mass surveillance data from Gaza on the cloud-based system increased.

“[The army] understood that this is also needed in Gaza — that we’re heading toward long-term control there, like in the West Bank,” the source explained. “This [surveillance repository] isn’t leaving Azure anytime soon. It’s a huge project.”

Several sources insisted that the project has “saved Israeli lives” by preventing Palestinian attacks. “You hear [someone say], ‘I want to become a martyr,’ and you feel reassured, as a security officer, that this stuff is being picked up by our system,” one officer said.

But such blanket surveillance allows Israel to find potentially incriminating information on virtually any Palestinian, which can be used for all manner of purposes — including blackmail, administrative detention, or retroactively justifying killings.

“These people get entered into the system, and the data on them just keeps growing,” an intelligence officer who recently served in the West Bank explained. “When they need to arrest someone and there isn’t a good enough reason to do so, [the surveillance repository] is where they find the excuse. We’re now in a situation where almost no one in the [occupied] territories is ‘clean,’ in terms of what intelligence has on them.”

‘Serious allegations of complicity in genocide’

In internal documents from 2023, Microsoft estimated that the partnership with Unit 8200 would generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the company over five years. It noted that the unit’s leadership hoped to multiply the amount of data it stores in Microsoft’s servers “tenfold” over the next few years.

But media reports of Microsoft’s complicity in Israel’s onslaught on Gaza — including the revelation by +972 and Local Call that the company’s cloud and artificial intelligence sales to the Israeli military skyrocketed during the war — have increased pressure on the company from the public as well as from its own employees.

In one highly publicized incident at the company’s annual conference in May, a Microsoft engineer interrupted Nadella’s keynote speech. “Satya, how about you show how Microsoft is killing Palestinians?” he shouted. “How about you show how Israeli war crimes are powered by Azure?”

Against this backdrop, 60 Microsoft investors, collectively holding shares worth $80 million, approached the company in July with a demand to review its monitoring and oversight mechanisms for customers who misuse AI tools, “in the face of serious allegations of complicity in genocide and other international crimes.”

Responding to the mounting pressure, Microsoft announced that it had conducted a review of whether its sales to Israel’s Defense Ministry had led to human rights violations. According to the statement, Microsoft provided “limited emergency support” to the Israeli army in the aftermath of October 7 to “help rescue hostages.” The company emphasized that there is “no evidence to date” that the military used Azure to “harm people in the conflict in Gaza,” stressing that Microsoft’s support didn’t violate “the privacy and other rights of civilians in Gaza.”

Yet the internal documents detailing Microsoft’s partnership with Unit 8200 paint a different picture of the company’s concern for Palestinians’ privacy. In fact, Palestinians were not mentioned in the documents summarizing the 2021 meeting between Sariel and Nadella, which also involved Israeli intelligence officers and senior Microsoft executives.

According to the Guardian’s reporting, Unit 8200 informed Microsoft of its intention to transfer up to “70 percent” of its data, including secret and top secret data, to Azure. And while the project’s ultimate goal (beyond “deepen[ing] the partnership”) does not appear to have been explicitly stated, an intelligence source said that executives of Microsoft’s Israeli subsidiary — who worked closely with Unit 8200 personnel on the project — were given clearer indications.

“Technically, they’re not supposed to be told exactly what it is, but you don’t have to be a genius to figure it out,” the source noted. “You tell [Microsoft] we don’t have any more space on the servers, that it’s audio files. It’s pretty clear what it is.”

In response to our investigation, a Microsoft spokesperson stated: “Microsoft’s engagement with Unit 8200 has been based on strengthening cybersecurity and protecting Israel from nation state and terrorist cyber attacks. This was the purpose of the meeting in November of 2021 and, in addition to our standard commercial relationship, is the basis of our ongoing relationship with the 8200 Unit.

“The leadership of Unit 8200 was interested in assessing security protection for data in our Azure public cloud offering,” the spokesperson continued. “We offer specific protections to numerous customers in retail, financial services and consulting organizations, as well as governments. Unit 8200 was interested in and tested this security; this was not a ‘secret’ or tented project.

“At no time during this engagement or since that time has Microsoft been aware of the surveillance of civilians or collection of their cell phone conversations using Microsoft’s services, including through the external review it commissioned,” the spokesperson went on. “Any allegations about Microsoft leadership involvement and support of this project … are false.”

The IDF Spokesperson stated that “the coordination between the Defense Ministry and the IDF with civilian companies is conducted based on regulated and legally supervised agreements,” adding that the army operates “in accordance with international law, with the aim of countering terrorism and ensuring the security of the state and its citizens.”

Yossi Sariel declined to comment, referring us to the IDF Spokesperson.

Following publication of this article, the IDF Spokesperson sent another statement: “We appreciate Microsoft’s support to protect our cybersecurity. We confirm that Microsoft is not and has not been working with the IDF on the storage or processing of data.”

The Pentagon Is Using a Fabricated Chinese Threat to Build Genetically Engineered Soldiers

On April 8, a bipartisan commission chartered by Congress warned that China is rapidly advancing a terrifying new military threat: genetically engineered “super soldiers.”

The report by the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) urges the U.S. to respond with a sweeping effort to militarize biotechnology. It offers little concrete evidence that such Chinese programs even exist.

In the name of national security, Washington is now pushing for deregulation, massive government investment, and human experimentation. Experts say this effort echoes Cold War-era paranoia and threatens to erode ethical boundaries in science and warfare.

A Congressional Research Service fact sheet on the report claims its contents “describe how biotechnology could potentially revolutionize agricultural production in the U.S., transform U.S. health care, and change the future of computing power.” While that may sound promising, the report’s focus is overwhelmingly on using biotechnology for military purposes, including the creation of “genetically enhanced soldiers.” The report also states that “biotechnology’s impact on surveillance could be … transformative.”

The report argues that biology could revolutionize warfare just as airpower did in the 20th century, promising new advantages in stealth, logistics, and real-time physiological monitoring of soldiers. It calls for “a fundamental rethinking” of how the U.S. uses biotech in combat.

Biotechnology also promises new advantages in stealth and mobility. Dynamic biological camouflage, for instance, could shield warfighters from thermal detection, while wearable biosensors could adjust mission parameters based on real-time physiological data. Taken together, these advances demand a fundamental rethinking of how biology supports sustained, agile military operations, revolutionizing what it means to defend the U.S., including building for, nourishing, and healing forces in the field.”

The report argues that “winning” the global biotech race will “require de-risking the domestic production of defense-related biotechnology products” and changing “military specifications” to enable biotechnology companies to sell their products to the Pentagon more easily. Repeated references are also made to the need to “reduce or remove regulatory hurdles for familiar products.” Although the report never defines “familiar products,” the term may refer to controversial and experimental technologies such as CRISPR gene editing and mRNA therapeutics.

NSCEB also calls for large-scale “biological databases” to be treated as a “strategic resource.” It urges Congress to direct the Pentagon to build commercial facilities across the country to biomanufacture products deemed “critical for DOD needs.” The U.S. government “will need to shoulder some of the risk of early-stage financing for biotechnology and encourage private investment,” such as “[streamlining] regulatory processes to alleviate unnecessary burdens and accelerate the commercialization.”

The report’s tone is urgent, and lawmakers appear eager to act. One day after the report’s publication, NSCEB Chair Todd Young and Commissioners Alex Padilla, Stephanie Bice and Ro Khanna jointly introduced the National Biotechnology Initiative Act in both the House and Senate to “set in motion a whole-of-government approach to advancing biotechnology for U.S. national security, economic productivity, and competitiveness.”

Commissioners are urging “swift action” on militarizing biotech, “to protect U.S. national security.” In an accompanying press release, Vice Chair Michelle Rozo implored lawmakers to take action on the NSCEB report, stating, “Technology is not inherently good or bad, but who uses it matters.”

Independent researcher Jeff Kaye agrees with her statement. The U.S., which recently conducted extensive airstrikes in Yemen and continues to support Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, is, according to Kaye, a dangerous actor.

Independent journalist Peter Byrne tells MintPress News that the report reflects “the rationally untethered paranoid politics driving the ongoing weaponization and monetization of AI” in the U.S.

Byrne says that NSCEB’s speculative and scientifically questionable report “focuses on using so-called artificial intelligence to enhance the biologically violent capacities of government-backed and corporate-supported military forces—so-called “warfighters” who are increasingly being cyberized and treated, alongside targeted civilian masses, as expendable biologically augmented actors within what the report describes as an ‘Internet of Military Things.’

A Biotech Arms Race Built on Fear

The NSCEB’s composition raises additional concerns. The presence of both Democrats and Republicans on the Commission allows it to present itself as a bipartisan body. However, this obscures the fact that most commissioners aren’t neutral experts, but have deep ties to the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community.

For example, Michelle Rozo serves as vice president of technology at In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital firm. The firm has invested heavily in biotechnology, almost since its inception.

According to her official NSCEB biography, Commissioner Dawn Meyerriecks “led the iconic CIA Directorate of Science and Technology…defining and delivering global capabilities beyond state-of-the-art.”

She also served on the NSA’s corporate board for over a decade. In that role, she helped the agency transition to the cloud and “[revamped] their approach to encryption.”

It is unclear if she crossed paths in that role with fellow board member Eric Schmidt, founder of Google, whose early development was supported by funding from intelligence agencies, including the CIA and NSA.

Google was a primary beneficiary of the post-9/11 U.S. national security state. A September 2021 report found that 77% of all government contracts awarded to the firm were related to the War on Terror.

This included developing the Maven program, which used AI to improve drone targeting, and counter-terrorism tools that disproportionately targeted Muslims on social media. Income from this program was key to supporting Google’s rise to global dominance.

Another notable member of the Commission is Dov Zakheim. A Pentagon journeyman who, during the Reagan administration, strived to ensure Israel was equipped with U.S.-made weapons and fighter jets at bargain rates, he was also a key member of the Project for the New American Century. In September 2000, the neoconservative think tank published “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” The report promoted “the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces.”

The document controversially suggested that ethnic bioweapons could “transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” Zakheim was among its authors, along with fellow PNAC members Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. They later served as key advisers to President George W. Bush during the War on Terror.

“The marriage of biotechnology and U.S. national defense – war – policy harkens back to the U.S. crash program to create a usable germ warfare arsenal during the Korean War,” Jeff Kaye tells MintPress News. “Now the U.S. government wants to whip up a false fear about ‘genetically enhanced PLA super-soldiers’ in order to fund their own unprecedented attempt to create such soldiers themselves.” In the end, Kaye says, such programs primarily benefit military and technology contractors and raise serious ethical and strategic concerns.

The Myth of China’s Super Soldiers

In December 2020, then-U.S. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe directly accused the Chinese government of “[conducting] human testing on members of the People’s Liberation Army in the hope of developing soldiers with biologically enhanced capabilities.” Despite providing no evidence, and the question of whether this is even scientifically possible being an obvious and open one, his comments triggered widespread media coverage, often uncritical, that persists to this day. Multiple outlets have published speculative accounts of Chinese advancements in gene-edited or technologically enhanced “super soldiers.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the NSCEB report repeatedly justifies the urgent need for U.S. investment in biotechnology with claims that Beijing is close to outpacing Washington in every aspect of the field. “China’s recent success across core biotechnology capabilities, including AI-driven drug discovery platforms and biomanufacturing, signals that they may soon eclipse us,” the report ominously cautions, “and if that happens, the U.S. may permanently lose its competitive edge. But the biggest threat, naturally, lies in the military sphere.

Nonetheless, the Commission appears uncertain on whether China has already made concrete moves in the direction of biotech weaponization, intends to, or is merely exploring the concept. For example, one passage states “our adversaries could [emphasis added] engineer ‘super soldiers’ with genetically enhanced physical capabilities.” Another speculates, “paired with new technologies like implanted brain-computer interfaces that tap directly into a soldier’s brain chemistry…‘super soldiers’ could [emphasis added] attack our military – before our leaders can even act.”

Elsewhere, though, the Commission firmly declares it has “every reason to believe that the CCP [sic] will weaponize biotechnology,” including the creation of “biotechnology-powered troops,” citing a highly questionable October 2024 State Department report drawn up by arch anti-China hawks as proof. The report speculates that traditional technologies like drone warfare could pale in comparison to “genetically enhanced PLA super-soldiers with fused human and artificial intelligence.”

While super soldiers may sound like science fiction today, in reality the CCP [sic] has long called for ‘population improvement’, and has backed research into topics like the genetic basis of intelligence.”

The conclusion is highly debatable and lacks substantiating evidence.

In March 2003 a then-senior member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), a purely advisory body without any legislative power, called for “better protection of the health of baby girls,” and “the need of start [sic] a project to cure deformed baby girls or girls born with slight defects.” Then, the Commission points to a 2022 report from Berlin’s Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science.

The report notes that while China is a pioneer in the emerging field of Germline Genome Editing, its experiments have exclusively focused on eradicating genetic diseases and hereditary disabilities. These experiments involve changes to DNA in egg, sperm or embryo cells—a still-controversial area of research.

Moreover, the report stresses that other countries – including Britain and the U.S. – have undertaken comparable experiments, and Beijing adheres to a rigorous regulatory framework in all its GGE testing.

The Society notes that in November 2018, a Chinese scientist and two collaborators independently created genetically edited babies without government approval or oversight. As a result, they were jailed for “illegal medical practices” and violating national regulations on biomedical research and medical ethics. The report contains no indication that this research is intended for military use, begging the question of how the Commission concluded from its findings that “super soldiers” are an intended result of China’s GGE experiments.

Human Enhancement and Military Obedience

Although the NSCEB report includes a recommendation for ethical oversight, a leading recommendation in the NSCEB report is for the Pentagon “to consult with stakeholders to define principles for ethical use of biotechnology for the U.S. military.” However, the accompanying text runs to just over 250 words and offers no explanation or definition of ethics in this context, let alone examples or concrete proposals for countering them. It simply states the investment must reflect the U.S. military’s “commitment to American values,” without defining what those values are or how they should be measured in practice.

Nonetheless, the Pentagon is encouraged to consider “Biotechnologies for warfighter performance optimization.” These include performance-enhancing technologies, policies for informed consent, and discussion of potentially heritable genetic treatments.

This raises only a fraction of the broader ethical questions surrounding the militarization of biotechnology.

As Peter Byrne tells MintPress, “the professional China-demonizing ‘authorities’ are calling for diverting the USA’s increasingly diminishing funds for projects aimed at benefiting society at large, for weaponizing disease and genetics with the sole goal of killing millions of people for profit by the very few. There is no ‘ethical’ stance to take in undertaking a fundamentally murderous and technologically stupid project, which is bound to backfire, except to recoil from it as a hot iron.”

The report does urge the Pentagon to ensure soldiers give informed consent to any genetic enhancements. The “reversibility” of ‘enhancements’ to which they are subjected suggests that the NSCEB’s program will – at least publicly – adhere to basic medical standards. Yet, a deeply disturbing May 2021 Britain’s Ministry of Defence report on “human augmentation” raises grave concerns about “consent” in military contexts:

Consent in the military is necessarily different to consent in wider society due to the unique relationship between subordinates and their superiors. It could be difficult for military personnel to give sufficiently voluntary and informed consent due to a tendency to follow orders over individual interest. Would a Service person who refused to be augmented be guilty of disobeying a lawful command?”

The report stressed that “establishing advantage” in human augmentation was urgent. It claimed the role of people in war was “being challenged in three key areas: data, complexity and speed.” Human augmentation, it added, was “the missing part of this puzzle.”

It went on to advocate wearable technologies, psychedelic drugs, gene editing, exoskeletons, sensory augmentation devices, and invasive implants such as “brain interfaces” be considered for administration to soldiers by the British military post-haste. “Adversaries” supposedly outpacing London in the field was a core justification.

That the British M.O.D. published almost identical findings to NSCEB four years ago amply demonstrates how Western governments and military thinkers have been obsessed with weaponizing the human body and mind for some time. Their public pronouncements and formally published, open-source plans offer far more concrete, chilling indications of developments in this field than have ever emerged from China. For example, NATO’s ‘Innovation Hub’ during 2020/21 published a number of bizarre papers and convened several conferences on the subject of “cognitive warfare.”

The Hub’s purpose was to explore “militarisation of brain science” and answers to the burning question of how to overcome perceived biological limits to human performance.

Most of the associated paper trail has suspiciously been removed from the web. However, documents it published outlined numerous ways in which the “human domain” could be added to established spheres of conflict, such as “air, land, sea, space and cyber.”

It resolved for NATO to aim for “cognitive warfare” dominance globally by 2040.

In a surreal twist, the Hub consulted several “futurists” to sketch fictional scenarios, whereby this objective could be achieved. One paper outlined a fictional scenario in which, by 2039, autopsies conducted on Chinese soldiers killed in skirmishes with U.S. and Australian troops over a Silk Road initiative in Zambia would find the corpses were “supra-human,” or genetically augmented beyond typical human capacity, the product of gene-editing in a lab that would give them enhanced muscle capacity, night vision, and “resistance to sleep deprivation, thirst, extreme heat and humidity.”

The incident, the author forecast, would trigger a “cognitive war” under NATO’s Article 5. It was not long after this highly speculative and implausible fiction was published that Ratcliffe made his claims about China developing “super soldiers,” suggesting that Ratcliffe’s remarks may have drawn inspiration from speculative NATO material.

If NSCEB’s report is fully adopted, many of the Innovation Hub’s most alarming proposals could edge closer to reality.

Aaron Good, founder of American Exception, argues the implications of the report are dire and reflect deeper dysfunction in U.S. governance.

This enterprise is so sinister and horrifying, it is not something that should be considered in an advanced civilization. But since we live under a lawless and exploitative oligarchic regime whose only real imperatives are to perpetuate itself and to aggrandize the wealth and power of its oligarch owners, this is what we get.”

“We must hope some constellation of internationalist powers can transcend the regime of the West,” Good says, concluding that the U.S.-led global order is unlikely to yield power without resistance.

As during the Cold War—when exaggerated claims of Soviet nuclear superiority and Chinese brainwashing triggered decades of arms races and human experimentation—U.S. policymakers are again invoking the specter of enemy-state superpowers to justify ethically murky and potentially illegal programs. Echoes of past atrocities like MKULTRA are unmistakable, raising the question of whether some biotech enhancement experiments may already be underway in secret.

Long Lines Building - O mistério escondido num arranha-céu sem janelas de Nova York

Arquitectura brutalista

Projetado em 1974, pelo arquiteto John Carl Warneke, o Long Lines Building (Prédio de longas linhas, em tradução livre) fica bem no centro de Manhattan. A sua construção, contudo, não é nada usual e parece um pouco deslocada no mar de edifícios da região. Construído a partir de lajes de betão e painéis de granito, tem uma aparência cinza e funcional.

Fachadas sem aberturas não só impedem a entrada de elementos externos no edifício, mas também ajudam a manter uma temperatura constante, segundo o NYV Urbanism.

No total, o prédio conta com 170 metros de altura, divididos por 29 andares - sendo que o famoso Empire State Building mede 381 m. Só que, no caso do Long Lines, além da visível falta de janelas, cada um dos andares também conta com um pé direito altíssimo.

Ainda mais impressionante, de acordo com o site Atlas Obscura, a construção foi projetada para suportar uma quantidade absurda de peso por metro quadrado. Tudo isso com o objetivo de servir como uma grande central de telecomunicações.

Comunicação é a chave

Acontece que, desde sua criação, até hoje, o prédio na 33 Thomas Street pertence à AT&T, uma gigante da comunicação nos Estados Unidos. Quase tão resistente quanto uma fortaleza, então, o prédio servia como base para os computadores da empresa.

Os equipamentos antigos, contudo, não eram tão fáceis de transportar e de manter como os dos dias atuais. Por isso, os andares deveriam ser mais altos, devido ao tamanho das caixas de metal, e o prédio deveria ser mais resistente, pensando no peso.

Naquela época, a sede da AT&T também guardava equipamentos telefônicos de longa distância. Atualmente, além dos aparelhos, o prédio ainda serve como central de armazenamento de uma parte de dados importantes detidos pela empresa.

Planta suspeita

Projetado para guardar uma grande quantidade de informações bastante valiosas, o edifício tem uma segurança quase impenetrável. Isso sem contar as paredes resistentes, que podem resistir a uma explosão nuclear, permitindo que os sistemas continuem em pleno funcionamento por duas semanas, mesmo sem contato com uma rede fixa.

O problema é que, segundo o The Intercept, as potentes estruturas do Long Lines estão sendo usadas para um segundo propósito, que não o comercial da AT&T. Em matéria publicada em novembro de 2016, o veículo afirmou que o edifício também serve como um centro de espionagem da NSA (Agência de Segurança Nacional).

De acordo com a denúncia, o arranha-céu teria o codinome de ‘Titanpointe’ e, entre as suas paredes sem janelas, guardaria escutas telefónicas e equipamentos utilizados para coletar dados governamentais. Por isso, inclusive, poucos teriam acesso ao seu interior.

O edifício também conta, segundo a reportagem, com três subsolos, abastecidos com comida o suficiente para que 1,5 mil pessoas se alimentem por duas semanas em caso de catástrofe. 

Segundo o The Sun é uma das construções mais seguras dos Estados Unidos, capaz, inclusive de resistir a uma explosão nuclear!

Bitcoins, sonho de consumo dos anarco-capitalistas

Fonte: Doug Henwood, 2017

O guru do marketing Robert Prechter, grande psicólogo dos mercados financeiros embora seja seguidor devotado de Ayn Rand e acredite na peça de ficção denominada teoria Elliott Wave, alegou certa vez que num grande mercado especulativo há algo denominado “ponto de reconhecimento”, quando o público embarca. Isso significa que está ficando tarde e já é hora de os profissionais pensarem em cair fora (embora a mania possa continuar bem depois do envolvimento das pessoas comuns).

Parece que estamos nesse ponto com a Bitcoin, cujo preço teve, nos últimos anos, uma trajetória semelhante à de grandes manias da história, como o frenesim do bulbo de tulipa holandês, dos anos 1630, a bolha do Mar do Sul dos anos 1710 e as orgias do mercado de ações norte-americano nos anos 1920 e 1990.

O que acontece? Antes de entrar nos detalhes, é preciso lembrar que dinheiro, em geral, não é um tema simples. A maioria das pessoas tem um bom entendimento de como o ouro, que é um tipo específico de dinheiro, é garimpado, processado e formatado em lingotes e moedas. Um pouco menos óbvia é a razão por que tem um status monetário diferente, digamos, ao da platina. Mas é raro, puro, facilmente divisível, e muito apreciado ao longo dos tempos.

O dinheiro de papel é mais complexo. De 1900 até 1971, o dólar norte-americano era lastreado pelo ouro, o que significa que seu valor era legalmente definido por um certo peso do metal. Isso acabou em 1971, quando o presidente Richard Nixon chocou o mundo ao romper a relação com o ouro e permitir que seu valor fosse determinado pela negociação nos mercados de câmbio.

O Bitcoin, contudo, é um animal completamente diferente. É a primeira e mais famosa de uma família grande e crescente de coisas denominadas “criptomoedas”. A família inclui o Ethereum, o Ripple, o Dash e o Monero – mas o Bitcoin é de longe o maior. O valor total dos Bitcoins existentes hoje é de 261 biliões de dólares. Isso é um terço a mais que o valor total das ações do Citigroup, e pouco menos que o valor das ações da Wells Fargo, bancos reais com milhões de clientes, que produzem dinheiro de verdade.

A origem do Bitcoin está num texto de 2008 escrito por alguém com o pseudónimo de Satoshi Nakamoto. Bem a propósito, a despeito das muitas tentativas, ninguém conseguiu saber quem ele é.

A definição semioficial de criptomoeda é “uma moeda digital produzida pessoa-a-pessoa, descentralizada, cuja implementação baseia-se nos princípios da criptografia para validar as transações e geração da própria moeda.” (Embora seja um tijolo denso de prosa, é preciso fazer justiça para os criptoides lembrando que também não seria fácil definir o dólar de forma sucinta.)

Tudo isso significa que o Bitcoin e as outras são moedas eletrónicas – pura entrada de dados em registros eletrônicos – criadas e transferidas por uma rede de computadores sem que ninguém seja responsável por isso. O papel da criptografia não é simplesmente garantir a segurança da transação, mas também gerar novas unidades da moeda. Novas unidades de criptomoeda são “garimpadas” por computadores ao resolver complicados (e descabidos) algoritmos matemáticos, que uma vez solucionados possibilitam o nascimento de uma unidade da moeda – com assinatura digital garantindo autenticidade e unicidade –, então anunciado ao resto do sistema.

Cada Bitcoin inclui um Blockchain, registo digital anónimo do histórico de transação dessa unidade. O criador ganha o valor da nova moeda quando ela entra no sistema. Você pode comprar ou vender Bitcoins online, e há alguns poucos caixas eletrónicos para Bitcoins espalhados pelo mundo.

A garimpagem requer quantidades enormes de potência computacional. Segundo algumas estimativas, a potência usada pela Bitcoin pode já ser igual à de 3 milhões de famílias dos EUA, e superar o consumo individual de 159 países. A massa dessa garimpagem acontece na China, onde a maior parte da eletricidade é gerada pelo carvão, um negócio sujo. Espera-se que o número total de Bitcoins em circulação chegue a 21 milhões; já estamos por volta de 17 milhões. À medida em que o limite vai sendo alcançado, os algoritmos de criação das moedas ficam mais difíceis de resolver — e mais carbono é gerado. Mesmo as coisas aparentemente mais imateriais têm com frequência profundas raízes materiais.

Vale enfatizar que os algoritmos usados para gerar Bitcoins não têm sentido. Não servem a nada útil. Para alguns adeptos, isso é uma coisa boa, porque estar ligadas a um propósito útil poderia conferir valor intrínseco à moeda; é melhor deixar seu valor flutuar livremente, limitado apenas pela imaginação humana.

É essa a tecnologia do Bitcoin. E o que dizer dela como dinheiro? A clássica definição dos economistas sobre o dinheiro é que ele é uma reserva de valor, uma unidade de medida e um meio de troca. Você vai à loja e vê uma lata de tomates que custa 3 dólares, os quais serão registados pela loja como receita quando a lata for vendida. Você saca 3 dólares do bolso ou do seu cartão de débito. Extrai o valor provisionado (dinheiro na mão ou no banco) e usa-o como meio de troca.

O dólar norte-americano tem valor porque todo mundo nos EUA (e além) considera a moeda bem-sucedida ao preencher estes três requisitos como dinheiro. O dólar é valorizado pelos bens e serviços que pode comprar.

Já o Bitcoin tem sérios problemas em todos esses aspectos. Recentemente, numa única semana, o valor da Bitcoin variou entre 15 mil e 21 mil dólares aproximadamente. Um ano atrás, seu valor era de pouco mais de 800 dólares. Não é, portanto, uma reserva de valor muito confiável. (Está cotado em US$15.625 agora. Mas espere um minuto e ele vai mudar. Aqui, uma cotação ao vivo.)

Quase ninguém aceita Bitcoins, nem empresas mantêm nele sua contabilidade; ele fracassa tanto como unidade de valor quanto como medida de troca. E sua curta história – os primeiros Bitcoins foram cunhadas em 2009 – tem sido turbulenta. Houve vários roubos, fraudes e hackeamentos, que seus partidários consideram dores de crescimento. Mas sem instituição reguladora, sem depósito de segurança e sem banco central, esse tipo de incidente é inevitável. Introduza, porém, esquemas de regulação e seguroança e a Bitcoin perderá todo o seu anarco-charme.

O ouro é como o Bitcoin, por ser uma forma não estatal de dinheiro — razão pela qual é amado pelos ultra-liberais [libertarians, em inglês], mas tem se saído muito melhor como reserva de valor. O preço do ouro varia bem menos que um por cento ao dia – mas seu preço é ainda mais volátil que o do dólar norte-americano. É uma reserva de valor semiconfiável.

Já nos outros requisitos o ouro não é muito melhor que o Bitcoin: não dá pra comprar muita coisa com ele, e quase nada tem seu preço ou é contabilizado em ouro.

A despeito disso, o ouro retém um enorme apelo fantasmático – um tipo “objetivo” de medida de valor, determinada pelo mercado, distante da intervenção dos Estados. Keynes considerou o ouro parte do “aparato do conservadorismo”. Era um velho conservadorismo, o dos rentistas que amavam a austeridade, porque ela preservava o valor de seus ativos. O Bitcoin serve a um propósito totémico semelhante para os ciberliberais de hoje — que o amam não somente pelo fato de ser dinheiro não-estatal, mas também por seu poder de “desestabilizar”. O Bitcoin é parte do aparato do anarco-capitalismo.

O universo político do Bitcoin tem face principalmente ultra-liberal, mas inclui uma esquerda. Um texto escrito há alguns anos por Denis “Jaromil” Roio — um hacker, artista e estudante de graduação — utiliza citações de Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Giorgio Agamben e Christian Marazzi para dar ao Bitcoin um giro revolucionário, vendo-o de forma criativa como caminho para “a multidão [construir] seu corpo além da linguagem”. Jaromil não explica como a transformação do instrumento monetário poderá mudar o caráter da produção ou o modo como a renda é distribuída.

Há algo a ser dito sobre o anonimato do Bitcoin – embora deva-se perguntar quão impenetrável é seu véu para a NSA — Agência de Segurança Nacional dos EUA. Por agora, é um meio semisseguro para comprar armas e drogas.

Mas além do anonimato, é difícil enxergar quais os problemas que a Bitcoin resolve. A transição para o dinheiro de papel foi uma resposta à crise do sistema baseado no ouro. Não há valor prático no Bitcoin – de novo, além do anonimato – mas ele carrega bagagem política.

Deixando de lado seus empreendedores e especuladores, que querem apenas enriquecer, a visão política do Bitcoin é de um mundo descentralizado e sem Estados, com sistemas monetários em competição.

Dinheiro competitivo, que acaba com o monopólio do Estado na área, é há muito o sonho da direita. Num texto de 1976, Friedrich Hayek argumentava a favor de permitir a circulação de várias moedas dentro de cada país; a competição levaria ao uso da moeda mais sólida – isto é, a mais adequada às políticas de “austeridade”. Seria uma forma de controlar as tentativas governamentais de inflar as possibilidades de resolver problemas.

Isso significaria ausência de estímulo fiscal ou monetário em crises económicas – deixem a seleção natural agir, simplesmente. As criptomoedas seriam um passo a mais em direção à ideia de moedas competitivas, que poderiam desafiar o próprio monopólio de emissão do Estado. (Na verdade, tínhamos moedas competindo no século XIX; diversos tipos de pequenos bancos emitiam notas que frequentemente acabavam perdendo valor.) Claro, não há inflação; mas o dinheiro governamental provou ser muito mais estável do que suas alternativas — sejam elas ouro ou Bitcoin. Nenhum correntista perdeu um centavo na crise financeira de 2008; não se pode dizer o mesmo sobre os Bitcoins, em sua curta existência. Mas os ultra-liberais – e há muitos deles na tecnologia e nas finanças, as mães do Bitcoin – estão preocupam-se obsessivamente com a inflação; do mesmo modo que os titãs dos fundos de investimento consideram o fim de suas isenções fiscais como uma repetição da Alemanha nazi.

De modo que, embora o Bitcoin falhe como dinheiro, ele adquiriu uma vida intensa como ativo especulativo. Ao contrário da maioria dos ativos especulativos convencionais, porém,o seu valor é completamente imaterial. As ações são, em última instância, direitos sobre os lucros das empresas; e os títulos públicos asseguram um fluxo futuro de pagamentos de juros. Não se pode dizer o mesmo dos bitcoins. Seu único valor é aquilo que alguém vai pagar por eles hoje à tarde ou talvez amanhã. E agora estão sendo negociados no mercado futuro, o que leva a especulação a uma quarta ou quinta dimensão.

E que onda especulativa!. Todoo mundo quer participar do movimento. Imitadores do Bitcoin surgem todos os dias. Há pouco, especuladores garfaram mais de 700 milhões de dólares para uma empresa, a Block One, com uma criptomoeda que não existe realmente e, segundo seus patrocinadores, não tem objetivo. A empresa não divulgou quase nenhuma informação sobre si, e quase nada é conhecido sobre seus fundadores. Alguns dias depois, bem cedo, a empresa Long Island Ice Tea, que vende bebidas não alcoólicas, mudou seu nome para Long Blockchain, e imediatamente o preço de suas ações mais que dobraram. A empresa não tem acordo com nenhum promotor de criptomoeda, nem está prospectando isso. O truque foi a mera troca de nome.

É tudo uma loucura, mas o meu palpite é que este tipo de bolha não causará grande dano econômico, quando estourar. Para isso, ela teria de ser financiada por bancos, que estariam em risco de falência quando as coisas ruíssem. Não é o que parece estar acontecendo. Haverá, contudo, quem perca a camisa.

O que é mais sério, essa bolha mostra que algumas pessoas têm muito dinheiro. Nossas sociedades têm dinheiro mais que suficiente para especular, mas não para suprir as necessidades humanas.

Bolsonaro precisa pagar pelos crimes na Amazónia

O mundo sabe que ele é o principal responsável pela desproteção aos indígenas e, mais do que isso, por incentivar a devastação, os conflitos e, praticamente autorizar a matança.

O Brasil acompanha estarrecido as notícias sobre o brutal assassinato de Bruno Pereira e Dom Phillips na região do Vale do Javari, em Atalaia do Norte, no Amazonas. O fato de um deles ser estrangeiro jogou luz sobre um problema recorrente na região. Muitos dos que lutam pelos direitos dos indígenas e pela preservação da floresta desaparecem, são mortos e fica por isso mesmo.

Hoje, até o primeiro ministro britânico, Boris Jonhson, manifestou preocupação com o desaparecimento de Dom. Inúmeras organizações e governos pelo mundo, não só pedem um esclarecimento sobre os fatos, mas apelam por uma política de proteção aos povos da floresta e defesa do meio ambiente.

Isso coloca para Bolsonaro uma delicada crise internacional, pois o mundo sabe que ele é o principal responsável pela desproteção aos indígenas e, mais do que isso, por incentivar a devastação, os conflitos e, praticamente autorizar a matança com sua política genocida.

O governo do Brasil impôs uma agenda para enfraquecer as proteções dos povos indígenas, possibilitando invasões de terras indígenas. A Covid-19 teve uma taxa de mortalidade muito maior entre os indígenas se comparado com outras populações.

Também acabou com a Funai, que hoje virou Fundação Anti-Indígena, segundo um dossiê divulgado nesta semana. O documento de 173 páginas foi elaborado pela Indigenistas Associados (INA), associação de servidores da Funai fundada em 2017, e pelo Instituto de Estudos Socioeconômicos (Inesc).

Os pesquisadores destacam pontos que favoreceram, sobremaneira, a violência na região, o desrespeito e a desassistência aos povos originários. Entre eles, a probidade aos ruralistas. No primeiro dia de governo, foi publicada a MP 870, que tentou tirar da Funai a função de demarcar terras indígenas e de se manifestar em processos de licenciamento ambiental. O STF derrubou essa medida.

A ocupação militar da região aconteceu com o comando da Funai sendo entregue aos militares, com influência dos ruralistas. O levantamento mostra que, das 39 Coordenações Regionais da entidade, 19 são coordenadas por oficiais das Forças Armadas; três por policiais militares; duas por policiais federais e duas por servidores públicos. Nas demais, há servidores substitutos ou sem vínculo com a administração pública.

Por outro lado, os cargos da Funai não foram preenchidos à medida que iam ficando vagos. Há na autarquia 2.300 vagas e apenas 2.071 profissionais atuando, destes, 1.717 funcionários públicos. O dossiê também acusa a perseguição interna contra servidores que não se alinham ao governo.

O trabalho de campo também foi dificultado com a intensa centralização dos trabalhos e das atividades de campo. Antes, as viagens de servidores a territórios indígenas só dependiam da assinatura do presidente da Funai em casos extraordinários. Isso mudou e hoje é preciso uma autorização com 15 dias de antecedência, uma autorização da diretoria da instituição e um parecer técnico das Coordenações Gerais, em Brasília, indicando que a viagem é pertinente. As diárias, acusa o levantamento, foram abolidas.

Neste governo, nenhuma terra indígena foi demarcada. Hoje, há 620 processos de demarcação, ainda na etapa inicial, na gaveta. E 117 territórios esperando pela homologação. Os antropólogos passaram a ser alinhados ao comando da Funai, recebendo críticas até mesmo da Associação Brasileira de Antropologia diz que os escolhidos são “pessoas sem a mínima qualificação e legitimidade, inclusive sem amparo legal para coordenar e realizar estudos de identificação e delimitação de Terras Indígenas”.

Há ainda ampliação do desmatamento, que cresceu 219% desde 2019 e a Funai tem desistido e se retirado de ações judiciais que tratam dos direitos coletivos de povos indígenas.

Esta é uma política clara de extermínio das nações indígenas e tentativa de entrega da Amazônia para todo tipo de crime, desde o garimpo ilegal, corte e venda de madeira ilegal, incêndios criminosos, além de favorecimento ao agronegócio.

É este governo, personificado no genocida presidente, o responsável pelas mortes e demais tragédias que acontecem na Amazônia. E o que fazer diante disso? Precisamos denunciar no Brasil e no mundo e cobrar as responsabilidades para que essa política e esse governo sejam julgados nas urnas e nos tribunais. Só assim poderemos restabelecer a paz na região, com desenvolvimento sustentável e respeito a quem chegou lá primeiro, ou lá sempre esteve.

por Vanessa Grazziotin, Ex-senadora (AM) 

Actualização

Identificado "cérebro" por trás das mortes de jornalista Dom Philips e indigenista Bruno Pereira na Amazónia

Documentário da Semana: Citizenfour (legendado em Português)

Citizenfour é um documentário norte-americano de 2014 dirigido por Laura Poitras.

Trata do escândalo de espionagem pela NSA e como se deram os encontros com Edward Snowden antes e depois de sua identidade ser revelada ao público.

Na abertura, em texto, a diretora Laura Poitras informa que foi incluída em 2006 numa lista secreta após dirigir um filme sobre a Guerra do Iraque. Nos anos seguintes foi detida e interrogada diversas vezes nas fronteiras dos Estados Unidos. Seu filme seguinte foi sobre a Prisão de Guantánamo e guerra ao terrorismo. 

Este filme é a terceira parte da trilogia sobre os Estados Unidos após os ataques de 11 de setembro de 2001.

Julian Assange and COP26

Julian Assange faces a 175 year prison sentence in the United States for publishing documents, including those which exposed wilful, or otherwise reckless, sabotage of climate action during prior climate change summits.

Targeted surveillance of negotiators, cabinet ministers, heads of state and even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was also exposed by cables revealed by Assange, and are among the documents the US is charging him for receiving and publishing.

Assange’s environmental publications have created the political impetus for the US government to go after Assange, but he is also formally charged over his role in publishing the cables that contain these very revelations - and which account for 50 years of the sentence.

A full-frontal assault on the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know

The WikiLeaks publisher is being prosecuted for, among other things, informing the public about the ways in which powerful nations have undermined meaningful action in the face of a climate crisis.

The US indictment represents a full-frontal assault on the public’s right to impart and receive information; thereby undermining the very basis of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the First Amendment to the US constitution.

In September of this year, it was revealed that the CIA drew up plans to kidnap or assassinate Assange after he published documents revealing how the spy agency targets iPhones, Androids and other devices, from a covert CIA hacker base in the US consulate in Frankfurt.

The multi-award-winning journalist remains incarcerated in Belmarsh prison in the UK, in pre-trial detention, separated from his wife and two young children.

On 4 January 2021, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected the US government’s extradition request on the grounds that extradition would be “oppressive” and would result in his death.

Nobody should face a single day in prison, let alone a life sentence, for their journalistic work which, in this case, has helped to inform environmental activists and civil society organisations the world over.

The prosecution against Julian Assange is an attack on the publics right to know - the truth about the environment, and our future, and what powerful countries want to keep hidden from the public.

Although Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are perhaps best known for the release of the Afghanistan Diaries, Iraq War logs, and Guantanamo Bay detainee files the materials published by the award-winning investigative news outlet go far beyond this.

As the latest climate change summit, COP 26, due to be held in Glasgow, Scotland, fast approaches, it is worth remembering some of the key environment-related documents published by Assange.

Such revelations as government spying and surveillance of diplomats and negotiators. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, drafted a detailed “human intelligence” directive calling on all manner of biographical and even biometric data (e.g. fingerprints, DNA) belonging to UN workers to be obtained.

Spying and surveillance is done in order to gain a competitive edge between countries. During environmental summits, human and electronic intelligence gathering methods are used in order to determine what the bargaining positions of even ‘friendly’ governments are. An NSA intercepted conversation between German and Japanese diplomats, for example, revealed that the US was pressuring the Germans to drop their demand for a 25-45% reduction in carbon emissions, and that the lobbying would likely be successful.

Spying is also being used to help bribe, blackmail or coerce governments into acting as desired. Meanwhile, even as climate negotiations proceed from year to year, separate treaty negotiations such as TPP, TTIP and TiSA, all have provisions that would preference the rights of corporations over the ability of governments to protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote renewable energy.

Diplomatic cables published by Assange also exposed that an environmental “marine reserve” pushed by the UK government in the Chagos Islands was actually designed to prevent the people of those Islands from ever returning (the British government forcibly removed the Chagos Islanders from their homes against their will in the 1960s and 70s). The UK was admonished by the International Court of Justice and the UN General Assembly, its greenwashing of a major colonial crime was exposed thanks to the cable.

Worrying developments, such as the melting of the polar ice caps, are shown in other cables, as offering positive economic opportunities to US, Russian and European government ministers who see “new shipping routes” and the possibility of previously infeasible resource. A former Danish foreign minister described the new mood optimistically as a scramble to “carve up” the Arctic.

Serious corruption and “neocolonial exploitation” of mining resources by multinational corporations was also laid bare by documents focusing on the Central African Republics mining resources. As was a suppressed report into the devastating toxic dumping of waste in the Ivory Coast by commodities trader Trafigura.

All this and more has been brought to light by documents revealed by Julian Assange and then provided to the public at large.

Topics covered by WikiLeaks releases COP 15 agreement draft text first published by Julian Assange

1. Government manipulation of countries into accepting their climate strategy
2. Spying and surveillance to gain advantages commonplace in prior climate discussions
3. Geopolitics interfering with a science-based and cooperative approach to tackling climate change
4. US uses its economic position to lobby/coerce countries to accept genetically modified foods
5. Melting Arctic due to Global Warming seen as opportunity for oil drilling
6. Middle-range powers also sought to water down climate accords
7. ‘Environmental protection’ used to disguise ulterior motives: The ‘marine reserve’ in Diego Garcia
8. Pollution is seen as a tradeable commodity
9. China opposed 60 per cent carbon emission reduction target during Copenhagen 2010 talks
10. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
11. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), aka Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA)
12. Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)
13. Iraq’s city of Basra heavily contaminated by war, oil and radioactive weaponry
14. Dirty war for uranium and mineral rights in the Central African Republic (CAR)
15. Suppressed Minton report on Trafigura toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast

1. COP 15 agreement draft text first published by Julian Assange [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

Julian Assange attended the Climate summit in Copenhagen (COP15) in 2009 and obtained a draft of the agreement. The text revealed an agreement^1 largely devoid of meaningful efforts to tackle global warming, with a substantial shift in the demands made on poorer countries. COP15 would ultimately be declared an “‘incredible disaster” by the EU’s president.

The documents show that world leaders were to be asked to sign “an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations”, according to analysis of the text by The Guardian^2.

The COP 15 text revealed an agreement that reversed the position staked out in the Kyoto Protocol which expected richer nations – that were responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions – would take “firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases” leaving poorer countries with the flexibility to act.

The Copenhagen Agreement would also prohibit poor countries from emitting more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit nearly double that amount (2.67 tonnes).

One diplomat called it a “very dangerous document for developing countries”. Although it was not a final text, it reveals the dangers of secret negotiations between states which are vastly unequal in their power.

2. Government manipulation of countries into accepting their climate strategy [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

Amid the Copenhagen climate change summit and COP 15, the US government was revealed by Assange to have been seeking “dirt” on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming, but also using financial pressures to compel countries to act in a particular manner^3.

The US privately pressured Germany into dropping its demand for “a 25- to 45-percent mid-term carbon dioxide reduction” in 2008^4 ahead of the 2009 COP 15.

On 17 February 2010 the EU Commissioner for climate spoke with US Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs regarding upcoming climate talks in Mexico and beyond post Copenhagen. They both agreed that the US and EU “will need to neutralize, co-opt or marginalize” so called “unhelpful countries” such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador^5. All of which had been critical of past climate policies and negotiations for being insufficient or undemocratic.

EU’s Climate Action Commissioner, also on 17 February 2010, suggested to US Deputy Special Envoy on Climate Change that the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) “could be our best allies given their need for financing”^6. This suggests that poorer countries could potentially be ‘bought off’ to accept potentially inadequate climate policies despite the existential threat rising sea levels pose to such states.

Only a few days later, on 23 February 2010, Maldives Ambassador-designate informed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that if “small countries, like Maldives” receive “tangible assistance from the larger economies” then other states “would then come to realize that there are advantages to be gained by compliance” with climate change agreements^7. The Maldives Ambassador also pushed for $50 million in assistance for climate change “adaptation programs” such as harbour deepening and strengthening sea walls.

3. Spying and surveillance to gain advantages in prior climate discussions [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

The US National Security Agency intercepted 2008 communications between Japanese and German diplomats about upcoming 2009 Copenhagen climate talks. The German official acceded that pressure from the US would likely result in their country dropping their demand for 25 – 45% mid-term carbon dioxide reductions^8.

A 2010 leaked document from the UK’s communications spy agency GCHQ lays out why spying on climate change participants is a priority in order to know other countries’ negotiating positions and “red lines”^9. Following these revelations the UN General Secretary stated that an investigation was being opened into spying by the UK and other countries as “UN information should be protected in its entire confidentiality”^10

In fact, other leaked documents reveal a 2010 directive from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to obtain (ie steal) “biometric information” from top UN officials^11.

4. Geopolitics interfering with a science-based and cooperative approach to tackling climate change [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

In 2009, the US pressured then Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri who agreed to help prevent Iranian climate scientist Dr Mostafa Jafari from being elected as a co-chairman to a key working group at the IPCC. The cable, sent by then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recognised Jafari as a “highly-qualified scientist with research ties to the UK and Japan” but argued that having “US and Iranian co-chairs would be problematic and potentially at odds with overall US policy towards Iran”^12. Jafari was ultimately not elected as co-chair of the working group in question.

5. US uses its economic position to lobby/coerce countries to accept genetically modified foods. [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

How the US has behaved in relation to GMO foods provides insight into how it gets its way on environmental issues.

In 2007, US ambassador to France recommended the USG “calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the E.U.” in defence of GMO crops^13.

Food and Water Watch analysed 926 diplomatic cables, sent between 2005 and 2009, containing the words “biotech” or “GMO”. It concluded that the emails “reveal a concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology overseas, compel countries to import biotech crops and foods they do not want, and lobby foreign governments — especially in the developing world — to adopt policies to pave the way to cultivate biotech crops”^14.

6. Melting Arctic due to Global Warming seen as opportunity for oil drilling [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

Diplomatic cables from 2007 – 2010^15, ^16, ^17, published by Julian Assange in 2011^18, reveal that the melting ice in the Artic is seen as an opportunity to “carve up”^19 the Arctic – as the ex-Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller told US diplomats - for oil, gold and uranium extraction when it otherwise would not have been. Melting ice due to global warming is also seen as a positive for opening “new shipping routes”^20 according to Møller in a 2009 cable.

The cables also reflect that this ‘opportunity’ is also seen in the context of great power competition with NATO and Russia^21 worried that a military scramble in the Arctic may lead to war^22.

7. Middle-range powers also sought to water down climate accords [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

While it has been noted that US negotiators seek to limit the cuts and commitments amid climate negotiations, France was also revealed to have played a key role in lobbying against a legally binding treaty. According to a 2010 US embassy cable, “French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo told the [US] Ambassador that the key to advancing climate negotiations is to drop the notion of a legally binding treaty in favour of a system of national commitments”. The French Minister also argued that it would be down to a “small group” of 8 – 10 to negotiate the Copenhagen Accord^23.

8. ‘Environmental protection’ used to disguise ulterior motives [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

In 2009, The UK government proposed the establishment of a "marine park" or "reserve" in the Chagos Archipelago. The Chagos Islanders were forcibly removed by the British in the 1960s and 70s who then leased territory in Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands, to the US to establish a military base^25.

According to a cable revealed by WikiLeaks the true motive of establishing a marine reserve would be to ensure Chagos Islanders could not return to their homes. The “former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve”^26, according to discussions between senior UK foreign office officials and US diplomats. Meanwhile the reserve “would in no way impinge on [US Government] use of the [British Indian Oversees Territory], including Diego Garcia”^27.

In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the UK “is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible”^28. In reaching its decision, the ICJ made explicit reference to the aforementioned cables published by Assange^29. A vote in the UN General Assembly adopted the text of the ICJ decision and demanded that the islands be returned to Mauritius^30. A maritime law tribunal at the UN later also confirmed the ICJ decision and the UNGA vote^31. The UK continues to ignore the ICJ and UN decisions stating that the islands are required “for defence purposes” and that the archipelago has been under UK sovereignty since 1814^32.

9. Pollution is seen as a tradeable commodity [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

A 2007 confidential research document Air Pollution as a Commodity: Regulation of the Sulfur Dioxide Allowance Market^33, prepared for members of the US congress, reveals the extent to which air pollutants and greenhouse gases driving global warming are also seen as potential money-making opportunities.

There is no evidence that speculative or any other market trading in greenhouse gases will lead to an overall reduction in the substances, let alone enough to avoid climate catastrophe^34. Carbon markets continue to be discussed as key to addressing climate change despite continued failures of the markets to show results^35.

Extractive potentials noted above led US diplomats in 2007 to see “a unique opportunity to shape the circumstances in which an independent [Greenland] may emerge”^36.

10. China opposed 60 per cent carbon emission reduction target during Copenhagen 2010 talks [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

A Cable summarising discussion between US counsellor on Environment, Science, Technology, and Health Brent Christensen in Beijing and Shanghai Institutes of International Studies Vice President Chen Dongxiao was published by Assange^37.

The Europeans "played a lot of tricks" and took advantage of their "united front" to endeavour to push China to increase its carbon intensity reductions to an unacceptable level of 60 percent, Chen said.

Amid discussions in Copenhagen in 2010, the Chinese were reportedly angry when UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown “simply repeated European earlier demands on the 60 percent target”.

China's delegation at Copenhagen was seen to reflect “a lack of coordination between the Foreign Ministry and National Development and Reform Commission” as well as the fact that “China's internal decision-making process does not mesh with the fast-moving negotiating environment that characterized the Copenhagen discussions”.

Chinese saw Copenhagen as representing a “new dynamic between the developing countries (led by China), Europe and other developed countries, and the United States emerging”.

11. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

The TPP was negotiated in secret primarily from 2008 – 2015, the environmental chapter was published by Assange and contributed to growing pressure against ratification of the deal.

In addition to global warming and climate change the environmental chapter of the TPP covered conservation, biodiversity, indigenous knowledge and resources, over-fishing and illegal logging.

Notwithstanding rhetoric espousing the need to tackle climate change and ensure strong environmental protections more broadly, Assange revealed that the environmental section of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was “noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures”^38. ­ Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ publisher, described the environmental chapter as a “toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism”^39.

In Article SS15 of the environmental chapter^40 the parties merely agree to discuss ways to deal with climate^41 with no further elaboration^42, revealing global warming and climate change to be an afterthought or otherwise secondary to the primary objective of trade.

The TPP negotiations also show that environmental issues and policies are impacted by other policies and chapters such as rules pertaining to market access, tariffs, financial services and intellectual property.

Analysis of the TPP text in 2014 determined that the “most egregious threat” to the environment is the investment chapter, whereby signatories to the treaty agree in advance to dealing with disputes via investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. In essence, these corporate courtrooms allow businesses to sue governments if their environmental and health policies impact on current and future profits of the enterprise, rendering domestic laws and protections ultimately meaningless^43. According to Professor Jane Kelsey the “vast majority of investment arbitrations under similar agreements involve natural resources, especially mining, and have resulted in billions of dollars of damages against governments for measures designed to protect the environment from harm caused by foreign corporations”^44.

The TPP was on the verge of becoming law in the US encompassing nearly one third of global trade, the leaks stimulated substantial opposition to the bill and both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump said they would not continue with it once in office. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership evolved out of the failed TPP deal, with much of the same provisions^45, with many countries ratifying the deal though without the US as a signatory.

12. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), aka Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

Negotiated between 2013 – 2016, if ratified, the currently stalled TTIP would address policies including health, environment and finance between the EU and US46.

Leaked drafts of the TTIP dated April 2016 reveal47 apparent failure of EU negotiators to remain committed to their pledge of tackling global warming and maintaining the independence of EU environmental protections.

The now-notorious ISDS mechanisms from TPP are also introduced via TTIP, which would allow corporations to sue governments for loss of profits allegedly resulting from health, safety and environmental protection laws.

13. Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

The TiSA is a proposed agreement between 23 parties including the EU, UK and US negotiated from 2013 to 2016^48.

It was heavily criticised, following publication by Assange of analysis of various of its provisions^49, for seeking to lock-in privatisation of public services (including healthcare) and guaranteeing market access for multinationals^50.

Despite its focus, TiSA still covers environmental policies as it seeks to lower barriers to international trade in services, including environmental protections, according to analysis by Friends of the Earth^51.

Further analysis^52 of a proposed “Energy Related Services Annex” shows that^53 :

TiSA would undermine the ability of regulators to distinguish between technology regardless of whether it is used for solar, nuclear, wind, coal, geothermal or fracking.

TiSA would undermine or eliminate a country’s ability to ensure control over and benefit of their natural resources by requiring free markets for foreign suppliers of energy related services.

Undermines climate change and other environmental policies by restricting governments from regulating energy markets, companies, and industry infrastructure.

14. Iraq’s city of Basra heavily contaminated by war, oil and radioactive weaponry [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

A top US diplomat as early as June 2006 wrote a succinct yet detailed report/diplomatic cable revealing the extent to which the water supply and surrounding environment in Basra had been heavily contaminated by oil, toxic and radioactive materials^54.

The cable, revealed by Assange as part of its Cablegate releases, describe the contamination as resulting largely from “25 years of war” in Iraq, all of which the US and UK were both directly and indirectly implicated in.

An estimated 70% of rural inhabitants and 40% of city-dwellers have no access to running water, with much of the water that is available being too contaminated to drink.

UN sanctions circa 1990s (which were pushed through by the US and UK governments) “caused a severe shortage of parts to maintain the oil industry” resulting in “an increased number of oil spills and leaks” which were “worsened because of a lack of technology for leak detection and the disposal of oil-contaminated water in shallow aquifers or land”, according to the cable.

“Large and widespread quantities of military debris” such as unexploded ordinance (ie explosives) and “toxic and material such as depleted uranium” are scattered in the area without any monitoring, the cable notes. The cable also notes that “it is believed” that “significant quantities of depleted uranium were used in Basrah during the 1991 Gulf War” by the US.

The cable, written by Principal Officer at the Regional US Embassy Office in Basrah Ken Gross, ominously and presciently warns that there is “very little attention being paid to the serious environmental issues facing Basrah today that could cause devastating results in the near future.”

Studies published by Iraqi experts showed that “cases of leukemia in children in Basra increased by 60 percent between 1990 and 1997, and that the number of children born with severe birth defects increased by a factor of three”, with the research pointing to the use of “depleted uranium” by the US^55, ^56.

15. Dirty war for uranium and mineral rights in the Central African Republic (CAR) [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

In February 2016, Assange published^57 documents exposing serious corruption and environmental degradation in the Central African Republic as a result of apparently unlawful and destructive policies of extractive multinational corporations.

Included among the revelations was:

Radioactive contamination (up to 30 times the natural radioactivity in the zone) left by French nuclear waste giant AREVA^58, which failed to invest in the country as it had promised and with “neocolonial” conditions of exploitation of its mines.

Bribery of local officials and legal violations by nearly two dozen mining companies^59.

A fake UN-backed organisation (the World Sports Alliance)^60 which undertook to establish numerous infrastructure obligations including creation of a system of garbage disposal, electricity production, 4 sport centres and 12 youth centres none of which ever materialised. The WSA was revealed to be a front organisation which facilitated the illicit acquisition of mineral resources belonging to the CAR public.

16. Suppressed Minton report on Trafigura toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast [Julian Assange is being formally extradited over these publications]

In September 2009, Assange published an internal study known as the “Minton report” detailing an incredibly serious toxic waste dumping incident which effected up to 108,000 people in the Ivory Coast, according to a UN report^61.

Oil and commodity trader Trafigura, which dumped the toxic waste, commissioned the report. But the multinational corporation successfully obtained a ‘gag’ order from a UK High Court judge. The order was so strict that it prevented any person or news outlet served with the ‘gag’ order or even aware of its existence, from reporting any aspect of the incident, its link to Trafigura, or even the exitance of the order itself.

The ‘gag’ order, known as a ‘super injunction’ because, unlike with most injunctions, in this case news outlets were not permitted to even disclose its existence, prevented anyone from sharing the WikiLeaks’ link to the “Minton report”.

Assange also revealed the court order itself^62.

After five weeks, the highly controversial super-injunction - which Trafigura’s lawyers argued prevented anyone even from reporting on a Parliamentary question raised about the incident^63 by a member of parliament– was discharged by the company following growing criticism and outrage by politicians, press and civil society organisations^64.

WikiLeaks was launched in 2007 as a not-for-profit news organisation. It trailblazed by offering a means for whistblowers the world over to anonymously leak information like never before. The methods for securely receiving leaks first established by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have now become standard for many elite news organisations.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ founder and publisher, came to global attention for his role in publishing what are known as the Afghanistan diaries, Iraq War logs, Guantanamo Bay detainee files and US diplomatic cables. These documents, published from 2009 -2011, exposed war crimes, crimes against humanity and other wrongdoing by the US and allied governments.

The US is seeking the extradition of Julian so that he can be tried before a jury stacked with current or former members of the national security state or their family members in the Eastern District of Virginia, less than 20km from the CIA’s headquarters. A court with a near 100% conviction rate. The charges are almost entirely under the archaic 1917 Espionage Act, which does not permit any public interest defence for journalists, publishers or whistleblowers. Prosecution of a publisher under this law is unprecedented in US history.

Julian faces a 175 years prison sentence if extradited to the US.

In 2013, the Washington Post reported that officials in the US Department of Justice concluded that there was no way to prosecute Julian without opening the door to prosecutions against establishment outlets such as the Post, New York Times and The Guardian for publishing leaked information. Yet, Donald Trump’s administration secured a deal with a newly elected Ecuadorian government to unlawfully renege on its grant of asylum to the award-winning publisher. After nearly two years, a British judge determined in January 2021 that extradition would be “oppressive” and would result in his death. However just two days before Trump left ofice the US appealed this decision. The latest court hearings were held on October 27-28, just weeks after bombshell revelations that the CIA planned to assassinate Assange were revealed.

Dozens of press and civil liberties organisations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, have called for the charges to be dropped describing them as an afront to a free press and basic democratic norms. Over 167 notable governmental figures, including current and former heads of state oppose the charges. As have over 189 jurists, lawyers, academics and lawyers’ associations. The Council of Europe’s parliamentary arm and its human rights Commissioner condemning the “broad and vague nature of the allegations” against Julian which “concern activities at the core of investigative journalism”.

Take Action!

Write to your representatives and ask them to demand that the charges be dropped.

Supporters can also donate to Julian’s legal defence https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/assangeappeal/ or https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate

Finally, please spread the word about all of the good that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have done and his persecution.

Inform yourself and search the WikiLeaks Archive: https://wikileaks.org

Defend a free press, defend democracy, *defend Julian Assange!*

1. https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Draft_Copenhagen_climate_change_agreement,_8_Dec_2009
2. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
3. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord
4. https://wikileaks.org/nsa-un/intercepts/#intercept2
5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/249182
6. https://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/249185
7. https://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/251174
8. https://wikileaks.org/nsa-un/intercepts/#intercept2
9. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1350180/20110405-cancun-amp-reqs-redacted-small2.pdf
10. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/03/un-investigate-wikileaks-claims-uk-spies-infiltrated-climate-talks
11. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE80163_a.html#efmJZLJeM
12. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-rajenendra-pachauri-iran-un-climate
13. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html
14. https://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/Biotech_Report_EU.pdf
15. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2011/05/21/wikileaks-battle-carve-arctic
16. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12052011/drilling-arctic-oil-clinton-polar-summit-wikileaks/
17. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/new-wikileaks-revelations-shed-light-on-arctic-oil-carve-up/
18. https://web.archive.org/web/20110527201551/https://wikileaks.org/reldate/2011-05-12_0.html
19. http://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/06/08COPENHAGEN322.html
20. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE27305_a.html
21. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/new-wikileaks-revelations-shed-light-on-arctic-oil-carve-up/
22. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2011/05/21/wikileaks-battle-carve-arctic
23. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10PARIS183_a.html
24. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal
25. http://johnpilger.com/videos/stealing-a-nation
26. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09LONDON1156_a.html
27. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09LONDON1156_a.html
28. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/169
29. https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/169/169-20190225-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf, see paragraphs 130 & 131
30. https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12146.doc.htm
31. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-55848126
32. Ibid
33. https://file.wikileaks.org/file/crs/RL34235.pdf
34. https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2016/02/Pearse-Boehm-Ten-Reasons-carbon-markets-will-not-bring-about-radical-emisison-reductions.pdf
35. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16122019/cop25-carbon-markets-un-climate-talks-fail-madrid-kyoto-protocol/
36. https://web.archive.org/web/20110527201551/https://wikileaks.org/reldate/2011-05-12_0.html
37. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10SHANGHAI18_a.html
38. https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/pressrelease.html
39. https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/pressrelease.html
40. https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/#trade_and_climate
41. https://web.archive.org/web/20140117080326/https://wikileaks.org/tppa-environment-chapter.html
42. https://defenders.org/newsroom/trans-pacific-partnership-falls-short-wildlife
43. https://truthout.org/articles/wikileaks-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-environment-chapter-toothless-public-relations-exercise/
44. https://web.archive.org/web/20140117080326/https://wikileaks.org/tppa-environment-chapter.html
45. https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cptpp-ptpgp/final_ea-ee_finale.aspx?lang=eng
46. https://www.citizen.org/article/ttip/
47. https://wikileaks.org/ttip/
48. https://www.tjm.org.uk/trade-deals/trade-in-services-agreement
49. https://wikileaks.org/tisa/releases/
50. https://www.tjm.org.uk/trade-deals/trade-in-services-agreement
51. https://wikileaks.org/tisa/analysis/Analysis-of-201412_Annex-on-Environmental-Services/
52. https://wikileaks.org/tisa/analysis/Analysis-of-201412_Annex-on-Energy-Related-Services-Proposal-QA/page-10/#pagination
53. https://wikileaks.org/tisa/analysis/Analysis-of-201412_Annex-on-Energy-Related-Services-Proposal-QA/Analysis-of-201412_Annex-on-Energy-Related-Services-Proposal-QA.pdf
54. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BASRAH107_a.html
55. https://thebulletin.org/2020/07/war-and-the-environment/
56. https://ewb-iq.com/depleted-uranium/
57. https://wikileaks.org/car-mining/index.html
58. https://wikileaks.org/car-mining/index.html#areva
59. https://wikileaks.org/car-mining/index.html#bonus
60. https://wikileaks.org/car-mining/index.html#wsa
61. https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations,_14_Sep_2006
62. https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report_secret_injunction_gagging_The_Guardian_on_Trafigura,_11_Sep_2009
63. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament
64. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/17/trafigura-minton-report-revealed