• Syria crisis: evidence of 'industrial-scale killing' by regime spurs call for war crimes charges
• Senior war crimes prosecutors say photographs and documents provide 'clear evidence' of systematic killing of 11,000 detainees

Syrian government officials could face war crimes charges in the light of a huge cache of evidence smuggled out of the country showing the "systematic killing" of about 11,000 detainees, according to three eminent international lawyers.

The three, former prosecutors at the criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone, examined thousands of Syrian government photographs and files recording deaths in the custody of regime security forces from March 2011 to last August.

Most of the victims were young men and many corpses were emaciated, bloodstained and bore signs of torture. Some had no eyes; others showed signs of strangulation or electrocution.

The UN and independent human rights groups have documented abuses by both Bashar al-Assad's government and rebels, but experts say this evidence is more detailed and on a far larger scale than anything else that has yet emerged from the 34-month crisis.

Refiners in Asia, Europe and Russia are shipping around half a million tonnes of heating oil and diesel to the United States this month after bitterly cold weather sharply reduced oil stocks there.

At least a dozen tankers have been booked so far in January to ship gasoil and diesel to the U.S. East Coast, according to traders and shipping data.

The majority of the tankers, or around 300,000 tonnes of oil product, originated from the Baltic Sea and Black Sea.

One tanker, the 100,000-tonne Torm Valborg, was chartered by Reliance , which operates the world's biggest refining complex in western India.

Around three medium-range tankers were booked from Europe on the west-bound transatlantic route, traders said.

Also, around five cargoes of jet fuel heading from the Middle East and Asia to Europe were diverted to the United States in recent days, with several likely to discharge in Florida, traders said.

"U.S. East Coast heating oil stocks are low at the commercial level and are being reduced at the consumer level. That market should remain tight and can't get much incremental supply from the U.S. Gulf due to the Jones Act restricting transport between the two regions by vessel," said Olivier Jakob, analyst at Zug, Switzerland-based Petromatrix.

In response to political scandal and public outrage, official Washington repeatedly uses the same well-worn tactic. It is the one that has been hauled out over decades in response to many of America's most significant political scandals. Predictably, it is the same one that shaped President Obama's much-heralded Friday speech to announce his proposals for "reforming" the National Security Agency in the wake of seven months of intense worldwide controversy.

The crux of this tactic is that US political leaders pretend to validate and even channel public anger by acknowledging that there are "serious questions that have been raised". They vow changes to fix the system and ensure these problems never happen again. And they then set out, with their actions, to do exactly the opposite: to make the system prettier and more politically palatable with empty, cosmetic "reforms" so as to placate public anger while leaving the system fundamentally unchanged, even more immune than before to serious challenge.

This scam has been so frequently used that it is now easily recognizable. In the mid-1970s, the Senate uncovered surveillance abuses that had been ongoing for decades, generating widespread public fury. In response, the US Congress enacted a new law (Fisa) which featured two primary "safeguards": a requirement of judicial review for any domestic surveillance, and newly created committees to ensure legal compliance by the intelligence community.

But the new court was designed to ensure that all of the government's requests were approved: it met in secret, only the government's lawyers could attend, it was staffed with the most pro-government judges, and it was even housed in the executive branch. As planned, the court over the next 30 years virtually never said no to the government.

Identically, the most devoted and slavish loyalists of the National Security State were repeatedly installed as the committee's heads, currently in the form of NSA cheerleaders Democrat Dianne Feinstein in the Senate and Republican Mike Rogers in the House. As the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza put it in a December 2013 article on the joke of Congressional oversight, the committees "more often treat ... senior intelligence officials like matinee idols".

Constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira sits down with Gary Franchi and answers the question... Has the US Government "become destructive of these ends?"

The latest wave of revelations coming whistleblower like Edward Snowden has divided the people from the government like never before. The Administration is losing not just popular support among Americans, but is now facing legal battles.


American courts have traditionally sided with federal agencies when they claim an action is needed in the name of national security. However, privacy advocates are now launching statewide initiatives and votes that could put a damper on surveillance programs. For the first time, privacy advocates are going on the legal offensive against the intelligence community.

The largest potential change could come from California. There, lawmakers have introduced the Fourth Amendment Protection Act. This will forbid the state from supporting widespread domestic spying. This could include shutting off water and electric supplies to federal buildings.

For decades, it has been rumored the United States government was secretly sponsoring the smuggling of cocaine into the country. Federal officials have long denied such speculation, pointing out the billions of dollars spent intercepting drugs. Newly released documents, and testimony from Justice Department and DEA officials now show the stories of government running cocaine are true.


An investigation conducted in Mexico found the American government allowed that country's largest drug cartel, Sinaloa, to operate without fear of persecution. That groups is estimated to be responsible for 80 percent of the cocaine coming into the country through Chicago. In exchange, the leaders of Sinaloa provided the DEA information on rival gangs.

Claiming to have vaulted France and Italy in terms of gold reserves, China has announced that they have expanded their gold reserves by 76 %, thus becoming 3rd largest gold reserves in the world. According to the voluntary reporting system of IMF which monitors international gold reserves, China's gold reserve have increased from the last reported holdings of 1,054 Tons in 2009, April to 2,710 metric tons currently.

China claims to have surged past Italy which has current holdings of 2,451.8 tons of gold reserves followed by France having 2,435.4 tons. The accurate reports released by the World Gold Council Data has placed US at the first position of world ranking for holding largest gold reserves which is 8,133.5 tons. The percentage of foreign reserve in gold in US is 75.1 %. Germany holds the second position with 3,391.3 tons of gold reserves.

In order to acquire the position, the Central Bank of China had added 622 tons of gold last year which was a massive boosting from the 380 tons of 2012 estimate. China had surged several nations to become the largest producer of gold. It has boosted its gold reserve without purchasing gold from global bullion market. While most of the major gold producing nations are reporting the decline of production, China remains to increase the production.

Iran, Israel, Syria United, For Almost A Decade, in Support of United Nations Anti-Nazi Resolution; United States, For Almost a Decade, Opposed To This Resolution

On November 15, 2013, the United Nations Third Committee adopted Resolution A/c.3/68/L.65/Rev.1, on the Elimination of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.
The Resolution is entitled:

COMBATING GLORIFICATION OF NAZISM AND OTHER PRACTICES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FUELLING CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE.'

This resolution is unique within the United Nations because it has united Iran, Israel and Syria, together with 123 other member States, in support of this resolution, repeatedly, year after year for almost a decade, while this same resolution, combating the resurgence of Nazism, has been consistently opposed by the United States, almost in isolation, during the same years.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether police can search an arrested criminal suspect's cell phone without a warrant in two cases that showcase how the courts are wrestling to keep up with rapid technological advances.

Taking up cases from California and Massachusetts arising from criminal prosecutions that used evidence obtained without a warrant, the high court will wade into how to apply older court precedent, which allows police to search items carried by a defendant at the time of arrest, to cell phones.

Cell phones have evolved from devices used exclusively to make calls into gadgets that now contain a bounty of personal information about the owner.

The legal question before the justices is whether a search for such information after a defendant is arrested violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bans unreasonable searches. The outcome would determine whether prosecutors in such circumstances could submit evidence gleaned from cell phones in court.

Digital rights activists have sounded the alarm about the amount of personal data the government can now easily access, not just in the criminal context, but also in relation to national security surveillance programs.

President Barack Obama on Friday announced plans to rein in the vast collection of Americans' phone data in a series of limited reforms prompted by disclosures by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about the sweep of U.S. eavesdropping activities.

Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher, who represents one of the defendants, said in court papers that it was important for the high court to decide the issue.

"All governments are run by liars." - Independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone

President Obama has managed, with singular assistance from Congress and the courts, to mangle the Constitution through repeated abuses, attacks and evasions.

This is nothing new, as I've documented in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. However, with his recent speech on the National Security Agency - a heady cocktail of lies, obfuscations, contradictions and Orwellian doublespeak - Obama has also managed to pervert and propagandize our nation's history, starting with Paul Revere and the Sons of Liberty, likening their efforts to secure our freedoms to NSA phone surveillance.

Frankly, George Orwell's Winston Smith, rewriting news stories for Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth, couldn't have done a better job of revising history to suit the party line.

While it didn't bode well for what was to follow, here's how Obama opened his speech:

"At the dawn of our Republic, a small, secret surveillance committee borne out of the 'The Sons of Liberty' was established in Boston. And the group's members included Paul Revere. At night, they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the British were preparing raids against America's early Patriots. Throughout American history, intelligence has helped secure our country and our freedoms."

Obama's inference is clear: rather than condemning the NSA for encroaching on our privacy rights, we should be commending them for helping to "secure our country and our freedoms." Never mind that the Sons of Liberty were actually working against the British government, to undermine what they perceived as a repressive regime guilty of perpetrating a host of abuses against the colonists.

After such a 1984-esque send-up, it doesn't even really matter what else Obama had to say in his speech about NSA reforms and the like. Rest assured, it was largely a pack of lies. Mind you, Obama said it eloquently enough and interspersed it with all the appropriately glib patriotic remarks about individual freedom and the need to defend the Constitution and securing the life of our nation while preserving our liberties. After all, Obama has proven to be very good at saying one thing and doing another, whether it's insisting that "you can keep your health care plan," that he'll close Guantanamo, or that his administration's controversial drone strikes only target terrorists and not civilians.