Assad’s Secular Socialist Syria

 Ali.mostaque

And so “al-CIA-duh” rebels posing as ardent righteous patriots commit terrorism in Syria from the safe haven of Doenme Turkey. They are backed by NATO forces who direct them, as they did in Libya recently.

The JEWSA directed objective is to install a militant Wahabi Sunni based “al-CIA-duh” type of government in Damascus, as they are doing in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. This is a long PROCESS where by many Middle-East countries will have “al-CIA-duh’ affiliated governments, leaving Israel as the only pure Democracy………remember this is a LONG PROCESS….planned many years ago. Thereafter these “al-CIA-duh” run states will have to be attacked directly by USA/NATO forces to “protect” Israel……..Twisted logic? Not really, if you are dreaming of Avahat Erezt Israel.

In Syria ethnicity cannot be used to divide and rule the country, as in Libya (dark skinned Libyans against light skinned Libyans….Eastern Libyan tribal groups verses Western Libyans), and so religion will be used.

In Syria there are Sunni Muslims, Alawite Muslims (branch of Shia Islam…..hence why Syria has close relations with Shia Iran, and Shia Hezbollah), Christians and Druze.

Baathist Socialism under the Assad’s have suppressed any religious extremism……indeed in Homs and Hama in 1982, when Western funded Muslim Brotherhood members attempted an uprising they were brutally suppressed, resulting in the death of 20–30,000 people in those two cities. Assad in that sense has a long way to go, before he surpasses his fathers record.

The elite around Assad are Alawite and are a minority propagated by the colonial French originally.

Should Bashar al-Assad lose to “al-CIA-duh” backed by NATO/USA power, then it will be a catastrophe for the country in the manner of Iraq after the USA occupied the country, viciously, maliciously and criminally. Targeted groups for massacre would be:

(i) Ba-athist members of the ruling party, tens of thousands of men and women, educated, middle class and skilled. This is what happened in Iraq, under American control.

(ii) Syrian Christians, among the oldest Christian groups……in the manner of Iraq where the country’s once proud one million Christian community has been decimated into forced exile all over the world…..whilst the country was under USA control. “al-CIA-duh” will ensure their cleansing from Syria, where they have lived for 2000 years.

The Assyrians/Syriacs are significant ethnic Christian minorities that mainly live in the north and northeast (al-Qamishli, al-Hasakah) and number around 877,000–1,200,000 in Syria.

Armenians number approximately 190,000. Syria holds the 7th largest Armenian population in the world.

(iii) The next targeted group will obviously be the Alawites, ALL 3.5 million of them. They will not be tolerated in the new “al-CIA-duh” Salafist Wahabi Sunni Muslim Brotherhood Syria. No compromise for them.

(iv) The next targeted group will be the secular middle class intellectuals, and technocratic class…..many of them still believe in Socialism, many do not. But the main thing is they do not believe in theocratic states. As with Mullah Iran, with its 5 million Iranian emigres, and the destroyed technocratic class of Iraq, the same will be repeated in Syria…..GUARANTEED.

(v) Then finally the Druze will be targeted, since they are not considered Muslims.

Druze number around 700,000, and concentrate mainly in the southern area of Jabal al-Druze.

This millenia’s old cosmopolitan society will be uprooted and destroyed to satisfy the lust for empire of the Jew, through the fifth column front of “al-CIA-duh” and criminal NATO/USA forces.

A lot more good people will die in Syria if the “al-CIA-duh” come to power through the backing of NATO/USA.

Remember only 10,000 mostly Iraqi soldiers died when the USA invaded Iraq in 2003, BUT under 8 years of occupation by the USA with the arrival of “al-CIA-duh” in the scene, allegedly 1.5 million people have died, and 5 million have become internal and external exiles in Iraq.

Despite the hysteria of the BBC, very few people died in the Iranian uprising of 1978-79 backed by the USA/UK…..a few hundred at most. Since 1979, maybe 1 million Iranians have died through unnecessary wars, internal political wars, and the application of very harsh theocratic laws in the country. 5 million good educated skilled Iranians have elected to leave their country.

I suppose its all too obvious a point, but Bashar al-Assad must fight fight fight for his country, and for his people. ……….because what will come under “al-CIA-duh” will be catastrophic for the country. Better to lose 5,000—50,000 people battling “al-CIA-duh” and NATO-USA forces NOW, then losing 500,000–5,000,000 LATER under the control of “al-CIA-duh” with Israeli, American and NATO forces crawling ALL over the country in support of the “al-CIA-duh” regime (Libya).

“al-CIA-duh” in power in Damascus will be a perfect foil for repeated Israeli raids into the country in the manner of Hezbollah Lebanon, and Hamas Gaza.

Syria must find clear credible allies such as Russia, Iran and China.

Syria needs to enter into secret agreements where by its embargoed oil is sold via Russia and Iran……400,000 barrels is but a drop in the international petroleum market but its revenue will be a Godsend to the Assad regime.

If USA/NATO forces can be stationed near Syria in Doenme Turkey, why can’t Russia and Iran station thousands of troops supporting the Syrian army, fighting ‘al-CIA-duh”?

Can Syrian intelligence infiltrate, and follow rebel forces into Turkey, Lebanon? How difficult can it be? Can Kurdish groups be trained to attack Turkey?

In all events Bashar al-Assad should not think of exiling himself to the Gulf. He must serve his country’s people against the International criminals and terrorists.

Soros Site Blends Kyrgyz News Item, CENTCOM Misinformation and Asia Times Misdirection In Obvious Psyop

[The following disinformation piece follows a 1, 2, 3 formula--first the facts, followed by the outright lies, finished with speculation about the original facts obscured by the lies.  CentralAsiaOnline is a CENTCOM disinformation site.  Any news derived from it is tainted and misleading.  Turkey is an Imperial proxy.   By crediting the Turkish military with building the NATO Special Forces Training Center at Batken, instead of correctly labeling it a NATO facility, it gives substance to the lie that Kyrgyzstan has the choice of a third direction, between Russia and the US.]

Turkey Promises To Boost Military Aid To Kyrgyzstan

by Joshua Kucera

press office of the Presidency of Turkey

President Almazbek Atambayev meets his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gul, in Ankara.

Kyrgyzstan President Almazbek Atambayev has made his first foreign trip since becoming president, to Turkey. And while trade and aid seemed to top the agenda, the two sides also agreed to increase military cooperation, reports 24.kg:

Turkey will assist Kyrgyzstan in strengthening of Defense Ministry, Security Council and Frontier Service. It was announced by Foreign Affairs Minister Ruslan Kazakbaev during the official visit of President Almazbek Atambayev to Turkey.

According him on bilateral negotiations the issues of security, fighting against international terrorism, drug trafficking and illegal migration, strengthening of Defense Ministry, Frontier Service and law machinery,” said Ruslan Kazakbaev.

As the minister noted the issue of quota increasing for students, officers and young diplomats wishing to study in Turkey was also discussed. “Turkish part is going to support our request,” added the Minister.

And Central Asia Online reports, citing a Kyrgyzstan defense ministry statement, that Turkey will help build a military school in Osh and build up the country’s defense industry:

“One of the high-priority issues for Kyrgyzstan is construction of an Armed Forces Military Institute in Osh,” said Kyrgyz Defence Minister Taalaybek Omuraliyev. “Its creation would permit us to train highly skilled officers for the Armed Forces and other Kyrgyz military forces.”

“Another important direction that we’d like to develop is the opening of joint defence industry factories,” he said. “We could foresee the conduct of joint tactical counter-terrorism exercises in Kyrgyzstan and Turkey.”

A pseudonymed analyst writing in Asia Times suggests that the visit was an effort by Atambayev to add more vectors to his country’s foreign policy:

Turkey’s foremost priority and preoccupation for the past 40 years or so has been integration into the European Union, so Ankara’s periodic surges of interest in other regions, including Central Asia, have waxed and waned based on the progress or lack of thereof in its talks with the EU.

This time, the new-found love between Kyrgyzstan and Turkey seems to suggest that it is not Turkey that is trying to reengage its Central Asian cousin more strongly; rather, President Atambayev is attempting to diversify Kyrgyzstan’s foreign policy away from superpowers such as Russia, the United States and China and thus lessen his country’s heavy dependence on them. Cultivating the so-called second-tier countries like Turkey may look a better bet, as they emerge as strong economies with increasing technological and investment potential.

The building in Osh seems particularly noteworthy. Kyrgyzstan has tried, and seems to have failed, to interest both the U.S. and Russia in creating military infrastructure in the southern part of the country.  [Both countries still have plans to build a new center at Batken.] Bishkek’s interest, in addition to the overt one of improving the training of its military, appears to be to create some international stake in southern Kyrgyzstan, so that if Uzbekistan (as Bishkek fears) invades, Kyrgyzstan will have some immediate international support. So is Turkey willing to play this role?

NATO, Russia To Continue On Same Path To New World Order

NATO, Russia approve military cooperation plan for 2012

Nikolai Makarov (RIA Novosti / Michail Klimentyev)

 

Although disagreements remain between Russia and NATO over the US missile defense project which Russia has called a threat to its national security, the two sides will continue working together in 2012.

Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov praised Russia-NATO achievements in 2011, which he said provided the basis for further cooperation in 2012.

“On the whole, we have a positive impression from Russia-NATO military cooperation in 2011,” Makarov told reporters following a meeting with NATO colleagues at the Russia-NATO Council in Brussels on Thursday. “Thus, a plan of military cooperation (between Russia and NATO) for 2012 has been approved.”

Russia’s top military official picked out some of last year’s high points in Russia’s partnership with NATO.

“Vigilant Skies and Bold Monarch were the most significant joint exercises in 2011,” Makarov noted. “We also had useful contacts in military medicine, logistics, disarming of handmade bombs and personnel  training.” 

Russia’s highest-ranking military official also mentioned the “joint combating of pirates off the Horn of Africa,” which he said is now entering “a new phase.”

Finally, Makarov discussed the situation in Afghanistan, where Russia and NATO are “intensifying their interaction” in the fight against dire local threats including, but not limited to, terrorism and drug trafficking.

The Chief of General Staff stressed that what happens in Afghanistan, where Allied forces have been fighting a 10-year uphill war against Taliban forces, has a “direct influence on security along the Russian border and worries our allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).”

Given the urgency of the situation, Russia will continue to “render assistance to the peacekeepers in Afghanistan, primarily with the transit of cargo,” he said.

Robert Bridge, RT

Libyan Islamists Demand Sharia-Based Laws, But Whose “Sharia”?

Islamists Demand Sharia-Based Laws in Libya

Koran. Archive

© RIA Novosti. Maxim Bogodvid

CAIRO, January 21 (RIA Novosti)

Over 3,000 Libyans in Benghazi rallied on Saturday to demand that Sharia law be the main source of the country’s legislation, Al Arabiya reported.

“The protesters are calling for the Sharia law as the source to be clearly stated in the constitution, Ghaith al-Fakhri, a Libyan Islamist told the AFP.

The Islamists gathered on the central square in Benghazi, a stronghold city of Libya’s revolution, waved copies of the Koran and chanted Islamic slogans.

Apart from Benghazi, hundreds of people staged a rally on the Tripoli’s main Algeria Square in a protest against secular laws, Al Arabiya said.

They burned copies of the “Green Book,” a handbook on politics, economics and everyday life, written by the late Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi who was killed in October near his hometown of Sirte after being captured by then opposition forces.

“We want to run our life according to Islamic principles, be it the economy, politics or our relations with other countries,” Abdul Basit Ghuwaila, a preacher at a Tripoli mosque told Al Arabiya. “Most people think Islam is just about harsh penalties.”

The Islamists were opposed by a group of protesters who participate in a month-long sit-in for a secular state.

“We all want Sharia, but not the one they’re talking about, the one that rejects women,” said Nour al-Zintani, a female participant of the sit-in. “We want a moderate Islam that gives women their rights.”

Libya saw almost ten months of fierce fighting before the National Transitional Council (NTC) established control over the country’s territory.

In late October the NTC head, Mustafa Abdel Jalil said that the Islamic Sharia law will be the basis for the laws in the newly liberated Libya and any existing laws that contradict it will be abolished.

SOCOM’s War To Militarize Thought Itself

Special Forces Get Social in New Psychological Operation Plan

• By Noah Shachtman
• Email Author

Illustration: Sony

The elite forces of the U.S. military think they’ve found a new way to sway opinion in the Pentagon’s preferred directions: a voice-based social networking app that’s a cross between talk radio and Twitter.

The American intelligence and defense communities have become enthralled by the possibilities of social media. They’re looking to use the networks to forecast political unrest, spread friendly messages, spot emerging terror groups — and even predict the next natural disaster. But these efforts have generally tried to leverage existing, and already popular, civilian social networks.

A new project from U.S. Special Operations Command, on the other hand, looks to create something brand new: a “user-generated social media radio application powered by the human voice, available on the PC, Mac, Android, iPhone, and Nokia smart phones, that lets users share their thoughts and experiences.” And this voice-activated SOCOM network is being billed explicitly as a tool for “military information support operations” — shaping public attitudes. That’s what the Pentagon used to call “psychological operations.”

Earlier this month, SOCOM released its wishlist for technologies it would like in the new year. Items included chemical dyes to track the unsuspecting; hackers’ tools for “data infiltration and exfiltration”; and heap of gadgets to move hearts and minds — including this social media app.

“The command is investigating ideas and technologies that can replace traditional methods of information dissemination like face-to-face or handing out leaflets,” SOCOM spokesperson Col. Edward “Tim” Nye tells Danger Room. “We are looking at ways to get instantaneous feedback from television and radio broadcasts in a virtual world. We are looking for ways to allow audiences to comment or interact with the U.S. government in an environment that ranges from limited individual engagement to a much larger audience. We are soliciting ideas that capitalize on the innovative technologies that incorporate the newest dissemination methods through computers and smart phones.”

When asked if people should trust this app, given that’s its a tool for psychological operators, Nye answered, “That question of trust is no different for this potential dissemination method than any other dissemination method.”

On the network — which SOCOM sees as almost as a friends-enabled, military-grade Shoutcast — “users should be able to make their own long-form radio shows, by dialing in with a free phone number. This should allow a person’s interest in sports, music, news, culture to be aired. Users are to be kept entertained while sharing the things that matter to them the most.”

“A cellular device should serve as a broadcast tower, a DJ/moderator booth, and a radio receiver,” the SOCOM call request for proposals adds. “Individuals can host their own call-in show using industry best practices or just listen in to others expressing their opinions freely without the fear of traceability. Participants must feel the available content is powerful, addictive, informative, and capturing social experience through their collective insight, passion, and involvement.”

SOCOM was unable to respond for calls to comment on this story. But, in some ways, the command appears to be following the lead of the U.S. State Department, which years ago declared that ”the very existence of social networks is a net good” — and distributed tools to promote the existence of those networks. The idea was that open communication would inevitably lead to more democratic sentiment, which would inevitably redound to America’s benefit. (Theorists like Evgeny Morozov, in contrast, have argued digital communication is easier to track and trace — which makes the networks ideal tools for social control.)

And since America’s special operations forces tend to work in parts of the world where the technological infrastructure is the most threadbare, SOCOM is looking to buy up a heap of “air-droppable scatterable electronic media” that it can litter over a remote battlefield. Those gadgets include “AM/FM broadcast transmitters; miniaturized loudspeakers; entertainment devices; game device technologies; [and] greeting cards.”

That’s right, greeting cards. American military’s psychological operators may be looking at new ways to persuade. But that doesn’t mean they’re giving up the tried and true.

Internet opponents of SOPA and PIPA scored a major victory Friday.

SOPA, PIPA Controversy: Both Bills Pulled from Calendar in U.S. Congress

Internet opponents of SOPA and PIPA scored a major victory Friday.

By DAVID ZIELENZIGER

Opponents of two controversial Internet control laws, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) scored a partial gain Friday when a vote on PIPA was suddenly scrubbed.

Then the sponsor of the SOPA bill withdrew it, citing the need for “wider agreement.” The moves struck a major blow against both bills, which now appear beyond salvation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced he would scratch a preliminary vote on PIPA next Tuesday, without comment. Shortly afterwards, House JudiciaryCommittee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) announced he was withdrawing his SOPA law “until there is wider agreement on a solution.”

Both moves clearly alluded to Wednesday’s global protest of the laws staged by the technology community, headed by Wikipedia, Google, Reddit and more than 240 websites coordinated in part by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Reid’s postponement announced alluded to “recent events,” which included loss of several key Republican backers including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.).

Separately, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who introduced his rival Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN), which is backed by the Internet groups as well as the Consumer Electronics Association, claimed partial victory Friday.

“Postponing the Senate vote removes the imminent threat to the Internet but it’s not over yet,” Issa said. He praised the “intense popular effort to stop SOPA and PIPA” that motivated activists.

OPEN’s Senate sponsor is Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who blocked a vote on PIPA throughout 2011 despite its having been written by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

Also claiming a win was the Progessive Change Campaign Committee, which issued a warning: “Any Democrat or Republican who tries to resurrect this bill will be setting themselevs up to face massive accountability at the hands of voters.”

The original bills to deter piracy of copyrighted materials are backed by publishers and Hollywood studios such as Viacom, News Corp. and Walt Disney, concerned about downloading and sales of their materials. SOPA and PIPA contain provisions that could see federal judges closing websites and ordering arrests without trials.

The technology community, concerned about censorship as well as jobs created by web-based sites and the surge in e-commerce, mounted its anti-SOPA and PIPA campaign to forestall what looked like near-certain acceptance.

Last weekend, President Obama issued a statement cautioning against the bills as going too far.

On both sides, the allies make for political strange bedfellows. SOPA originated with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), a strong conservative, while Leahy is quite liberal.

Similarly, OPEN sponsor Issa is major conservative leader in the House, whereas Wyden is a liberal leader in the Senate. Last week, the two OPEN sponsors said they were confident their argument would prevail.

On Friday, Issa said he anticipated “a needed consensus about the way forward.”

To report problems or to leave feedback about this article, e-mail: d.zielenziger@ibtimes.com
To contact the editor, e-mail: editor@ibtimes.com

Two Steps Forward One Step Back–The US/Iran Navy Choreography Continues–Oil Prices Soar

Iran MP: Military Drill to Close Straits of Hormuz–12/12/2011

Oil Surges on Speculation of Supply Disruption in Middle East–Dec 13, 2011

S&P 500 Index March 2012 (IOM)

[ Futures Prices ] [ Options ] [ Detailed Quote ] [ Technicals ]

Date	Open	High	Low	Last	Change	Percent
01/20/12	1309.90	1311.50	1304.70	1310.80s	+0.40	+0.03%

Commodity Prices

		PRICE	CHG	CHG%
	Crude Oil 98.33s -2.21 -2.20% Brent Crude 109.86s -1.69 -1.52% Natural Gas 2.343s +0.021 +0.90% Gasoline 2.7844s -0.0314 -1.12% Heating Oil 2.9884s -0.0476 -1.57% Gold 1664.0s +9.5 +0.57% Quotes are delayed at least 10-minutes.

After threats, Iran plays down U.S. naval moves

By Robin Pomeroy and Hashem Kalantari

TEHRAN | Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:37am EST

(Reuters) – Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Saturday it considered the likely return of U.S. warships to the Gulf part of routine activity, backing away from previous warnings to Washington not to re-enter the area.

The statement may be seen as an effort to reduce tensions after Washington said it would respond if Iran made good on a threat to block the Strait of Hormuz – the vital shipping lane for oil exports from the Gulf.

“U.S. warships and military forces have been in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East region for many years and their decision in relation to the dispatch of a new warship is not a new issue and it should be interpreted as part of their permanent presence,” Revolutionary Guard Deputy Commander Hossein Salami told the official IRNA news agency.

The apparently conciliatory comments may be a response to the European Union and Washington’s rejection of Iran’s declaration it was close to resuming negotiations with world powers and with the Pentagon saying it did not expect any challenge to its warships.

Crude prices have spiked several times this year on fears diplomatic tensions could escalate to military clashes as well as uncertainty about the effect of sanctions on the oil market.

Along with the EU, which is set to agree an embargo on Iranian oil next week, Washington hopes the sanctions will force Iran to suspend the nuclear activities it believes are aimed at making an atom bomb, a charge Tehran denies.

There has been no U.S. aircraft carrier in the Gulf since the USS John C. Stennis left at the end of December at a time when the Revolutionary Guard was conducting naval maneuvers.

On January 3, after U.S. President Barack Obama signed new sanctions aimed at stopping Iran’s oil exports, Tehran told the Stennis not to return – an order interpreted by some observers in Iran and Washington as a blanket threat to any U.S. carriers.

“I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf,” Iran’s army chief, Major General Ataollah Salehi, said at the time. “We are not in the habit of warning more than once.”

NEW MANOEUVRES

Washington says it will return to the Gulf and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said any move to block Hormuz – through which around a third of the world’s sea-borne traded oil passes – would be seen as a “red line,” requiring a response.

Citing operational security, the Pentagon will not say when the next carrier will return to the Gulf but officials say it is only a matter of time and they do not expect any problems.

In the coming days or weeks, the Revolutionary Guard will begin new naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf. Salami told IRNA these would go ahead as planned in the Iranian month of Bahman which runs from January 21 to February 19.

Iran has said it is ready to return to talks with world powers that stalled one year ago, but the West, concerned about Tehran’s move of the most sensitive atomic work to a bomb-proof bunker, says it must first see a willingness from Tehran to address the nuclear issue.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday “time is running out” for a diplomatic solution and urged Russia and China to drop their opposition to sanctions on Iranian oil.

Iran is OPEC’s second biggest exporter and blocking its crude exports – through the EU embargo or U.S. moves to punish banks that trade with Iran – could have a devastating impact on its economy but there are no signs so far such pressure would force it to stop what it calls its peaceful nuclear rights.

(Writing by Robin Pomeroy; Editing by Sophie Hares)

Choking off free speech on the web

G. ANANTHAKRISHNAN

APA blackout landing page is displayed on a laptop screen inside the “Anti-Sopa War Room” at the offices of the Wikipedia Foundation in San Francisco, on January 18, 2012.

What makes SOPA and PIPA especially toxic is the threat they pose to all dimensions of a website’s existence – physical presence, findability and revenue stream.

With 4.5 million signatures on a Google petition and one million messages sent to the United States Congress via the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in a single day, January 18, advocates of a free Internet have mounted a determined bid to stall new legislation that can chill free speech. The global chorus against two Bills that are winding their way through the American legal system is growing.

The two draft laws in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, now known around the world by the acronyms SOPA and PIPA (for Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act), have raised a storm on the Internet. They are seen as updated versions of the “Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act” (COICA) which could not make progress in the Senate earlier. In a small victory for opponents, key movers of the Bills have backtracked a little, as Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, Ebay, Zynga, Linkedin and AOL, among others, provide heft to the protests. Wikipedia went dark for 24 hours to make the point and when it was back, it said “millions of people have spoken in defence of a free and open Internet.”

Vague definitions

What makes the two laws obviously detrimental for free speech worldwide is their focus on poorly defined “rogue” websites that are not based in the United States. The definitions in the draft legislation are vague in the assessment of not just free speech advocates, but most major technology companies. The legal tools to punish “infringing” websites as originally drafted in SOPA included a provision for Domain Name System blocking, and denying them the ability to exist as an address on the Internet. The firestorm of protest from U.S. voters that virtually “melted the servers” of Congress has forced the sponsors of the two laws to announce that the DNS blocking provision is now off the table.

Yet, the two Bills are far from dead and there is still plenty to worry about. The attempt to introduce strong-arm measures must be viewed against the backdrop of a persistent effort in the U.S. to use judicial processes to access personal data about individuals abroad using services such as Twitter, in the wake of the WikiLeaks expose. It makes matters more difficult that the U.S. court order prohibits the disclosure of its contents. Are there more technology companies that were covered, that have not come to light, for instance?

Moreover, the new Bills aim to create a procedure to blacklist inconvenient websites and censor them. They have many other weapons to kill websites. These include ordering search engines to remove them from results, prohibiting distribution of advertising, and, quite akin to the WikiLeaks experience, stopping companies such as PayPal or Visa from processing their financial transactions.

It is natural that the prevailing sentiment among international users of the Internet, who have either themselves experienced or have closely observed its power to bring communities together in the Middle East, North Africa and the Occupy movement cities, is “We are all Americans now.” They have no Congressman or Senator to call and petition, but they have made known their opposition to the two Bills widely online. There is a legitimate fear that if the new legal provisions go into force, technology companies coming under U.S. legal jurisdiction could be compelled, or perhaps even be willing, to disclose information on them. Some may simply react to domestic political imperatives and purge foreign websites with an inconvenient point of view. It is important to remember that unlike the existing scheme of filtering — where individual pages and search links are removed — the omnibus penal provisions in SOPA can erase the presence of entire websites.

Ironically, strong fears haunt U.S. companies as well. Some of them dread a new, high-cost technology landscape emerging in America, driving innovation, online traffic, and thus jobs and commerce to other countries that guarantee freedom. In this balkanised future, a social networking website may prefer, say, Iceland, where activists hosted early initiatives of WikiLeaks.

The “group of nine” technology companies including Google and Yahoo! that wrote the joint petition to Congress pointed to a McKinsey study that shows 3.4 per cent of GDP in 13 countries is accounted for by the Internet. In the U.S., the contribution is even larger. The Internet has increased the productivity of small and medium-sized businesses by as much as ten per cent. Trying to put in new conditions at the behest of traditional media companies including those trying to save old models of distribution and profits (for which they massively funded a lobbying campaign during 2011), can crimp growth and the new ventures.

That message is not lost on the White House, and a statement released by the Obama administration says it “will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” Whether through a veto or through legislative defeat, halting the progress of SOPA and PIPA will be crucial to online communities that fear direct, creeping censorship of the Internet.

Not new

Censoring of Internet content is not new. All search engines remove content and filter search results based on directions and orders issued in different countries to meet the requirements of domestic laws. The toxic potential of SOPA and PIPA lies in their capacity to comprehensively throttle free speech, at least until a new competitive set of alternatives emerges on the Internet. All dimensions of a website’s existence — physical presence, findability and revenue stream are under threat.

In the democratic scheme of things, governments that guarantee free speech through statute should baulk at making domestic copies of the controversial American model to suppress their own citizens. Yet, in the Indian context, there will obviously be keen interest in the two U.S. Bills for their possible replication.

Even now, the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 contains provisions that would not meet the accepted definition of judicial due process. Orders are issued to technology companies hosting content on websites to remove allegedly offensive or infringing material by officials of the government, circumventing a legal process that involves the courts, as is necessary in the case of traditional media.

There is also a marked preference among some leading politicians, such as Communications and Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal, for a purge of websites and social media platforms such as Facebook, of content that is deemed “offensive”, instead of ignoring criticism from the fringe. Google has been asked to remove several items on the ground that they criticise the government or individual politicians. That there are ample provisions in existing law to handle the more egregious cases is conveniently ignored. Protections earlier available to Internet Service Providers against liability for third party content are sought to be weakened systematically. There may be a specific case to remove material that is obviously inflammatory and capable of doing harm, but the policy compass clearly points to a lurking desire for censorship. If SOPA and PIPA were to succeed in America, the move towards copycat laws in India can only be a step away.

(anant@thehindu.co.in)