Porky Fires Zionist Oligarch Igor Kolomoysky, After Oil Co. Standoff

Poroshenko fires oligarch governor amid oil company standoff

Igor Kolomoysky, billionaire and governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region (Reuters/Valentyn Ogirenko)

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a decree relieving Dnepropetrovsk Governor Igor Kolomoysky from his post, the president’s website said. The resignation came after a meeting between the two, amid the ongoing standoff around oil giant Ukrnafta.

According to the presidential website, Kolomoysky decided to hand in his resignation, which the president accepted.

“We need to ensure peace, stability and tranquility. Dnepropetrovsk region should remain a bastion of Ukraine in the east,” Poroshenko said while commenting on his decision. Meanwhile, Valentin Reznichenko was named acting governor of the eastern region.

The seemingly peaceful resolution came in stark contrast with statements voiced earlier by Kolomoysky’s deputy, Gennady Korban, who on Tuesday said that “Kiev is occupied by thieves, and these thieves must go and free the way for honest people” and accused Poroshenko’s government of “lying” about decentralization of power in the country and success in the so-called anti-terror operation in the east.

Earlier, media speculated on possible threats posed by Kolomoysky to Kiev after the oligarch was quoted as expressing support for decentralization reforms and talking about the possibility of separatist uprisings in Dnepropetrovsk. “I don’t want that…but anything can happen,” he told France 24 TV channel.

The conflict involving Kolomoysky, whose net worth is estimated at US$1.3 billion by Forbes, erupted after the Ukrainian parliament, Verkhovna Rada, on Thursday passed a law stipulating that the state could manage any company in which it has a majority share.

Kolomoysky’s companies own about 43 percent of Ukrnafta, the country’s biggest oil company, and the government controls just over half the shares. According to previous legislation, the state needs 60 percent ownership to exercise active control over a part-private company, which meant that Kolomoysky could treat Ukrnafta as his own property – including withholding dividends from the state and sabotaging quorums at board meetings.

After the government fired Kolomoysky’s protégé from Ukrtransnafta – an energy company in which the oligarch also has a stake – Kolomoysky occupied its office with camouflaged men on Friday, accusing the government of being “Russian saboteurs” and “corporate raiders.” He also reportedly threatened to “bring 2,000 volunteer fighters to Kiev” before being persuaded to stand down.

On Saturday, Ukrainian media reported that Kolomoysky’s Privatbank had blocked Poroshenko’s account of $50 million after the president – a major oligarch himself – scolded the ex-governor for “professional misconduct.”

Then on Sunday, fighters of the Dnepr-1 battalion funded by Kolomoysky took control of Ukrnafta’s central Kiev offices.

The Ukrainian government has given the masked men a day to lay down their weapons. They have so far refused to leave, denying there are any firearms in the building other than “sports guns.”

Meanwhile, the National Guard has denied earlier reports that two additional battalions have been dispatched to Dnepropetrovsk to diffuse “rising tension in the region.”

The head of the Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU), Valentin Nalyvaychenko, demanded that Kolomoysky be prosecuted for seizing Ukrnafta.

“Government officials or official, who appears alongside armed men to make a commercial or other statements, should be held accountable,” Nalyvaychenko told Ukraine’s Channel 5.

H.R.1466 Would Repeal the 2001 Patriot Act–it was introduced in the US House of Representatives on Tuesday

Bipartisan bill would repeal Patriot Act, cut down American surveillance

Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

The bipartisan Surveillance State Repeal Act, if passed, would repeal dragnet surveillance of Americans’ personal communications, overhaul the federal domestic surveillance program, and provide protections for whistleblowers.

House lawmakers Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) are co-sponsoring bill H.R.1466, which was introduced on Tuesday and would repeal the 2001 Patriot Act, limit powers of the FISA Amendments Act, and prohibit retaliation against federal national security whistleblowers, according to The Hill.

The Patriot Act contains many provisions that violate the Fourth Amendment and have led to a dramatic expansion of our domestic surveillance state,” said Rep. Massie in a statement. “Our Founding Fathers fought and died to stop the kind of warrantless spying and searches that the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act authorize. It is long past time to repeal the Patriot Act and reassert the constitutional rights of all Americans.”

Specifically, the bill would revoke all the powers of the Patriot Act, and instruct the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to destroy any information collected under the FISA Amendments Act concerning any US person not under investigation.

It would repeal provisions of the FISA Amendments Act to ensure surveillance of email data only occurs with a valid warrant based on probable cause. The bill would also prohibit the government from mandating that manufacturers build mechanisms allowing the government to bypass encryption in order to conduct surveillance.

READ MORE: ‘You are surveillance target’ – Snowden to IT specialists

Additionally, the bill would protect a federal whistleblower’s efforts to expose mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse, or criminal behavior. It would also make retaliation against anyone interfering with those efforts – such as threatening them with punishment or termination – illegal.

Really, what we need are new whistleblower protections so that the next Edward Snowden doesn’t have to go to Russia or Hong Kong or whatever the case may be just for disclosing this,” Massie said.

There have been previous attempts to limit dragnet surveillance under the Patriot Act since former National Security Agency analyst Edward Snowden leaked information regarding the programs in 2013, but the Senate bill introduced in 2013 never reached the floor for a vote.

The warrantless collection of millions of personal communications from innocent Americans is a direct violation of our constitutional right to privacy,” said Rep. Pocan in a statement.

READ MORE: DARPA launches new-tech program to protect online privacy

Revelations about the NSA’s programs reveal the extraordinary extent to which the program has invaded Americans’ privacy. I reject the notion that we must sacrifice liberty for security – we can live in a secure nation which also upholds a strong commitment to civil liberties. This legislation ends the NSA’s dragnet surveillance practices, while putting provisions in place to protect the privacy of American citizens through real and lasting change.”

Portions of the Patriot Act are due for renewal on June 1.


Introduced in House (07/24/2013)

1st Session
H. R. 2818

To repeal the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and for other purposes.

July 24, 2013

Mr. Holt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Energy and Commerce, Education and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


To repeal the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Surveillance State Repeal Act”.

SEC. 2. Repeal of USA PATRIOT Act.

The USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107–56) is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

SEC. 3. Repeal of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

(a) Repeal.—The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–261; 122 Stat. 2477) is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

(b) Exception.—Subsection (a) of this Act shall not apply to sections 103 and 110 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–261; 122 Stat. 2477).

SEC. 4. Terms of judges on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; reappointment; Special Masters.

(a) Terms; reappointment.—Section 103(d) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(d)) is amended—

(1) by striking “maximum of seven” and inserting “maximum of ten”; and

(2) by striking “and shall not be eligible for redesignation”.

(b) Special Masters.—Section 103(f) of such Act, as amended by section 3 of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(4) Special Masters.—

“(A) The courts established pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) may appoint one or more Special Masters to advise the courts on technical issues raised during proceedings before the courts.

“(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘Special Master’ means an individual who has technological expertise in the subject matter of a proceeding before a court established pursuant to subsection (a) or (b).”.

SEC. 5. Electronic surveillance of specified persons without regard to specific device.

Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:

“(B) that, upon the request of the applicant, any person or entity shall furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing that target of electronic surveillance;”.

SEC. 6. Additional provisions for collections under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

(a) In general.—Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by section 3 of this Act, is further amended to read as follows:

“TITLE VIIAdditional Provisions

“SEC. 701. Warrant requirement.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no information relating to a United States person may be acquired pursuant to this Act without a valid warrant based on probable cause.”.

(b) Table of contents amendments.—The table of contents in the first section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by section 3 of this Act, is further amended by striking the items relating to title VII and section 701 and inserting the following new items:


“701. Warrant requirement.”.

SEC. 7. Encryption and privacy technology of electronic devices and software.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not mandate that the manufacturer of an electronic device or software for an electronic device build into such device or software a mechanism that allows the Federal Government to bypass the encryption or privacy technology of such device or software.

SEC. 8. GAO compliance evaluations.

(a) In general.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall annually evaluate compliance by the Federal Government with the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

(b) Report.—The Comptroller General shall annually submit to Congress a report containing the results of the evaluation conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 9. Whistleblower complaints.

(a) Authorization To report complaints or information.—An employee of or contractor to an element of the intelligence community that has knowledge of the programs and activities authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) may submit a covered complaint—

(1) to the Comptroller General of the United States;

(2) to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives;

(3) to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; or

(4) in accordance with the process established under section 103H(k)(5) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3033(k)(5)).

(b) Investigations and reports to Congress.—The Comptroller General shall investigate a covered complaint submitted pursuant to subsection (b)(1) and shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of the investigation.

(c) Covered complaint defined.—In this section, the term “covered complaint” means a complaint or information concerning programs and activities authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) that an employee or contractor reasonably believes is evidence of—

(1) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or

(2) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

SEC. 10. Prohibition on interference with reporting of waste, fraud, abuse, or criminal behavior.

(a) In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an officer or employee of an element of the intelligence community shall be subject to administrative sanctions, up to and including termination, for taking retaliatory action against an employee of or contractor to an element of the intelligence community who seeks to disclose or discloses covered information to—

(1) the Comptroller General;

(2) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives;

(3) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; or

(4) the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

(b) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) COVERED INFORMATION.—The term “covered information” means any information (including classified or sensitive information) that an employee or contractor reasonably believes is evidence of—

(A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or

(B) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

(2) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.—The term “intelligence community” has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003).

How the CIA made Google

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet— part 1

Medium .net Medium News

By Nafeez Ahmed

INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’

The origins of this ingenious strategy trace back to a secret Pentagon-sponsored group, that for the last two decades has functioned as a bridge between the US government and elites across the business, industry, finance, corporate, and media sectors. The group has allowed some of the most powerful special interests in corporate America to systematically circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law to influence government policies, as well as public opinion in the US and around the world. The results have been catastrophic: NSA mass surveillance, a permanent state of global war, and a new initiative to transform the US military into Skynet.


This exclusive is being released for free in the public interest, and was enabled by crowdfunding. I’d like to thank my amazing community of patrons for their support, which gave me the opportunity to work on this in-depth investigation. Please support independent, investigative journalism for the global commons.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, western governments are moving fast to legitimize expanded powers of mass surveillance and controls on the internet, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

US and European politicians have called to protect NSA-style snooping, and to advance the capacity to intrude on internet privacy by outlawing encryption. One idea is to establish a telecoms partnership that would unilaterally delete content deemed to “fuel hatred and violence” in situations considered “appropriate.” Heated discussions are going on at government and parliamentary level to explore cracking down on lawyer-client confidentiality.

What any of this would have done to prevent the Charlie Hebdo attacks remains a mystery, especially given that we already know the terrorists were on the radar of French intelligence for up to a decade.

There is little new in this story. The 9/11 atrocity was the first of many terrorist attacks, each succeeded by the dramatic extension of draconian state powers at the expense of civil liberties, backed up with the projection of military force in regions identified as hotspots harbouring terrorists. Yet there is little indication that this tried and tested formula has done anything to reduce the danger. If anything, we appear to be locked into a deepening cycle of violence with no clear end in sight.

As our governments push to increase their powers, INSURGE INTELLIGENCE can now reveal the vast extent to which the US intelligence community is implicated in nurturing the web platforms we know today, for the precise purpose of utilizing the technology as a mechanism to fight global ‘information war’ — a war to legitimize the power of the few over the rest of us. The lynchpin of this story is the corporation that in many ways defines the 21st century with its unobtrusive omnipresence: Google.

Google styles itself as a friendly, funky, user-friendly tech firm that rose to prominence through a combination of skill, luck, and genuine innovation. This is true. But it is a mere fragment of the story. In reality, Google is a smokescreen behind which lurks the US military-industrial complex.

The inside story of Google’s rise, revealed here for the first time, opens a can of worms that goes far beyond Google, unexpectedly shining a light on the existence of a parasitical network driving the evolution of the US national security apparatus, and profiting obscenely from its operation.

The shadow network

For the last two decades, US foreign and intelligence strategies have resulted in a global ‘war on terror’ consisting of prolonged military invasions in the Muslim world and comprehensive surveillance of civilian populations. These strategies have been incubated, if not dictated, by a secret network inside and beyond the Pentagon.

Established under the Clinton administration, consolidated under Bush, and firmly entrenched under Obama, this bipartisan network of mostly neoconservative ideologues sealed its dominion inside the US Department of Defense (DoD) by the dawn of 2015, through the operation of an obscure corporate entity outside the Pentagon, but run by the Pentagon.

In 1999, the CIA created its own venture capital investment firm, In-Q-Tel, to fund promising start-ups that might create technologies useful for intelligence agencies. But the inspiration for In-Q-Tel came earlier, when the Pentagon set up its own private sector outfit.

Known as the ‘Highlands Forum,’ this private network has operated as a bridge between the Pentagon and powerful American elites outside the military since the mid-1990s. Despite changes in civilian administrations, the network around the Highlands Forum has become increasingly successful in dominating US defense policy.

Giant defense contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton and Science Applications International Corporation are sometimes referred to as the ‘shadow intelligence community’ due to the revolving doors between them and government, and their capacity to simultaneously influence and profit from defense policy. But while these contractors compete for power and money, they also collaborate where it counts. The Highlands Forum has for 20 years provided an off the record space for some of the most prominent members of the shadow intelligence community to convene with senior US government officials, alongside other leaders in relevant industries.

I first stumbled upon the existence of this network in November 2014, when I reported for VICE’s Motherboard that US defense secretary Chuck Hagel’s newly announced ‘Defense Innovation Initiative’ was really about building Skynet — or something like it, essentially to dominate an emerging era of automated robotic warfare.

Read PART 1 and PART 2 HERE

Pentagon Forcing Nurses/Doctors To Participate In Torturous Forced Feedings

guantanamo forced feeding source

Pentagon Panel Proposes Sweeping Changes that Could Impact Guantanamo Force-Feeding


By Jason Leopold

A federal committee that advises the Secretary of Defense on health policy has recommended that the Pentagon allow military healthcare workers to bow out of performing medical procedures that would violate their profession’s code of ethics, or their religious and moral beliefs. Personnel that decline to participate in the procedures should not face retribution.

The recommendation is one of more dozen suggested changes to military medical ethical policies contained in a sweeping 104-page report drafted by the Defense Health Board’s medical ethics subcommittee and quietly released last week. If the Pentagon accepts the committee’s guidance, it could potentially have a huge impact on the operations at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, where hunger-striking detainees are routinely force-fed by Navy nurses who have been accused of violating their medical code of ethics.

Since the onset of the global war on terror, the military has been blamed for gross violations of standard medical ethical principles to avoid the infliction of harm by forcing doctors and nurses to participate not only in the widely condemned practice of force-feeding of detainees, but also in interrogations where prisoners were abused and tortured.

The military’s medical ethical practices came under intense scrutiny in 2013 during the height of a mass hunger strike at Guantanamo where dozens of detainees were restrained and forced to ingest a liquid nutritional supplement through their nostrils. Detainees, through their attorneys, said the tube feedings, administered by nurses, were extremely painful and dehumanizing. Professional medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, rebuked the practice, noting that it “violates core ethical values of the medical profession.” The United Nations said it was a breach of international law. Military officials defended the medical procedure, saying it’s Guantanamo’s policy to administer force-feeds as a last resort in order to prevent detainees who refuse to eat from dying.

In January, VICE News obtained a two-page document in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that contained the first known acknowledgement by the US military that force-feeding people who are capable of making informed decisions about their own health is a violation of medical ethics and international law.

Some military medical personnel who have objected to participating in the procedures faced the threat of a dishonorable discharge. Such is the case of a former Guantanamo Navy nurse who last year declined to continue force-feeding detainees. The nurse now faces the possibility of being kicked out of the Navy and the loss of pension and benefits for refusing to abide by the orders.

But the medical ethics subcommittee’s new policy proposals advise the Pentagon against punishing doctors and nurses who choose to opt out of medical procedures if they believe the practices are unethical or immoral. The Defense Health Board, whose members include Retired Gen. Richard Myers, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during George W. Bush’s presidency, unanimously approved the report last month.

‘A mechanism should exist to excuse healthcare workers from participating in force feedings.’

Department of Defense (DOD) “leadership, particularly the line commands, should excuse health care professionals from performing medical procedures that violate their professional code of ethics, State medical board standards of conduct, or the core tenets of their religious or moral beliefs,” one of the recommendations states. “However, to maintain morale and discipline, this excusal should not result in an individual being relieved from participating in hardship duty.”

The subcommittee also noted, “If the operation is illegal, every military member of every specialty has an obligation to do all in his or her power to stop it or refuse participation.”

The panel found that the DOD does not have an explicit code of ethics for healthcare professionals, and recommended that the Pentagon formulate and regularly update an “overarching code of military medical ethics based on accepted codes from various healthcare professions.”

It’s unclear what lead the committee to undertake the review. A Defense Health Board spokeswoman told VICE News the military health officials decided a “proactive evaluation” on issues of “dual loyalty would assist in improving knowledge, understanding, and performance when medical personnel are faced with such challenges.”

In May 2011, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs requested that the Defense Health Board review “medical professional practice policies and guidelines” and come up with recommendations for two questions in particular:

  • How can military medical professionals most appropriately balance their obligations to their patients against their obligations as military officers to help commanders maintain military readiness?
  • How much latitude should military medical professionals be given to refuse participation in medical procedures or request excusal from military operations with which they have ethical reservations or disagreement?

But Dr. Adil Shamoo, a biochemistry professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Medicine and the chair of the Defense Health Board’s medical ethics subcommittee, said the review “basically just went dormant because someone didn’t want us to continue.”

Then, in January 2013, just a month before the Guantanamo hunger strike began, Jessica Wright, then the acting under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, tasked the subcommittee to revamp its review.

Shamoo told VICE News that he believes the most plausible explanation for the revamping was that the critical media coverage about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo “was the motivator.”

“To me that makes the most sense,” he said, adding that the committee didn’t start working until August 2013, a couple of months after Senator Dianne Feinstein sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that said the force-feeding policies “are out of step with international norms, medical ethics, and the practices of US Bureau of Prisons.”

The committee obtained testimony from 20 experts on medical ethics, including many who have been harshly critical about Guantanamo’s detainee operations. The group also met confidentially with active duty and retired US military personnel who served in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“We in the subcommittee discussed Guantanamo a great deal,” Shamoo said.

Shamoo, who noted that he was not speaking on behalf of the subcommittee, said the “backbone” of the report is the two recommendations that say healthcare providers’ first loyalty is to the patient, and that the Department of Defense cannot force military medical personnel to participate in a procedure if it violates professional medical ethics, or is immoral.

“If something is not in the interest of the patient or will harm the patient or is immoral that will give moral force to that individual saying I cannot do it,” he said.

The context in the report for the recommended policies revolves around a lengthy discussion about ethical guidelines that were previously issued by medical organizations about force-feeding competent patients, and the role of physicians in the interrogation and torture of detainees.

Shamoo said if the Pentagon accepts the recommendations, it will likely go a long way toward helping the Navy nurse threatened with dishonorable discharge for objecting to the forced-feedings of Guantanamo captives.

The unnamed nurse, identified as a lieutenant who has spent 18 years in the Navy, was sent to the Naval Health Clinic New England in Rhode Island and now faces a possible administrative hearing before a three-officer board that will decide his fate.

“His case was part of our discussion,” Shamoo said. “My thinking is if the Department of Defense adopts our report, it will strengthen the nurse’s case of acquittal. If the protocols we recommended had been in place last year this nurse would not have had to face any ramifications from his decision.”

Capt. Tom Gresback, a Guantanamo spokesman, said he is unaware of any recent cases “of a medical provider refusing to participate in enteral feedings of a detainee at the detention facilities at Guantanamo.” He said it would be inappropriate to speculate as to how the Defense Health Board’s report, if accepted by the Pentagon, could affect the operations at the detention facility.

“Standard operating policy and procedure applicable to all facets of detention operations at Guantanamo Bay are in compliance with US law,” he said.

Ronald Meister, an attorney for the embattled nurse, told VICE News that the medical ethics committee “has recognized what we’ve been saying all along: that medical ethics in war is identical to medical ethics in peace.

“The Department of Defense has to ensure that ethics are complied with, that nurses principal commitment is to the patient and part of all that is excusing healthcare workers from performing medical procedures that violate their code of ethics,” he said.

Guantanamo’s former head of nursing, Commander Jane French, said in 2007 that medical personnel who objected to tube feedings would be excused and someone else would administer the procedures.

‘If the Department of Defense does not act on the recommendations and simply lets them sit, that will be a major indication that they have undermined military medicine.’

Shamoo said the medical ethics subcommittee discovered that French’s policy was not carried over by military officials who succeeded her.

“As much as it would have been nice [for the subcommittee] to say that we recommend that nurse X not be discharged from doing what we say is the right thing, I think this report is pretty much on point,” Meister said of the panel’s recommendations. “A mechanism should exist to excuse healthcare workers from participating in force feedings. This says the military has an obligation to excuse healthcare professionals from performing procedures that violates codes of ethics. That’s what we’re asking them to do in our case.”

Len Rubenstein, a medical ethicist at Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health and Human Rights, is one of the experts who spoke with the subcommittee. He told VICE News he emphasized that Department of Defense policies are inconsistent with ethical requirements.

“There’s been so much focus on how health professionals have breached their ethical duties, and that’s an important point in the war on terror but the focus needs to be to the degree to which the government agencies themselves required those breaches,” Rubenstein said.

He said he would have preferred if the committee went further in its report and tackled the hunger strike issues at Guantanamo directly, “because it is the most blatant conflict between military practice and civilian life practice.”

Still, Rubenstein said the subcommittee’s “simple principle that the Department of Defense must ensure that their first obligation is to the patient is extremely important and would require the Defense Department to alter its practices.

“I see this as a test for the Department of Defense,” Rubenstein continued. “It’s a test whether they will take seriously these recommendations and end the deviation from professional ethical standards and become part of mainstream American medicine. If the Department of Defense does not act on the recommendations and simply lets them sit, that will be a major indication that they have undermined military medicine.”

But even if the Pentagon accepts the subcommittee’s recommendations and overhauls military medical ethics, that likely won’t be enough to solve the hunger strike problem at Guantanamo. That’s an issue that Rubenstein said still needs to be addressed.

“You would basically have to change the policy on hunger strikes,” he said, referring to the protocols that dictate when and how detainees are force-fed. “That is the ultimate implication here. That’s the part of the test for the Department of Defense.”

The medical ethics committee’s report has to go through another layer of bureaucracy before a decision is made as to whether the Pentagon will accept some or none of the recommendations.

“The next step is for the Defense Health Agency’s internal ethics subject matter experts to thoroughly review [the] recommendations and develop a plan of action for leadership review and approval,” said Laura Seal, a spokeswoman at the Defense Department’s personnel and readiness office.

Ethical Guidelines and Practices for U.S. Military Medical Professionals


Biden’s Boy About To Lose His Company’s Private Army In Ukraine

[SEE:  Son of Biden Joins Cyprus-Based Corp. with Ukrainian “Fracking” Contract In Crimea and Dneper-Donetsk Basin]

Ukraine’s interior minister gives armed people seizing oil company 24 hours to disarm

tass russian news

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko ordered to send two National Guard battalions to Dnipropetrovsk


National Guard battalions military

National Guard battalions military © EPA/SERGEI KOZLOV

KIEV, March 23 /TASS/. The armed assaulters who have taken the Ukrnafta company headquarters under control should lay down arms in 24 hours, Ukraine’s Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said.

“Personal security groups, armed with firearms, that guard businessmen and politicians will not roam the streets of towns and cities,” Avakov said adding that his order applied to everybody without exception, including Igor Kolomoisky, Viktor Pinchuk, Rinat Akhmetov, etc.

“I give all security firms 24 hours – to get rid of double or triple interpretations – to bring their activities impeccably in line with the letter and spirit of the law. References to war-time alarms will not justify these crimes and will even be considered as an aggravating circumstance,” Avakov wrote on Facebook.

Earlier, Sergey Leshchenko, a deputy from the Poroshenko Bloc party, wrote on Facebook that members of the Dnepr-1 battalion had blocked the building of the Ukrnafta company.

Ukrnafta is Ukraine’s biggest oil producer, which extracts more than 86% of oil; 28% of gas condensate and 16% of all hydrocarbons in Ukraine. Naftogaz Ukrainy holds the controlling block of shares in Ukrnafta (50%+1); Igor Kolomoisky owns 42% of Ukrnafta’s shares while 8% of the company’s shares are registered in Cyprus.

The head office of Ukrtransnafta, another enterprise belonging to Igor Kolomoisky, the governor of Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region, became the scene of a conflict on March 19. Ukrtransnafta’s Supervisory Council dismissed the oligarch’s protege Alexander Lazorenko as the head of the company’s board of directors. Later reports said that a group of submachine-gunners led by Kolomoisky seized the company’s building. After that, Ukraine’s Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said that Kiev’s law enforcers had established control over Ukrtransnafta’s office.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko ordered to send two National Guard battalions to Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine’s National Guard wrote on Twitter. The Ukrainian president’s website has not published any such decrees as of yet.

According to media reports, in April-May 2014 Ukrtransnafta siphoned off 675,000 tons of process oil from the main oil pipeline without permission from Ukraine’s Ministry of Energy and Coal Mining Industry.

Syrian Army Targets Terrorist Build-Up In Qalamoun

Syrian Army Targets Terrorists in Flita Barrens in Qalamoun


Syrian Army

The Syrian army targeted on Monday the terrorists’ gatherings in Flita barrens in Qalamoun, inflicting heavy losses upon them, well-informed sources told Al-Manar.

The sources denied the circulated news which claimed that the terrorists could storm the town of Flita.

The Syrian Army also directed severe blows to the armed terrorist organizations in various provinces, killing and injuring scores of militants.