UN Tells Inner City Press Its Contracts With AT&T Are Secret, As AT&T Gives All Info to US

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 17 -- After the new revelations that AT&T gave access to the US government to mass volumes of communications, including from the United Nations, Inner City Press on August 17 asked the UN if in doing so, AT&T would have violated its contracts with the UN.

  UN Associate Spokesperson Vannina Maestracci told Inner City Press, on camera, that the UN's contracts with AT&T -- with public money -- are not public and will not be disclosed. Pressed, she would not answer if spying would violate the provisions of the "confidential" UN contracts.

  Inner City Press has since put the request in writing, to Maestracci and the lead spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

  I asked if AT&T providing access to the US government to UN email and communications would violate the terms of its procurements and contracts with the UN and was told the contracts would not be public, and no comment. This is a reiterated request, on deadline, with for your convenience in providing an answer some sample contracts:

AT&T CORP.    United States of America    Telecommunication Equipment & Services    Telecommunications    $122,745.00    PS-21137    13 February 2013    N/A
AT&T CORP.    United States of America    Maintenance & Repair Services    Office, computer and communication equipment maintenance and repair    $48,912.00    PS-21452    03 April 2013    N/A
AT&T CORP.    United States of America    Telecommunication Equipment & Services    Communications    $69,320.00    PS-21518    01 April 2013    N/A
AT&T CORP.    United States of America    Telecommunication Equipment & Services    Telecommunications    $122,735.00    PS-21561

  While Maestracci said, on camera, "You're so not interested in the answers," Inner City Press is quite interested in the answers, so far not given, and in the contracts between the UN and AT&T. Watch this site.

Back on October 23, 2014 when UN human rights rapporteur Ben Emmerson held a press conference on his report on mass surveillance on October 23, Inner City Press asked him to review the Obama administration's and its Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's response to the spying revelations by Edward Snowden and others, and if any dangers are posed by the “foreign fighters” resolution adopted by the UN Security Council in September. (The latter question was not answered.)

  Emmerson began diplomatically, calling the PCLOB's reports “worth reading,” but then said that the debate and proposal legislation is confined to the “detailed fringes.” He said the key question is whether the right to privacy simply will not apply to the means of communications most in use today, given government's appetite for surveillance.Video here and embedded below.

  He said as long as governments -- like that of the United States -- won't disclose their surveillance programs, the debate is subject to “conceptual censorship.”

  The UN set aside the first question for the old UN Correspondents Association, which asked a softball question leading Emmerson to reply, “read the report.” (It has been online for some time, here.) 

 The new Free UN Coalition for Access objects to set-asides, and to UNCA's function as the UN's Censorship Alliance, having tried to order Inner City Press to remove factual articles from the Internet, and thengetting Google to block from its search leaked copies of anti-Press complaints filed with the UN, here. We'll have more on this.

First Look's "The Intercept" has revealed that the US National Security Agency and FBI spied on at least five Americans, all Muslims, and used place-holder code names like "Raghead," click here for that. 

   Those spied on included a Republican candidate for the Virginia legislature, Faisal Gill; Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor; lawyer Asim Ghafoor; Nihad Awad of CAIR; and "Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights."

 It's shameful, but who can stand up to the United States?

  The United Nations' Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has already said he thinks Snowden "misused" information, as Inner City Press reported here.

  Back on March 14 when the US delegation to the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva took the floor, it was a full court press. Of the elephant in the room, NSA spying, the speaker from the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice used a single line: DOJ is "monitoring" a number of private actions. You don't say.

  The head of the US delegation, Mary McLeod, said but did not explain why the US Administration has "no current expectation to become a party to the optional protocol" to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- which the US says does not apply to its actions outside of its borders. 

The session closed with a slew of questions: Walter Kalin asked why the US deports people to Haiti even amid the cholera epidemic -- for which, Inner City Press notes, the US has said the UN should be immune. 

  The US repeated that argument on July 7, which Inner City Press has covered here. Watch this site. 

   

As US Supports "Right to Privacy in the Internet Age" Resolution in UN's Third Committee, Spying Sanitized?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 25 -- When the "Right to Privacy in the Internet Age" resolution came to the floor in the UN's Third (Human Rights) Committee on November 25, German Ambassador Harald Braun summarized its new elements: the inclusion of metadata, obligations by the private sector, effective remedies for violations and an invitation to the UN Human Rights Council to establish a special procedure on the right to privacy.

 Ambassador Antonio Patriota of co-sponsor Brazil expressed regret on what wasn't in the resolution, for example extra-territorial coverage of communications infrastructure that a country controls, wherever located. 

  While Braun cited US National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, the resolution was adopted by consensus - that is, no country, including the United States, objected.

  International law, if it exists, is incremental.

 Back on July 9, First Look's "The Intercept" revealed that the US NSA and FBI spied on at least five Americans, all Muslims, and used place-holder code names like "Raghead," click here for that. 

   Those spied on included a Republican candidate for the Virginia legislature, Faisal Gill; Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor; lawyer Asim Ghafoor; Nihad Awad of CAIR; and "Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights."

  The United Nations' Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has already said he thinks Snowden "misused" information, as Inner City Press reported here.

  Back on March 14 when the US delegation to the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva took the floor, it was a full court press. Of the elephant in the room, NSA spying, the speaker from the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice used a single line: DOJ is "monitoring" a number of private actions. You don't say.

  The head of the US delegation, Mary McLeod, said but did not explain why the US Administration has "no current expectation to become a party to the optional protocol" to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- which the US says does not apply to its actions outside of its borders. 

The session closed with a slew of questions: Walter Kalin asked why the US deports people to Haiti even amid the cholera epidemic -- for which, Inner City Press notes, the US has said the UN should be immune. Watch this site. 

Post-Snowden, UN's Ben Emmerson Tells Inner City Press of “Conceptual Censorship" in US Debate, Foreign Fighters Question UNanswered

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 23 -- When UN human rights rapporteur Ben Emmerson held a press conference on his report on mass surveillance on October 23, Inner City Press asked him to review the Obama administration's and its Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's response to the spying revelations by Edward Snowden and others, and if any dangers are posed by the “foreign fighters” resolution adopted by the UN Security Council in September. (The latter question was not answered.)

  Emmerson began diplomatically, calling the PCLOB's reports “worth reading,” but then said that the debate and proposal legislation is confined to the “detailed fringes.” He said the key question is whether the right to privacy simply will not apply to the means of communications most in use today, given government's appetite for surveillance.Video here and embedded below.

  He said as long as governments -- like that of the United States -- won't disclose their surveillance programs, the debate is subject to “conceptual censorship.”

  The UN set aside the first question for the old UN Correspondents Association, which asked a softball question leading Emmerson to reply, “read the report.” (It has been online for some time, here.) 

 The new Free UN Coalition for Access objects to set-asides, and to UNCA's function as the UN's Censorship Alliance, having tried to order Inner City Press to remove factual articles from the Internet, and thengetting Google to block from its search leaked copies of anti-Press complaints filed with the UN, here. We'll have more on this.

First Look's "The Intercept" has revealed that the US National Security Agency and FBI spied on at least five Americans, all Muslims, and used place-holder code names like "Raghead," click here for that. 

   Those spied on included a Republican candidate for the Virginia legislature, Faisal Gill; Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor; lawyer Asim Ghafoor; Nihad Awad of CAIR; and "Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights."

 It's shameful, but who can stand up to the United States?

  The United Nations' Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has already said he thinks Snowden "misused" information, as Inner City Press reported here.

  Back on March 14 when the US delegation to the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva took the floor, it was a full court press. Of the elephant in the room, NSA spying, the speaker from the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice used a single line: DOJ is "monitoring" a number of private actions. You don't say.

  The head of the US delegation, Mary McLeod, said but did not explain why the US Administration has "no current expectation to become a party to the optional protocol" to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- which the US says does not apply to its actions outside of its borders. 

The session closed with a slew of questions: Walter Kalin asked why the US deports people to Haiti even amid the cholera epidemic -- for which, Inner City Press notes, the US has said the UN should be immune. 

  The US repeated that argument on July 7, which Inner City Press has covered here. Watch this site. 

   

As Ukraine & Russia Cross Info Swords, UN Radio Reported Ukraine's Speech As Given A Day Before It Was

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 22 -- Ukraine was scheduled to speak at the UN about its “Committee on Information” on October 21, but as UN speeches usually go longer than allowed, its turn was postponed until October 22.

That didn't stop the “UN Radio” Russian service from reporting on the speech on October 21 as if it had in fact been given that day. As translated, UN Radio on October 21 reported

“The representative of Ukraine accused Russia of using the information strategy of the Cold War

“One of the main prerequisites of violence in Ukraine became a propaganda information. This was stated by the representative of the Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations, speaking at a meeting of the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly.”

  The UN's Fourth Committee did meet on October 21 - but Ukraine didn't speak. Instead it was the first speaker on the afternoon of October 22. Its speech, delivered in perfect French including the word “rigolo,” linked Russia to Joseph Goebbels.

  In reply, the Russian mission's spokesman brought up the recent Human Rights Watch report of the Ukrainian government using cluster bombs in and against Donetsk, and the lack of clarity on who called the snipers shots in Maidan Square.

  Later in the Fourth Committee meeting, Bolivia slammed “powers” who use information technology to intervene and violate privacy, bringing to mind USAID's “Cuban Twitter” and, of course, the NSA.

  Then Jordan said it was first among Arab nations to enact an Access to Information law, in 2007. The Free UN Coalition for Access has been pressing for a Freedom of Information Act at the UN, click here and here for that.

  FUNCA covers the Fourth Committee, including on Decolonization, and the Committee on Information, where at least theoretically the UN's descent into censorship could be raised and resolved. The old UN Correspondents Association, a part of this trend toward privatization of briefings and even censorship -- ordering Press articles off the Internet, getting leaked copies of their complaints to the UN's MALU banned from Google's search, here -- was nowhere to be seen. We'll have more on this.

   

As Spying Story by McClatchy Says Kofi Annan Was UN Secretary General in 2012, Ban Ki-moon Said Snowden "Misused" Digital Communications

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 18 -- The new McClatchy story about Germany tapping the phones of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton says that "Clinton’s communication was also a satellite call, in 2012, and was reportedly to then United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan."

   There's a (telling) problem: Kofi Annan wasn't Secretary General in 2012. In fact, he left in 2006; Ban Ki-moon has been SG since then, apparently not memorably.

   Here's a memory, from July 2013: Of the US surveillance exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said“surveillance regimes adopted by some states without adequate safeguards are... counterproductive."

  But UN Secretary General has been quoted, in a meeting with members of parliament in Iceland, as saying that "the Snowden case is something I consider to be misuse” and that the opening up of digital communications should not be "misused in such a way as Snowden did.”

  In the UN on July 5, 2013, Inner City Press asked Ban's Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq to explain Ban's comments. If the UN system views surveillance without safeguards as negative, how could its exposure be, as Ban said, a “misuse”?

  Haq twice refused to even confirm that is what Ban said, insisting it was said in a “private” meeting. Video here, from Minute 6:49.

  It was a meeting with multiple elected officials of a state which speaks much about transparency. Can Ban gag those he met with? According to the Guardian, the quote is in notes taken by two attendees and confirmed by a third.

  But this is Ban's UN -- he similarly stepped back from things said on Capitol Hill; UN system whistleblowers complain of retaliation and a lack of protections. 

 While Haq went on to read out statements on freedom of speech, in Ban's UN just this early summer, Inner City Press has been threatened with suspension or withdrawal of accreditation for hanging a single sign on its door for the Free UN Coalition for Access, which advocates on just these issues. 

  Accreditation officials have demanded “urgent” explanation of tweets, and have tried to tell Inner City Press how to cover Ban and his head of peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous.

  It is in this context that Inner City Press believes the Iceland parliamentarians. The ball would seem to be in Ban's court to explain what he meant that information should not be "misused in such a way as Snowden did.” Really? Watch this site.

  

NSA Spied on Muslim-American Candidate, Lawyer & Professors, Snowden Shows - Now What?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 9 -- From the Edward Snowden leaks, the hits just keep on coming. Now First Look's "The Intercept" has revealed that the US National Security Agency and FBI spied on at least five Americans, all Muslims, and used place-holder code names like "Raghead." 

   Those spied on included a Republican candidate for the Virginia legislature, Faisal Gill; Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor; lawyer Asim Ghafoor; Nihad Awad of CAIR; and "Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights."

 It's shameful, but who can stand up to the United States?

  Back on March 14 when the US delegation to the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva took the floor, it was a full court press. Of the elephant in the room, NSA spying, the speaker from the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice used a single line: DOJ is "monitoring" a number of private actions. You don't say.

  The head of the US delegation, Mary McLeod, said but did not explain why the US Administration has "no current expectation to become a party to the optional protocol" to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- which the US says does not apply to its actions outside of its borders. 

The session closed with a slew of questions: Walter Kalin asked why the US deports people to Haiti even amid the cholera epidemic -- for which, Inner City Press notes, the US has said the UN should be immune. 

  The US repeated that argument on July 7, which Inner City Press has covered here. Watch this site. 

   

UN Said Poised to Give Post to Mike "Stop and Frisk, Big Bank" Bloomberg, Conflicts of Interest Not in Gushing Reuters Report

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 30 -- When Michael Bloomberg was Mayor of New York, in light of obvious conflicts of interest he stepped back from Bloomberg News. He was criticized on issues ranging from stop-and-frisk to defending banks against minimal City community reinvestment standards.

  Now, according to one gushing report, he is poised to move to the United Nations, as envoy on cities and climate change. What about new conflicts of interest, and the above critiques?

  To give what credit is due, on the evening of January 30 Reuters' UN bureau issued a breathless "exclusive" with nothing but praise of Bloomberg -- not a word of any criticism, nothing on the conflict of interest with Bloomberg News purporting to cover the UN and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Given the percentage of the piece praising Bloomberg, that would seem to be the (anonymous) sourcing.

  Meanwhile at the UN on January 30, Inner City Press on climate change asked Ban's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq of documents leaked by Edward Snowdenshowing that the NSA spied on the Copenhagen talks in 2009:

Inner City Press: there’s one of the [Edward] Snowden-released documents, but there’s a reason I’m asking you is it’s published in aDanish website “Information” and it talks about the Copenhagen climate change talks of 2009. And this seems to be the document and it says that the NSA [United States National Security Agency] was involved in monitoring communications at the discussions in order to advise the United States on the position of other Governments and presumably at the UN. So, I’m wondering, this seems to get more closely into things that are of much import to the UN, to the Secretary-General. Is there any response as to this memo coming out and the propriety of such surveillance?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: Well, we wouldn’t have any specific response to this because ultimately, again, this is a case where we’d need to know what the basic facts are and whether there was any such surveillance that’s happened. However, our basic point that we’ve articulated many times in recent months still holds: that the inviolability of diplomatic premises needs to be respected by all States.

  If Bloomberg is named on Friday, or is named at all, what will the coverage of criticism and conflicts of interest be? Watch this site.

Footnote: While giving what credit is due to Reuters' UN bureau, despite their history, it must be noted that the bureau chief has not only spied for the UN -- he has also misused the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act to get Google to block from its search a leaked document showing him trying to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN. All of this.. is how this UN works, or doesn't.

   

At UN on Drones, Ben Emmerson Says Pakistan 2005-2008 was Worst, Yemen Death Count Is "Skewed," Silent on NSA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 25 -- When Ben Emmerson had his UN press conference on drones on Friday, the briefing room was more crowded than for Myanmar or Iran, and the questions were mostly friendly. He was asked, for example, if he gets much push-back from officials in the UK, where he practices as a lawyer (a partner of Cherie Blair, we note).

Emmerson made much of President Barack Obama's May 2013 announcement he would "migrate" drones from the CIA to the Department of Defense. Inner City Press asked of documents recently released by whistleblower Edward Snowden showing National Security Agency involvement in the targeted killings program. Would that migrate too? Should it?

Perhaps erroneously, Inner City Press also asked Emmerson about the high percentage of civilians casualties in the US' drone strikes in Yemen. Emmerson fastened on this, saying that the numbers killed are higher in Pakistan.

Yes, but what about the percentage? Emmerson said this is "skewed" in Yemen by the inclusion of deaths by cruise missile. He never answered on the NSA.

Emmerson said the worst of drones were in Pakistan from 2005, at first he said to 2011 then limited it to 2008. He seemed convinced by recent statements by the Obama administration. His co-panelist Christof Heyns barely spoke, except in answer to a long question about Turkey. The last question, about reparations, was from Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. The UN needs to be shaken up. Watch this site.

   

Ban Ki-moon's 106-Word Jarba Read-Out Trumps Latin Presidents Including Brazil, & Uganda PM

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 30 -- UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba on September 28 at his (UN-provided) residence. It was not on the UN Media Alert, but afterward his Office of the Spokesperson issued a 106 word read-out of the meeting.

  All this despite and without responding to an urgent September 24 protest from Syria's government. Inner City Press asked about Syria's letter; Ban's Office of the Spokesperson replied that it was not aware of the letter.

   Inner City Press immediately provided a copy and asked, "what is the Secretariat's response to the argument? Separately, as now applies to SG's September 28" meeting with al-Jarba?

More than a day has elapsed, and there has been no response. Rather, the questions have mounted. If it was an unofficial or personal meeting, why was there a read-out more than 100 words long?

We must therefore compare this Jarba read-out to some of Ban's other read-outs, for now just between September 22 and September 24 with a focus on Latin America.

  For the President of Paraguay on September 22, Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson issues a read-out of 71 words -- compared to 106 words for the Saudi sponsored Syria rebel boss Jarba.

  For the President of Panama on September 22, Ban's Office issued a read-out of 41 words, less than half of its Jarba read-out.

  On September 23 for the President Santos of Colombia, a country with major UN operations, Ban's Office of the Spokesperson issued a read out of 70 words. WithUruguay's President Mujica the read-out was 59 words, including noting that Uruguay is a major per-capita peacekeeping contributor.

  Even for Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Ban's read out was shorter than for Jarba, despite Rousseff raising the US's widespread spying through the NSA. (Ban, it should be remembered, said that whistleblower Edward Snowden "misused" information and his position, in a closed door meet with Iceland parliamentarians which he later claimed was "closed").

So Ban was more detailed with Saudi-sponsored rebel Jarba than with the president of Brazil?

While we'll have more on this, Ban's "going light" (particularly when compared to his still not fully explained or justified meeting with Jarba) is not confirmed to Latin America. 

   As simple one Africa example, for Ban's September 20 meeting with Amama Mbabazi, Prime Minister of the Republic of Uganda, the read out was only 54 words, despite the upcoming UN Security Council trip to Uganda as well as the DRC, Rwanda and Ethiopia.

   For that, Ban's Office solicited journalists' request to go(after first limiting the invitation only to those paying money to the UN Correspondents Association, which held a fauxUN briefing by Jarba in July) -- but then allowed colonial powerhouse France to handpick which correspondents could go.

And so, some wonder, particularly after his Saturday night meeting with Jarba, for whom does Ban Ki-moon work? Watch this site.