"Panama Papers" Leak

[angelburst29]

Tis' the Season - must be full moon or something - another "leak" is surfacing. A 50-page report by Reprieve charity that reveals Britain's involvement in killings.

Britain's top secret kill list: How British police backed by GCHQ fed names of drug lords to a US assassination unit, which - under cover of the war on terror - wiped out an innocent family with a missile strike
http://www.detroitnewstime.com/regional/128504-britain-s-top-secret-kill-list-how-british-police-backed-by-gchq-fed-names-of-drug-lords-to-a-us-assassination-unit-which-under-cover-of-the-war-on-terror-wiped-out-an-innocent-family-with-a-missile-strike.html

•50-page report by Reprieve charity reveals Britain's involvement in killings
•Claims alleged drug traffickers, including 50 Afghans, put on the list in 2009
•GCHQ and National Crime Agency offer intelligence that leads to US strikes
•Report claims information shows Britain sanctions killing with no trial at all

British law enforcement and intelligence services have helped draw up an extra-judicial ‘kill list’ to assassinate the world’s most wanted terrorists and drug smugglers in foreign countries.

The sensational claims, which raise disturbing questions about Britain’s involvement in the targeting of aircraft and drone strikes, will be revealed in a 50-page report by the Reprieve human rights charity to be published tomorrow.

It will state that the UK has been a key, long-standing partner in America’s ‘shoot to kill’ policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, targeting not only alleged terrorists, but also supposed drug traffickers, and earmarking them for drone and missile strikes – often on the basis of unsubstantiated ‘intelligence’ which has never been tested in court.

Although the top secret ‘kill list’ has been in existence for years and is continually revised, Britain’s contribution has never been sanctioned by Parliament.

The startling evidence, drawn from leaked official documents, reveals the two agencies involved are the electronic eavesdropping organisation GCHQ, and the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), now rebranded as the National Crime Agency (NCA).

The leaked documents reveal:

The assassination list was known as the ‘Joint Prioritized Effects List’;
Alleged drug traffickers, including 50 Afghans, were first put on the kill list in 2009;SOCA and GCHQ have worked closely with US secret intelligence agencies to identify targets;
Britain’s Joint Narcotics Analysis Centre in London helped direct strikes in Afghanistan;The targets’ codenames include obscure Scottish towns and British rock bands, such as Judas Priest;
An innocent Afghan family was wiped out in a missile strike after one of the men was apparently mistaken for a member of the Taliban on the kill list. (Article continues.)

The PDF report can be assessed in this link:
UK Accused of Helping Draw Up Secret NATO 'Kill List' of Terrorists and Drug Traffickers
https://news.vice.com/article/uk-accused-of-helping-draw-up-secret-nato-kill-list-of-terrorists-and-drug-traffickers

British law enforcement and intelligence agencies have contributed for years to a secret NATO "kill list" of suspected terrorists and drug traffickers, according to a new report.

Evidence drawn from court and from documents leaked by Edward Snowden, which has been compiled in a 50-page report by human rights charity Reprieve, indicates that Britain has been a key partner for the US in drawing up targets for extra-judicial killings in drone and aircraft strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which have killed civilians.

The claims pile pressure on the UK government to explain its role in secret kill-or-capture lists, understood to inform special operations, following revelations published by VICE News on Thursday that UK intelligence contributed to a kill list in Yemen. Former US ambassador to Yemen Stephen Seche was among a number of officials who told VICE News that British sources helped compile a "targeting list" in the region.

Now two senior British members of parliament (MPs) have called for an inquiry into Britain's role in the assassination lists.

"The suggestion a British policing agency should provide intelligence to enable the deliberate killing of drug dealers challenges principles at the heart of British law enforcement," independent MP David Davis told the Mail On Sunday. "The Government must explain precisely what it has authorised and initiate an inquiry."

"This report raises extremely serious concerns and cannot be ignored," added shadow home secretary Andy Burnham MP.

The Nato Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL) — a list of individuals in Afghanistan who coalition forces try to capture or kill, or just kill — was first exposed by German newspaper Der Spiegel in 2014 following a release of documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the whistleblower from the US' National Security Agency (NSA). The documents date from 2009, but it is not known how long the 669-name JPEL had been in existence.

Snowden released a copy of the JPEL, and a crucial piece of evidence in the form of a 2010 article from the National Security Agency's internal magazine, SID Today. The "top secret" classified article describes the work of FGS2F — an NSA unit in Atlanta — in supporting counter-narcotics operations, and confirms the involvement of the UK intelligence agency GCHQ and the UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA, now the National Crime Agency (NCA)) in drawing up the kill list.

It states that the unit "and its colleagues at GCHQ has provided real-time intelligence to over 20 counter-narcotics operations, netting thousands of kilograms of drugs, detainees and weapons." One of the operations supported by FGS2F was the largest single drug seizure in history — amounting to 237 tons of hashish.

The report lists colleagues "located at GCHQ, the Joint Narcotics Analysis Centre London (JNAC), and the Interagency Operations Coordination Centre (IOCC) in Kabul."

The article describes a convoy led by a "primary target" named as Mullah Multan was hit by a strike as he drove from his home in Pakistan: "Though Mullah Multan survived the strike... he suffered the loss of over 3 tons of opium along with six of his cohorts."

Drug traffickers were first added to the JPEL list in 2009, "allowing them to be targeted for strikes. In October 2008, Nato defence ministers agreed narcotics trafficking networks were legitimate targets for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), due to the traffickers' ties to the insurgency."

The targeted killing of serious criminals — as opposed to terrorists — may not be supported by international human rights law, which only permits the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict situations if it is strictly necessary to save human life.

A 2013 British High Court legal action brought by Afghan bank executive Habib Rahman over the killing of several of his family members in a 2010 air strike brought the first claims of UK police involvement in the JPEL.

NATO forces launched a missile strike against a convoy in Takhar province, believing they were targeting an insurgent leader. But instead of hitting a man called Muhammad Amin, an alleged member of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the missile killed five men who were relatives of Rahman.

Amin was subsequently seen alive, and Rahman mounted a legal challenge which stated that information from SOCA was used to help the US military decide whom to target.

The case revealed the existence of a 2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, which claimed SOCA was closely involved in the drawing up of the JPEL.

The Senate report's lead author, Douglas Frantz — then a top aide to John Kerry — said in a statement that he was a witness to briefings that left him in no doubt of SOCA's involvement. (Article continues.)

Another article here:
Britain's top secret kill list: How British police backed by GCHQ fed names of drug lords to a US assassination unit, which - under cover of the war on terror - wiped out an innocent family with a missile strike
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3531814/Britain-s-secret-kill-list-British-police-backed-GCHQ-fed-names-drug-lords-assassination-unit-cover-war-terror-wiped-innocent-family-missile-strike.html

Back dated article by RT - dated 9 Nov, 2015:
Tightening noose? British views on the death penalty 50yrs since abolition
https://www.rt.com/uk/321342-death-penalty-abolition-anniversary/

Despite its abolition in Britain five decades ago, opinion remains divided over the ethics and viability of the death penalty.


(Things generally happen in three's - so what's the next "leaked" secret?)

 

[happyliza]

(Things generally happen in three's - so what's the next "leaked" secret?)

Well the one I am certainly looking forward to is Putin's!! I hope it is revealed soon. That great guy doesn't joke about such stuff and time he had his day against years of anti Putin demonization. Sure hope it is released in such a way that it is not subverted. Then again we can most probably expect a calamity somewhere to take the 'heat off' the truth - sadly.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

What I find so interesting is that Putin & Co. knew well in advance that this nonsense was coming and announced it. That's some serious intel.

My thoughts exactly! How the heck did they know what the elites were gonna do? Is there someone informing to Russia, or do they have surveillance? And was that announcement in itself a message to the West that "we know what you're going to do, so don't think you can surprise us"? Either way, all very intriguing!

Hmmm, I wonder...

The anonymous hacker(s) gave the data to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which then gave it to the Washington, Soros-funded group, which then sat on it for a year.

Is it possible the Russians are behind the original hack but then Western intel's counter-move was to take control of the data, parse it, and cherry-pick which data would go public?

You guys are talking about Dmitry Peskov's announcement a week or so before the story went public, right? In his statements, he made it clear that the reason he knew was because the President's office received several media requests asking for confirmation of details that would be published in their reports: e.g., Putin's relationships with the Rotenburgs and Roldugin. AFAIK, the Russians didn't say anything about the leaks before this. Even if the Western journalists didn't say "we're publishing this story in a week", it would be pretty obvious what was coming, and when, given the way journalists do this kind of thing, and the fact that Peskov has probably dealt with similar things countless times in the past. The way they knew it was something big and coordinated was that several different papers from all over contacted Russia at the same time and asked the same questions.

 

[Voyageur]

I had to laugh with our own media puffers in Canada. After bashing Putin at ever opportunity, apparently, just to keep up the pretexts, the CBC announces that the Canadian Revenue Agency was leaning on them for the Panama data: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cbc-declines-to-turn-over-panama-papers-data-to-cra-1.3530834

In brief:

The Canada Revenue Agency has formally asked the CBC to hand over offshore tax-haven data from the massive Panama Papers leak, but the news organization is refusing.

The commissioner of the agency, Andrew Treusch, sent an email on Friday to the president of the CBC asking for the data, saying the agency wants to begin work immediately on reviewing the information.

CBC spokesman Chuck Thompson said the corporation rebuffed a similar request from the CRA in 2013 for another massive cache of tax-haven data — and will do so again.

"Simply stated, CBC News does not reveal its sources and we're not about to start now as a result of this request," he said.
[...]
Co-ordinating distribution

The Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) is co-ordinating the distribution of the data, and plans to post a subset of the information on a searchable database in early May.

Treusch said in his letter he did not want to wait for the ICIJ posting.

"As you can appreciate, this information would be of greater value to us if obtained in a timelier manner so that we can begin our work immediately," he wrote.

"Please note that we are not asking you to reveal your sources or how you came into possession of the information."

The deputy director of the ICIJ, Marina Walker Guevara, said other tax agencies have approached news organizations in Britain, Italy, Ireland and Latvia, among others, to turn over Panama Papers data, all without success.

Tax agencies have also directly approached the ICIJ, which has a long-standing policy to refuse such requests because it "is not an arm of law enforcement and is not an agent of the government."...

In a related piece they, the CBC, said something about maintaining their journalistic integrity.

 

[know_yourself_1234]

Here is an excerpt from the 21st march 2015 session :

Q: (Perceval) In the last session, they talked about an upcoming economic collapse. The collapse is being done deliberately, but is it also a last-ditch effort by to prevent a new system under the direction of Russia and BRICS?

A: Attempt to impose the NWO as we have previously stated.

Q: (Perceval) It's just interesting that it's happening at a time when there's an opposition that they don't seem to be able to do anything about other than collapse the whole world.

(L) I think they were planning and working towards the collapse anyway. Everything was geared towards that. I think that Putin has shown up doing what he's doing only like in the last year. They already had the machine in motion for the collapse. So, they can't take their chips out of the pile now. They're stuck, and he's calling their cards.

And from the following french RT article, in which a Swiss university teacher speaks about it :
_https://francais.rt.com/opinions/18914-panama-papers-a-qui-profite-crime

... I simply said that maybe the US are currently doing a certain amount of things to get the money back in their banks and that zhey would have been using very specific methods, as I have described some of these.

My hypothesis, regarding what is happening in Panama, could well be one of these side-methods they use to put the pressure on a certain amount of banks and countries. Because Panama is a place where they encountered the greatest difficulties in obtaining economic alignement, specifically because it's hard to get Panamean leaders to fight between each other even if they were strategic allies until then. By spreading the kind of information we all discovered, in one way or another, the result of this is that a certain number of assets currently detained in Panama are going to move. Because, now, people can't be get to trust any more.

 

[Chad]

Well, the 'leak' has lead to some interesting ideas being brought to our attention - first, in parliament today:

A question from a Scottish National Party MP about the 3,250 staff investigating 'benefit' fraud (i.e. employment allowace, disability allowance, working families tax credits) and just 330 investigating the super rich and their tax fraud.

I'd agree that this is being used by some to detract from the larger problems, and that UK has much more nefarious dealings, but, it has brought a little more of it to light for some who've yet to dig deeper. It does help expose their pathological thinking and delicate ego's too.

Also, if you skip to the time mentioned the questioner mentions how France have blacklisted the company mentioned in the PP. Cameron blathers diversionary talk; then the other question mentioned in the article

The SNP’s Angus Robertson smoothly obliterates Cameron at PMQs, with one killer question (VIDEO)

April 13th, 2016 James Wright James Wright News and Politics
Share Using Facebook Twitter
The SNP’s Angus Robertson smoothly obliterates Cameron at PMQs, with one killer question (VIDEO)

At Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday, Angus Robertson’s first question unravelled all of David Cameron’s rhetoric on tackling tax dodging. Cameron had spent the entire first half of PMQs championing his record:

The difference I think between this side of the house and the honourable gentleman is we believe in setting low tax rates and encouraging people to pay them. And it’s working.

Then Cameron’s weekly joust with Jeremy Corbyn was over and Cameron thought he was home dry. Until the SNP Westminster leader asked:

3,250 Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) staff have been specifically investigating benefit fraud, while only 300 HMRC staff have been systematically investigating tax evasion. Surely we should care equally about people abusing the tax system and those abusing the benefit system. Why has this government had 10 times more staff dealing with often the poorest in society abusing benefits, than with the super rich evading their taxes?


It won't allow me to embed it at the time so skip to 13:37

http://<iframe width="560" height="...f4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

HMRC has only 300 people working in its Affluent Compliance Unit. This division specifically investigates millionaires and those earning over £150,000 for tax evasion. Meanwhile, the DWP has 3,250 people investigating specifically ordinary low paid people for benefit fraud. Cameron responded with the well-rehearsed government response to this point:

I would look carefully at his statistics, but they sound to entirely bogus. For this reason: the predominant job of the DWP is to make sure that people receive their benefits. The predominant job of HMRC is to make sure people pay their taxes. The 26,000 people I spoke about earlier, all of them are making sure people pay their taxes.

Well yes, there are 26,000 people working at the ‘enforcement and compliance’ HMRC department – 4,000 less under recent cuts from Cameron. But this figure includes all the employees undertaking huge admin work as well as tackling tax fraud. This department is around 36% of the whole of HMRC, which in 2009 said it had 74,430 full-time employees.

After PMQs on Wednesday, Adam Bienkov produced a “PMQs factcheck” at politics.co.uk which took the existence of this department as proof Robertson’s claim was bogus:

Either way, it seems pretty clear that Roberton’s statistic, as eye-catching and meme-worthy as it may be, is about as reliable as most other figures that tend to go viral on Twitter.

However, the very reason the government has a special division for tackling rich tax evaders is because that is not the focus of the wider HMRC department. And similar applies to the DWP. The DWP is responsible for the entire welfare state which is why it dedicates a special division to focus on benefit fraud.

So we have one special division for the super rich fraudsters and one for the poor benefit cheats. Yet the team tackling the latter has ten times the manpower of the former.

Now, if the government’s objective is to retrieve as much money as possible, then it should focus on catching the fraudsters that take the most money away. Thus, we would expect the benefit cheats to take at least ten times more from the public purse than the super rich. As one would expect, this could not be further from the truth.

Renowned economist Richard Murphy estimates that Britain now loses more than £82.1 billion per year from tax evasion alone. That does not include the legal tax dodging – tax avoidance – carried about by the likes of the Prime Minister, which stood at £19.1bn for 2013/14. In the UK, the top five richest families have more money than the bottom 20% of the country. It is only the super rich that have billions to hide. Therefore, this estimated £82 billion loss will be almost entirely due to wealthy high earners. The very people those 300 people at the Affluent Compliance Unit are tasked to investigate.

Meanwhile, it is estimated that benefit fraud loses us £1.2bn per year. This is a whopping a 68 times less than the tax evasion carried out by the super rich. Yet the government employs ten times more people to specifically tackle it.

This is dodgy. Considering the affluent are responsible for the majority of the tax gap, the majority of the HMRC’s ‘enforcement and compliance’ department should be targeting them. Instead, there are just 300 on the case, compared to the 3,250 people targeting the poorest.

‘One rule for us, another for them’ has never been more applicable. At PMQs on Wednesday, Robertson’s killer question left Cameron visibly flustered. The tax collecting record he had just spent the entire debate championing unravelled before his eyes:

Get Involved!

– Join the People’s Assembly “March For Health, Homes, Jobs And Education” on Saturday 16 April.

And some funny of our politicians to have their feathers ruffled - i think his response says it all: Force me to publish my tax returns and i'll ban you having curtains

I guess while in public office, they should be held accountable by publishing their tax returns, we can't rely on the government. You can find the video in the link but all the relevant text is below, and the face he pulls is typical of toffs - disgusted the idea of being held accountable, probably best to watch the video on the page ;) :

Tory MP says he’ll ban curtains if he’s forced to publish his tax return

Nicole MorleyNicole Morley for Metro.co.ukFriday 8 Apr 2016 7:03 pm

Since David Cameron admitted he did have a stake in his father’s offshore dealings there have been calls for him to publish his tax return.

Though, not everyone agrees that politician’s financial matters should be public knowledge.

Conservative Charles Walker in particular.

During a live TV interview, the Broxbourne MP said if he was forced to publish his tax return, then he’d ban curtains.

We kid you not.

MORE: Driver charged for putting seatbelt on crate of beer instead of a baby
Tory MP says he'll ban curtains if he's forced to publish his tax return
u ok hun? (Picture: Sky News)

‘I’ve no intention of publishing my tax return,’ He tells Sky News reporter Kay Burley.

‘But I tell you what, if we do publish tax returns because people keep saying “there’s nothing to hide” I’ll bring forward a private members bill in Parliament to ban curtains from people’s homes.’

He added that the thought of publishing his tax returns is ‘nonsense and totally ridiculous’.

MORE: Petition calls for General Election this year after David Cameron admission

Kay Burley stifles her laugh (Picture: Sky News)


Watch out folks, they’re coming for your curtains.

Hide your drapes, hide your blinds.

 

[angelburst29]

This is an interesting interview between Sharmini Peries and Michael Hudson, a research professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, a former balance of payments economist for Chase Manhattan bank.

Closing Panama Tax Haven Will Require Fighting the Most Powerful Lobby In the World
Economist Michael Hudson says oil and mining industries and the State Department created Panama and Liberia for the express purpose of tax evasion
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16116

Our next guest, Michael Hudson, says Panama was created as a tax haven by certain sectors of our economy for this purpose. Joining us now from New York is Michael Hudson. Michael is a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and he’s a former balance of payments economist for Chase Manhattan bank. He is the author of many books, and the latest among them is Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy.

Some interesting segments of the interview:

[...] HUDSON: Well, Panama was basically carved off from Colombia in order to have a canal. And it was created very much like Liberia. It’s not really a country in the sense that a country has its own currency, its own tax system. Panama uses U.S. dollars. So does Liberia. And the real story that didn’t come out in the Panama papers, which naturally focused just on criminal people laundering money, Panama wasn’t designed to launder money. It was designed to launder earnings. Mainly by the oil and the gas industries, and the mining industry. And Panama and Liberia were long noted as having “flags of convenience.” That meant that oil tankers and mineral ships would register themselves under the corporate flags of Panama or Liberia, or some other country that used the U.S. dollar, not its own currency.

Well, I first found out about this about 40 years ago, when I was doing a study of the balance of payments for the oil industry. And I went to Standard Oil, whose treasurer met with me to walk me through their balance sheet. And I said, I can’t figure out whether Standard Oil and the other oil companies make their money at the producing end of oil, or at the distributing end of refining and selling it. And he said, well, we make our earnings right here in New York, in the Treasurer’s office. I said, what do you mean? He said, well, we sell the oil that we buy from Saudi Arabia or the near East at very low prices to the tanker company that’s registered in Panama or Liberia. And they don’t have an income tax in their country, because they’re not a real country. And we sell then the oil to the downstream distributors in the United States or Europe. We sell that crude oil at a very, very high price. So high that there’s no profit to be made at all in refineries or selling the oil. So we don’t pay the tax collector in Europe anything. We don’t pay the American government anything. All of our earnings are reported as being made in the tankers.

And I said, well, I’ve looked at the balance of payments reports here from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Bulletin. I see here’s Europe, here’s Latin America, here’s Africa and Asia. I can’t find where these profits are. And he said, ah, look at the very last line. And it’s international. And I said, well, international, of course, aren’t all these countries, Europe, international? He said, no. International means they’re really part of, they’re part of the United States abroad. They’re the offshore banking centers. Panama, Liberia, et cetera. So I found out that basically Panama, Panamanian companies, were set up initially to register oil tankers and mineral ships in order to make the appearance of taking all of their profits on the transporting the oil, or the copper, or the minerals, from third world countries to the United States and Europe.

And the United States went along with this. This made the oil industry tax exempt really since the 1920s. The income tax was created in 1913 and ‘14, and it was intended to capture basically economic rents. But the big rent extractors, oil and gas and minerals, got away with that.

[...] So the whole financial system, basically, has been criminalized in the process of being militarized, to subsidize the fact that countries like the United States and Britain have very heavy military budgets. This is how they finance the military budget, with money laundering by the world’s criminal class, and the byproduct is to leave the largest companies tax exempt, from Apple to Exxon, right down the line.

 

[angelburst29]

Putin Says Goldman Sachs Behind Leak Of Panama Papers
http://dailybail.com/home/putin-says-goldman-sachs-behind-leak-of-panama-papers.html

President Vladimir Putin acknowledged that information in the Panama Papers implicating people in his inner circle to offshore transactions was accurate, but dismissed the leak -- which he tied to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. -- as part of U.S. efforts to influence Russia’s upcoming elections.

“Odd as it may seem, they aren’t publishing false information on offshores,” Putin said during his annual call-in show Thursday. “They’re not accusing anyone of anything specific. They’re just casting a shadow.”

The documents show at least $2 billion in transactions involved people and companies that had ties to Putin, according to reports published this month by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

The Russian president said Goldman Sachs owns the parent of the German newspaper that received leaked files from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. The newspaper, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, is owned by a Munich publishing family and a German media group that has no corporate affiliations to Goldman Sachs, according to a statement from Stefan Hilscher, the managing director of the paper. The U.S. bank declined to comment.

In 2013, Goldman Sachs signed a three-year agreement to advise the Russian government on burnishing the nation’s image overseas and attracting more institutional investors.

Putin claimed that U.S. institutions will continue to use provocations ahead of upcoming elections. Russia will vote for parliament in September and for president in 2018.

The Russian president, a former KGB officer who has called the Internet a “CIA project,” said Goldman Sachs owns the parent of the German newspaper that received leaked files from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. The newspaper, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, is owned by a Munich publishing family and a German media group that has no corporate affiliations to Goldman Sachs, according to a statement from Stefan Hilscher, the managing director of the paper. The U.S. bank declined to comment.

“This reflects the quality of the information he receives,” Gleb Pavlovsky, a former political adviser to Putin, said by phone on Tuesday. “He wanted to say there was nothing special in these documents but he spun it in accordance with his world view.”

Putin’s ability to think politically is being overwhelmed by “total suspicion” and it makes him more vulnerable to manipulation by those who provide information to him, Pavlovsky said. “This intensified after Snowden revealed the level of the surveillance on him by the U.S.”

Putin has granted asylum to Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who exposed clandestine data collection by the U.S. in 2013.

Putin reiterated his defense of his classical musician friend Sergey Roldugin, who is at the center of the offshore transactions linked to Russia. The cellist has brought unique instruments to Russia including two violins and two cellos, the latest of which cost about $12 million, Putin said.

The allegations stemming from the leaked documents are part of a “disinformation” campaign to destabilize Russia by targeting Putin, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said last week.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Putin Says Goldman Sachs Behind Leak Of Panama Papers
http://dailybail.com/home/putin-says-goldman-sachs-behind-leak-of-panama-papers.html

Peskov has apologized to the paper, saying the briefing he presented to Putin had some unverified bad information: https://www.rt.com/news/339751-kremlin-apologizes-süddeutsche-zeitung/

 

[angelburst29]

Putin Says Goldman Sachs Behind Leak Of Panama Papers
http://dailybail.com/home/putin-says-goldman-sachs-behind-leak-of-panama-papers.html

Peskov has apologized to the paper, saying the briefing he presented to Putin had some unverified bad information: https://www.rt.com/news/339751-kremlin-apologizes-süddeutsche-zeitung/

“It's rather my mistake,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Friday. “The mistake of those who prepared the briefing documents. There was some unverified information there, which was given to the president without being double-checked. I mean the part about the owners of Süddeutsche Zeitung."

Very interesting? And this bit of information, reported earlier on Goldman Sacks, about a 3 year agreement ....

In 2013, Goldman Sachs signed a three-year agreement to advise the Russian government on burnishing the nation’s image overseas and attracting more institutional investors.

I know, we're all prone to make a mistake now and then but still wonder if there might be a hidden message in that slip of the tongue?
Putin did state - that he was going to release some classified documents?

 

[angelburst29]

Britain's top secret kill list: How British police backed by GCHQ fed names of drug lords to a US assassination unit, which - under cover of the war on terror - wiped out an innocent family with a missile strike
http://www.detroitnewstime.com/regional/128504-britain-s-top-secret-kill-list-how-british-police-backed-by-gchq-fed-names-of-drug-lords-to-a-us-assassination-unit-which-under-cover-of-the-war-on-terror-wiped-out-an-innocent-family-with-a-missile-strike.html

•50-page report by Reprieve charity reveals Britain's involvement in killings
•Claims alleged drug traffickers, including 50 Afghans, put on the list in 2009
•GCHQ and National Crime Agency offer intelligence that leads to US strikes
•Report claims information shows Britain sanctions killing with no trial at all

Another article to compliment the one above on the Reprieve charity information:

Britain’s secret assassinations programme and extended kill list
http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/britains-secret-assassinations-programme-extended-kill-list/

[...] We at truepublica have posted a number of reports by Chris Cole from dronewars.uk on the scope and details of Britain’s unauthorized drone assassination program, which has been nothing short of mission creep at best going from eyes in the sky to an aerial death squad.

Reprieve’s report makes a stunning link though. It confirms that a British kill list does exist but is now not just afforded to terrorists overseas but combines them as targets with drug traffickers and others. The kill list is officially known as the Joint Prioritized Effects List or JPEL.

The report asserts that the British security services, including UK police have worked alongside the US military to determine who gets named for the state sponsored, tax-payer funded assassination programme.

Reprieve highlights the fact that Britain conspired in a US-inspired Kill List soon after 9/11. It says quite categorically that “Starting in 2002, working closely with the Americans, Britain had played a leading role in the euphemistic Joint Prioritized Effective List. As with Yemen, the JPEL Kill List was not even limited to a war zone – it spanned over into Pakistan, which was an ally, not an enemy at war.”

What this effectively means is that not only has Britain brought back the death penalty it has done so without public or parliamentary consultation, and carried out these deadly deeds regularly without even a basic trial.

[...] The Kill List remains in operation to this day and has hundreds (around 700) of names listed, is updated monthly, and now includes not just high value targets but low level members of the Taliban, drug dealers and even paedophiles associated with insurgents all of which is an absolute violation of International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law.

Once on the ‘kill list’ these individuals are hunted down and murdered without judicial oversight. But much worse is the result of these attacks as The Guardian reported back in November 2014 when 41 men had been targeted by US drone attacks but 1,147 innocent people were killed. There is no evidence to suggest that any other drone manufactured by Britain is any more discriminating at killing than that. At the time, we had no knowledge of Britain’s policy on the matter but it was clear that Britain and America were prepared to kill innocent civilians who were standing in the way. In this context, 27 innocent civilians will die for each confirmed kill.

As Reprieve points out -“Far from the marvellously precise killing machines that were loudly advertised by their proponents, the drones in Pakistan killed an average of nine innocent children for each “High Value Target” singled out for death.”

[...] What is worrying is that the government has form when it comes to abusing its powers through mission creep. For instance, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 designed to catch terrorists allowed the government full surveillance powers over all kinds of communications and population control measures such as using the Act to arrest people for parking offences, non-payment of BBC TV licence, dog fouling and even under-age use of sun-beds. Tens of thousands of warrants designed to catch terrorists have been issued for petty offences. On the same shaky ground as this example, the government could just as easily extend its extra-judicial kill programme to a wider parameter to include say, home grown terrorists and even drug dealers and murder citizens on the streets of Britain. Where will the line be drawn?

 

[Voyageur]

Thierry Meyssan has an article from April 13th from his perspective.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article191236.html

Why the «Panama Papers »?
by Thierry Meyssan

Contrary to what may appear to be the case, the «Panama Papers» campaign will not lead to restraining embezzlements of funds, nor to expanding liberties, but the exact opposite. The system is going to consolidate a bit more around the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the United States and Israel, so that these and only these will control it. By violating the principle of equality before the Law and their professional ethics, the members of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists have put themselves at the service of the enemies of liberty and the defenders of Big Capital. The fact that they had pinned down in the process some crooks will not change anything. Explanations.
[...]
Incidentally, the architects of this carabistouille try to persuade us that all men that rebel against Washington would be robbers. For example, we remember the campaigns mounted against Fidel Castro, accusing him of being a drug trafficker and Forbes listing him among the world’s most wealthy [5]. After observing the difficult living conditions of the Castro Family in Cuba, I ask myself how can anyone mount such a lie. It would follow that the new secret magnates would be Vladimir Putin, Bachar el-Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad —however their frugality is legendary.

This propaganda against political adversaries, is simply the tip of the iceberg. The important point is the future of the international financial system.
[...]

 

[Chad]

Some kinda related information on the exposure and surrounding chatter of the Panama Leaks.

Well, the 'leak' has lead to some interesting ideas being brought to our attention - first, in parliament today:

Conservative Charles Walker in particular.

During a live TV interview, the Broxbourne MP said if he was forced to publish his tax return, then he’d ban curtains.

It seems his reluctance to share his doings isn't anything new - though he does seem to have quite the interest in other peoples affairs:

George Osborne agrees to exempt MPs from anti-money laundering checks under pressure from Tory backbencher

21:27, 19 Apr 2016
By Mikey Smith

The Chancellor has caved under pressure from influential Tory Charles Walker, who last week refused to reveal his tax returns


George Osborne has agreed to make MPs exempt from anti-money laundering checks under pressure from moaning Tory backbenchers.

Tory MP Charles Walker claimed MPs and their families were being treated like "African despots".

MPs appear on automatic watch lists of "Politically Exposed Persons" (PEP), used by banks to prevent money being funnelled into criminal gangs or hidden in offshore tax havens.

It means MPs and their families could be subject to extra checks on their bank accounts.

But the Chancellor said banks could go too far and become "disproportionate."

FameFlynet Charles Walker MP
Charles Walker MP

Ministers will now move to exclude MPs from the watch lists in the forthcoming Bank of England bill.

Mr Osborne caved under pressure from influential Tory backbencher Charles Walker, who has been pressing for the change for some months.

Mr Walker, who chairs the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs, last week threatened to table a bill banning curtains if he was forced to publish his tax returns.

It came after Mr Cameron pledged to publish his taxes , and faces a sleaze probe after admitting he'd benefited from shares in his father's offshore trust.

Mr Walker said "I have no intention of publishing my tax returns. And I tell you what, if we do publish tax returns, because people say nothing to fear, nothing to hide, I'll bring forward a private member's bill in parliament to ban curtains from people's homes.

"On the same basis, nothing to fear, nothing to hid. Why should I have my right to look in someone's home impinged by a curtain.

He warned that the ability of the public to properly scrutinise the financial dealings of public servants "dangerous territory," and urged caution.

He added: "Once we go down the slippery slope, you may well be next."

The outspoken MP also dismissed the controversy surrounding Mr Cameron's tax affairs as "slightly ridiculous."

He sniffed at the "small amount of money" Mr Cameron had made out of the deal, saying it was only "enough to buy a Skoda Octavia."

A spying bill he backed:

Tory MP who blocked anti-money laundering checks for MPs still voted to spy on our phones

Wednesday 20 April 10:14

Charles Walker MP

You may remember Charles Walker, the Conservative MP for Broxbourne, when he popped up on TV arguing against MPs publishing tax returns and threatening to ban curtains in retaliation.

Yes, seriously.

Charles Walker told Sky News:

we do publish tax returns because people keep saying “there’s nothing to hide” I’ll bring forward a private members bill in Parliament to ban curtains from people’s homes.

It gets worse. Now it has emerged that he was instrumental in pushing George Osborne to exempt MPs from anti-money laundering checks.

MPs are listed as ‘Politically Exposed Persons’ (PEP) – which means banks usually subject them to extra checks to prevent money laundering or stashing it in offshore tax havens.

Charles Walker slammed this earlier as treating MPs like “African despots” and claimed that new anti-money laundering checks would unfairly subject MPs to scrutiny.

But the same MP was happy for extra scrutiny over the entire British public though, voting recently for the Investigatory Powers bill that would

allow the bulk interception of communications, equipment interference, and the retention and examination of bulk personal datasets

The bill to bulk-spy on everyone’s Whatsapp, iMessenger and other mobile communications in other words.

There’s only one word for people like this – hypocrite.

And just to drive the point about hypocrisy home. For people claiming benefits, they are subjected to quite intimate investigations. Baring in mind they get not much more than £2000 - if they're lucky - the rest comes in 'tax breaks' (working tax credit, single parent, and so on) whereas MPs get around £120,000 per annum in expenses - on top of their ~ £80,000 salary.

Poor women have never had ‘privacy’. So why should those who bank offshore?

Lisa Mckenzie

The moneyed elites are furious at being subject to the kind of scrutiny that working-class mothers have had to endure for years

‘Working-class single mums claiming benefits will be asked very personal questions about what for anyone else would be private matters.’

Photograph: Lihee Avidan/Getty Images

Tuesday 19 April 2016 14.00 BST
Last modified on Wednesday 20 April 2016 00.05 BST


These are private matters, we have been told over the past 10 days, as the men running the world have been put under scrutiny to explain how their private finances might interlink with our public services, social goods and, ultimately, our private matters. The Panama Papers have exposed the private dealings of the elites and their love of offshore tax havens. Since then, as calls grow for more transparency in political and corporate life, there has been a conveyor belt of Tory MPs and business leaders indignantly, and often with very red faces, denouncing the idea that the great unwashed may have a right to know who is using them.

Taxman has no strategy to catch wealthy dodgers, say MPs

Read more

As a working-class woman, watching their anguish has been amusing. I have laughed as I have watched them standing outside Westminster being questioned about their private affairs. Well it’s a bloody good job they weren’t born working-class women. Having grown up and lived on a council estate most of my life, I have been part of many conversations about making ends meet and getting by. Getting by comes in different forms, from knowing where you can buy the cheapest chicken to how to handle the many government agencies you may have to deal with. As a poor working-class woman it is important to know what to say in answer to certain questions – answering wrongly can have harsh consequences. There is no such thing as a “private matter” when dealing with the welfare system.

When I was small, my mum asked for financial support from what was then National Assistance after my grandparents died. She was the sole carer for her younger brother and sister as well as me. When the adviser asked her if she had anything she could sell, my mother wrongly answered “yes” and so the help she received was a suggestion that she could sell her clothes and records first. As a consequence she fell into rent arrears and couldn’t pay the electric bill.

There is no such thing as a private matter when dealing with the welfare system

My mum is far from an isolated case. Working-class single mums claiming benefits will be asked very personal questions about what for anyone else would be private matters. They have to disclose the name of the child’s father, his address, where he works, so that the Child Support Agency can chase him up. If you cannot answer these questions (without good reason) your benefits are stopped. Benefit officials may look into your garden and check your washing line doesn’t have any men’s clothes on it, or use credit checks to see who may or may not be living at your address.

The moral argument for this treatment is that if you are taking public money you have to be open and accountable, so there can be no privacy if you are a poor woman. But taking public money or depriving the rest of us of public money by creating shell companies in faraway sunny places like the Bahamas or Panama? That’s different – it means you have good “tax management”, aspiration, and you are clearly a high achiever.

So more kinda related topics:

Yesterday's Keiser Report; in the first half, was general chatter about how the Saudi's 'investing' their wealth in the London property market has partly led to the ballooning of prices; then in the second half, Steve Topple investigative journalist stating that the leak has served as a distraction but also brought to light these issues to many who were blissfully unawares.

Steve Topple: 'I've seen very little that's made me go "Woah,this is huge."'

Oh, and just listening back - about how GCHQ have been listening in to citizens emails under guise of 'copy right claim' investigations - something about Harry Potter...

I found that i was able to tweet about lots of vaguely related topics under the #ResignCameron #ResignDavidCameron hashtags, and got more views because of it. Some about Putin and his multi-language skills; so like they do, don't let a good disaster go to waste.

Keiser Report: Systemic Nature of Corruption (E903)
RT
RT
1,772,259
10,491
Published on Apr 19, 2016

In this episode of the Keiser Report Max and Stacy discuss royal scum threatening to dump US Treasuries and the evaporation of 315 billion petrodollars without much impact on credit markets. In the second half Max and Stacy continue their interview with Steve Topple about what two weeks of #PanamaPapers leaks have told us about the systemic nature of corruption.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...t8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[casper]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/panama-papers-us-justice-department-launches-criminal-investigation-into-tax-avoidance-allegations-1555717
"The US Department of Justice is set to dig deeper into allegations of tax avoidance by rich and wealthy citizens, which came to the fore following the so-called Panama Papers leak. The department has launched a criminal investigation into the matter and has sought assistance from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)."

http://arynews.tv/en/pm-sharif-chair-key-meeting-panama-papers/
"ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is expected to chair an ‘important’ meeting of his party leaders and ministers to discuss Panama Papers."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/china-extends-controls-on-wealth-of-officials-to-beijing-beyond
"China’s censors quickly removed any mention of Chinese links to the Panama Papers in social media and Internet sites accessible in China. Aside from one editorial assessing the leaks as likely to provide fodder to criticize non-Western nations, China’s state-run media has been largely silent and online searches related to the leaks have been blocked."

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/21/panama-papers-australian-criminal-activity-aided-by-law-firm-tax-office-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
"We have already identified more than 800 taxpayers in the data and we've linked over 120 of them to a particular associate offshore service provider in Hong Kong and around 80 names match the Australian Crime Commission's Serious and Organised Crime Intelligence Database."
--Chris Jordan, Australian Tax Commissioner,link:
https://twitter.com/ABCNews24/status/723028514379718656

https://africajournalismtheworld.com/tag/angola-and-panama-papers/
Angola – Panama Pa\pers show how military and political leaders gained from oil deals

 

[casper]

The hunt begins,link:
http://globaljournalist.org/2016/04/correa-supporters-online-attack-ecuador-journalists/

CORREA SUPPORTERS IN ONLINE ATTACK ON ECUADOR JOURNALISTS
"Soon after, government supporters revealed and spread personal information about the journalists, including photos of their children, according to PanAm Post, an American news and analysis website. Journalists were called “mercenaries,” “rats” and “lackeys of the empire” on Facebook, according to Fundamedios, an Ecuadorean press freedom group."