#2537: Serco Kerry Red Switch for 8(a) 1.5 Cap – A Crowd-Funded Hawkeye Letter of Marque – Or Double-O Sinks Charles de Gaulle
1. Abel Danger (AD) asserts that Serco mentors used John Kerry’s 8(a) operators of the Defense Red Switch Network to extort delegates at the UN Climate Change Summit n Paris and secure enforceable but spurious carbon caps to “hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.”
2. Abel Danger will use crowd-funding to finance a request to Congress for Letters of Marque and Reprisal to recover any Hawkeye carbon-capping aircraft which Kerry may have delegated to the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Direction de la surveillance du territoire (Directorate Territorial Surveillance).
3. On receiving a Letter of Marque and the cyberfunds, Abel Danger will give the commanding officer on the Charles de Gaulle the choice of taking his ship to a U.S. port for re-badging or risk a death-pool sinking in Double-O Stuxnet attacks.
United States Marine Field McConnell (http://www.abeldanger.net/2010/01/field-mcconnell-bio.html) invites CJCS Joseph Dunford to release any evidence – obtained by the apparently oxy-moronic Marine Corps Intelligence Activity in re Serco’s 8(a) Red Switch Network operations – in support of a request to Congress for Letters of Marque to recover the Hawkeye aircraft on the Charles de Gaulle.
It is now D-Day + 12.
“Crowd-funding is the practice of funding a project or venture by raising monetary contributions from a large number of people, today often performed via internet-mediated registries, but the concept can also be executed through mail-order subscriptions, benefit events, and other methods. Crowdfunding is a form of alternative finance, which has emerged outside of the traditional financial system. The crowdfunding model is based on three types of actors: the project initiator who proposes the idea and/or project to be funded; individuals or groups who support the idea; and a moderating organization (the “platform”) that brings the parties together to launch the idea . In 2013, the crowdfunding industry raised over $5.1 billion worldwide.”
“COP21: Key government adopts 1.5-degree temperature limit in Paris Climate Talks
NZYD seeks immediate ban on further oil, gas and coal reserves exploration
By Vittorio Hernandez
@ibtimesau on December 12 2015 8:16 PM
The New Zealand government has given in to pressure from various groups to join the High Ambition Coalition. This is the group of countries that are not satisfied with the 2-degreeC target and wants it lowered to 1.5C.
Wellington’s move follows the footstep of fellow Oceania country Australia which also aligned with the High Ambition Coalition. What changed the mind of Prime Minister John Key and outgoing Climate Change Minister Tim Groser is the unexpected support of US State Secretary John Kerry for the coalition, reports TVNZ.
While Groser admits that 1.5C appears to be unachievable, “Since it’s obviously so important to Pacific Island countries (some of which face possible inundation as sea levels arise), we’ve said ‘OK.’” He concedes that while professional negotiators think New Zealand has made a huge contribution of a minus 30 percent on a 2005 base, “if you ask youth groups and green groups, you’ll get a different answer,” quotes NZHerald.
With this development, the New Zealand Youth Delegation (NZYD) called on Wellington for an immediate ban on further exploration for oil, gas and coal reserves in New Zealand and a just, urgent transition out of the fossil fuel industry in New Zealand. NZYD hosted an action earlier on Friday in front of the COP21 Eiffel Tower where young New Zealanders held messages and banners calling on the New Zealand government to end all fossil fuel exploration and transition out of fossil fuel energy in New Zealand.
“We are ecstatic that our Government has listened to voices like ours. If New Zealand wants to meet our commitment for a 1.5 limit, we need a just and urgent transition away from our remaining dirty energy sources and a moratorium on further exploration. Let’s keep it in the ground to protect our Pacific neighbours and New Zealand from climate change impacts such as dangerous sea level rises. Let’s keep it in the ground so we have a chance of meeting our ambitious target.” said NZYD spokesperson Renee Annan.
“Our win on the 1.5 degree issue shows the power of young people rising up to take action. It’s urgent we keep up the pressure since our government is trying to keep us in the dark ages of the fossil fuel industry through huge handouts to big oil, and by stacking the deck against renewables,” Annan adds.
According to the New York Times, the possible final draft of the global climate accord would likely be presented on Saturday for a last round of debate. The draft was completed after late-night negotiations and is undergoing translation from English into five other official UN languages.”
“Paris climate talks: How a 1.5 degree target overcame the odds at COP21
By environment reporter Sara Phillips
Updated about an hour ago
It snuck into the draft climate change agreement earlier this year, and much to everyone’s surprise, a 1.5 degrees Celsius target survived the gauntlet of the United Nations climate change negotiations.
Negotiators are catching up on sleep after gruelling talks resulted in 195 nations adopting a an new international agreement to slow global warming.
The target of 1.5C dodged multiple rounds of chops, changes and tweaks to the deal text.
The agreement now has the aim of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”.
The newfound enthusiasm for 1.5C reflects a growing realisation that 2C is a figure with very little basis in fact.
Several scientists have told the ABC the 2C degree target is “arbitrary” or “plucked out of the air”. None would go on the record admitting that, however.
We can quantify the risks of 1.5 degrees or two or three degrees, but we can never use science alone to justify any target. It’s always a question of what values we have. We need to decide as a society how much risk we’re willing to take.
Climate professor Reto Knutti
But a new paper out this week in Nature Geoscience is not so shy.
“No scientific assessment has clearly justified or defended the two degree target as a safe level of warming,” write the authors.
Lead author Reto Knutti is a Swiss professor of climate science.
“We can quantify the risks of 1.5 degrees or two or three degrees but we can never use science alone to justify any target. It’s always a question of what values we have,” he said.
“We need to decide as a society how much risk we’re willing to take.
“Ultimately the two degree target is a political consensus that takes into account what policy makers at that time considered to be both realistically achieve and tolerable. It is high time for a scientific assessment.
“It’s a compromise of the best we can hope for and the worse we can tolerate.”
The accepted history of the 2C target is that William Nordhaus, a Yale economist, came up with the number in one of the earliest papers on climate change an its economic implications.
In 1975 he wrote: “If there were global temperatures more than 2C or 3C above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.”
He graphed a rough sketch of historical temperatures and added a label at 2C: “Estimated maximum experienced over last 100,000 years.”
Climate science has honed those estimates in the past 40 years. We now know that temperatures have dropped dramatically over 100,000 years – as low as -20 – but in that time they have never been as high as they are now. And they certainly have not surpassed two degrees.
But before scientists had ironed out such details, the 2C target was already making it into official documents. Europe was largely responsible for its ultimate inclusion in the United Nations agreement that came out of Copenhagen in 2009.
Enshrined as an official target, it became a signpost beyond which “dangerous climate change” apparently lay.
Degrees of difference
There is only half a degree between the two targets. Given that humans live in places that experience temperatures as low as -60C and as high as 50C, it seems ludicrous to spend so much energy haggling over half a degree.
However Will Steffan, a member of the Australian Climate Council, said “those temperatures that we scientists use are not to be confused with daily temperature ranges that people experience”.
Even though they are both measuring temperatures, he said they are better thought of as a measurement for what the whole climate system is doing.
“A five degree world doesn’t just mean it’s going to be five degrees warmer in Canberra or Sydney or Darwin or wherever,” he said.
“It means is a world that will likely have little or no polar ice. Large areas will be uninhabitable for humans.
“The last ice-age was only five degrees cooler in global average temperatures and yet a lot of north American and northern Europe were under a couple of kilometres of ice.”
As scientists have improved our understanding of climate change, there’s been a growing realisation that two degrees is likely to be quite dangerous after all.
“At two degrees we’d have several metres of sea level rise,” Professor Steffan said.
“Several small island states would not exist.”
He said extreme weather such as heatwaves, bushfires, heavy rainfall, and drought would be more common at 2C.
“Coral reefs would almost certainly not be around at 2 degrees. They’d be struggling at 1.5,” he said.
Most worrying for Professor Steffan is there is a chance the world would pass certain tipping points that would spell planetary disaster, such as masses of greenhouse gases escaping from melting Siberian tundra pushing climate change beyond anything humans can control.
The rise of 1.5
Howard Bamsey, a veteran negotiator for Australia at the UN climate conferences, said a 1.5C target has always been on the table. When 2C became official in 2009, there was provision for revisiting 1.5C in 2015.
In 2011, the executive secretary of the UN climate agency Christina Figueres said: “Two degrees is not enough – we should be thinking of 1.5 degrees . If we are not headed to 1.5 degrees we are in big, big trouble.”
The imprimatur from such a senior climate figure gave the lower target the legs it needed to carry on through several years of lack-lustre negotiations.
Meanwhile continuing science repeatedly found that at 2C, climate change would be more dangerous than might be acceptable.
Mr Bamsey said 1.5C’s rise to prominence this year is a result of a long-term push from the nations most vulnerable to climate change: the island nations.
At the beginning at this year’s negotiations US president Barak Obama posed for a photo with leaders of some of the least powerful and most vulnerable island nations.
The photo was a strong symbol that the US was willing to side with the tiny nations and their long-held dream of a 1.5 target.
Australia signed on to the 1.5 target when it cut a deal with St Lucia, a Caribbean island nation, to back the target in exchange for being allowed to carry over its savings from the Kyoto Protocol.
With 1.5 now inked as the stretch target, the island nations can walk away from Paris with a sense of victory.
“It’s been one that island states have been wanting to see reflected in the outcome of the UN process for some years,” Mr Bamsey said.
“I think it’s to some extent a product of the persistence of those most vulnerable countries in flagging their concerns that a world that warmed by two degrees would still leave them in a critical situation that would endanger their existence.”
“Geologic Global Climate Changes
Author: Nasif Nahle
Scientific Research Director-Biology Cabinet
(Additional editing of this English text by TS)
Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.
In the last 20 years, public interest in climate phenomena has grown, especially since the UN-IPCC began its campaign warning of catastrophic climate changes ahead. At Biology Cabinet, we maintain that the changes that we have observed since 1985 have been natural and that human beings cannot delay or stop the advance of these changes, but can only adapt to them. In addition, we have shown that the changes that we observe at present are the result of natural cycles which have occurred many times before.
CLICK ON THE GRAPH TO SEE A LARGER IMAGE
CONTINENTAL FLOODED AREA ON THE GEOLOGIC TIMESCALE
In this graph we notice that higher sea levels generally correspond with periods of warming while lower sea levels marry generally with periods of cooling. The lower sea levels are explained by a reduction of sea water as the oceans ice up at the poles. We notice also that the sea level response is sometimes negative with respect to warming or cooling of the atmosphere. For example, at the end of the Silurian Period the warming remained stable while the continental flooded area (CFA) diminished. During the Carboniferous Period, i.e. during the Mississippian Epoch, the Earth suffered an Ice Age while the CFA diminished, not in a linear trend however. From the Pennsylvanian Epoch to the Middle Jurassic Period, the CFA remained relatively stable with a small increase in the Triassic while the temperature reached a level higher than during the Silurian Period. Negative feedback is evidenced from the Latter Jurassic to the Middle Cretaceous when the temperature dropped to another ice age while sea level increased. It is important to note that sea levels have fallen through time and that geological CFA phases are not possible nowadays because the Earth is cooling, not warming.
TOP OF PAGE ^^
CLICK ON THE GRAPH TO SEE A LARGER IMAGE
CONCENTRATION OF ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND CHANGE OF SEA LEVEL
In this graph we can clearly see that increases of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide always follow drops in sea level. Since the drops in sea level are caused by oceans cooling, the load of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere is much smaller than the load released to the atmosphere when oceans are warming.
Something else worth considering in this comparison is that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has decreased as the oceans have cooled over geological time. The correlation between both phenomena —decrease of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and lowering of the sea level— is supporting evidence that the oceans are the secondary driver of the Earth’s climate. Certainly, the Sun is the primary driver of climate on our planet.
On this assessment, the evidence points to a current natural climate change which happens sequentially in two main climate periods, icehouse and warmhouse.
It also reveals the succession of four natural climate phases known as transgression, highstand, regression and lowstand. The transgression phase consists of a rising Sea Level, flooding continental areas. Highstand is a phase where the marine level remains relatively stable but oscillating into the transgression phase. The regression phase consists of a gradual diminution of the marine level, leaving a greater area of the continents uncovered.
The phase of Lowstand consists of a permanence of low marine level. Currently, the Earth is passing through a lowstand phase, which will revert to Transgression phase. The succession of these phases show the Earth is cooling.
At the moment, the area of continental flood is almost 7%; according to climatic succession, we expect the area of continental flood to increase to almost 10%, but never so massive that it will put human populations in danger, as the IPCC has taken to suggesting almost every day. Allow me to clarify that most of the claims regarding catastrophic climate change filling the newspapers are overblown and based on data that is being arbitrarily exaggerated to blame humanity for climatic changes which are absolutely natural.
TOP OF PAGE ^^
Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese © 2002.
Ruddiman, W. F. 2001. Earth’s Climate: past and future. W. H. Freeman & Sons. New York, NY.
Mark Pagani et all. Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleocene. Science; Vol. 309, No. 5734; pp. 600-603. 22 July 2005.
Drew T. Shindell et al. Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum. Science, Vol. 294, Issue 5549, 2149-2152, 7 December 2001.
Prothero, Donald, R. Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology-Second Edition. 2004. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Ronov, A. B. 1994. Phanerozoic Transgressions and Regressions on the Continents: A Quantitative Approach Based on Areas Flooded by the Sea and Areas of Marine and Continental Deposition. American Journal of Science 294:777–801.
Source for Nomenclature and Ages: © 1999, The Geological Society of America. Product Code CTS004. Compilers: A. R. Palmer and John Geissman.
David Jablonski, Douglas H. Erwin, Jere H. Lipps. Evolutionary Paleobiology. 1996. The University of Chicago; Chicago, Illinois.”
“John Kerry [traitor] meeting North Vietnamese in Paris
The 1970 meeting that John Kerry conducted with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law, according to an author and researcher who has studied the issue.
Kerry met with representatives from “both delegations” of the Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry’s own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry’s meetings with the Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws forbidding private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s.
According to Corsi, Kerry violated U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953. “A U.S. citizen cannot go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power,” Corsi told CNSNews.com.
By Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.
Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”
However, both of the delegations to which Kerry referred were communist. Neither included the U.S. allied, South Vietnamese or any members of the U.S. delegation. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the government of the North Vietnamese communists, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PVR) was an arm of the North Vietnamese government that included the Vietcong.
Kerry did meet face-to-face with the PVR’s negotiator Madam Nguyen Thi Binh, according to his presidential campaign spokesman Michael Meehan. Madam Binh’s peace plan was being proposed by the North Vietnamese communists as a way to bring a quick end to the war.
But Corsi alleged that Kerry’s meeting with Madam Binh and the government of North Vietnam was a direct violation of U.S. law.
“In [Kerry’s] first meeting in 1970, meeting with Madam Binh, Kerry was still a naval reservist – not only a U.S. citizen, but a naval reservist – stepping outside the boundaries to meet with one of the principle figures of our enemy in Vietnam, Madam Binh, and the Viet Cong at the same time. [Former Nixon administration aide Henry] Kissinger was trying to negotiate with them formally,” Corsi told CNSNews.com.”
“The Defense Red Switch Network (DRSN) is a dedicated telephone network which provides global secure communication services for the command and control structure of the United States Armed Forces. The network is maintained by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and is secured for communications up to the level of Top Secret SCI.
The DRSN provides multilevel secure voice and voice-conferencing capabilities to the National Command Authority (NCA, being the President and the Secretary of Defense of the United States), the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Military Command Center (NMCC), Combatant Commanders and their command centers, warfighters, other DoD agencies, government departments, and NATO allies.
Department of Defense and federal government agencies can get access to the network with approval of the Joint Staff. Upon approval by the Joint Staff, DISA will work with the customer and the appropriate military department to arrange the service.
The Defense Red Switch Network consists of four major subsystems: the Switching Subsystem, the Transmission Subsystem, the Timing and Synchronization Subsystem, and the Network Management Subsystem. The Switching Subsystem uses both RED and BLACK switches to provide an integrated RED/BLACK service. End users are provided with a single telephone instrument with which they can access both secure and nonsecure networks.
The DRSN carried around 15,000 calls per day prior to September 11, 2001. DRSN usage subsequently peaked at 45,000 calls per day and by mid-2003 was running at around 25,000 calls per day. In that period the Defense Red Switch Network was expanded to support 18 additional US Federal Homeland Defense initiatives.
Nowadays, this network is also called the Multilevel Secure Voice service. It’s the core of the Global Secure Voice System (GSVS) during peacetime, crisis and time of conventional war, by hosting national-level conferencing and connectivity requirements and providing interoperability with both tactical and strategic communication networks.”
“The procedure for issuing letters of marque and the issuing authority varied by time and circumstance. In colonial America, for instance, colonial governors issued them in the name of the king. During the American Revolution, first the state legislatures, then both the states and the Continental Congress, then, after ratification of the Constitution, Congress authorized and the President signed letters of marque. A shipowner would send in an application stating the name, description, tonnage, and force (armaments) of the vessel, the name and residence of the owner, and the intended number of crew, and tendered a bond promising strict observance of the country’s laws and treaties and of international laws and customs. The commission was granted to the vessel, not to its captain, often for a limited time or specified area, and stated the enemy upon whom attacks were permitted. For instance, during the Second Barbary War President James Madison authorized the Salem, Mass., brig Grand Turk to cruise against “Algerine vessels, public or private, goods and effects, of or belonging to the Dey of Algiers”. (Interestingly, this particular commission was never put to use, as it was issued the same day the treaty was signed ending the U.S. involvement in the war—July 3, 1815.)
A letter of marque and reprisal in effect converted a private merchant vessel into a naval auxiliary. A commissioned privateer enjoyed the protection and was subject to the obligations of the laws of war. If captured, the crew was entitled to honorable treatment as prisoners of war, while without the licence they were deemed mere pirates “at war with all the world,” criminals who were properly hanged.
For this reason, enterprising maritime raiders commonly took advantage of “flag of convenience” letters of marque, shopping for cooperative governments to license and legitimize their depredations. French/Irishman Luke Ryan and his lieutenants in just over two years commanded six vessels under the flags of three different nations and on opposite sides in the same war. Likewise the notorious Lafitte brothers in New Orleans cruised under letters of marque secured by bribery from corrupt officials of tenuous Central American governments, to cloak plunder with a thin veil of legality.
Nations often agreed by treaty to forgo privateering, as England and France repeatedly did starting with the diplomatic overtures of Edward III in 1324; privateering nonetheless recurred in every war between them for the next 500 years.
Benjamin Franklin had attempted to persuade the French to lead by example and stop issuing letters of marque to their corsairs, but the effort foundered when war loomed with Britain once again. The French Convention did forbid the practice, but it was reinstated after the Thermidorian Reaction, in August 1795; on 26 September 1797, the Ministry of the Navy was authorized to sell small ships to private parties for this purpose.
Finally, after the Congress of Paris at the end of the Crimean War, seven European nations signed the Paris Declaration of 1856 renouncing privateering, and forty-five more eventually joined them, which in effect abolished privateering worldwide. The United States was not a signatory to that declaration. Despite the attempt to end privateering around the world, nations continued issuing letters of marque. In 1879 at the beginning of the War of the Pacific, Bolivia issued letters of marque to any vessels willing to fight for them. At the time Bolivia was under threat from Chile’s fleet but had no navy.”
“NS7–Implement Voice over IP as an Enterprise Service … The current Voice Systems Network provides global unclassified (DSN) and classified (Voice over SIP and DRSN) voice services. These are voice services provided on DISN in CONUS and OCONUS locations. Network Services is developing, in coordination with industry, the architecture for Enterprise Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Services to provide a full range of voice-related capabilities to more than 4 million DoD users from a central location that fully leverages the DISN and IP technologies. The Enterprise VoIP is leveraging Assured ServicesSIP with quality of service for a highly reliable, available, and survivable voice service. This approach will eliminate the duplication of costs for voice services, O&M, network operations, sustainment, and IA at nearly 2,000 locations worldwide. It also allows for improved security and the rapid phase-in of a full suite of unified capabilities with collaboration, conferencing, mobility, and portability features to improve DoD end-to-end information dominance for both fixed and tactical (deployable) missions at a lower total cost of ownership.”
“NS10–Defense Red Switch Network (DRSN) Rationalization … The DRSN supports critical C2 secure voice capabilities, and implementation of a DRSN switch system for a command requires that the Joint Staff approve a validated requirement through the CJCSI process. DRSN switches support a number of critical capabilities, the three most critical are: 1) the large conferencing and conferencing management capability; 2) the ability to support calls and conferences involving various security levels (Secret to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information); and 3) gateway functions (interfaces) to other secure voice systems. Recent guidance from the SecDef to support cost reductions precipitated the review and analysis of the DRSN and a consideration for potentially reducing the number of switches in the DRSN. Currently, there is no other product available that can perform the critical capabilities of the Raytheon DRSN switch, but the number of switches potentially could be reduced by reevaluating requirements and determining if replacing them with VoSIP and/or consolidating service at some location would still satisfy operational requirements.
“The Congress shall have Power To …grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal….
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11
Teacher’s Companion Lesson (PDF)
The Marque and Reprisal Clause plays an important supporting role in the debate over the original allocation of war powers between the President and Congress. At the time of the Founding, the sovereign authorized holders of letters of marque and reprisal to engage in hostile actions against enemies of the state. The common understanding of “Reprisal” is a seizure of property (or sometimes persons) of a foreign state for redressing an injury committed by that state. Because the word marque is the French equivalent of reprisal, many scholars believe that the constitutional term “Marque and Reprisal” is best understood as a single phrase.
The only serious debate over the meaning of the Marque and Reprisal Clause is whether it extends only to authorizing private parties (known as “privateers”) to engage in reprisals for private, commercial gain, or whether it also gives Congress the power to authorize reprisals by the armed forces of the United States for public purposes.
That debate mirrors the larger war powers debate over the Declare War Clause. Congressionalists construe the Declare War Clause and the Marque and Reprisal Clause jointly to cover all forms of hostilities and thereby to deny the President any power whatsoever to initiate hostilities. They contend that the Declare War Clause requires Congress to authorize wars, whereas the Marque and Reprisal Clause requires Congress to authorize lower level hostilities, whether by public forces or by privateers.
Citing revolutionary practice, presidentialists maintain that the Marque and Reprisal Clause was originally understood to give Congress the power to vest sovereign authority to use force against enemy nations and their subjects with private parties only. Exercising that power, Congress could authorize so-called privateers to engage in military hostilities, with neither government funding nor oversight (other than after-the-fact judicial determinations of prizes by the prize courts). Thus, according to presidentialists, the Marque and Reprisal Clause is best read in conjunction with Congress’s power over the purse. They argue that the clause is consistent with their overall structural theory of the Constitution, under which Congress has exhaustive authority over all funding of military hostilities, whether through public appropriations or private letters of reprisal, but no power to control directly the President’s ability to initiate hostilities with whatever resources Congress has previously made available to him. Under this framework, locating the Marque and Reprisal Clause in Article I prevents the President from engaging in hostilities free from congressional control over resources, whether in the form of public appropriations or the issuance of letters of marque and reprisal. The clause thus helps fill a hole that would otherwise exist in Congress’s control over the provision of military resources.
Outside of the law reviews and scholarly debates over the allocation of war powers between Congress and the President, the Marque and Reprisal Clause has played little if any role in modern law. The United States has not issued letters of marque and reprisal since the War of 1812, and has not seriously considered doing so since Andrew Jackson’s presidency. In addition, the 1856 Declaration of Paris prohibits privateering as a matter of international law. Although the United States has not ratified the Declaration, it has upheld the ban in practice.
During the Iran-Contra controversy of Ronald Reagan’s administration, Members of Congress objected to the President’s private financing of hostilities, absent prior congressional consent. Congress did not expressly invoke the Marque and Reprisal Clause, however, in objecting to executive branch action.”
“Installing Next Generation C4I Systems on a Nuclear Carrier [Auld Alliance led by David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy ordered Serco to install the same system on General de Gaulle for man-in-the-middle attacks on America!!!] … Information superiority can be decisive to battlefield success, and America’s fleet of nuclear aircraft carriers constitute one of the most effective means to project military power across the globe. So when the Navy planned to retrofit the USS John C. Stennis with a next generation C4I network, they turned to a reliable partner with the scale and knowledge to execute such a critical project, Serco.
The Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) platform was designed to standardize the U.S. Navy on a single networking platform to reduce vulnerability to cyber attacks, consolidate multiple legacy networks, and provide for fast and painless addition of future capabilities. CANES replaces five existing shipboard networks and used substantial of commercially available hardware, thereby driving down the total cost of ownership for the Navy.
USS Stennis was the very first CANES installation on a carrier. The project required 179 miles of cabling, replacing all of the network and computing gear, and installing 70 new steel foundations for server racks, antennae, and radomes. Nine months were allotted to complete the massive retrofit, that involved 200 planning yard drawings and technical documents, some of which were not ready as program began.
Serco was chosen due to our success of delivering large scale projects on deadline and the unique client reporting system employed to give visibility to the Navy, known as the Serco Program Integrated Reporting & Installation Tracking, or SPIRIT. SPIRIT integrates three key client requirements, tailored earned value management (EVM), quality assurance (QA) documentation, and weekly status reports, so that deck-plate personnel and senior program managers have a clear picture of the project status.
Serco delivered the program on time, marking the first CANES implementation on an aircraft carrier and the only CANES project that has been delivered on schedule. Serco’s scale, domain knowledge, and commitment to the mission all played a role in this significant upgrade.”
“Previously we wrote that while in 5th Fleet, the CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt was the largest symbol in the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition responsible for “1,812 combat sorties totaling 10,618 combat flight hours, taking on 14.5 million gallons of jet fuel [The Dumbo Red Switch Network will soon put a stop to that!!!] and expending 1,085 precision-guided munitions,” as part of Operation Inherent Resolve.”
We concluded by saying that whatever the reason behind the US naval “gap” may be, one thing is clear: the departure of the Roosevelt comes at a particularly awkward time – just as Russia is setting up its own aicraft base in Syria.
We may have been too early.
As Reuters reported earlier today, just as one US carrier was leaving the middle east, another widely feared and respected geopolitical superpower was set to replace US carrier presence in the Middle East in the ongoing war against “ISIS” – France.
Earlier today, in a statement by the French presidency following a meeting of its defence cabinet, the government said it would send its only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle warship, to the eastern Mediterranean for operations against Isis in both Syria and Iraq.
According to the Independent, “the deployment of the battle group alongside the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier has been decided to participate in operations against Daesch and its affiliate groups,” the statement said after a defense cabinet meeting, referring to the Arabic acronym for Islamic State.
The carrier is usually accompanied by an attack submarine, several frigates, refueling ships, as well as fighter jets and surveillance aircraft Reuters adds.
“The aircraft carrier will enable us to be more efficient in coordination with our allies,” Hollande said at the inauguration of the new defense ministry headquarters in Paris
The Charles de Gaulle is the largest warship in western Europe, and the only nuclear-powered aircraft carrier outside the US fleet. It can support up to 40 fixed wing aircraft and helicopters.
France launched its first air strikes against Isis in Syria in late September, in what was described as an act of self defence. “We will strike each time that our national security is at stake,” the French presidency said. France was the first country to join the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq and has also provided limited logistical support to Syrian rebels it considers moderate, including Kurds.”
“Charles de Gaulle is the flagship of the French Navy (Marine Nationale) and the largest western European warship currently in commission. She is the tenth French aircraft carrier, the first French nuclear-powered surface vessel, and the first and so far only nuclear-powered carrier completed outside of the United States Navy. She is named after French statesman and general Charles de Gaulle.
The ship carries a complement of Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard, Dassault Rafale M and E‑2C Hawkeye aircraft, EC725 Caracal and AS532 Cougar helicopter for combat search and rescue, as well as modern electronics and Astermissiles. She is a CATOBAR-type carrier that uses two 75 m C13‑3 steam catapults of a shorter version of the catapult system installed on the U.S. Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, one catapult at the bow and one across the front of the landing area. Thanks to her characteristics, Charles de Gaulle is the only non-American carrier-vessel in the world able to operate American aircraft such as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet  or C-2 Greyhound, which operate from American carrier-vessels.
In 1993, it was alleged by The Guardian that a group of engineers inspecting the vessel during her construction were British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) operatives [allegedly deployed by the Auld Alliance booster David Cameron to integrate the Nine Eyes surveillance network with the French Force de Frappe], believed to have been learning the method of shielding the nuclear reactors, amongst other technical details. However, the newspaper published a denial by both the British government and the Direction de la surveillance du territoire (DST) (in English: Directorate of Territorial Surveillance) that there had been any incident.”
“James E. Sabow … The findings clearly indicate that Colonel Sabow did not fire the shotgun. The evidence of Col. Sabow’s murder is overwhelming. Why he was murdered and why there has been such a massive effort by the government in undertaking this cover-up is another matter. In summary, Colonel Sabow was Chief of Operations for Marine Air, Western Area. Shortly before his death, he learned of criminal activity by higher officials at El Toro Marine Air Base and others, involving illegal weapon shipments to Latin America, and drug shipments into various military bases on the return flights. He was intent on exposing these activities. The cover-up involves the DOD, the FBI and others. It is more than possible that solving the murder of Col. Sabow will lead investigators to those in the military who were involved in the illegal activities spoken of here. The DOJ, which has chosen to look the other way, at some point will be compelled to ask: WHO and WHY. This is perhaps not the first time the U.S. government has failed to seek justice for its citizens. But Col. Sabow’s murder and the subsequent cover-up by high military officials should be brought to light, if not for Col. Sabow’s family to receive justice, then for the American people who deserve much better from their officials. What is obvious from this entire chronicle is to what extent militarism has overcome our country and how covert intelligence operations are used to carry out the militaristic agenda.”
“Serco farewell to NPL after 19 years of innovation [outsourced by David Cameron at Treasury] … 8 January 2015
Serco said goodbye to the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) at the end of December 2014 after 19 years of extraordinary innovation and science that has seen the establishment build a world-leading reputation and deliver billions of pounds of benefit for the UK economy. During that period under Serco’s management and leadership, NPL has delivered an extraordinary variety and breadth of accomplishments for the UK’s economy and industry. Some of the key achievements during that time have been:
· The beneficial impact of NPL’s work to the economy is estimated at £2Bn pa.
· In 2012, NPL’s role in building the first maser to operate at room temperature was nominated by Physics World as one of the top ten breakthroughs of the year (CERN topped the list for their discovery of a Higgs-like particle).
· NPL was instrumental in gaining a 50% increase in European funding for the EMPIR programme, with a total of €600m.
· It has been estimated that work carried out by the Centre of Carbon Measurement at NPL will save eight million tonnes of carbon emissions reductions (2% of UK footprint) and over half a billion pounds in economic benefit [bullshit] over the next decade.
· Annually over 145,000 people undergoing radiotherapy have relied upon NPL for accurate delivery; it has been estimated that NPL’s contribution to improving the accuracy of the radiation dose patients receive can save at least an additional 145 lives each year.
· NPL’s work on graphene – the new material that could revolutionise the future of high-speed electronics – has been widely acknowledged following a paper in Nature Nanotechnology and then was cited as one of 44 papers as part of 2010’s Nobel Prize in Physics.
· NPL achieved 11% per annum growth in third–party business since 2004; such work now accounts for over 40% of the lab’s revenue, with £52M orders achieved in 2014.
· Under Serco’s management, Alan Turnbull was the first NPL scientist in many years to be elected as a Fellow of The Royal Society; Professor John Pethica, NPL’s Chief Scientist was knighted, Seton Bennett was awarded a CBE, Kamal Hossain an OBE, and Patrick Gill and Michael de Podesta were awarded MBEs.
· NPL’s caesium fountain atomic clock is accurate to 1 second in 158 million years and NPL is playing a key role in introducing rigour to high frequency [death-pool] trading in the City through NPLTime.”
“The United States Naval Observatory (USNO) is one of the oldest scientific agencies in the United States, with a primary mission to produce Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) for the United States Navy and the United States Department of Defense. Located in NorthwestWashington, D.C. at the Northwestern end of Embassy Row, it is one of the pre-1900 astronomical observatories located in an urban area; at the time of its construction, it was far from the light pollution thrown off by the (then-smaller) city center. The USNO operates the “Master Clock“, which provides precise time to the GPS satellite constellation run by the United States Air Force. The USNO performs radio VLBI-based positions of quasars with numerous global collaborators, in order to produce Earth Orientation parameters. Aside from its scientific mission, since 1974, the official residence of the Vice President of the United States has been Number One Observatory Circle, a house on the grounds of the Naval Observatory.”
“Churchill’s Sinking of the French Fleet (July 3, 1940) [Note that the “R” in Spectre denotes “Revenge” and the “E” denotes extortion]
by SCOTT MANNING on NOVEMBER 29, 2006
On June 13, 1940, Winston Churchill took one of several trips to France during Hitler’s Blitzkrieg. After convincing the French not to sign a separate armistice with Germany just two months prior, Churchill was now being begged to release them from the obligation. When a country loses its will to fight, there’s not much you can do to inspire them to anything but quit.
That left Churchill with a loose-end on his mind: The French Fleet.
The French Fleet
By June 10, 1940, the French Army was shattered, but the French Navy was amazingly intact. FranÃ§ois Darlan, the Admiral of the French Fleet told Churchill point-blank that the Fleet would be sunk before it was surrendered to the Germans.
Churchill later remarked of Admiral Darlan that he had “but to sail in any one of his ships to any port outside France to become the master of all French interests beyond German control.” Darlan could have become “the chief of the French Resistance with a mighty weapon in his hand.” Churchill believed the Admiral could have been the “Liberator of France”.
But that was not to happen. Although Admiral Darlan was strong in his commitment to prevent the Germans from seizing a single French ship, Churchill was not convinced. Losing Britian’s last fighting ally in the war is one thing, but allowing that ally’s fleet to fall in the hands of the Germans was something to lose sleep over.
The concern was not over the French using their fleet to assist their new conqueror. The real concern was that Germany would train their own sailors to command those ships.
Members of Britain’s own navy spent time with the commanders of the French Fleet. They were convinced that the commanders were dedicated to the cause of not surrendering to the Germans.
On June 17, France pressed for peace with Germany.
Before France could officially surrender, Churchill tried to convince his War Cabinet to attack the French Fleet. The War Cabinet refused. There were several concerns on the table. For one, the attack would surely result in the loss of British troops and ships. Second, although getting beaten by Germany and showing eagerness to throw in the towel, France was still an ally.
On June 24, France and Germany signed an armistice. Part of that agreement was the French could keep their ships, but Germany would gain control over items such as passports and tickets. Hitler treaded lightly concerning the ships and did not push for full ownership. He feared such aggression would inspire the French to keep fighting.
Hitler’s concerns were not known to England.
However, on July 1, Churchill was finally able to get the backing of the War Cabinet to sink the ships if they would not be surrendered.
On July 3, the British surrounded the French Fleet at the port of Mers-el-Kebir right outside Oran, Algeria. Churchill’s message was clear: sail to Britain, sail to the USA, or scuttle your ships in the next six hours. At first, the French refused to speak to negotiators. Two hours later, the French showed the British an order they had received from Admiral Darlan instructing them to sail the ships to the USA if the Germans broke the armistice and demanded the ships.
Meanwhile, the British intercepted a message from the Vichy Government ordering French reinforcements to move urgently to Oran. Churchill was done playing games and ordered the attack to his commanders, “Settle everything before dark or you will have reinforcements to deal with.”
An hour and a half later, the British Fleet attacked. In less than ten minutes, 1,297 French soldiers were dead and three battleships were sunk. One battleship and five destroyers managed to escape.
While the French were furious over the events, the reaction in England was the exact opposite.
The day after attacking the French, Churchill went to the House of Commons to explain why he ordered the attack on the former ally. Churchill declared, “However painful, the action we have already taken should be, in itself, sufficient to dispose once and for all of the lies and Fifth Column activities that we have the slightest intention of entering into negations. We shall prosecute the war with the utmost vigour by all the means that are open to us.”
For the first time since taking over as Prime Minister, Churchill received a unanimous standing ovation. Churchill had a message for the British, for Hitler, and for the world. The message was heard loud and clear.
England would not make peace with Hitler and the country was in this war for the long haul.
Berthon, Simon and Potts, Joanna (2006). Warlords: an extraordinary re-creation of World War II through the eyes and minds of Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin . United Kingdom: Da Capo Press.
Collier, Basil (1967). The Second World War: a military history: from Munich to Hiroshima – in one volume . New York, NY: William Morrow & Company.
Lamb, Richard (1991). Churchill as war leader (1st Carroll & Grad ed.). New York, NY: Caroll & Graf Publishers.
“William Francis Forbes-Sempill, 19th Lord Sempill AFC, AFRAeS, (24 September 1893 – 30 December 1965) was a British (Scottish) peer and record-breaking air pioneer who was later shown to have been a traitor who passed secret information to the Imperial Japanese military before the Second World War.Educated at Eton, he began his career as a pilot in the Royal Flying Corps and then served in the Royal Naval Air Service and Royal Air Force during the First World War. In 1921 Sempill led an official military mission to Japan that showcased the latest British aircraft. In subsequent years he continued to aid the Imperial Japanese Navy in developing its Navy Air Service.
In the 1920s Sempill began giving military secrets to the Japanese. Although his activities were uncovered by British Intelligence, Sempill was not prosecuted for spying and allowed to continue in public life. The decision, which was taken at highest levels of government, was based on several factors. Firstly it would have revealed British successes in decoding Japanese communications and secondly he was part of the British Establishment with family links to the Royal Family. He was eventually forced to retire from the Royal Navy in 1941 after being discovered passing on secret material to Tokyo shortly before Japan declared war in the Pacific.
Sempill was known as “Master of Sempill” before succeeding his father to the titles of Lord Sempill and Baronet of Craigevar in 1934.”
“12 August 2011
Franco-Scottish alliance against England one of longest in history
A University of Manchester historian has uncovered evidence which shows how a defensive alliance against England between Scotland and France might never have formally ended – potentially making it the longest in history.
In a paper to be published next year, Dr Siobhan Talbott argues the Franco-Scottish Auld Alliance of 1295 survived centuries of enmity and war between Britain and France – even after the Act of Union was signed in 1707. Trade, she says, is a major reason for its longevity.
The prevailing view of historians that Scotland sided with the English, moving away from her friendship with France after 1560, when the country converted to Protestantism, is also disputed by Dr Talbott.
J. Macpherson, published in Scottish Field in 1967, says Dr Talbott, showed that France refused to accept Westminster’s abrogation of the Scottish side of the Auld Alliance in 1906, following the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France. By French law, a Scotsman born before 1907 still possesses the full rights and privileges of Franco-Scottish nationality.
The 716-year-old citizenship and trading privileges enjoyed by Scots in France, she suggests, are possibly intact today.
Dr Talbott said: “It’s going to be difficult to prove conclusively that Auld Alliance of 1295 is the longest in history – but there is strong evidence to suggest that this could indeed be the case.
“If we accept 1906 as an ‘end date’, this would make the Auld Alliance 611 years old, compared to 638 years for what many regard as world’s oldest alliance between England and Portugal.
“However, when Charles de Gaulle spoke in Edinburgh in June 1942, he stated that the Auld Alliance was ‘the oldest alliance in the world’.”
Previously, historians have argued the 1560 Treaty of Edinburgh, along with Scotland’s conversion to Protestantism, ended the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France.
But not so according to Dr Talbott: some French troops remained in Scotland and there is no reference to ending the Alliance in the text.
Even during the eighteenth century – after the Act of Union was signed – Scotland and France continued to have an active and close relationship, based on the historic Auld Alliance.
Trade flourished between the two countries, even though France was Catholic and Scotland Protestant.
Scottish merchants paid less or no customs at some French ports, whereas some ports would not trade with the English at all.
The Scots exported a range of goods including coal, wool and animal skins to France.
And French exports included salt, wine, luxury cloth, musical instruments, furniture, beds and spectacles.
Despite some difficulties for Protestant Scots, there were well established communities in Bordeaux, Paris and La Rochelle throughout the seventeenth century.
Dr Talbott said: “It has been previously recognised that trade continued to take place between the two countries in the eighteenth century.
“But by examining merchants’ records from the period, I can now say that it was much more extensive than realised, and that it continued despite conflict such as war which many historians have maintained prevented it.
She added: “Scots saw their country as an independent entity throughout the eighteenth century, even after the Union of the Scottish and English monarchies in 1603 and the Union of their parliaments in 1707 – and other European nations regarded them like that too.
“This might explain why Scots seem to have more of a notion of independence than the English, who appear to more readily see themselves as ‘British’ – and it will be interesting to see if the results of the 2011 Census and the proposed 2014 referendum on Scottish Independence reflects this.”
Dr Talbott’s research has been awarded the prestigious 2011 Pollard Prize by the Institute of Historical Research, University of London, for the best seminar given by a scholar within one year of completing their PhD.
Notes for editors
The paper by Dr Talbott will be published in the journal Historical Research and is entitled: ‘If you were hier you could gaine what you please, for there is many English and severall Scots that you might deall with’: British Commercial Interests on the French Atlantic Coast, c. 1560-1713′.
It will be published in the IHR’s journal, Historical Research next year.
‘Beyond ‘the antiseptic realm of theoretical economic models’: New Perspectives on Franco-Scottish Commerce and the Auld Alliance in the Long Seventeenth Century’ is being published later this year in the Journal of Scottish Historical Research, 31:2 (November 2011). It won the Economic and Social History Society of Scotland’s Research Essay Prize for 2009.
The research was carried out in national and regional archives of France, USA and UK.
Dr Talbott is available for interview
For media enquires contact:
Faculty of Humanities
The University of Manchester
0161 275 0790
“Forbes NOV 10, 2013 @ 01:48 PM 10,588 VIEWS
The Unhealthy Truth About Obamacare’s Contractors
By Udayan Gupta
On July 16 of this year, Sarah Kliff posted a prescient piece on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. The post, “Meet Serco, the private firm getting $1.2 billion to process your Obamacare application,” reported that 90 percent of Serco’s U.S. business is with the federal government and that the 25-year-old firm pretty much owes its existence to government contracting. In this case, Serco won a contract that will pay it $114 million in 2013 and that eye-popping number of $1.2 billion over the next five years. According to one outside study, it’s the largest single contract for implementing the Affordable Care Act, or as it’s both affectionately and derisively known, Obamacare. But in a city where everyone loves to talk but apparently few listen much, the piece must have mostly gone unread. The implementation, as we now know, has been a disaster.
Kliff also noted that Serco’s experience is in paper-pushing, not healthcare. Serco is a British company, but has been doing business in the U.S. for nearly a quarter century. Serco lobbyist Alan Hill emphasized to Kliff that the U.S. arm operates as a separate company with a strict firewall, given the sensitive nature of its operations, which include processing millions of visa applications for the State and Homeland Security departments.
But Serco is also a company with a checkered present. In July, Britain placed its contracts with Serco Group and another firm under parliamentary review for charging for prisoner-related services it did not provide. The Serious Fraud Office has now launched an inquiry into the overcharging on electronic tagging contracts for offenders, following the claims by the justice secretary. In August, police were called in to investigate fraudulent behavior by Serco staff—falsifying documents under a seven year £285 million contract that calls for delivering prisoners to court on time. Last month, Serco CEO Chris Hyman resigned weeks before the launch of a government investigation into the alleged fraud.
Of course, Serco isn’t the only large IT contractor working on the Affordable Care Act website. The second largest, according to the same study, is CGI, a Montreal-based multinational. Others include Booz Allen Hamilton, which infamously employed Edward Snowden, the alleged thief of vital NSA papers.”
“Defense Ammunition Center . Since 2008, Serco has assisted DAC with the analysis, design, development, implementation, management/ administration, and evaluation of integrated, enterprise-wide and component-specific training, learning, knowledge management, and strategic human resource management interventions that are critical to achieving their mission. Serco holds an OPM TMA TO with DAC and also a contract through GSA Millenia Lite. When the GSA contract could not support all of DACs needs, Serco recommended the use of the OPM TMA vehicle. Through these contracts, Serco provides training program management support to deliver multi-faceted best practice solutions in training development and delivery, knowledge management, portal technologies, course conversions (ILT and CBT to WBT), mobile performance applications, and Learning Management Systems support. Serco applies the ADDIE model to all course development activities including ILT, WBT, and leading-edge technologies including mobile performance applications. Serco provided LMS support and also developed and continues to manage DAC’s Ammunition Community of Excellence.”
“[Serco’s dirty banker] HSBC Carbon Neutrality Reporting Guidance 2011 This Carbon Neutrality Reporting Guidance (“CNRG”) document supports the preparation and reporting of carbon dioxide emissions data and carbon offset data by HSBC Holdings plc (hereafter “HSBC”). It is the responsibility of HSBC management to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place to prepare its carbon neutrality reporting in line with, in all material respects, the CNRG.
HSBC defines ‘carbon neutral’ to mean that worldwide operations contribute zero net carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the end of the reporting year (1 January to 31 December). The gross carbon dioxide emissions1 are measured, calculated and reported according to the guidance below. Emission reductions from offset projects are purchased throughout the year in line with internal offset policies. To be carbon neutral the total net carbon emissions2 measured in the reporting year should be equal to the total offsets purchased for that reporting year. Carbon neutral status is in part achieved with a programme of carbon emission reductions. This is achieved through a combination of energy reduction programmes and procurement of low emission electricity. This CNRG does not provide reporting guidance on the detail of these elements; however the resulting emissions reductions are reported in the carbon emissions data. 1. Carbon Emissions Scope of Reporting Carbon emission data comprises carbon dioxide arising from:
• Energy used in buildings, vehicles and other forms of transport owned or leased by HSBC and used for business purposes. This includes 100% of emissions from the assets of joint ventures or alliances where HSBC has management contro3;
• Emissions arising from offshored operations where HSBC retains control over the outsourced operation via contractual agreement.
• Other business travel including air; private jet; rail; hired motorbike; taxi; hire car; boat; bus/coach; ferry/junk; tram; and other travel. Carbon dioxide emissions from acquisitions and disposals are included and terminated respectively from the date of contractual completion of the transfer of asset ownership/ leasehold. This is consistent with HSBC’s financial reporting. For acquisitions, where data are not available: estimates should be prepared for additions which contribute more than 5% of the Reporting Unit (i.e. country level) annual data.”
“Spectre – On a mission in Mexico City, unofficially ordered by the previous M by way of a posthumous message, James Bond kills two men arranging to blow up a stadium and gives chase to Marco Sciarra, an assassin who survived the attack. In the ensuing struggle, Bond kills Sciarra and steals his ring, which is emblazoned with a stylised octopus. On his return to London Bond is indefinitely suspended from field duty by the current M, who is in the midst of a power struggle with C, the head of the privately-backed [Serco] Joint Intelligence Service, which consists of the recently merged MI5 and MI6. C also campaigns for Britain to join “Nine Eyes”, a global surveillance and intelligence co-operation initiative between nine member states [Five Eyes + BRIC]. C uses his influence to close down the ’00’ section, believing it to be outdated.”
“8(a) Business Development Program The 8(a) Business Development Program [controlled through Serco protégée Base One Technologies and Clinton Nine Eyes servers] assists in the development of small businesses owned and operated by individuals who are socially and economically disadvantaged, such as women and minorities. The following ethnic groups are classified as eligible: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, or Native Hawaiians); Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan [Mineta interned in WWII], China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru); Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal). In 2011, the SBA, along with the FBI and the IRS, uncovered a massive scheme to defraud this program. Civilian employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, working in concert with an employee of Alaska Native Corporation Eyak Technology LLC allegedly submitted fraudulent bills to the program, totaling over 20 million dollars, and kept the money for their own use. It also alleged that the group planned to steer a further 780 million dollars towards their favored contractor.”
Field McConnell, United States Naval Academy, 1971; Forensic Economist; 30 year airline and 22 year military pilot; 23,000 hours of safety; Tel: 715 307 8222
David Hawkins Tel: 604 542-0891 Forensic Economist; former leader of oil-well blow-out teams; now sponsors Grand Juries in CSI Crime and Safety Investigation