NGÕ CÙNG CỦA NỀN DÂN CHỦ GIÁN TIẾP

Trong khi cả guồng máy tham nhũng tập đoàn lợi nhuận tại Mỹ đang tiếp tục thao túng "chính trường" mua bán ứng viên để "sắp xếp" một "chính phủ dân cử" cho quần chúng Mỹ, thì tại Đức, cũng một nền dân chủ gián tiếp thượng hạng, đã bị Wikileaks lột trần bộ mặt "từ dân, bởi dân, và vì dân" của nhà nước Đức.

Wikileaks đăng tải toàn bộ tài liệu điều tra nội bộ của Đức cho thấy không chỉ cơ quan tình báo an ninh Đức làm việc theo chỉ thị của NSA, CIA Mỹ mà ngay cả toàn bộ hành pháp nước Đức đứng đầu là Angela Merkel cũng là tay sai theo lệnh từ Washington. Nó khiến người ta mườmg tượng lại thái độ ra vẻ "giận dữ" của Angela Merkel khi bị bật mí rằng NSA nghe lén cả điện thoại cá nhân của bà ta! Thật là một màn đóng kịch ăn khách đến nỗi Merkel "tái đắc cử"!

Nhưng dân Đức vẫn cúi mặt tin rằng xã hội họ "dân chủ" và nhà nước chính phủ là vì dân, vì "quyền lợi quốc gia".

Thật ra, sự băng hoại này của hệ thống nước Đức và Mỹ đây không phải là căn bệnh cá biệt, mà nó đang băng hoại nơi TẤT CẢ CÁC ĐỊNH CHẾ NHÀ NƯỚC CHÍNH PHỦ.

Điều mỉa mai là cái gọi là nền dân chủ gián tiếp xưa kia tìm cách che dấu, nhưng ở thế kỷ 21 này, chúng bất chấp công chúng và gần như hiên ngang "bỉ mặt quần chúng" tại BẤT CỨ NỀN DÂN CHỦ GIÁN TIẾP NÀO. Rõ rệt tay sai nhất là các "nước anh em" với Mỹ như Anh, Gia Nã Đại, Tân Tây Lan, và Úc Thòi Lòi.. và các đồng minh thân cận "tự do dân chủ" như Đức, Pháp, Thụy Điển, Áo, Hà Lan, Bỉ, Na Uy v.v chính phủ các xã hội Âu Châu dân chủ này nói là "dân cử" thật ra toàn bọn tay sai do "nhóm tập đoàn" điều khiển. Thí dụ như cái gọi là cơ quan tình báo Úc ASIO và AFP thật sự làm việc cho "tình báo "tại" Mỹ" hơn là nhận lệnh trực tiếp từ chính phủ "dân cử" theo lý thuyết định nghĩa. Trường hợp điển hình là Gough Withlam là thủ tướng nhưngTình báo An Ninh Úc lại cùng CIA Mỹ thiết kế "lật đổ" vị thủ tướng "khuynh tả" này. Và tại Mỹ, Anh em tổng thống Mỹ Kennedy bị ngay chính an ninh tình báo của chính phủ Mỹ giết chết... theo lệnh của "tập đoàn quyền lực" (The Secret Team- L. FLETCHER PROUTY )

Con người đã ngập lụt trong tín lý niềm tin khiến họ KHÔNG CÒN KHẢ NĂNG LÝ GIẢI những thông tin bằng chứng TRÁI NGƯỢC VỚI NIỀM TIN CỦA HỌ. Bởi nếu chấp nhận SỰ THẬT, thì toàn bộ "thế giới an toàn" trong niềm tin toàn diện của họ sẽ sụp đổ- và họ sẽ không chỉ bị hổng chân "chơi vơi" mà còn cưu mang một mặc cảm bị chứng minh là SAI LẦM, NGÂY NGÔ và BỊ LỪA DỐI quá lâu, điều mà ít ai có can đảm CHẤP NHẬN và vượt qua được. Tín lý niềm tin đã cướp mất tính tự tin và tự chủ của họ. Vì thế bất cứ sự kiện bằng chứng nào ĐE DỌA LÀM SỤP ĐỔ TÍN LÝ NIỀM TIN của họ, đều phải bị họ tự nguyện tấn công và gạt bỏ.

Hiện trạng này đang xảy ra khắp nơi trên thế giới! Càng ngày hệ thống nhà nước chính phủ càng băng hoại, công khai cấu kết với tập đoàn lợi nhuận tạo khủng hoảng kinh tế, tài chính và chiến tranh... Các nhà nước chính phủ vừa hoạt động kín vừa dối trá...nhãn tiền... Nhưng đa số toàn thể nhân loại im lìm chịu đựng.. trừ thiểu số nhận thức và can đảm đối kháng.

Chưa có thời điểm nào mà các chế độ công khai độc tài lại thảnh thơi cai trị vì có bạn hợp tác đồng hành khắp thế giới "tự do" như thế kỷ 21 này như mọi người đang chứng kiến!

Chứng kiến nhưng chưa chắc mấy ai vận trí não suy nghĩ lý giải để hiểu được những điều mình trông thấy trải qua. Ai cũng trông thấy quả táo rơi Issac Newton! Ai cũng từng nằm tắm trong bồn nước như Archimede!

Bao nhiêu tỉ người đã và đang sống dưới chế độ nhà nước quyền chính? Bao nhiêu người đã và đang chứng kiến và từng ngày trải qua những bạo ngược của nền quyền chính bạo ngược gian trá? Và cuối cùng cho đến nay, đã có bao nhiêu người nhận ra nhu cầu của giải pháp nguyên lý phi quyền chính?

Ngay cả cái giải pháp cấp thời đang băng hoại của 1/6 quốc gia gọi là "dân chủ gián tiếp" thì 5/6 nhân loại còn lại cũng chưa đạt đến được! Thế mới biết người Thụy Sĩ dù mới chỉ đạt được vào bước đầu của nền dân chủ trực tiếp phi quyền chính, nhưng quả thật vượt đã hẳn cả nhân loại này một bước quá xa!

Nhân Chủ

==========
https://wikileaks.org/bnd-nsa/press/index.de.html


NSA Untersuchungsausschuss
Hearings Search Press Release Know more?
English | DeutschHeute, am Dienstag den 12. Mai, veröffentlicht WikiLeaks Protokolle aus zehn Monaten des laufenden 1. Untersuchungsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestag zu den NSA-Aktivitäten in Deutschland. Obwohl viele der Sitzungen technisch gesehen öffentlich sind, wurde die tatsächliche öffentliche Kenntnisnahme behindert, da die Protokolle zurück gehalten werden, Aufnahmegeräte untersagt sind und Reporter in aufdringlicher Weise durch die Polizei beobachtet werden.
WikiLeaks veröffentlicht 1380 Seiten Transkriptionen nicht eingestufter (öffentlicher) Sitzungen. Zu Wort kommen 34 Zeugen – einschließlich 13 namentlich geheimgehaltener Zeugen des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND). Die Transkriptionen umfassen die ersten Sitzungen des Untersuchungsausschusses im Mai 2014 durchgängig bis Februar 2015.
WikiLeaks hat zudem zu jeder Sitzung sowohl auf Deutsch als auch auf Englisch eine Zusammenfassung erstellt, um dem internationalen Stellenwert dieses Themas Rechnung zu tragen.
Der BND wird 1782 Mal erwähnt, die NSA 1671 Mal, die CIA 179 Mal, Edward Snowden 204 Mal und Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel 14 Mal.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Herausgeber, sagt: „In dieser wichtigen Untersuchung des Bundestag sind die deutsche und internationale Öffentlichkeit die Leidtragenden. Der Zweck dieser Untersuchung, beim Namen genannt, ist es aufzudecken wer verantwortlich dafür ist, dass die Rechte einer Großzahl von Menschen verletzt wurden, sowie wie diese Verstöße begangen wurden. Als Leidtragende hat die Öffentlichkeit das Recht die Arbeit des Untersuchungsausschusses einzusehen. Nur durch effektive öffentliche Aufsicht können die dem Untersuchungsausschuss gesetzten Ziele – Transparenz und Gerechtigkeit – erreicht werden.”
Der Ruf nach einem Untersuchungsausschuss zur NSA-Spionage in Deutschland wurde laut in der zweiten Hälfte des Jahres 2013, insbesondere nachdem bekannt wurde, dass die US gezielt das Telefon von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel ins Visier genommen hatten. Am 18. März 2014 wurde der Untersuchungsausschuss eingesetzt , Englische Version, um die Überwachungsaktivitäten der Vereinigten Staaten auf deutschem Boden zu untersuchen sowie in welchem Ausmaß deutsche Geheimdienste an dieser Spionage beteiligt waren.
Trotz des Mangels an einer zugänglichen öffentlichen Aktenlage, konnten diverse bedeutende Skandale durch die Aussagen der Zeugen aufgedeckt werden. Zum Beispiel stellte sich in der 26. Sitzung heraus, dass vom Bundeskanzleramt ein Brief direkt an Kai-Uwe Ricke, den damaligen (2002-2006) Vorstandsvorsitzenden der Deutsche Telekom AG, geschickt wurde. In diesem Schreiben wurde die Deutsche Telekom AG dazu angehalten, fortlaufende Massenüberwachung deutscher und internationaler Internet- und Telekommunikationsdaten am Frankfurter Knotenpunkt der Deutschen Telekom AG zuzulassen und zu unterstützen. Im Rahmen dieser Operation, Codename "Eikonal", wurden abgehörte Daten dann vom BND an die NSA weitergegeben. Der Brief war an Ricke adressiert und trug den Vermerk “persönlich”. Während der Vernehmung im Untersuchungsausschuss gab Ricke an, er habe solch einen Brief nie gesehen. Nachdem dieser Brief versendet worden war, wurde dem BND der geforderte Zugang ermöglicht . Der entsprechende Brief durfte im Untersuchungsausschuss öffentlich weder verlesen noch sein Inhalt diskutiert werden, da er als geheim eingestuft ist. Nichtsdestotrotz kamen die vorher nicht bekannte Existenz des Briefes sowie die Umstände der Beihilfe zur Kooperation durch den Prozess der Untersuchung ans Licht.
Indirekte Probleme, die im Zusammenhang mit dem Untersuchungsausschuss stehen, haben mit der Effektivität und Verantwortlichkeit des Prozesses selbst zu tun. Bild- und Tonaufnahmen sind verboten, damit sind offizielle, präzise und verbindliche Berichte über die öffentlichen Sitzungen nicht existent. Journalisten haben außerdem beklagt, dass weitere Bedingungen auf der Galerie (wo Gäste an den öffentlichen Sitzungen teilnehmen) den Zugang zusätzlich einschränken. Die Öffentlichkeit und die Medien spüren dies bei jeder Sitzung; einschließlich netzpolitik.org, deren Veröffentlichungen den Untersuchungssitzungen detailgetreu folgen, was während der Sitzungen von der Polizei sehr unmittelbar überwacht wird.
Die veröffentlichten Transkriptionen dokumentieren darüberhinaus, wie die Abwesenheit einer vollständigen öffentlichen Dokumentation dazu geführt hat, dass Zeugen den Untersuchungsprozess missbrauchen. Mindestens drei Mal widersprechen die öffentlichen Aussagen eines Zeugen denen, die er in geheimen Sitzungen macht. Die Transkriptionen zeigen außerdem, dass die Möglichkeiten der Untersuchungskommission Zeugen sorgfältig und gewissenhaft zu befragen beschnitten werden durch umfangreiche Schwärzungen. In einem Fall wurde die Sitzung unterbrochen, weil der Zeugen ungeschwärzte Dokumente zur Vorbereitung erhalten hatte, während den parlamentarischen Mitgliedern des Ausschusses nur eine geschwärzte Version zur Verfügung gestellt worden war.
Einer der größten Skandale, der aus dem Untersuchungsausschuss bisher hervorging, ist der aktuelle „Selektoren“ Spionagezieleliste-Skandal: Ein BND-Mitarbeiter hat hier offen gelegt, dass vom BND erwartet wurde, auf Anweisung der NSA tausende von Zielen auszuspähen. Diese Ziele beinhalteten Mitglieder der französischen Regierung sowie der europäischen Industrie. Damit stellt sich die Frage, ob Deutschland geeignet ist, eine Führungsrolle in der Europäischen Union zu übernehmen. Es zeigte sich so auch, dass die der Öffentlichkeit als Anti-Terrormaßnahmen verkaufte internationale Kooperation bei Massenüberwachungen in Wirklichkeit von den Vereinigten Staaten auch für Zwecke der Industriespionage genutzt wird sowie um sich geopolitische Vorteile gegenüber Mitgliedern der Europäischen Union zu verschaffen. Die Kommission verlangte die Herausgabe der vollständigen „Selektorenliste“ von Zielen, die die NSA dem BND übergeben hatte. Der Kommission wurde mitgeteilt, dass zuerst die US um Erlaubnis für die (sogar vertrauliche) Herausgabe der Liste an die Kommission gebeten werden muss. Letzten Mittwoch, am 6. Mai 2015, als die Antwort angekündigt war, wurden Hinhaltetaktiken benutzt, die die deutsche Öffentlichkeit wie auch den parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschuss ohne jegliche Möglichkeit ließen einzusehen, worauf es ihre eigenen Geheimdienste abgesehen haben.
Mit der heutigen Veröffentlichung will WikiLeaks etwas mehr des dringend benötigten Lichts in diese entscheidenden Prozesse bringen, indem Öffentlichkeit und Medien zu verbindlichen, zitierbaren Protokollen einen gleichberechtigten Zugang bekommen, ohne den ordentliche Analysen und Zurechnung von Verantwortung schief gehen müssen.
Wenn Sie zusätzliche Informationen haben, die diesen Untersuchungsausschuss betreffen, nehmen Sie vertraulich Kontakt mit uns auf.

Zeugen:Juristen:
Professor Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem (ehemaliger Richter am Bundesverfassungsgericht)
Professor Dr. Hans-Jürgen Papier (ehemaliger Richter am Bundesverfassungsgericht)
BND:
Reinhardt Breitfelder (BND)
Dr. Stefan Burbaum (BMI, ex-BND, ex-BfV)
Namentlich geheim gehaltene Zeugen: A, AS, BK, EB, GL, H, HF, JF, JZ, KL, L, RS, RU, SL, TB, UL, WK, WP
NSA:
William Binney (ex-NSA)
Thomas Drake (ex-NSA)
Deutsche Telekom:
Kai-Uwe Ricke (ehemaliger Vorstandsvorsitzender der Deutsche Telekom AG)
Harald Helfrich
Wolfgang Alster
Udo Laux
Dr. Bernd Köbele
Andere Behördern/Organisationen:
Martin Golke (BSI)
Peter Schaar (ehemalig BfDI)
Dr. Sandro Gaycken (NATO)
Akademiker und zivilgesellschaftliche Experten:
Professor Dr. Matthias Bäcker (Universität Mannheim)
Professor Ian Brown (University of Oxford)
Professor Douwe Korff (London Metropolitis University)
Professor Russell A. Miller (Washington & Lee University)
Professor Dr. Stefan Talmon (Universität Bonn)
Professor Dr. Michael Waidner (Fraunhofer-Institut)
Dr. Helmut Philipp Aust (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
Frank Rieger (CCC)
===


Bundestag Inquiry into BND and NSA
Hearings Search Press Release Know more?
English | DeutschToday, Tuesday 12 May, WikiLeaks releases ten months of transcripts from the ongoing German Parliamentary inquiry into NSA activities in Germany. Despite many sessions being technically public, in practice public understanding has been compromised as transcripts have been withheld, recording devices banned and reportersintrusively watched by police.
WikiLeaks is releasing 1,380 pages of transcripts from the unclassified sessions, covering 34 witnesses – including 13 concealed witnesses from Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND). The transcripts cover from the start of the inquiry in May 2014 through to February 2015.
WikiLeaks has also written summaries of each session in German and English as the inquiry, due to its subject matter, is of international significance.
The BND is referenced 1,782 times, the NSA 1,671 times, the CIA 179 times, Edward Snowden 204 times and German Chancellor Angela Merkel 14 times.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks publisher, said: "In this important Bundestag inquiry, the German and international public is the injured party. The purpose of this inquiry, properly stated, is to discover who is responsible for the injury of a great many people's rights and how these violations were committed. As the injured party, the public has a right to understand this inquiry's work. It is only through effective public oversight that this inquiry's stated objectives of transparency and justice will be met."
Calls for an inquiry into NSA spying on Germany grew in the second half of 2013, particularly when it emerged that the US had specifically targeted Chancellor Merkel's phone. On 18 March 2014 the inquiry was established (in English), to investigate surveillance activities by the United States on German soil and to what degree German agencies have been complicit with the spying.
Despite the lack of an available public record, several important scandals have emerged from witness testimony. For example, in the 26th session it emerged that a letter was sent from the Germany Chancellory directly to Kai-Uwe Ricke, who was the CEO of Deutsche Telekom AG from 2002 to 2006. The letter called on the assistance of Deutsche Telekom to facilitate the continuous mass surveillance of German and international internet and telecommunications data at Deutsche Telekom's Frankfurt exchange point. This operation, codenamed "Eikonal", saw these intercepts then pass from the BND to the NSA. The letter was addressed to Ricke and marked to be read by him personally. In the inquiry Ricke claimed he had never seen such a letter. After this letter was sent, the request to allow the BND access was granted. This letter was not allowed to be shown or discussed in full by the inquiry committee due to its classification; however, the fact of the letter and complicity in the co-operation, which had previously been unknown, came to light through this process.
Meta issues that have emerged from the inquiry have to do with the effectiveness and accountability of the process itself. Recording is forbidden, so official, precise and authoritative accounts of the public sessions are non-existent. Journalists have also complained that other conditions applied to the gallery also limit access. The public and media attending the inquiry have felt this at every session, including netzpolitik.org, the publication following the inquiry with the greatest detail, which is very closely monitored by police during the sessions.
The released transcripts also document how the absence of a full public record has led to witnesses abusing the inquiry process. In at least three instances the statements of a witness in the public session contradicted their statements in the private session. The transcripts also show that the committee's ability to properly interrogate witnesses has been affected by excessive redactions. In one case the meeting was interrupted because the witnesses had received unredacted documents for their own preparation, while the parliamentarians on the committee themselves got a redacted version.
One of the biggest scandals to emerge from the inquiry so far is the recent "selector" spy target list scandal where a BND official revealed that the agency was expected to spy on thousands of targets at the instruction of the NSA. These targets included members of the French government and European industry. This put into question Germany's suitability in taking a leadership role in the European Union. It also showed that international co-operation on mass surveillance, which has been marketed in public as a counter-terrorism measure, is in practice also used by the United States for the purposes of industrial espionage and geopolitical advantage vis-a-vis members of the European Union. The committee requested the full "selector" list of targets provided to the BND by the NSA. The committee was told that the US would first need to be asked permission for the list to be revealed to the committee (even in confidence). Last Wednesday, 6 May 2015, when the answer was meant to be delivered, stalling tactics were used, leaving the German public, and the Parliamentary inquiry, without any ability to understand what their own secret services are up to.
With today's publication WikiLeaks aims to shed some much-needed light on this important process, allowing the public and the media alike access to authoritative, citable transcripts, without which proper analysis and accountability is awry.
If you have additional information relating to this inquiry contact us confidentially.

Witnesses:Jurists:
Professor Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem (former judge at the Federal Constitutional Court)
Professor Dr Hans-Jürgen Papier (former judge at the Federal Constitutional Court)
BND:
Reinhardt Breitfelder (BND)
Dr Stefan Burbaum (BMI, ex-BND, ex-BfV)
Concealed witnesses: A, AS, BK, EB, GL, H, HF, JF, JZ, KL, L, RS, RU, SL, TB, UL, WK, WP
NSA:
William Binney (ex-NSA)
Thomas Drake (ex-NSA)
Deutsche Telekom:
Kai-Uwe Ricke (former CEO of Deutsche Telekom AG)
Harald Helfrich
Wolfgang Alster
Udo Laux
Dr Bernd Köbele
Other agencies:
Martin Golke (BSI)
Peter Schaar (former BfDI)
Dr Sandro Gaycken (NATO)
Academics and civilian experts:
Professor Dr Matthias Bäcker (University of Mannheim)
Professor Ian Brown (University of Oxford)
Professor Douwe Korff (London Metropolitan University)
Professor Russell A. Miller (Washington & Lee University)
Professor Dr Stefan Talmon (University of Bonn)
Professor Dr Michael Waidner (Fraunhofer-Institute)
Dr Helmut Philipp Aust (Humboldt-University of Berlin)
Frank Rieger (CCC) =======


Greatest Threat to Free Speech Comes Not From Terrorism, But From Those Claiming to Fight It

We learned recently from Paris that the Western world is deeply and passionately committed to free expression and ready to march and fight against attempts to suppress it. That’s a really good thing, since there are all sorts of severe suppression efforts underway in the West — perpetrated not by The Terrorists but by the western politicians claiming to fight them.
One of the most alarming examples comes, not at all surprisingly, from the U.K. government, which is currently agitating for new counter-terrorism powers “including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalize young people.” Here are the powers which the British Freedom Fighters and Democracy Protectors are seeking:

They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans forbanning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.
It will also contain new powers to close premises including mosques where extremists seek to influence others. The powers of the Charity Commission to root out charities that misappropriate funds towards extremism and terrorism will also be strengthened.In essence, advocating any ideas or working for any political outcomes regarded by British politicians as “extremist” will not only be a crime, but can be physically banned in advance. Basking in his election victory, Prime Minister David Cameron unleashed this Orwellian decree to explain why new Thought Police powers are needed: “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.'” It’s not enough for British subjects merely to “obey the law”; they must refrain from believing in or expressing ideas which Her Majesty’s Government dislikes.
If all that sounds menacing, tyrannical and even fascist to you — and really, how could it not? “extremism disruption orders” — you should really watch this video of Tory Home Secretary Theresa May try to justify the bill in an interview on BBC this morning. When pressed on what “extremism” means – specifically, when something crosses the line from legitimate disagreement into criminal “extremism” – she evades the question completely, instead repeatedly invoking creepy slogans about the need to stop those who seek to “undermine Our British Values” and, instead, ensure “we are together as one society, One Nation” (I personally believe this was all more lyrical in its original German). Click here to watch the video and see the face of Western authoritarianism, advocating powers in the name of Freedom that are its very antithesis.
Threats to free speech can come from lots of places. But right now, the greatest threat by far in the West to ideals of free expression is coming not from radical Muslims, but from the very Western governments claiming to fight them. The increasingly unhinged, Cheney-sounding governments of the UK, Australia, France, New Zealand and Canada — joining the U.S. — have a seemingly insatiable desire to curb freedoms in the name of protecting them: prosecuting people for Facebook postings critical of Western militarism or selling “radical” cable channels, imprisoning people for “radical” tweets, banning websites containing ideas they dislike, seeking (and obtaining) new powers of surveillance and detention for those people (usually though not exclusively Muslim citizens) who hold and espouse views deemed by these governments to be “radical.”
Anticipating Prime Minister Cameron’s new “anti-extremist” bill (to be unveiled in the “Queen’s Speech”), University of Bath Professor Bill Durodié said that “the window for free speech has now been firmly shut just a few months after so many political leaders walked in supposed solidarity for murdered cartoonists in France.” Actually, there has long been a broad, sustained assault in the West on core political liberties — specifically due process, free speech and free assembly — perpetrated not by “radical Muslims” but by those who endlessly claim to fight them. Sadly, and tellingly, none of that has triggered parades or marches or widespread condemnation by Western journalists and pundits. But for those who truly believe in principles of free expression — as opposed to pretending to when it allows one to bash the Other Tribe — these are the assaults that need marches and protests.
Photo: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images