Tag Archives: Freedom of speech

Small Gulf War in ASIA : Yemen:

Yeman war
Yeman war

 One more small Gulf War in ASIA : Yemen: It is between No nuclear and nuclear powers, poverty , tribal and Sects etc

Why Yeman is Important to Saudi : It is to safe guard Macca and world of Rulers and king doms with strong tribal record rather than loose tribes .  Divide regions tribes to safe gaurd power and prosperity .

  • Yemen  : Country in Asia
  • Yemen, officially known as the Republic of Yemen, is an Arab country in Southwest Asia, occupying the southwestern to southern end of the Arabian Peninsula. Yemen is the second largest country in the peninsula, occupying 527,970 km². Wikipedia
  • Currency: Yemeni rial
  • The logic is it is war between Sunnis , shias , tribes for money and poverty of Gulf regions.  The resources in gulf region , power struggle from old and new way of thinking of youth and destruction of culture and ancient history is root cause for these wars.
  • If we see world histories ,cultures ,civilizations the barbarians or attackers from west , east  fought cruel wars and un ethical wars.
  • This made civilizations to destroy through looting , rapes , murders , destroying houses , books , temples , mosques , churches , great architectural buildings , looting gold diamonds , animals ,  resources ,  landscapes , forts  etc.
  • Terror , rape destruction , killing young children , brain washing young youth made new world wars across the world .
  • classic example is youth , woman fighting in Syria and also LTTE war in Srilanka exposed new type of war fares for liberation , destruction of scoietes at the cost of others.
  • In the name of democracy and Dictator ships the world is divided to kill mother earth.
  • Resources and population will fight with each other . the next wars will be for water , food , jobs and races based on their own localities. every body want to become leader , god of the district.
  • The small empires cities districts counties etc will fight with each other based on local lords or mafia for power.
  • Divide and rule for power and money will become key for all human beings at the cost of others
  • The recent classic example is division of state andhra pradesh into for looting is key case study. around 40 million people effected with this genocide. Around 40 billion looted from south India. Gas , Coal , Iron ore  ,  Red sandalwood etc
  • The global human trafficking with these wars is reached into billions and also rebuilding of countries is new mode of business for global real estate , construction companies , oil companies  Defense companies , trans port companies etc will make more money at the cost of human life.
  • In one way population growth will come down at the cost of so many lifes
  • Global ebola viruses will become more active in refugee camps,
  • This is cycle with world is flat the wars in any part of the world will effect global countries and also economies.
  • Sanctions on each other with wars and in the name of mass destruction will lead new down fall of global economies.
  • One more statics for War of mass dist-ructions : history : IRAQ IRAN wars ,Libya, syria wars , Russia ukrane wars , Europe wars  , india pakistan wars , UK flak land wars,
  • South Amir ca and Africa poverty wars.
  • @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
  • China: About 250 total warheads.

    France: 290 deployed warheads.

    Russia: According to the September 2014 New START numbers, Russia has 1,643 strategic warheads deployed on 528 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers [1]. The Federation of American Scientists estimates Russia has several thousand nondeployed strategic warheads and approximately 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads. An additional 3,700 are awaiting dismantlement.

    United Kingdom: About 120 strategic warheads, of which no more than 40 are deployed at sea at any given time. The total stockpile is up to 225 weapons.

    United States: According to the September 2014 New START declaration, the United States has 1,642 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 794 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers [1].  The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the United States’ nondeployed strategic arsenal is approximately 2,800 warheads and the U.S. tactical nuclear arsenal numbers 500 warheads. In total, the U.S. has about 4,800 nuclear warheads [2], including tactical, strategic, and nondeployed weapons. Additional warheads are retired and await dismantlement.

    Non-NPT Nuclear Weapons Possessors:

    Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—never joined the NPT and are known to possess nuclear weapons. Claiming its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, India first tested a nuclear explosive device in 1974. That test spurred Pakistan to ramp up work on its secret nuclear weapons program. India and Pakistan both publicly demonstrated their nuclear weapon capabilities with a round of tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May 1998. Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test, does not admit to or deny having nuclear weapons, and states that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms, although it is unclear how many weapons Israel possesses. The following arsenal estimates are based on the amount of fissile material—highly enriched uranium and plutonium—that each of the states is estimated to have produced. Fissile material is the key element for making nuclear weapons. India and Israel are believed to use plutonium in their weapons, while Pakistan is thought to use highly enriched uranium.

    India: Between 90-110 nuclear warheads.
    Israel: Between 80-100 nuclear warheads, with fissile material for up to 200.
    Pakistan: Between 100 to 120 nuclear warheads.

    States of Immediate Proliferation Concern:

    Iran is pursuing a uranium-enrichment program and other projects that could provide it with the capability to produce bomb-grade fissile material and develop nuclear weapons within the next several years. In contrast, North Korea has the material to produce a small number of nuclear weapons, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and tested nuclear devices. Uncertainty persists about how many additional nuclear devices North Korea has assembled beyond those it has tested. In September 2005, Pyongyang “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.”

    Iran: No known weapons or sufficient fissile material stockpiles to build weapons. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the institution charged with verifying that states are not illicitly building nuclear weapons, concluded in 2003 that Iran had undertaken covert nuclear activities to establish the capacity to indigenously produce fissile material. The IAEA is continuing its investigation and monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear program.

    North Korea: Has separated enough plutonium for roughly 6-8 nuclear warheads. North Korea unveiled a centrifuge facility in 2010, buts ability to produce highly-enriched uranium for weapons remains unclear. In August 2013, North Korea restarted the heavy-water reactor it used to extract plutonium in the past for its nuclear warheads, although operation of the reactor since August has not been constant. Experts estimate it will be about 18 months before the first new bomb-ready plutonium will be separated from the spent fuel.

    Syria: In September 2007, Israel conducted an airstrike on what U.S. officials have alleged was the construction site of a nuclear research reactor similar to North Korea’s Yongbyon reactor. Intelligence officials briefed members of congress on the airstrike eight months later in April 2008, discussing the evidence leading to their judgment that the site was an undeclared nuclear reactor. While the extent of Syrian-North Korean nuclear cooperation is unclear, it is believed to have begun in 1997. Subsequent IAEA investigations into the U.S. claims uncovered traces of undeclared man-made uranium particles at both the site of the destroyed facility and Syria’s declared research reactor. Syria has failed to provide adequate cooperation to the IAEA in order to clarify the nature of the destroyed facility and procurement efforts that could be related to a nuclear program.



How to catch liars and Cheats


Petition signing in Tshwane
Petition signing in Tshwane (Photo credit: Agang SA)
Human Rights
Human Rights (Photo credit: h de c)
National Security Action Memorandum No. 176 Re...
National Security Action Memorandum No. 176 Release of Public Information Concerning Soviet Nuclear Tests – NARA – 193562 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
National Security Action Memorandum No. 11 Inf...
National Security Action Memorandum No. 11 Information on the Progress of Negotiations with Germans on Increasing… – NARA – 193411 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
English: US National Security medal.
English: US National Security medal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The seal of the U.S. National Security Agency....
The seal of the U.S. National Security Agency. The first use was in September 1966, replacing an older seal which was used briefly. For more information, see here and here. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)




Finalized in Tshwane, South Africa

Issued on 12 June 2013


These Principles were developed in order to provide guidance to those engaged in drafting, revising, or implementing laws or provisions relating to the state’s authority to withhold information on national security grounds or to punish the disclosure of such information.

They are based on international (including regional) and national law, standards, good practices, and the writings of experts.

They address national security—rather than all grounds for withholding information. All other public grounds for restricting access should at least meet these standards.

These Principles were drafted by 22 organizations and academic centres (listed in the Annex) in consultation with more than 500 experts from more than 70 countries at 14 meetings held around the world, facilitated by the Open Society Justice Initiative, and in consultation with the four special rapporteurs on freedom of expression and/or media freedom and the special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights:

 the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression,

 the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights,

 the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information,

 the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and

 the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media.


National security and the public’s right to know are often viewed as pulling in opposite directions. While there is at times a tension between a government’s desire to keep information secret on national security grounds and the public’s right to information held by public authorities, a clear-eyed review of recent history suggests that legitimate national security interests are, in practice, best protected when the public is well informed about the state’s activities, including those undertaken to protect national security. ii

Access to information, by enabling public scrutiny of state action, not only safeguards against abuse by public officials but also permits the public to play a role in determining the policies of the state and thereby forms a crucial component of genuine national security, democratic participation, and sound policy formulation. In order to protect the full exercise of human rights, in certain circumstances it may be necessary to keep information secret to protect legitimate national security interests.

Striking the right balance is made all the more challenging by the fact that courts in many countries demonstrate the least independence and greatest deference to the claims of government when national security is invoked. This deference is reinforced by provisions in the security laws of many countries that trigger exceptions to the right to information as well as to ordinary rules of evidence and rights of the accused upon a minimal showing, or even the mere assertion by the government, of a national security risk. A government’s over-invocation of national security concerns can seriously undermine the main institutional safeguards against government abuse: independence of the courts, the rule of law, legislative oversight, media freedom, and open government.

These Principles respond to the above-described longstanding challenges as well as to the fact that, in recent years, a significant number of states around the world have embarked on adopting or revising classification regimes and related laws. This trend in turn has been sparked by several developments. Perhaps most significant has been the rapid adoption of access to information laws since the fall of the Berlin Wall, with the result that, as of the date that these Principles were issued, more than 5.2 billion people in 95 countries around the world enjoy the right of access to information—at least in law, if not in practice. People in these countries are—often for the first time—grappling with the question of whether and under what circumstances information may be kept secret. Other developments contributing to an increase in proposed secrecy legislation have been government responses to terrorism or the threat of terrorism, and an interest in having secrecy regulated by law in the context of democratic transitions. Continue reading GLOBAL PRINCIPLES ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION