NZ Threatens 10 Years In Prison For 'Possessing' Mosque Shooting Video; Web Hosts Warned, 'Dissenter' Banned

New Zealand authorities have reminded citizens that they face up to 10 years in prison for "knowingly" possessing a copy of the New Zealand mosque shooting video - and up to 14 years in prison for sharing it. Corporations (such as web hosts) face an additional $200,000 ($137,000 US) fine under the same law. Terrorist Brenton Tarrant used Facebook Live to broadcast the first 17 minutes of his attack on the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand at approximately 1:40 p.m. on Friday - the first of two mosque attacks which left 50 dead and 50 injured.

Copies of Tarrant's livestream, along with his lengthy manifesto, began to rapidly circulate on various file hosting sites following the attack, which as we noted Friday - were quickly scrubbed from mainstream platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Scribd. YouTube has gone so far as to intentionally disable search filters so that people cannot find Christchurch shooting materials - including footage of suspected multiple shooters as well as the arrest of Tarrant and other suspects.

On Saturday, journalist Nick Monroe reported that New Zealand police have warned citizens that they face imprisonment for distributing the video, while popular New Zealand Facebook group Wellington Live notes that "NZ police would like to remind the public that it is an offence to share an objectional publication which includes the horrific video from yesterday's attack. If you see this video, report it immediately. Do not download it. Do not share it. If you are found to have a copy of the video or to have shared it, you face fines & potential imprisonment."

Dissenter blocked in New Zealand Along with the censorship of online materials and investigation of content sharing platforms such as BitChute and 8chan - where the shooter posted a link to the livestream of his attack, social discussion service Dissenter has been blocked in New Zealand. Created by the people behind Twitter competitor Gab.ai - Dissenter is a browser extension which pops up a third-party comments section for any website where people can discuss content outside of the control of the website owner. On Saturday, Gab's official accounts (@gab and @getongab) reported that "New Zealand ISPs have banned dissenter.com until it is "censorship compliant.

Milo banned Meanwhile, far-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Australia in the wake of the New Zealand shootings after he said on Facebook that attacks like Christchurch happen because "the establishment panders to and mollycoddles extremist leftism and barbaric, alien religious cultures." Australia's immigration minister, David Coleman, said in a Saturday statement that Yiannopoulos's comments were "appalling and forment hatred and division," adding "Milo Yiannopoulos will not be allowed to enter Australia for his proposed tour this year."

UK man arrested While the Christchurch attacks were utterly reprehensible, supporting them is now punishable in the United Kingdom. On Saturday afternoon, a 24-year-old man from Oldham was arrested on suspicion of sending malicious communications in support of the mosque attacks. It is unclear what he is alleged to have written. The Greater Manchester Police said in a statement that they "became aware of a post on social media making reference and support for the terrible events in New Zealand," adding "Police have made urgent enquiries and a man aged 24 from the Oldham area is now under arrest on suspicion of sending malicious communications." "It is clear that people are worried and we really understand that… It is truly terrible what happened yesterday. It is hard to put into any form of words," said Assistant Chief Constable Russ Jackson, who added "We have nothing to suggest any threat locally, but none of this can diminish how people feel and that is why we want to be there to offer more support at this difficult time."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/nz-threatens-10-years-prison-possessing-mosque-shooting-video-web-hosts-warned

Former Obama Officials Ordered By Judge To Answer Judicial Watch Questions

A federal judge ordered multiple senior Obama Administration officials, State Department officials and former Hillary Clinton aides Thursday to provide answers under oath to questions requested by Judicial Watch after a roughly four year court battle. Judicial Watch, a leading conservative non-profit watchdog group, announced the schedule of depositions in their case in a press release Thursday. The Judicial Watch questions regard two separate cases regarding the Obama administration’s actions during the Benghazi terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA Annex in Libya, and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to send classified government emails. “Judicial Watch is doing the heavy lifting on the ongoing Clinton email scandal, even as Congress dropped the ball and DOJ and State continued to obstruct our quest for the truth,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, in a press release Thursday. “The Court in our case wants real answers on the Clinton email scandal which is why our request for basic discovery was granted.”

District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered senior officials — including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap – to respond under oath and submit the answers in writing to the questions provided by Judicial Watch. The decision from Lamberth was made this past January. Lamberth ordered the discovery from the watchdog’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit, which was filed after the State Department failed to respond to an earlier request made May 13, 2014.

https://saraacarter.com/former-senior-obama-officials-ordered-by-judge-to-answer-judicial-watch-questions/

Bombshell Report: Pentagon Mismanaged $2.1 Billion In F-35 Stealth Jet Parts

DoD personnel who manage Government property supporting the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Program could not account for billions of dollars in parts, according to a new watchdog report. Now, the Pentagon has to rely upon Lockheed Martin for records. The bombshell report from the DoD's Office of Inspector General found that DoD personnel “failed to implement procedures, and failed to appoint and hold officials responsible, to account for and manage government property for more than 16 years.”

As a result of the DoD's Office of Inspector General's close examination of the program, “the DoD does not know the actual value of the F‑35 property and does not have an independent record to verify the contractor‑valued government property of $2.1 billion for the F‑35 Program. Without accurate records, the F‑35 Program officials have no visibility over the property and have no metrics to hold the prime contractor accountable for how it manages Government property. The lack of asset visibility restricts the DoD’s ability to conduct the necessary checks and balances that ensure the prime contractor is managing and spending,” the report states. The Pentagon plans to purchase 2,663 F-35s, which will be distributed to the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in the next two decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the military are scheduled until 2037 with a program life up to 2070. The program is expected to cost $1.508 trillion, has already footed a $400 billion bill to taxpayers. The fifth-generation stealth jet has been plagued with many issues, including cost overruns, software delays, and corrosion problems. President Donald Trump has spoken out against the F-35, including in 2017 when he tweeted that the program’s costs were "out of control." It now appears he may have been right again.

Lockheed has valued the parts at $2.1 billion, but DoD's Office of Inspector General “had no way to verify the property records provided by the prime contractor" were correct. The watchdog recommended that, before series production of the F-35 begins, the program should “immediately appoint" two Pentagon officials to oversee the program and Lockheed "to verify the existence and completeness of all F‑35 property and account for it on the appropriate financial statements.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/bombshell-pentagon-mismanaged-21-billion-f-35-stealth-jet-parts

Audit of Management of Government‑Owned Property Supporting the F‑35 Program

https://media.defense.gov/2019/Mar/15/2002101767/-1/-1/1/DODOIG-2019-062.PDF

>>5727671

Believing that if all is allowed to stand, it will remove the illusion they tried to create. Nothing new here.

>>5727705

Agreed 100% on target with that!

Pompeo Announces Ban On International Criminal Court Officials Probing US War Crimes

The US has threatened to revoke visas for members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague should they so much as investigate any criminal actions of American military personnel. The United States has never been a member of the ICC and considers it without authority over matters related to Americans or allies conducting joint operations. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a scathing rebuke Friday following ICC statements that it would look into possible US war crimes in Afghanistan, and as pressures mount for the court to bring cases against Israel for human rights crimes against Palestinians. “We are determined to protect the American and allied military and civilian personnel from living in fear of unjust prosecution for actions taken to defend our great nation,” Pompeo said Friday.

Pompeo went to far as to specifically address ICC members and employees: “If you are responsible for the proposed ICC investigation of U.S. personnel in connection with the situation in Afghanistan, you should not assume that you still have or will get a visa or will be permitted to enter the United States,” he said. Washington has long relied on defense of "US sovereignty" when the international court has received allegations of torture by American forces or allies, or other war crimes like "mistaken"coalition bombings of civilians attending wedding parties or funerals in Afghanistan.

The US position has been to say American courts and investigators can handle and prosecute if need be any allegations of US misconduct or war crimes, and has for years throughout the "global war on terror" viewed the Netherlands-based ICC with hostility. During his Friday comments Pompeo said further the restrictions “may also be used to deter ICC efforts to pursue allied personnel, including Israelis, without the allies’ consent,” according to the AP. He also warned about potential economic sanctions against member and host nations "if the ICC does not change its course."

The ICC, for its part, has vowed to continue to operate "undeterred" by any US actions, and articulated that the court "is needed to prosecute cases when a country fails to do so or does an insufficient job of it," as the AP reported. Pompeo's words were also widely seen as a threat to the ICC prosecutor and personnel who last year formally requested of the court to open an investigation into war crimes allegations against US forces and intelligence, as well as allied Afghan national security forces, going all the way back to May 2003. Among the more shocking actions the US has taken to prevent any attempted prosecution of Americans by the ICC was the Bush administration's American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, popularly derided as the "Hague Invasion Act". The law was designed to protect all US military and intelligence members on the basis that Washington could at anytime use force to liberate them from ICC incarceration. With such significant threats, the ICC's actions against Americans, Israelis or allied forces will likely only remain symbolic and designed to drive media attention and scrutiny of American actions overseas. Meanwhile the pattern will remain of only third world, African, and Balkan warlords actually being brought to justice at the Hague, and never western officials.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/pompeo-announces-ban-international-criminal-court-officials-probing-us-war-crimes

>>5727856

>>5727553 Former Obama Officials Ordered By Judge To Answer Judicial Watch Questions

How do you get needed information out in the public view?