Resistance is futile and the Rise of the Killer Robots

Killer robots will leave humans ‘utterly defenceless’ warns professor

Robots, called LAWS – lethal autonomous weapons systems – will be able to kill without human intervention

Killer robots in development could leave humans ‘uttlery defenceless’ a leading academic has warned Photo: Warner Br/Everett/REX

Killer robots which are being developed by the US military ‘will leave humans utterly defenceless‘, an academic has warned.

Two programmes commissioned by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are seeking to create drones which can track and kill targets even when out of contact with their handlers.

Writing in the journal Nature, Stuart Russell, Professor of Computer Science at the University of California, Berkley, said the research could breach the Geneva Convention and leave humanity in the hands of amoral machines.

“Autonomous weapons systems select and engage targets without human intervention; they become lethal when those targets include humans,” he said.

“Existing AI and robotics components can provide physical platforms, perception, motor control, navigation, mapping, tactical decision-making and long-term planning. They just need to be combined.

“In my view, the overriding concern should be the probable endpoint of this technological trajectory.

“Despite the limits imposed by physics, one can expect platforms deployed in the millions, the agility and lethality of which will leave humans utterly defenceless. This is not a desirable future.”

Some experts say armed killer robots are just a ‘ small step’ away

• Killer robots a small step away and must be outlawed, says UN official
• Britain prepared to develop ‘killer robots’, minister says

The robots, called LAWS – lethal autonomous weapons systems – are likely to be armed quadcopters of mini-tanks that can decided without human intervention who should live or die.

DARPA is currently working on two projects which could lead to killer bots. One is Fast Lightweight Autonomy (FLA) which is designing a tiny rotorcraft to manoeuvre unaided at high speed in urban areas and inside buildings. The other and Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE), is aiming to develop teams of autonomous aerial vehicles carrying out “all steps of a strike mission — find, fix, track, target, engage, assess” in situations in which enemy signal-jamming makes communication with a human commander impossible.

Last year Angela Kane, the UN’s high representative for disarmament, said killer robots were just a ‘small step’ away and called for a worldwide ban. But the Foreign Office has said while the technology had potentially “terrifying” implications, Britain “reserves the right” to develop it to protect troops.

Professor Russell said: “LAWS could violate fundamental principles of human dignity by allowing machines to choose whom to kill — for example, they might be tasked to eliminate anyone exhibiting ‘threatening behaviour’

“Debates should be organized at scientific meetings; arguments studied by ethics committees. Doing nothing is a vote in favour of continued development and deployment.”

However Dr Sabine Hauert, a lecturer in robotics at the University of Bristol said that the public did not need to fear the developments in aritifical intelligence.

“My colleagues and I spend dinner parties explaining that we are not evil but instead have been working for years to develop systems that could help the elderly, improve health care, make jobs safer and more efficient, and allow us to explore space or beneath the ocean,” she said.

Counter-electronics High-powered microwave Advanced Missile Project.

Counter-electronics High-powered microwave Advanced Missile Project.

The silent missile that can destroy enemy electronics with microwave PULSES: Air Force confirms terrifying new weapon

  • Named counter-electronics high-powered microwave advanced missile
  • Weapon destroys electronic systems without hurting people or buildings
  • Champ is now an ‘operational system already in [the] tactical air force’ 
  • Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range has been chosen as the delivery vehicle

From Ocean’s Eleven to Star Trek, weapons that wipe out enemy electronics are a staple of science fiction films.

For years, scientists have been attempting to create such a weapon as part of Champ, or the Counter-electronics High-powered microwave Advanced Missile Project.

Now, the US Air Force claims it has advanced the technology, and says it can deploy it using the stealthy Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM).

Scroll down for video 

For years, scientists have been attempting to turn fantasy into reality by working on a system known as Champ, or Counter-electronics High-powered microwave Advanced Missile Project

For years, scientists have been attempting to turn fantasy into reality by working on a system known as Champ, or Counter-electronics High-powered microwave Advanced Missile Project

HOW DOES IT WORK?

The missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon.

This uses a super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of energy.

The energy causes voltage surges in electronic equipment, rendering them useless before surge protectors have the chance to react.

The aim is to destroy an enemy’s command, control, communication and computing, surveillance and intelligence capabilities without hurting people or infrastructure.

According to Foxtrot Alpha, once integrated into JASSM, Champ will be a ‘first day of war’ standoff weapon.

Because it can be launched by both bombers and fighters, Lockheed’s Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM, is an ideal platform for Champ.

‘The capability is real … and the technology can be available today,’ said Major General Thomas Masiello, the Air Force Research Laboratory.

‘That’s an operational system already in our tactical air force’

In 2012, aircraft manufacturer Boeing successfully tested the weapon on a one-hour flight during which it knocked out the computers of an entire military compound.

During Boeing’s experiment, the missile flew low over the Utah Test and Training Range, discharging electromagnetic pulses on to seven targets, permanently shutting down their electronics.

Boeing said that the test was so successful even the camera recording it was disabled.

Although the project is shrouded in secrecy, experts believe the missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon.

This uses a super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of energy which causes voltage surges in electronic equipment, rendering them useless before surge protectors have the chance to react.

The missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon. This uses a super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of energy. The energy causes voltage surges in electronic equipment, rendering them useless before surge protectors have the chance to react

The missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon. This uses a super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of energy. The energy causes voltage surges in electronic equipment, rendering them useless before surge protectors have the chance to react

Keith Coleman, Champ programme manager for Boeing’s prototype arm Phantom Works, claims the technology marked ‘a new era in modern warfare’.

‘In the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy’s electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or aircraft arrive,’ he said during the initial test.

However, experts fear that the project could create an arms race, with countries scrambling to build their own electromagnetic pulse weapons.

Professor Trevor Taylor, Professorial Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, has previously said the Western world would be more vulnerable attack because of its increased reliance on electronics.

‘Should the US be known to have developed such a technology to the production stage, it would drive others to try to act similarly,’ he said.

The US Air Force claims Champ has found an ideal delivery vehicle; the stealthy Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (pictured)

The US Air Force claims Champ has found an ideal delivery vehicle; the stealthy Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-

Oak Ridge National Laboratory maps the areas likely to be blacked out in the event of a high-altitude nuclear EMP attack on the US

Judge stands up against Obama amnesty plan!

BREAKING: In A HUGE Blow To The President, Appeals Court Has Just Upheld Block On Amnesty

A sharp rebuke for a president already reeling from one major court defeat…

Print

In a stunning setback to President Obama’s effort to defer deportation and grant certain citizenship rights to millions of illegal immigrants, a federal appeals court has just upheld an injunction blocking Obama’s executive order on amnesty. The Washington Times reports that the highly anticipated ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit marks the second major legal setback for an administration that was skirting the Congress and charging ahead on its highly controversial program to defer deportation for as many as 5 million illegals.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

As Western Journalism has reported, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas recently refused to lift his order temporarily blocking the president’s unilateral action on amnesty. The angry judge also issued what The Washington Examiner called “a scathing rebuke” to Obama’s lawyers for “misleading” him about steps the administration had already taken to implement the president’s amnesty orders.

Obama’s Justice Department had asked the three-judge Appeals Court to reverse Judge Hanen’s order temporarily blocking the amnesty plan. Hanen’s original order to put the brakes on the president’s executive action was in response to a lawsuit filed by 26 states alleging Obama’s unilateral orders on amnesty were unconstitutional.

A Fox News report on Tuesday’s split-decision Appeals Court defeat for Obama notes: “The states suing to block the plan, led by Texas, argue that Obama acted outside his authority and that the changes would force them to invest more in law enforcement, health care and education. But the White House has said the president acted within his powers to fix a ‘broken immigration system.’”

In Tuesday’s ruling, the two 5th Circuit judges who voted to deny the stay and thus keep the injunction in force said in a written opinion that the federal government’s lawyers are unlikely to succeed on the merits of that appeal.

Is it time for a Billionaire tax to support small business in the United States?

According to Forbes there are 536 Billionaires in the United States in 2015 http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:static_search:united%20states
Their total Net Worth equals over 2.5 Trillion dollars.
10% equals over 250 Billion dollars

Now being a Pirate that sounds like a lot of booty that is not necessarily working for the US economy.

Now I am a conservative and have always been against excessive government taxes against individuals.
But never in my wildest dreams did I think so few would hoard so much of the the worlds assets.

billiona

We need to ask:

  • how much does one individual need?
  • Can this hidden wealth be used to stimulate the economy of the United States and create 1000’s of jobs?
  • Should we put cap on an individuals earnings if the accumulation of wealth damages the economy?
  • How could over $250 Billion dollars be used to stimulate the economy of the United States?

I know what you are thinking. What if we took the 250 Billion and divided it up amongst the population?
Based on a population of 300 Million that would be a paltry $800 each. It may help short term but do nothing long term for the economy.

But what if we used a nice round number like 1,000,000 loans to Americans? That would equal $250,000 each.
Now you ask “What would I do if I was given $250,000?” Most would say “Buy a house” or “Go on a vacation”.
Both are great ideas, but would only have a short term impact.

Now ask yourself what would an entrepreneur do with $250,000?
That one is easy START A BUSINESS

A small business is the heart of America. Every town in America has one.
They provide service, they feed America, they employ Millions!

Think about it.
What if we create a non profit annuity that supplies $250,000 tax free startup loans to entrepreneurs across America?

What if we made it easy to qualify for?
Would you want to live your dream and be your own boss?

In my mind, this is how it would work.

Every 5 years ALL BILLIONAIRES in the United States donate 1/10th of their net worth to the fund. This can be handled as a tax write off of some sort. In all honesty most Billionaires should feel good about this as the funds will go to growing the economy that they depend on to make more Billions.

The non-profit will have a goal of loaning out 200,000 $200,000 loans a year at zero interest.
That roughly equals 40 Billion dollars a year into the economy! The remainder creates an annuity to earn interest and to make additional loans annually.

Funds will also be used to create an online small business education system where potential business owners and learn how to write a business plan, deal with finances including taxes and learn about hiring and training employees.

Here is who we lend to:

  • New  / Very Small emerging business
  • Entrepreneurs in every state
  • 25% To existing very small businesses
  • 25% to minority / economically disadvantaged, primarily in urban areas
  • 50% to applicants who demonstrate and provide a valid feasible business plan and have a net worth of under $100,000

Here are some sample goals:

  • Participate in a mentor program
  • Complete basic online financial classes
  • Produce a business plan for a sustainable long term successful business
  • Create a profitable business
  • Create at least 3 new jobs
  • Make money honestly and ethically and pay your taxes.

Loan payback:

  • Stay small pay back 1/2 loan with zero interest.
  • Grow, thrive and exceed goals payback reduced to zero in 5 years

Obviously this is still at the 30,000 ft level, but I think the theory is sound.
The $250,00 is just a number. Some businesses may need more, some less.

I cannot think of anything better than being able to reward citizens and finance their dreams.
If it works the $250,000,000,000 could easily create the next generation of millionaires who started with a small businees. And just maybe there could be some future billionaires created also,

So my question is: What Billionaire will be the first to step up to the plate and donate?

Hillary destabilized the Middle East and made MILLIONS for her and Bill

Is another Clinton Impeachment coming?

The Piratearian

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department

466520736
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation. Yana Paskova/Getty Images

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But…

View original post 2,887 more words

Does America need another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor to survive? Will it happen soon?

The Piratearian

America is in crisis.
The total incompetence in Washington is in the process of turning this once great nation into a 3rd world country and nobody seems to care.

911-twin-towers-fire

Clinton and Obama have destabilized the middle East, funded and encouraged the rise of ISIS and radical Muslims and seem to encourage the genocide of Christians worldwide.  The United States, once considered a leader and defender of the free world is now considered a joke. Benghazi was just a coverup of illegal arm sales to radicals to overthrow and encourage more war in the middle east.

Domestically Obama has opened our borders and allows the free flow of illegal aliens, terrorists and is in the process of bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria. At the same time he is ripping at the fabric of our society banning GOD wherever he can. He has destroyed a working health…

View original post 381 more words

Does America need another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor to survive? Will it happen soon?

America is in crisis.
The total incompetence in Washington is in the process of turning this once great nation into a 3rd world country and nobody seems to care.

911-twin-towers-fire

Clinton and Obama have destabilized the middle East, funded and encouraged the rise of ISIS and radical Muslims and seem to encourage the genocide of Christians worldwide.  The United States, once considered a leader and defender of the free world is now considered a joke. Benghazi was just a coverup of illegal arm sales to radicals to overthrow and encourage more war in the middle east.

Domestically Obama has opened our borders and allows the free flow of illegal aliens, terrorists and is in the process of bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria. At the same time he is ripping at the fabric of our society banning GOD wherever he can. He has destroyed a working health system just to massage his ego.
He has neutered the Border Patrol threatening to fire or arrest anyone who actually upholds the law.
Obama has neglected to defend the Constitution, instead he encourages illegal activity including the killing of police officers while ignoring the lawlessness in major urban areas committed by minorities.
Actually I am not sure he has even read the Constitution.

Our once proud military is being dismantled and underfunded. Obama even told the Coast Guard that anyone in their ranks who denies global warming will be put in jail. Justice, IRS, EPA, EEOC and other federal agencies are being used to over regulate and destroy those that do not fit Obamas agenda.

If America does not wake up and soon, our reign as a great nation is over.

I could go on and on.

My question is, what will it take to make America Rally and take back our country?

In 1941 it was Pearl Harbor which woke us to rise as a Sleeping Giant and fight Tyranny and Genocide in Germany and Japan.

pearl-harbor-2001-55-g
In 2001 it was 9/11.

Unfortunately in 2015 / 2016 I fear it will take a major attack on the homeland to wake America up.
We are still a sleeping Giant and we still LOVE America and what it represents.

I fear that President Obama is going to bring on this attack himself.

It could be a dirty bomb in a major metropolitan area, a gas attack in a major subway system, a EMP that will kill all our electric and computer systems or it can be a Nuke smuggled in across our Southern border by ISIS.

It is a question not IF this or something else will happen, but WHEN.

Then we will see what this nation is made of.

I truly believe that we are a nation of Patriots, that when pushed to the limit we will stand and fight to save the nation our fathers died for.

But what will it take to get us there? What price will we need to pay? How many will die for the mistakes we made when we elected Barrack Hussein Obama?

What do you stand for? What will it take to get you off your couch to save our way of life?

unclesam1

The Pirate

Hillary destabilized the Middle East and made MILLIONS for her and Bill

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department

466520736
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation. Yana Paskova/Getty Images

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” She declared that “Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.” She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.” She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.” All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions from the IBTimes.

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

Winning Friends, Influencing Clintons

Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions — a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy. But nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers.

Just before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation signed an agreement generally obligating it to disclose to the State Department increases in contributions from its existing foreign government donors and any new foreign government donors. Those increases were to be reviewed by an official at the State Department and “as appropriate” the White House counsel’s office. According to available disclosures, officials at the State Department and White House raised no issues about potential conflicts related to arms sales.

During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., urged the Clinton Foundation to “forswear” accepting contributions from governments abroad. “Foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state,” he said. The Clintons did not take Lugar’s advice. In light of the weapons deals flowing to Clinton Foundation donors, advocates for limits on the influence of money on government action now argue that Lugar was prescient in his concerns.

“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group that seeks to tighten campaign finance disclosure rules. “This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these nonprofits is problematic.”

Hillary Clinton’s willingness to allow those with business before the State Department to finance her foundation heightens concerns about how she would manage such relationships as president, said Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics.

“These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment,” Lessig told IBTimes. “Can it really be that the Clintons didn’t recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”

National security experts assert that the overlap between the list of Clinton Foundation donors and those with business before the the State Department presents a troubling conflict of interest.

While governments and defense contractors may not have made donations to the Clinton Foundation exclusively to influence arms deals, they were clearly “looking to build up deposits in the ‘favor bank’ and to be well thought of,” said Gregory Suchan, a 34-year State Department veteran who helped lead the agency’s oversight of arms transfers under the Bush administration.

As Hillary Clinton presses a campaign for the presidency, she has confronted sustained scrutiny into her family’s personal and philanthropic dealings, along with questions about whether their private business interests have colored her exercise of public authority. As IBTimes previously reported, Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation. IBTimes’ review of the Clintons’ annual financial disclosures also revealed that 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency.

Questions about the nexus of arms sales and Clinton Foundation donors stem from the State Department’s role in reviewing the export of American-made weapons. The agency is charged with both licensing direct commercial sales by U.S. defense contractors to foreign governments and also approving Pentagon-brokered sales to those governments. Those powers are enshrined in a federal law that specifically designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In that role, Hillary Clinton was empowered to approve or reject deals for a broad range of reasons, from national security considerations to human rights concerns.

The State Department does not disclose which individual companies are involved in direct commercial sales, but its disclosure documents reveal that countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation saw a combined $75 billion increase in authorized commercial military sales under the three full fiscal years Clinton served, as compared to the first three full fiscal years of Bush’s second term.

The Clinton Foundation has not released an exact timetable of its donations, making it impossible to know whether money from foreign governments and defense contractors came into the organization before or after Hillary Clinton approved weapons deals that involved their interests. But news reports document that at least seven foreign governments that received State Department clearance for American arms did donate to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary: Algeria, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Thailand, Norway and Australia.

Sales Flowed Despite Human Rights Concerns

Under a presidential policy directive signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to specifically take human rights records into account when deciding whether to approve licenses enabling foreign governments to purchase military equipment and services from American companies. Despite this, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such sales to nations that her agency sharply criticized for systematic human rights abuses.

In its 2010 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department inveighed against Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption,” and a “lack of judicial independence.” The report said the Algerian government “used security grounds to constrain freedom of expression and movement.”

That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and its lobbyists met with the State Department officials who oversee enforcement of human rights policies. Clinton’s State Department the next year approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The increase included authorizations of almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment” after the State Department did not authorize the export of any of such items to Algeria in the prior year.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department authorized at least $2.4 billion of direct military hardware and services sales to Algeria — nearly triple such authorizations over the last full fiscal years during the Bush administration. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose Algeria’s donation until this year — a violation of the ethics agreement it entered into with the Obama administration.

The monarchy in Qatar had similarly been chastised by the State Department for a raft of human rights abuses. But that country donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was running the State Department. During the three full budgetary years of her tenure, Qatar saw a 14-fold increase in State Department authorizations for direct commercial sales of military equipment and services, as compared to the same time period in Bush’s second term. The department also approved the Pentagon’s separate $750 million sale of multi-mission helicopters to Qatar. That deal would additionally employ as contractors three companies that have all supported the Clinton Foundation over the years: United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and General Electric.

Clinton foundation donor countries that the State Department criticized for human rights violations and that received weapons export authorizations did not respond to IBTimes’ questions.

That group of arms manufacturers — along with Clinton Foundation donors Boeing, Honeywell, Hawker Beechcraft and their affiliates — were together listed as contractors in 114 such deals while Clinton was secretary of state. NBC put Chelsea Clinton on its payroll as a network correspondent in November 2011, when it was still 49 percent owned by General Electric. A spokesperson for General Electric did not respond to questions from IBTimes.

The other companies all asserted that their donations had nothing to do with the arms export deals.

“Our contributions have aligned with our longstanding philanthropic commitments,” said Honeywell spokesperson Rob Ferris.

“Even The Appearance Of A Conflict”

During her Senate confirmation proceedings in 2009, Hillary Clinton declared that she and her husband were “committed to ensuring that his work does not present a conflict of interest with the duties of Secretary of State.” She pledged “to protect against even the appearance of a conflict of interest between his work and the duties of the Secretary of State” and said that “in many, if not most cases, it is likely that the Foundation or President Clinton will not pursue an opportunity that presents a conflict.”

Even so, Bill Clinton took in speaking fees reaching $625,000 at events sponsored by entities that were dealing with Hillary Clinton’s State Department on weapons issues.

In 2011, for example, the former president was paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at its annual awards gala, which was held at the home of the Kuwaiti ambassador. Ben Affleck spoke at the event, which featured a musical performance by Grammy-award winner Michael Bolton. The gala was emceed by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe show. Boeing was listed as a sponsor of the event, as were the embassies of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar — the latter two of which had donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

The speaking fee from the Kuwait America Foundation to Bill Clinton was paid in the same time frame as a series of deals Hillary Clinton’s State Department was approving between the Kuwaiti government and Boeing. Months before the gala, the Department of Defense announced that Boeing would be the prime contractor on a $693 million deal, cleared by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, to provide the Kuwaiti government with military transport aircraft. A year later, a group sponsored in part by Boeing would pay Bill Clinton another $250,000 speaking fee.

“Boeing has sponsored this major travel event, the Global Business Travel Association, for several years, regardless of its invited speakers,” Gordon Johndroe, a Boeing spokesperson, told IBTimes. Johndroe said Boeing’s support for the Clinton Foundation was “a transparent act of compassion and an investment aimed at aiding the long-term interests and hopes of the Haitian people” following a devastating earthquake.

Boeing was one of three companies that helped deliver money personally to Bill Clinton while benefiting from weapons authorizations issued by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The others were Lockheed and the financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Lockheed is a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to speak at an event in 2010. Three days before the speech, Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved two weapons export deals in which Lockheed was listed as the prime contractor. Over the course of 2010, Lockheed was a contractor on 17 Pentagon-brokered deals that won approval from the State Department. Lockheed told IBTimes that its support for the Clinton Foundation started in 2010, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

“Lockheed Martin has periodically supported one individual membership in the Clinton Global Initiative since 2010,” said company spokesperson Katherine Trinidad. “Membership benefits included attendance at CGI annual meetings, where we participated in working groups focused on STEM, workforce development and advanced manufacturing.”

In April 2011, Goldman Sachs paid Bill Clinton $200,000 to speak to “approximately 250 high level clients and investors” in New York, according to State Department records obtained by Judicial Watch. Two months later, the State Department approved a $675 million foreign military sale involving Hawker Beechcraft — a company that was then part-owned by Goldman Sachs. As part of the deal, Hawker Beechcraft would provide support to the government of Iraq to maintain a fleet of aircraft used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Goldman Sachs has also contributed at least $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to donation records.

“There is absolutely no connection among all the points that you have raised regarding our firm,” said Andrew Williams, a spokesperson for Goldman Sachs.

Federal records show that ethics staffers at the State Department approved the payments to Bill Clinton from Goldman Sachs, and the Lockheed- and Boeing-sponsored groups without objection, even though the firms had major stakes in the agency’s weapons export decisions.

Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor of international affairs, told IBTimes that the intertwining financial relationships between the Clintons, defense contractors and foreign governments seeking weapons approvals is “a vivid example of a very big problem — the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic.”

“It has troubled me all along that the Clinton Foundation was not being more scrupulous about who it would take money from and who it wouldn’t,” he said. “American foreign policy is better served if people responsible for it are not even remotely suspected of having these conflicts of interest. When George Marshall was secretary of state, nobody was worried about whether or not he would be distracted by donations to a foundation or to himself. This wasn’t an issue. And that was probably better.”