Speaking of witch hunts

Speaking of witch hunts

Paul to Trump:
Be my guest at trial

Senator urging a deal on Assange
as press firestorm rages over
crackdown on cyber-journalism

Top Dem candidates rip Trump and blast cyber-journalism attacks

---

Sanders, Warren denouncing cyber-squeeze against Assange, Greenwald

---

Pompeo, Clinton both notorious for Russia smears tarring those journalists they don't like

---

Rand Paul says President Trump is welcome to attend the Senate trial of Trump's impeachment charges as his personal guest.

The Kentucky Republican, while differing from Trump on a number of policy issues, regards the impeachment articles as an irresponsible partisan maneuver. He said most Americans -- presumably including senators -- had already made up their minds as to impeachment articles. He scoffed at the articles, comparing the Democrats' indignance  with their glacial silence when Obama did similar things.

In the meantime, Paul has urged a compromise on the Assange case that would permit the Trump administration and Congress a means of ending the free press crisis, one that is liable to come to a head during the heat of the presidential race. Assange is being held in a maximum security British prison on ground that he poses a flight risk as the United States demands his extradition to face charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, along with cyber-law technicalities, that have never before been used against people publicly disseminating secrets who have not signed secrecy agreements.

---

Rand Paul's artful deal on Assange
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/16/rand-paul-floats-immunity-julian-assange-senators-/

---

Under the artful deal, all U.S. charges against Assange would be dropped in return for his testimony before Congress under immunity granted by the Justice Department and Congress. Trump came under pressure from Mike Pompeo, at the time CIA chief, who publicly excoriated Assange and WikiLeaks as Russian tools after WikiLeaks published some CIA documents that disclosed some ideas for ways the government could rig electronic devices so as to be able to spy on those nearby.

However, the pretext used by the Justice Department in its case was WikiLeaks' publication of low-security material, including a video in which a U.S. helicopter crew kills a group of journalists in Iraq and papers that disclosed the confidential opinions of U.S. diplomats about foreign politicians.  Since that time, Assange has been the target of a witch hunt by the Deep Swamp, including trivial Swedish sex charges that were dropped but then reinstated under U.S. pressure.

A storm of criticism is arising worldwide about the Assange case -- a storm that has been fueled by Brazilian charges against Gleen Greenwald by a vengeful president, angered that crooked trial-rigging was exposed by Greenwald's publication of private messages. Like Assange, Greenwald was accused of violating cyber-security laws. Among those denouncing the Assange indictment are Rand Paul's father, Ron Paul, now retired as a Republican congressman from Texas. Both Pauls are vigorous defenders of individual liberties against government intrusion and are both known as libertarians.

Among the press groups registering dismay at what they see as Trumpian  tactics are:

Freedom of the Press Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, Access Now, Agência Pública, American Civil Liberties Union, ARTICLE 19, Brazil and South America, Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, Association for Progressive Communications (APC).

Brave New Films, Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (Abraji), CODEPINK, Columbia Journalism Review Committee to Protect Journalists, Cooperativa Tierra Común, Demand Progress, Derechos Digitales, Doc Society, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ExposeFacts, Fundación Acceso (Costa Rica), Fundación Ciudadania Inteligente, Fundación Datos Protegidos (Chile), Fundación Karisma Fundación Huaira (Ecuador), Fundación Vía Libre, Human Rights Watch.

IFEX IFEX-ALC IPANDETEC, Centroamérica Instituto, Vladimir Herzog International Press Institute, Intervozes National Federation of Brazilian Journalists (FENAJ), Newscoop, Pen International, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Roots Action, Sursiendo, CCD, TEDIC, Ubunteam, Community Usuarios Digitales, World Association of News Publishers, Witness.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation condemned the use of cybercrime laws as a means of stifling investigative reporting, arguing that "constitutional protection" is necessary.

EFF said,

Around the world, cybercrime laws are notoriously hazy.  This is in part because it’s challenging to write good cybercrime laws: technology evolves quickly, our language for describing certain digital actions may be imprecise, and lawmakers may not always imagine how laws will later be interpreted.

And while the laws are hazy, the penalties are often severe, which makes them a dangerously big stick in the hands of prosecutors.  Prosecutors can and do take advantage of this disconnection, abusing laws designed to target criminals who break into computers for extortion or theft to prosecute those engaged in harmless activities, or research—or, in this case, journalists communicating with their sources.

Assange's source, Chelsea Manning, is being held in a federal prison for refusing to tell a grand jury what she knows about how data was transferred to Assange -- which implies that the federal case against Assange is insecure. Manning was pardoned by President Barack Obama after seven years in a military prison for transferring the data to Assange.

Sanders has blistered Trump's Justice Department for making itself the arbiter over who is a reporter and who is not. “Let me be clear: it is a disturbing attack on the First Amendment for the Trump administration to decide who is or is not a reporter for the purposes of a criminal prosecution,” Sanders tweeted. “Donald Trump must obey the Constitution, which protects the publication of news about our government.”

The Sanders campaign also spoke out against the Greenwald charges. Sanders' campaign co-chairperson, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said he is crafting legislation to protect journalists for being prosecuted over their work. Presumably he means U.S. journalists, such as Greenwald, living overseas.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.,  has chastised Trump for exploiting the Assange case as a "pretext to wage war on the First Amendment and go after the free press who hold the powerful accountable everyday.” She called on Brazil to drop cybercrime charges against Greenwald.

Warren however has, in carefully worded statements, appeared to stick with the Clinton line that demands that Assange be punished for hurting Clinton's campaign. “Assange is a bad actor who has harmed U.S. national security — and he should be held accountable,” Warren has said.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Or., also rebuked the Trump team on press freedom. “This is not about Julian Assange,” Wyden said. “This is about the use of the Espionage Act to charge a recipient and publisher of classified information. I am extremely concerned about the precedent this may set and potential dangers to the work of journalists and the First Amendment.”

Wyden was also very critical of the Obama administration for its secret domestic surveillance program exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The following information comes primarily from The Intercept:

Data included in those documents were reported by outlets including The New York Times and The Guardian; the Obama administration had always been reluctant to indict Assange due to what it called “the New York Times problem.” There was no way to say that Assange’s action was criminal without also saying that much of what the Times and other mainstream outlets do is also against the law.

Indeed, the documents are still officially classified, meaning that anybody who discusses them, even in the context of Assange’s indictment, could themselves be accused of a crime, despite the First Amendment and the fact that the person had signed no secrecy agreement. Transparency advocates have said that the executive branch has been classifying far too much basic information — the soup of the day at the CIA’s cafeteria, for instance, could be classified.

Greenwald's media outlet, The Intercept, said of the Assange case:

If the government effectively criminalizes reporting on classified information, that gives the government the unilateral authority to determine what can and cannot be published, simply by deploying its opaque and unreviewable classification scheme.

Members of Congress have been decidedly mum on the latest indictment, given the disdain in Washington for whistleblowing in general and the WikiLeaks apparatus in particular, which Democrats blame for upending Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. The Democrats however were very keen on the CIA officer who allegedly blew the whistle against Trump.

Assange critics have quibbled over characterizing him as a journalist, but press freedom advocates are alarmed at the Justice Department’s use of the Espionage Act to target someone who publishes leaked information, as opposed to targeting only the leaker. John Demers, assistant attorney general for national security, has said that “Assange is no journalist,” and that the department “takes seriously the role of journalists and our democracy and we support it.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists said irrespective of how the Justice Department may characterize Assange’s role, the indictment “could chill investigative reporting.”

By Demers' statement, the Trump Justice Department is assigning the government the right to determine who is a real journalist, which in effect means the Justice Department is able and willing to license journalists -- a concept that not so long ago was anathema to U.S. news professionals.

The CPJ North America coordinator, Alexandra Ellerbeck, called the Trump team's move a "reckless assault on the First Amendment that crosses a line no previous administration has been willing to cross, and threatens to criminalize the most basic practices of reporting.”

Reached for comment at the time by The Intercept, a spokesman for Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., head of the House Judiciary Committee, and now a chief House impeachment manager, said he had nothing on the Assange matter. Similarly, the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not respond to a request for comment.

---

Canadians imitate Pompeo, U.S. Dems with Russia smears
If you criticize the government, you must be a Russian asset, a Putin puppet.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/01/22/consortium-news-libel-notices-cse-global-news-canada-russia/

U.S. moves to void UN's free press proviso,saying Assange has no such right in America

If British court accepts bizarre theory, any UK journo
could face extradition for publishing U.S. secrets

The U.S. Justice Department is urging a British court to accept a theory that Julian Assange, not being a U.S. person, is not entitled to the Constitution's First Amendment protection of freedom of press, according to the editor of WikiLeaks.

The First Amendment says nothing about U.S. persons -- citizens or aliens residing in the United States -- versus non-U.S. persons. The Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." The Amendment says any abridgment of freedom of press is illegal.

U.S. lawyers of course avoided the obvious point that by abridging WikiLeaks' press freedom, the Justice Department also sets a precedent for abridging the press freedom of Americans who wish to read WikiLeaks. Press freedom is not only about freedom to publish. It is also about freedom to consume the product of the press.

The editor, Kristinn Hrafnsson, told Western Advocate that a new affidavit submitted by U.S. government lawyers this week for Assange's upcoming extradition trial takes the position that foreign nationals like Assange are not entitled to press protections under the First Amendment, meaning he is prosecutable for violating the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 which prohibits dissemination of state secrets. The Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone for publishing secrets, though many have been prosecuted for stealing secrets in order to pass them to a foreign power.

Hrafnsson revealed the development outside Assange's case management hearing at London's Westminster Magistrates Court Thursday, the Advocate said.

"On the one hand they have decided that they can go after journalists wherever they are residing in the world, they have universal jurisdiction, and demand extradition like they are doing by trying to get an Australian national from the UK for publishing that took place outside U.S. borders," he told the Advocate.

The United States was a force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948. The declaration's Article 19 specifies that press freedom is guaranteed regardless of borders.

The declaration says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

As the UN press freedom declaration is regarded as the international norm, the U.S. theory that only U.S. persons are assured of press freedom violates a standard of international law. The UK of course was also a promoter of the international press rights declaration.

Hence the U.S. argument is a prima facie admission that international law, to which the UK has acceded, must be waived on behalf of U.S. prosecutors. In other words, the U.S. prosecutors have presented proof that a standard of international law is to be voided in order to "get" one individual who has annoyed powerful politicians with his publications.

U.S. theory voids press freedom for Assange
https://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/6596140/assange-may-not-get-us-press-protection/?cs=12512

First Assange, now Greenwald:Freedom of the press under fire

First Assange, now Greenwald:
Freedom of the press under fire

U.S. leads the way against liberty
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/brazil-greenwald-assange.php

Assange can't have violated secrecy laws-- because the underlying laws don't exist

Assange can't have violated secrecy laws
-- because the underlying laws don't exist

Julian Assange's personality is irrelevant. The issue is that he did nothing wrong.

The United States has no Official Secrets Act. And there is a multitude of problems in applying the 1917 Espionage Act to him, the biggest of which is freedom of speech and press inside and outside America.

It is very important  that Assange is being charged with violating classification regulations imposed by the Executive Branch, even though  these rubrics are not legally mandated, Only nuclear secrets were given a congressional imprimatur as legally defined.

The authority for all other classification derives from the President, and applies to people under the President's sway -- that is, employees of the Executive Branch and government contractors, all of whom sign secrecy agreements.

Assange never signed a secrecy agreement.

Not only is he not bound by the secrecy agreement, but the Espionage Act is being applied to "violations" that have only a quasi-legal basis. It's true that everyone is used to them and that numerous spies have been imprisoned on account of them. But custom does not make something correct.

How can a person be tried for violating a secrecy classification that has only a quasi-legal basis?

In any case, it is obvious that Mike Pompeo, when head of the CIA, was eager to exact revenge against Assange for publishing a file containing alleged CIA technical secrets. He blasted WikiLeaks as a Russian spy front. Britain's MI5 was also said to have been affronted, as the file had been shared with it, giving the Tories a pretext to continue the witch hunt against Assange.

This is all Deep Swamp bilge. Notice that the file was classified "secret," which in CIA-land is considered a garbage classification. A million or so people are cleared to see "secret" information. "Top secret" and special compartmentalized classifications are the only thing meaningful to the security crowd.

The technical information disclosed various gimmicks for backdoor entry into popular communications devices as well as a TV set that could be used to spy on you. All this had been mentioned in the media before being discussed in that file.

Every intelligence agency on the planet would have assumed that the CIA was looking into such gimmickry. So the "secret" stamp only made sure that the non-technical public was kept unaware of such possibilities. Hence, WikiLeaks was fulfilling the responsibility of the press to alert the public to things the government prefers that the voters not know.

Also, one has to wonder whether Assange was set up. That is, did the CIA leak these not-very-important "secrets" in hopes that he would publish them, which would in turn justify an "everybody against Assange" push?

Though he has not been charged in the CIA case, the charges of publishing U.S. secrets during the Obama years ring hollow. And what was so terrible? We saw a case in which a helicopter gun crew killed a group of journalists. Why shouldn't the public know about that? And the diplomatic papers that were published were so low-level that they were classified "confidential, no foreign." Those papers set off political firestorms, which included giving courage and impetus to the "Arab Spring" uprisings around the Mediterranean. So again, WikiLeaks contributed to the welfare of the average man and woman, whatever their pompous governments favored.

The idea that Assange could spend many years in a U.S. prison is an outrage against liberty everywhere -- especially here in the land of the free.

In any case, it seems unlikely that Assange can get a fair trial because of the CIA's spying on him and his lawyers while he was an asylum guest at the Ecuador embassy in London (see previous post).

Assange's French legal adviser believes that the recording of his conversations with Assange make a fair trial unlikely.

The adviser, Juan Branco, told a World Socialist reporter:

We believe this is a crucial element in our battle to avoid Julian Assange’s extradition. The gross violation of the principles of a fair trial, including the right to a fair defense, are epitomized in this episode.

The lack of secrecy of his exchanges with his lawyers was not only the fruit of covert operations: the dispositives were probably also used to collect evidence that could be used in trial, i.e., that could be legalized. In these conditions, in which the material basis of an indictment is based on illegal spying operations that violate the basic rights of the defense, it seems to us extremely difficult to argue that an extradition to the U.S. would not violate the basic requisites that apply in these circumstances.

Branco said that the secret taping by UC Global on behalf of the CIA violated the legal rights of Assange's defense team.

He said,

The Bar of Paris and I are going to file a complaint in France over the violation of the rights of the defense, professional secrets and the violation of my privacy. What we are trying to do is to fight against the normalization of practices that are devastating the privacy not only of our client, but more broadly of millions of citizens. In our case, the situation was particularly intense, with a few of us being the subject of tailing operations, photo operations, burglaries and so forth.

Socialist report on the attack on Assange's defense rights
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/16/bran-j16.html

---

Please visit our Support Assange blog
https://supportassange.blogspot.com/2020/01/assange-cant-have-violated-secrecy-laws.html

Assange's dad fears for ailing son's life

Assange's dad fears for ailing son's life

Urges Britain to adhere to asylum rules; favors united front protest

---

'Julian has reached a point where he may die'
—Assange’s father, John Shipton.

---

By JOHANNES STERN
World Socialist Web Site
5 October 2019

On Thursday the WSWS met John Shipton, Julian Assange’s father, in Berlin to talk about the condition of his son’s jailing in the maximum security Belmarsh Prison in London. The day before Shipton had given a press conference and addressed the weekly “Candles 4 Assange” rally in Berlin, to inform the public about his son’s illegal imprisonment and demand his freedom.

The interview with Shipton, a very warm and courageous human being, started with an interesting and contentious half-hour of discussion. He raised fundamental historical and theoretical issues like the viability of Marxism, socialism and a revolutionary perspective. However, he agreed ultimately that the

task at hand was working together to build a powerful, international campaign to prevent Assange’s rendition to the United States and secure his freedom.

---

This explains my position as a libertarian-leaning American. -- P.C.

---

Shipton, who had visited his son just before traveling to Berlin, described the gruesome situation Assange is facing in Belmarsh.

“Julian was sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for minor infringements in a maximum-security prison in solitary confinement for 22 to 23 hours a day. There is a limitation of visitations which is two social visits for two hours. So those two hours, you can imagine, are very, very precious things. The Belmarsh prison is quite a way out and the requirements of registration are complex. That is his day-to-day situation.”

Shipton explained that his son has basically no access to any information. “There are restrictions on access to the library, access to the gym and access to computers. So, in order to prepare for his case, he has no access to the library, no access to computers and no access to the internet. He has no access to information at all.”

Due to his deteriorating health—Shipton said his son has lost 15 kilos since his imprisonment in Belmarsh—Assange has been transferred to the hospital ward of the prison.

“There he is still in isolation 23 hours a day but now he can have three visits a week. This is some improvement but still it’s a Grade A maximum-security jail. And Julian is a Grade B prisoner. His health has been declining and has reached a point where he may die. This is a man who has done nothing. Julian is a journalist like you. He has made an immense contribution to world journalism. WikiLeaks has made immense contributions, unbeatable contributions.”

Among the most infamous information made available by WikiLeaks is the “Collateral Murder” video, which documented the deliberate killing of civilians and Reuters journalists in Baghdad.

We also spoke briefly about the hundreds of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables, exposing the conspiracies and criminal activity of US embassies and consulates around the world. I remarked that in 2011 the WikiLeaks revelations played a role in inspiring the masses in Tunisia and Egypt to rise up in revolution against the imperialist-backed dictatorships.

Shipton nodded: “There was also the exposure of Angela Merkel’s personal telephone being bugged by some American spy agency. This is a shocking thing and I hope that the German people will ensure that the rules between countries are obeyed in every way. Particularly the international conventions concerning asylum which in Julian’s case weren’t obeyed. It would be a great benefit to the people of the United Kingdom if the British government would obey these international conventions it has signed.”

Shipton denounced the fact that his son is being held in a maximum prison for supposedly having breached the Bail Act. “Julian cannot be charged for bail skipping because he is an asylee and every asylee falls under conventions which the UK has signed. Julian is a journalist.”

Shipton said that “every journalist has an interest that the truth of Julian’s situation being put before their editors every day," adding, "Newspapers should have a great interest in Assange because also their freedom to publish and to investigate will be constrained and is being constrained. I understand that the World Socialist Web Site is being reduced by over 40 percent in its traffic by Google and search engines. This is repression of free speech. It is up to us and up to newspapers and news organisations to ensure that Julian is free. It is about the freedom to publish.”

Asked about how much his son is aware of the support he is getting among workers and students internationally, Shipton replied, “He is aware of that support. And I will tell him about my experience here when I see him next time on October 8. I am surprised by the depth of the support in Germany on every level of society: from parliamentarians, to writers, painters and journalists. There is very, very strong support here.

“I think the answer to Julian’s difficulties comes from the general people of Europe binding together to ensure that conventions and laws are upheld and newspapers support Julian. I think the answer in Europe lies among the people insisting that the governments do something to bring back Julian’s freedom.”

At the end of the interview we talked briefly about Carl von Ossietzky, one of the most well-known anti-war journalists in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Similar to Assange, he was arrested in 1931 for exposing the illegal military build-up of the German army and national security secrets. He was released in 1932, but was subsequently rearrested by the Nazis, who tortured him, leading to his death in 1938.

“I can see the parallels,” John Shipton said, “but I am not entirely happy with it because like Gramsci [the Italian anti-fascist and Marxist] he came to a very bitter end. We have to make sure that this doesn’t happen again. This is our task. And I think we will win.”

Trump critic asks: Impeachment . . . or CIA coup?

Trump critic asks: Impeachment . . . or CIA coup?

CIA red-faced at disclosure it changed whistleblower rules to permit hearsay;
So now another 'more knowledgeable' spook is being pressured to save coup

---

Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman and libertarian activist, has challenged the Trump administration on various fronts, including the attempt to punish Julian Assange for publication of covert U.S. data.

---

By RON PAUL
Oct. 01, 2019

You don’t need to be a supporter of President Trump to be concerned about the efforts to remove him from office. Last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced impeachment proceedings against the President over a phone call made to the President of Ukraine.

According to the White House record of the call, the President asked his Ukrainian counterpart to look into whether there is any evidence of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election and then mentioned that a lot of people were talking about how former U.S, Vice President Joe Biden stopped the prosecution of his son who was under investigation for corruption in Ukraine.

Democrats, who spent more than two years convinced that “Russiagate” would enable them to remove Trump from office only to have their hopes dashed by the Mueller Report, now believe they have their smoking gun in this phone call.

It this about politics? Yes. But there may be more to it than that.

It may appear that the Democratic Party, furious over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, is the driving force behind this ongoing attempt to remove Donald Trump from office, but at every turn we see the fingerprints of the CIA and its allies in the U.S. deep state.

In August 2016, a former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell, wrote an extraordinary article in the New York Times accusing Donald Trump of being an “agent of the Russian Federation.” Morell was clearly using his intelligence career as a way of bolstering his claim that Trump was a Russian spy -- after all, the CIA should know such a thing! But the claim was a lie.

Former CIA Director John Brennan accused President Trump of “treason” and of “being in the pocket of Putin” for meeting with the Russian president in Helsinki and accepting his word that Russia did not meddle in the U.S. election. To this day there has yet to be any evidence presented that the Russian government did interfere. Brennan openly called on “patriotic” Republicans to act against this “traitor.”

Brennan and his deep state counterparts, James Comey at the FBI and James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, launched an operation, using what we now know is the fake Steele dossier, to spy on the Trump presidential campaign and even attempt to entrap Trump campaign employees.

Notice a pattern here?

Now we hear that the latest trigger for impeachment is a CIA officer assigned to the White House who filed a “whistleblower” complaint against the President over something he heard from someone else that the President said in the Ukraine phone call.

Shockingly, according to multiple press reports, the rules for CIA whistleblowing were recently changed, dropping the requirement that the whistleblower have direct, firsthand knowledge of the wrongdoing. Just before this complaint was filed, the rule-change allowed hearsay or secondhand information to be accepted. That seems strange.

As it turns out, the CIA “whistleblower” lurking around the White House got the important things wrong, as there was no quid pro quo discussed and there was no actual request to investigate Biden or his son.

The Democrats have suddenly come out in praise of whistleblowers – well not exactly. Pelosi still wants to prosecute actual whistleblower Ed Snowden.¹ But she’s singing the praises of this fake CIA “whistleblower.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer once warned Trump that if “you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” It’s hard not to ask whether this is a genuine impeachment effort…or a CIA coup!

---

The commentary above is reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity and the site Antiwar.com, which often prints Paul's work.

---

1. Pelosi was one of the few people in Washington who was kept informed about the Obama administration's illegal program of massive surveillance of Americans that was exposed by Snowden. -- P.C.

---

The Invisible Man comments:
'2d whistleblower' touted as coup attempt falters
The New York Times is reporting that another intelligence official is "considering" becoming a whistleblower. This person, the Times says, has more specific knowledge of the President's conversation with Ukraine's leader.

It seems fair to draw the conclusion that Deep State spookdom saw that its maneuver was faltering and is attempting to rescue its coup attempt from disaster.

The import of Schumer's observation on the power of the intelligence system to exact revenge on presidents and lawmakers is that Congress and the Executive Branch have lost control of this force. Top-tier spooks have become members of a new aristocracy, the likes of which had never before been seen in our freedom-loving country.

Americans quite often idolize aristocrats -- as long as they are foreign ones with something glamorous about them. Otherwise, the taint of aristocracy has always been a death knell to political ambitions. This is how Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republicans overthrew the power of the entrenched Hamiltonian Federalists, who were perceived by the public as persons of aristocratic pretensions. Similarly, the populist Andrew Jackson brought to the fore the interests of the common man (if he was not an indigenous American) over against the interests of the monied elite.

The CIA, with its long history of clubiness with crony capitalism, has long functioned as the enforcement arm of the crony capitalist aristocracy. It is evident that these aristocrats are bent on ousting an upstart populist who presumes to represent the people.

---

Correction: A previous version of this post mistakenly cited "Paul's Antiwar.com site." Paul is not listed as affiliated with that site.

CIA tied to Assange eavesdroppers

CIA tied to Assange eavesdroppers

By JOSÉ MARÍA IRUJO
From Irujo's report in El Pais
Madrid Sept. 26, 2019

A Spanish firm responsible for security at the Ecuadoran embassy in London is under investigation by the Spanish high court over charges it spied on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange while he availed himself of political asylum there.

Undercover Global S. L. is accused of spying on the internet publisher on behalf of the CIA, according  to statements and documents viewed by El  Pais. David Morales, the firm's  owner, supposedly handed over to the CIA audio of meetings between Assange and his lawyers and collaborators. Morales is being investigated for this activity by Spain’s High Court, the Audiencia Nacional.

The judicial investigation of the director of UC Global S. L. and the activities of his company was ordered by Judge José de la Mata a few weeks after El Pais published videos, audios and reports that show how the company spied on the meetings that the cyberactivist and publisher.

The secret probe is the consequence of a criminal complaint filed by Assange , in which he accuses Morales and his company of  violations of privacy and  client-attorney privilege, as well as of misappropriation, bribery and money laundering. The director of UC Global S. L. has not responded to calls from this newspaper for comment on his role in the affair.

HELPING 'THE AMERICANS'
Morales, a former member of the military who is on leave of absence from his company, has told a number of his employees  in writing, as well as verbally that, though contracted by Ecuador under then-President Rafael Correa, he was also working "for the Americans." Morales reportedly supplied "the Americans" with documents, videos and audios of Assange's embassy discussions.

Despite the fact that Morales' firm – which is headquartered in Jerez de la Frontera – was hired by Senain, the Ecuadorian intelligence services, Morales called on his employees several times to keep his relationship with U.S. intelligence a secret.

The owner of UC Global S. L. ordered a meeting between the head of the Ecuadoran secret service, Rommy Vallejo, and Assange to be spied on, at a time when they were planning the exit of Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy using a diplomatic passport in order to get him out of Britain. This idea was eventually killed by Assange, who saw such a move as a "defeat"  that would fuel conspiracy theories, according to sources close to the company consulted by this newspaper.

That huddle took place Dec. 21, 2017 in the meeting room of the diplomatic building and was recorded both on video and audio by cameras installed by Morales’ employees. A small number of people, among them Assange’s lawyers, were aware of the plan. Yet hours after the meeting, the U.S .ambassador informed Ecuadorian authorities about the plan, and the next day, Dec. 22, the United States put out an international arrest warrant for Australian refugee.

“It is absurd to spy on who has hired you if you are not going to hand that material over to another country,” said a source close to UC Global S. L. This newspaper has had access to the video and the audio of the aforementioned meeting.

After the installation of new video cameras at the beginning of December 2017, Morales requested that his technicians install an external streaming access point in the same area so that all of the recordings could be accessed instantly by the United States. To do this, he requested three channels for access: “one for Ecuador, another for us and another for X,” according to mails sent at the time to his colleagues. When one of the technicians asked to contact “the Americans” to explain the way that they should access some of the spying systems installed in the embassy, Morales would always be evasive with his answers.

MIKES IN LADIES' ROOM
Morales ordered his workers to install microphones in the embassy’s fire extinguishers and also in the women’s bathroom, where Assange’s lawyers, including the Spaniard Aitor Martínez and his closest collaborators, would meet for fear of being spied on. The cyberactivist’s meetings with his lawyers, Melynda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson and Baltasar Garzón, were also monitored.

The UC Global S. L. team was also ordered by its boss to install stickers that prevented the windows of  rooms used by the WikiLeaks founder from vibrating, apparently to make it easier for the CIA to record conversations with its laser microphones. The security team also obtained a used diaper from a baby that on occasion was taken to visit the Assange in order to test for DNA and determine whether he fathered the child with a close collaborator.

Aside from having microphones planted within embassy decorative pieces, Morales even pressed to install them in the room used by “the guest,” as Assange was referred to in his reports. But Morales' team fretted about getting caught. Assange was "obsessed" with the notion of being spied on, a former employee of the company said.

In addition, Morales ordered his workers to install microphones in the embassy’s fire extinguishers and also in the women’s bathroom

The spying on Assange increased after Lenin Moreno came to power in Ecuador. At that time, Morales regularly flew to New York and Washington, this newspaper has managed to confirm. Among the UC Global S. L. client list is Sheldon Adelson and his gaming company Las Vegas Sands. For years the Spanish company has been providing security for the business magnate’s yacht when it is in Mediterranean waters. This job is usually carried out personally by Morales himself.

Adelson has a close friendship with President Trump and is a major donor to the Republican Party. In 2018 an investigation by The New York Times revealed that Julian Assange became a target for CIA spying under the mandate of former director Mike Pompeo. Official sources told The Times that WikiLeaks was being investigated in search of alleged links between its founder and Russian intelligence.

UPTICK IN SNOOPING
The espionage against Assange increased under the government of the current Ecuadorian president, Lenin Moreno, who was responsible for stripping Assange of asylum status and handing him over to British authorities. In reply, the current Ecuadoran government accuses Assange of having created a “spy center” in the embassy.

Rafael Correa, Moreno’s predecessor, was the person who offered the Australian refuge in his country’s London embassy and granted him nationality. In July, the owner of UC Global S. L. declined to respond to this newspaper about the alleged spying on Julian Assange. “I cannot comment on anything that we did there; I can’t give any details,” he said via telephone. “We have our ethical and moral rules and none of them were violated.”

David Morales, a former member of the military, created his company in 2008, apparently inspired by Blackwater, the U.S. private security multinational that supported the U.S. army in a number of conflicts, including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the first contracts Morales secured his company secured was to provide security in Europe for two of Rafael Correa’s daughters during his time in office. He went on to obtain the contract for providing security at the Ecuadoran embassy in London.

In April, the Moreno government expelled Assange from that embassy, where he had been living since 2012. After his expulsion and arrest by the British authorities, the United Kingdom authorized the judicial process to hand the WikiLeaks founder over to the U.S. Justice Department. The U.S. wants Assange extradited and is leveling 18 charges, including computer misuse and the unauthorized disclosure of national defense information, regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cyberactivist could be facing a sentence of up to 175 years in prison.

---

Note: The decision to use the 1917 Espionage Act against Assange has raised alarm bells among First Amendment advocates in the United States. The major charges against Assange are for publication of documents. Such a precedent could be used against editors, reporters and publishers at the Washington Post, the Guardian and the New York Times who decided to publish the evidence of mass surveillance provided by Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower.

'All of us are in danger’

'All of us are in danger’

Pilger defends Assange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhjLKzmzmTg

This video comes from RT, which is these days often denounced as an organ of Russian propaganda, being funded by the Russian government. The fact that the BBC, PBS and NPR are funded, to a significant extent, by their home governments is left unmentioned.

But the important point is that the Western media are so strait-jacketed that Western dissidents are forced to turn to RT to get any hearing at all. Where is the video of John Pilger's speech from Western media? Why did not the Western media do more to cover the Roger Waters concert? Why in fact are Western media so shy about defending Assange's rights of free press?

Their complicity in his persecution brings a high potential for disaster for press freedom in America, which could easily become the land of the blinded and muzzled. And as Pilger points out, the get-Assange group is sending a message to reporters, editors and publishers worldwide that they can be arbitrarily arrested outside the United States and brought there to face harsh penalties if they defy the U.S. government by revealing "national security" information.

For example, El Pais journalists could, under the get-Assange precedent, face rendition to the United States for revealing that the CIA had been eavesdropping on Assange and his lawyers and visitors while he was an asylum guest at the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Glenn Greenwald, who visited Assange at the embassy, could be prosecuted for publishing Edward Snowden's revelation of the NSA's massive domestic and global spying operations.

Meanwhile, President Trump complains of "fake news" but permits his Justice Department to pursue Assange, who most definitely was not publishing fake news. In fact, that is why U.S. authorities are going after Assange. His news was not fake.

Aussie politico sees breach of sovereignty on Assange

Aussie politico sees breach of sovereignty on Assange

Canberra pressed to assist jailed publisher

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-14/barnaby-joyce-calls-on-government-to-prevent-assange-extradition/11599664

Press dummies up for the control freaks

Press dummies up for the control freaks

Media boycott of UN report on Assange torture
underscores existence of Deep State conspiracy

---

Though the Leftwing analysis below does not use the term Deep State, these socialists have always insisted on the existence of such an entity, if by other names. Please find Invisible Man's note on conservatives Rand and Ron Paul appended to the bottom of this post.

---

By OSCAR GRENFELL
World Socialist Web Site
Oct. 18, 2019

In a press briefing at the United Nations headquarters in New York on October 15, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer restated his assessment that WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange has been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of persecution that amounts to “torture.”

The UN finding, first issued in May, and updated by Melzer at the briefing, should have provoked banner headlines in the major newspapers in the U.S., Britain and internationally.

Melzer’s warnings carry the weight and authority of a UN official and an internationally-respected legal expert. They concern Assange, the world’s most famous persecuted journalist, who has done more than any publisher to expose the brutal realities of imperialist war, diplomatic intrigue and pervasive CIA surveillance.

As it was, footage aired by the Russian-funded RT outlet showed a grand total of four people in the audience, surrounded by rows of empty chairs. To date, the RT article, and an accompanying video, appears to be the only report on the briefing by any media outlet in the world.

If Melzer had been condemning the persecution of journalists in Iran, Russia, China, or another country in the crosshairs of U.S. imperialism, he would have been surrounded by dozens of reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and other conduits for the intelligence agencies. They doubtless would have published stories, warning in sombre tones of an assault on the media and insisting on the necessity to defend press freedom.

Because Assange is being targeted by the U.S. government and its allies, including Britain and Australia, for his role in revealing American war crimes, the establishment media simply did not show up.

The press boycott is all the more striking given that even corporate publications have acknowledged that if Assange is extradited from Britain to the U.S., it will establish a precedent for journalists anywhere in the world to be hauled before U.S. courts for the “crime” of publishing true and newsworthy information that the American government sought to conceal.

The New York Times and the Washington Post, moreover, have noted that the 17 Espionage Act charges that have been levelled against Assange by the Trump administration pose a direct threat to the U.S. Constitution’s press freedom protections, and could be used against other publications in the future—including their own.

The silence on Melzer’s remarks can therefore only be understood as a political decision, aimed at suppressing any public discussion on Assange’s persecution, in the lead-up to court hearings next February that will rule on his extradition from Britain to the U.S.

Melzer explained that when he visited Assange in May he was accompanied by two medical experts. “We came to the conclusion that he had been exposed to psychological torture for a prolonged period of time,” the UN rapporteur stated. “That's a medical assessment.”

Nils Melzer

Speaking of his recommendations, addressed to the U.S., British, Swedish and Australian governments, Melzer said: “We asked for involved states to investigate this case and to alleviate the pressure that is being placed on him and especially to respect his due process rights, which in my view have been systematically violated in all these jurisdictions.”

Melzer stated: “Unfortunately none of those states agreed to conduct an investigation, although that is their obligation under the convention on torture.”

In official letters to those governments in May and June, Melzer had meticulously documented the way in which each of them had trampled upon Assange’s democratic and legal rights.

The UN official reviewed the way in which bogus allegations of sexual misconduct were seized upon by the Swedish authorities to blacken Assange’s name and to create a pretext for his prolonged detention in Britain.

In his letter to the Swedish government, Melzer wrote: “For almost nine years, the Swedish authorities have consistently maintained, revived and fueled the ‘rape’-suspect narrative against Mr. Assange, despite the legal requirement of anonymity, despite the mandatory presumption of innocence, despite the objectively unrealistic prospect of a conviction, and despite contradicting evidence suggesting that, in reality, the complainants never intended to report a sexual offence…”

The rapporteur has condemned the British state for pursuing Assange relentlessly on the fraudulent pretext of a minor bail offense. Melzer has noted that since Assange’s illegal arrest by British police on April 11, the UK judiciary has denied his right to due process, as it prepares to hand the WikiLeaks’ founder over to his persecutors in the U.S.

Most recently, British judges have decreed that Assange will remain behind bars indefinitely, despite his custodial sentence on the bail offenses having expired on September 22. In other words, he is explicitly being held as a political prisoner at the behest of the Trump administration.

The ruling followed a warning from Assange’s father John Shipton that he fears his son may die in prison. Despite the deterioration of his medical condition, Assange has been held in conditions of virtual solitary confinement in the maximum-security Belmarsh Prison, without access to computers and legal documents necessary for preparing his defence.

Melzer has also warned that Assange has no prospect of a fair trial in the United States, under conditions in which senior U.S. politicians have called for his assassination for exposing American war crimes and global diplomatic conspiracies. He has denounced the Australian government for failing to defend Assange, despite the fact that he is an Australian journalist and citizen.

All of the governments involved responded to Melzer with evasive letters, blithely dismissing his charges and asserting that their pursuit of the Assange was entirely lawful. The response underscores the extent to which the protracted persecution of the WikiLeaks’ founder has involved the trampling on international norms and institutions.

The media censorship of Melzer’s press briefing further demonstrates that the corporate publications are complicit partners in the attacks against Assange. For years, they have trumpeted every slander against him that has been concocted by the U.S. government, its allies and the intelligence agencies.

In his report last May, Melzer noted that the corporate media bears its own share of responsibility for the torture inflicted on Assange, having enthusiastically participated in what the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture aptly described as “public mobbing.”
—————————————————————————————————————

The Invisible Man comments:

The Pauls accept some Left criticism of Deep State

The libertarian Rand Paul, like his father Ron Paul, have affirmed their willingness to work with the Left on some issues, such as the Assange case, on the ending of undeclared "endless war" and on the perils of crony capitalism (which is at the heart of the Deep State). Of course, the Pauls and other libertarians are in complete disagreement with the Left on  the solutions to most economic and social issues.

On March 20, 2018, Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, said , "Absolutely there is a Deep State because the deep state is that the intelligence communities do not have oversight." He continued, "There is no skeptic" among the four Republican and four Democratic senators "who are supposedly" providing oversight, so that the intelligence communities, "with their enormous power ... have become a Deep State." On Dec. 4, 2018, Paul, in commenting on the CIA director briefing only those eight senators rather than the entire Senate, added, "The Deep State wants to keep everyone in the dark. This is just ridiculous!" On Dec. 10, 2018, he said "The very definition of a 'Deep State’ is when the very people, congressional leaders – people who are elected by the people – are not allowed to hear the intelligence."

We see the media-intelligence nexus in the Assange case. Assange's publication of reputed CIA documents was used by then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo as a reason to tag Assange as a Russian agent (the same smear used against President Trump by intelligence system dupes), followed by a U.S. government drive to exact revenge by classing legal acts as illegal acts under a century-old U.S. secrets law that has never been used against journalists, except in the case of two men who passed defense information to the Israeli government -- though those charges were eventually dropped because of concerns about the impact on the rights of free press.

From the beginning, that case against the lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was highly unusual. The two, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, were charged under the World War I-era Espionage Act, accused of improperly providing to colleagues, journalists and Israeli diplomats sensitive information they had acquired by speaking with American policy makers.

Though the FBI was irked at the Justice Department's decision in 2009 to drop those charges, that decision came as no surprise in light as a series of adverse judicial decisions made successful prosecution increasingly dubious, according to the New York Times.

Still, it has been evident that a number of federal judges are in league with "the Resistance," and have been issuing activist, politically tainted rulings. In fact, the federal judiciary has for long been entangled with the Deep State. So we cannot be overly confident that the Espionage Act won't now be upheld as a useful tool against those deemed "enemies of the state."

A problem with the targeting of Assange, is that it gives segments of the Left and Right ammunition to charge that those associated somehow with foreign political influence are in better shape if the country in question is Israel, as opposed to Russia (though Assange has never been convincingly shown to have been in league with the Kremlin).

A large swathe of media has been derelict in its duty to defend the First Amendment for everyone. Some sectors are doubtless working directly with intelligence agencies, while others are in an alliance with these agencies based on a foolish desire of the limousine liberal media brass hats to exact revenge on Assange for possibly spoiling Hillary Clinton's chance to win by his publication of caches of emails of Democratic Party officials. The idea was that it was OK to seek his scalp because of his being a witting tool of the Kremlin. Of course, many of these media elite don't seem to understand that the working press, like cops (or even CIA agents) get important information from those with axes to grind. That's how it works. Go back to J school, guys.

---

Corbett: ABC's fake video news is tip of iceberg

https://d.tube/#!/v/corbettreport/2xvm22ggf4z

Alternative media commentator James Corbett said the establishment media system has no credibility to lose and mocked commentator Greta Van Susteren for lamenting ABC's lapse as coming from a hypocritical "liar."

---

Yahoo News barely pretends to be objective
I use Yahoo for one of my email accounts (Krypto783@yahoo.com) and so see Yahoo's home page frequently. Aside from playing up a lot of "women's interest" news, Yahoo can be relied upon to lead with anything that makes it look as though Trump is losing politically and the get-Trump crowd is prevailing.

We must attribute this attitude to the parent company, Verizon Media (which also owns the liberal HuffPost).

---

Example of slanted coverage

In an Oct. 19 lead Yahoo story by  Sharon Bernstein  about a war of words between Democratic presidential aspirant Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton, the reporter repeatedly tags Gabbard as a "favorite" of Russian state media and "its surrogates," whoever they are. This in fact is Clinton's accusation.

The Hawaii congresswoman and military veteran is fuming over these charges. While it is fair to report on Clinton's accusations, it is nothing but a smear to repeat them as known facts. How would Bernstein like to be characterized as a "favorite" smear artist for the Deep State? Not.

Branding someone a Russian puppet because she favors a U.S. military drawdown in Syria -- as does Russia -- promotes the idea that Russia is now in control of what Americans may say. Thank you Hillary and your Reuters ally, Sharon.

Even worse, in the eyes of the Reuters reporter, some people at Fox News are giving Tulsi a partial thumbs up. Hence, that makes her a Russian puppet and Fox icon -- meaning that Hillary's ally Sharon is trying to help Hillary delegitimize Tulsi as a proper Democrat.  And the Yahoo editor agrees.

---

Verizon's CEO is Hans Vestberg, a Swedish businessman. Previously, Vestberg served as chief technical officer of Verizon. Before that he was CEO of the Swedish telecom Ericsson and was active in Swedish sports administration.

I searched Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo trying to find the name of Yahoo's top managers. But all that was available was the fact that Marissa Mayer was bounced from the CEO spot in 2017. Are the top bananas in hiding? What are they? La Cosa Nostra?

Some of the other digital brands under Verizon Media are AOL, Autoblog, Built By Girls, Engadget, Flurry, HuffPost, Kanvas, MAKERS Women, Rivals.com, RYOT, TechCrunch, Verizon Digital Media Services.

From CNN (another Trump-is-always-wrong-no-matter-what basher), we learn that the Top 10 Owners of Verizon Communications Inc. are

The Vanguard Group Inc., stake 7.70%
BlackRock Fund Advisors 4.88%
SSgA Funds Management, Inc. 3.93%
Wellington Management Co. LLP 2.90%
Geode Capital Management LLC1. 43%
Capital Research & Management Co. 1.43%
Northern Trust Investments, Inc. 1.30%
Norges Bank Investment Management 1.01%
Fidelity Management & Research Co. 0.98%
Capital Research & Management Co. 0.94%

Top 10 Mutual Funds Holding Verizon Communications Inc.:

Vanguard, stake 2.79%;
Vanguard 500 Index Fund 1.99%
SPDR S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
Vanguard Wellington Fund 1.08%
Government Pension Fund - Global 1.01%
Vanguard Institutional Index Fund 0.92%
Washington Mutual Investors Fund 0.92%
Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.83%
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF 0.75%
American Funds Income Fund of America 0.72%

A tally of all the "Vanguard" entities shows a total stake of 14.48% in Verizon. If the Wellington fund is included, the total rises to 17.38%. In either case, it appears that Vanguard holds a controlling interest in Verizon, and hence Yahoo.

Mortimer J. Buckley is chairman and chief executive officer of Vanguard. Buckley joined Vanguard in 1991 and has held a number of senior leadership positions, including chief information officer. He has served as chairman of the board of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. He holds an A.B. in economics from Harvard College and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.

Build the Assange Party. Tilt the next election

Build the Assange Party. Tilt the next election

I propose that we establish activist political parties in America and worldwide that use the name Assange. They would promote justice for Assange, protection of whistleblowers and truthtellers, libertarian values.
Though initially small, they would pose a threat to established parties. In the upcoming presidential election in America, the Assange Party might tip the balance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkC-s_qjghc

WikiLeaks exposes Syria gas attack flimflam

WikiLeaks exposes Syria gas attack flimflam

Prompted U.S. Tomahawk missile assault
Did cooked intelligence mislead Trump to launch strike?
https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/

---

Ron Paul: Deep State will complain as truth comes out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO-C7Qxqis0

---

---

By NILES NIEMUTH
World Socialist Website
16 December 2019
Documents published by WikiLeaks on Saturday confirm that there is significant dissent within the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the global chemical weapons watchdog, over the doctoring of a public report on the alleged April 7, 2018 chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, which reportedly killed 49 people and wounded as many as 650.

The latest round of revelations makes clear that the U.S.-led regime-change operation in Syria which began in 2011 has been based on a pack of lies. And the role of WikiLeaks in exposing these lies demonstrates why the U.S. government has been pursuing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange so ferociously, as are Washington's partners in crime,  Britain and Australia.

Relying on video which showed alleged victims of the attack in a hospital gasping for air and foaming at the mouth, the Trump administration and its European allies launched missile strikes against Syria just one week later. The U.S.-led attack was an act of war which threatened to spark a wider conflict with Russia and Iran, which both have military forces deployed to the country to back the Assad government in the eight-year regime-change war fueled by the CIA.

While the Trump administration made no effort to seek independent confirmation of the allegations against Assad before taking military action, the OPCW report and the organization’s supposedly objective stance were deployed to justify the assault months after the fact.

DAILY MAIL BREAKS NEWS LID
However, a series of internal OPCW files published by WikiLeaks and reporting by columnist Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7793253/PETER-HITCHENS-reveals-evidence-watchdog-suppressed-report-casting-doubt-Assad-gas-attack.html

 show that serious concerns have been raised by members of the OPCW Fact Finding Mission (FFM) to Douma about evidence that was excluded from the final report in order to implicate Assad.

Relying on Islamist terrorist groups as “moderate rebel” proxies, including Al Qaeda and its affiliates, the United States and its European allies have fueled a war which has resulted in the deaths of 570,000 people and displaced more than 12 million. The years of carnage have been aimed at overthrowing Assad and installing a pliant Western puppet regime in order to neutralize the influence of Iran and Russia in the oil-rich Middle East. Claims of chemical weapons attacks and the use of “barrel bombs” by Syria’s military have been repeatedly deployed throughout the war in an effort to justify Western military action and call for the removal of Assad.

A memo sent to Fernando Arias, the director-general of the OPCW, on March 14, 2019 by a member of the FFM who had been sent to Douma to analyze the ballistics of two cylinders which were the purported source of the toxic gas, noted that there were about 20 inspectors who had expressed concerns over the final report that had been published at the beginning of that month.

The author of the memo notes that members of the FFM felt that the report “did not reflect the views of the team members that deployed to Douma,” and that only one OPCW inspector who had been in Syria, a paramedic, was ultimately involved in the production of the final report. He notes that his investigation into the provenance of the cylinders, one which was found lying on a bed and another on an apartment rooftop, was excluded from the final report released in March.

WikiLeaks also published the first draft interim FFM report which noted that the investigators were “unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the relatively moderate damage to the cylinders allegedly dropped from an unknown height, compared to the destruction caused to the rebar-reinforced roofs.” This fact, that the evidence did not point to the cylinders being dropped from Assad’s aircraft, was excluded from the final report.

CHLORINE EVIDENCE SNIPPED
An email exchange with the FFM’s Team Leader Sami Barrek from July 2018 showed that concerns had been raised by an investigator over the exclusion from the final report the fact that only low levels of chlorinated organic chemicals (COCs) had been recovered at the scene and that no determination had been made on how the cylinders arrived in the locations where they had been discovered. Despite repeated interventions by investigators, the level of COCs was excluded from the final report, allowing for the inference that a chlorine gas attack had been confirmed.

Another email sent by a dissenting investigator to the OPCW’s Director of Strategy and Policy Veronika Stromsíková on May 20 raised concern over the organization’s false declaration that a veteran OPCW inspector and ballistics expert, Ian Henderson, who had produced an engineering assessment, was not part of the FFM in Douma. The claim came after his report casting doubt on the possibility of the cylinders being dropped from the air was leaked to the press. Henderson had found, after inspecting the cylinders, that there was a “higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed … rather than being delivered from aircraft.”

As Hitchens notes in his reporting, the final redacted OPCW report omitted reservations raised by FFM investigators that the evidence they uncovered did not comport with the video of the alleged victims foaming at the mouth, a symptom consistent with a sarin gas attack and not chlorine.

WRONG SYMPTOMS
“The inconsistency between the presence of a putative, chlorine-containing choking or blood agent on the one hand and the testimonies of alleged witnesses and symptoms observed from video footage and photographs, on the other, cannot be rationalized.” No evidence was found to indicate that sarin gas was used in Douma.

The latest round of leaks comes amid an effective media blackout of the publication at the end of November of an email written by a member of the OPCW fact-finding mission in Syria raising “grave concern” about the final redacted report. Those who have reported on the leaks and raised questions about the official narrative about the Douma attack have been smeared as Russian stooges or Assad apologists.

However, OPCW chief Fernando Arias confirmed that the email is legitimate but stood by the final report during the organization’s annual conference in The Hague last month. “While some of these diverging views continue to circulate in certain public discussion forums, I would like to reiterate that I stand by the independent, professional conclusions,” Arais declared.

NEWSWEEK DEFENDS COVERUP
Last week British-based Newsweek journalist Tareq Haddad resigned in protest after the magazine’s editors refused to publish his report on the OPCW leaks. After Haddad announced on Twitter his reasons for leaving the publication, a Newsweek spokesperson anonymously smeared the reporter, telling Fox News that he had “pitched a conspiracy theory rather than an idea for objective reporting.”

Despite the best efforts of the editors at Newsweek and the rest of the mainstream media to suppress any reporting, the continued revelations about the OPCW report make clear that there are very real grounds for journalists to raise concerns over the official line on the incident in Douma which was very nearly used to trigger a third World War.