Tuesday, April 16, 2019
Might Assange face waterboarding?
Below is another blast from the Left on the Assange matter. The Trotskyists warn that Assange faces "extraordinary rendition" to some federal hell hole [perhaps a U.S. "black site" or Guantanamo Naval Base]. Considering the overwhelming hate speech by the corporate media against publisher Assange, the fear may be realistic. After all, the United States has charged Assange under a terrorism statute and the conservative British government has sequestered him in a facility used for terrorists.
The CIA director, Gina Haspel, has said she won't authorize waterboarding of terrorism suspects, but President Trump has in the past strongly recommended that that form of torture be employed. And it is evident that powerful forces in Washington want him to give testimony connecting WikiLeaks to Russian intelligence. In a fair process, Assange would have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify against himself. But as a foreign terror suspect, Assange has few rights, so that waterboarding and other types of "enhanced interrogation" could come into play.
World Socialists warn of 'rendition'
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/15/pers-a15.html
15 April 2019
The attempt by the British, Ecuadorian and U.S. governments to force the removal of journalist and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States is an antidemocratic conspiracy and a brazen violation of international law.
While the U.S. government presents the process against Assange as an extradition, the difference between an extradition and an extraordinary rendition—in which a state carries out an extrajudicial abduction for the purpose of arbitrary detention, torture, and summary punishment—is being effectively obliterated.
The U.S. government is, in effect, applying a similar method to Assange as it used against those it has subjected to extraordinary rendition during the “war on terror.” Since 2001, the CIA has abducted hundreds of people, bound them up, flown them across the world to secret CIA “black site” dungeons and subjected them to harsh interrogation and torture. Once the government gets its hands on Assange, it is questionable whether he will ever be seen again.
The process has been accompanied by a campaign of media vilification that seems to have no restraint. Its aim is to transform Assange into a monster so that he can be deprived of his rights.
Assange exposed war crime
The CIA director, Gina Haspel, has said she won't authorize waterboarding of terrorism suspects, but President Trump has in the past strongly recommended that that form of torture be employed. And it is evident that powerful forces in Washington want him to give testimony connecting WikiLeaks to Russian intelligence. In a fair process, Assange would have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify against himself. But as a foreign terror suspect, Assange has few rights, so that waterboarding and other types of "enhanced interrogation" could come into play.
World Socialists warn of 'rendition'
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/15/pers-a15.html
15 April 2019
The attempt by the British, Ecuadorian and U.S. governments to force the removal of journalist and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States is an antidemocratic conspiracy and a brazen violation of international law.
While the U.S. government presents the process against Assange as an extradition, the difference between an extradition and an extraordinary rendition—in which a state carries out an extrajudicial abduction for the purpose of arbitrary detention, torture, and summary punishment—is being effectively obliterated.
The U.S. government is, in effect, applying a similar method to Assange as it used against those it has subjected to extraordinary rendition during the “war on terror.” Since 2001, the CIA has abducted hundreds of people, bound them up, flown them across the world to secret CIA “black site” dungeons and subjected them to harsh interrogation and torture. Once the government gets its hands on Assange, it is questionable whether he will ever be seen again.
The process has been accompanied by a campaign of media vilification that seems to have no restraint. Its aim is to transform Assange into a monster so that he can be deprived of his rights.
Assange exposed war crime
What the endless media reports ignore is that Assange has exposed imperialist crimes in wars that killed millions of civilians and thousands of US soldiers. He has brought to light horrific crimes that the government and corporate media conspired to keep secret.
While watching the news personalities slander the persecuted journalist and late-night show hosts subject him to degraded and scatological mockery, one wishes to stick a bar of soap in each of their mouths.
The U.S., British and Ecuadorian government claim that Assange’s extradition is proper because the US is indicting the whistleblower only on a single charge of attempting to help Chelsea Manning bypass a password. But in the aftermath of Assange’s arrest, the corporate press and politicians have contradicted the official explanation, letting slip the real reason the U.S. wants custody over Assange.
The Washington Post's editorial board wrote: “Mr. Assange’s transfer to U.S. custody, followed possibly by additional Russia-related charges or his conversion into a cooperating witness, could be the key to learning more about Russian intelligence’s efforts to undermine democracy in the West. Certainly he is long overdue for personal accountability.”
The New York Times said, “Once in the United States, moreover, he could become a useful source on how Russia orchestrated its attacks on the Clinton campaign.”
Shumer smears publisher as Putin agent
After British police dragged Assange out of the Ecuadorian embassy, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer tweeted, “Now that Julian Assange has been arrested, I hope he will soon be held to account for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian government.” The Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Eliot Engel tweeted that Assange “time after time compromised the national security of the United States and our allies by publicly releasing classified government documents and confidential materials related to our 2016 presidential election.”
These statements show that the extradition proceedings are being conducted under false pretenses. The single public charge is a cover. The government is planning to interrogate Assange, compel him to provide testimony and further prosecute him for exposing U.S. war crimes. In the words of Democratic Senator Joe Manchin: “He is our property and we can get the facts and the truth from him.”
Assange has no obligation to provide the government with any testimony because he has the Fifth Amendment right not to testify against himself. The media and politicians’ statements beg the question: How does the government plan to “get the facts” from him? What harsh measures, practiced in the prisons of Abu Gharaib and Bagram Air Force Base, will be brought to bear?
The proceedings in the days since Assange’s arrest show the type of treatment he will receive in any legal proceeding.
Sanctuary principle violated
The British government, on the invite of Ecuadorian President and imperialist lackey Lenin Moreno, blatantly violated the principle of consular sanctuary by dragging Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London. This exposes the statements of the U.S. and British governments admonishing the Saudi government for murdering Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi embassy in Istanbul, Turkey, last year as thoroughly hypocritical.
On Thursday, the British district judge who heard Assange’s bail request mocked him and laughed when Assange’s lawyers requested a fair hearing. “His assertion that he has not had a fair hearing is laughable,” said judge Michael Snow. “And his behavior is that of a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interests.” Assange has been sent to Belmarsh, a maximum security prison for terrorists and other high-risk detainees, where half of all prisoners are allowed to leave their cells for only two hours a week.
There is no question that Assange will be denied the right to a fair trial in the U.S., where the entire political and media establishment has already pronounced his guilt. In whatever “trial” takes place, Assange’s lawyers will be regularly denied the right to review evidence against their client on the grounds that it is “classified” for “national security” purposes.
The conspiracy against Assange confirms the absence of any constituency for the defense of democratic rights in the ruling class.
To the leaders of the democratic revolutions of the 18th century, the practices now called extraordinary rendition recalled the dark and crowded dungeons of Charles II and Louis XIV, filled with political prisoners. The bourgeois revolutions in France and the United States abolished arbitrary detention and torture as the hated method of political reaction, upholding the right of due process, habeas corpus, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Under international law today, extraordinary rendition is a crime against humanity according to the Nuremberg principles.
If the ruling class can conduct this operation against Assange without any opposition from the political or media establishment, then any crime is possible. All the while, “left” figures like Jeremy Corbyn go along with the lie, absolving themselves of any responsibility.
Lenient with Chile's Pinochet
As for the British government, its brutal handling of Assange contrasts with its response to Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who fought an extradition request after Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon attempted to prosecute Pinochet in Spain for mass murder. In 2000, the Labour government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair refused to extradite Pinochet and ordered his release from house arrest at his mansion in Surrey.
"The attempted trial of an accused in the condition diagnosed in Senator Pinochet on the charges which have been made against him in this case could not be a fair trial in any country and would violate Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights," the Home Office wrote at the time.
While the dictator Pinochet murdered and tortured thousands of workers and socialists after taking power in the September 11, 1973 coup, Julian Assange published evidence of US war crimes. He is hated by the international ruling class because he has done significant damage to the interests of imperialism.
The seven years since Assange was forced to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy have seen the reemergence of the class struggle on an international scale. It is this powerful social force—the working class—that must be mobilized to defend democratic rights and secure the liberation of class-war prisoners like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.
Eric London
Thanks to the World Socialists for offering this article to be freely disseminated.
AntiWar.org: U.S. prosecutors revive false narratives
https://news.antiwar.com/2019/04/15/prosecutors-revive-long-discredited-narratives-for-assange-trial/
Ecuador chief took 'foreign aid' bribe -- Ron Paul report
https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2019/04/15/co-conspirator-ecuador-paid-off-to-deliver-assange/
Intimidation of journalists and others is the big issue, Paul said. The real motive behind Assange's arrest is to "squelch the people who have the courage to tell the truth."
The Deep State, which runs the Federal Reserve System, is behind Assange's arrest, which "they see as a victory," the retired Texas lawmaker said.
In planning to lend the unorthodox publisher a hand, Paul foresees a positive result for Assange once he is transferred to U.S. soil.
Fake news media treats Assange like Trump
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/17/medi-a17.html
This disgusting and shameful gloating resembles nothing so much as a pillory or lynching, where the dregs of society are invited to hurl insults and garbage at a powerless victim. But unlike in Dickens’ London, these social dregs find themselves not at the bottom, but at the top of society: they are multi-millionaires staffing the media, the entertainment industry, and the big business parties.
Of course, there is a political reason and logic to this outpouring of vitriol. The aim is to manufacture public opinion: to make the heroic journalist an un-person, stripped of all rights—an outcast—in order to justify the US state’s persecution.
Saturday, July 13, 2019
Twitter muzzles Assange defenders
Account suspended
This account has been suspended. Learn more about why Twitter suspends accounts, or return to your timeline.
The World Socialist Web Site reports today that Twitter has squelched a Julian Assange defense group, which has been an effective clearing house for the jailed Australian's defenders. This churlish move may be a sop to President Trump and the alt right, who complain of Big Tech censorship. "Well," says Twitter, "we also muzzle the left wing," which has been identified as backing Assange.
[All thinking Americans -- left, libertarian, alt right, or what have you -- should object to the dangerous attack on freedom of speech posed by the Assange prosecution.]
"And now we're gagging those who back Assange, whom your Justice Department is prosecuting for publishing secret information, much like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian have done. What do you say about that, Mr. Wise Guy. We caught you in a trap, didn't we, ha ha!"
And of course, the fate of the First Amendment and Julian Assange be go to hell, saith Twitter.
By MIKE HEAD
World Socialist Web Site
13 July 2019
Last Thursday, without notice or explanation, Twitter arbitrarily suspended the account of @Unity4J, a platform dedicated to circulating information and advocacy for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. As of this writing, the account has been gone for two days.
The operators of the account reported that they were given no reason for its removal by Twitter staff, and received no response to their appeals for reinstatement. As this occurred, Assange, a journalist and publisher, remained incarcerated in London’s notorious Belmarsh Prison. He is facing extradition to the U.S., where he could be jailed for life, or executed, on unprecedented U.S. Espionage Act charges.
“About 8:45 a.m. CST on Thursday July 11, one of our Unity4J Twitter team members went to retweet on the account and noticed that the account was no longer accessible,” reported Christy Dopf, one of the operators of the account. “When each of us also attempted to access the account we all received the same message ‘Account Suspended’.
“Twitter did not send us a reason or violation for the suspension. So an appeal was submitted. We did receive correspondence that Twitter got our request and the case is currently open. Unfortunately we do not have a timeline on how long this could take.”
Unity4J has been prominent in campaigning against Assange’s persecution, arrest and extradition. Its online vigils have featured well-known Assange defenders, including Socialist Equality Party (SEP) representatives who have spoken about the SEP's global campaign to free Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning, currently imprisoned in a U.S. jail for refusing to testify against Assange.
Unity4J co-founder Elizabeth Vos tweeted: “I have no doubt that @Unity4J’s twitter account was suspended because it was a hub of useful information on solidarity events and actions in support of Assange, WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning and more. Horrendous censorship to suspend the account, @TwitterSupport.”
Twitter’s move is part of a wider pattern. Vos told independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone: “It seems that Assange supporters have been targeted for suspension over the last few days and weeks, including the suspension of individuals (Yon Solitary, Monique Jolie) as well as accounts like Unity4J. All of these suspensions are unacceptable, but I find the Unity4J suspension especially egregious because it was an amplifier of events across the board, not only actions run by Unity4J. It never broke the Twitter rules and it was an activist account supporting a journalist who’s been silenced or ‘disappeared,’ so this suspension is an extension of that suppression.”
Many Assange supporters have protested to the Twitter Support account and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, objecting to the silencing of a legitimate activist account, to no avail thus far.
Christine Assange, the journalist’s mother, tweeted: “HELP!! Twitter suspended @Unity4J The global #FreeAssange supporters account. Its a central point for updates, interviews and actions re my son politically persecuted journalist JULIAN ASSANGE! Please demand @TwitterSupport and @Jack re-instate it. Many thanks #Unity4J.” Musician Roger Waters, co-founder of the famous rock band Pink Floyd, broadcast a video denouncing the suspension. He accused Twitter of seeking to silence supporters of Assange, whom he described as a “great hero of freedom of the press and freedom of any kind.” Waters said Unity4J was a cogent, intelligent and powerful voice of opposition to the persecution of Assange. “Twitter, you are Big Brother!” he said. “You are an arm of the thought police.”
Twitter has acted as a corporate judge, jury and executioner, providing no explanation, let alone justification. Even if the account is eventually restored, the removal serves to undercut the international struggle underway to defend Assange and Manning.
On June 20, the World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Parties affiliated with the International Committee of the Fourth International called for a global campaign to stop Assange’s extradition to the United States, and to secure both his and Manning’s freedom.
This Sunday, at 2 p.m., Australian Eastern Time, the SEP in Australia will conduct a live-streamed rally in Melbourne, following rallies in Sydney and Brisbane, to take forward this campaign. Readers can watch the rally on Facebook at SEP Australia.
Twitter has joined Facebook and Google in what has become mounting censorship directed against progressive and left-wing political speech on online media platforms. Last year, the WSWS urged the formation of an international coalition to fight the censorship of socialist, anti-war, left-wing and progressive websites, organizations and activists. Google’s manipulation of search results, beginning in April 2017, limited traffic to left-wing sites, particularly the WSWS, which reported a nearly 70 percent decline in readers resulting from Google searches.
[All thinking Americans -- left, libertarian, alt right, or what have you -- should object to the dangerous attack on freedom of speech posed by the Assange prosecution.]
"And now we're gagging those who back Assange, whom your Justice Department is prosecuting for publishing secret information, much like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian have done. What do you say about that, Mr. Wise Guy. We caught you in a trap, didn't we, ha ha!"
And of course, the fate of the First Amendment and Julian Assange be go to hell, saith Twitter.
By MIKE HEAD
World Socialist Web Site
13 July 2019
Last Thursday, without notice or explanation, Twitter arbitrarily suspended the account of @Unity4J, a platform dedicated to circulating information and advocacy for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. As of this writing, the account has been gone for two days.
The operators of the account reported that they were given no reason for its removal by Twitter staff, and received no response to their appeals for reinstatement. As this occurred, Assange, a journalist and publisher, remained incarcerated in London’s notorious Belmarsh Prison. He is facing extradition to the U.S., where he could be jailed for life, or executed, on unprecedented U.S. Espionage Act charges.
“About 8:45 a.m. CST on Thursday July 11, one of our Unity4J Twitter team members went to retweet on the account and noticed that the account was no longer accessible,” reported Christy Dopf, one of the operators of the account. “When each of us also attempted to access the account we all received the same message ‘Account Suspended’.
“Twitter did not send us a reason or violation for the suspension. So an appeal was submitted. We did receive correspondence that Twitter got our request and the case is currently open. Unfortunately we do not have a timeline on how long this could take.”
Unity4J has been prominent in campaigning against Assange’s persecution, arrest and extradition. Its online vigils have featured well-known Assange defenders, including Socialist Equality Party (SEP) representatives who have spoken about the SEP's global campaign to free Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning, currently imprisoned in a U.S. jail for refusing to testify against Assange.
Unity4J co-founder Elizabeth Vos tweeted: “I have no doubt that @Unity4J’s twitter account was suspended because it was a hub of useful information on solidarity events and actions in support of Assange, WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning and more. Horrendous censorship to suspend the account, @TwitterSupport.”
Twitter’s move is part of a wider pattern. Vos told independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone: “It seems that Assange supporters have been targeted for suspension over the last few days and weeks, including the suspension of individuals (Yon Solitary, Monique Jolie) as well as accounts like Unity4J. All of these suspensions are unacceptable, but I find the Unity4J suspension especially egregious because it was an amplifier of events across the board, not only actions run by Unity4J. It never broke the Twitter rules and it was an activist account supporting a journalist who’s been silenced or ‘disappeared,’ so this suspension is an extension of that suppression.”
Many Assange supporters have protested to the Twitter Support account and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, objecting to the silencing of a legitimate activist account, to no avail thus far.
Christine Assange, the journalist’s mother, tweeted: “HELP!! Twitter suspended @Unity4J The global #FreeAssange supporters account. Its a central point for updates, interviews and actions re my son politically persecuted journalist JULIAN ASSANGE! Please demand @TwitterSupport and @Jack re-instate it. Many thanks #Unity4J.” Musician Roger Waters, co-founder of the famous rock band Pink Floyd, broadcast a video denouncing the suspension. He accused Twitter of seeking to silence supporters of Assange, whom he described as a “great hero of freedom of the press and freedom of any kind.” Waters said Unity4J was a cogent, intelligent and powerful voice of opposition to the persecution of Assange. “Twitter, you are Big Brother!” he said. “You are an arm of the thought police.”
Twitter has acted as a corporate judge, jury and executioner, providing no explanation, let alone justification. Even if the account is eventually restored, the removal serves to undercut the international struggle underway to defend Assange and Manning.
On June 20, the World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Parties affiliated with the International Committee of the Fourth International called for a global campaign to stop Assange’s extradition to the United States, and to secure both his and Manning’s freedom.
This Sunday, at 2 p.m., Australian Eastern Time, the SEP in Australia will conduct a live-streamed rally in Melbourne, following rallies in Sydney and Brisbane, to take forward this campaign. Readers can watch the rally on Facebook at SEP Australia.
Twitter has joined Facebook and Google in what has become mounting censorship directed against progressive and left-wing political speech on online media platforms. Last year, the WSWS urged the formation of an international coalition to fight the censorship of socialist, anti-war, left-wing and progressive websites, organizations and activists. Google’s manipulation of search results, beginning in April 2017, limited traffic to left-wing sites, particularly the WSWS, which reported a nearly 70 percent decline in readers resulting from Google searches.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Assange arrest
aimed at Trump?
Fake terror charge echoes
fakery in FISA warrants
The desire to 'get' Julian Assange has never been about accusations from his ex-Swedish sex partners. It was the extremely vengeful Obama administration that put the pressure on Sweden to reactivate its charges against Assange soon after they had been dropped years ago. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wanted him droned for publishing State Department documents purloined by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning.
Supposedly, the British want him for ducking extradition to Sweden by taking refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy. But this is all nonsense. Everyone knows his real "crime" is the publishing of files that governments use to control their business (and their populations). I wonder whether Ecuador turned against him because WikiLeaks dared publish a cache of Russian documents.
The U.S. Justice Department (FBI I suppose) has revealed its interest in the matter by (finally) officially revealing that Assange is wanted for assisting in computer intrusion, not for making like the New York Times and publishing secret documents.
But we all know that Assange became Public Enemy Number 1 when WikiLeaks published emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chief, John Podesta. Immediately on publication, the Clinton group roared that Clinton was a victim of a Russian conspiracy -- even though Assange denied obtaining the data from the Russian government. The "Russian collusion" theory against Trump then was given a huge partisan boost.
But the Deep State and the Democrats are terribly embarrassed: NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION, saith Robert Mueller.
What to do? What to do?
Get Assange! That will blow up Trump with his own bomb.
Sen. Joe Manchin, a Virginia Democrat, was elated, calling Assange’s arrest "great for the American people." He added, "We’re going to extradite him. It will be really good to get him back on United States soil. So now he’s our property and we can get the facts and truth from him." There is little doubt that his implication is that Assange's arrest is "great for the Democratic Party."
Recall how Donald Trump jokingly urged WikiLeaks to publish 30,000 of Clinton's missing emails. Clinton and her crew ignored the humor and accused Trump of colluding with the "Russian puppet," WikiLeaks.
So what is Trump going to do? Aha! If he bars Assange's arrest, the FBI and the Democrats will accuse him of obstructing justice. But if he permits the Justice Department to persecute his "ally," he will look weak. It will look as though Trump's drive to launch criminal investigations of national security people who harassed him hasn't got much moxie, that the Deep State securocrats are stronger.
Oh, but that scenario would require collusion. The Deep State (as in, permanent CIA) would have to "reach" the Ecuadoran and the British authorities to assure that Assange was delivered in time to save Trump's foes. Oh well, let's forget about it. We all know that only Russians, not Deep Staters, collude.
The indictment was handed down in March 2018. So Attorney General Bill Barr had nothing to do with that part of the case. But it seems likely the Justice and State Departments were conferring with the Ecuadoran and British governments on the terms of the arrest. As the Daily Mail pointed out,
"It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia," said Pompeo, a former Kansas congressman.
Trump has a complicated history with WikiLeaks, a Los Angeles Times report noted, claiming during the campaign to "love" the organization, which leaked stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee and others that were damaging to his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
Pompeo said the intelligence community had determined that Russia's military intelligence service, the GRU, used WikiLeaks as a conduit to release data obtained by hacking the DNC and others.
Pompeo was echoing the line espoused by his Democrat predecessor, John Brennan, the ex-communist sympathizer who became President Obama's CIA chief. In any case, Pompeo neglected to mention that various intelligence agencies, including British intelligence and the CIA, would have been tempted to use WikiLeaks in order to disseminate information that would damage an adversary. And, by the way, what difference is there in Putin's minions passing documents to WikiLeaks and Deep State officials passing documents to The New York Times and The Washington Post to damage Trump? If the data can be verified, it is likely to be published. The CIA gets information from all sorts of sordid sources. Would Pompeo say that, ergo, the CIA is "dirty" ?
So it seems I have answered the question in the headline. The Trump administration has been working to seize Assange -- and now Trump distances himself from the WikiLeaks founder, brushing him off with, "I know nothing about WikiLeaks." Yet, any conclusion that the Assange arrest doesn't endanger Trump politically is myopic. Trump may very well have been high-pressured into going along with the prosecution. Had he said anything about, for example, the bribe of Ecuador, Mueller might well have reacted by scribbling "obstruction of justice" on his yellow pad.
So Trump was forced to walk on eggshells with regard to Assange. But, to repeat, a Deep State conviction of Assange is assuredly a victory not only for the Deep State, but for Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Bill Barr is in a terrible pickle. And, to make his situation worse, we learn:
Fake terror charge unsealed
Experts consulted by Wired agreed that the Justice Department had skirted the issue of Assange's journalistic status by charging him as a hacker who had violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But, that consensus is questionable.
Federal prosecutors were able to void the five-year statute of limitation on the hacker charge by claiming that Assange had committed an "act of terrorism," according to Tor Ekeland, a hacker defense attorney quoted by Wired. "To get the benefit of the eight years, they’re trying to call this a terrorist act," Ekeland told Wired. "That seems a little weird."
What exactly was the intent of Assange's so-called "terrorism"? The intent was very obviously journalism. So, the Justice Department has not successfully dodged the issue of Assange being targeted for doing what journalists do. In order to be able to charge him, prosecutors had to characterize him as a terroristic journalist. This sounds like the sort of charge one would expect from Pyongyang.
It sure is hard to miss the parallel between the Justice Department's use of a fake terror charge in order to go after Assange and its use of fake rationalizations for FISA warrants in its vendetta against Trump.
Cali Dem sees 1st Amendment issue
On Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said that the Assange indictment is “overbroad” in a way that raises “First Amendment concerns,” and that all journalists should worry that the precedent would be set that "sharing information" with the press can be construed as a criminal offense.
Conservative journalist raps spy system
From the conservative quarter, the columnnist Mark Steyn on Thursday termed the Assange indictment “extremely weak” and, speaking to the Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, chastised the U.S. intelligence system.
“The idea that he's somehow goaded and encouraged Manning to steal this stuff. That the line he used... Manning tells Assange, 'that's all I've got left to give to you.' And Assange says 'curious eyes never run dry in my experience.' The idea that a corrupt federal criminal justice system could extradite and convict a man on the basis of those words ought to disturb every American,” Steyn told Carlson.
Why are Dems so elated?
Isn't Trump a dictator type who despises liberal journalists? What's to stop him from having "enemy" journalists indicted on bogus terror charges as a way of silencing them, and exacting revenge for giving him a bad time? In fact, once the Justice Department has this precedent in hand, it will be relatively easy for "the dictator" to have any journalist almost anywhere in the world seized and transported to the United States, where she or he would face federal terrorism prosecutions. Perhaps Democrats haven't thought through the full impact of the fake charge against Assange. Though I am not assuming Trump would stoop so low, it is evident that many Democrats and liberals suspect that he would use such a club to silence "the resistance."
The American Civil Liberties Union1 expressed similar concerns.
Ben Wizner, director of the group's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a written statement:
1. The ACLU has been faulted by Alan Dershowitz, an ex-ACLU member and retired Harvard law professor, as having turned partisan.
Supposedly, the British want him for ducking extradition to Sweden by taking refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy. But this is all nonsense. Everyone knows his real "crime" is the publishing of files that governments use to control their business (and their populations). I wonder whether Ecuador turned against him because WikiLeaks dared publish a cache of Russian documents.
The U.S. Justice Department (FBI I suppose) has revealed its interest in the matter by (finally) officially revealing that Assange is wanted for assisting in computer intrusion, not for making like the New York Times and publishing secret documents.
But we all know that Assange became Public Enemy Number 1 when WikiLeaks published emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chief, John Podesta. Immediately on publication, the Clinton group roared that Clinton was a victim of a Russian conspiracy -- even though Assange denied obtaining the data from the Russian government. The "Russian collusion" theory against Trump then was given a huge partisan boost.
But the Deep State and the Democrats are terribly embarrassed: NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION, saith Robert Mueller.
What to do? What to do?
Get Assange! That will blow up Trump with his own bomb.
Sen. Joe Manchin, a Virginia Democrat, was elated, calling Assange’s arrest "great for the American people." He added, "We’re going to extradite him. It will be really good to get him back on United States soil. So now he’s our property and we can get the facts and truth from him." There is little doubt that his implication is that Assange's arrest is "great for the Democratic Party."
Recall how Donald Trump jokingly urged WikiLeaks to publish 30,000 of Clinton's missing emails. Clinton and her crew ignored the humor and accused Trump of colluding with the "Russian puppet," WikiLeaks.
So what is Trump going to do? Aha! If he bars Assange's arrest, the FBI and the Democrats will accuse him of obstructing justice. But if he permits the Justice Department to persecute his "ally," he will look weak. It will look as though Trump's drive to launch criminal investigations of national security people who harassed him hasn't got much moxie, that the Deep State securocrats are stronger.
Oh, but that scenario would require collusion. The Deep State (as in, permanent CIA) would have to "reach" the Ecuadoran and the British authorities to assure that Assange was delivered in time to save Trump's foes. Oh well, let's forget about it. We all know that only Russians, not Deep Staters, collude.
The indictment was handed down in March 2018. So Attorney General Bill Barr had nothing to do with that part of the case. But it seems likely the Justice and State Departments were conferring with the Ecuadoran and British governments on the terms of the arrest. As the Daily Mail pointed out,
Since early 2017, the U.S. has been prodding Ecuador to cut ties with Assange, who had been living in the nation's embassy in London for nearly five years.When he was Trump's CIA chief, Mike Pompeo, now secretary of state, denounced Assange as a "narcissist" who works in concert with Russia, relying on "the dirty work of others to make him famous." Pompeo was irked that WikiLeaks had published some confidential files apparently provided by a government contractor. I speculated at the time that the CIA had set up WikiLeaks in order to give Pompeo a reason to back the Deep State's desire to nail Assange.
It sweetened the pot in February, when a collection of global financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that have their headquarters in Washington awarded Ecuador $10.2 billion in rescue loans.
"It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia," said Pompeo, a former Kansas congressman.
Trump has a complicated history with WikiLeaks, a Los Angeles Times report noted, claiming during the campaign to "love" the organization, which leaked stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee and others that were damaging to his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
Pompeo said the intelligence community had determined that Russia's military intelligence service, the GRU, used WikiLeaks as a conduit to release data obtained by hacking the DNC and others.
Pompeo was echoing the line espoused by his Democrat predecessor, John Brennan, the ex-communist sympathizer who became President Obama's CIA chief. In any case, Pompeo neglected to mention that various intelligence agencies, including British intelligence and the CIA, would have been tempted to use WikiLeaks in order to disseminate information that would damage an adversary. And, by the way, what difference is there in Putin's minions passing documents to WikiLeaks and Deep State officials passing documents to The New York Times and The Washington Post to damage Trump? If the data can be verified, it is likely to be published. The CIA gets information from all sorts of sordid sources. Would Pompeo say that, ergo, the CIA is "dirty" ?
So it seems I have answered the question in the headline. The Trump administration has been working to seize Assange -- and now Trump distances himself from the WikiLeaks founder, brushing him off with, "I know nothing about WikiLeaks." Yet, any conclusion that the Assange arrest doesn't endanger Trump politically is myopic. Trump may very well have been high-pressured into going along with the prosecution. Had he said anything about, for example, the bribe of Ecuador, Mueller might well have reacted by scribbling "obstruction of justice" on his yellow pad.
So Trump was forced to walk on eggshells with regard to Assange. But, to repeat, a Deep State conviction of Assange is assuredly a victory not only for the Deep State, but for Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Bill Barr is in a terrible pickle. And, to make his situation worse, we learn:
Fake terror charge unsealed
Experts consulted by Wired agreed that the Justice Department had skirted the issue of Assange's journalistic status by charging him as a hacker who had violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But, that consensus is questionable.
Federal prosecutors were able to void the five-year statute of limitation on the hacker charge by claiming that Assange had committed an "act of terrorism," according to Tor Ekeland, a hacker defense attorney quoted by Wired. "To get the benefit of the eight years, they’re trying to call this a terrorist act," Ekeland told Wired. "That seems a little weird."
What exactly was the intent of Assange's so-called "terrorism"? The intent was very obviously journalism. So, the Justice Department has not successfully dodged the issue of Assange being targeted for doing what journalists do. In order to be able to charge him, prosecutors had to characterize him as a terroristic journalist. This sounds like the sort of charge one would expect from Pyongyang.
It sure is hard to miss the parallel between the Justice Department's use of a fake terror charge in order to go after Assange and its use of fake rationalizations for FISA warrants in its vendetta against Trump.
Cali Dem sees 1st Amendment issue
On Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said that the Assange indictment is “overbroad” in a way that raises “First Amendment concerns,” and that all journalists should worry that the precedent would be set that "sharing information" with the press can be construed as a criminal offense.
Conservative journalist raps spy system
From the conservative quarter, the columnnist Mark Steyn on Thursday termed the Assange indictment “extremely weak” and, speaking to the Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, chastised the U.S. intelligence system.
“The idea that he's somehow goaded and encouraged Manning to steal this stuff. That the line he used... Manning tells Assange, 'that's all I've got left to give to you.' And Assange says 'curious eyes never run dry in my experience.' The idea that a corrupt federal criminal justice system could extradite and convict a man on the basis of those words ought to disturb every American,” Steyn told Carlson.
Why are Dems so elated?
Isn't Trump a dictator type who despises liberal journalists? What's to stop him from having "enemy" journalists indicted on bogus terror charges as a way of silencing them, and exacting revenge for giving him a bad time? In fact, once the Justice Department has this precedent in hand, it will be relatively easy for "the dictator" to have any journalist almost anywhere in the world seized and transported to the United States, where she or he would face federal terrorism prosecutions. Perhaps Democrats haven't thought through the full impact of the fake charge against Assange. Though I am not assuming Trump would stoop so low, it is evident that many Democrats and liberals suspect that he would use such a club to silence "the resistance."
The American Civil Liberties Union1 expressed similar concerns.
Ben Wizner, director of the group's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a written statement:
Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for WikiLeaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations. Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public's interest.Wizner added:
Criminally prosecuting a publisher for the publication of truthful information would be a first in American history, and unconstitutional. The government did not cross that Rubicon with today’s indictment, but the worst case scenario cannot yet be ruled out. We have no assurance that these are the only charges the government plans to bring against Mr. Assange. Further, while there is no First Amendment right to crack a government password, this indictment characterizes as ‘part of’ a criminal conspiracy the routine and protected activities journalists often engage in as part of their daily jobs, such as encouraging a source to provide more information. Given President Trump’s and his administration’s well-documented attacks on the freedom of the press, such characterizations are especially worrisome.
1. The ACLU has been faulted by Alan Dershowitz, an ex-ACLU member and retired Harvard law professor, as having turned partisan.
Friday, May 3, 2019
May gov't in row with UN panel over Assange penalty
Prime Minister Teresa May's government is in a tussle with the United Nations over the "disproportionate" 50-week sentence of Julian Assange for a "minor violation."
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, a UN panel of legal experts, also challenged May's Conservative government for holding Assange in a high-security prison "as if he were convicted of a serious criminal offense." The panel reiterated its recommendation that the British government free Assange.
May's isolationist-leaning government is rejecting the UN panel's findings as she works to remove Britain from international influence, whether it be that of the UN or the European Union. May's government is antagonistic to the panel -- even though the UN experts pointed out that in 2017 a Swedish prosecutor interviewed Assange at the embassy, and then declined to press charges.
In 2015 the Working Group accused Britain and Sweden of forcing Assange to be "arbitrarily detained" in the Ecuador embassy in London.
Meanwhile, most members of the public who wished to witness Assange's extradition hearing were barred. Only a few members of the press were able to squeeze into the courtroom. Authorities chose a small room no doubt to prevent Assange's supporters from getting in.
Assange was also barred from the courtroom and was given a terrorist-style video hearing from Belmarsh prison, sometimes known as the "British Guantanamo." The United States has slapped the publisher with a terrorism indictment, which the media are not mentioning, as a means of evading the statute of limitations on illegal cyber intrusion -- though that case appears very tenuous, lawyers say.
The Working Group said in a statement:
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, a UN panel of legal experts, also challenged May's Conservative government for holding Assange in a high-security prison "as if he were convicted of a serious criminal offense." The panel reiterated its recommendation that the British government free Assange.
May's isolationist-leaning government is rejecting the UN panel's findings as she works to remove Britain from international influence, whether it be that of the UN or the European Union. May's government is antagonistic to the panel -- even though the UN experts pointed out that in 2017 a Swedish prosecutor interviewed Assange at the embassy, and then declined to press charges.
In 2015 the Working Group accused Britain and Sweden of forcing Assange to be "arbitrarily detained" in the Ecuador embassy in London.
Meanwhile, most members of the public who wished to witness Assange's extradition hearing were barred. Only a few members of the press were able to squeeze into the courtroom. Authorities chose a small room no doubt to prevent Assange's supporters from getting in.
Assange was also barred from the courtroom and was given a terrorist-style video hearing from Belmarsh prison, sometimes known as the "British Guantanamo." The United States has slapped the publisher with a terrorism indictment, which the media are not mentioning, as a means of evading the statute of limitations on illegal cyber intrusion -- though that case appears very tenuous, lawyers say.
The Working Group said in a statement:
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is deeply concerned about this course of action including the disproportionate sentence imposed on Mr. Assange. The Working Group is of the view that violating bail is a minor violation that, in the United Kingdom, carries a maximum sentence of 12 months in prison, even though the bond related to the bail has been lost in favor of the British Government, and that Mr. Assange was still detained after violating the bail which, in any case should not stand after the Opinion was issued. The Working Group regrets that the Government has not complied with its Opinion and has now furthered the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Assange.
It is worth recalling that the detention and the subsequent bail of Mr. Assange in the UK were connected to preliminary investigations initiated in 2010 by a prosecutor in Sweden. It is equally worth noting that that prosecutor did not press any charges against Mr. Assange and that in 2017, after interviewing him in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, she discontinued investigations and brought an end to the case.
The Working Group is further concerned that Mr. Assange has been detained since 11 April 2019 in Belmarsh prison, a high-security prison, as if he were convicted for a serious criminal offence. This treatment appears to contravene the principles of necessity and proportionality envisaged by the human rights standards.
The WGAD reiterates its recommendation to the Government of the United Kingdom, as expressed in its Opinion 54/2015, and its 21 December 2018 statement, that the right of Mr Assange to personal liberty should be restored.
Monday, April 15, 2019
Assange was probing Google
on mass surveillance plans
Before he was arrested and tossed into a jail used for terrorists, Julian Assange was investigating Google's plans for trolling your data to benefit government surveillance powers, according to a writer who visited him at the Ecuadoran embassy in London.
"I met Assange two years ago" in the embassy, said Giorgio Agamben, an Italian philosopher, and on recalling what he "told me during our encounter, I think one can understand why he was arrested."
Agamben declared, "Assange mentioned to me that he was investigating how Google was planning to make use of the immense quantity of information at its disposal. It had to do with, according to Assange, selling to insurance companies and secret services data about the interests, desires, consumption habits, state of health, reading practices…in a nutshell data about the life of millions of individuals in all its aspects."
The philosopher continued, "According to Assange—and I believe we can share his view—this would mean an unprecedented increase in the possible ways of controlling human beings through the powers of the market and the police. What is at the core of Assange’s arrest is, therefore, not only the desire to punish past WikiLeaks investigations, but to impede investigations currently underway that evidently all those implicated seem to be threatened by. It is also for this reason that it is necessary to express unreserved solidarity with
Published in English by CounterPunch. Translated from the Italian by Masturah Alatas.
Assange's great deed
As a mostly libertarian individual, I have no problem quoting from the Left (as well as the Right). Both CounterPunch and British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn are on the Left. From CounterPunch:
Mrs. Clinton must answer for what she has done
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the old saying goes.
"I met Assange two years ago" in the embassy, said Giorgio Agamben, an Italian philosopher, and on recalling what he "told me during our encounter, I think one can understand why he was arrested."
Agamben declared, "Assange mentioned to me that he was investigating how Google was planning to make use of the immense quantity of information at its disposal. It had to do with, according to Assange, selling to insurance companies and secret services data about the interests, desires, consumption habits, state of health, reading practices…in a nutshell data about the life of millions of individuals in all its aspects."
The philosopher continued, "According to Assange—and I believe we can share his view—this would mean an unprecedented increase in the possible ways of controlling human beings through the powers of the market and the police. What is at the core of Assange’s arrest is, therefore, not only the desire to punish past WikiLeaks investigations, but to impede investigations currently underway that evidently all those implicated seem to be threatened by. It is also for this reason that it is necessary to express unreserved solidarity with
Published in English by CounterPunch. Translated from the Italian by Masturah Alatas.
Assange's great deed
As a mostly libertarian individual, I have no problem quoting from the Left (as well as the Right). Both CounterPunch and British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn are on the Left. From CounterPunch:
Jeremy Corbyn is correct to say that the affair is all about “the extradition of Julian Assange to the U.S. for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan.” But, within hours of Assange’s detention, it was clear that nobody much cared about innocent people dying in the streets of Baghdad or in the villages of Afghanistan and Assange has already become a political weapon in the poisonous political confrontation over Brexit with Corbyn’s support for Assange enabling Conservatives to claim that he is a security risk.Denis Rogatyuk writes in CounterPunch that Ecuador President Lenin
Lost in this dog-fight is what Assange and WikiLeaks really achieved and why it was of great importance in establishing the truth about wars being fought [in our name] in which hundreds of thousands of people have been killed.
Moreno’s decision to silence Julian Assange and expel him serve a duel purpose -- to gain the trust of the Trump administration, and to distract the national and international public away from his corrupt dealing in off-shore bank accounts, the fraudulent elections of March 24th and his mishandling of the Ecuadorian economy. This has also been echoed in the comments made by Rafael Correa, the former President of Ecuador who first authorised Julian Assange’s asylum back in 2012. After having his page blocked on Facebook, Correa stated that “In his hatred, because Wikileaks published corruption of INA papers, Moreno wanted to destroy Assange’s life. He probably did it, but he has also done a huge damage to the country. Who will trust in ECUADOR again?”.
Mrs. Clinton must answer for what she has done
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the old saying goes.
Saturday, June 29, 2019
The torture of Julian Assange
Roll of dishonor
It's hard to believe that there are any real journalists in control of these "news" outlets.UN expert's op-ed rejected by the Guardian, Times of London, Financial Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Australian, Canberra Times, Telegraph, New York Times, Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Newsweek
By NILS MELZER
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
On the occasion of the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, 26 June 2019
I know, you may think I am deluded. How could life in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard ever amount to torture? That’s exactly what I thought, too, when Assange first appealed to my office for protection. Like most of the public, I had been subconsciously poisoned by the relentless smear campaign, which had been disseminated over the years. So it took a second knock on my door to get my reluctant attention. But once I looked into the facts of this case, what I found filled me with repulsion and disbelief.
Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the US had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, two women made the headlines in Sweden. One of them claimed he had ripped a condom, and the other that he had failed to wear one, in both cases during consensual intercourse — not exactly scenarios that have the ring of "rape" in any language other than Swedish. Mind you, each woman even submitted a condom as evidence. The first one, supposedly worn and torn by Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure. The second one, used but intact, supposedly proved "unprotected" intercourse. Go figure, again.
The women even texted that they never intended to report a crime but were "railroaded" into doing so by zealous Swedish police. Go figure, once more. Ever since, both Sweden and Britain have done everything to prevent Assange from confronting these allegations without simultaneously having to expose himself to US extradition and, thus, to a show-trial followed by life in jail. His last refuge had been the Ecuadorian Embassy.
All right, I thought, but surely Assange must be a hacker! But what I found is that all his disclosures had been freely leaked to him, and that no one accuses him of having hacked a single computer. In fact, the only arguable hacking-charge against him relates to his alleged unsuccessful attempt to help break a password which, had it been successful, might have helped his source to cover her tracks. In short: a rather isolated, speculative, and inconsequential chain of events; a bit like trying to prosecute a driver who unsuccessfully attempted to exceed the speed-limit, but failed because their car was too weak.
Well then, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy, has interfered with U.S. elections, and negligently caused people’s deaths! But all I found is that he consistently published true information of inherent public interest without any breach of trust, duty or allegiance. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption and abuse, but let’s not confuse national security with governmental impunity. Yes, the facts he disclosed empowered U.S. voters to take more informed decisions, but isn’t that simply democracy? Yes, there are ethical discussions to be had regarding the legitimacy of unredacted disclosures. But if actual harm had really been caused, how come neither Assange nor Wikileaks ever faced related criminal charges or civil lawsuits for just compensation?
But surely, I found myself pleading, Assange must be a selfish narcissist, skateboarding through the Ecuadorian Embassy and smearing feces on the walls? Well, all I heard from Embassy staff is that the inevitable inconveniences of his accommodation at their offices were handled with mutual respect and consideration. This changed only after the election of President Moreno, when they were suddenly instructed to find smears against Assange and, when they didn’t, they were soon replaced. The President even took it upon himself to bless the world with his gossip, and to personally strip Assange of his asylum and citizenship without any due process of law.
In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.
Very well, you may say, but what does slander have to do with torture? Well, this is a slippery slope. What may look like mere "mudslinging" in public debate, quickly becomes “mobbing” when used against the defenseless, and even “persecution” once the State is involved. Now just add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is full-fledged psychological torture.
Yes, living in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a sweet deal when you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers the reason for the hate you endure, when no one even wants to hear the truth, when neither the courts nor the media hold the powerful to account, then your refuge really is but a rubber boat in a shark-pool, and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.
Even so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course. We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to unrestrained tyranny.
This Op-Ed has been offered for publication to the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek.
None responded positively.
From Wikipedia:
Nils Melzer is a Swiss academic, author and practitioner in the field of international law. Since 1 November 2016, Melzer has been serving as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He is Professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow, and also holds the Human Rights Chair at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in Switzerland, where he has been teaching since 2009, including as the Swiss Chair of International Humanitarian Law (2011–2013).
Melzer has previously served for 12 years with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as Delegate, Deputy Head of Delegation and Legal Adviser in various zones of conflict and violence. After leaving the ICRC, Melzer held academic positions as Research Director of the Swiss Competence Centre on Human Rights (University of Zürich), as Senior Fellow and Senior Advisor on Emerging Security Challenges (Geneva Centre for Security Policy) and at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. He has also served as Senior Adviser for Security Policy at the Political Directorate of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
Melzer has written several books, including: Targeted Killing in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), the ICRC's Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities (ICRC, 2009) and the ICRC's Handbook International Humanitarian Law - a Comprehensive Introduction (ICRC, 2016). He is also a co-author of the NATO CCDCOE Tallinn Manual on the International Law applicable to Cyber Warfare (Cambridge, 2013), and of the NATO MCDC Policy Guidance: Autonomy in Defence Systems, (NATO ACT, 2014).
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
On the occasion of the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, 26 June 2019
I know, you may think I am deluded. How could life in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard ever amount to torture? That’s exactly what I thought, too, when Assange first appealed to my office for protection. Like most of the public, I had been subconsciously poisoned by the relentless smear campaign, which had been disseminated over the years. So it took a second knock on my door to get my reluctant attention. But once I looked into the facts of this case, what I found filled me with repulsion and disbelief.
Surely, I thought, Assange must be a rapist! But what I found is that he has never been charged with a sexual offence. True, soon after the US had encouraged allies to find reasons to prosecute Assange, two women made the headlines in Sweden. One of them claimed he had ripped a condom, and the other that he had failed to wear one, in both cases during consensual intercourse — not exactly scenarios that have the ring of "rape" in any language other than Swedish. Mind you, each woman even submitted a condom as evidence. The first one, supposedly worn and torn by Assange, revealed no DNA whatsoever — neither his, nor hers, nor anybody else’s. Go figure. The second one, used but intact, supposedly proved "unprotected" intercourse. Go figure, again.
The women even texted that they never intended to report a crime but were "railroaded" into doing so by zealous Swedish police. Go figure, once more. Ever since, both Sweden and Britain have done everything to prevent Assange from confronting these allegations without simultaneously having to expose himself to US extradition and, thus, to a show-trial followed by life in jail. His last refuge had been the Ecuadorian Embassy.
All right, I thought, but surely Assange must be a hacker! But what I found is that all his disclosures had been freely leaked to him, and that no one accuses him of having hacked a single computer. In fact, the only arguable hacking-charge against him relates to his alleged unsuccessful attempt to help break a password which, had it been successful, might have helped his source to cover her tracks. In short: a rather isolated, speculative, and inconsequential chain of events; a bit like trying to prosecute a driver who unsuccessfully attempted to exceed the speed-limit, but failed because their car was too weak.
Well then, I thought, at least we know for sure that Assange is a Russian spy, has interfered with U.S. elections, and negligently caused people’s deaths! But all I found is that he consistently published true information of inherent public interest without any breach of trust, duty or allegiance. Yes, he exposed war crimes, corruption and abuse, but let’s not confuse national security with governmental impunity. Yes, the facts he disclosed empowered U.S. voters to take more informed decisions, but isn’t that simply democracy? Yes, there are ethical discussions to be had regarding the legitimacy of unredacted disclosures. But if actual harm had really been caused, how come neither Assange nor Wikileaks ever faced related criminal charges or civil lawsuits for just compensation?
But surely, I found myself pleading, Assange must be a selfish narcissist, skateboarding through the Ecuadorian Embassy and smearing feces on the walls? Well, all I heard from Embassy staff is that the inevitable inconveniences of his accommodation at their offices were handled with mutual respect and consideration. This changed only after the election of President Moreno, when they were suddenly instructed to find smears against Assange and, when they didn’t, they were soon replaced. The President even took it upon himself to bless the world with his gossip, and to personally strip Assange of his asylum and citizenship without any due process of law.
In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.
Very well, you may say, but what does slander have to do with torture? Well, this is a slippery slope. What may look like mere "mudslinging" in public debate, quickly becomes “mobbing” when used against the defenseless, and even “persecution” once the State is involved. Now just add purposefulness and severe suffering, and what you get is full-fledged psychological torture.
Yes, living in an Embassy with a cat and a skateboard may seem like a sweet deal when you believe the rest of the lies. But when no one remembers the reason for the hate you endure, when no one even wants to hear the truth, when neither the courts nor the media hold the powerful to account, then your refuge really is but a rubber boat in a shark-pool, and neither your cat nor your skateboard will save your life.
Even so, you may say, why spend so much breath on Assange, when countless others are tortured worldwide? Because this is not only about protecting Assange, but about preventing a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy. For once telling the truth has become a crime, while the powerful enjoy impunity, it will be too late to correct the course. We will have surrendered our voice to censorship and our fate to unrestrained tyranny.
This Op-Ed has been offered for publication to the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Canberra Times, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek.
None responded positively.
From Wikipedia:
Nils Melzer is a Swiss academic, author and practitioner in the field of international law. Since 1 November 2016, Melzer has been serving as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He is Professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow, and also holds the Human Rights Chair at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in Switzerland, where he has been teaching since 2009, including as the Swiss Chair of International Humanitarian Law (2011–2013).
Melzer has previously served for 12 years with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as Delegate, Deputy Head of Delegation and Legal Adviser in various zones of conflict and violence. After leaving the ICRC, Melzer held academic positions as Research Director of the Swiss Competence Centre on Human Rights (University of Zürich), as Senior Fellow and Senior Advisor on Emerging Security Challenges (Geneva Centre for Security Policy) and at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. He has also served as Senior Adviser for Security Policy at the Political Directorate of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
Melzer has written several books, including: Targeted Killing in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), the ICRC's Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities (ICRC, 2009) and the ICRC's Handbook International Humanitarian Law - a Comprehensive Introduction (ICRC, 2016). He is also a co-author of the NATO CCDCOE Tallinn Manual on the International Law applicable to Cyber Warfare (Cambridge, 2013), and of the NATO MCDC Policy Guidance: Autonomy in Defence Systems, (NATO ACT, 2014).
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Assange example a warning to Trump helpers
U.S. tips associate to expect spy charges against Assange https://netzpolitik.org/2019/wikileaks-the-us-is-indeed-investigating-assange-for-publishing-secret-information-doj-letter-suggests/#2018-03-07_US-DOJ-DDB-WikiLeaks-ENG
What is the real reason Julian Assange has been indicted on a false terrorism charge and is now facing Espionage Act charges, which carry long prison terms?
I suggest the real reason is a Deep State maneuver to exact payback on a publisher who assisted Donald Trump. The pretext is that by publishing a CIA document, the agency could claim he had endangered lives and must be stopped. I recall the so-called "secret" technology had previously appeared in the press. The only thing "secret" that was supposedly compromised was the fact that the agency was considering these technologies -- as if any adversary spy agency would have thought differently.
But this gave Mike Pompeo, then CIA chief, a cover to switch to the Deep State policy against Assange and join "the resistance" by condemning Assange and pressuring for his capture. (Pompeo seems a plausible candidate for the anonymous administration official who wrote in a New York Times piece about a covert "resistance" in the administration to undermine Trump.)
The Deep State, along with the vengeful Hillary Clinton, is extremely anxious to pay back Assange for his role in the defeat of the Deep State's candidate.
And President Trump has been cleverly boxed in with respect to Assange -- because if he were to urge that the prosecution be dropped based on the American belief in freedom of speech and press, the Democrats, the anti-Trump Republicans, and the U.S. corporate press -- which is a collective pet poodle of U.S. intelligence chiefs -- would manufacture a hysteria accusing Trump of obstructing justice in a collusive attempt to aid a Russian agent (the press would ignore the fact that Assange has never been proved to have been in Russia's employ).
The message the Deep State and the Democratic Party is anxious to deliver is that any journalist, or publisher, they consider too effective in aiding Trump's next presidential run is liable to face a nasty Deep State Justice Department assault. That is, Assange's arrest and imminent extradition are designed to intimidate any journalists who are considering being too helpful to Trump.
It is rather noteworthy that Espionage Act charges haven't been filed against top editors and reporters at The Intercept, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Times, which have all published top-secret information concerning the Obama administration's illegal spying on Americans that was dislcosed by Edward Snowden. (I seem to recall there was a newspaper or two in Germany that also published some of the data; under the U.S. theory of law foreign journalists other than Snowden could also be extradited to the United States to face charges for actions that might not be crimes in their home countries.)
But not to worry. By use of terrorism charges, the Deep State can still charge these journalists as such charges extend the statute of limitations on "illegal journalism." Yet, even though the CIA, NSA and British intelligence were furious about Snowden's expose, it is unlikely they will have people they consider their assets arrested.
I suggest the real reason is a Deep State maneuver to exact payback on a publisher who assisted Donald Trump. The pretext is that by publishing a CIA document, the agency could claim he had endangered lives and must be stopped. I recall the so-called "secret" technology had previously appeared in the press. The only thing "secret" that was supposedly compromised was the fact that the agency was considering these technologies -- as if any adversary spy agency would have thought differently.
But this gave Mike Pompeo, then CIA chief, a cover to switch to the Deep State policy against Assange and join "the resistance" by condemning Assange and pressuring for his capture. (Pompeo seems a plausible candidate for the anonymous administration official who wrote in a New York Times piece about a covert "resistance" in the administration to undermine Trump.)
The Deep State, along with the vengeful Hillary Clinton, is extremely anxious to pay back Assange for his role in the defeat of the Deep State's candidate.
And President Trump has been cleverly boxed in with respect to Assange -- because if he were to urge that the prosecution be dropped based on the American belief in freedom of speech and press, the Democrats, the anti-Trump Republicans, and the U.S. corporate press -- which is a collective pet poodle of U.S. intelligence chiefs -- would manufacture a hysteria accusing Trump of obstructing justice in a collusive attempt to aid a Russian agent (the press would ignore the fact that Assange has never been proved to have been in Russia's employ).
The message the Deep State and the Democratic Party is anxious to deliver is that any journalist, or publisher, they consider too effective in aiding Trump's next presidential run is liable to face a nasty Deep State Justice Department assault. That is, Assange's arrest and imminent extradition are designed to intimidate any journalists who are considering being too helpful to Trump.
It is rather noteworthy that Espionage Act charges haven't been filed against top editors and reporters at The Intercept, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Times, which have all published top-secret information concerning the Obama administration's illegal spying on Americans that was dislcosed by Edward Snowden. (I seem to recall there was a newspaper or two in Germany that also published some of the data; under the U.S. theory of law foreign journalists other than Snowden could also be extradited to the United States to face charges for actions that might not be crimes in their home countries.)
But not to worry. By use of terrorism charges, the Deep State can still charge these journalists as such charges extend the statute of limitations on "illegal journalism." Yet, even though the CIA, NSA and British intelligence were furious about Snowden's expose, it is unlikely they will have people they consider their assets arrested.
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
Rand Paul wants Assange immunized
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., favors granting Julian Assange immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on what he knows about "Russiagate," according to published reports.
The libertarian-leaning senator (pictured at left) told a reporter, “I think that he should be given immunity from prosecution in exchange for coming to the United States and testifying,” Paul said. “I think he’s been someone who has released a lot of information, and you can debate whether or not any of that has caused harm, but I think really he has information that is probably pertinent to the hacking of the Democratic emails that would be nice to hear.”
In August, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to Assange in care of the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he was living in asylum. The letter requests that Assange consent to a “closed interview with bipartisan Committee staff at a mutually agreeable time and location.”
Burr was hoping to find out whether Assange had any pertinent information related to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Assange has denied that WikiLeaks received any data from a state actor. He has been accused by officials of being a Russian agent, but no evidence to that effect has been presented, according to William Binney, a onetime National Security Agency whistleblower and expert on intelligence technology. Binney expressed grave doubt as to the claims against Assange when interviewed by Epoch Times, a widely distributed anti-Chinese communist newspaper.
Assange is being held in a terrorist lockup in Britain on a U.S. cyber-terrorism charge after his "overkill" arrest by British police at Ecuador's London embassy.
Press freedom advocates are likely to point out that the making of such a deal tends to give government an implicit oversight role in what free persons can publish, in direct conflict with the First Amendment.
Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul, a libertarian activist and retired lawmaker from Texas, who is denouncing Assange's arrest as a power play by the thought police.
Sources: Gateway Pundit, The New American.
The libertarian-leaning senator (pictured at left) told a reporter, “I think that he should be given immunity from prosecution in exchange for coming to the United States and testifying,” Paul said. “I think he’s been someone who has released a lot of information, and you can debate whether or not any of that has caused harm, but I think really he has information that is probably pertinent to the hacking of the Democratic emails that would be nice to hear.”In August, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to Assange in care of the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he was living in asylum. The letter requests that Assange consent to a “closed interview with bipartisan Committee staff at a mutually agreeable time and location.”
Burr was hoping to find out whether Assange had any pertinent information related to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Assange has denied that WikiLeaks received any data from a state actor. He has been accused by officials of being a Russian agent, but no evidence to that effect has been presented, according to William Binney, a onetime National Security Agency whistleblower and expert on intelligence technology. Binney expressed grave doubt as to the claims against Assange when interviewed by Epoch Times, a widely distributed anti-Chinese communist newspaper.
Assange is being held in a terrorist lockup in Britain on a U.S. cyber-terrorism charge after his "overkill" arrest by British police at Ecuador's London embassy.
Press freedom advocates are likely to point out that the making of such a deal tends to give government an implicit oversight role in what free persons can publish, in direct conflict with the First Amendment.
Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul, a libertarian activist and retired lawmaker from Texas, who is denouncing Assange's arrest as a power play by the thought police.
Sources: Gateway Pundit, The New American.
Friday, April 12, 2019
Vast blackout imposed
on bogus Assange
terrorism charge
Pence sees Aussie as guilty
of disseminating classified data
Most of the press is avoiding telling the public that Julian Assange had to be slapped with a shaky terrorism charge in order for the government to get past the five-year limit for filing of a computer intrusion charge.
The New York Times was among a handful of media outlets that did mention the terror charge. It did so in an "explainer" story, calling the charge an "oddity" -- while evidently being blind to the threat to media people everywhere of a precedent for using a trick terrorism charge in order to punish someone for publishing something. After all, what was the "act of terror"? It was the act of publishing, since quite obviously the feds would not have seen any "terrorism" if WikiLeaks hadn't published leaked documents.
The Times wrote, "There is an oddity: As part of the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress added [a] provision to a list of crimes that get an eight-year limit under a separate law titled 'extension of statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses.' While Mr. Assange’s case involves national security, it is not about terrorism. The 'terrorism' heading most likely makes no legal difference, however — just as prosecutors can use the words of the Espionage Act to charge leakers, not just spies."
Well, maybe the Times is right, but even so, why is there such a gigantic blackout on this pesky li'l fact?
Could it be that the Powers that Be fear the citizenry would laugh at the feds for accusing Assange of engaging in terrorism merely in order to have a legal gimmick for nailing him?
Right now, of course, the feds are unlikely to unseal an indictment against Dean Baquet, editor of The New York Times, for publishing something that upsets high officials. Only a few marginalized journalists will get slapped with terror indictmnents. But, the trickle is bound to turn into a gusher and in a few years no one will be surprised if an FBI swat team seizes Baquet at his home in the dead of night.
You think that's paranoid thinking? That proves you are altogether too trusting, and probably too lazy to take a hard look at the vast "Deep State" conspiracy to nullify the Number One American liberty: freedom of speech, press and religion.
U.S. prepares to add charges
In any case, the bogus terror charge may not matter. U.S. prosecutors have just under two months to present British authorities with a final and detailed criminal case to justify the possible extradition of Assange, an unnamed federal official told Reuters Friday.
So if the terror charge gets tossed out, thus ending the cyber intrusion case, other charges will be used to make sure to find some pretext to try Assange. The difficulty will be satisfying the British government that the charges are politically palatable in Britain.
The official, who asked for anonymity when discussing the case, said U.S. authorities had already sent Britain a provisional arrest warrant regarding Assange’s extradition to the United States.
U.S. officials have said that as far leaks go, the disclosure of details about the CIA's abilities to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare was potentially far more damaging to U.S. government activities than anything Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning made available to WikiLeaks, Reuters noted. Yet, many of the intelligence techniques mentioned in the CIA document had already appeared in the press. Hence, such disclosures would have done the agency little harm because adversaries would have assumed the CIA was at least aware of such techniques as soon as they showed up in the press, well before WikiLeaks got involved.
Pence spills the beans re media's peril
Friday on CNN Vice President Mike Pence said the United States was “going to bring Julian Assange to justice” for being "involved in disseminating classified information."
Pence denied that statements by President Trump, in which he praised WikiLeaks during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, were in any way “an endorsement of an organization that we now understand was involved in disseminating classified information.”
From Pence's statement, one can see immediately that news organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian, which have been "involved in disseminating classified information," are considered legitimate targets for federal prosecution.
The New York Times was among a handful of media outlets that did mention the terror charge. It did so in an "explainer" story, calling the charge an "oddity" -- while evidently being blind to the threat to media people everywhere of a precedent for using a trick terrorism charge in order to punish someone for publishing something. After all, what was the "act of terror"? It was the act of publishing, since quite obviously the feds would not have seen any "terrorism" if WikiLeaks hadn't published leaked documents.
The Times wrote, "There is an oddity: As part of the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress added [a] provision to a list of crimes that get an eight-year limit under a separate law titled 'extension of statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses.' While Mr. Assange’s case involves national security, it is not about terrorism. The 'terrorism' heading most likely makes no legal difference, however — just as prosecutors can use the words of the Espionage Act to charge leakers, not just spies."
Well, maybe the Times is right, but even so, why is there such a gigantic blackout on this pesky li'l fact?
Could it be that the Powers that Be fear the citizenry would laugh at the feds for accusing Assange of engaging in terrorism merely in order to have a legal gimmick for nailing him?
Right now, of course, the feds are unlikely to unseal an indictment against Dean Baquet, editor of The New York Times, for publishing something that upsets high officials. Only a few marginalized journalists will get slapped with terror indictmnents. But, the trickle is bound to turn into a gusher and in a few years no one will be surprised if an FBI swat team seizes Baquet at his home in the dead of night.
You think that's paranoid thinking? That proves you are altogether too trusting, and probably too lazy to take a hard look at the vast "Deep State" conspiracy to nullify the Number One American liberty: freedom of speech, press and religion.
U.S. prepares to add charges
In any case, the bogus terror charge may not matter. U.S. prosecutors have just under two months to present British authorities with a final and detailed criminal case to justify the possible extradition of Assange, an unnamed federal official told Reuters Friday.
So if the terror charge gets tossed out, thus ending the cyber intrusion case, other charges will be used to make sure to find some pretext to try Assange. The difficulty will be satisfying the British government that the charges are politically palatable in Britain.
The official, who asked for anonymity when discussing the case, said U.S. authorities had already sent Britain a provisional arrest warrant regarding Assange’s extradition to the United States.
U.S. officials have said that as far leaks go, the disclosure of details about the CIA's abilities to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare was potentially far more damaging to U.S. government activities than anything Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning made available to WikiLeaks, Reuters noted. Yet, many of the intelligence techniques mentioned in the CIA document had already appeared in the press. Hence, such disclosures would have done the agency little harm because adversaries would have assumed the CIA was at least aware of such techniques as soon as they showed up in the press, well before WikiLeaks got involved.
Pence spills the beans re media's peril
Friday on CNN Vice President Mike Pence said the United States was “going to bring Julian Assange to justice” for being "involved in disseminating classified information."
Pence denied that statements by President Trump, in which he praised WikiLeaks during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, were in any way “an endorsement of an organization that we now understand was involved in disseminating classified information.”
From Pence's statement, one can see immediately that news organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian, which have been "involved in disseminating classified information," are considered legitimate targets for federal prosecution.
Sunday, May 5, 2019
Assange detractor hid her State Dept. role
The author of a Washington Post opinion piece condemning Julian Assange as a Russian agent has been exposed by an alert reader for concealing her role as a State Department operative.
Allison Stanger, who penned the April 28 piece “Assange: Not a whistleblower, not a journalist,” was identified by The Washington Post as a "professor of international politics and economics at Middlebury College and the author of 'Whistleblowers: Honesty in America from Washington to Trump'."
Lew Kingsbury wrote the Press Herald in Portland, Maine, that Stanger had neglected to mention to her readers her position as a State Department adviser under Secretary Hillary Clinton. As Stanger's Middlebury faculty page says, she has served as an adviser to "the Secretary’s Policy Planning Staff, US Department of State and was on the writing team that produced the State Department’s December 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review."
Kingsbury of Nobleboro, Maine, declared, "This overlooked tidbit obscures Stanger’s position at the State Department under Barack Obama’s Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s Mike Pompeo. To expect anything but a regurgitation of State Department sloganeering and rhetoric is unconscionable."
In addition, one may observe that Stanger is not a professional journalist, though she nevertheless has the First Amendment right to try to abridge the First Amendment right of others.
Stanger tries to make the case that Assange is really a Russian agent, but her method of insinuation is no better than the method used by Clinton and her allies to claim that Donald Trump is a Russian agent.
Also, Stanger's professionalism must be questioned because she never revealed to her readers that Assange has been charged with terrorism -- a ridiculous idea -- in order for prosecutors to evade the statute of limitations. The media in general have avoided mention of the charge, evidently because most Americans would see it as a trick to "get" a political target.
Stanger's hit job
https://www.usposts.net/2019/04/assange-not-a-whistleblower-not-a-journalist/
Assange rights backed on Press Freedom Day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGWhRCXg9Fw
Allison Stanger, who penned the April 28 piece “Assange: Not a whistleblower, not a journalist,” was identified by The Washington Post as a "professor of international politics and economics at Middlebury College and the author of 'Whistleblowers: Honesty in America from Washington to Trump'."
Lew Kingsbury wrote the Press Herald in Portland, Maine, that Stanger had neglected to mention to her readers her position as a State Department adviser under Secretary Hillary Clinton. As Stanger's Middlebury faculty page says, she has served as an adviser to "the Secretary’s Policy Planning Staff, US Department of State and was on the writing team that produced the State Department’s December 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review."
Kingsbury of Nobleboro, Maine, declared, "This overlooked tidbit obscures Stanger’s position at the State Department under Barack Obama’s Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s Mike Pompeo. To expect anything but a regurgitation of State Department sloganeering and rhetoric is unconscionable."
In addition, one may observe that Stanger is not a professional journalist, though she nevertheless has the First Amendment right to try to abridge the First Amendment right of others.
Stanger tries to make the case that Assange is really a Russian agent, but her method of insinuation is no better than the method used by Clinton and her allies to claim that Donald Trump is a Russian agent.
Also, Stanger's professionalism must be questioned because she never revealed to her readers that Assange has been charged with terrorism -- a ridiculous idea -- in order for prosecutors to evade the statute of limitations. The media in general have avoided mention of the charge, evidently because most Americans would see it as a trick to "get" a political target.
Stanger's hit job
https://www.usposts.net/2019/04/assange-not-a-whistleblower-not-a-journalist/
Assange rights backed on Press Freedom Day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGWhRCXg9Fw
Friday, May 10, 2019
WikiLeaks record of achievement
How WikiLeaks changed the world
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/09/the-revelations-of-wikileaks-no-2-the-leak-that-exposed-the-true-afghan-war/
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/09/the-revelations-of-wikileaks-no-2-the-leak-that-exposed-the-true-afghan-war/
With the "Revelations of WikiLeaks: No. 2 —The Leak That ‘Exposed the True Afghan War," Elizabeth Vos reminds us of the sort of information that the United States was suppressing in the very long-running Afghan war -- the one that some generals concede lacks a military solution.
In a lead-in to the Vos piece, Consortium News recalls that WikiLeaks' "Afghan Diaries set off a firestorm when it revealed the suppression of civilian casualty figures, the existence of an elite U.S.-led death squad, and the covert role of Pakistan in the conflict."
Consortium News tells us,
Assange reported grilled by U.S. agents
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/05/karen-kwiatkowski/pray-and-weep/
Karen Kwiatkowski, on Lew Rockwell's website, does not identify her sources, who also tell her that he is being doped with the horror drug BZ, which renders victims into basket cases. Kwiatkowski sees CIA chief Gina Haspel's hand at work, dubbing her "Chemical Gina." Kwiatkowski's background includes Air Force lieutenant colonel with a PhD. I know little about her accuracy. I certainly hope Assange is not being drugged, but, by the United States designating the publisher as a terrorist, the anti-WikiLeaks May government may believe that it is permitted to use "special" methods against a terrorist captive.
If it is true that Assange is being questioned by U.S. agents -- presumably without his lawyer present, something I suppose that can be rationalized when confronting "terrorists" -- his U.S. defense team may be able to argue that Assange's right to remain silent before and during any U.S. trial was abridged by U.S. officials under shelter of British terrorism policy.
WikiLeaks docs vanish from Google user
Several years ago I made a point of publishing a number of WikiLeaks documents verbatim on my blog. Not only was their news value of some importance, but I also wanted to make a point of resisting Big Government's attempts to intimidate Americans against publishing or even reading "stolen" official information (who owns a democracy's governmental information, anyway?).
I have been locked out of the Blogger account that published those documents for quite a while now. Yet, in a number of instances I have been able to recover old material lost in the cloud with careful Google searches. Not so the posts that included the WikiLeaks documents. All vanished.
You may wish to search with the terms "Paul Conant", "Znewz1", "Blogger" and "WikiLeaks." I get zip once I add "WikiLeaks" to the search string.
In a lead-in to the Vos piece, Consortium News recalls that WikiLeaks' "Afghan Diaries set off a firestorm when it revealed the suppression of civilian casualty figures, the existence of an elite U.S.-led death squad, and the covert role of Pakistan in the conflict."
Consortium News tells us,
This is the second article in a series that is looking back on the major works of the publication that has altered the world since its founding in 2006. The series is an effort to counter mainstream media coverage, which is ignoring WikiLeaks’ work, and is instead focusing on Julian Assange’s personality. It is WikiLeaks’ uncovering of governments’ crimes and corruption that set the U.S. after Assange and which ultimately led to his arrest on April 11.
Assange reported grilled by U.S. agents
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/05/karen-kwiatkowski/pray-and-weep/
Karen Kwiatkowski, on Lew Rockwell's website, does not identify her sources, who also tell her that he is being doped with the horror drug BZ, which renders victims into basket cases. Kwiatkowski sees CIA chief Gina Haspel's hand at work, dubbing her "Chemical Gina." Kwiatkowski's background includes Air Force lieutenant colonel with a PhD. I know little about her accuracy. I certainly hope Assange is not being drugged, but, by the United States designating the publisher as a terrorist, the anti-WikiLeaks May government may believe that it is permitted to use "special" methods against a terrorist captive.
If it is true that Assange is being questioned by U.S. agents -- presumably without his lawyer present, something I suppose that can be rationalized when confronting "terrorists" -- his U.S. defense team may be able to argue that Assange's right to remain silent before and during any U.S. trial was abridged by U.S. officials under shelter of British terrorism policy.
WikiLeaks docs vanish from Google user
Several years ago I made a point of publishing a number of WikiLeaks documents verbatim on my blog. Not only was their news value of some importance, but I also wanted to make a point of resisting Big Government's attempts to intimidate Americans against publishing or even reading "stolen" official information (who owns a democracy's governmental information, anyway?).
I have been locked out of the Blogger account that published those documents for quite a while now. Yet, in a number of instances I have been able to recover old material lost in the cloud with careful Google searches. Not so the posts that included the WikiLeaks documents. All vanished.
You may wish to search with the terms "Paul Conant", "Znewz1", "Blogger" and "WikiLeaks." I get zip once I add "WikiLeaks" to the search string.
Thursday, May 2, 2019
Assange punished for ducking unjust prosecution
Why did Assange skip bail seven years ago? To avoid being extradited to Sweden, supposedly to be questioned by police but really to be extradited to the United States, which intended to punish him harshly. But the U.S. kept its actions pretty much under wraps, although a U.S. diplomat did speak up to interfere in the sex case against Assange, making clear the U.S. wanted Swedish prosecutors to pursue sex charges. (It turns out that the more serious sex charge is unprovable -- no semen, no DNA, which should have been on the condom he was reputed to have deliberately split.)
Now we find he is facing extradition on a bogus terrorism charge, with the high probability of draconian Espionage Act charges added once he arrives in the U.S.
What does this show? It shows that he acted in a responsible way when he protected himself from harsh U.S. vengeance by skipping bail and taking refuge in the Ecuadoran embassy. There is a phrase lawyers sometimes use when a client does something illegal when there is seemingly no choice: "The only game in town." What else could he have done?
Hence, in light of these mitigating circumstances, 50 weeks in jail is outrageously unfair. Assange, when he fled authorities, was a publisher facing terrible retribution for publishing official secrets, something that the British government forbids but that the American government may not meddle in despite its determination to do so.
Assange's personality is irrelevant. Whether or not he is a narcissist has nothing to do with anything. Of course the system wants to demonize him ad hominem. That's because its case is so weak. The strategy is to undermine him so severely that it can get away with behaving unjustly toward one of the tribunes of the people.
Now we find he is facing extradition on a bogus terrorism charge, with the high probability of draconian Espionage Act charges added once he arrives in the U.S.
What does this show? It shows that he acted in a responsible way when he protected himself from harsh U.S. vengeance by skipping bail and taking refuge in the Ecuadoran embassy. There is a phrase lawyers sometimes use when a client does something illegal when there is seemingly no choice: "The only game in town." What else could he have done?
Hence, in light of these mitigating circumstances, 50 weeks in jail is outrageously unfair. Assange, when he fled authorities, was a publisher facing terrible retribution for publishing official secrets, something that the British government forbids but that the American government may not meddle in despite its determination to do so.
Assange's personality is irrelevant. Whether or not he is a narcissist has nothing to do with anything. Of course the system wants to demonize him ad hominem. That's because its case is so weak. The strategy is to undermine him so severely that it can get away with behaving unjustly toward one of the tribunes of the people.
Friday, April 19, 2019
Mueller's credibility at issue in DNC murder case
The special counsel's report asserts that Julian Assange was shielding his purported Russian military intelligence sources when he said that a murdered Democratic National Committee staff member, Seth Rich, had been the source of leaked DNC emails.
Three points:
1. Special Counsel Robert Mueller shielded purported GRU agents from arrest and prosecution by blowing the lid off the "Russiagate" investigation, when he could easily have sought a sealed indictment of the 12 Russians. (See previous post.)
2. As FBI director, Mueller was part of a massive coverup of the true circumstances of the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax case.
Hence, anything Mueller has to say should be taken with a grain or ten of salt. Whether Rich did transfer pilfered files is, in my estimate, still unknown.
3. Assange is on record as a 9/11 conspiracy denier, which is ex-KGB officer Valdimir Putin's position, as well as ex-FBI chief Mueller's.
In July 2010, Assange told a Belfast Telegraph reporter, Matthew Bell, that the claim that the 9/11 attacks were organized as an inside job was a "crazed" and "false" conspiracy theory.
"I believe in facts about conspiracies," he said, adding, "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news."
What about 9/11? Bell asked. "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracy theories such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."
It is noteworthy that Russian strongman Vladimir Putin has also denied that the 9/11 attacks stemmed from an inside job. According to a June 2017 report, Oliver Stone and Vladimir Putin discussed the attacks during a series of interviews which aired in the United States.
In a discussion of Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, Putin commented that he didn't believe that U.S. operatives had manipulated Snowden into Russian exile in order to brand him a traitor. "Nor do I believe that the American intelligence services were the ones to organize the terrorist attacks in New York.”
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Putin made common cause with President George Bush in the global "war on terror." The United States stopped protesting Putin's war against the Chechnyan Muslims.
In November 2009, Wikileaks released half a million federal text pager intercepts covering a 24-hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001, attacks. But such data is unlikely to have plainly exposed a high-level Deep State/intelligence system conspiracy. The fact that WikiLeaks was only able to publish a token of 9/11 data makes it appear that the Assange organization might have been covering itself from suspicion with regard to 9/11 coverup. Obviously, suspicion is far from proof.
9/11 pager intercepts
http://911.wikileaks.org/
Assange's 9/11 denialism not only dovetails with Mueller's coverup as FBI chief, it conforms to Putin's public position. It is not evident whether Putin's position is solely for foreign policy reasons or whether the ex-KGB officer is protecting a Russian operation within U.S. intelligence.
Former Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the congressional 9/11 investigation, told the BBC that "I can just state that within '9/11' there are too many secrets; that is, information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible credible answers and that that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security."
Narrator: "Senator Graham found that the coverup led to the heart of the administration."
Graham: "I called the White House and talked with Ms. [National Security Adviser Condoleeza] Rice and said: 'Look, we've been told we're gonna get cooperation in this inquiry and she said she'd look into it and nothing happened'."
Interviewer: "Was there any sort of sense of embarrassment or apology or...?"
Graham: "No. Embarrassment, apology, regret, those are not characteristics associated with the current [Bush] White House."
Interviewer: "So it was a conspiracy to cover up the fact that blunders had been made in the lead-up to 9/11?"
Graham: "If by conspiracy you mean, more than one person involved, yes, there was more than one person and there was some ... collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public's hands."
In 2009, 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey said, in a talk with "We Are Change LA," that the 9/11 commission was hindered from doing a good job.
Kerrey says 9/11 Commission was hinderedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtJWBcWAeAw#t=6m45
Kerrey: "It's a problem... it's a 30-year-old conspiracy"
Jeremy Rothe-Kushel: "No.. I'm talking about 9/11"
Kerrey: "That's what I'm talking about."
Excellent summary of WikiLeaks exposes
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/18/asre-a18.html
To repeat, I will acknowledge material from the right and the left, and even the center, if it is meritorious.
9/11 Blogger is among sources for this post.
Three points:
1. Special Counsel Robert Mueller shielded purported GRU agents from arrest and prosecution by blowing the lid off the "Russiagate" investigation, when he could easily have sought a sealed indictment of the 12 Russians. (See previous post.)
2. As FBI director, Mueller was part of a massive coverup of the true circumstances of the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax case.
Hence, anything Mueller has to say should be taken with a grain or ten of salt. Whether Rich did transfer pilfered files is, in my estimate, still unknown.
3. Assange is on record as a 9/11 conspiracy denier, which is ex-KGB officer Valdimir Putin's position, as well as ex-FBI chief Mueller's.
In July 2010, Assange told a Belfast Telegraph reporter, Matthew Bell, that the claim that the 9/11 attacks were organized as an inside job was a "crazed" and "false" conspiracy theory.
"I believe in facts about conspiracies," he said, adding, "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news."
What about 9/11? Bell asked. "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracy theories such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."
It is noteworthy that Russian strongman Vladimir Putin has also denied that the 9/11 attacks stemmed from an inside job. According to a June 2017 report, Oliver Stone and Vladimir Putin discussed the attacks during a series of interviews which aired in the United States.
In a discussion of Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, Putin commented that he didn't believe that U.S. operatives had manipulated Snowden into Russian exile in order to brand him a traitor. "Nor do I believe that the American intelligence services were the ones to organize the terrorist attacks in New York.”
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Putin made common cause with President George Bush in the global "war on terror." The United States stopped protesting Putin's war against the Chechnyan Muslims.
In November 2009, Wikileaks released half a million federal text pager intercepts covering a 24-hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001, attacks. But such data is unlikely to have plainly exposed a high-level Deep State/intelligence system conspiracy. The fact that WikiLeaks was only able to publish a token of 9/11 data makes it appear that the Assange organization might have been covering itself from suspicion with regard to 9/11 coverup. Obviously, suspicion is far from proof.
9/11 pager intercepts
http://911.wikileaks.org/
Assange's 9/11 denialism not only dovetails with Mueller's coverup as FBI chief, it conforms to Putin's public position. It is not evident whether Putin's position is solely for foreign policy reasons or whether the ex-KGB officer is protecting a Russian operation within U.S. intelligence.
Former Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the congressional 9/11 investigation, told the BBC that "I can just state that within '9/11' there are too many secrets; that is, information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible credible answers and that that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security."
Narrator: "Senator Graham found that the coverup led to the heart of the administration."
Graham: "I called the White House and talked with Ms. [National Security Adviser Condoleeza] Rice and said: 'Look, we've been told we're gonna get cooperation in this inquiry and she said she'd look into it and nothing happened'."
Interviewer: "Was there any sort of sense of embarrassment or apology or...?"
Graham: "No. Embarrassment, apology, regret, those are not characteristics associated with the current [Bush] White House."
Interviewer: "So it was a conspiracy to cover up the fact that blunders had been made in the lead-up to 9/11?"
Graham: "If by conspiracy you mean, more than one person involved, yes, there was more than one person and there was some ... collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public's hands."
In 2009, 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey said, in a talk with "We Are Change LA," that the 9/11 commission was hindered from doing a good job.
Kerrey says 9/11 Commission was hinderedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtJWBcWAeAw#t=6m45
Kerrey: "It's a problem... it's a 30-year-old conspiracy"
Jeremy Rothe-Kushel: "No.. I'm talking about 9/11"
Kerrey: "That's what I'm talking about."
Excellent summary of WikiLeaks exposes
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/18/asre-a18.html
To repeat, I will acknowledge material from the right and the left, and even the center, if it is meritorious.
9/11 Blogger is among sources for this post.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Ron Paul: Big Lie system targets Assange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8pO8rGwA6U
Ron Paul
From The Ron Paul Liberty Report:
www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/
Big Government lives on the public believing in Big Lies. The lies are all meticulously maintained by a gargantuan propaganda apparatus that encompasses government schools, government-licensed mainstream media, Hollywood, major sports, and on and on...From time-to-time heroic individuals slip through the cracks and alert the public about the truth. Needless to say, Big Government and its propaganda apparatus never takes it well.Streamed LIVE Apr. 5, 2019
Ron Paul, still an active libertarian after retirement from Congress, compared the case of Julian Assange to that of Galileo Galilei. Truth tellers who challenge entrenched systems of falsehoods and bad information will be attacked by the military-financial empire that is strangling American liberty, he said. The government repeatedly lies the country into war, resulting in large numbers of deaths, Paul said.
He praised Chelsea Manning for releasing secret information that showed the dark side of the war in Iraq, and for going back to jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury empaneled against Assange.
Paul argued that Assange was being hounded by authorities because of publishing truthful information, that enlightened many people. "I believe he was a true journalist," Paul said, countering the propaganda blitz that is aimed at decertifying Assange's journalistic status with the unspoken assumption that his media operations are not corporate and so not "legitimate."
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Origins of Russia probe 'should be' investigated
'Garbage' Steele dossier
had CIA's fingerprints,
says Post's Woodward
Lack of payoffs weakens obstruction notion, journalist believes
The Washington Post's Bob Woodward said Sunday he had recently learned that the "garbage" Trump dossier appeared in an early draft of a U.S. intelligence assessment on suspected Russian election interference. Woodward also said that the material disclosed in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report was "disturbing" but came nowhere near the Watergate scandal in wrongdoing.
Woodward, who has had contacts with the CIA since his days exposing the Watergate scandal, saw such an action as "surprising" and told a Fox television audience that the origins of the investigation against Trump "should be" investigated.
As far as potential obstruction of justice, Woodward observed that no money was paid out with that aim in mind, as opposed to the criminal payoffs by President Richard M. Nixon's White House.
During a discussion on "Fox News Sunday," Woodward declared that he thought the inclusion of the Steele dossier occurred at the behest of the Central Intelligence Agency, but it was ultimately taken out after being reviewed by intelligence experts.
"What I found out recently, which was really quite surprising, the dossier, which really has got a lot of garbage in it and Mueller found that to be the case, early in building the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference in an early draft, they actually put the dossier on page two in kind of a breakout box," Woodward said.
"I think it was the CIA pushing this," he added. "Real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out. But in this process the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments as Mueller also found out is highly questionable. Needs to be investigated."
As the Washington Examiner notes, Woodward's suggestion that the CIA was pushing for the inclusion of the dossier in the intelligence assessment comes nearly a month after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he was told former CIA Director John Brennan "insisted" the dossier be included in the report. "BREAKING: A high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report ... Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP," Paul tweeted.
The Examiner observed that Woodward also wrote about Brennan's endorsement of the dossier in his book Fear: Trump in the White House. “The sources that Steele used for his dossier had not been polygraphed, which made their information uncorroborated, and potentially suspect,” Woodward wrote in the book published last year. “But Brennan said the information was in line with their own sources, in which he had great confidence.” A spokesman for Brennan insisted he never trusted the dossier, telling the Associated Press, “because it wasn’t corroborated intel."
The declassified January 2017 report determined that Russia had ordered an "influence campaign" to help Trump get elected in 2016. There is no mention of the dossier, compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele, which contained salacious and unverified claims about Trump's ties to Russia. It was used by the FBI to obtain a series of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrants to wiretap Carter Page, at the time a Trump campaign adviser.
The Examiner points out that now that Mueller has concluded his investigation into Russian meddling, finding no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, allies of the president are eagerly anticipating the findings of several investigations looking into possible government surveillance abuse against Trump. Among them are investigations being conducted by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Attorney General William Barr, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump, served as CIA director from 2013 to Jan. 20, 2017, the day of Trump's inauguration.
The intelligence chief turned television analyst has admitted that as a young man he was a Communist sympathizer.
The use of the national security apparatus to go after journalists who have helped Trump is one of the more shocking aspects of "Russiagate." For example, Jerome Corsi, a septuagenarian conservative journalist, was roped in by the Mueller probe. After Corsi's associate, Alex Jones, was delegitimized by the System, Corsi was, he said, threatened by the Mueller team. Corsi said the feds tried to force him to lie and implicate Trump in Russia collusion.
Another journalist and political adviser, Roger Stone, was indicted at Mueller's direction for perjury before Congress. No one in the Justice Department has charged James Clapper, who lied to Congress as an intelligence chief before Edward Snowden's whistleblowing blew President Barack Obama's abuse of national security authority out of the water.
The current maneuver to snare Julian Assange ties in to Mueller's accusation, as reflected by the intelligence system, that Assange was assisting the Russians, and to Hillary Clinton's desire that the unconventional publisher should "answer for what he has done." Even so, no proof or strong evidence has been presented against Assange.
Mueller reported that Trump, in the heat of a tough campaign, was eager to get his hands on the 30,000 missing Clinton emails. Several intelligence chiefs have said they were convinced that the Russians had downloaded all the secretary of state's emails that had been held on her private server before she ordered them destroyed, because her computer security was poor and because one of her close confidants, Sidney Blumenthal, had had his emails hacked.
Yet, if the Russians obtained the missing emails, they evidently did not pass them along to WikiLeaks, which in turn did not publish them. Now, had Trump and Assange really been colluding with the Kremlin, one would think the Kremlin would have handed off the missing emails to Assange during the presidential campaign. Obviously, it is possible Russian hackers failed to pirate Clinton's emails. But, considering her position as secretary of state, it doesn't seem likely that either Russians or other intelligence agency hackers weren't prowling about, ready to pounce.
Woodward, who has had contacts with the CIA since his days exposing the Watergate scandal, saw such an action as "surprising" and told a Fox television audience that the origins of the investigation against Trump "should be" investigated.
As far as potential obstruction of justice, Woodward observed that no money was paid out with that aim in mind, as opposed to the criminal payoffs by President Richard M. Nixon's White House.
During a discussion on "Fox News Sunday," Woodward declared that he thought the inclusion of the Steele dossier occurred at the behest of the Central Intelligence Agency, but it was ultimately taken out after being reviewed by intelligence experts.
"What I found out recently, which was really quite surprising, the dossier, which really has got a lot of garbage in it and Mueller found that to be the case, early in building the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference in an early draft, they actually put the dossier on page two in kind of a breakout box," Woodward said.
"I think it was the CIA pushing this," he added. "Real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out. But in this process the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments as Mueller also found out is highly questionable. Needs to be investigated."
As the Washington Examiner notes, Woodward's suggestion that the CIA was pushing for the inclusion of the dossier in the intelligence assessment comes nearly a month after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he was told former CIA Director John Brennan "insisted" the dossier be included in the report. "BREAKING: A high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report ... Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP," Paul tweeted.
The Examiner observed that Woodward also wrote about Brennan's endorsement of the dossier in his book Fear: Trump in the White House. “The sources that Steele used for his dossier had not been polygraphed, which made their information uncorroborated, and potentially suspect,” Woodward wrote in the book published last year. “But Brennan said the information was in line with their own sources, in which he had great confidence.” A spokesman for Brennan insisted he never trusted the dossier, telling the Associated Press, “because it wasn’t corroborated intel."
The declassified January 2017 report determined that Russia had ordered an "influence campaign" to help Trump get elected in 2016. There is no mention of the dossier, compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele, which contained salacious and unverified claims about Trump's ties to Russia. It was used by the FBI to obtain a series of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrants to wiretap Carter Page, at the time a Trump campaign adviser.
The Examiner points out that now that Mueller has concluded his investigation into Russian meddling, finding no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, allies of the president are eagerly anticipating the findings of several investigations looking into possible government surveillance abuse against Trump. Among them are investigations being conducted by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Attorney General William Barr, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump, served as CIA director from 2013 to Jan. 20, 2017, the day of Trump's inauguration.
The intelligence chief turned television analyst has admitted that as a young man he was a Communist sympathizer.
The use of the national security apparatus to go after journalists who have helped Trump is one of the more shocking aspects of "Russiagate." For example, Jerome Corsi, a septuagenarian conservative journalist, was roped in by the Mueller probe. After Corsi's associate, Alex Jones, was delegitimized by the System, Corsi was, he said, threatened by the Mueller team. Corsi said the feds tried to force him to lie and implicate Trump in Russia collusion.
Another journalist and political adviser, Roger Stone, was indicted at Mueller's direction for perjury before Congress. No one in the Justice Department has charged James Clapper, who lied to Congress as an intelligence chief before Edward Snowden's whistleblowing blew President Barack Obama's abuse of national security authority out of the water.
The current maneuver to snare Julian Assange ties in to Mueller's accusation, as reflected by the intelligence system, that Assange was assisting the Russians, and to Hillary Clinton's desire that the unconventional publisher should "answer for what he has done." Even so, no proof or strong evidence has been presented against Assange.
Mueller reported that Trump, in the heat of a tough campaign, was eager to get his hands on the 30,000 missing Clinton emails. Several intelligence chiefs have said they were convinced that the Russians had downloaded all the secretary of state's emails that had been held on her private server before she ordered them destroyed, because her computer security was poor and because one of her close confidants, Sidney Blumenthal, had had his emails hacked.
Yet, if the Russians obtained the missing emails, they evidently did not pass them along to WikiLeaks, which in turn did not publish them. Now, had Trump and Assange really been colluding with the Kremlin, one would think the Kremlin would have handed off the missing emails to Assange during the presidential campaign. Obviously, it is possible Russian hackers failed to pirate Clinton's emails. But, considering her position as secretary of state, it doesn't seem likely that either Russians or other intelligence agency hackers weren't prowling about, ready to pounce.
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
Assange sex charges followed Pentagon manhunt
https://blackagendareport.com/pentagon-manhunt-julian-assange-preceded-swedish-rape-allegations
Story by Ann Garrison of Black Agenda Report, May 1, 2019
Chomsky rips 'scandalous' anti-Assange conspiracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYdDp4mHDRY
'We have to silence this voice' of the 'political prisoner' Assange.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Galloway blasts media on Assange
Calls press vile, loathsome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S28z9Da8Gz4
Julian Assange, left, facing a U.S. 'terror' charge, and George Galloway, former Labor Party member of Parliament
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Write Assange at Belmarsh
Julian Assange DOB 3rd July 1971 HMP Belmarsh Prison Western Way London, SE28 0EB
You must put your name and address on the back; otherwise authorities won’t let him have the letter. You cannot send postcards and he is not allowed newspapers or magazines. Remember that all incoming and outgoing mail is read and it may take some time for you to get a reply.
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Report: Mueller let Dems blind his probers
Robert Mueller's investigation into the potential of Russian election meddling accepted the censoring of records by a Democratic Party contractor, CrowdStrike, along with redactions imposed by the Democratic Party's legal counsel -- meaning CrowdStrike and not the special counsel decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
This, according to RealClear Investigations,
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html
which found a litany of oddities in Mueller's report, including these points:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html
which found a litany of oddities in Mueller's report, including these points:
The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking. Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
Monday, April 29, 2019
Sex case against Assange badly flawed
https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.globalresearch.ca/where-swedish-warrant/5676006&ct=ga&cd=CAEYISoUMTIxMTE1MTgwMTE2NzM0NTE2MjYyGjg4NDY1OTdlZDllOGQwNjA6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNGbf0-0Cmsv8Zhk0FwedU7bgRuqIQ
Craig Murray writes in Global Research:
In the case of the allegation in Sweden that did fall through the statute of limitation, the accusation was that during the act of consensual sex Julian Assange deliberately split the condom with his fingers, without consent. I quite agree that if true, it would amount to sexual assault. But the split condom given to Swedish police as evidence had none of Assange’s DNA on it – a physical impossibility if he had worn it during sex. And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA. So tell me again – we must always believe the accuser?
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment