Global Research

Opponents of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange often hold up Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg as an example of someone who was responsible for a good leak. They insist WikiLeaks is not like the Pentagon Papers because supposedly Assange was reckless with sensitive documents.

On the seventh day of an extradition trial against Assange, Ellsberg dismantled this false narrative and outlined for a British magistrate court why Assange would not receive a fair trial in the United States.

Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that, as alleged in the indictment, is written like an Espionage Act offense.

The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government. It targets common practices in news gathering, which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world.

James Lewis, a prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service who represents the U.S. government, told Ellsberg,

“When you published the Pentagon Papers, you were very careful in what you provided to the media.”

The lead prosecutor highlighted the fact that Ellsberg withheld four volumes of the Pentagon Papers that he did not want published because they may have impacted diplomatic efforts to end the Vietnam War. However, Ellsberg’s decision to withhold those volumes had nothing to do with protecting the names of U.S. intelligence sources.

As Ellsberg described for the court, the 4,000 pages of documents he disclosed to the media contained thousands of names of Americans, Vietnamese, and North Vietnamese. There was even a clandestine CIA officer, who was named.

Nowhere in the Pentagon Papers was an “adequate justification for the killing that we were doing,” Ellsberg said. “I was afraid if I redacted or withheld anything at all it would be inferred I left out” the good reasons why the U.S. was pursuing the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg was concerned about revealing the name of a clandestine CIA officer, though he mentioned the individual was well-known in South Vietnam. Had he published the name of the officer today, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act could have easily been used to prosecute him. But he left it in the documents so no one could make inferences about redacted sections that may undermine what he exposed.

Like Assange, Ellsberg wanted the public to have a complete record.

This did not exactly distinguish Ellsberg from Assange so Lewis explicitly highlighted an article, “Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike The Pentagon Papers,” by attorney Floyd Abrams, which he wrote for the Wall Street Journal.

Abrams was one of the attorneys who represented the New York Times in the civil case that argued the government should not be able to block the media organization from publishing the Pentagon Papers. And like Lewis, Abrams fixated on the four volumes that were kept confidential.

Ellsberg insisted Abrams was “mistaken.” He never had any discussion with Ellsberg while defending the right to publish before the Supreme Court so Ellsberg said Abrams could not possibly understand his motives very well.

In the decades since the Pentagon Papers were disclosed, Ellsberg shared how he faced a “great deal” of defamation and then “neglect” to someone who was mentioned as a “clear patriot.” He was used as a “foil” against new revelations from WikiLeaks, “which were supposedly very different.” Such a distinction is “misleading in terms of motive and effect.”

Ellsberg noted Assange withheld 15,000 files from the release of the Afghanistan War Logs. He also requested assistance from the State Department and the Defense Department on redacting names, but they refused to help WikiLeaks redact a single document, even though it is a standard journalistic practice to consult officials to minimize harm.

“I have no doubt that Julian would have removed those names,” Ellsberg declared. Both the State and Defense Departments could have helped WikiLeaks remove the names of individuals, who prosecutors insist were negatively impacted.

Yet, rather than take steps to protect individuals, Ellsberg suggested these government agencies chose to “preserve the possibility of charging Mr Assange with precisely the charges” he faces now.

Not a single person has been identified by the U.S. government when they talk about deaths, physical harm, or incarceration that were linked to the WikiLeaks publications.

The lead prosecutor asked Ellsberg if it was his view that any harm to individuals was the fault of the American government for letting Assange publish material without redactions.

Ellsberg indicated they bear “heavy responsibility.”

Lewis attempted to trap Ellsberg into conceding Assange had engaged in conduct that resulted in grave harm to vulnerable individuals. He read multiple sections of an affidavit from Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, who is in the Eastern District of Virginia where Assange was indicted.

It covered a laundry list of allegations: they named local Afghans and Iraqis that were providing information to coalition forces, forced journalists and religious leaders to flee, led to harassment of Chinese academics labeled as “rats,” fueled violent threats against people who met with U.S. embassy staff, resulted in Iranians being identified and outed, and spurred violence by the Taliban.

“How can you say honestly and in an unbiased way that there is no evidence that WikiLeaks put anyone in danger?” Lewis asked.

Ellsberg told Lewis he found the government’s assertions to be “highly cynical.” He invited Lewis to correct him if he was wrong, but it is his understanding that no one actually suffered harm as a result of these threats. “Did one of them suffer the carrying out of these threats?”

Lewis replied the rules are you don’t get to ask the questions. He tried to move on as Ellsberg insisted he be allowed to provide the rest of his answer, but Judge Vanessa Baraitser would not let Ellsberg complete his response.

It deeply upset Assange, who spoke from inside the glass box where he sits each day. Baraitser reminded him not to interrupt proceedings as Edward Fitzgerald, a defense attorney, attempted to convince the court that Ellsberg should be able to finish his answer.

Lewis continued,

“Is it your position there was absolutely no danger caused by publishing the unredacted names of these informants?”

In response, Ellsberg said the U.S. government is “extremely cynical in pretending its concerned for these people.” It has displayed “contempt for Middle Easterners” throughout the last 19 years.

As Lewis insisted one had to conclude Iraqis, Afghans, or Syrians named in the WikiLeaks publications were murdered or forced to flee, Ellsberg refused to accept this presumption.

“I’m sorry, sir, but it doesn’t seem to be at all obvious that this small fraction of people that have been murdered in the course of both sides of conflicts can be attributed to WikiLeaks disclosures,” Ellsberg stated.

If the Taliban had disappeared someone, Ellsberg said that would be a seriously harmful consequence. “I am not aware of one single instance in the last 10 years.”

At no point did the lead prosecutor offer any specific example of a death, and so the record remains as it has been since Chelsea Manning was put on trial. The government has no evidence that anyone was ever killed as a result of transparency forced by WikiLeaks.

Ellsberg informed the court his motive was no different from Assange’s motive. The Espionage Act charges that Assange faces are not meaningfully different either. And, in fact, he faced efforts by the government to wiretap and incapacitate him just like Assange did while in the Ecuador embassy in London.

Ellsberg recalled that he did not tell the public what led him to disclose the Pentagon Papers because he expected to be able to testify about his motive during his trial.

When his lawyer asked him why he copied the Pentagon Papers, the prosecution immediately objected. Each time his lawyer tried to rephrase the question, the court refused to permit him to tell the jury “why he had done what he’d done.”

Federal courts continue to handle Espionage Act cases in the same manner. “The notion of motive or extenuating circumstances is irrelevant,” Ellsberg added.

“The meaning of which is I did not get a fair trial, despite a very intelligent and conscientious judge. No one since me has had a fair trial.”

“Julian Assange could not get a remotely fair trial under those charges in the United States,” Ellsberg concluded.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The September 12 demonstration “Stop 5G” in Rome rightly focuses on the possible electromagnetic consequences for health and environment, in particular on the decree that prevents mayors from regulating the installation of 5G antennas in the municipal area.

However, the Italian public continues to ignore a fundamental aspect of this technology: its military use. We have already warned about it in the manifesto (10 December 2019) but with poor results. The subsequent programs launched by the Pentagon, officially documented, confirm what we wrote nine months ago.

The “5G Strategy,” approved on May 2, 2020, stated that

“the Defense Department must develop and employ new concepts of operation that use the ubiquitous connectivity that 5G capabilities offer to increase the effectiveness, resilience, speed, and lethality of our Forces.“

The Pentagon is already experimenting military applications of this technology in five air, naval and land forces bases: Hill (Utah), Nellis (Nevada), San Diego (California), Albany (Georgia), Lewis-McChord (Washington), Dr. Joseph Evans, technical director for 5G at the Department of Defense, in a press conference on June 3 confirmed.

He then announced that 5G military applications will soon be tested in seven other bases: Norfolk (Virginia), Pearl Harbor-Hickam (Hawaii), San Antonio (Texas), Fort Irwin (California), Fort Hood (Texas), Camp Pendleton (California) and Tinker (Oklahoma).

Experts predict that 5G will play a decisive role in the development of hypersonic weapons, including nuclear warheads: huge amounts of data must be collected, processed and transmitted very quickly to guide them on variable trajectories, escaping interceptor missiles. The same data collection is necessary to activate the defenses in the event of an attack with such weapons, relying on automatic systems.

The new technology will also play a key role in the battle network, being able to connect millions of two-way radio equipment in a limited area.

5G will also be extremely important for the Secret Services and Special Forces: it will make possible much more effective espionage systems and increase the lethality of drone-killers.

These and other military applications of this technology are certainly being studied in China and other countries as well. Therefore, the ongoing 5G is not only a trade war.

The strategic document of the Pentagon confirmed it: “5G technologies represent crucial strategic capabilities for the national security of the United States and for that of our allies.” It is therefore necessary to “protect them from our adversaries” and convince our allies to do the same to ensure the “interoperability” of military applications of 5G within NATO framework.

This explains why Italy and other European allies of the US have excluded Huawei and other Chinese companies from 5G telecommunication equipment supply tenders.

“5G technology” – explains Dr. Joseph Evans in the press conference at the Pentagon – “is vital to maintain military and economic advantages of the United States,” not only against its adversaries, especially China and Russia, but against its allies.

For this reason,

“the Department of Defense is working closely with industrial partners, who invest hundreds of billion dollars in 5G technology, in order to exploit these massive investments for military applications of 5G,” including military and civilian “dual-use applications“. . .

In other words, the 5G commercial network, built by private companies, is used by the Pentagon at a much lower cost than would be necessary if the network were built solely for military purposes.

 The common users, to whom the 5G multinationals will sell their services, are going to pay for a technology that, as they promise, should “change our lives,” but at the same time it will be used to create a new generation of weapons for a war, meaning the end of human generations.

Watch the video below in Italian.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

This year’s stay-at-home orders and lockdowns imposed by governments on their populations represent a watershed moment in the history of the modern state.

Before March 2020, it is unlikely that many politicians—let alone many ordinary people—thought it would be feasible or likely for government officials to force hundreds of millions of human beings to “self-isolate.”

But it turns out governments were indeed able to force a sizable portion of the population to abandon jobs, religious practices, extended families, and community life in the name of “flattening the curve.”

Whether through fear manufactured by the news media or through outright threats of punishment, business owners shuttered their shops and offices, churches closed down, and schools abandoned their students.

Over time, most governments lessened their restrictions, largely out of fear that tax revenues would collapse and out of fear that the public would become unwilling to obey lockdown edicts indefinitely.

Those fears—not scientific objectivity—have been guiding the gradual loosening of lockdowns and lockdown-related restrictions in recent weeks. After all, in many jurisdictions—both in the USA and in Europe—cases and case growth are far above what they were back in March and April when we were told that high case totals absolutely required strict lockdowns. If case numbers are higher now than during the previous peak, why no new lockdowns?

Make no mistake, many politicians would love to impose lockdowns again, and indefinitely. After all, the power to micromanage the behavior of every business and household in the manner of covid lockdowns is a power undreamed of by even the most despotic emperor of old. It’s not a power a regime would abandon lightly.

But could they get away with it? This is a question every prolockdown politician is asking. For the extent to which lockdowns have been scaled back and lessened, we cannot thank any enlightenment or change of heart on the part of politicians. If lockdowns now seem to be receding, it’s because policymakers fear another round of lockdowns would be greeted with resistance rather than obedience. In short, the retreat of lockdowns is a result of an uneasy truce between the antilockdown public (which is by no means the whole public) and the prolockdown politicians. The politicians have conceded nothing in terms of their asserted authority, but they nonetheless fear greater resistance in the future.

Regimes Continue to Threaten More Lockdowns

Although they’re slowly backing off on full lockdowns for now, governments have been very careful to maintain that they retain the power to reimpose them—including full-on strict and ruthless lockdown—at any time. In some areas, this has already been done, such as in southern Australia and in New Zealand. In the state of Victoria in Australia, for instance, residents in recent weeks have been subject to strict curfews and even road closures preventing them from traveling more than a few miles form their homes. Those who dissent—such as a pregnant mother who was arrested for merely discussing an upcoming protest—are brutalized. Meanwhile, military personnel enforce martial law, dragging people from their cars and demanding they show their “papers.”

China continues to impose regional and partial lockdowns. Belgium, meanwhile, insists it may yet still impose “total lockdown.” Back in July, the UK’s Boris Johnson told the nation’s residents to follow the social distancing rules now or face harsher lockdowns in the future. Last week Johnson’s government announced strict new social distancing rules, prohibiting any gatherings of more than six people in most cases.

Nor have American politicians abandoned these newfound powers. In Utah, which did not impose a lockdown in March or April, the authorities are still threatening a possible future “complete shutdown.” Governors in states including Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, and Michigan have all threatened new lockdowns if the residents don’t do as they’re told.

(Only two governors, to my knowledge, have said they will not impose future lockdowns. Earlier this month, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida vowed “we will never do any of these lockdowns again,” and Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota, which has never imposed a lockdown at all, has also said lockdowns are not on the table.)

In many cases politicians have substituted face masks and targeted lockdowns (of bars and nightclubs, etc.) in lieu of full stay-at-home orders. This limits public dissent by limiting the number of businesses and industries where people are thrown out of work and business owners are effectively robbed of their property. Fewer destitute or jobless voters likely translates into less active dissent.

This permanent embrace of emergency power is to be expected. Governments have long used crises as an excuse to expand government power, often with the glowing approval of the electorate. After the end of World War II, for example, the party platform of the British Labour Party explicitly sought to extend wartime economic planning indefinitely. The idea was that central planning had won the war and now it would “win the peace.” This meant a host of boards and commissions that would control everything from farming to housing.

But that’s just one example. As Robert Higgs has shown in his book Crisis and Leviathan, using wars and other crises to permanently expand state power is just standard operating procedure for countless regimes. It’s what governments do.

Governments Are Limited Only by the Public’s Resistance

On the other hand, governments are limited by how much the public is willing to tolerate. As Étienne de La Boétie has shown, all regimes—even authoritarian ones—are ultimately limited by public approval and obedience. Without public opinion on their side, regimes become constrained, even in a police state.

Ludwig von Mises built on this notion when he noted in his book Liberalism:

there has never been a political power that voluntarily desisted from impeding the free development and operation of the institution of private ownership of the means of production. Governments tolerate private property when they are compelled to do so, but they do not acknowledge it voluntarily in recognition of its necessity. Even liberal politicians, on gaining power, have usually relegated their liberal principles more or less to the background. The tendency to impose oppressive restraints on private property, to abuse political power, and to refuse to respect or recognize any free sphere outside or beyond the dominion of the state is too deeply ingrained in the mentality of those who control the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion for them ever to be able to resist it voluntarily. A liberal government is a contradictio in adjecto. Governments must be forced into adopting liberalism by the power of the unanimous opinion of the people; that they could voluntarily become liberal is not to be expected.

In other words, governments don’t refrain from exercising ever more power unless they are prevented from doing so. But what did he mean by a government being “forced into adopting liberalism by the power of the unanimous opinion of the people”? Mises was very much a man who understood how states work in the real world. So it’s a safe bet that he didn’t think the public’s “unanimous opinion” was somehow magically transformed into a government limiting itself.

Rather, Mises understood that governments are limited by pressures applied by groups external to the state apparatus itself. These could take the form of widespread noncompliance, peaceful protests, or even armed resistance. But to think that governments will limit themselves without at least the fear of some form of resistance would be fanciful, to say the least.

And this is likely what is limiting governments in their dreams of ever-harsher lockdowns right now. We’ve already seen this dynamic in action in Serbia, for example, where the regime attempted to reimpose a nationwide lockdown. This proposal was greeted with both peaceful and violent protests. The state partially retreated and opted instead for much weaker regional lockdowns. Protests also continue to grow in Germany, and have even cropped up in London.

In the US, of course, protests of various types have appeared since April, and given the volume of anger over lockdowns and business closures expressed across a wide variety of media, it’s easy to see why state and local governments should expect trouble if they try another full-scale lockdown. One need only step out one’s front door in many areas to see countless examples of passive noncompliance and resistance to mask orders and social distancing decrees.

Complicating matters is the low state of public approval of police forces. It’s true that police tend to receive public support when they are seen battling rioters and thugs. But public support would likely wither quickly were the police unleashed on middle-class suburbanites who fail to follow stay-at-home orders.

If American governors and mayors try a new set of lockdowns, just how far will they willing to go to enforce them? Will they call in the national guard and open fire on middle-class dissenters? If police attempt to break into homes in the manner we have witnessed in Australia, things might turn out quite differently here. In situations like that, at least some residents will defend themselves with firearms.

Ensuring compliance will also become especially difficult as lockdowns empty the public purse. As the economy weakens, so will tax revenues, and public welfare programs can’t subsist on newly printed money forever. As local, state, and federal amenities and free money programs come up short of funds, it will become harder to buy off the voters with yet another government check.

Admittedly, governments can always double down on enforcement by imposing strict police states. This can work in the short term. But then what? Outside of places like China and Australia, it appears many regimes aren’t yet prepared to find out. But they’re not willing to concede defeat, either. The lockdown state will press the issue as far as the voters and taxpayers are willing to let it go.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Featured image is from Mises Wire

The economic state of the US is worse than during the depths of the 1930s Great Depression.

Economic collapse grips the country. Tens of millions of working-age Americans are unemployed, most others way underemployed earning poverty wages.

The Economic Collapse blog explained that “more than half of all households in some of our largest cities are currently facing serious financial problems” because of dire economic conditions.

It noted that the US suicide rate rose every year since the run-up to the 2008-09 financial crisis.

In June, a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevent survey found that almost 11% of respondents considered suicide in the past month — 25% of those aged 18 – 24.

This astonishing data is more evidence of a nation in decline, worlds apart from my long ago boyhood, adolescence, and youth — a time of countless opportunities for young people like myself with nothing special going for me.

Conditions today are polar opposite. Discretionary spending on US militarism, warmaking, corporate handouts, and police state harshness come at the expense of eroding public services and career opportunities for youths.

The disparity between rich and most others in America today matches or exceeds the late 19th/early 20th century robber barons age.

Poverty is the leading growth industry in the world’s richest country, accelerating exponentially because of made-in-the-USA coronavirus and economic collapse.

According to economist John Williams, year-over-year inflation is 9%, up from 7.7% in May, based on how calculated pre-1990.

Real unemployment is 28%, not the phony 8.4% BLS figure.

The US was at the height of its preeminence on the world stage post-WW II.

It was maintained for some years in the post-war era.

Decline began and continued in recent decades, notably post-9/11, and especially this year with nothing in prospect indicating positive change.

The long ago founded republic no longer exists, replaced by the imperial state, military Keynesianism, ruinous military spending, and governance serving privileged interests exclusively — while vital homeland needs go begging, social justice disappearing.

On Thursday, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) explained that “(h)alf a year into the pandemic (and economic collapse), millions of people are unemployed,” adding:

Last week, “(a)nother 1.5 million people applied for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.”

The number includes “860,000 people who applied for regular state UI and 659,000 who applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA).”

The latter is the federal program for workers ineligible for UI. Benefits provided for 39 weeks will expire at yearend if not renewed.

EPI explained that “(l)ast week was the 26th week in a row total (of) initial (UI and PUA) claims (that) were far greater than the worst week of the 2008-09 Great Recession.”

Most US states provide 26 weeks of UI. When exhausted, eligible individuals can apply for an additional 13 weeks of Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC).

At this time, Republicans and Dems are deadlocked on extending federal unemployment benefits — politicizing the issue ahead of November elections, ignoring millions of US households in need of federal help.

Congressionally authorized $600 in weekly UI benefits to eligible recipients expired at end of July.

According to the Center for American Progress (CAP):

“(T)ypical unemployment benefits being received across the country shows that there isn’t a single county, parish, borough, census area, or city in the United States where state unemployment benefits alone can cover a set of very modest monthly expenses…for a typical one-adult, one-child family.”

Even House passed $600 Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) is inadequate to cover essentials to life and welfare for the average US household, said the CAP.

EPI stressed that no where in the US can a typical family “live on unemployment insurance alone.”

Spending because of $600 in weekly UI benefits supported 5.1 million jobs, EPI explained.

Without it, they’re being lost. America’s most disadvantaged are hardest hit with little income and no health insurance — millions of affected households with no relief in prospect.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Over one million people have signed an online charter against normalisation with Israel, according to an Emirati civil society group.

The launch of the Palestine Charter comes the same week as both the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain officially signed normalisation agreements – named the Abraham Accords – with Israel at a White House ceremony.

The charter’s creator, an Emirati grassroots organisation called the UAE Anti-Normalisation Association, has launched a Twitter hashtag titled “people against normalisation”, urging followers to add their signatures. The charter states that:

• Palestine is an independent Arab state whose borders are from the river to the sea, and will remain Arab no matter how long the Zionist occupation lasts.
• No one has the mandate to cede an inch of Palestinian territory, no matter how strong it is in position and in its right.
• Anyone who decides to cede the land of Palestine and the right of its people to build an independent state with the city of Jerusalem as its capital does not represent the Arab people.
• Normalisation is rejected in all its forms and the free people will not accept it or any agreement with the occupying Zionist entity.

A number of associations across the region have lent their support to the initiative, including the Palestine Advocacy Association, the Bahrain Society for Resistance to Normalisation, Moroccan Observatory against Normalisation and the Palestinian Forum in Jordan.

1.7 مليون موقع على #ميثاق_فلسطين الإلكتروني ..

لا توجد قضية في العالم ممكن ان يجتمع عليها الناس مثل هذه القضية pic.twitter.com/do22JGVk6N

— حمد الشامسي (@ALshamsi789) September 17, 2020

Translation: 1.7 million [signatories] on the Palestine Charter electronic site. There is no issue in the world on which people can come together like this

طيب يا جماعة الان توقيع ما السلام الصهاينة صار وانتهى اتمنى لو هذه الدول تنزل استبانة عما اذا كان الشعوب مؤيدة لهذا الاتفاق مع ان الاستبانة المفترض تنزل قبل التوقيع فقط لجس نبض الشارع العربي و مدى موافقته على مثل هذا الاتفاق طبعا الحكومات دائما تفوز ب99% لكن على الاقل -1 https://t.co/4CGZ6ExATc

— Ali H Al Hammadi (@ali3hassan) September 16, 2020

Translation: Now that this peace deal with the Zionists has been done I wish these countries would release a questionnaire on whether people support this agreement, although the supposed resolution is agreed before the signing, just to feel the pulse of the Arab street and the extent to which it approves of such an agreement. 

Last week, the UAE Anti-Normalisation Association held a seminar with a group of experts, writers and intellectuals who stressed the importance of fighting normalisation and promoting awareness to ensure that all attempts to build mutual relations between Arabs and Israel are addressed.

The association has also pledged to set up more activities and events in the near future in its fight against normalisation.

Crackdown on anti-normalisation activists

The number of Emirati critics of the normalisation deal has been less noticeable online than those in support of it, due to the crackdown against dissent in the Gulf country.

Many of the Emiratis who have voiced their rejection of their country’s latest agreement have been based abroad, where they run less of a risk of being imprisoned for expressing their views.

نعرف أن التوقيع لن يحرر فلسطين ولن يوقف اتفاقية السلام بين (الإمارات/البحرين) وإسرائيل، ولكنه اعترافنا الثابت بعدالة هذه القضية وبأننا #خليجيون_ضد_التطبيع https://t.co/DE0Skw5KrU pic.twitter.com/sMVcbrhnpG

— آلاء (@alaa_q) September 15, 2020

Translation: We know that the signatures will not free Palestine and will not stop the peace agreement between (UAE/ Bahrain) and Israel, but it is our firm recognition of the justice of this issue and that we are Gulf Arabs against normalisation.

حتى يعلم الجميع أن #التطبيع_الاماراتي_الاسرائيلي ليس قضية فتح علاقات و إنما هو انسلاخ عقائدي وإنساني وذوبان في المشروع الصهيوني العنصري الإرهابي.
ولا يمكن تفسير هذا السلوك بحسن النية،وإنما تعمد لنقض أسس الدولة وترسيخ عداء بينها وبين المجتمع العربي والإسلامي. https://t.co/9nfRTLqiWu

— أحمد الشيبة النعيمي (@Ahmad_Alshaibah) September 17, 2020

Translation: So that everyone knows, the UAE-Israeli normalisation is not a question of opening relations, but an ideological and human immersion into the Zionist racist and terrorist project. This behaviour cannot be interpreted in good faith, but rather to break the foundations of the State and establish animosity between it and the Arab and Muslim society.

هذا هو وفد العار الذي سيخلده التاريخ في صفحاته السوداء
وفد اتفاقية التطبيع بين #محمد_بن_زايد و #نتنياهو
الوفد الذي ذهب ليبصم على اتفاقية الخيانة للأمة ومقدساتها.
الوفد الذي يجعل من المحتل عنوان "السلام"
ويجعل من المقاومة الشرعية إرهاب.
تبت يدا من خطط ووقع#التطبيع_خيانة#الإمارات pic.twitter.com/jnNJqZhZ5V

— محمد بن صقر (@saqer2030) September 14, 2020

Translation: This is the delegation of shame that history will immortalise in its black pages. The delegation of the normalisation agreement between Mohamed Bin Zayed and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu. The delegation that went to sign off on the agreement that betrayed our nation and holy places and who label legitimate resistance as terrorism. May the hands of those who planned and signed be ruined.

According to Emirati human rights activist Hamad al-Shamsi, who lives in exile in Turkey and was sentenced in absentia to 15 years in prison for his links to the al-Islah, an Islamist movement connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, those who oppose normalisation in the UAE could face a 10-year prison sentence and a fine of 1m dirhams ($27,220).

A number of activists and human rights lawyers in the Emirates have been imprisoned or silenced for voicing support for democratic rights that conflict with the views of UAE rulers.

More than 100 peaceful activists and critics of the UAE government have been imprisoned on vague national security-related charges since 2011, with at least 67 of them still in prison today, according to Amnesty International.

Bahraini citizens have been more vocal in their rejection both online and during protests in the country, despite the ongoing crackdown on dissidents, which has seen hundreds imprisoned since 2011 for demanding reforms in the kingdom.

لافتات علقت في شوارع البحرين اليوم#بحرينيون_ضد_التطبيع pic.twitter.com/zQo77rLYOv

— عبير الخليل🇵🇸 (@abeer_alkalil8) September 13, 2020

Translation: Banners hung in the streets of Bahrain today #Bahrainis_Against_Normalisation

Many have been accused by the state of being Iranian mercenaries and have had their citizenships stripped.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from IMEMC

A less dramatic day, but marked by a brazen and persistent display of this US Government’s insistence that it has the right to prosecute any journalist and publication, anywhere in the world, for publication of US classified information. This explicitly underlay the entire line of questioning in the afternoon session.

The morning opened with Professor John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count. He is a Professor of Psychology and musicologist who founded Iraq Body Count together with Damit Hardagan, and was speaking to a joint statement by both of them.

Professor Sloboda stated that Iraq Body Count attempted to build a database of civilian deaths in Iraq based on compilation of credible published material. Their work had been recognised by the UN, EU and the Chilcot Inquiry. He stated that protection of the civilian population was the duty of parties at war or in occupation, and targeting of civilians was a war crime.

Wikileaks’ publication of the Iraqi War Logs had been the biggest single accession of material to the Iraq Body Count and added 15,000 more civilian deaths, plus provided extra detail on many deaths which were already recorded. The logs or Significant Activity Reports were daily patrol records, which recorded not only actions and consequent deaths the patrols were involved in, but also deaths which they came across.

After the publication of the Afghan war Logs, Iraq Body Count (IBC) had approached Wikileaks to be involved in the publication of the Iraq equivalent material. They thought they had accumulated a particular expertise which would be helpful. Julian Assange had been enthusiastic and had invited them to join the media consortium involved in handling the material.

There were 400,000 documents in the Iraq war logs. Assange had made very plain that great weight must be placed on document security and with careful redaction to prevent, in particular, names from being revealed which could identify individuals who might come to harm. It was however impossible to redact that volume of documents by hand. So Wikileaks had sought help in developing software that would help. IBC’s Hamit Dardagan had devised the software which solved the problem.

Essentially, this stripped the documents of any word not in the English dictionary. Thus arabic names were removed, for example. In addition other potential identifiers such as occupations were removed. A few things like key acronyms were added to the dictionary. The software was developed and tested on sample batches of telegrams until it worked well. Julian Assange was determined redaction should be effective and resisted pressure from media partners to speed up the process. Assange always meticulously insisted on redaction. On balance, they over-redacted for caution. Sloboda could only speak on the Iraq War Logs, but these were published by Wikileaks in a highly redacted form which was wholly appropriate.

Joel Smith then stood up to cross-examine for the US Government. I am sure Mr Smith is a lovely man. But sadly his looks are against him. You would certainly not enter an alleyway if he were anywhere nearby. The first time I saw him I presumed he was heading for the dock in court 11.

As is the standard prosecution methodology in this hearing, Mr Smith set out to trash the reputation of the witness. [I found this rather ironic, as Iraq Body Count has been rather good for the US Government. The idea that in the chaos of war every civilian death is reported somewhere in local media is obviously nonsense. Each time the Americans flattened Fallujah and everyone in it, there was not some little journalist writing up the names of the thousands of dead on a miraculously surviving broadband connection. Iraq Body Count is a good verifiable minimum number of civilian deaths, but no more, and its grandiose claims have led it to be used as propaganda for the “war wasn’t that bad” brigade. My own view is that you can usefully add a zero to their figures. But I digress.]

Smith established that Sloboda’s qualifications are in psychology and musicology, that he had no expertise in military intelligence, classification and declassification of documents or protection of intelligence sources. Smith also established that Sloboda did not hold a US security clearance (and thus was in illegal possession of the information from the viewpoint of the US government). Sloboda had been given full access to all 400,000 Iraq War Logs shortly after his initial meeting with Assange. They had signed a non-disclosure agreement with the International Committee of Investigative Journalists. Four people at IBC had access. There was no formal vetting process.

To give you an idea of this cross-examination:

Smith Are you aware of jigsaw identification?
Sloboda It is the process of providing pieces of information which can be added together to discover an identity.
Smith Were you aware of this risk in publishing?
Sloboda We were. As I have said, we redacted not just non-English words but occupations and other such words that might serve as a clue.
Smith When did you first speak to Julian Assange?
Sloboda About July 2010.
Smith The Afghan War logs were published in July 2010. How long after that did you meet Assange?
Sloboda Weeks.
…..

Smith You talk of a responsible way of publishing. That would include not naming US informants?
Sloboda Yes.
Smith Your website attributes killings to different groups and factions within the state as well as some outside influences. That would indicate varied and multiple sources of danger to any US collaborators named in the documents.
Sloboda Yes.
Smith Your statement spoke of a steep learning curve from the Afghan war logs that had to be applied to the Iraq war logs. What does that mean?
Sloboda It means Wikileaks felt that mistakes were made in publishing the Afghan war logs that should not be repeated with the Iraq war logs.
Smith Those mistakes involved publication of names of sources, didn’t they?
Sloboda Possibly, yes. Or no. I don’t know. I had no involvement with the Afghan War logs.
Smith You were told there was time pressure to publish?
Sloboda Yes, I was told by Julian he was put under time pressure and I picked it up from other media partners.
Smith And it was IBC who came up with the software solution, not Assange?
Sloboda Yes.
Smith How long did it take to develop the software?
Sloboda A matter of weeks. It was designed and tested then refined and tested again and again. It was not ready by the original proposed publication date of the Iraq war logs, which is why the date was put back.
Smith Redaction then would remove all non-English words. But it would still leave vital clues to identities, like professions? They had to be edited by hand?
Sloboda No. I already said that professions were taken out. The software was written to do that.
Smith It would leave in buildings?
Sloboda No, other words like mosque were specifically removed by the software.
Smith But names which are also English words would be left in. Like Summers, for example.
Sloboda I don’t think there are any Iraqi names which are also English words.
Smith Dates, times, places?
Sloboda I don’t know.
Smith Street names?
Sloboda I don’t know.
[Sloboda was obviously disconcerted by Smith’s quickfire technique and had been rattled into firing back equally speedy and short answers. If you think about it a moment, Iraqi street names are generally not English words.]
Smith Vehicles?
Sloboda I don’t know.
Smith You said at a press conference that you had “merely scratched the surface” in looking at the 400,000 documents.
Sloboda Yes.
Smith You testified that Julian Assange shared your view that the Iraqi war logs should be published responsibly. But in a 2010 recorded interview at the Frontline Club, Mr Assange called it regrettable that informants were at risk, but said Wikileaks only had to avoid potential for unjust retribution; and those that had engaged in traitorous behaviour or had sold information ran their own risk. Can you comment?
Sloboda No. He never said anything like this to me.
Smith He never said he found the process of redaction disturbing?
Sloboda No, on the contrary. He said nothing at all like that to me. We had a complete meeting of minds on the importance of protection of individuals.
Smith Not all the logs related to civilian deaths?
Sloboda No. The logs put deaths in four categories. Civilian, host nation (Iraqi forces and police), friendly nation (coalition forces) and enemy. The logs did not always detail the actions in which deaths occurred. Sometimes the patrols were the cause, sometimes they detailed what they came across. We moved police deaths from the host nation to the civilian category.

[One of the problems I personally have with IBC’s approach is that they accepted US forces’ massive over-description of the dead as “hostile”. Obviously when US forces killed someone they had an incentive to list them as “hostile” and not “civilian”.]

Smith Are you aware that when the Iraq Significant Activity Reports (war logs) were released online in October 2010, they did in fact contain unredacted names of co-operating individuals?
Sloboda No, I am not aware of that.
Smith now read an affidavit from a new player [Dwyer?] which stated that the publication of the SAR’s put co-operating individuals in grave danger. Dwyer purported to reference two documents which contained names. Dwyer also stated that “military and diplomatic experts” confirmed individuals had been put in grave danger.
Smith How do you explain that?
Sloboda I have no knowledge. It’s just an assertion. I haven’t seen the documents referred to.
Smith Might this all be because Mr Assange “took a cavalier attitude to redaction”?
Sloboda No, definitely not. I saw the opposite.
Smith So why did it happen?
Sloboda I don’t know if it did happen. I haven’t seen the documents referred.

That ended Professor Sloboda’s evidence. He was not re-examined by the defence.

I have no idea who “Dwyer” – name as heard – is or what evidential value his affidavit might hold. It is a constant tactic of the prosecution to enter highly dubious information into the record by putting it to witnesses who have not heard of it. The context would suggest that “Dwyer” is a US government official. Given that he claimed to be quoting two documents he was alleging Wikileaks had published online, it is also not clear to me why those published documents were not produced to the court and to Professor Sloboda.

We now come to the afternoon session. I have a difficulty here. The next witness was Carey Shenkman, an academic lawyer in New York who has written a book on the history of the Espionage Act of 1917 and its use against journalists. Now, partly because Shenkman was a lawyer being examined by lawyers, at times his evidence included lots of case names being thrown around, the significance of which was not entirely clear to the layman. I often could not catch the names of the cases. Even if I produced a full transcript, large chunks of it would be impenetrable to those from a non-legal background – including me – without a week to research it. So if this next reporting is briefer and less satisfactory than usual, it is not the fault of Carey Shenkman.

This evidence was nonetheless extremely important because of the clear intent shown by the US government in cross examination to now interpret the Espionage Act in a manner that will enable them to prosecute journalists wholesale.

Shenkman began his evidence by explaining that the 1917 Espionage Act under which Assange was charged dates from the most repressive period in US history, when Woodrow Wilson had taken the US into the First World War against massive public opposition. It had been used to imprison those who campaigned against the war, particularly labour leaders. Wilson himself had characterised it as “the firm hand of stern repression”. Its drafting was extraordinarily broad and it was on its surface a weapon of political persecution.

The Pentagon Papers case had prompted Edgar and Schmidt to write a famous analysis of the Espionage Act published in the Colombia Law Review in 1973. It concluded that there was incredible confusion about the meaning and scope of the law and capacity of the government to use it. It gave enormous prosecutorial discretion on who to prosecute and depended on prosecutors behaving wisely and with restraint. There was no limit on strict liability. The third or fifth receiver in the chain of publication of classified information could be prosecuted, not just the journalist or publisher but the person who sells or even buys or reads the newspaper.

Shenkman went through three historic cases of potential criminal prosecution of media under the Espionage Act. All had involved direct Presidential interference and the active instigation of the Attorney General. All had been abandoned before the Grand Jury stage because the Justice Department had opposed proceeding. Their primary concern had always been how to distinguish media outlets. If you prosecuted one, you had to prosecute them all.

[An aside for my regular readers – that is a notion of fairness entirely absent from James Wolffe, Alex Prentice and the Crown Office in Scotland.]

The default position had become that the Espionage Act was used against the whistleblower but not against the publisher or journalist, even when the whistleblower had worked closely with the journalist. Obama had launched the largest ever campaign of prosecution of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act. He had not prosecuted any journalist for publishing the information they leaked.

Claire Dobbin then rose to cross-examine on behalf of the US Government, which evidently is not short of a penny or two to spend on multiple counsel. Mrs Dobbin looks a pleasant and unthreatening individual. It was therefore surprising that when she spoke, out boomed a voice that you would imagine as emanating from the offspring of Ian Paisley and Arlene Foster. This impression was of course reinforced by her going on to advocate for harsh measures of repression.

Ms Dobbin started by stating that Mr Shenkman had worked for Julian Assange. Shenkman clarified that he had worked in the firm of the great lawyer Michael Ratner, who represented Mr Assange. But that firm had been dissolved on Mr Ratner’s death in 2016 and Shenkman now worked on his own behalf. This all had no bearing on the history and use of the Espionage Act, on which he had been researching in collaboration with a well-established academic expert.

Dobbin than asked whether Shenkman was on Assange’s legal team. He replied no. Dobbin pointed to an article he had written with two others, of which the byline stated that Shenkman was a member of Julian Assange’s legal team. Shenkman replied he was not responsible for the byline. He was a part of the team only in the sense that he had done a limited amount of work in a very junior capacity for Michael Ratner, who represented Assange, that related to Assange. He was “plankton” in Ratner’s firm.

Dobbin said that the article had claimed that the UK was illegally detaining Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. Shenkman replied that was the view of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, with which he concurred. Dobbin asked if he stood by that opinion. Shenkman stated that he did, but it bore no relationship to his research on the history of the Espionage Act on which he was giving evidence.

Dobbin asked whether, having written that article, he really believed he could give objective evidence as an expert witness. Shenkman said yes he could, on the history of use of the Espionage Act. It was five years since he had left the Ratner firm. Lawyers had all kinds of clients that very loosely related in one way or another to other work they did. They had to learn to put aside and be objective.

Dobbin said that the 2013 article stated that Assange’s extradition to the United States was almost certain. What was the basis of this claim? Shenkman replied that he had not been the main author of that article, with which three people were credited. He simply could not recall that phrase at this time or the thought behind it. He wished to testify on the history of the Espionage Act, of which he had just written the first historical study.

Dobbin asked Shenkman if he was giving evidence pro bono? He replied no, he was appearing as a paid expert witness to speak about the Espionage Act.

Dobbin said that the defence claimed that the Obama administration had taken the decision not to prosecute Assange. But successive court statements showed that an investigation was still ongoing (Dobbin took him through several of these, very slowly). If Assange had really believed the Obama administration had dropped the idea of prosecution, then why would he have stayed in the Embassy?

Shenkman replied that he was very confused why Dobbin would think he had any idea what Assange knew or thought at any moment in time. Why did she keep asking him questions about matters with which he had no connection at all and was not giving evidence?

But if she wanted his personal view, there had of course been ongoing investigations since 2010. It was standard Justice Department practice not to close off the possibility of future charges. But if Holder and Obama had wanted to prosecute, wouldn’t they have brought charges before they left office and got the kudos, rather than leave it for Trump?

Dobbin then asked a three part question that rather sapped my will to live. Shenkman sensibly ignored it and asked his own question instead. “Did I anticipate this indictment? No, I never thought we would see something as political as this. It is quite extraordinary. A lot of scholars are shocked.”

Dobbin now shifted ground to the meat of the government position. She invited Shenkman to agree with a variety of sentences cherry-picked from US court judgements over the years, all of which she purported to show an untrammelled right to put journalists in jail under the Espionage Act. She started with the Morison Case in the fourth appellate circuit and a quote to the effect that “a government employee who steals information is not entitled to use the First Amendment as a shield”. She invited Shenkman to agree. He declined to do so, stating that particular circumstances of each case must be taken into consideration and whistleblowing could not simply be characterised as stealing. Contrary opinions exist, including a recent 9th appellate circuit judgement over Snowden. So no, he did not agree. Besides Morison was not about a publisher. The Obama prosecutions showed the historic pattern of prosecuting the leaker not the publisher.

Dobbin then quoted a Supreme Court decision with a name I did not catch, and a quote to the effect that “the First Amendment cannot cover criminal conduct”. She then fired another case at him and another quote. She challenged him to disagree with the Supreme Court. Shenkman said the exercise she was engaged in was not valid. She was picking individual sentences from judgements in complex cases, which involved very different allegations. This present case was not about illegal wiretapping by the media like one she quoted, for example.

Dobbin then asked Shenkman whether unauthorised access to government databases is protected under the First Amendment. He replied that this was a highly contentious issue. There were, for example, a number of conflicting judgements in different appellate circuits about what constituted unauthorised access.

Dobbin asked if hacking a password hash would be unauthorised access. Shenkman replied this was not a simple question. In the present case, the evidence was the password was not needed to obtain documents. And could she define “hacking” in law? Dobbin said she was speaking in layman’s terms. Shenkman replied that she should not do that. We were in a court of law and he was expected to show extreme precision in his answers. She should meet the same standard in her questions.

Finally Dobbin unveiled her key point. Surely all these contentious points were therefore matters to be decided in the US courts after extradition? No, replied Shenkman. Political offences were a bar to extradition from the UK under UK law, and his evidence went to show that the decision to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act was entirely political.

Mrs Dobbin will resume her cross examination of Mr Shenkman tomorrow.

Comment

I have two main points to make. The first is that Shenkman was sent a 180 page evidence bundle from the prosecution on the morning of his testimony, at 3am his time, before giving evidence at 9am. A proportion of this was entirely new material to him. He is then questioned on it. This keeps happening to every witness. On top of which, like almost every witness, his submitted statement addressed the first superseding indictment not the last minute second superseding indictment which introduces some entirely new offences. This is a ridiculous procedure.

My second is that, having been very critical of Judge Baraitser, it would be churlish of me not to note that there seems to be some definite change in her attitude to the case as the prosecution makes a complete horlicks of it. Whether this makes any long term difference I doubt. But it is pleasant to witness.

It is also fair to note that Baraitser has so far resisted strong US pressure to prevent the defence witnesses being heard at all. She has decided to hear all the evidence before deciding what is and is not admissible, against the prosecution desire that almost all the defence witnesses are excluded as irrelevant or unqualified. As she will make that decision when considering her judgement, that is why the prosecution spend so much time attacking the witnesses ad hominem rather than addressing their actual evidence. That may well be a mistake.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is by thierry ehrmann | CC BY 2.0

The extradition trial of Julian Assange at the Old Bailey struck similar notes to the previous day’s proceedings: the documentary work and practise of WikiLeaks, the method of redactions, and the legacy of exposing war crimes.  In the afternoon, the legal teams returned to well combed themes: testimony on the politicised nature of the Assange prosecution, and the dangers posed by the extra-territorial application of the Extradition Act of 1917 to publishing. 

Assange the discerning publisher (for the defence) or reckless discloser (for the prosecution) were recurrent features.  This time, it was John Sloboda, co-founder of the British NGO, Iraq Body Count, who took the stand.  IBC had its origins in a noble sentiment: to give “dignity to the memory of those killed.”  To know how loved ones perished sates a “fundamental human need”, and aids “processes of truth, justice, and reconciliation.”  The outfit “maintains the world’s largest public database of violent civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion, as well as a separate running total which includes combatants.”

Central to Sloboda’s testimony was the importance of the Iraq War Logs, released in October 2010. As IBC puts it, the logs did not constitute the first release of US military data on Iraqi casualties but were pioneering, making it “possible to examine such data and to compare and combine it with other sources in a way that adds appreciably to public knowledge.”  The compilation of 400,000 Significant Activity reports put together by the US Army comprised, in Sloboda’s words, “the single largest contribution to public knowledge about civilian casualties in Iraq.”  They were, he told the court, “a very meticulous record of military patrols in streets in every area of Iraq, noting and documenting what they saw.”  Some 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths were duly identified.

In terms of collaboration, IBC approached WikiLeaks in the aftermath of publishing the Afghan War Diary.  An invitation from Assange to join a media consortium including The Guardian, Der Spiegel and The New York Times followed.  “It was impressed on us from our early encounters with Julian Assange that the aim was a very stringent redaction of documents to ensure that no information damaging to individuals was present.” 

The redaction of the logs was part of a “painstaking process” that took “weeks”.  Given the physical impossibility of manually redacting 400,000 documents in timely fashion, “The call was out to find a method that would be effective and would not take forever.”  Sloboda made mention of a computer program developed by a colleague, one that would remove names from the documents.  “It was a process of writing the software, testing it on logs, finding bugs, and running it again until the process was completed.”  

The publication release was delayed, as the software in question “was not ready by the original planned publication date”.  Modifications were also affected in terms of how thoroughly redaction might take place of “different categories of information”: the removal of architectural features (mosques, for instance), or expertise or professions of individuals.

Pressure was placed on WikiLeaks by the other media partners to publish.  Their contribution to the redaction process had been sparse and manual: a mere sampling.  Assange held firm against such impatience: redactions had to take place systematically; “the entire database,” recalled Sloboda, was “to be released together.”  If anything, the final product was one of overcautious sifting, one overly pruned to prevent any dangers.  

For all that, Sloboda insisted in his witness statement that a decade on, the Iraq War Logs “remain the only source of information regarding many thousands of violent civilian deaths in Iraq between 2004 and 2009.”  The position of IBC was simple: “civilian casualty data should always be made public.”  In doing so, no harm hard occurred to a single individual, despite repeated assertions by the US government to the contrary, not least because of the thorough redaction process.  “It could well be argued, therefore, that by making this information public, [Chelsea] Manning and Assange were carrying out a duty on behalf of the victims and the public at large that the US government was failing to carry out.” 

Joel Smith QC for the prosecution duly probed Sloboda on his experience in the field of classifying or declassifying documents, and whether he had earned his stripes dealing with corroborating sources in an oppressive regime.  Such questioning had a simple purpose: to anathemise the civilian or journalist publisher of documents best left to agents and thumbing bureaucrats.  Had Sloboda and staff at the IBC been appropriately vetted?  “We paid a visit to the offices of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the then director Iain Overton.  I don’t remember any vetting process.”   

Sloboda, in his written submission, conceded that the previous publications by WikiLeaks, in particular the Afghan War Diary, came with its host of challenges, a “steep learning curve for all of those concerned.”  To Smith’s questioning, he revealed that “there was a sense there needed to be a better process in the next round”, the redaction process having not quite been up to scratch.

Another line of the prosecution’s inquiry was the accuracy of the redaction.  Was there human agency at any time in reviewing the war logs to avoid any “jigsaw risk” enabling the identification of individuals?  Checking did take place, answered Sloboda, “but no human could go through them all.” 

Smith, as with other prosecutors, persevered with the Assange as ruthless motif, this time asking if Sloboda was aware of comments allegedly made at the Frontline Club for journalists.   The transcript of the event supposedly has the publisher claiming that WikiLeaks nursed no obligation to protect sources in leaked documents except in cases of unjust reprisal.  “Today is the first time that I have read the transcript.”  Sloboda could “remember nothing like that in our conversations about the Iraq logs.”

The possibility that Iraqi lives were probably put at risk was aired, with Smith reading a witness statement from assistant US attorney Kellen S. Dwyer that the Iraq War Logs had named local Iraqis who had been informants for the US military.  (Dwyer’s competence might be gauged by the “cut and paste” mistake he made in revealing that Assange had been charged under seal.)  To this unprovable assertion or assessment (qualifying risk and harm), Sloboda expressed surprise; if the reference was to “the heavily redacted logs published in October 2010, this is the first time I have heard of it.”

Human rights attorney and historian Carey Shenkman followed to testify via videolink.  Shenkman, a keen student of the historical and often invidious use of the Espionage Act, was in the employ of the late and formidable Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights.  Shenkman’s written testimony is withering of the statute now being used with such relish against Assange. 

Much said by Shenkman would be familiar to those even mildly acquainted with that period of executive overreach.  It arose from “one of the most politically repressive” times in US history, a nasty product of the Woodrow Wilson administration’s fondness of targeting dissidents.  “During World War I, federal prosecutors considered the mere circulation of anti-war materials a violation of the law.  Nearly 2,500 individuals were prosecuted under the Act on account of their dissenting opposition to US entry into the war.”  Among them were such notables as William “Big Bill” Haywood of the International Workers of the World, film producer Robert Goldstein and, with much disgrace, Eugene Debs, presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. 

The word “espionage”, he explained to Judge Vanessa Baraitser, was a misnomer.  “Although the law allowed for the prosecution of spies, the conduct it prescribed went well beyond spying.”  The Act became the primary “tool for what President Wilson dubbed his administration’s ‘firm hand of stern repression’ against opposition to US participation in the war.”

As Shenkman noted in his statement to the court, the Act targeted spying for foreign enemies in wartime and was intended to address “such matters as US control of arm shipments and its ports”.  But it also “reflected the government’s desire to control information and public opinion regarding the war effort.”

Its broadness lies in how it criminalises information: not merely “national security information” but all material falling under the umbrella of “national defence” information.  Shenkman has previously argued that public interest defences focused on the positive outcomes of disclosures be given to whistleblowers and hacktivists.  But for the First Amendment advocate, the Espionage Act remains fiendishly controversial when it comes to the press, the reason, he testified, why there was never “an indictment of a US publisher under the law for the publication of secrets.  Accordingly, there has never been an extraterritorial indictment of a non-US publisher under the Act.” 

The idea of prosecuting publishers involving grand juries had been flirted with in some cases, but never seen through.  Shenkman offered a few highlights.  The Chicago Tribune faced the possibility in 1942 when it published secrets after the Battle of Midway. The effort crumbled when the prosecutor in that case, William Mitchell, expressed doubts that the Espionage Act extended to newspapers.  The Truman administration had also tentatively tested these waters, arresting three journalists and three government sources for conspiracy to violate the Act.  No indictments followed, though it emerged that political pressure had been brought to bear on the Justice Department from “multiple factions within the Truman administration.”  An uproar led to a jettisoning of the case and the imposition of small fines.

Previous examples are also noted in Shenkman’s court submission, including the threatened prosecutions of Seymour Hersh during the Ford administration, and James Bamford in 1981.  Dick Cheney, future dark puppeteer of the George W. Bush administration, felt it would be “a public relations disaster” to target Hersh.

According to Shenkman, a chilling change in the winds took place during the Obama administration, if only briefly.  Fox News journalist James Rosen had been named as an “aider, abettor, and co-conspirator” in a Justice Department case against Stephen Kim, a State Department employee.  The effort stalled and Eric Holder’s remarks on resigning as Attorney General in 2014 spoke of deep regret that Rosen had ever been named.  Journalists felt relief. 

Then came the Assange indictment.  “I never thought based on history we’d see an indictment that looked like this.”  It was part of the Trump administration’s desire “to escalate prosecutions as well as ‘jailing journalists who publish classified information.’  The Espionage Act’s breath provides such a means.” 

Prosecutor Claire Dobbin was blunter than her colleague, preoccupied with attacking Shenkman’s credibility for having worked with Ratner when representing Assange.  Little time was spent on the substance of Shenkman’s submission; instead, the prosecution sought to convince the witness that the case against Assange would be best heard on US soil.

What mattered to Dobbin was taking the politics out of the prosecution.  Surely, she put to Shenkman, he could still believe in 2015 that the US would bring charges against Assange.  The less than subtle insinuation here is that a refusal to do so under the Obama administration was merely a lull rather than an abandonment of interest.  “[O]ftentimes,” replied Shenkman, “these things are left to simmer, but ultimately, an indictment was not brought.”  Had President Barack Obama and Attorney General Holder wished to pursue Assange, they would have surely shown a measure of eagerness to do so.

More could be said about the politicisation thesis: the singular use of the Espionage Act, the framing of the charges, and the timing of the indictment, all pointing to “a highly politicized prosecution.”

Prosecutorial tactics switched to hair splitting.  What constituted the stealing of national security and national defence information?  Would that be covered by the First Amendment?  Depends, countered Shenkman, reminding Dobbin of the recent 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v Moalin accepting the merit of Edward Snowden’s disclosures on unwarranted surveillance by the National Security Agency, despite deriving from an instance of theft.

There was a divergence of views on the issue of “hacking” as well.  “Are you saying that hacking government databases is protected under the First Amendment?” shot Dobbin.  Again, more clarity was needed, suggested Shenkman.  The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, for instance, makes no reference to the term.  Nuance is required: “crack a password’ and “hack a computer” have “scary” connotations; in other instances there would be “ways the First Amendment could be relevant.”

Given such disagreement and lack of clarity of terms, Dobbin pushed Shenkman to agree that a US court would be the most appropriate body to determine the issue. “No,” came the emphatic answer.  The way the indictment had been drafted was political.  The prosecution had, effectively, dithered.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: Julian Assange court sketch, October 21, 2019, supplied by Julia Quenzler.

The misleadingly described “peace” deal between “Israel” and the UAE will enable the self-professed “Jewish State” to use the latter’s military and civilian port infrastructure in the Gulf of Aden, thus challenging recent Turkish inroads in this part of the world and allowing Tel Aviv to project itself as a trans-regional power of significance, especially in East Africa and eventually everywhere else on the continent too.

From Diplomatic “Peace” To Military Partnership

Covid-19 cases are on the rise again in the U.S.

Why are Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID, the FDA, and the CDC so blind to the real-world success of HCQ+azithromycin?  

If this combination is the simple, cheap, safe way to prevent hospitalization, would government agencies, Big Pharma, and the corporate media want to know?

If yes, then the proposed solution from a prominent Yale epidemiologist would prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, and help the world to recovery.

Real-World Research on Hydroxychloroquine

During February and March of 2020, there was a lot of excitement in the medical community[i] because early indications in China and France seemed to show a cure for people in the early stage of Covid-19. The ancient anti-malarial drug quinine (aka chloroquine, aka hydroxychloroquine, aka HCQ) had been repurposed to show very promising results against Covid-19 when given to outpatients with early symptoms.

On March 21 all that changed when President Donald Trump tweeted:

“HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.”[ii]

HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains – Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents)…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2020

Hydroxycholoroquine, made from the ancient, cheap, and plentiful anti-malarial drug quinine, had suddenly become highly politicized. Its industry rivals and the media vigorously decried a business president, who, not a doctor, had dashed hopes for a profitable magic-bullet drug by tweeting an almost-free solution.

On May 22, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has been on the WHO list of essential medicines since 1977, was sent into further freefall by a deceptive, industry-backed Lancet article claiming that hydroxychloroquine was causing heart problems in hospitalized Covid patients across six continents.[iii]

Headlines blared, hydroxychloroquine clinical trials were called off, and the World Health Organization recommended that physicians everywhere stop prescribing HCQ for Covid-19.

By May 27, Dr. Harvey Risch, Professor of Epidemiology at the Yale Schools of Public Health and Medicine, had confronted this disaster. He issued an urgent call through the top-ranked American Journal of Epidemiology for hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin “to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.”[iv]

“Five studies,” he wrote from Yale, “including two controlled clinical trials, had demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy.” Incredibly, this call for immediate action published in America’s top epidemiology journal did not appear in the mainstream news.[v]

Instead, the opposite occurred. Although international protest drove the Lancet to retract its fraudulent May 22 article on June 4, the retraction made few headlines.  In those two short weeks the U.S. media, with one voice, established HCQ as “controversial,” “anecdotal,” and even “dangerous” when paired with Gilead Science’s highly publicized golden goose, remdesivir.

On May 21, the day before the Lancet’s HCQ attack appeared, the ever-helpful New York Times had issued a timely update of its massive 7,500-word hit piece against Dr. Didier Raoult, the French microbiologist whose published studies in March and April had preceded Yale’s profit-threatening call for sanity.

What was the Covid-HCQ background in China and France?

Dr. Didier Raoult, M.D., PhD., age 68, has long been France’s most cited microbiologist. For 35 years he has been professor of infectious diseases at the Aix-Marseille University in Marseille. Twelve years ago he founded, and is director of, the university’s Institute of Emerging Tropical Diseases.

Raoult is co-author of 2,300 published, peer-reviewed articles, in which he follows classical research standards by stating plagiarism checks, conflict of interest declarations, and funding declarations.

He is married to a psychiatrist and they have three children. In a July 7 BFM-TV interview he said that his philosophy it to treat patients like family.  He also has three laboratories in Senegal, West Africa.

A vacation village near Marseille in Carry le Rouet was used to quarantine French citizens returning from Wuhan in case they needed treatment. President Macron visited Raoult on April 9.

What had Raoult learned from China?

During the early months of the pandemic, Raoult discovered studies from China showing that the repurposed anti-malarial generic drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were found to be effective in arresting the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in vitro (in the laboratory).[vi]

Further Chinese studies followed, including randomized clinical trials, showing that when administered to patients in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin, during the early days of the infection, their symptoms would most often resolve.[vii]

It thus seemed that almost anyone with early symptoms who tested positive could benefit from effective, affordable prophylactic treatment.

Raoult welcomed the people of Marseille for HCQ-azithromycin treatment and they lined up (socially distanced) around the block outside his 200-staff clinic.

This led to published studies. A first group of 80 patients showed a 50-fold benefit, and a larger group of 1,061 patients showed a similar result while achieving a mortality rate of only 0.5% – and with no cardiac toxicity.[viii]

Recent HCQ efficacy studies, unreported by the mainstream media

Two new independent U.S. studies have come to similar conclusions as Dr. Rault in Marseille and Dr. Risch at Yale:

• On July 1, 2020, the Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan reported that a peer-reviewed retrospective study of 2,541 Detroit cases showed up to 71% mortality reduction in early treatment, using HCQ and azithromycin.[ix]
• In a June 30, 2020 study, Dr. Takahisa Mikami and his team at the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, analyzed the outcomes of 6493 patients who had confirmed Covid-19 and found that hydroxychloroquine decreased the mortality in hospitalized patients.[x]

The Corporate Profits­ Triad: Big Pharma, Media, Government

The Government arm of the triad

1. Conflicts of interest: the corporate fox in the government henhouse

During recent decades, the health role of government, which is to serve and protect its citizens, has been muddied by increasing corporate representation and influence in higher education and on government advisory committees and foundations. The drug industry, for example, funds university research, pours millions into medical schools, has personnel appointments to university faculties, and supplies textbooks to students.

In 1995 Congress established the private CDC Foundation to support the work of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In public-private partnerships, there is a thin line between support and conflict of interest. Susan Perry writes of the Gilead Tamiflu scandal in 2015:

“Unbeknownst to many, the CDC receives substantial industry funding through the CDC Foundation. A spokesperson said that over the past three years the foundation has received an average of about $6.3 [million] from the industry a year, 21% of the foundation’s overall funding. Since 1995 the foundation has received funding from more than 150 corporate “partners,” including Gilead, which holds the patent on oseltamivir [Tamiflu], as well as Genentech and Roche, the drug’s manufacturers.”[xi]

The creation of the CDC Foundation in 1995 altered the make-up of the highly respected CDC as a purely a tax-supported agency belonging to, and financed by, the people it served.

Dozens of pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead Sciences Inc., contribute millions of dollars to the CDC Foundation each year.[xii]

2. Anthony Fauci’s strange position on hydroxychloroquine

On April 4, a major fight erupted at a meeting of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, when economics advisor Peter Navarro passed around file folders, pointing out that overseas hydroxychloroquine studies showed “clear therapeutic efficacy.” The government’s top infectious diseases specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, countered that there was only anecdotal evidence that HCQ works.[xiii]

The evidence above shows that Fauci was wrong.  Navarro was furious and a heated argument ensued.

As the head of the $5.9 billion National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci should have known better – he should have known about the clinical trials, case reports, and observational studies in the medical literature. And he must certainly have known that it is not ethical to perform placebo-controlled studies during a pandemic:  if the drug saves lives, some of the placebo people will die – a point often made by Professor Raoult.

Nor did Fauci mention real-world treatment guidelines. An April 17 article from the “Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection” shows that government guidelines in Ireland, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt list chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as the first line of defense for mild-to-moderate Covid-19. The U.S. guideline listed only remdesivir as the first-line defense.[xiv]

Dr. Fauci should have known about, and mentioned, such national guidelines beyond the United States.

But most particularly, Fauci should have known about the two most critical reasoning aspects regarding hydroxychloroquine:

It is only recommended with azithromycin or doxycycline, and only in an early illness outpatient setting in order to stop the infection before hospitalization becomes necessary.[xv]

The studies above show that this is not rocket science. Why is Dr. Fauci still talking about anecdotal evidence?

Why did he not retract what he told CNN on Wednesday, May 27, referring to what became the May 22 Lancet scandal?

“Clearly the scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy for it.”[xvi]

The corporate arm of the triad: Gilead’s checkered past

To begin with a snapshot of where Gilead’s remdesivir studies stood when on June 29 the US DHSS purchased $1.6 billion worth (500,000 doses, the world supply until the end of August) – the excerpt below from a June 24 article in the British Medical Journal assesses the problems:

“A serious imbalance in covid-19 research strongly favours the study of drug treatments over non-drug interventions, with many studies too small or too weak to produce reliable results.  Equally concerning is the release of partial or preliminary findings before peer review—often through commercial press releases—that is distorting public perceptions, ongoing evaluations efforts, and political responses to the pandemic.

Remdesivir is a key example. The antiviral drug, made by US company Gilead, was unapproved at the start of the pandemic, but in early April the New England Journal of Medicine published a small descriptive study of a compassionate use scheme for patients with covid-19. Gilead funded the study, a third of the authors were Gilead employees, and Gilead’s press release reported “clinical improvement in 68% of patients in this limited dataset.”  Despite being a non-randomised, uncontrolled, company funded study of just 53 patients, media headlines described “hopeful” signs and reported “two thirds” of patients showing improvement.[xvii]

Two weeks later, the Lancet published a randomised placebo controlled trial of remdesivir from China, finding no statistically significant clinical benefit in the primary outcome of time to clinical improvement. Twelve per cent of participants taking remdesivir stopped treatment early because of adverse events, compared with 5% taking placebo. The trial was stopped before meeting recruitment targets.”[xviii]

The only study demonstrating even marginal efficacy shows remdesivir to reduce hospital recovery times 31%, from 15 days to 11 days.[xix]  In light of this benefit, Gilead’s Chairman Daniel Oday explained on June 29 how the company had priced the drug – which had little to do with its cost of $10 per dose to manufacture,[xx] or concern for the cost to the patient, but everything to do with what the market of desperate governments during a pandemic would bear:

“In normal circumstances, we would price a medicine according to the value it provides. The first results from the NIAID study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 showed that remdesivir shortened time to recovery by an average of four days. Taking the example of the United States, earlier hospital discharge would result in hospital savings of approximately $12,000 per patient. Even just considering these immediate savings to the healthcare system alone, we can see the potential value that remdesivir provides…

We have decided to price remdesivir well below this value. To ensure broad and equitable access at a time of urgent global need, we have set a price for governments of developed countries of $390 per vial. Based on current treatment patterns, the vast majority of patients are expected to receive a 5-day treatment course using 6 vials of remdesivir, which equates to $2,340 per patient…

At the current price of $390 per vial, remdesivir is positioned to achieve the aim of providing immediate net savings for healthcare systems…The price for U.S. private insurance companies, will be $520 per vial. At the level we have priced remdesivir and with government programs in place, along with additional Gilead assistance as needed, we believe all patients will have access.”[xxi]

Incredibly, none of the studies published before this purchase had mentioned side effects of the drug, although in the China study, kidney injury had led to discontinuation for one patient, and in its original use for ebola, liver risks had been identified.[xxii] On July 5­, a public health official reported that “remdesivir is showing reports of liver damage in patients across India.”[xxiii]

On June 30, the day after the DHSS $1.6 billion purchase, an International Journal of Infectious Diseases (IJID) preprint reported that two of five patients in a hospital enrolled in the French Discovery trial had to be put on dialysis for renal insufficiency caused by remdesivir toxicity.[xxiv] That’s 40%.

To summarize the problems with remdesivir:

1. The very few control trials were poorly designed, influenced by vested interests, lacked precision, provided low-quality evidence, or produced negative results.
2. There have been doubts about the regulatory decision of approving it and the purchasing decision to stockpile it.
3. There was little mention of adverse effects in the published literature. Post-marketing surveillance has uncovered adverse effects.

In other words, the benefits behind the purchase were overplayed, and the harms were underplayed.

Sadly, this whole story is a close replica of the costly Tamiflu (antiviral oseltamivir) management disaster that played out during the swine flu H1N1 “pandemic” of 2008-09.[xxv]

On July 2, Christopher Morten, a U.S. patent lawyer – having observed the remdesivir purchase debacle after the government had subsidized the development of the drug – published the article, “A powerful law gives HHS the right to take control of remdesivir manufacturing and distribution.”[xxvi]

Further tax dollars may not be lost.

The media arm of the triad: Remdesivir vs HCQ

Hydroxychloroquine’s days were numbered on March 21 when Donald Trump called it a game changer, and it became terminally ill on May 22 when the prestigious Lancet claimed heart effects on six continents.

Whatever predisposition the media may have had to objectively report the repurposingof a safe old drug had vanished. The battle against it was now framed as the President’s ignorant personal views vs. the reportedly non-existent randomized control trials for a “heart-threatening” drug.

HCQ was losing.

A ray of light shone briefly May 14 with the announcement of a NIAID clinical trial to investigate whether HCQ+azithromycin administered early in illness could prevent hospitalization. However, it was quietly extinguished when the trial suddenly ended June 20, unreported, nine days before the massive remdesivir purchase assailed the headlines June 29.

June 29 was a coordinated victory for corporate interests at the expense of the people’s wellness and their pocketbooks.

Conclusion

Reality in the citizen mind has had nothing to do with all the global HCQ studies that have been withheld from curing hundreds of thousands of people at the first sign of illness.

The coordinated triad network has instead sacrificed thousands of lives by propagandizing people into fearfully believing that once they get really sick, remdesivir helps, whereas HCQ does not.

The public is simply not allowed to know about a well-documented solution that threatens corporate profits and the captured media. (The evidence supporting this claim can be explored in depth at “The Media Sabotage of Hydroxychloroquine Use for COVID-19: Doctors Worldwide Protest the Disaster.”[xxvii])

It seems fitting to conclude on a positive note with these practical, responsible words from Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch – words that could well be remembered each day by Dr. Tony Fauci; by the CDC and the FDA; and by any media interested in the public health:

“It is our obligation not to stand by, just ‘carefully watching,’ as the old and infirm and inner city of us are killed by this disease and our economy is destroyed by it and we have nothing to offer except high-mortality hospital treatment.  We have a solution, imperfect, to attempt to deal with the disease.  We have to let physicians employing good clinical judgement use it and informed patients choose it.  There is a small chance that it may not work.  But the urgency demands that we at least start to take that risk and evaluate what happens, and if our situation does not improve we can stop it, but we will know that we did everything that we could instead of sitting by and letting hundreds of thousands die because we did not have the courage to act according to our rational calculations.”[xxviii]

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

[i] “SECOND OPINION: Doctors Discuss the Politicization of Hydroxychloroquine,” June 18, 2020, at 10:21 min. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=m_JIz780i5w&feature=emb_logo).

[ii] Twitter:  https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1241367239900778501

[iii] The Lancet, “RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, by Mandeep R. Mehra et al,” Lancet, 5 June 2010 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext).

[iv] Harvey A. Risch, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis,” Amer. J. Epid, 27 May 2020 (https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586). Risch is Professor at the Yale Schools of both Medicine and Public Health.

[v] Elizabeth Woodworth, “The Media Sabotage of Hydroxychloroquine Use for Covid-19: Doctors Worldwide Protest the Disaster,” Global Research, 30 June 2020 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/media-sabotage-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-doctors-worldwide-protest-disaster/5717382).

[vi] X. Yao, F. , et al., “In vitro antiviral activity and projection of optimized dosing design of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),”Clin. Infect. Dis.9 March 2020 (online ahead of print:  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32150618/).

Liu, et al., “Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro,” Cell Discov, 18 March 2020 p. 16 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32194981/),

Wang, et al., “Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro,” Cell Res, 30, 4 February 2020, pp. 269-271 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0).

[vii] The Chinese studies are cited in this article: P. Gautret P, et al., “Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: a pilot observational study,” Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, March-April 2020 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920301319).

Chen, et al., “Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial,” MedRxiv, 10 April 2020, awaiting peer review (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3).

[viii] P. Gautret, et al., “Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: a pilot observational study,” Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, March-April 2020 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920301319).

Matthieu Million, et al., “Early treatment of 1,061 COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, Marseille, France,”Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, in press 20 April 2020 (http://santepublique-editions.fr/objects/Article-Raoult-20-avril-2020.pdf).

[ix] Samia Arshad, et al., “Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1 July 2020, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.099(https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext).

[x] Takahisa Mukami, et al., “Risk Factors for Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 in New York City,” J. Gen. Intern. Med., 30 June 2020 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32607928/).

[xi] Susan Perry, “CDC’s advice to take Tamiflu is compromised by financial conflicts of interest,” MinnPost, 12 February 2015 (https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2015/02/cdcs-advice-take-tamiflu-compromised-financial-conflicts-interest/).

[xii] CDC Foundation, “Our Partners: Foundations.” The following includes a list of CDC Foundation corporate donors and partners over time.”   (https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporations).

[xiii] Jonathan Swan, “Scoop: Inside the epic White House fight over hydroxychloroquine,” Axios, 5 April 2020 (https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-white-house-01306286-0bbc-4042-9bfe-890413c6220d.html).

[xiv] M. Tobaiqy, et al., “Therapeutic management of patients with Covid-19:  a systematic review,” Infection Prevention in Practice, 17 April 2020 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7162768/)

[xv] Harvey A. Risch, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis,” Amer. J. Epid, 27 May 2020 (https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586). Risch is Professor at the Yale Schools of both Medicine and Public Health.

[xvi] Devan Cole, “Fauci: Science shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective as a coronavirus treatment,” CNN, 27 May 2020 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/anthony-fauci-hydroxychloroquine-trump-cnntv/index.html).

[xvii] Christopher Rowland, “Gilead’s experimental drug remdesivir shows ‘hopeful’ signs in small group of coronavirus patients,” Washington Post, 10 April 2020 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/10/gileads-experimental-drug-remdesivir-shows-hopeful-signs-small-group-coronavirus-patients/).

[xviii] Ray Moynihan et al.,“Commercial influence and covid-19,” BMJ2020;369:m2456 (Published 24 June 2020) (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2456).

[xix] Jon Cohen, “Large trial yields strongest evidence yet that antiviral drug can help COVID-19 patients,” Science, 29 April 2020 (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/large-trial-yields-strongest-evidence-yet-antiviral-drug-can-help-covid-19-patients).

[xx] Melanie D. Whittington and Jonathan B. Campbell, “Alternative Pricing Models for Remdesivir and Other Potential Treatments for COVID-19,” Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 1 May 2020 (https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ICER-COVID_Initial_Abstract_05012020-3.pdf). In a May 1, 2020 study, the ICER calculated that the cost of producing the remdesivir “final finished product,” including the pharmaceutical ingredients, formulation, packaging, and a small profit margin, was $9.32 US for a 10-day course of treatment.

[xxi] Daniel Oday, “Press Release:  Open Letter from Chairman Daniel Oday,” Gilead Sciences, 29 June 2020 (https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/press-room/press-releases/2020/6/an-open-letter-from-daniel-oday-chairman–ceo-gilead-sciences).

[xxii] Crystal Phend, “Remdesivir Safety Forecast: Watch the Liver, Kidneys,” Medpage Today, 19 May 2020 (https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86582).

[xxiii] Bindu Shajan Perappadan, “COVID-19 drugs under review after trial results,” The Hindu, 5 July 2020 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/covid-19-drugs-under-review-after-trial-results/article31996031.ece).

[xxiv] Marie Dubert and Francois-Xavier Lescure, et al (14 more), “Case reports study of the first five patients COVID-19 treated with remdesivir in France,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, in press, journal pre-proof, available June 30 online (https://www.sciencedirect.com/S1201971220305282).

[xxv] Yogendra Kumar Gupta, et al., “The Tamiflu fiasco and lessons learnt,” Indian J Pharmacol.2015 Jan-Feb; 47(1): 11–16 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4375804/).

[xxvi] Christopher Morten, “A powerful law gives HHS the right to take control of remdesivir manufacturing and distribution,” StatNews, 2 July 2020 (https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/02/powerful-law-gives-hhs-right-to-control-remdesivir-manufacturing-distribution/).

[xxvii] Elizabeth Woodworth, “The Media Sabotage of Hydroxychloroquine Use for COVID-19: Doctors Worldwide Protest the Disaster,” Global Research, June 30 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/media-sabotage-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-doctors-worldwide-protest-disaster/5717382).

[xxviii] Harvey A. Risch, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis,” Amer. J. Epid, 27 May 2020 (https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586). Risch is Professor at the Yale Schools of both Medicine and Public Health.

September 16.  Central Criminal Court, London.  Proceedings today at the Old Bailey regarding Julian Assange’s extradition returned to journalistic practice, redaction of source names and that ongoing obsession with alleged harm arising from WikiLeaks releases.  John Goetz of Der Spiegel added his bit for the defence, making an effort to set the record straight on the events leading up to the publishing of un-redacted US diplomatic cables on September 2, 2011.

The picture that emerges from Goetz is not Assange the reckless cavalier indifferent to human life but of a more considered publisher, working with news organisations to redact the names of informants, insisting on the use of encrypted communications, cognisant of the risk of harm facing them.  Goetz noted that WikiLeaks had a “very rigorous redaction process”, evident in its approach to the Afghanistan files; Assange was “very concerned with the technical aspect of trying to find the names in this massive collection of documents.”  

Der Spiegel itself had interviewed Assange on the process in 2010, a point remarked upon by Goetz.  As Assange said at the time.  “We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.”  Cases “where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent” were identified.  “Those records were identified and edited accordingly.”  The practice seemed to have paid off.  Goetz noted that the trial of Chelsea Manning, based on her disclosures to WikiLeaks, revealed no cases of harm to any informant.

Mark Summers QC sensed a chance to interrogate another aspect of the prosecution case on Assange’s supposed callousness about the fate of informants, captured by the alleged remark, “They’re informants, they deserve to die.”  That now infamous dinner at London’s Moro restaurant is recorded by The Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding in WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy (2011).  It supposedly took place in early July 2010 a few weeks prior to the publication of the Afghan War Diaries. Goetz had been in attendance.  Leigh, also at the dinner, was mistaken: Assange had never said anything of the sort. 

James Lewis QC for the prosecution spluttered in alarm at this course of questioning from the defence.  Goetz had not mentioned this in his written testimony; a supplemental witness statement would have to be submitted.  Judge Vanessa Baraitser agreed, amputating a potentially fruitful line of inquiry. 

A picture of tussling between authorities and media outlets emerged, with WikiLeaks and partner media outlets having communications with the US government prior to publication.  Efforts were made to identify areas of sensitivity; officials were variably bemused.  A delegation of New York Times reporters made their way to the White House ostensibly to discuss the imminent release, with Eric Schmitt informing Goetz of the conveyed message that 15,000 documents within the Afghan War Diaries would not be published.  The call to assist with redactions was met with “derision”.

The bungle that led to the publication of the entire trove of un-redacted cables was also re-visited.  It gave Goetz a chance to patiently point out that the password to the unencrypted file with the cables had found its way into the aforementioned book by Leigh and Harding.  The magazine Die Freitag got wind of it, publishing the details, despite, according to Goetz, Assange’s efforts to stop it.  Publishing outfits such as Cryptome capitalised with abandon.  With the train set in motion, Assange and WikiLeaks contacted the State Department’s emergency phone line.  The cat had scurried out of the bag; sources had been named.  The response from Washington was cool, dismissive.  WikiLeaks subsequently published what had already been released.  During the examination of Goetz, Lewis got muddled over the Afghan War logs and diplomatic cables.  The journalist was happy to correct him. 

The Goetz testimony also spoke to the value of the WikiLeaks disclosures.  Details had been sparse on the fate of kidnapped German national Khalid el-Masri, who had been captured by the Central Intelligence Agency in Macedonia in 2004.  A search of the trove by Goetz revealed that CIA abductors had “forced el-Masri onto a military plane, sodomized him and sent him” to Afghanistan.  The revelations led to the issuing of an arrest warrant by a state prosecutor based in Munich for 13 CIA agents.  Another search of the cables found that pressure from Washington had been brought to bear on the prosecution to defang the process, issuing a warrant in a jurisdiction where the agents did not live.

With Goetz’s testimony done, the defence attempted to incorporate a statement by el-Masri into the court record.  The prosecution took issue, claiming that he did not feature in the charges against the WikiLeaks publisher, making such evidence irrelevant and inadmissible.  An agitated Lewis suggested that the defence, in reading the statement, would be wasting half-an-hour of the court’s time.  Judge Baraitser was put out at the manner of the prosecutor’s objection; such an approach might mean her accepting the evidence “unchallenged”.  After much discussion Lewis suggested edits. The statement seems to remain in legal limbo.

The other blazing feature of today’s proceedings was the appearance of Daniel Ellsberg, the aged whistleblower of Pentagon Papers fame. Over the years, he has become a grandfatherly presence in the debates on disclosing classified material for public consumption and debate.  The documents he passed on to the New York Times in 1971 shed light on the futility of US involvement in the Vietnam War while revealing habitual public mendacity on the part of various administrations.  “My own actions in relation to the Pentagon papers and the consequences of their publication have been acknowledged to have performed such a radical change of understanding.  I view the WikiLeaks publications of 2010 and 2011 to be of comparable importance.” 

Before the court, Ellsberg attested to the common beliefs he shared with Assange: opposing wars, holding to those cardinal principles of keeping the powerful accountable and the state transparent.  Common ground was also shared about the invasion of Iraq (a “crime” and “aggressive war”); and Afghanistan, a modern Vietnam redux of infinite stalemate.  Over time, attitudes had changed to documents discussing such behaviour in war.  The killings, abuses and war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq had been buried in “low-level field reports” so as to be banal.  The Pentagon Papers had been seen as the palace jewels of secrecy; the Iraq and Afghan war logs were merely classified as “secret”.

Such leaks as the Collateral Murder video, the infamous portrayal of a war crime committed by an US Army Apache helicopter in New Baghdad, shed light on this culture of lethal normalisation. Murder it was, but “the problematic word in the title was ‘Collateral’, implying that it was unintended.”  Chelsea Manning was also to be praised for “willing to risk her liberty and even her life to make this information public.  It was the first time in 40 years I saw someone else doing that, and I felt kinship towards her.”

The Espionage Act, Ellsberg reflected, discouraged such acts of informing disclosure.  He found this much to his chagrin during his 1973 trial, in which motivation was dismissed as irrelevant. 

“The Espionage Act,” rued Ellsberg, “does not allow for whistleblowing, to allow you to say you were informing the polity.  So I did not have a fair trial, no one since me had a fair trial on these charges, and Julian Assange cannot remotely get a fair trial under those charges if he were tried.” 

In cross-examination, the prosecution brought up the straw man argument used by critics of WikiLeaks, including Floyd Abrams, an attorney who represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case.  The argument seeks to distinguish Ellsberg’s conduct and the right of the paper to publish, as distinct from that of Assange.  Ellsberg found such views ignorant of motive, whether of his or Assange’s.  Abrams had not troubled himself to go through the entirety of the Pentagon papers, nor discuss motivations with him.    

From this distinction arose the idea of the noble, ennobled Ellsberg, and the wicked, fallen Assange.  Exempting him from criticism while criticising Edward Snowden, Manning and Assange involved “a distinction which in my view is entirely misleading.”  Apart from “the computer aspects which didn’t exist back then, I see no difference between the charges against me and the charges against Assange.”  He also challenged the distinction (white Ellsberg, dark Assange) by suggesting he had not done as Assange had in terms of care: redacted names, withheld 15,000 sensitive documents, or approached the Pentagon and State Department for assistance in making further redactions.  The refusal to accept such offers from WikiLeaks might have been purposely done, suggested Ellsberg, to enable a future prosecution.   

Ellsberg attempted to set Lewis straight in his contention that withholding four volumes of the Pentagon Papers at the time was a saintly gesture to prevent harm to the US.  The whistleblower disagreed.  The move was intended to prevent a disruption to ongoing peace talks.  “I want to get in the way of the war, I don’t want to get in the way of the negotiations.”  To have redacted the papers would have risked compromising their accuracy. 

The prosecution, desperate to nab their quarry, insisted on pushing Ellsberg on the issue of harm that the disclosures might have had.  Lewis seemed incredulous that any witness could claim that “there is no evidence that WikiLeaks put anyone in danger.”  He also read the contents of Assistant US Attorney General Gordon Kromberg’s affidavit at some length, a crude recycling of many of the claims made at the Manning trial that failed to stick on the charge of “aiding the enemy”.  Ellsberg snorted, claiming such assertions to be the mark of high cynicism. “Am I right in that none of these people actually suffered physical harm?” Lewis tartly responded: “The rules are that you do not get to ask the questions.” 

Ellsberg, however had decent answers.  He could also point to the findings of the US Defense Department that no demonstrable harm had arisen from the releases.  At the Manning court martial, the prosecutors similarly conceded that not a single death could be identified as a result, a point made by Brigadier General Robert Carr under cross-examination.   

Ellsberg also suggested that US authorities had done little by way of assisting the concealing of informant identities when approached by WikiLeaks.  US wars in the Middle East over the last two decades, the sort that Assange had tried to end, had caused a million deaths and 37 million refugees. 

This did not prevent Lewis from speculating about those who had disappeared in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.  It was “common sense” to suggest that they had either been murdered or forced to flee.  “I’m sorry sir,” came the reply, “but it doesn’t seem to be at all obvious that this small fraction of people that have been murdered in course of both sides of the conflicts can be attributed to WikiLeaks disclosures.”  A truly palpable hit.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.  Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The independent studies of various scientists have highlighted several issues on the virus. Many inconsistencies have emerged from many points of view which are summarized in these two letters. The reflections start from two complementary approaches and ask for explanations by offering new approaches and protocols.

***

Recipients

• Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , World Health Organization;
• Mario Monti , Head of Health for the World Health Organization;
• Ursula Von der Leyen , President of the European Commission;
• David Sassoli, President of the European Parliament;
• to the Presidents of each Nation;
• to the Ministers of Health of each nation.

Letter from:

Antonietta Gatti, Fellow of Soc. Of Biomaterials and Eng., Italy
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Lawyer, USA

Dear Presidents and Ministers,

As an international group of scientists, doctors and lawyers, we contact you today about the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which has changed life around the world.

A variety of aspects about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and related therapeutics have been proven wrong. These included information provided by the WHO, the EU and governmental bodies in many European countries.

We are particularly concerned about the mechanism by which the virus works and the therapeutic protocols used almost identically around the world.

Several clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 behavior that we have observed are in stark contrast to what information authorities and the media have reported.

To properly understand the viral activity of SARS-CoV-2, we need more information.

A key question is why the concentration of lethality [% of deaths out of total positive subjects] was so different across European countries.

Therefore, we seek to understand and scientifically explain the concentration of mortality differences [the differences in mortality rates] from the virus in different countries and areas of Europe.

This knowledge is essential to determine if an ad hoc vaccine  , with all the associated risks, is really necessary, as many of you have stated.

If there is no answer we will consider you in accordance with our conclusions.

We thank you for your attention, and confident of your feedback, we send you cordial greetings.

***

Construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany is about 94% completed.

The project is all about supplying Germany and other European countries with readily available low-cost Russian natural gas — around 30% cheaper than US liquified natural gas (LNG).

Both right wings of the US one-party state want the pipeline halted to benefit US producers at Russia’s expense.

US sanctions on the project breach international law, Germany’s Angela Merkel earlier saying “(w)e oppose extraterritorial sanctions…(W)e don’t accept” them.

“We haven’t backed down (on wanting Nord Stream 2 completed) nor do we intend to back down.”

Last December, German Foreign Minister Heiko Mass said “European energy policy is decided in Europe, not the United States. We reject any outside interventions and extraterritorial sanctions.”

Did the novichok poisoning of Putin critic Alexey Navalny hoax change things?

During a September 24 – 25 summit of EU leaders, the future of Nord Stream 2 will be discussed.

Ahead of the summit, Merkel’s government offered to invest around one billion euros (about $1.2 billion) in construction of two terminals in Germany for US LNG.

According to the German broadsheet Die Zeit, by letter to Trump regime Treasury Secretary Mnunchin in August, German Vice Chancellor and Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the following:

“In exchange (for Berlin’s proposed LNG investment), the US will allow unobstructed finalization and use of Nord Stream 2,” adding:

“(E)xisting legal options for (challenging US) sanctions (on firms involved in the project) have not been exhausted yet.”

The broadsheet added that Scholz first expressed Berlin’s proposal verbally, confirming it by letter.

Proposed German LNG terminals would be built in Brunsbuttel and Wilhelmshaven.

Berlin’s proposal also included a gas transit contract for Ukraine and financing of a terminal for Poland’s use of US LNG.

Following the Navalny false flag, opinion on completing Nord Stream 2 in Germany is divided.

Merkel still supports the project as evidenced by her government’s offer to build two terminals for US LNG in exchange for dropping sanctions on the pipeline by the US.

 

Last June, US Senate hardliners proposed legislation to expand Nord Stream 2 related sanctions.

It targets all nations and enterprises involved in the project, including underwriting, insurance and reinsurance companies.

At the time, Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller said Russia will complete construction of the project on its own — expected to be operational in January or shortly thereafter.

Last month, German Foreign Minister Heiko Mass expressed “displeasure” to Pompeo about US sanctions on the project.

Last week, Polish government spokesman Piotr Muller was quoted saying the following:

“Poland has from the very beginning emphasized that European solidarity (on Nord Stream 2) should be unambiguous.”

“Therefore, if such a need is expressed by the German side, Poland is open to the idea of using the infrastructure which it is building for its own energy security.”

His remark followed German media reports that Merkel said a decision by her government on Nord Stream 2 has not been made in light of the Navalny incident.

German officials supporting the project stressed that the country will be the main beneficiary of its completion economically, environmentally and strategically.

Construction on the proposed 800 – 950 km Baltic Pipe gas pipeline from Norwegian North Sea waters to Poland hasn’t begun.

If completed in October 2022 as proposed, it’ll be able to deliver about 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually — less than 20% of Nord Stream 2’s 55 billion annual cubic meter capacity.

Berlin earlier was skeptical about the project because of environmental concerns.

Days earlier, Polish energy expert Jakub Wiech called it “pointless” to compare Baltic Pipe to Nord Stream 2, given the latter project’s far greater capacity and ability to provide gas to other Western European countries.

A day after the Navalny incident last month, Merkel said Nord Stream 2 will be completed regardless of threatened new US sanctions on firms involved in the project.

Separately on Wednesday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Nord Stream 2’s completion should not be raised in discussing the Navalny incident.

“It should stop being mentioned in the context of any politicization.”

“This is a commercial project that is absolutely in line with the interests of both Russia and European Union countries, and primarily Germany.”

No evidence links Russia to Navalny’s illness.

Whatever caused it wasn’t from a novichok nerve agent, the deadliest know substance able to kill exposed individuals in minutes.

Over three weeks after falling ill, Navalny is very much alive, recuperating in a Berlin hospital, and able to be ambulatory for short periods.

A Final Comment

On September 14, CNBC reported the following:

“Experts say Berlin is unlikely to (abandon Nord Stream 2 that’s) over 94% completed after almost a decade’s construction, involv(ing) major German and European companies, and is necessary for the region’s current and future energy needs,” adding:

“In this case, economic and commercial interests could trump political pressure” against Russia.

Chief eurozone economist Carsten Brzeski said he doesn’t see  “Germany pulling out of the project…Many (in the country) are still in favor of it.”

CNBC noted that

“Germany has been reluctant to link the fate of its involvement with Nord Stream 2 to the Navalny incident so far, and (FM Heiko) Maas conceded that stopping the building of the pipeline would hurt not only Russia but German and European firms.”

“(O)ver 100 companies from 12 European countries” are involved in the project…about half of them from Germany.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Asia Times

It appears as if Saudi de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, is on a mission to destroy the world oil giant by one after the other ill-conceived economic decisions. Now, as MBS orders yet new desperation cuts in Saudi oil prices, his economy is imploding from all sides—from the stupid Vision 2030 plan to even the traditional oil sector, the source for 87% of the Kingdom budget. The economic decline of Saudi Arabia will have huge geopolitical consequences beyond the Middle East.

As if it had learned nothing from its 2014 oil price war, then targeting the growing USA oil shale industry, Saudi Prince MBS ordered a new oil price war in March. That was after Russia, not an official OPEC member, declined to accept an added 300,000 barrel a day cut in output. The Russian argument was that doing so in a very uncertain world oil market would be foolish and counter-productive. The Russians were right. Saudis flooded world markets with an added 3 million barrels a day by early April. That was just the time when the global panic around the COVID-19 coronavirus spread led to a de facto shutdown of world airlines, auto and truck and ship fuel demand. MBS forgot to take that into account, and oil prices plunged. With it, the Saudi oil revenues to the state budget fell too.

Backfire

Within two weeks following the March Saudi oil war, this against both Russia and USA, world oil prices had plunged from near $60 a barrel to below $30. A catastrophe to put it mildly. Saudi Arabia needs oil at $90 a barrel to balance its state budget according to Fitch Ratings. By April as the coronavirus lockdowns were in full force around the world, Saudi oil export revenue was down a whopping 65% from April 2019. To put this into perspective in 2012 Saudi oil export earnings were some $350 billion. For 2020 estimated earnings may not reach $150 billion.

By early April global oil demand had plunged by an unheard-of 30% as the coronavirus lockdowns took their toll on the world economy. Only because of an unprecedented temporary OPEC cut then in oil production of 10 million barrels daily, led by Saudi, and this time joined by Russia, did world prices slowly rise from lows nearly $20 to around $40 a barrel, still a far cry from recovery. However prices are again going lower in mid-September as the world economy, including China and the USA, are far from recovered in oil demand.

Vision 2030?

This situation is a disaster for the mid-term project of MBS to leapfrog Saudi Arabia from oil dependency into the 4th Industrial Revolution. MBS took a report prepared for him by the controversial McKinsey consultants and called it Vision 2030.

To call the Saudi Vision 2030 an unrealistic pipe dream is putting it mildly. The blueprint, unveiled by MBS in late 2017, calls for making an advanced high-tech nation out of the desert Kingdom in little more than a decade by 2030.

The overall Vision 2030 plan is little more than a grab-bag of neoliberal proposals that will do little in the current environment to bring the promised new economy. In reality it will likely destroy what oil-based economic stability there is and greatly aggravate income disparities within Saudi Arabia where an estimated 20% live in poverty despite decades of oil wealth.

Explicit goals as of 2016 included three main pillars to create a “vibrant society, a thriving economy, and an ambitious nation,” whatever that means. Out of the 33 headings in the Vision, 14 deal with the economy, 11 with social issues, and eight with administration. With a population 70% officially overweight, MBS’ “vision” includes a goal of “doubling the number of Saudis exercising each week.” Other goals include raising personal savings, and having three cities among the top 100 ranked globally. Neom is not one.

Then the plan states lofty goals such as to increase non-oil GDP from 16 percent to 50 percent of GDP; reduce unemployment from 12 percent to 7 percent; attract $1 trillion in foreign investment. Then incredibly, the vision aims to attract 1.2 million (non-religious) tourists, and 30 million pilgrims a year and to “raise the Public Investment Fund’s assets to $2 trillion.” In 2018 Saudi attracted a mere 200,000 tourists aside from religious pilgrimages. Last year, some 2.6 million pilgrims went on Hajj, with religious tourism generating $12 billion. This year due to coronavirus all pilgrimages were cancelled.

The Saudi state PIF (Public Investment Fund) currently has some $320 billion. Goal is $2 trillion. Simply said, the Vision 2030 that should lift Saudi Arabia out of the petroleum era into the high-tech era with 5G, AI, gene-editing and such, has planned to open up the country, one of the most religiously conservative in the world, by privatizing chunks of the valuable state sector, cutting government oil and other subsidies (de facto a tax on the population who can least afford it) , and somehow attracting foreign investors. That was in 2018. The website officially has not been updated since.

Neom

The heart of the “vision” of MBS is creation of an entirely new city, Neom, which means “new future” in Arabic, about the size of Belgium. The official website describes the plan, “Neom will include towns and cities, ports and enterprise zones, research centers, sports and entertainment venues, and tourist destinations. It will be the home and workplace for more than a million citizens from around the world.” As a euphoric MBS told Bloomberg in a 2017 interview: “We want the main robot and the first robot in Neom to be Neom, robot number one. Everything will have a link with artificial intelligence, with the Internet of Things – everything.”

The planned location for Neom is on a barren patch of desert on the Red Sea near to southern Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The closest Saudi town is Tabuk. As the official description notes, the planned one million residents will not likely be native Saudi engineers and IT rocket scientists. They must import the high-tech talent.

The estimated $500 billion futuristic Neom is the pet project of MBS within the Vision 2030. It is to be financed by the Saudi PIF chaired by the omnipresent Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. The PIF is to finance the Saudi “great leap forward.” It even included a Saudi-financed scheme to incorporate Egypt’s town of Sharm el-Sheikj as part of the Neom luxury tourist and economic zone.

How? Here it gets sticky. In 2016 Saudi foreign reserves were at $700 billion. This April, as oil prices collapsed, they stood at $448 billion. To meet rising state budget deficits the government has tripled VAT consumer taxes and doubled the price of gasoline, hardly winning public support. VAT went from 5% in 2018 to 15% this year.

The Public Investment Fund headed by MBS has fared none too well either.

The much-touted source that was expected to raise another $100 billion for the PIF was the privatization of the huge ARAMCO state oil company. In the current oil environment, it flopped. Instead of the initial five percent to be floated, and raise over $100 billion, the IPO was scaled down, with 1.5 percent sold for $26.5 billion, most internally, as foreign investors were not interested in the prospect. Now with their latest oil war, foreign confidence in ARAMCO as an investment is gone. “They’ve lost everyone’s confidence, including those that invested in Aramco, as they started a price war and cheated them all [of expected profits],” said Hugh Miles, editor of Arab Digest, in Cairo. Future sales of Aramco stock were intended to transform PIF into a $3 trillion fund. Not likely at present.

Another hope of MBS to pump up the assets of his PIF fund was to sink billions into the Japan SoftBank. That has also turned out badly. In May, SoftBank announced that during the fiscal year 2019-2020, the Vision Fund, in which Saudi Arabia’s PIF invested $45 billion, incurred a loss calculated at $17.7 billion. According to reports Saudi Arabia’s PIF has also cancelled plans to join with SoftBank in a $200 billion solar farm.

More recently the Saudi central bank, SAMA, loaned another $40 billion to the PIF to take advantage of what it hopes are bargain buys amid the COVID-19 lockdowns. They are betting on a future recovery of the global economy, including of the troubled Boeing, that is looking ever more dubious.

With the hopes for transforming the Saudi economy tied to the state oil giant ARAMCO prospects amid corona lockdowns and declining oil prices are grim. To make matters worse ARAMCO must pay a dividend of $75 billion as it promised when it listed 5 percent of its stock in December 2019. The company has to keep up these annual payments for the next five years.

At this point not only is Neom dead in the water, but also with it the entire Vision 2030 is a shambles. Saudi Arabia is struggling as never since 1945.

Geopolitical implications

Now that her allied neighbors, the UAE and Bahrain, have formally agreed to recognize Israel, MBS is under significant pressure to join the US-brokered initiative. All indications are that world oil demand, especially in the industrial countries of the EU and North America will decline as pressure for a green agenda politically grows. That has already created a serious global oil glut that Saudi is able to do little to change.

The recent 25-year Iran-China strategic partnership which apparently includes a significant military component, increases the pressure on MBS and the Saudis to devise a new geopolitical strategy beyond the series of proxy wars in Yemen and elsewhere that have been a significant failure for the Saudi side, with Iran-backed Houthi rebels able to regularly lob missiles at Riyadh and other Saudi targets. Several months ago the UAE intervened in Yemen to effectively partition the country along old Cold War lines, effectively ending the fruitless, destructive war against Saudi wishes, a clear humiliation of MBS.

Three years ago MBS declared an economic embargo against Qatar based on the latter’s close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, now banned in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Gulf monarchies. As MBS is being pressed to openly join UAE and Bahrain in recognition of Israel, something already well underway behind the scenes, Washington this week urged Saudi Arabia to heal its rift with Qatar in order to increase pressure on Iran. Were that to happen, with Saudi Arabia today in a far weaker economic position, a new strategy of dealing with Iran might emerge. What would be the future of China’s Belt, Road Initiative that once envisioned extending to Turkey and Israel is unclear amid strong US counter-pressures. At this point, as the entire Middle East is in flux, the once mighty Saudi monarchy is looking like a giant with feet of clay as it sees the twilight of its power over world oil.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

We hope that by publishing diverse view points, submitted by journalists and experts dotted all over the world, the website can serve as a reminder that no matter what narrative we are presented with, things are rarely as cut and dry as they seem.

If Global Research has been a resource which has offered you some solace over the past few months, we ask you to make a financial contribution to our running costs so that we may keep this important project alive and well! We thank you for your support!

There is a technical issue regarding our email send-out of selected articles, which we hope to resolve.

The support of readers is essential to sustaining our endeavors.  Click to donate:

*     *     *

Ireland: ‘Draconian’ Restrictions Around COVID-19 Condemned by Health Service Executive Doctor

By Paul Cullen, September 17, 2020

Covid-19 is “much less severe” than the average annual flu and current “draconian” restrictions are no longer justified, according to a senior Health Service Executive doctor.

People at low risk from the virus should be exposed to it so they can develop herd immunity and reduce the risk to vulnerable groups, according to Dr Martin Feeley, clinical director of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group.

Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and All Belgian Media

By Docs4opendebate, September 17, 2020

We, Belgian doctors and health professionals, wish to express our serious concern about the evolution of the situation in the recent months surrounding the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We call on politicians to be independently and critically informed in the decision-making process and in the compulsory implementation of corona-measures. We ask for an open debate, where all experts are represented without any form of censorship. After the initial panic surrounding covid-19, the objective facts now show a completely different picture – there is no medical justification for any emergency policy anymore.

A Huge Number of Medical Doctors Ask for a Reassessment of the Corona Measures

By Docs4opendebate, September 17, 2020

In the Netherlands, doctors have come together and drafted an open letter addressed to colleagues and the government pleading for proportional measures. This letter aims to stimulate an open and frank debate on how to tackle the Covid-19 outbreak and was signed by more than 800 doctors. The petition has been stopped by now.

COVID-19: Guidance for School Reopening. Report by The Hospital For Sick Children and Unity Health Toronto

By SickKids, September 16, 2020

Multiple reports from around the world indicate that children and youth account for less than 5-10% of SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infections.[12-14] In Canada, of 114,597 COVID-19 cases reported as of July 27, 2020, 8,747 (7.5%) were in individuals aged 0-19 years.[15] While this may, at least in part, be related to testing strategies and test performance in children and youth as well as early school closure, there is some data to suggest children, particularly those under 10 years of age, may be less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and potentially less likely to transmit the virus to others.

Video: Irish Doctor Speaks Out About Covid-19 Lies

By Mark Taliano, September 15, 2020

She first knew the pandemic was “fake” when the WHO first declared pandemic with an announcement of 4,291 deaths globally. This, she says, represents 1 death per 1.8 million people. Context is important.

When rules were changed around Death Certificate coding, as happened in North America and beyond, it was the first time in her professional career that she had witnessed this. It meant that COVID data could not be compared to previous outbreaks, it couldn’t be compared to “what had happened before”.

Video: COVID-19 the “Pandemic” Is Over. “A Novel Virus Closely Related to Corona Viruses Which Contribute to the Common Cold”

By Dr. Mike Yeadon and Julia Hartley-Brewer, September 14, 2020

Mike Yeadon, Pfizer former chief scientific advisor: Ferguson’s model has no validity in the view of most scientists:

“Yes, its a novel virus but its very closely related to at least four other viruses that circulate freely in the population, which are all corona viruses and contribute to the common cold, so bluntly it was naive of them (government etc) to assume everyone was susceptible..”

“We Have a Lot of Evidence that It’s a Fake Story All Over the World” – German Doctors on COVID-19

By Arjun Walia, September 14, 2020

Many of the claims these doctors make have been ‘debunked’ by mainstream media, federal health regulatory agencies and ‘fact-checkers’ that are patrolling the internet. Any information that does not come from the (WHO) is not considered reliable, truthful or accurate, and that would include the information presented in this article and information shared by these experts in the field. People are being encouraged to visit the WHO’s website for real and accurate information about COVID-19 instead of listening to doctors and scientists who oppose the narrative of these health authorities.

Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy

By Dr. Russell Blaylock, September 14, 2020

Researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia).

In defiance of world community sentiment and SC Res. 2231 — that’s binding international and US constitutional law — the Trump regime will unilaterally reimpose sanctions on Iran that were lifted when the JCPOA took effect.

According to Trump regime envoy for regime change in Venezuela and Iran Elliott Abrams, “virtually all UN sanctions on Iran will come back into place this weekend at 8:00 PM Eastern Time on Saturday the 19th,” adding:

“The arms embargo will now be reimposed indefinitely and other restrictions will return, including the ban on Iran engaging in enrichment and reprocessing-related activities, the prohibition on ballistic missile testing and development, and sanctions on the transfer of nuclear and missile-related technologies to Iran.”

During a Wednesday press briefing, Pompeo said the following:

“We will return to the United Nations to reimpose sanctions (on Iran) so that the arms embargo will become permanent next week.”

He expects the world community to observe what the vast majority of its member states oppose.

He illegally claimed that the US is unilaterally entitled to impose snapback sanctions on Iran, “and that’s what we’ll do…to ensure that those sanctions are enforced” — even though after abandoning the JCPOA in May 2018, the Trump regime has no legal say on matters relating to the landmark agreement.

On September 1 in Vienna, Joint Commission of the JCPOA signatories Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and Iran stressed the importance of preserving the JCPOA.

These nations reject imposition of so-called snapback sanctions on Iran.

Following the meeting, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stressed that

“(w)e are certain that if the international community and the UN Council members will continue to stick to principled positions on this issue, which is what we are working on, then the situation will emerge when the US will be alone in the UN Security Council with this paradoxical point of view.”

With few exceptions, the Trump regime lacks international support to abandon what’s affirmed by SC Res. 2231.

In Vienna, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said the following:

“All JCPOA members and the majority of the international community members are opposed to the US’ unilateral policies and its policy of weakening multilateralism, international organizations and multilateral approaches in the international relations.”

A joint statement by remaining P4+1 signatories said in part:

“All participants reaffirmed the importance of preserving the agreement, recalling that it is a key element of the global nuclear non-proliferation architecture, as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).”

“Full implementation of the agreement by all sides remains crucial.”

On October 18, the UN conventional arms embargo on Iran expires.

Last month, Security Council members overwhelmingly defeated the Trump regime’s aim to extend it indefinitely — the Dominican Republic alone siding with the US position.

On issues related to Iran, the JCPOA, snapback sanctions, and expiring arms embargo on the country, the US is isolated on the world stage.

During his Wednesday briefing, remarks by Abrams displayed typical US imperial arrogance, saying that “we expect all UN member states to implement the UN sanctions fully and respect the process and obligations to uphold these sanctions” — followed by unacceptable Iran bashing comments repeated many times before by Trump regime officials.

Key going forward is whether nations wanting the JCPOA preserved will maintain their resolve to uphold SC Res. 2231 that affirmed the agreement — especially Britain, France, Germany and Brussels.

Key also is what actions will the Trump regime take against nations unwilling to observe its unlawfully imposed snapback sanctions and arms embargo on Iran — which is their legal right.

Next Tuesday during the General Assembly’s 75th anniversary session, Trump will address the body in New York.

According to his UN envoy Kelly Craft, he’ll likely be “the only world leader to be speaking in person” — others delivering pre-recorded video messages.

He’ll no doubt include his regime’s policies on Iran in his remarks — around six weeks ahead of US November presidential and congressional elections.

Aside from Israel, a few Gulf states, and perhaps a few Latin American ones, the world community is against imposition of snapback sanctions and indefinitely extending an arms embargo on Iran to preserve the landmark JCPOA agreement.

AP News reported that JCPOA signatories Britain, France and Germany “will likely respond” to unlawful Trump regime actions on Iran this weekend “by issuing a statement reiterating their position that the United States cannot trigger snapback” or extend the expiring arms embargo, adding:

“(O)pposition to the US (position on Iran) is widespread and strong, including from 13 of the other 14 Security Council members.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is a White House photo by Shealah Craighead

This year’s Amazon fire season is one of the most serious ever, even though it’s not attracting near the media attention as last year. More than one thousand major fires have already been detected in the rainforest biome this year, with 82 major fires reported in protected areas and Indigenous territories, as of September 10, 2020.

Across the Brazilian Amazon, September has averaged 53 major fires per day (up from 18 in August) says the non-profit MAAP. But according to other sources, there are more than 6,000 hotspots flaring up in just a single day.

With statistics like these apparently diverging so widely among multiple sources, how do we know for sure what, and how much, rainforest is truly burning where? And how exactly are all these fires detected, and what do these numbers mean in reality?

To answer, we have to start in space.

Many satellites circle the Earth daily, some outfitted with tools tailored for fire monitoring. These devices record a variety of data that, when put together with other data sets, give us a multifaceted, well rounded, and increasingly accurate, view of the year’s fires.

The Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) satellite operated NASA and NOAA detects fires on earth through infrared sensing. Artist rendering via NASA.

These “near real time” fire detection systems fall into two major types: those sensing heat radiating from the Earth’s surface (“hotspots”) and those detecting aerosol emissions (particles released into the atmosphere from burning biomass). A fire’s presence can also be confirmed in some cases via high-resolution imagery, visual data also gathered by satellites.

An orbiting fire monitoring system basically works like this: a satellite instrument detects fires (either via hotspots or aerosol emissions). These fire alerts are relayed to individual organizations, including NASA or INPE, the Brazilian space agency, who process the incoming information to control for noise in the data (such as heat signals from an industrial blast furnace rather than an Amazon fire). The processed data is then sent to a visualization platform, bringing these satellite-based alerts to decisionmakers or the general public on the Internet. Several of these platforms now exist, including some that launched just this year. Each system analyzes the data somewhat differently — with each assessment valuable in its own way.

Some near real time Amazon fire monitoring platforms, by organization:

• MAAP: The Amazon Real Time Fire Monitoring app uses aerosol detection data (ESA’s Sentinel-5P satellite TROPOMI data) verified with hotspot data and satellite imagery.
• NASA: The U.S. space agency’s new Amazon Dashboard utilizes both hotspot and aerosol fire detection, combined with deforestation and land cover data to determine specifically what type of fires are burning.
• INPE: Brazil’s national space research institute (Programa Queimadas) uses hotspot data from many different satellites for its fire dashboard and fire monitoring program.
• Global Forest Watch (GFW): Uses hotspot analysis (NASA’s Suomi NPP satellite VIIRS data), but primarily focuses on deforestation.
• Infoamazonia: Fire Map uses hotspot data (VIIRS data)
• Greenpeace: The NGO’s new Global Fire Dashboard uses hotspot data (NASA Aqua/Terra satellite MODIS data)

Hotspot data (sometimes called VIIRS or MODIS data) is widely reported in the media, but it can be misleading as a stand-alone metric for Amazon fires because hot spots aren’t well differentiated. Very small, localized events such as a farmer carrying out the yearly burn of corn stubble in a field can generate enough heat to send off an alert. The result is tens of thousands of undifferentiated hotspot alerts, when in reality, there may only be several hundred major deforestation-related fires or forest fires burning.

However, hotspot data is still useful for situational awareness and because it has been collected for decades, so is utilized for making quantitative and location comparisons over time. Also, because it is easily available and straightforward, hot spot data is used by several platforms including Global Forest Watch and Greenpeace’s new Global Fire Dashboard.

MAAP’s novel Real-time Amazon Fire Monitoring app shows major fires as of Sept 10, 2020. shows major fires as of Sept 10, 2020.

A closer look at MAAP Amazon fire detection

For Amazon fire reporting in 2020, Mongabay has relied heavily on the near-real time fire monitoring data provided by MAAP.  MAAP’s novel Real-time Amazon Fire Monitoring app  (launched in May 2020) uses a combination of aerosol emissions data, hot spot data, and verification from satellite imagery to report on what it calls “major fires.”

A “major fire” as defined by MAAP is one with an aerosol index of  >1 (appearing cyan-green to red on the app). Once an alert is detected, MAAP uses hotspot data to pinpoint the source of aerosol emissions. Using the coordinates from this hotspot source, MAAP analyzes high-resolution satellite images from the Planet Explorer to confirm whether the fire is in a recently deforested area or in a standing forest, and measures the area burned.

Mongabay has also created its own fire dashboard based on  MAAP data, which is regularly updated for use in stories.

Major fires in Brazil in 2020

Fire data from MAAP’s Amazon Fire Monitoring App is updated in real time and will include data from after the publication date

Cartography by Willie Shubert in collaboration with InfoAmazonia.org, click this to view.

Importantly, most Amazon fires are not acts of nature. Rather, the majority of fires burn over recently deforested land, with the blazes intentionally set by land grabbers, farmers, and landowners, converting newly cleared forest into pasture and croplands — sometimes as part of a longstanding process of illegally converting public lands to private lands.

Last year, MAAP analyzed archived satellite imagery from Planet Explorer, and found that many of 2019’s fires burned areas deforested earlier that same year, clearing that started just after President Jair Bolsonaro took office. The Bolsonaro administration is known for its policies friendly to the Amazon’s land grabbers.

“The data from MAAP…focuses only on large deforestation events and depend on a fair amount of manual labor, but the data are therefore also highly confident as they use multiple lines of evidence to confirm both the driver (deforestation) and the emissions (aerosols) coming from the fire,” Niels Andela told Mongabay in an email; he is a lecturer in remote sensing at Cardiff University and developed the algorithm behind NASA’s Amazon Dashboard platform.

NASA’s Amazon Dashboard showing hotspot data by fire type on September 10, 2020.

A closer look at NASA’s Amazon Dashboard

NASA’s new Amazon Dashboard, launched August 19, uses a more automated approach than MAAP, and claims some major advances in the way fires are monitored. The platform identifies the number of significant fires burning in the Amazon (instead of just hotspots), what type of fires are burning, and how many new fires started each day — all using automated data collection and computer analysis.

The Amazon Dashboard uses an algorithm to cluster active hotspots into individual fire events (major fires), sometimes composed of hundreds of hotspots. These fire events are also classified as one of four fire types: deforestation, understory fires, small clearing and agricultural fires, and savanna/grassland fires — determined by hotspot data combined with deforestation and landcover data.

“The key advantage of our method is that it is fully automated and thus maps all fires across the region,” Andela said. “Also, we provide much more information than just deforestation fires. For example, our dataset allows for quick identification of all new fires burning across a given region and is intended to support land managers.… Particularly the early identification of understory fires is critical for firefighting efforts.”

“We hope this tool pushes the conversation past some of the confusion surrounding the 2019 fire season,” Doug Morton of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, who helped develop the dashboard, said. “Satellites detect large numbers of fires in South America every year, but not all of these fires are of equal importance.”

Hotspot alerts are available in the INPE fire monitoring platform (Programa Queimadas) from many different satellites. Here, Amazon hotspot data from September 10, 2020 from all satellites are shown. A menu on the left allows the user to select time, location, satellites, etc.

A closer look at INPE’s fire monitoring program

Brazil’s national space research institute, INPE, uses hotspot data from 13 different satellites to compile its Amazon fire dashboard and fire monitoring program (Programa Queimadas) and filters this data using its own algorithms.

“We filter the data and we eliminate the industrial areas [i.e. blast furnaces] or volcanoes,” Alberto Setzer, an INPE senior scientist involved in producing official fire data told Mongabay. “And I suspect most sites in the world don’t do this type of analysis.”

INPE has been monitoring fires for over 20 years and their system is useful for making comparisons of hotspot counts across time or within specific regions including states, municipalities, protected areas, or Indigenous territories. The hotspot data is also easy to overlay with satellite imagery, making it useful for local enforcement and management agencies or the media to pinpoint locations of interest for further investigation.

How do satellite fire detection tools work?

Hotspot data: It’s intuitive that light on earth can be detected from space, but how is heat detected without a thermometer on the ground? Much as the human eye can detect color variation in the visible light spectrum, satellites are outfitted with tools that can “see” temperature differences.

Fires emit most of their energy in the thermal infrared domain as “infrared light,” invisible to the naked eye but not to a satellite. One particular infrared wavelength (around 4000 nanometers) is especially associated with fires. Several different satellite instruments are used to detect this specific wavelength, allowing for the verification of the thermal signature, or the heat released, from fires on the ground.

These fires are pinpointed by looking for a contrast between a “hot pixel” or “hot spot” (coded yellow to red in an image) and the cooler surrounding pixels portrayed in other colors. The VIIRS instruments onboard the Suomi-NPP satellite (launched in 2012) and the NOAA20 satellite (launched in 2017) are the latest generation of these instruments and have an improved higher resolution of 375 meters. This more tightly focused pixel area allows for the detection of smaller or more low-intensity fires, such as those burning in the understory of a tropical forest. Higher resolution also means its easier to pinpoint a precise location.

However, “You have to be careful about making a distinction between fires and fire pixels,” says Louis Giglio. “Pixels are what you see from VIIRS,” he explains, cautioning against the equation of individual hotspots and fires. Giglio is a research professor at the University of Maryland who studies remote sensing of active fires and burned areas.

Aerosol data: MAAP uses aerosol index data to detect major fires, the idea being that a fire burning enough biomass — organic matter — to emit smoke plumes into the atmosphere is one big enough to be worthy of investigation.

Aerosols are particles suspended in the atmosphere (including smoke, dust, fog, mist, and pollution). Satellite sensors that measure aerosols detect the light scattered by these aerosols in contrast to the reflectance from the background (Earth).

The MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) sensor on NASA’s satellites detects aerosols that come from fire (smoke), dust, pollution, but it does not always discriminate smoke from dust.

The TROPOMI sensor on the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-5P satellite, on the other hand, is quite sensitive to aerosol layer height as well as absorption, so it can differentiate between dust and smoke, as smoke rises higher into the atmosphere.

MAAP’s novel Real-time Amazon Fire Monitoring app shows aerosol emissions alerts by location on Sept 10, 2020. MAAP uses Sentinel-5P satellite data.

Some Widely-Used Fire Monitoring Satellite Tools:

Satellites detecting thermal signature (hot spots):

• NASA’s and NOAA’s joint Suomi NPP satellite detects thermal signatures with the VIIRS(Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite) at 375 meter resolution.
• NOAA’s NOAA-20 satellite detects thermal signatures with the VIIRS (Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite) at 375 meter resolution.
• NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites detect thermal signatures with the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) instrument at 1000 meter resolution.

Satellites detecting aerosols (smoke particles):

• European Space Agency satellite Sentinel-5P detects aerosol emissions with the TROPOMI
• NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites detect aerosol emissions with the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) sensor.

How does all of this information translate into action?

Although INPE, Brazil’s national space research institute, has access to all of the tools and monitoring methods mentioned here, as well as possessing its own advanced methods for detecting Amazon fires, how decisionmakers use this information depends on political will, current policies, enforcement actions and suppression capabilities.

“They [INPE] have wonderful resources, really impressive,” Kátia Fernandes, a climate scientist at the University of Arkansas said. “So, knowing where deforestation is happening, where fires are occurring, this is not a bottleneck for taking action. What does change over time is investment in law enforcement.”

A moratorium on burns was issued on July 15, 2020 by the Bolsonaro administration, making all subsequent intentionally set Amazon fires illegal. Since that time, INPE’s data has been used to prosecute and fine some offenders. But the funding and organizational capacity of fire control and enforcement agencies such as IBAMA, Brazil’s environmental agency, have been significantly curtailed by the current government. And reportedly, efforts by the Army to control this year’s fires have been insufficient.

A fire in the the Pantanal region of Corumbá, generating immense environmental and public health damage. Ibama teams and other institutions fight fire fronts with great difficulty in moving. Photo courtesy of IBAMA

State of the art satellite monitoring and moratoriums do little good when regulatory agencies lose the support and funding they require to conduct boots-on-the-ground fire control, or the ability to prosecute those who set illegal fires. IBAMA, for example, given the job of patrolling and fighting fires across the entire Amazon basin, is operating this year with just five helicopters.

“No matter how much technology we throw out at this [fire crisis], or how many better methods or algorithms or AI or whatever,” Giglio said, “nothing’s going to change until you address the problems on the ground.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Liz Kimbrough is a staff writer for Mongabay. Find her on Twitter: @lizkimbrough_

Cyprus has become the victim of fresh external push-and-pull efforts with the aim of dragging the island republic, a European Union (EU) member, into one or other of the rival East Mediterranean orbits of Russia and the US.

Cyprus received Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on September 8. He came to Nicosia to mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations and the signing of an amended double taxation agreement. Lavrov used the occasion to voice Russia’s concern over Turkey’s risky actions in the Eastern Mediterranean and to call for dialogue.

Russia and Cyprus have had particularly warm relations over the decades for several reasons.  Russia supported Cypriot independence from Britain, Russia and Cyprus both embrace the Orthodox Christian faith, and the Cypriot Communist Party has been a king-maker over the decades. The predecessor of current Cypriot President, Nicos Anastasiades, was Cyprus’ first communist president and the EU’s only communist president.

In 2015, Anastasiades and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin signed an agreement to give Russian naval ships access to Cypriot ports for maintenance and refuelling. This has upset the Trump administration. Although it does not really want to employ assets to assert US naval power in this region, it does not want Russia to do so. To Washington’s chagrin, Moscow has gained influence in the Levant by playing a key role in Syria’s civil and proxy wars, preventing the overthrow of the government and imposing, along with Turkey, a ceasefire in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province.

Last December, the US Congress adopted a law approving the partial lifting for one year of a US embargo on the sale of non-lethal military equipment to Cyprus in exchange for abandonment of the deal granting access to Cypriot ports to Russian naval vessels. US lawmakers from both the Republican and Democratic parties argued that Russian ships do not need to call at Cypriot ports because they have a naval base at Tartus in nearby Syria.

Cyprus Foreign Minister Nicos Christodoulides has tried to get round the US legislation by saying that Cypriot policy on this issue has not changed and Russian ships would be allowed to dock for “humanitarian reasons”, whatever that means. Presumably, Nicosia hopes to buy US equipment while allowing Russian ships to pause at Cypriot ports.

Ahead of the November US election, Trump administration realised that denying Cyprus US military equipment could alienate the influential Greek lobby in the US, which has been pressing for the lifting of the 1987 US embargo. US citizens of Greek origin number 1.4 million and they vote in Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan, swing states Trump needs to win. Their political interests are represented by lobby groups operating under the umbrella of the American Hellenic Institute, which promotes policies favourable to Greece and Cyprus. The Institute often works in concert with the all-powerful Israeli lobby. This is significant at this time because Cyprus, Israel, Greece and Egypt have joined forces to counter Turkey’s expansionist ambitions in the Eastern Mediterranean.

There are estimated to be about 500,000 US citizens of Turkish origin who do not pack similar power of the ballot. However, over the years Ankara has built up an influential political lobby in Washington and Trump has expressed his admiration for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who jails journalists, political opponents and critics.

Nevertheless, 48 hours after Lavrov’s departure, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo informed the Cypriot government that he intended to make a three-hour stop-over on Saturday evening after attending the launch of Taliban and Afghan government talks in Doha. Following talks with Anastasiades and Christodoulides, Pompeo urged Turkey to halt activities boosting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean and called on all involved to hold talks. He expressed deep concern over Turkey’s continuing deployment of survey and drill ships and armed naval escort vessels in Cypriot and Greek waters. Cyprus has the right to exploit its offshore natural resources and to harvest hydrocarbons in its exclusive economic zone, Pompeo stated.

He said Trump had spoken to both Erdogan and Greek Prime Minister Kyriacos Mitsotakis about rising tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean with the aim promoting dialogue.

However, as I mentioned Trump is a great admirer of Erdogan and did not prevent him invading and occupying swathes of Syrian territory along the border with Turkey. Instead, Trump capitulated and gave Erdogan permission to seize specific areas from which Turkish troops and their takfiri allies expelled more than 250,000 Syrian Kurds.

The US has refrained from taking action against Turkey for its intervention in the Libyan civil war on the side of the UN-recognised government in Tripoli in the west, which is under challenge from the parliament based in Tobruk in the east. The latter’s forces, commanded by rebel General Khalifa Haftar, had camped outside Tripoli for months until Turkey dispatched reinforcements for the largely takfiri militias defending Tripoli and turned the tide of battle. In exchange, Ankara demanded that Tripoli unilaterally declare a broad exclusive economic zone extending across the sea that would meet Turkey’s self-declared zone and bisect the Eastern Mediterranean. Erdogan has sworn to protect with force this fait accompli recognised by no one but Ankara and Tripoli.

If this is allowed to stand, the Turkey-Libya zones would cut off Egypt, Israel, Cyprus and Lebanon to the east from countries on the west. Turkey also intends to block the construction of the Eastern Mediterranean pipeline designed to carry natural gas to Italy and prevent Cypriot and Greek drilling within their own territorial waters. It is unlikely that Turkey would tangle with Israel or Egypt on this issue while major gas fields have not been proven off Lebanon. So far, Erdogan has stated he will not back down on his demand that Turkey should have full rights over Eastern Mediterranean maritime resources.

Due to Erdogan’s stubborn stand and Trump’s admiration of Erdogan, Pompeo’s surprise mission to Cyprus is unlikely to cool tensions or counter Russia’s efforts to maintain ties to Cyprus and Greece without alienating Turkey. Both Washington and Moscow do their best to maintain good relations with aggressive Erdogan in the hope that he will not start a war.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The gloves were off on Tuesday as the US Government explicitly argued that all journalists are liable to prosecution under the Espionage Act (1917) for publishing classified information, citing the Rosen case. Counsel for the US government also argued that the famous Pentagon Papers supreme court judgement on the New York Times only referred to pre-publication injunction and specifically did not preclude prosecution under the Espionage Act. The US Government even surmised in court that such an Espionage Act prosecution of the New York Times may have been successful.

It is hard for me to convey to a British audience what an assault this represents by the Trump administration on Americans’ self-image of their own political culture. The First Amendment is celebrated across the political divide and the New York Times judgement is viewed as a pillar of freedom. So much so that Hollywood’s main superstars are still making blockbusters about it, in which the heroes are the journalists rather than the actual whistleblower, Dan Ellsberg (whom I am proud to know).

The US government is now saying, completely explicitly, in court, those reporters could and should have gone to jail and that is how we will act in future. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the “great liberal media” of the USA are not in court to hear it and do not report it, because of their active complicity in the “othering” of Julian Assange as something sub-human whose fate can be ignored. Are they really so stupid as not to understand that they are next?

Err, yes.

The prosecution’s line represented a radical departure from their earlier approach which was to claim that Julian Assange is not a journalist and to try and distinguish between his behaviour and that of newspapers. In the first three days of evidence, legal experts had stated that this gloss on the prosecution did not stand up to investigation of the actual charges in the indictment. Experts in journalism also testified that Assange’s relationship with Manning was not materially different from cultivation and encouragement by other journalists of official sources to leak.

By general consent, those first evidence days had gone badly for the prosecution. There was then a timeout for (ahem) suspected Covid among the prosecution team. The approach has now changed and on Tuesday a radically more aggressive approach was adopted by the prosecution asserting the right to prosecute all journalists and all media who publish classified information under the Espionage Act (1917).

The purpose of the earlier approach was plainly to reduce media support for Assange by differentiating him from other journalists. It had become obvious such an approach ran a real risk of failure, if it could be proved that Assange is a journalist, which line was going well for the defence. So now we have “any journalist can be prosecuted for publishing classified information” as the US government line. I strongly suspect that they have decided they do not have to mitigate against media reaction, as the media is paying no attention to this hearing anyway.

I shall now continue my exposition of the questioning of Eric Lewis. I shall not set out as much of this in full detail as dialogue as I did yesterday, but will do so at key points in the summary.

James Lewis QC Returning to the European Court of Human Rights judgement in the case of Babar Ahmad, you state that their finding that solitary confinement is permissible did not take into account more recent studies such as the 2020 Danish study by Wildeman and Andersen. Do you say this study would have reversed the ECHR decision?
Eric Lewis That is impossible to say. I hope that if the ECHR had before it the large body of evidence on solitary confinement available today, the judgement may have been different.
James Lewis QC What are the five limitations to their study which Wildemann and Andersen mention?
Eric Lewis I don’t have it in front of me.
James Lewis QC Why did you not mention the five limitations in your report? They state that their methodology is strictly observational and cannot be used to prove cause and effect.
[The report in effect shows a much higher suicide rate post-incarceration among those who had been subjected to solitary confinement, from a very large sample of ex-prisoners.]
Eric Lewis I could have written hundreds of pages on recent social sciences developments on solitary confinement. This is just one such report.
James Lewis QC You were just fishing about for something, omitting details which counter your opinion.
Eric Lewis There is a huge amount of data, including from the US Bureau of Prisons. You just picked out one caveat of one report.
James Lewis QC Please keep your answers concise. The situation has changed due to the Cunningham Mitigation. Do you know what that is?
Eric Lewis Yes
James Lewis QC Why did you not mention it in your report?
Eric Lewis Because it is not relevant. A number of recommendations were set out, which have not been implemented in practice.
James Lewis QC Gordon Kromberg has produced the Cunningham Mitigation for us. In November 2016, in settlement of an 8th Amendment claim, it was admitted that conditions for mental health treatment in the Florence Colorado ADX are unsatisfactory and a large number of measures were agreed. Do you agree with Mr Kromberg that the Cunningham Mitigation has improved matters.?
Eric Lewis In some ways it has improved matters, in other ways things have gotten worse.

James Lewis QC then proceeded to state in response to Eric Lewis’s written statement on Covid, that Gordon Kromberg affirmed that as of 2 September there was no Covid in the Alexandra Detention Centre where Assange would be kept pre-trial. Eric Lewis countered that levels of Covid in federal prisons in the USA are 18%.

James Lewis QC You stated in the press that the maximum sentence is 340 years when now you state it is only 175 years. You miscalculated didn’t you? You took 20 years per count as the base when it should be 10.
Eric Lewis It was a mistake in an interview.
James Lewis QC You don’t really believe in 175 years maximum sentence, do you? It’s just a soundbite.
Eric Lewis started to answer and James Lewis QC cut him off. Edward Fitzgerald rose and objected that the witness must be allowed to answer. Baraitser agreed.
Eric Lewis The US government has called this one of the biggest cases in history. Espionage convictions frequently attract long sentences. Pompeo has categorised Wikileaks as a hostile intelligence agency. The government asked for 60 years for Chelsea Manning. I considered the charges in relation to the official sentencing guidelines.
James Lewis QC. Gordon Kromberg has testified that only a tiny fraction of all federal defendants attract the maximum sentence. The sentencing guidelines stipulate no unwarranted disparity with similar convictions. Jeffrey Sterling was a CIA agent convicted of selling secrets on Iran to Russia. He had faced a possible maximum sentence of 130 years, but had received only 42 months.
Eric Lewis The prosecution asked for a much longer sentence. In fact that was a very unique case not comparable…
James Lewis QC Why did you not give a realistic estimate and not a soundbite?

[In fact James Lewis’ categorisation of the Jeffrey Sterling case is entirely tendentious and it is hardly a sensible comparator. Sterling was a rare black CIA officer, involved in a long and bitter dispute with his employer over racial discrimination, convicted on purely circumstantial evidence of giving information to an American journalist about a completed CIA operation to leak false Iranian plans to Russia. Sterling was not accused of leaking to Russia. The entire case was very dubious.]

Eric Lewis I followed sentencing guidelines. I gave what I calculated as the statutory maximum, 175 years, and an estimate from my experience of the very lightest sentence he could expect, 20 years. Sterling got well below the guidelines and the judge explained why.

James Lewis QC now ran through a couple more cases, and stated that the longest sentence ever given for unlawful disclosure to the media was 63 months – presumably not counting Chelsea Manning. Eric Lewis replied that the specific charges laid in the Assange indictment relate to disclosure to a foreign power, not to the media, and of information helpful to the enemy. Sentences for the counts Assange was charged on were much higher.

James Lewis QC stated that sentencing was by an independent federal judge who had life tenure, to free them from political influence. There was brief to and fro about the circumstances in which a federal judge might be impeached. The judge assigned the Assange case was Claude Hilton, who had been on the bench since 1985. James Lewis QC challenged Eric Lewis as to whether he thought Claude Hilton was fair, and Eric Lewis replied that Hilton had a reputation as a heavy sentencer.

James Lewis QC then asked Eric Lewis whether he accepted that the US Department of Justice had sentencing principles in place which specifically guarded against unnecessarily long prison sentences. Eric Lewis replied that the USA had the highest percentage of its population in jail of any country in the world.

Counsel for the US Government James Lewis QC then stated he would turn to the First Amendment issue.

James Lewis QC You suggest that the First Amendment precludes this prosecution.
Eric Lewis Yes, There has never been a prosecution of a publisher under the Espionage Act for publication of classified information.
James Lewis QC Are you familiar with the Rosen Case of 2006. This was precisely the same charge as Assange now faces, 793 (g) of the Espionage Act, conspiracy to transmit classified information to those not entitled to receive it. Have you read the case?
Eric Lewis Not in a long while, because ultimately it was not proceeded with.

[James Lewis read through lengthy extracts of the Rosen judgement, which I do not have in front of me and was unable to get down verbatim. What follows is therefore gist not transcript].

James Lewis QC In the Rosen case, it is made plain that the receiver, not just the discloser, is liable to prosecution under the Espionage Act. The judge noted that although the Espionage Act of 1917 had been criticised for vagueness, Congress had never felt the need to clarify it. It also noted that much of the alleged vagueness had been resolved in various judicial interpretations. It noted the fourth circuit had rejected a first amendment defence in the case of Morison.
Eric Lewis Morison is different. He was a leaker not a publisher.
James Lewis QC The Rosen judgement also goes on to state that vagueness does not come into play where there is clear evidence of intent.
Eric Lewis When you consider the 100 year old Espionage Act and that there has never been a prosecution of a publisher, then intent…
James Lewis QC [interrupting] I want to move on from intent to the First Amendment. There are supreme court judgements that make it clear that at times the government’s interest in national security must override the First Amendment.
Eric Lewis In times of imminent danger and relating to immediate and direct damage to the interests of the United States. It is a very high bar.
James Lewis QC The Rosen judgement also notes that the New York Times Pentagon Papers case was about injunction not prosecution. “The right to free speech is not absolute”.
Eric Lewis Of course. The arguments are well rehearsed. Movement of troop ships in time of war, for example; cases of grave and immediate danger. In the Pentagon Papers Ellsberg was, like Assange, accused of putting named US agents at risk. The bar for overriding the First Amendment is set very high.
James Lewis QC [Reading out from a judgement which I think is still the Rosen judgement but it was referred to only by bundle page.] He also notes that serial, continuing disclosure of secrets which harm the national interest cannot be justified. It therefore follows that journalists can be prosecuted. Is that what he says, Mr Lewis?
Eric Lewis Yes, but he is wrong.
James Lewis QC Do you accept that the Pentagon Papers judgement is the most relevant one?
Eric Lewis Yes, but there are others.
James Lewis QC A close reading of the Pentagon Papers judgement shows that the New York Times might have been successfully prosecuted. Three of the Supreme Court judges specifically stated that an Espionage Act prosecution could be pursued for publication.
Eric Lewis They recognised the possibility of a prosecution. They did not say that it would succeed.
James Lewis QC So your analysis that there cannot be a prosecution of a publisher on First Amendment grounds is incorrect.

Eric Lewis gave a lengthy answer to this, but the sound on the videolink had been deteriorating and had in the public gallery become just a series of electronic sounds. The lawyers carried on, so perhaps they could hear, but I know Julian could not because I saw him trying to communicate this to his lawyers through the bulletproof glass screen in front of him. He had difficulty in doing this as he was behind them, and they had their backs to him and eyes fixed on the video screen.

James Lewis QC I challenge you to name one single judgement that states a publisher may never be prosecuted for disclosing classified information?

Eric Lewis gave another long answer that appear to reel off a long list of cases and explain their significance, but again I could hear only a few disjointed words. The sound eventually improved a bit.

Eric Lewis There has been an unbroken line of the practice of non-prosecution of publishers for publishing national defence information. Every single day there are defence, foreign affairs and national security leaks to the press. The press are never prosecuted for publishing them.
James Lewis QC The United States Supreme Court has never held that a journalist cannot be prosecuted for publishing national defence information.
Eric Lewis The Supreme Court has never been faced with that exact question. Because a case has never been brought. But there are closely related cases which indicate the answer.
James Lewis QC Do you accept that a government insider who leaks classified information may be prosecuted?
Eric Lewis Yes.
James Lewis QC Do you accept that a journalist may not aid such a person to break the law?
Eric Lewis No. It is normal journalistic practice to cultivate an official source and encourage them to leak. Seymour Hersh would have to be prosecuted under such an idea.
James Lewis QC Do you accept that a journalist may not have unauthorised access to the White House?
Eric Lewis Yes.

James Lewis then started to quote a judgement on White House access, then appeared to drop it. He then said he was turning to the question of whether this was a political extradition.

James Lewis QC Do you have any qualifications in social science?
Eric Lewis I have a degree in Public International Affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School of International Relations.
James Lewis QC Have you published any peer reviewed publications?
Eric Lewis No.
James Lewis QC You opined in another extradition case, that of Dempsey, that it was based upon political opinion. The High Court of England described your evidence as “pure conjecture”.
Eric Lewis Yes, that was their view. Dempsey was en route to Syria and approached at an airport by FBI agents. He explained to them that he was going to Syria to work with an anti-Assad group. Nothing was done. But by 2016 policy towards Assad had changed and Dempsey was charged. My evidence was about a change of policy, not political opinions.
James Lewis QC Turning to the expert evidence of Prof Feldstein last week, do you agree with his statement that while the Obama administration did not take the decision to prosecute, he did not take the decision not to prosecute. Do you agree?
Eric Lewis No. I believe that is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Justice Department works.
James Lewis QC Do you have first-hand knowledge or sources for your opinion?
Eric Lewis No.
James Lewis QC So your information is only from newspapers.
Eric Lewis And TV interviews and statements.
James Lewis QC Statements like those from Matthew Miller who had left the Justice Department two years before he spoke to the Washington Post?
Eric Lewis Yes, but he remained close to Attorney General Eric Holder.
James Lewis QC Do you agree with Gordon Kromberg that prosecuting decisions are taken in line with federal guidelines that preclude political prosecution?
Eric Lewis No. Not under William Barr. The system is now top down political prosecution.
James Lewis QC So you claim the guidelines are not followed?
Eric Lewis I do. So do the 2,600 former federal prosecutors who called for Barr’s resignation and the 1,000 former prosecutors who protested the Roger Stone commutation. Or Judge Gleeson in his reports on political prosecution decisions.
James Lewis QC Do you accuse Gordon Kromberg of bad faith?
Eric Lewis I don’t know him. But I do know there is disclosure of heavy political pressure in this case.

There followed some discussion on Trump’s changing relationship with Wikileaks over the years, and also of the Classified Information Protection Act and whether it hampers the defence in disclosure and in taking instruction from the accused. This was to be discussed in greater detail with the next witness.

Edward Fitzgerald then led the witness in re-examination. He asked Eric Lewis to mention the television interviews he had referred to in noting the political change from Obama to Trump. Eric Lewis cited Sarah Sanders saying “we did something” and contrasting this with Obama’s inaction, and Eric Holder stating that they had decided not to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act as he was not acting for a foreign power.

Edward Fitzgerald then asked about the pressure put on prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia to bring the present prosecution. Eric Lewis referred to the article by Adam Goldman in the New York Times to this effect. Ten days after this article the Justice Department stated it was a priority to prosecute Assange.

Lewis explained that William Barr had made explicit that prosecution was subject to political direction. He subscribed to the Unitary Executive Theory and held that all prosecution decisions were by or on behalf of the President. Barr had set this out in a memo that stated directly that prosecutors were “merely the hand” of the Presidency. This was not theory. This was how the Justice Department was now run. Many federal prosecutors had resigned. Many had refused to touch the Assange prosecution. “Mr Kromberg, as is his right, did not.”

Edward Fitzgerald then noted that James Lewis had queried Eric Lewis’s qualifications to comment on prison conditions. Yet for the prosecution, US Assistant Attorney Gordon Kromberg had submitted voluminous comments on prison conditions. Did Mr Kromberg have academic qualifications in penology as required by James Lewis? Eric Lewis replied that he believed not, and certainly he had no doubt he himself had greatly more practical experience of prison conditions than Mr Kromberg. Mr Kromberg’s exposition of official policy was doubtless correct, but it bore no relation to the actual conditions in jails.

On solitary confinement, Edward Fitzgerald outlined the UN’s Mandela rules, under which 22 hours or more in a cell a day and no significant human contact constitute solitary confinement. Lewis replied that the SAM regime would definitely breach the Mandela rules.

The next witness was Mr Thomas Durkin. He is an attorney practising for 47 years, licensed to appear in the Supreme Court. From 1973–8 he was a US Assistant Attorney and since then has been in private practice. He teaches law at Loyola and has received a lifetime achievement award from the Illinois Association of Criminal Lawyers. He also appeared by videolink.

Edward Fitzgerald asked Mr Durkin about the special problems of cases working with classified materials. Durkin said that the biggest problem is that you cannot discuss classified disclosure material with your client. You can only look at the material on a special computer in a secure location – a SCIF – and have to prepare your material there. Mr Assange will not know what his lawyers have learned, and nor will they be able to ask him what the material relates to or signifies. This is an incredibly difficult hardship in taking instructions and preparing a defence.

Edward Fitzgerald asked Mr Durkin if there is a real chance that Julian Assange will receive an effective rest-of-life jail sentence. Durkin replied that this was a very likely possibility. Looking through the counts and the enhancements that might apply, he would rate the offences at 38, 40 or 43 points on the sentencing scale. That would put the range at 235 months to life, and there were multiple counts that could be sentenced consecutively. Durkin said that based on his extensive experience of national security trials, he would expect a sentence of 30 to 40 years. The government position was that Assange was more to blame than Manning. They had asked for 60 years for Chelsea Manning.

Edward Fitzgerald then asked about the effect of the plea bargaining system. Thomas Durkin replied that an early guilty plea reduced the sentencing score by three points. That could make several years difference in sentence. But much more important was the freedom of the prosecution to reduce the counts charged in exchange for a guilty plea. That could make a massive difference – potentially from 100 years plus to ten years, for example. The system greatly reduced freedom of choice and was a massive disincentive to stand trial. People just could not take the risk. A large majority of Durkin’s clients now took a plea deal.

Mr Durkin agreed with a suggestion from Edward Fitzgerald that a condition of a plea deal for Julian Assange was likely to be that he gave up the names of Wikileaks’ sources.

Edward Fitzgerald asked Mr Durkin whether there had been a political decision by the Trump administration to prosecute Assange. Durkin said there were no new criminal justice considerations that had caused the change in approach. This was most likely a political decision.

Edward Fitzgerald asked Durkin about Gordon Kromberg’s assertion that a Grand Jury was a powerful bulwark against a political prosecution. Durkin replied this was simply untrue. A grand jury virtually never refused to authorise a prosecution. In the whole of the USA, there was generally about one refusal every four or five years.

James Lewis then started cross-examination. He asked if Durkin was saying that Assange would not receive a fair trial in the US, or just that it was difficult? Durkin replied that Julian Assange would not get a fair trial in the USA.

Lewis suggested that the requirement to see classified material in a SCIF was merely an inconvenience. Durkin said it was much more than that. You could not discuss material with your client, which materially limited your understanding of it. James Lewis countered that US Assistant Attorney Kromberg’s affidavit stated that Assange would be able to see some classified material himself. A classified facility would be available for him to meet his attorneys. Durkin said he did not accept this description. He had never seen anything like this happen.

Lewis then said Durkin’s statement was that there will be an unprecedented volume of classified material disclosed in this prosecution. But he could not know that. He had no idea what would be disclosed or what the defence would be, if any. Durkin replied that much could be understood from the extensive indictment and from what happened in the Chelsea Manning case. Lewis repeated Durkin did not know what would happen. Assange might plead guilty.

Lewis suggested the plea bargain system was in essence the same in England, where defendants could get one third off sentence for a guilty plea. Durkin said plea bargaining in the US went far beyond that. The government could put a big offer on the table in terms of reductions of charges and counts.

Lewis then went to the question of a change of policy between the Obama and Trump administrations. He established that Durkin relied on media reports for his view on this. Durkin pointed out that the Washington Post report of 25 November 2013 that the Obama administration would not prosecute, had quoted multiple former and then current Justice Department employees and crucially no denial or counter briefing had ever been forthcoming. It had never been contradicted.

That was the end of Tuesday’s hearing. In conclusion I need to correct something I published yesterday, that there were only three journalists in the video gallery to cover the trial. James Doleman led me to another hidden nest of them and there are about ten in total. The main titles are inexcusably unrepresented, but press agencies are, even if their feed is being little used.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Wired

A 42 square mile block of ice has just hived off from the Arctic’s largest ice shelf, in northeast Greenland, alarming climate scientists. That is the size of Santa Barbara, California. It is ginormous.

Danish scientists are speaking ominously of “glacier disintegration.”

The Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland reports,

“Annual end-of-melt-season area changes for the Arctic’s largest ice shelf in Northeast Greenland are measured from optical satellite imagery, and it shows that the area losses for the past two years (year 2018/2019 and year 2019/2020) both exceeded 50 km2. In total an area nearly twice that of Manhattan Island, New York. In the survey period since 1999, the ice shelf has lost 160 km2.”

In the old days before human beings started burning so much coal, gasoline and natural gas, there were seasonal changes to the ice shelf. It would melt a bit in the summer but then grow back in the winter. Now it is just melting.

The Associated Press reports that last year, in 2019 alone, Greenland lost an unprecedented amount of ice, enough to cover all of California in over 4 feet of water. The average woman in the US is 5’5″ and the average man 5’10” so that would be up to their chests. The whole state.

The survey gives a graph where you can see how out of line 2020 has been with the average temperatures of the previous decade:

Average temperatures in Greenland have heated up by 5.4 degrees F. since 1980.

Speaking of the disintegration of glaciers, it is happening in Antarctica, too. There are two gargantuan glaciers, Pine Island and Thwaites, that are already responsible for 5% of sea level rise. They anchor the West Antarctic Ice Shelf. If they become unmoored, and the parts of the ice shelf that are not already in the water plop into the ocean, it would raise sea level by an average of 10 feet over time.

That would pretty much do in Miami and New Orleans, but also parts of lower Manhattan. It would be a catastrophe.

So the bad news? They are becoming unmoored.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

A combination of factors—all related to the climate crisis—is believed to be behind one of the largest mass bird die-off events in recent memory in the Southwest, according to biologists.

Scientists say thousands of dead migratory birds have been found across states including New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado in recent weeks as the American West faces wildfires that have burned through millions of acres in matter of days.

Dr. Martha Desmond, a biology professor at New Mexico State University (NMSU), told The Guardian that the die-off, which was first detected in late August, is a “national tragedy.”

“I collected over a dozen in just a two-mile stretch in front of my house,” Desmond told the newspaper. “To see this and to be picking up these carcasses and realizing how widespread this is, is personally devastating.”

Allison Salas, a graduate student at NMSU, reported on Twitter that the university is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to understand the causes of the die-off, which ornithologists have linked to smoke from the wildfires as well as a drought in the Southwest.

USFWS and NM Game & Fish have been alerted. We at NMSU are working closely with them and other local wildlife biologist to understand the cause of this mass mortality. (2/9) pic.twitter.com/eg26PfejCQ

— Allison Salas (@salasphorus) September 13, 2020

The birds seem to be in relatively good condition, except that they are extremely emaciated. They have no fat reserves and barely any muscle mass. Almost as if they have been flying until they just couldn’t fly anymore. (5/9) pic.twitter.com/tTPlDxwraf

— Allison Salas (@salasphorus) September 13, 2020

We have very little data, but suspect that the west coast fires, in combination with the local cold front we experienced last week, has altered the migration patterns of many migrants. On top of that, there is little food and water available here in the Chihuahuan Desert. (7/9) pic.twitter.com/YB2Ct0ucxx

— Allison Salas (@salasphorus) September 13, 2020

“The fact that we’re finding hundreds of these birds dying, just kind of falling out of the sky is extremely alarming,” Salas told The Guardian. “The volume of carcasses that we have found has literally given me chills.”

Researchers say the birds are mainly migratory birds—such as warblers, swallows, and flycatchers—which travel to Central and South America from Canada and Alaska each year as the weather grows colder. Resident bird species don’t appear to be affected.

Based on the large volumes of dead birds found throughout the region since August 20, when the first group was found at White Sands Missile Range in southern New Mexico, ornithologists believe thousands of birds could already be dead. Desmond told the Las Cruces Sun News that “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of migratory birds” could be lost in the die-off.

When migrating from Canada, bird species must stop every few days to gather food, drink water, and rest. With wildfires overwhelming the West Coast, scientists say birds may have been pushed into desert areas in New Mexico—which has been suffering from a drought—where food and water sources are scarce.

Changes in the birds’ northern habitat, caused by the heating of the planet, may also have pushed the species to begin their migration earlier than usual this year, before building up fat reserves which would have helped sustain them on the journey.

“We’re kind of coming at them from all sides,” Salas told The Guardian. “If we don’t do anything to protect their habitat we’re going to lose large numbers of the populations of several species.”

Desmond told WBUR that upon arriving in the drought-stricken Southwest, “a lot of birds up north were probably caught off guard.”

Since August 20, two doctoral candidates at the University of New Mexico discovered 305 dead birds in the northern part of the state and linked the deaths to starvation. Trish Cutler, a wildlife biologist at White Sands Missile Range, told KOB, a local TV station in Albuquerque, that “a couple of hundred” dead birds were found at the weapons testing site last week, compared with the fewer than half a dozen carcasses that are found there on a weekly basis.

Dr. Andrew Farnsworth of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology told the New York Times that extremely poor air quality in the West, caused by the wildfires, is likely a contributing factor to the die-off as well.

“It’s different this year than other years,” Farnsworth told the Times. “We’ve had plenty of hot summers but very few that have had these huge-scale fires combined with heat combined with drought.”

Environmental justice advocates on social media decried the “ecological disaster” detected in the Southwest.

Reported a few times last evening on the Southwest bird die-off. This is an ecological disaster on a massive scale. As a birder, I am horrified. https://t.co/b0awViDmB8

— Watchdog Progressive (@Watchdogsniffer) September 16, 2020

The signs are everywhere – mother nature is done with us and who can blame her – https://t.co/h6op8QNagk

— Erin Brockovich (@ErinBrockovich) September 15, 2020

“The signs are everywhere,” tweeted consumer advocate Erin Brockovich. “Mother Nature is done with us, and who can blame her?”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: One of the hundreds of dead birds reported throughout New Mexico over the past two weeks. (Photo: Allison Salas/New Mexico State University)

Roger came by the house yesterday evening. In his early 20s Roger is from Gaza. He’s full of energy and ideas and has been like this since he arrived in Samos over a year ago. His days are full of activity mainly with the children in the camp. There he and his friends have what might be called a mass following of young children! They play, sing, draw, party and talk together. In these ways the children learnt about the importance of washing hands and other steps they could take to keep Covid out of their lives. And in all these activities it is the sounds of joy and laughter which dominate.

Roger is Palestinian, and as with most Palestinians humour is a major feature of their survival under (Israeli) occupation. It is no accident that Liverpool, the poorest city in England is also famous for its humour. As with the refugees on Samos humour has long been one of the ways in which the poorest of that city have countered their marginalisation and neglect and asserted their enduring humanity. Humour is a way underdogs have always used to fight back. I would hazard a guess that we could make a very long list of similar places. Authority in whatever form is not good at humour. It cannot control the jokes we make or manage the humour we see in the world around us. It gives us power. Maybe this was what Emma Goldman was getting at when she “If I can’t dance to it, it’s not my revolution.”

In Gaza as in Liverpool and certainly on Samos island humour is in an endless battle with sadness. It is an ongoing daily reality that ebbs and flows. Roger and his friends in the camp know this and see their mission as creating happiness to keep sadness at bay. The struggle between tears and laughter is a central feature of daily refugee life on Samos as it is for many communities denied and deprived of the material and psychological essentials necessary for living.

As Roger told us the rewards of being engaged in the camp can be awesome. He was very excited by the range of talents and interests he keeps discovering – athletes, artists, tattooists, tailors and dressmakers, builders, house painters, teachers, nurses, cooks of all kinds, gardeners, farmers, actors, singers, musicians, dancers and more. So many talents, he said, but never used, mobilised or even recognised by the authorities. So no support. This is where Roger and his friends seek to focus their energies looking to nourish and encourage talent which can then be shared and enjoyed by others.

But that has always been the case on Samos. Without exception, the best aspects of refugee life on Samos have been created by the refugees themselves. The Open Doors shop is probably now the outstanding example. That is not to ignore the contributions of some of the NGOs here or the flow of largely young north European volunteers who still come Samos with their big hearts. But always they are a mixed blessing. We are not alone in wondering why they come here when all of them are from countries which have significant issues with poverty and suffering. “Why don’t they dig where they stand” is a common question. “Why do they take jobs which we can do? Why do they assume that a young white European can work with vulnerable and traumatised children with no preparation or support?” There is a terrible lack of appreciation of the talents and skills of the refugees here, who are too often simply dismissed and ignored as worthless and useless. The only exceptions being those they need to act as translators.

This is the back cloth against which refugees in the camp acquired sewing machines to make decent masks. Now on Samos it is mainly the refugees who are masked up, not the locals. (How things have changed since the only masks seen here before, and long before Covid, were worn by the police and border guards as they dealt with new arrivals!)

The upside of this neglect is that the people in the camp whilst lacking so many necessary resources for daily life are left to their own devices. Yella the creative west African artist is left alone to run his art classes in a small square in the centre of Vathi; the same is true for the young Saudi doctor who manages with friends the clinic they have created in the jungle and so it goes from communal kitchens to football competitions. But it could be so much more with a different mind set. So much of what is needed by the refugees – food, safe living places, work that sustains, – are also needed by many of the locals. More so now in the midst of the Covid pandemic that has virtually wiped out tourism on the island this year. Many here do not know how they will survive the winter months now that they have no income from their summer tourist jobs.

Because so many refugees are now confined on Samos for months even years and are also concentrated in Vathi we have seen a slow but deepening of contacts between locals and refugees. There are growing numbers on both sides of this divided population who are recognising that they have much in common and need to work together. The creation of Just Action which provides food aid to both locals and refugees is probably the clearest example of this shifting dynamic. Roger and his friends, as well as those working in Open Doors and Just Action are amongst those who are now talking and thinking about how they can join together and help create new bonds of solidarity between the refugees and the locals. Albeit for differing reasons in part, both groups know that they have been abandoned; they get nothing but the barest minimum from the state and they expect nothing. Growing numbers are beginning to realise that together they can do better.

We wait to see what follows if the Athens government actually does achieve its objective of moving all the refugees to the new closed camp on a remote hill top 12 km from Vathi by the end of this year. There are still many local people in Vathy who would like to see the refugees moved out of their city. Years of hostility to the refugees, driven by the Orthodox Church and successive governments with the connivance of much of the mainstream media have left a deep scar which drives this hope that the refugees will be removed from their midst. As I am writing these words, it has been announced that 2 African refugees in the camp have been tested positive for Covid. There are no more details as yet. If true this is a devastating development in that the only 2 cases of the virus so far on Samos were amongst local people who had been visiting in Athens. As everyone knows the camp is a ticking bomb when it comes to health. And the inevitable tighter lock down of the camp which will now be implemented will have dire consequences for the refugees. And, not the least it will give added impetus to the demands to get the refugees out of town.

But what many who are leading this demand, such as the mayor of Vathi seem to ignore is the changing and changed character of the city. Not all the refugees live in the camp. Over recent years there are many hundreds of families and groups renting homes and some neighbourhoods in Vathi are dominated by ‘refugee’ households. I use ‘ ‘ because there are a growing number of those gaining asylum in Greece who are deciding that Samos island is preferable to Athens or Thessaloniki as a place to live and be safe (especially with respect to the children). In other words they are no longer refugees in the formal sense. They will not go to the new camp. They will remain in Vathi and try to make their lives there, at least for some years.

And as is often the case with migrations into new places, we can see an energy and determination to make a life which is in contrast to the islanders who seem more locked into an ‘endure’ mode. (And the newcomers are invariably much younger than the locals). A clear example of this has been in the creation of a new coffee bar in Vathi this summer by a group of young men from Gaza who have their asylum.

The complete renovation of the shop revealed the range of talents amongst the refugees. Brilliant plastering and decoration, wonderful lighting and all done by themselves. It faces many challenges but it is thriving. Samos town is changing and as more people who came as refugees stay here this will continue.

(Just an aside increasing numbers of the island’s new residents are confronting the police who daily harass the refugees back into the camp as evening falls. The police don’t discriminate so end up bullying those who have both papers and homes in the town and are under no lock down provisions. Those with children are furious that their children are frightened by shouting police demanding that they leave the beach and get to the camp. The police are now facing a completely new experience on Samos of having to apologise to those they have previously abused with impunity.)

So in the darkness here we do see some light and we do hear laughter. But the dark cloud of Covid is ever present revealing more starkly the as yet unexploded health bomb that is the camp in Vathi. Many on Samos have been shaken by the recent fire in Moria. As the MSF director there observed the bomb of Moria. has exploded. These are tense times on Samos and not helped by the latest hard lock down following the Covid cases recently identified in the camp. There are more than a few refugees who do not believe that Covid has come into the camp especially as there have been hardly any new arrivals for over 6 months now. They believe that it is a lie to justify locking them in the camp. Refugees don’t trust the authorities.

As I was writing last night, I had a call not only about the Covid cases in the camp but about a wild fire raging on the hills of Vathi right above the camp. Thankfully strong winds were blowing the fire away from the camp. It is outrageous that neither Moria nor Samos camps have any firefighting capacity or protection. Fire has always been the outstanding threat for years in these camps.

Soon summer will be ending and the rains will come. As every winter the authorities will wring their hands as the bad weather batters at the shelters and tents. Survival will rest as always in the hands of the refugees. And the utterly intolerable situation of thousands of human beings imprisoned on the frontier islands of Greece will continue.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Samos Chronicles.

All images in this article are from Samos Chronicles

The Western media is touting the results of a so-called “Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela” conducted through the United Nations. 

AFP in an article titled, “Venezuela president behind crimes against humanity: UN probe,” would claim:

In their first report, a team of investigators tasked with probing a slew of alleged violations in Venezuela said they had found evidence that state actors, including President Nicolas Maduro, were behind serious international crimes.

It is only until the ninth paragraph that AFP finally admits (emphasis added):

The three-person team was unable to visit Venezuela, but based their findings on 274 remote interviews with victims, witnesses, former state officials and others, and analysis of confidential documents, including legal case files. 

Other articles announcing the “investigation” including CNN’s “Venezuela’s government accused of committing crimes against humanity in UN report,” make no mention at all of the fact investigators never set foot in Venezuela before drawing their conclusions.

Zero Credibility 

It would be unimaginable for police to never bother visiting a crime scene before carrying out and concluding an investigation based on ” remote interviews” with people who claimed to be witnesses. Likewise, it is unimaginable that any legitimate investigation into Venezuela’s internal political affairs can be conducted by “investigators” who never bothered to even visit the country.

And of course, the UN investigation is not legitimate. Interviews and accusations are where investigations begin, not where they end. The collection of actual evidence is required to substantiate such claims – a collection of evidence the politically-motivated interests behind this latest investigation and its public promotion have no interest in carrying out.

UN “Investigation” Enables, Not Exposes Abuse  

As to why there are efforts to accuse Venezuela of “crimes against humanity” without carrying out a real investigation stem from ongoing efforts by Washington and its European allies to overthrow the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and install their handpicked proxy Juan Guaido.

In addition to this blatant example of political interference in Venezuela’s internal political affairs – announcing an opposition figure “president” of a country outside of said nation’s own political processes –  the US has spent millions of dollars annually funding opposition groups in an attempt to undermine Venezuela’s political independence.

The US National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) admits to interfering in Venezuela’s internal political affairs.

Besides former President Obama’s supposed “goodwill,” Joe Biden has nothing to show for his performance as former vice president, except for frequent gaffes and fake dentures. He is the weakest Democratic presidential candidate in decades and doesn’t stand a chance against incumbent Trump.

Although the unequivocal support of the mainstream media and the American national security establishment might still tip the balance in his favor in the November presidential elections. This is the reason why he had to choose articulate and persuasive Kamala Harris as a running mate on the insistence of the Democratic Party whips despite personal reservations.

Pontificating on the British electorate’s sovereign decision to quit the European Union yesterday, the unequivocal proponent of Washington-led neocolonial world order masqueraded as purported “globalization” warned the Conservative-led Boris Johnson government of the United Kingdom in a characteristically blunt and haughty manner that there would be no trade deal between the US and the UK unless the latter respects the Northern Irish peace deal, which was never in danger to begin with.

“We can’t allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit,” Biden said in a tweet. “Any trade deal between the US and UK must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the return of a hard border. Period.”

It’s pertinent to mention that the trans-Atlantic military alliance NATO and its corollary economic alliance European Union were conceived during the Cold War to offset the influence of the former Soviet Union which was geographically adjacent to Europe.

Historically, the NATO military alliance at least ostensibly was conceived as a defensive alliance in 1949 during the Cold War in order to offset conventional warfare superiority of the former Soviet Union. The US forged collective defense pact with the Western European nations after the Soviet Union reached the threshold to build its first atomic bomb in 1949 and achieved nuclear parity with the US.

But the trans-Atlantic military alliance has outlived its purpose following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and is now being used as an aggressive and expansionist military alliance meant to browbeat and coerce the former Soviet clients, the Central and Eastern European states, to join NATO and its corollary economic alliance, the European Union, or risk international isolated.

It was not a coincidence that the Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991 and the Maastricht Treaty that consolidated the European Community and laid the groundwork for the European Union was signed in February 1992.

The basic purpose of the EU has been nothing more than to entice the former communist states of the Eastern and Central Europe into the folds of the Western capitalist bloc by offering financial incentives and inducements, particularly in the form of agreements to abolish internal border checks between the EU member states, thus allowing the free movement of workers from the impoverished Eastern Europe to the prosperous countries of the Western Europe. 

Regarding the global footprint of American forces, according to a January 2017 infographic [2] by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were deployed across the world, including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.

In July, the Trump administration announced plans to withdraw 12,000 American troops from Germany and sought to cut funding for the Pentagon’s European Deterrence Initiative, though the main factor that prompted Trump to pull out American forces from Germany was German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s refusal to attend G-7 summit in person due to coronavirus outbreak. The summit was scheduled to be held at Camp David on June 10 but was cancelled. About half of the troops withdrawn from Germany were re-deployed in Europe, mainly in Italy and Poland, and the rest returned to the US.

In Europe, 47,000 American troops were stationed in Germany since the end of the Second World War and before the withdrawal of 12,000 US forces in July, 15,000 American troops were deployed in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom. Thus, Europe is nothing more than a client of corporate America.

Not surprisingly, the Western political establishments, and particularly the deep states of the US and EU, were as freaked out over the outcome of Brexit as they were during the Ukrainian Crisis in November 2013 when Viktor Yanukovych suspended the preparations for the implementation of an association agreement with the European Union and threatened to take Ukraine back into the folds of the Russian sphere of influence by accepting billions of dollars of loan package offered by Vladimir Putin.

In this regard, the founding of the EU has been similar to the precedent of Japan and South Korea in the Far East where 45,000 and 28,500 US troops have currently been deployed, respectively. After the Second World War, when Japan was about to fall in the hands of geographically adjacent Soviet Union, the Truman administration authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to subjugate Japan and send a signal to the leaders of the former Soviet Union, which had not developed its nuclear program at the time, to desist from encroaching upon Japan in the east and West Germany in Europe.

Then, during the Cold War, American entrepreneurs invested heavily in the economies of Japan and South Korea and made them model industrialized nations to forestall the expansion of communism in the Far East.

Similarly, after the Second World War, Washington embarked on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe with an economic assistance of $13 billion, equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars in the current dollar value. Since then, Washington has maintained military and economic dominance over Western Europe.

There is an essential stipulation in the European Union’s charter of union, according to which the impoverished developing economies of Eastern Europe that joined the EU allowed free movement of goods (free trade) only on the reciprocal condition that the prosperous developed countries would permit free movement of labor.

What’s obvious in this stipulation is the fact that the free movement of goods, services and capital only benefits the countries that have a strong manufacturing base, and the free movement of people only favors the developing economies where labor is cheap.

Now, when the international financial institutions, like the IMF and WTO, promote free trade by exhorting the developing countries all over the world to reduce tariffs and subsidies without the reciprocal free movement of labor, whose interests do such institutions try to protect? Obviously, they serve the interests of their largest donors by shares, the developed economies.

Regardless, while joining the EU, Britain compromised on the rights of its working class in order to protect the interests of its bankers and industrialists, because free trade with the rest of the EU countries spurred British exports.

The British working classes overwhelmingly voted in the favor of Brexit because after Britain’s entry into the EU and when the agreements on abolishing internal border checks between the EU member states became effective, the cheaper labor force from the Eastern and Central Europe flooded the markets of Western Europe.

Consequently, the wages of native British workers diminished and finding employment also became difficult, because immigrant workers were willing to do the same job for lesser pays, hence raising the level of unemployment among the British workers and consequent discontentment with the EU.

The subsequent lifting of restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians to work in the European Union in January 2014 further exacerbated the predicament of the British workforce. Thus, the majority of the British electorate voted in a June 2016 referendum to opt out of the EU.

The biggest incentive for the British working classes to vote for Brexit was that the East European workers would have to leave Britain after its exit from the EU, and the jobs would once again become available with better wages to the native British workforce.

The prosperous developed economies of the Western Europe would never have acceded to the condition of free movement of labor that undermines their economic interests, but Washington vociferously persuaded the reluctant countries of the Western Europe to yield to the condition against their national interests in order to wean away the formerly communist states of the Eastern and Central Europe from the Russian influence.

Thus, all the grandstanding and moral posturing of unity and equality aside, the hopelessly neoliberal institution, the EU, in effect, is nothing more than the civilian counterpart of the Western military alliance against the erstwhile Soviet Union, the NATO, that employs a much more subtle and insidious tactic of economic warfare to win over political allies and to isolate adversaries that dare to sidestep from the global trade and economic policies as laid down by the Western capitalist bloc.

It would be pertinent to mention that though the Conservative-led government was in favor of Brexit, the neoliberal British deep state and the European political establishments led by France and Germany were fiercely opposed to Britain’s exit from the EU.

Since the referendum, the British deep state and the European political establishments created numerous hurdles in the way of Brexit. The First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon demanded more autonomy and control over Scotland’s vast oil and gas reserves and threatened that Scotland could secede from the United Kingdom over Brexit.

Had it not been for charismatic Boris Johnson, winning an overwhelming mandate from the British public in the December elections, Brexit would never have materialized under bumbling Theresa May.

In 2018, 25 out of 27 EU member states signed an enhanced security cooperation agreement known as the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), whose aim is to structurally integrate the armed forces of the EU members. Britain, along with Denmark and Malta, was left out, apparently to punish the British electorate for opting out of the European Union.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] Biden warns UK on Brexit: No trade deal unless you respect Northern Irish peace deal:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu/biden-warns-uk-on-brexit-no-trade-deal-unless-you-respect-northern-irish-peace-deal-idUSKBN2680R7

[2] What the US Gets for Defending Its Allies and Interests Abroad?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-military-role-treaties-allies-nato-asia-persian-gulf.html

[T]he great majority of people will not die from this [virus] and I’ll just repeat something I said right at the beginning because I think it’s worth reinforcing:

Most people, a significant proportion of people, will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long period of time.

Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all, asymptomatic carriage, and we know that happens. – Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England, 11 May, 2020

But this is not what the British public have had been told (as well as a host of other countries who have been railroaded into joining the Great Scampede). The government and the mainstream media have presented the Virus to us as something akin to the Bubonic Plague, and of course the public have responded by behaving as though it is the Bubonic Plague. This is why the government changed the name of the virus from SARS-COV-2 (its correct designation) to COVID-19 in order to sever the connection to the Influenza virus, its literal ancestor. The state (and of course, big Pharma) had to present this virus to us as ‘novel’ and infinitely more dangerous than the Flu, which it’s not, it has about the same death rate as seasonal Flu, although it is especially dangerous to a vulnerable minority, average age 85 with multiple health issues, who should be protected and by-and-large, aren’t, itself a entirely preventable crime of vast proportions. (Each year, about 1 Billion people come down with the Flu globally and up to a 1 million die from it but still less than those who die from another highly infectious disease, Tuberculosis which in 2017 killed nearly 1.5 million).

Source: https://twitter.com/JohnDStats

But why has the world been shut down? Why destroy most of the world’s economies in order to quell (conquer, defeat?) a virus which is not dangerous to the great majority of us, perhaps 95% or more? Has some kind of mass psychosis taken hold of the political classes of the major (read imperialist) economies of the world who kicked this off? You really have to ask, ‘what’s in it for the ruling class’ that would lead them to deliberately inflict such mayhem on hundreds of millions of people and appear to destroy the economies of the leading capitalist states? What is it that the rest of us are not seeing or being prevented from seeing?

…The financial crash of 2020 was not only anticipated but planned and pushed forward with clear understanding of its instrumental role in the Great Reset sought by self-appointed protagonists of creative destruction. The advocates of this interpretation place significant weight on the importance of the lockdowns as an effective means of obliterating in a single act a host of old economic relationships. – ‘Was COVID-19 a Cover for an Anticipated or Planned Financial Crisis?’ By Prof. Anthony Hall

Whatever it is, it’s being presented to us as the ‘New Normal’, without however, telling us what this ‘New Normal’ actually consists of. But let me hazard a guess that whatever the ‘New Normal’ is it wont be nice for a great percentage of the world’s population. Already, it’s estimated that at least 1 billion people are in great danger of dying from starvation and disease caused directly by the lockdown, notthe Virus.

Too late did the socialist movement of the early twentieth century divine the coming of the Oligarchy. Even as it was divined, the Oligarchy was there—a fact established in blood, a stupendous and awful reality. Nor even then, as the Everhard Manuscript well shows, was any permanence attributed to the Iron Heel. Its overthrow was a matter of a few short years, was the judgment of the revolutionists. – The Iron Heel, Jack London, 1910.

It would appear that the major capitalist classes of the world have waged total war on the planet’s people without firing a shot and at the same time set up the infrastructure needed to enslave us, and all in order to preserve the rule of a bankrupt Capitalism. The ‘New Normal’ really is Jack London’s The Iron Heel made real.The Virus is all about saving capitalism from itself.

How ironic then, that the catalyst for this global coup d’etat was China and one has to ask the question, why China? Could it be that China is a major obstacle to the establishment of the ‘New Normal’ and if so, it gives us an insight into what this ‘New Normal’ is really all about.

What the Government Knew (And Planned for)

These are just some of the UK government’s documents prepared for the ‘New Normal’. Most deal with the ‘security’ aspects of an alleged pandemic rather than the health issues, except of course when it comes to considering vaccines. So aside from the clampdown on our civil liberties in the name of fighting the Virus, the goverment failed to deliver on every other key, issue!

• UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011
• Pandemic Influenza Response Plan 2014
• Cabinet Office National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies
• NICE guidelines
• Exercise Cygnus
• ‘Mindspace’ – Influencing behaviour through public policy‘
• Imperial College Modelling March 2020

So What Is the ‘New Normal’?

“Australian Police Go FULL NAZI, Smashing in Windows of Civilian Cars Just Because Passengers Wouldn’t Give Details About Where They Were Going.” – Sky News, August 13, 2020

Undoubtedly, capitalism is in crisis, perhaps its final crisis, though what might follow may be even worse, at least judging by how the state has responded to ‘rule breakers’. But what does shutting down the global economy achieve (aside from much pain and death for the vast majority) and what is the objective once you dismiss the idea of ‘defeating’ the virus as the rationale behind it? After all, it’s already clear that the global shutdown is causing many more deaths than the Virus has, or will ever do.

But Why?

Some talk of a global conspiracy, the imposition of a world government (engineered by the billionaire foundations, et al.) and no doubt somewhere, there’s talk of the Illuminati being involved. But undoubtedly, there is a conspiracy and at the very highest levels of the ruling political classes. Others have compared the Virus to 9/11 and look what that did to us! Is it really our health and well-being that occupies the minds of the elite any more than the War on Terror was about protecting us from terrorists.

Jump to 2020. Let me start in reverse while color-coded designs are fresh in our minds. As the COVID-19 lockdowns were under way, a funny thing happened as people were wishing that life could return to normal and they could be let out of their cages. Similar color-coded designs popped up everywhere at the same time. They showed the step-by-step schedule of possible loosening of government controls if things went according to plan. Red to yellow to green. Eye catching. Red orange yellow blue green. As with the terrorist warnings following September 11, 2001. In Massachusetts, a so-called blue state where I live, it’s color chart ends in blue, not green, with Phase 4 blue termed “the new normal: Development of vaccines and/or treatments enable the resumption of ‘the new normal.’” Interesting wording. A resumption that takes us back to the future. – ‘From Terrorists to Viruses: Dystopian Progress‘ by Ed Curtin, 7 September 2020

It’s clear now, that the only way to sell the ‘New Normal’ (or the ‘Great Reset’), was to create an abject fear of our existing life. Thus social distancing, the compulsive hand-washing, masks and of course the Lockdown, all serve, not as health aids but to destroy the old order. It’s now reached the point where rather than ‘seeking our permission’ via the government’s ‘nudge unit’, force is now needed. To that end a new kind of ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order) has been created:

To help enforce the new measures, [Boris] Johnson…announced that he would be recruiting thousands of new ‘COVID Marshalls‘. The first group of England’s newly deputised Marshalls could be seen on Monday enforcing meticulous social distancing orders, one-way system on pavements, and telling people to wear masks in shops and at takeaways venues. They will also be handing out masks and hand sanitizer in order to “keep everyone safe.” – ‘UK ‘Coronaphobia’ is Pushing the Country Towards a Stasi-like State’, 21st Century Wire, 15 September 2020

The objective being the undermining of the existing social and economic relations but critically, without replacing capitalism with something better. In other words, these new and enforced conditions of existence have nothing to do with health or with the virus and its spread but everything to do with Capitalism attempting to reinvent itself. The Virus is simply a convenient and very useful excuse, assuming you can convince the world of its danger to life, which explains the censorship and suppression of any views that challenge this fictional narrative, called COVID-19 or, as BBC News, the Guardian, the Australian government and a host of others now call, that “deadly virus”.

That the rest of the world went along with it, is simply testament to the power of the Imperialist states to cajole and threaten any country that resists. Sweden for example, was made to look like some kind of mass murderer of its population, simply because it refused to implement a Total Lockdown.

So What Do the ‘Masters of the Universe’ Have Planned for Us?

Well, they know where they want to go, the question is, can they get there?

The Great Reset is immensely ambitious, spanning over 50 fields of knowledge and practice. It interconnects everything from economy recovery recommendations to “sustainable business models”, from restoration of the environment to the redesign of social contracts.

The beating heart of this matrix is  – what else – the Strategic Intelligence Platform, encompassing, literally, everything: “sustainable development”, “global governance”, capital markets, climate change, biodiversity, human rights, gender parity, LGBTI, systemic racism, international trade and investment, the – wobbly – future of the travel and tourism industries, food, air pollution, digital identity, blockchain, 5G, robotics, artificial intelligence (AI).

In the end, only an all-in-one Plan A applies for making these systems interact seamlessly: the Great Reset – shorthand for a New World Order that has always been glowingly evoked, but never implemented. There is no Plan B. – ‘From 9/11 to the Great Reset. From Al Qaeda to Covid The Virus…’ By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times

As I’ve stated before, there will be a massive shakeup of corporations; bankruptcies, mergers, new governments and new social orders and of course the further destruction and reformation of working and middle class life. Critically, and of great importance to the imperialist states, will be ‘The Great Reset’s’ devastating impact on the Global South, the consequences of which we are already witnessing. The Great Reset implements the objectives of the Club of Rome (COR) initiated in 1965, that saw one, if not its major objective, a vast reduction in the populations of the Global South, a process that has reached its apotheosis in the Global Lockdown.

“We believe in fact that the need will quickly become evident for social innovation to match technical change, for radical reform of the institutions and political processes at all levels, including the highest, that of world polity. And since intellectual enlightenment is without effect if it is not also political, The Club of Rome also will encourage the creation of a world forum where statesmen, policy-makers, and scientists can discuss the dangers and hopes for the future global system without the constraints of formal intergovernmental negotiation.” – The Limits of Growth.

This was from the COR’s first publication in 1972. It sold 12 million copies. Many of COR’S executive members were drawn from NATO, that should give you a good idea where COR stands in the scheme of things.

It’s been calculated that the capitalist economies in the so-called developed world, can survive with perhaps 20% of the working population, the managerial class, kept in work to maintain the capitalist order for its masters. As for the rest? Well it will be a vastly enlarged ‘precariat’, thus the ‘experiments’ with so-called universal basic income (rather than letting great chunks of the formerly employed starve to death, keep them alive on a subsistence ‘wage’).

And What of Our Putative Left?

What I do find really depressing (though not at all surprising), is the degree to which the left and organised labour have been sucked into this nightmare but then again, they’ve been bitten by the fear bug as well. Organised labour of course, has a vested interest in maintaining the existing order, most of its members work directly or indirectly (via privatisation) for the corporate, capitalist state, hence their (assumed) interests coincide. The term ‘labour aristocracy’ has never rung so true.

The left, such as it is, has bought the ‘Great Reset’, hook, line and sinker. All rational thinking appears to have fled, as the Great Scampede wreaks its havoc.

The omens are not good. Without a coherent and organised opposition to this insanity, it looks like what we should really should call the The Iron Heel will succeed in reshaping the world according to its own desires while the rest of us look on, powerless to stop it and simultaneously grappling with the ravages of climate change.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Investigating Imperialism.

William Bowles is an outstanding author and geopolitical analyst, He is frequent contributor to Global Research

On March 10th of this year, there were 290 daily new U.S. cases of Covid-19 (coronavirus-19).

On March 13th, U.S. President Donald Trump declared a pandemic national emergency, because the number of daily new cases was now suddenly doubling within only three days. However, no lockdown was imposed. The policy-response was instead left to each individual. This is in accord with America’s libertarian ideology. Trump even announced that “he was allowing his health secretary to bypass certain regulations to provide more flexibility to doctors and hospitals responding to the outbreak” — outright reducing, instead of increasing, federal regulations, this being his way to address the matter. That’s the libertarian response.

Covid-19 (coronavirus-19) cases started soaring in the U.S., from 600 daily new cases on March 13th, to 25,665 on March 31st. Americans were scared to death, and facemask-usage soared, and independent small businesses started laying people off en-masse. (Restaurants, hair salons, travel agencies, inns, dental offices, etc., were hard-hit.)

Immediately, the alarming rise in new cases halted on April 4th (at 34,480), and the daily new cases remained approximately flat, but slightly downward, from March 31 to June 9th (when it reached bottom at 19,166), but then soared yet again, to 78,615, on July 24th.

But, then, it again declined, so that, on September 8th, it was at only 28,561. This was already returning to around what the new-cases rate had been back on March 31st. So: despite peaking again on July 24th, the rate of daily new cases was little changed between March 31st and September 8th. And, all during that 5-month period, people were coming back to work.

The key immediate and direct economic variable affected by Covid-19 is the unemployment rate. Here, that economic effect is clearly shown:

U.S. unemployment: March 4.4%, April 14.7%, May 13.3%, June 11.1%, July 10.2%, August 8.4%

Though the daily-new-cases rate went down after March 31st and after July 24th, the unemployment rate progressed far more gradually downward after March 31st: the small businesses that had been panicked by the explosion of new cases during March were now gradually re-opening — but they remained very nervous; and, so, unemployment still was almost twice what it had been during March.

Here, that experience will be compared with two Scandinavian countries, starting with Denmark, which declared a pandemic national emergency on March 13th, just when Trump also did. “Starting on 13 March 2020, all people working in non-essential functions in the public sector were ordered to stay home for two weeks.” The daily new cases fell from the high of 252 on March 11th, down to the low of 28 on March 15th, but then soared to 390 on April 7th, and gradually declined to 16 (only 16 new cases) on July 9th. Then it peaked back up again, at 373, on August 10th, plunged down to 57 on August 26th, and then soared yet again back up to 243 on September 8th. The new-cases rates were thus irregular, but generally flat. By contrast against the experience in U.S., Denmark’s unemployment-rate remained remarkably stable, throughout this entire period:

Denmark: March 4.1, April 5.4, May 5.6, June 5.5, July 5.2

Sweden’s Government pursued a far more laissez-faire policy-response (“The government has tried to focus efforts on encouraging the right behaviour and creating social norms rather than mandatory restrictions.”), and had vastly worse Covid-19 infection-rates than did the far more socialistic Denmark, and also vastly worse death-rates, both producing results in Sweden more like that of the U.S. policy-response than like that of the Danish policy-response, but far less bad than occurred on the unemployment-rate; and, thus, Sweden showed unemployment-increases which were fairly minor, more like those shown in Denmark:

Sweden: March 7.1, April 8.2, May 9.0, June 9.8, July 8.9

That was nothing like the extreme gyration in:

U.S.: March 4.4%, April 14.7%, May 13.3%, June 11.1%, July 10.2%, August 8.4%

Why was this?

Even though Sweden’s policy-effectiveness was more like America’s than like Denmark’s at keeping down the percentages of the population who became infected, and who died from Covid-19 (i.e., it was not effective), Sweden’s policy-effectiveness at keeping down the percentage of the population who became unemployed was more like Denmark’s (i.e., it was effective, at that). Unlike America, which has less of a social safety-net than any other industrialized nation does, Sweden had, until recently, one of the most extensive ones, and hasn’t yet reduced it down to American levels (which are exceptionally libertarian).

Therefore, whereas Swedes know that the Government will be there for them if they become infected, Americans don’t; and, so, Americans know that, for them, it will instead be “sink or swim.” Make do, or drop dead if you can’t — that is the American way. This is why Swedish unemployment wasn’t much affected by Covid-19. When a Swede experienced what might be symptoms, that person would want to stay home and wouldn’t be so desperate as to continue working even if doing that might infect others. Thus, whereas Sweden’s unemployment-rate rose 27% from March to May, America’s rose 202% during that same period. Americans were desperate for income, because so many of them were poor, and so many of them had either bad health insurance or none at all. (All other industrialized countries have universal health insurance: 100% of the population insured. Only in America is healthcare a privilege that’s available only to people who have the ability to pay for it, instead of a right that is provided to everyone.)

On September 9th, Joe Neel headlined at NPR, “NPR Poll: Financial Pain From Coronavirus Pandemic ‘Much, Much Worse’ Than Expected”, and he reported comprehensively not only from a new NPR poll, but from a new Harvard study, all of which are consistent with what I have predicted (first, here, and then here, and, finally, here), and which seems to me to come down to the following ultimate outcomes, toward which the U.S. is now heading (so, I close my fourth article on this topic, with these likelihoods):

America’s lack of the  democratic socialism (social safety-net) that’s present in countries such as Denmark (and residual vestiges of which haven’t yet been dismantled in Sweden and some other countries) will have caused, in the United States, massive laying-off of the workers in small businesses, as a result of which, overwhelmingly more families will be destroyed that are at the bottom of the economic order, largely Black and/or Hispanic families, than that are White and not in poverty. Also as a consequence, overwhelmingly in the United States, poor people will be suffering far more of the infections, and of the deaths, and of the laying-off, and of the soon-to-be-soaring personal bankruptcies and homelessness; and, soon thereafter, soaring small-business bankruptcies, and ultimately then big-business bankruptcies, and then likely megabank direct federal bailouts such as in 2009, which will be followed, in the final phase, by a hyperinflation that might be comparable to what had occurred in Weimar Germany. The ceaselessly increasing suffering at the bottom will ultimately generate a collapse at the top. Presumably, therefore, today’s seemingly coronavirus-immune U.S. stock markets, such as the S&P 500, are now basically just mega-investors who are selling to small investors, so as to become enabled, after what will be the biggest economic crash in history, to buy “at pennies on the dollar,” the best of what’s left, so as to then go forward into the next stage of the capitalist economic cycle, as owning an even higher percentage of the nation’s wealth than now is the case. Of course, if that does happen, then America will be even more of a dictatorship than it now is. Post-crash 2021 America will be more like Hitler’s Germany, than like FDR’s America was.

The Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, is just as corrupt, and just as racist, as is the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. And just as neoconservative (but targeting Russia, instead of China). Therefore, the upcoming November 3rd elections in the U.S. are almost irrelevant, since both of the candidates are about equally disgusting. America’s problems are deeper than just the two stooges that America’s aristocracy hires to front for it at the ballot-boxes.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

Covid-19 is “much less severe” than the average annual flu and current “draconian” restrictions are no longer justified, according to a senior Health Service Executive doctor.

People at low risk from the virus should be exposed to it so they can develop herd immunity and reduce the risk to vulnerable groups, according to Dr Martin Feeley, clinical director of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group.

“That is what is happening and yet the policy seems to be to prevent it,” he says. “This should have been allowed to happen during the summer months before the annual flu season, to reduce the workload on the health service during winter months.”

Any assessment of Ireland’s strategy to combat the virus should take into account the cost to people’s quality of life, according to the former vascular surgeon, who points out that “you can’t postpone youth”.

“The financial cost can be seen in any walk or drive through cities, towns and villages. Mortgage repayments and other financial setbacks are virtually all suffered by the young worker or business person and not by the over-65, who are guaranteed their pension, as indeed are the salaries of the individuals who decide to inflict these draconian measures,” the 70 year old told The Irish Times.

Dr Feeley is critical of the media and public “obsession” with daily case numbers, when so few people are being admitted to hospital or intensive care units. “The number of deaths among recent cases is less than one in a thousand. This data reflects a disease much less severe than the average annual flu.

‘Borders on hysteria’

“The media reaction to these cases, ie, with the gravity appropriate to reporting deaths from a major catastrophe, borders on hysteria. Opening a newscast with the number of people testing positive for a condition less dangerous than the flu, which many don’t even know they have, is scaremongering.”

Read complete article on the Irish Times

Our thanks to The Irish Times fro bringing this article to our attention.

….

Most people are already immune to the virus, due to cross-immunity from prior coronaviruses, while the wearing of masks is an ineffective “politically driven endeavour”, they say.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Dr Martin Feeley says any assessment of Ireland’s strategy should take into account the cost to people’s quality of life. Photograph: Nick Bradshaw

Globally, we are seeing a massive campaign of disinformation on the main stream media that sets aside all the principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

While a great number of colleagues doctors present with different views, unprecedented censorship prevents them from making the news.

Information from different thinking experts and professionals can currently be found almost exclusively through targeted searches on the internet or alternative news sources, but not in the mainstream media.

The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, doctors have come together and drafted an open letter addressed to colleagues and the government pleading for proportional measures. This letter aims to stimulate an open and frank debate on how to tackle the Covid-19 outbreak and was signed by more than 800 doctors. The petition has been stopped by now.

And an open, sharp-worded letter, written by doctors and mental health care providers, that has already been signed by more than 2500 healthcare professionals.

United States

In the US, a group of doctors in the field, who see patients on a daily basis, united in “America’s Frontline Doctors” and gave a press conference which has now been watched millions of times. A must see. See this and this.

Spain

A public press conference of “Doctors for Truth” in Madrid, attended by some 400 doctors and scientists under the slogan “A world dictatorship with a sanitary excuse”. See this.

Germany
An international group of doctors has launched an extra-parliamentary enquiry into the “exaggerated and oppressive corona measures”, with a view to questioning politicians and scientists around the world. See this.

International

The initiative by Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize winner in medicine, and Robert F. Kennedy, lawyer, among others, addresses the many inconsistencies surrounding corona policy and is addressed to the presidents of the WHO, the European Commission and the European Parliament. See this.

Belgium

A Belgian initiative, which has already been signed by more than 900 doctors and health professionals (3 september 2020). See this.

An open letter on the initiative of a group of doctors from the Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, UCLouvain, which can be signed by anyone. See this.

Sign the open letter here.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Sky News host Alan Jones says he has warned time and time again the political leaders who are the architects of this coronavirus response will not be able to escape the criticism that is now finding its way into the public place.

It comes as an economist in the Victorian Department of Finance and Treasury, Sanjeev Sabhlok, on Wednesday penned an article in the Australian Financial Review announcing his resignation from his position.

Mr Sabhlok wrote he resigned “so that I would be able to speak out against the state’s management of the COVID-19 infection”.

“I made a number of criticisms of the state government on social media. The head of human relations at Treasury asked me to remove them.

“I resigned on the same day, the only honourable course for a free citizen of Australia,” Mr Sabhlok wrote.

Mr Sabhlok continued to note a number of his other criticisms over the response to the virus.

“One question remains, how many others have been silenced across all arms of government, including in Canberra,” Mr Jones said.

Mr Jones also reiterated his call for a national advertising campaign to “tell the public the truth about the fact this virus is not a pandemic”.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the Youtube video above

The appointment of Mauricio Claver Carone (an American citizen) as president of the Inter-American Development Bank is generating many controversies across Latin America. For the first time in its more than 60 years of existence, the IDB will be chaired by an American citizen. This fact causes great discontent particularly in Latin countries, which are the most fragile economies of the continent.

Mauricio Claver Carone is Trump’s senior advisor for Latin America. More than that, Carone is the real mind behind US’ aggressive foreign policy on the American continent in the last years. A lawyer and specialist in Latin America, Carone has been Trump’s major strategist in drafting coercive policies against Cuba and Venezuela. Indeed, what scares the Latin countries is not only the fact that an American citizen was chosen to lead the Bank, but the fact that Carone was the choice.

It should be clarified that this designation was not an ideological confrontation in a democratic institution. The IDB cannot even be considered a democratic institution, since the vote depends on the bank’s economic power, now mostly in the hands of the United States. Washington has 30% of all voting power in the bank’s decisions. Interestingly, in second place is precisely Brazil (with 11%), a country that is currently governed by a political wing absolutely aligned with the US foreign policy. Therefore, the “election” of the bank’s president can be considered a purely figurative act to serve American interests.

Four countries were united in their resistance to the appointment of Carone. The governments of Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica and Mexico have officially supported the postponement of the elections but have not achieved their objective. Despite resistance, Mauricio Carone was designated president of the IDB during an electronic meeting of the Bank’s Board of Governors and will take the office on October 1, 2020, for a period of five years, and will be responsible for the operations of the IDB Group.

The IDB has significantly increased its financial presence over the years in Latin America and the Caribbean, but it is also important to note that the IDB’s loan policies have always obeyed Washington, acting in accordance with the American political projects. In this way, the IDB will continue to act as an arm of the American diplomacy and will serve US interests instead of financing regional development projects, as it should do, according to its original objectives. In this way, loan policies will be implemented in accordance with political and ideological views, economic projects and diplomatic ties with governments aligned with Washington.

Currently, the IDB’s financial products include loans, grants, guarantees and investments. The IDB’s main asset is undoubtedly its loan portfolio. The American government is perfectly aware of the moment that the world is going through – when multilateral credit institutions will play an especially important role in times of illiquidity. In this sense, Carone’s presidency comes at a particularly strategic moment.

However, the case must be analyzed considering a recent initiative by the American government to increase its economic presence in Latin America. It is called “Growth in the Americas Initiative” and is a major American project to expand its economic control over Latin America and the Caribbean, obtaining a reformation of the Latin American states’ financial and political dependence on Washington. In an official statement, the American government defines the Initiative as follows: “The U.S. government will officially launch the expanded Growth in the Americas (América Crece) initiative on December 17 in Washington, D.C.  Growth in the Americas is a whole-of-government initiative that will foster private sector infrastructure investment in Latin America and the Caribbean.  Expanded bilateral cooperation between the United States and countries in the region will help reduce excessive regulatory, legal, procurement, and market barriers to investment.  Growth in the Americas will facilitate job creation and accelerate economic growth in the Americas by promoting the private sector as the primary engine of growth to develop critical infrastructure of all types – energy, airports, ports, roads, telecom, and digital networks, among others.” In fact, by gaining control over the IDB, the United States achieved a major step in the Initiative’s triumph, even before its official launch.

In a global scenario of economic crisis and instability due to the coronavirus pandemic and with the intensification of the trade war between the US and China, the American strategy seems to be focused on a progressive confirmation of its regional power. No longer able to guarantee full control over the global financial market, Washington now concentrates on the American continent and on obtaining a political and economic reformation of the region, making Latin States increasingly financially dependent and politically aligned with the interests of the White House. Considering Carone’s election and this global context, we can foresee a period of great difficulties for Latin States.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The founding of the Simón Bolívar Institute for Peace and Solidarity Among Peoples on September 6, 2020 marks a new political milestone. In the most difficult of circumstances, having to cope with not only the U.S. and Canadian sanctions but the pandemic as well, the Bolivarian Revolution has made this effort for the benefit of all who believe in its liberatory ideals across the planet. The goal of the Institute is to coordinate global solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution and the Venezuelan people, and the solidarity of the South American nation toward struggles for social and economic justice of peoples throughout the world. It will also develop research, training, and promote critical discussion.

The Institute also answers to the current and urgent crisis facing the planet. The first paragraph of the statement by the by the Simón Bolívar Institute reads:

“The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that the capitalist model of society based on individualistic values, with the sole goal of accumulating wealth, is not capable of defending humanity, guaranteeing fundamental rights, or safeguarding life on the planet. In light of this failure, the model uses violence to maintain its hegemony, appropriates for itself the people’s natural resources, attacking the working class, and those who seek to build an alternative model.”

Viewers virtually attending the ceremony in Caracas from all over the world were shown that another world is possible, with more than 100 special guests, among whom were social leaders, former presidents, and activists, from numerous countries, including the prestigious musican Roger Waters.

One of the first to speak was Fernando González Llort, president of the Cuban Institute of Friendship of the Peoples (ICAP). The Cuban people have been victims over the last few years of an intensification of the criminal U.S. embargo. Yet, González Llort’s focus was on international solidarity among the peoples and not the U.S. two-party system as a source of salvation.

Other participants included Evo Morales and Rafael Correa, both of whom would have an ax to grind as a result of the recent coup in Bolivia and judicial corruption in Ecuador. Both former presidents are being affected by politically motivated court decisions to prevent them from competing in elections. There were many others as well, including Colombian activist Laura Capote, representing Marcha Patriótica, whose fellow social leaders are being murdered in increasing numbers. In fact, in one of the first public statements of the Simón Bolívar Institute for Peace and Solidarity Among Peoples, the organization expressed its condemnation of 10 recent murders in Colombia perpetrated by police officers. The Institute also denounced the assassinations of more than 600 social and indigenous leaders over the last 2 years and of the killing of two hundred demobilized former guerrilla fighters that were protected by the Peace Accord of 2016.

Former Bolivian President Evo Morales also participated

A Refreshing Talk

As the proceedings progressed and while I was reflecting on the content, so appropriately flourishing outside the box of the stifling mainstream U.S.-political paradigm, one of several representatives from the U.S. spoke, the academic Adrienne Pine. She stressed the importance of keeping the focus on the need to develop the revolutionary movement against the poisonous ideological notion of reforming a decaying system. I immediately commented on Twitter about her great and refreshing words: “the problem of fascism is not to vote for one or another party, but the solution is revolution.”

The hosts spoke in much the same way, leaving no wiggle-room for pinning any hopes of transformation, of humanization, on the US duopoly that has applied harsh and illegal sanctions that mainly harm the Venezuelan people.

We also had the honor to be connected virtually with President Maduro whose message was directed to us, representatives of the peoples of the world, when he said:

“I request the full support of the solidarity movements in disseminating the truth about Venezuela and with the truth, winning peace, sovereignty, independence and respect for our people.”

Minister of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs, Jorge Arreaza, stressed this initiative was created to coordinate solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution, but also solidarity from Venezuela and the Americas with all the revolutions and just causes of the world. In a recent op-ed published by COHA, he laid to rest any illusions about November 2020 when it was clear that the Democrats were attacking Trump from the right:

“Trump would do better if he followed his initial instinct of talking to President Maduro. A respectful dialogue with Venezuela is what is really in the interest of the U.S.”

During his inaugural speech, Minister Arreaza also said that

“This Institute belongs to you, it belongs to the peoples of the world and we want you to take advantage of it, to use it as your own (…) From Venezuela we stand in solidarity with all those struggles, with Julian Assange and his prison more than unjust, with the Palestinian people, Saharahui, with all those who are oppressed, subjected to unjust wars, and to imperialism ”.

Many of us from the capitalist West, like those in the South, feel at home in Venezuela. Solidarity is not a one-way street. Solidarity is rather adhered to as mutual support for the same cause of opposing capitalism, its offshoot racism, the unipolar hegemony of imperialism and its genocidal wars. We all stand on an equal footing for the same cause of a multipolar world, sovereignty of the peoples, peace, and a new social-economic system.

Carlos Ron, president of the new institute, and Foreign Affairs Minister Jorge Arreaza.

As Carlos Ron told us at the launching ceremony:

“My friends, be aware that you have a people who knows about your struggles, who recognizes them and shares them.”

In fact, we in Canada, like our sisters and brothers in the U.S., experienced the profound sincerity of Carlos Ron’s remarks.  We shared two events in 2020 alone. Firstly, we savored the defeat of the Trudeau government’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council (and I am convinced that one of the reasons for this victory over Trudeau’s submission was the Canadian government’s Venezuela policy). Secondly, the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute, with the collaboration of many others,held a virtual Zoom conference with Jorge Arreaza organized from Canada, which was viewed by many thousands. Arreaza delivered a diplomatic and yet scathing political critique of Trudeau’s interference in Venezuela via his leadership of the Lima Group.

The launching of the Simón Bolívar Institute coincided with the anniversary of Bolívar’s Letter from Jamaica of September 6, 1885, whereby he reaffirmed and deepened the outlook and goals of the independence movement from Spain. Taking one sample paragraph from this historic letter, we can fully appreciate the perennial relevance of Bolívar’s legacy, by just replacing Spain with the U.S.

“At present the contrary attitude persists: we are threatened with the fear of death, dishonor, and every harm; there is nothing we have not suffered at the hands of that unnatural stepmother-Spain. The veil has been torn asunder. We have already seen the light, and it is not our desire to be thrust back into darkness. The chains have been broken; we have been freed, and now our enemies seek to enslave us anew. For this reason [South] America fights desperately, and seldom has desperation failed to achieve victory.”

The Institute  is wielding Bolivar’s sword to immediately carve out a space for itself in cyber communications. Its Twitter account jumped from zero to over 3,400  followers by September 15 with many daily updates still being posted in the aftermath of the Institute’s founding. Likewise, its two new YouTube channels (English with over 300 subscribers and Spanish with over 800) are constantly developing, as are its Telegram and Instagram accounts and web site. The launching ceremony can be seen here in Spanish, and here in English.

People from all over the world participated in the launching of the new institute.

Tribute to lawyer and activist, Kevin Zeese

The event was dedicated to the memory and legacy of Kevin Zeese, known internationally as part of the Venezuelan Embassy Protection Collective in Washington DC. He passed away suddenly on the early morning of September 6, the day the Caracas-based event took place. At only 64 years of age, his death came as a shock to us all. Carlos Ron, vice-minister for North America of Venezuelan Foreign Affairs and the newly-appointed president of the Simón Bolívar Institute, immediately turned our sorrow into a collective joy. He dedicated the launching of the Institute to Kevin. It was not a matter of a formal dedication. On the contrary, both the Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza and Carlos Ron wove a memorial and fitting tribute to Kevin into the very fabric of the Institute’s founding.

I never met Kevin. I closely followed his heroic defence of Venezuelan sovereignty right in the belly of the imperial beast. However, although I would have flown to Washington to offer my support and write articles, I have been barred from entering the U.S. since March 2019. At that time, a year and a half ago, I was on my way to Washington DC with a message of support from the Canadian movements for that historic demonstration in the U.S. capital in support of Venezuela.

I therefore dedicate this article to Kevin Zeese, his partner Margaret Flowers, his family and comrades.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the Council for Hemispheric Affairs.

Arnold August is a Montreal-based author, journalist, speaker and Fellow at the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute. He has written 3 books on Cuba, Latin America and the US. His articles appear in English, Spanish and French in North America, Latin America, Europe and the Middle East. Current focus: geopolitics of the relations between U.S., Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and the role of Canada.

Credit of all photos: Foreign Relations Ministry of Venezuela

A recent moratorium issued by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has provided a window of relief to millions facing evictions due to payment arrears on their rents and mortgages.

Perhaps as an election ploy by the current administration, the question of public health is paramount when a country is experiencing the largest outbreak of an infectious disease in more than a century.

This measure comes amid one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression during 1929-1941.

Since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, tens of millions have been thrown out of work in the United States. The administration of President Donald J. Trump is overseeing the most deadly spread of the pandemic internationally.

Trump continues to blame the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for the failures of his oval office to take preventative and adequate mitigation efforts aimed at halting the spread of the disease. Since February, nearly 200,000 people have died due to COVID-19 while more than 6 million were infected with the highly contagious illness.

Housing activists across the U.S. are grappling with the significance of the CDC moratorium and what actions are needed to protect working and impoverished people from being thrown out of their homes irrespective of government policy. Many are concerned about what will happen after the moratorium expires and whether it will be extended by whichever candidate wins the November presidential election.

As part of the process of movement building and political coordination, a public meeting known as “Liberation Mondays” was held in the city of Detroit on September 14 which was hosted by the General Baker Institute (GBI). Additional sponsors of the gathering were the Moratorium NOW! Coalition, Detroit Will Breathe (DWB), the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) in Detroit, the Black-Brown Alliance of DSA, among others.

Several of the leading organizations concerned and working on the housing crisis in Detroit were present. This event represented a perspective on housing that is in line with the current national and international struggles against police violence and institutional racism. DWB, which has led demonstrations in Detroit and the suburbs against police misconduct for over three months, were a key component in the meeting.

Those speaking from the panel assembled were Agnes Hitchcock of the Call Em out Coalition, a grouping which has existed for more than a decade geared towards holding public officials accountable to the people of Detroit. Also Monica Lewis-Patrick represented We the People of Detroit, an organization committed to ensuring clean running water for all residents of the city and Tristan Taylor, an organizer for DWB. The forum was chaired by the Black-Brown Alliance of DSA and Kenya Fentress of Black Lives Matter across 8 Mile.

The Detroit Eviction Defense (DED) coalition had two representatives who spoke to the escalating housing crisis in the city. Jim Dwight said during his comments that the majority of people coming to DED for assistance were African American women. Detroit is an overwhelming African American populated municipality which has undergone decades of underdeveloped and systematic oppression. Detroit was subjected to the illegal imposition of emergency management and bankruptcy from 2013-2014. Since then the corporate-oriented Mayor Mike Duggan has incessantly sought to transfer public resources to private capitalist interests that are dominating the economy of Detroit including  Dan Gilbert, the Illitch family and the leading financial institutions, such as Chase Bank.

As a direct result of the pandemic, the “development” model of business office space availability, entertainment, sports, high-rent apartments, expensive condominiums and tourism has been in severe decline. The much championed casino hotels have reopened recently with monumental reductions in allowed capacity.

Photo is from the author

During the summer, the City administration placed through a 5-4 vote by the equally corporate compliant City Council, a bond initiative ostensibly designed for “blight removal” on the November ballot. A previous version went down in flames due to mass mobilizations by community activists in November. Already, the City of Detroit owes homeowners at least $600 million in overpayments of property taxes in a municipality which is still ranked as the poorest major urban area in the U.S.  After 2014, hundreds of millions of dollars were redirected from the Federal Hardest Hit Funds to demolition projects which created even more blight compounded by the subsequent environmental degradation left by the unscrupulous outside contractors.

During the GBI public meeting on September 14, a representative of the Moratorium NOW! Coalition said that we must move towards demanding rent relief, forgiveness and direct subsidies for housing. Moratorium NOW! Coalition was founded during the height of the economic crisis, popularly known as the “Great Recession” in 2008. Since then the organization has fought for a halt to all foreclosures and evictions along with militantly opposing the contrived emergency management and bankruptcy of 2013-2014. In recent years, Moratorium NOW! Coalition has sought a bailout for homeowners facing property tax foreclosure through the Government of Wayne County. Thousands have lost their homes as well due to over-assessed property taxes which are illegal even according to the laws of the State of Michigan.

Will the CDC Moratorium Resolve the Current Crisis?

Khalifa from DED spoke at the September 14 Detroit meeting on a document she drafted which explains the CDC moratorium. People are being evicted despite the declaration of this policy shift by the CDC which is ostensibly supported by the White House.

A recent report published on the situation in Texas in the city of Houston, where the pandemic has taken a devastating toll, it says that:

“Houston Public Media sent a reporter to four different courthouses last week to observe about 100 eviction cases and found that only one renter was able to use the CDC order to block eviction. So in 99% of those cases the order was having no effect at all. Legal aid attorneys in Houston also say it’s still too often business as usual at eviction hearings. The judges aren’t asking landlords if tenants sent them CDC declarations. Many tenants don’t show up. And among those that do, most don’t appear to even know about their rights under the CDC order. The judges don’t ask them about that. And in the vast majority of cases, the landlord is given the right to evict them. That’s despite the CDC order, in the middle of a pandemic.” (See this)

If this is the situation in Texas which is an epicenter for the pandemic, it appears as if the same process is taking place in other regions of the U.S. Many judges are aligned with the landlords who often are wealthy corporations whose only interests are to maximize their profits from renters. The banks have proven time again that they have no consistent program to help homeowners remain in their houses. Many of the financial institutions culpable in the 2008 crisis violated their own rules as well as federal laws in order to repossess the homes of working families throughout the country. This same process holds true for property tax foreclosures which have been a major problem in the city of Detroit.

Reflecting the national dilemma facing the working class and the nationally oppressed, the New York Times published an article on September 16 noting:

“The order, a moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is meant to avoid mass evictions and contain the spread of the coronavirus. All a qualifying tenant must do is sign a declaration printed from the C.D.C. website and hand it over to his or her landlord. But it’s not as simple as it sounds: Landlords are still taking tenants to court, and what happens next varies around the country.” (See this)

Housing is a Human Right: The Need for Another Social System

When the question of the need for fundamental social change in the U.S. was raised at the September 14 Liberation Monday public meeting all of those present agreed. Housing should be a guaranteed benefit for everyone living in modern day society.

Under capitalism in the U.S., housing is not a fundamental right for the workers and oppressed. Millions today are imperiled by the specter of homelessness. Water resources are denied to thousands in Detroit and millions across the U.S. Detroit has been a target for the termination of water services, and surprisingly enough, there are many municipalities which exceed the motor city as it relates the rates of shutoffs.

These issues require the transformation of the capitalist order into socialism. Under socialism all people are entitled to housing, water, utilities, education and environmental quality.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Julian Assange si trova rinchiuso in un carcere di massima sicurezza in Gran Bretagna dove attende di essere giudicato. Nel caso dovesse essere estradato negli Stati Uniti rischierebbe fino a 175 anni di carcere. In questo focus speciale di #Byoblu24 vi mostriamo in esclusiva l’intervista che la giornalista Berenice Galli di Comitato No Guerra No Nato ha fatto al padre dell’attivista, John Shipton il quale definisce il processo a carico del figlio come “Una farsa in cui ad Assange è impedito difendersi in maniera regolare ed appropriata”.

Non solo, una questione sulla quale riflettere è quella relativa alla Giudice che deciderà la sua estradizione o meno negli USA, ha spiegato su Byoblu24 il giornalista Manlio Dinucci. “La Arbuthnot è la consorte di Lord James Arbuthnot, già ministro degli appalti della difesa britannica e membro del think tank transatlantico legato al governo americano, Henry Jackson Society. La HJS ha accusato l’attivista di seminare dubbi sulla posizione morale dei governi democratici occidentali, con l’appoggio di regimi autocratici” – e prosegue Dinucci – “La vicenda di Assange dovrebbe interessare tutti perché la sua libertà è la libertà di tutti noi e dell’informazione”.

Are children and youth affected by COVID-19?

Wearing masks is mandatory for all, especially at school for children and adolescents from the age of 11 [1]. Mandatory social distance. Continuous hand washing with hydroalcoholic gels.

Young people must remain masked and keep their distance from their peers, not to mention the permanent fear spearheaded by all these extreme measures.

Several competent people, scientists, doctors, say that the COVID-19 pandemic is over [2], that we now have a high number of positive PCR tests because they are too sensitive [3-4], but that COVID disease is disappearing, as evidenced by the decrease in deaths and the disappearance of seriously ill or even hospitalized patients, especially because of mutations in the virus, which has become less virulent [5-6].

In the world :

(© Daily new confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people, Our World in data, Europe, Sept 13, 2020)

Being myself a hospital doctor in intensive care in Belgium, I can attest to the near disappearance of the COVID-19 disease.

Moreover, as pediatric professors Christèle Gras-Le Guen, vice-president of the French Society of Pediatrics, and Régis Hankard, coordinator of the Pedstart pediatric clinical research network, testify in this article [7], COVID-19 is not a disease that concerns children.

They are adamant: “Covid-19 is definitely not a pediatric disease.”

“The idea that emerges from these observations is that children must not be subjected to drastic measures, painful to live with, that could disrupt their daily lives, when this microbe really is of little concern to them.” [7]

Wearing a mask for 8 hours in a row, seeing their teacher masked, being cut off from their facial expressions, their smile, being unable to hear their explanations correctly, being frustrated in their sociability could correspond to these draconian measures, painful to live with, which could upset their daily life, when this microbe barely concerns them?

It is important to understand from several studies in different countries that children and adolescents are virtually unaffected by COVID-19 and that their role in the transmission of the virus in the population is minimal [8-9-10-11].

In this study from the Netherlands :

“The new coronavirus is mainly spread among adults, and from adults in the family to children” [12].

Not the other way around.

“Very few cases of transmission (of COVID-19) have been observed in schools. ” [13]

This is confirmed here: CHILDREN DO NOT TRANSMIT COVID19:

400 articles all confirm, without exception, that Covid 19 is rare and almost always benign in children, that children under 19 are not contaminated by schoolmates but by parents at home, that they do not contaminate adults, and that the confinement of children is responsible for frequent behavioural and social psychological disorders in addition to a clear negative impact on their schooling.

As Dr. Antonio Lazzarino (University College London UCL Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care) says in response to an article in the British Medical Journal [14] (BMJ) :

“Before introducing clinical and public health measures, all potential side effects of these measures should be identified and described, and only then should it be decided whether they are more beneficial than harmful. “[15]

Wearing a face mask can give a false sense of security [16].

This view is shared by the Public Health Agency in Denmark [17].

Wearing a mask leads to problems of hygiene that far outweigh the benefits of this measure:

To guarantee the effectiveness of a mask, people must not touch the mask, must change the single-use mask frequently or wash it regularly and properly, place it on the face in a tight way, otherwise the risk of contamination may increase sharply. [18]

In 2015, a study [19] looked at the frequency with which we touch our face (very often unconsciously). The subject studied was the transmission of respiratory infections and staphylococcus aureus (bacteria much larger than a virus).

(© Face touching : A frequent habit that has implications for hand hygiene )

On average, we touch our mouth 4x per hour and our nose 3x per hour. This is increased with the continuous wearing of a mask due to the irritation and itching caused.

Can you imagine, with children?

This is even more of a problem since it has been shown that the SARS-CoV-2 virus tends to accumulate on the outer surface of the mask [20]. So the virus will get on the hands and  contamination will flare up.

Let us continue in this demonstration that the problems related to the mandatory and continuous wearing of the mask by everyone, especially by children and adolescents, is more problematic than beneficial.

Talking with a mask can lead to talking much louder, thus projecting droplets further away through our masks, or bringing two people closer together, forgetting the required distance of two meters.

Wearing a mask directs a good part of the exhaled air towards the eyes, which, in addition to generating an uncomfortable sensation, can lead to touching our eyes even more, 3x per hour in normal times, much more with a mask (source of viral and bacterial contamination via the conjunctiva).

If your hands are contaminated, then you will be contaminated through this gesture, which is facilitated by wearing a mask, and you will contaminate everything you touch.

The physical and physiological problems caused by the mandatory and continuous wearing of a mask.

Many doctors report an increase in infectious skin problems (impetigo, staphylococcal infections) and eye problems (conjunctivitis) in children and adults, which are far from being harmless.

Doctors are also observing an increase in respiratory problems such as asthmatiform bronchitis.

All this is related to the continuous wearing of the mask.

No matter what some people say, a face mask that is worn mostly continuously makes breathing difficult.

For people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), people who already have difficulty breathing at rest, masks quickly become unbearable because they increase their feeling of suffocation [21].

In addition, a fraction of the exhaled CO2 is re-inhaled with each respiratory cycle. This negligible effect in a healthy person can cause problems in more fragile people.

COPD is characterized by a certain degree of hypercapnia (elevation of partial blood pressure in CO2 or capnia).

These two phenomena, a feeling of suffocation and increased capnia, can lead to an increase in breathing frequency and an amplification of breathing movements, thus increasing the amount of air inhaled and exhaled with each breath. This can, paradoxically, increase the risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2 if one of these infected or carrier persons breathes harder because of the mask, which is precisely what we want to avoid. Most importantly, the mask, in these infected COPD patients, may worsen their clinical condition, as their increased inhalation efforts may introduce more viral material into their lungs [15].

There were 251 million COPD patients worldwide in 2016 [22].

Furthermore, despite media intoxication claiming the contrary, yes, the continuous wearing of a mask, even more so if worn correctly (tightly), for hours on end, can lead to a decrease in the partial pressure of the blood in oxygen or PaO2.

A study published in 2012 evaluated the effect of prolonged surgical mask wear on the health of 53 Turkish surgeons [23].

These were previously healthy individuals.

They observed an increase in heart rate and a decrease in pulsed oxygen saturation (SpO2 reflecting arterial saturation) as soon as after the first hour of wearing the mask, compared to values taken without the mask. A small variation in oxygen saturation (SpO2-SaO2) may reflect a large variation in blood oxygen partial pressure (PaO2).

(© The pulse oximeter )

This curve is the hemoglobin dissociation curve. The partial pressure of oxygen in the arterial blood (PaO2) determines the saturation (SpO2). A decrease in SpO2 of 10 (100 to 90%) corresponds to a decrease in PaO2 of 40 (100 to 60 mm Hg).

The researchers conclude that their results show the potential clinical impact of prolonged mask wear on respiration.

The decrease in SpO2 was most pronounced with surgeons over 35 years of age.

Masks create a humid climate because the exhaled air is heated and humidified and this moisture (water vapor) is captured and concentrated by the mask in front of the nose and mouth. This humid environment is favorable to SARS-CoV-2 which remains active and this will increase the viral load near the nose and mouth.

The body’s first defense against an aggression, particularly viral or bacterial, is innate immunity. This plays a crucial role and is sufficient, for most healthy people, to overcome an infection, without recourse to the antibodies of specific late immunity. The effectiveness of innate immunity is inversely proportional to viral load [24]. The higher the viral load, the more likely it is that innate immunity will be overwhelmed.

Do you see how the continuous wearing of masks by everyone can worsen contamination rather than reduce it?

The following are the most serious.

The psychological and mental problems caused by the mandatory and continuous wearing of a mask.

The psychological impact!

There is a lack of official recognition in the media or in government reports of all the deleterious effects of the continuous wearing of masks, as if the most important thing is to do everything possible to get people to allow themselves to be masked, regardless of the consequences.

This particularly concerns children and adolescents whose brains, especially emotional and relational brains, are in full development!

Children depend largely on facial expressions to understand and apprehend their environment [25].

Hiding the lower half of the face diminishes the ability to communicate, interpret and imitate the expressions of those we come into contact with. Positive emotions become less recognizable and negative emotions are amplified.

Emotional mimicry, contagion and emotionality in general are reduced as well as teacher-student bonding, group cohesion and learning – of which emotions are a major driver.

The benefits and risks associated with the continued wearing of masks at school should be seriously studied, considered and made clear and obvious to all teachers, parents and students [26].

From a medical and human perspective, it is serious that our rulers do not report these complications and do not take them into account before dictating their measures to the population.

Alternatives exist to the continuous wearing of masks.

Viral particles present in the air are sensitive to ambient temperature and humidity and are inactivated by the sun’s UV rays [27].

They will be diluted more quickly outside.

Running courses outdoors or in indoor courtyards is one solution to consider.

This is confirmed in the excellent review on masks, Mask Facts [28], published on the website of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Just by opening a door, a window, the droplets of virus aerosols can be cut in half in 30 seconds [29]!

This is further affirmed by 241 scientists [30] who emphasize the need for proper air ventilation in workplaces, buildings, schools, hospitals and nursing homes.

(© It is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of COVID-19, page 9 of PDF)

Open the class and study windows!

The short, medium and long term negative impact of the antisocial measures of our governments.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, child psychiatrists, general practitioners know the negative effects of the antisocial measures taken by our governments on the development and mental health of children and adolescents.

Several articles, studies and research attest to this.

In this article published in the Lancet Child & Adolescent health [31], the authors emphasize the dramatic impact of social isolation measures on children and adolescents.

They rightly point out that social interactions are part of basic human needs [32], such as eating and sleeping.

Indeed, feeling insufficiently connected to others is associated with profound and long-lasting negative consequences on physical and mental health, and can even lead to more mortality [33].

The negative effects of antisocial measures may profoundly affect adolescents (age 10-24 years) [34].

Adolescents are at a crucial stage of their lives, with the type of social environment having an enormous impact on many vital functions such as proper brain development, healthy self-construction, and good mental health [31].

Even temporary antisocial measures can have a profound and prolonged negative impact on their development.

And a Belgian virologist like Erika Vlieghe would like to keep our children and adolescents in masks throughout the school year?

Dr. Brett Enneking, a child psychologist at Riley Children’s Health in the United States, emphasizes that the lower part of the face plays an important role in children’s language, understanding of emotions and communication in the broadest sense [35].

Sleep disturbances, worsening of separation-related disorders, nightmares and developmental abnormalities are among the short- and medium-term consequences of this social isolation. Some of these complications are already appearing, as witnessed by psychologists and physicians.

Other more serious repercussions are to be feared, such as depression, suicide, social and academic dropouts, as shown by the numerous researches on the negative consequences of social isolation on the good development of the human being.

It is not a question of being anti-masked for the pleasure of opposing authority without any valid reason, or just to avoid some itching or irritation.

This article has documented all the serious deleterious effects that the continuous wearing of a mask and the antisocial measures imposed by our governments can have on physical and mental health, especially of children and adolescents.

Those in charge and the virologists who advise governments where treasures is only okaynever mention the many harmful effects of their measures.

They do not give the population complete and honest information.

In summary,

As eminent pediatricians and research in several countries say, children and adolescents are virtually unaffected by COVID-19. They are almost unaffected themselves and participate in the transmission of the virus only to a negligible extent.

The mask can lead to more infections by several mechanisms:

1. By increasing the tendency to touch one’s face, mouth, nose, eyes.
2. By increasing the concentration of viruses on the outer layer of the mask.
3. By giving a false sense of security.
4. By generating factors that will neutralize the protective effect of the mask, such as speaking louder or getting within 2 meters to understand each other.
5. By surpassing the innate immune defense capabilities due to a higher viral load concentrated by the mask in front of the respiratory tract.

The consequences of imposed antisocial measures, including mandatory and continuous wearing of the mask or excessive distancing, are harmful and serious.

They are long-lasting and significant.

They are physical: impetigo, conjunctivitis, asthmatiform bronchitis, breathing difficulties, headaches (migraines).

They are physiological: hypercapnia, hypoxemia, increased heart rate.

They are mental, perhaps the most serious, especially in childhood and adolescence, and involve disturbances in sleep, emotional communication and maturation, learning, brain development, and can go as far as depression and excess mortality.

In the school setting, however, there are workable alternatives such as ventilating enclosed spaces and holding classes or studies in open spaces, such as courtyards or outdoor spaces.

Finally, and perhaps what makes the continuation of the government’s antisocial measures incomprehensible and serious is the well-documented notion that the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be disappearing within 5 months of the epidemic peak, as shown by clinical data (decrease in hospitalizations, deaths and serious cases in all European countries) and biological data (mutation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to less virulent forms).

In view of these facts, persisting in this antisocial path is, as this article from FranceSoir [36] emphasizes, maltreatment, particularly for our children and adolescents.

We physicians put one principle above all others, above the precautionary principle.

It is the principle of above all, do no harm (primum non nocere).

Today, by letting our governments apply their antisocial measures, are we not doing more harm than good?

This is what 70 Belgian doctors think when they ask for the abolition of masks in schools [37].

37] This is what 70% of those surveyed in a Belgian newspaper think, saying that students should be able to remove their masks once they sit in class.

38] Let’s hope that this is only the beginning.

Dr Pascal Sacré

Featured Photo: pixabay.com

Notes (Sources) :

[1] “Le port du masque à l’école? Peut-être durant toute l’année scolaire” , estime la virologue belge Erika Vlieghe.  

[2] Lettre ouverte des médecins et des professionnels de la santé à toutes les autorités belges comme aux médias belges. Au 10/09/20 : signée par 238 médecins belges, 804 professionnels belges de la santé, 4327 citoyens

Doctors are demonstrating massively and demanding the immediate cessation of all coronavirian measures: All over the world, we are witnessing a massive disinformation campaign in the mainstream media, which sets aside all the principles of a democratic constitutional state. While many medical colleagues present different medical views, they are hardly heard due to unprecedented censorship. Information from experts and professionals who present a different view of things is currently almost exclusively accessible through targeted searches on the Internet or in alternative information sources, not in the mainstream media.

The Netherlands
In the Netherlands, doctors united and wrote a letter of protest to their colleagues and the government, questioning the proportionality of the measures. The letter, signed by more than 800 doctors, aims to provoke an open and sincere debate on how to deal with the covid-19 epidemic. The petition has now been stopped.
https://opendebat.info/

A protest letter from doctors and professionals in the mental health field, which has already received more than 2500 signatures.
https://brandbriefggz.nl/

United States
In the United States a group of doctors who work in the field and see patients every day, came together in the organization America’s FrontLine Doctors and gave a press conference that has already been watched several million times. A must-see.
https://americasfrontlinedoctorsummit.com/
https://www.xandernieuws.net/algemeen/groep-artsen-vs-komt-in-verzet-facebook-bant-hun-17-miljoen-keer-bekeken-video/

Spain
A public press conference entitled “A world dictatorship with a sanitary excuse” was given by Doctors for truth in Madrid, in front of about 400 doctors and scientists.
https://niburu.co/gezondheid/15385-artsen-komen-massaal-met-coronawaarheid-naar-buiten

Germany
An international group of doctors has initiated extra-parliamentary research following the “exaggerated and oppressive” corona measures in order to question politicians and scientists worldwide.
https://acu2020.org/ 

International
This initiative by Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize winner in medicine, and Robert F. Kennedy, lawyer, among others, addresses the many inconsistencies in corona policy and is addressed to the presidents of the WHO, the European Commission and the European Parliament.
https://www.internationalfreechoice.com/

Belgium
A Belgian initiative, signed by more than 1000 doctors and health professionals. (September 3, 2020)
http://omgekeerdelockdown.simplesite.com/?fbclid=IwAR2bJAAShAlIidjnRQPyVSoZbk1Uj-FTHAthL77hKX_Oo8aMLN3V6DdwAac

An open letter launched by a group of doctors from Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, UCL-Louvain and which can be signed by everyone.
https://belgiumbeyondcovid.be/

[3] Pr. Toussaint : « Les tests se retournent contre nous à l’heure actuelle ! »

[4] Coronavirus – Les tests PCR inadaptés contre l’épidémie? « Jusqu’à 90% de personnes testées ne seraient pas contagieuses »

[5] Évolution du SARS-CoV-2 : mise à jour septembre 2020, Hélène Banoun

[6]https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FD_Raoult_SARS-CoV 2_EID_Sep2020_vL2.pdf , Dramatic increase in the SARS-CoV-2 mutation rate and low mortality rate during the second epidemic in summer in Marseille, IHU

[7] La Covid-19 n’est pas une maladie qui concerne les enfants,  September 6, 2020, pediatric professors Christèle Gras-Le Guen, vice-president of the French Society of Pediatrics, and Régis Hankard, coordinator of the pediatric clinical research network Pedstart, are adamant: “Covid-19 is definitely not a pediatric disease“.

[8] Cluster of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the French Alps, February 2020

[9] No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020 separator commenting unavailable

[10] Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Australian educational settings

[11] SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in educational settings

[12] Research on the role of children in the spread of the virus aux Pays-Bas

[13] Coronavirus: what researchers know about the risk of reopening schools

[14] Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis, BMJ, 9 Avril 2020

[15] Covid-19: important potential side effects of wearing face masks that we should bear in mind, Response to Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis, BMJ, 20 April 2020 Antonio I Lazzarino, Medical Doctor and Epidemiologist Steptoe A, Hamer M, Michie S University College London UCL Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care

[16] Conseils sur le port du masque dans les espaces collectifs, lors des soins à domicile et dans les établissements de santé dans le cadre de la flambée due au nouveau coronavirus (‎‎2019-nCoV)‎ ‎

[17] Danemark : ce pays qui ne croit pas aux masques,  May 7, 2020 on the website Le Point.fr. The Danish government advises against wearing them and epidemiologists are so unconvinced of their usefulness that they have launched a study on the subject.

[18] Desai AN, Aronoff DM. Masks and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Published Online First : 17 April 2020. Doi :10.1001/jama.2020.6437

[19] Face touching: A frequent habit that has implications for hand hygiene, Am. J. Infect. Control, 1 Février 2015

[20] Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS–CoV-2 : A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients, Ann Intern Med, 6 Avril 2020

[21] Kyung SY, Kim Y, Hwang H, et al. Risks of N95 Face Mask Use in Subjects With COPD. Respir Care 2020 ; respcare.06713. Doi :10.4187/respcare.06713

[22] Bronchopneumopathie chronique obstructive (BPCO), WHO (OMS)

[23] Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery, A Beder & al, Neurocirugia, 2008, 19, pp 121-126

[24] Chen Y, Zhou Z, Min W. Mitochondria, Oxidative Stress and Innate Immunity. Front Physiol 2018 ;9 :1487. Doi :10.3389/fphys.2018.01487

[25] Mask mandates may affect a child’s emotional, intellectual development, Dr. Mary Gillis, 23 juillet 2020. Young children especially rely on facial expressions to understand situations.

[26] Masked education? The benefits and burdens of wearing face masks in schools during the current Corona pandemic, Trends Neurosci Educ. 2020 Sep; 20, 11 août 2020

[27] Simulated Sunlight Rapidly Inactivates SARS-CoV-2 on Surfaces, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 222, Issue 2, 15 July 2020, Pages 214 222, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa274. Téléchargeable en PDF

[28] Mask Facts, AAPS, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, 1 Juin 2020.

[29] Small droplet aerosols in poorly ventilated spaces and SARS-CoV-2 transmission, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 1 Juillet 2020

[30] It is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of COVID-19, par Lidia Morawska et Donald K Milton, 2020, Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[31] The effects of social deprivation on adolescent development and mental health, The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, Volume 4, Issue 8, 1 Août 2020.

[32] Baumeister RF Leary MR. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull. 1995 ; 117 : 497-529

[33] Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2010; 40: 218-227

[34] Sawyer SM, Azzopardi PS, Wickremarathne D, Patton GC. The age of adolescence. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018; 2: 223-228

[35] Mask mandates may affect a child’s emotional, intellectual development, Dr Mary Gillis, 23 Juillet 2020.

[36] Le port obligatoire du masque pour les enfants, c’est de la maltraitance !, August 21, 2020, by Doctors G Delépine, surgical oncologist and N Delépine, pediatric oncologist.

[37] Septante médecins flamands demandent l’abolition du masque dans les écoles: « Une menace sérieuse pour leur développement »

[38] Les élèves devraient-ils pouvoir enlever leur masque une fois assis en classe ? 69.2% of respondents say YES.

Over 50 years have transpired since the lyrics of this song, Salt of the Earth, resonated then, just as much as now:

.

Let’s drink to the hard working people
Let’s drink to the lowly of birth
Raise your glass to the good and the evil
Let’s drink to the salt of the earth

Say a prayer for the common foot soldier
Spare a thought for his back breaking work
Say a prayer for his wife and his children
Who burn the fires and who still till the earth

And when I search a faceless crowd
A swirling mass of gray and
Black and white
They don’t look real to me
In fact, they look so strange

Raise your glass to the hard working people
Let’s drink to the uncounted heads
Let’s think of the wavering millions
Who need leaders but get gamblers instead

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters
A choice of cancer or polio

And when I look in the faceless crowd
A swirling mass of grays and
Black and white
They don’t look real to me
Or don’t they look so strange

Let’s drink to the hard working people
Let’s think of the lowly of birth
Spare a thought for the rag taggy people
Let’s drink to the salt of the earth

Let’s drink to the hard working people
Let’s drink to the salt of the earth
Let’s drink to the two thousand million
Let’s think of the humble of birth 

Mick Jagger, sung by the Rolling Stones

Hundreds of millions of us punch in the hours, day by day, to pay our way in this capitalist circus.

Many wish they could find suitable employment, and others, millions, take one, two and I have heard of even three part time jobs with NO benefits. They, perhaps you too, are what Mick Jagger referred to as the ‘Salt of the earth’.

This writer has worked for perhaps 200 small businesses, mostly in the sales end of them, since college 47 years ago. What have I learned? Well, to a man (sometimes a woman) each owner did what he could to keep as much of the money coming in funneled into his pocket. Since these were all non union jobs, I had no recourse but to just find a new job (with a similar type owner), quit in disgust, or just stay and do what most Amerikan workers do… VENT! When we leave it up to ‘Noblesse Oblige’ that is what we get.

Labor has always been frowned at by the super rich as nothing more than a ‘Necessary Evil’… to them of course. Anytime they could get away with finding and using cheap labor, the did just that. Why do you think so many super rich loved the idea of slavery?

Here is a quote from another great Christian organization, the 1858 Law and Order Party of Kansas (you did not think that Tricky Dick Nixon invented that phase do you?). They had a leader, David Atchison, who actually said the following:

“We believe slavery is a trust and guardianship given us of God for the good of both races. Without sugar, cotton and cheap clothing, can civilization maintain its progress.”

Can you imagine the chutzpah (that is from the anti Christian language, Yiddish) of a fellow human being towards other human beings?

Oh, I forgot, slaves, like the undocumented IE: illegal aliens of our day, are not really looked upon as ‘Human Beings’.

No, as with the Chinese peasants who came here in the 1800s and got jobs, backbreaking jobs, laying out railroad tracks, and dying by the score, these were but one notch above the slave. Do you know where the saying “Ain’t got a Chinaman’s chance” came from? THAT is where it came from!

Trailer of the Salt of the Earth 2014 Documentary on Human Suffering, Slavery and the History of Humanity

Less than 11% of all workers today belong to a union. The highest percentage was at 25% in 1953.

Did they know more at that time than we know now?

So, around 90% of us have no protective umbrella from a union.

Of course government workers, those doing full time, do have many benefits, which have been carefully stripped away over the decades. However, in the private sector labor has Zilch!

Yet, the sun comes up and folks rush off to their jobs, many not knowing what would be in store for them if the boss or the corporation did not need them anymore… at least for that price.

The only true solution, no NOT a revolution, is for ALL workers to belong to what the Industrial Workers of the World AKA Wobblies, called ‘One Big Union’. Imagine the bargaining power that would bring.

The dilemma that the Wobblies faced in the early 20th century was what such ideas could face now: The sellout by those who run the unions nationwide. These leaders marry themselves to one of the two political parties (mostly, but not exclusively, the Demoncrats) and keep their power and prestige while ‘Rome burns’.

Do yourself a favor and read Jagger’s lyrics carefully. And then view to “Salt of the Earth” documentary

Imagine how, in the supposed greatest economy in the world, nothing has really changed… except to add more salt in labor’s wound.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

Mali’s recent history has been a succession of disputed presidential elections, military coups, insurgencies, civil war and international conflicts. Although there are significant deposits of gold in the country, the country’s strategic location in the centre of the Sahel region of north western Africa and the emergence and rapid growth of ‘jihadist’ armed groups throughout the region following NATO’s overthrow of the Libyan government in 2011 are the main reasons the country has received more international attention than is usual for remote, impoverished African countries.

The military coup staged in Mali last month is the second since 2012, and was prompted by many of the same fundamental factors and causes.

Political situation in Mali

The French began colonizing the area now covered by Mali during the 1880s and 1890s. As the colony of French Soudan, Mali was administered with other French colonial territories as the Federation of French West Africa. In 1956, with the passing of France’s Fundamental Law (Loi Cadre), the Territorial Assembly was granted limited autonomy. After the 1958 French constitutional referendum, the Republique Soudanaise became a member of the French Community and was granted a greater degree of autonomy.

In January 1959, Soudan joined Senegal to form the Mali Federation, which was granted independence within the French Community on 20 June 1960. The federation collapsed on 20 August 1960, when Senegal seceded. On 22 September Soudan proclaimed itself the Republic of Mali and withdrew from the French Community, re-joining it in 1967.

After many years of single-party government, a military coup ousted President Moussa Traoré in 1991 following mass protests and rioting and the constitution was suspended. Amadou Toumani Touré took power as the Chairman for the ‘Transitional Committee for the Salvation of the People’. A draft constitution was approved in a referendum on 12 January 1992 and political parties were allowed to form.

On 8 June 1992, Alpha Oumar Konaré, the candidate of the Alliance pour la Démocratie en Mali (ADEMA, Alliance for Democracy in Mali), was inaugurated as the President of Mali’s Third Republic. President Konaré was again elected president in 1997.

General elections were organized in June and July 2002. President Konare did not seek reelection, and retired General Amadou Toumani Touré, former head of state during Mali’s transition (1991-1992) became the country’s second democratically elected President as an independent candidate in 2002. He was re-elected to a second 5-year term in 2007. LINK

Although in hindsight the twenty-year period ending with the end of Touré’s second term in 2012 was marked by relative stability (at least up until 2011) it was also marked by endemic economic stagnation and corruption, and the grievances of ethnic minorities in the north were not addressed, leading to the widespread rebellion by many Tuareg communities in the far north of the country which was cited by the military as the main reason for them to oust the president, so that they could re-establish security throughout the country and defend its territorial integrity.

Incidentally, some media reports at the time commented that:

A US Africa Command official confirmed on Friday the leader of military coup d’état in Mali has visited the US on several occasions, receiving professional military education.

Captain Amadou Haya Sanogo participated in the America’s International Military Education and Training program, sponsored by the US State Department, Public Affairs representative Patrick Barnes revealed to The Washington Post…

On March 22, just a month before a presidential election in the country, Sanogo and soldiers loyal to him stormed the presidential palace in the capital Bamako and overthrew President Amadou Toumani Toure…

The coup claimed three lives, leaving about 40 wounded…

Despite condemning the coup, the US is not planning to reconsider its $140-million aid program to Mali in 2012.

Conversely, on Friday the African Union suspended Mali’s membership of that organization. LINK

In the aftermath of the 2012 military coup Jeremy Keenan commented, as hasty and poorly organized preparations were being made in mid-2013 to hold presidential elections:

“Since February, when France in particular, began pressing for an early presidential election to provide some semblance of a legitimate government, the separatist Kidal region has effectively been ruled, with the backing of the French military, by the MNLA (National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad), the predominantly Tuareg group who began the rebellion for an independent Azawad (the Tuareg name for northern Mali) in January 2012.”

Main locations of major ethnic groups in Mali

Most armed conflicts have occurred in the remote and arid north of the country

At the time the French commanders were attempting to prevent massacres of civilians as well as widespread clashes between the two belligerent forces which could have quickly degenerated in all-out and irreversible civil war, something which they ultimately achieved. Gradually the situation was calmed somewhat:

“On June 18, after several weeks of intense negotiations, a peace deal was signed in Ouagadougou between the Malian government and the MNLA and the more recently formed HCUA (Haut Conseil pour l’Unité de l’Azawad). These two groups represented the Tuareg rebels who had begun the rebellion in January 2012. The accord, which called for an immediate ceasefire and for government troops to return to the rebel-held northern town of Kidal, paved the way for the July 28 presidential election.”

However, sporadic violence continued, each side accusing the other of being the instigator, and the subsequent presidential elections did not address the structural causes of the political and economic turmoil ravaging the country.

Moreover, beyond the armed insurgency and calls for succession in the far north, there are also persistent and increasingly deadly disputes between different ethnic groups in central Mali.

Central Mali is populated by, among others, the Fulani, the Dogon, and the Bambara. The Fulani are a primarily Muslim ethnic group of seminomadic herders. Across West and Central Africa, as many as 38 million people belong to this group. The Dogon, a group of as many as 800,000 who practice a polytheistic religion (a small number practice Christianity and Islam), are largely based near the border with Burkina Faso and are mainly farmers. The Bambara, meanwhile, are the largest group in Mali. Most are primarily farmers as well and many practice Islam, although others follow traditional belief and worship ancestors.

Grievances between the three communities are long-standing, often relating to disputes over land and water.

In the past, disagreements were typically resolved quickly. But containing the fighting is getting harder and harder to do. LINK

As the country attempted to organize elections in 2013 Keenan commented that:

Many experts are of the view that the country needs several months of peace, stability and political education before an election can be held. But that political time and space has not been granted. The needs of France, the US, EU, UN and other international agencies for a semblance of a legitimate government able to receive international funds  has taken precedence over the real political needs of the country’s people. The appointment of an elected government is a prerequisite for the release of much needed foreign aid, most of which was suspended following the March 2012 coup.

The tumultuous period was also marked by the beginning of the massive influx of weapons and fighters from the now ‘failed State’ of Libya beginning in 2011 followed by a substantial military intervention by France in 2013 and later the establishment of multinational military forces under the aegis of the United Nations, the regional organization ECOWAS and the more recently formed ‘Sahel-5’ group of neighbouring countries.

Mali’s strategic location has added to its problems

Following large scale protests against endemic insecurity, poverty and corruption in the country, the military staged another coup last month, and the coup’s protagonists succeeded in capturing President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita and Prime Minister Boubou Cissé near the capital, Bamako.

Under the banner of the June 5 Movement, a broad coalition of opposition parties, religious leaders, and civil society protested Keita’s 2018 re-election, claiming it was plagued by irregularities, and denounced the government’s effort to pack the Supreme Court with loyalists. The situation further deteriorated when the military killed 11 protesters. LINK

In the aftermath of the latest coup African regional organizations, France, the United Nations, and the United States have called for the restoration of the constitutionally-elected government. But that is unlikely to occur. On August 19 Keita announced that he had resigned in an attempt to prevent further loss. Cissé said that he understood the disappointment and frustration of the protesters who have held massive demonstrations in Mali’s capital.

The situation is reminiscent of the military coup in 2012, which was preceded by an explosive growth in what had been persistent low intensity armed conflict in the country due to an armed insurgency by Tuareg-dominated groups in the remote north of the country and the influx of ‘jihadist’ armed groups, both of which received a large influx of weapons following the overthrow of the Libyan government to the country’s northeast. Neither the countries in the region nor the international military forces sent to the region have managed to stem the large-scale movement of weapons and the growth of insurgent and extremist militant groups throughout the region.

Economy

Another contributing factor is the extremely poor state of Mali’s economy and social conditions more generally. Although total GDP and GDP per capita have increased over the last decade, beyond the generalized figures and apparent slight improvement in the overall economic situation of the country there is a great inequality in the distribution of wealth and income as well as economic and political opportunities. Most of the GDP growth is accounted for by gold production, which provides few jobs and much of the wealth generated has not benefited the people of Mali at all.

The unemployment rate is high and persistent (officially around 10% the real number is significantly higher), and essential services in many areas are rudimentary and inadequate.

Mali’s GDP, 1995-2020

Mali’s GDP per capita, 1995-2020

Mali’s unemployment rate, 1995-2020

SOURCE: tradingeconomics.com

In 2018, Mali exported $2.86 billion worth of goods and imported $3.6 billion worth of goods, resulting in a negative trade balance of $741 million. In 2018, Mali’s exports per capita were $150 and its imports per capita were $189.

Mali’s main exports in 2018 were gold ($2.59B), raw cotton ($93M), unprocessed wood ($37M), mixed mineral or chemical fertilizers ($32.1M), and oily seeds ($22.5M). Mali’s main imports in 2018 were refined petroleum ($549M), light pure woven cotton ($171M), cement ($148M), packaged medicaments ($147M), and broadcasting equipment ($80.7M).

According to one source (OEC), most of Mali’s exports went to United Arab Emirates ($1.33 billion), Switzerland ($1.19 billion), China ($85.2M), Uganda ($55M), and Burkina Faso ($36.6M). However, according to tradingeconomics.com in 2017 most of Mali’s exports were to South Africa (approximately $780 million), followed by Switzerland ($408 million), possibly reflecting disparities in the physical destination of exports and the locations of financial transactions and perhaps customers associated with them. Most imports arrived from Senegal ($699M), Cote d’Ivoire ($528M), France ($371M), China ($345M) and the Netherlands ($153M). SOURCE

It is thought that Mali has considerable natural resources, though most of them have not been exploited, or are subject to illegal and undeclared exploitation, and many prospective areas have not been explored:

The country is endowed with a host of mineral resources which include gold, uranium, diamonds, copper, iron ore, precious stones, zinc, manganese, bauxite, lead, lithium, bitumen schist, marble, gypsum, kaolin, phosphate, lignite, diatomic, and rock salt. LINK

Mali is Africa’s third largest exporter of gold behind Ghana and South Africa. There are three main gold mines located at Sadiola, Morila, and Loula. Sadiola (in the south of the country) and Morila (to the west) produce about 80% of the nation’s gold while the Loula mine (also to the west) opened more recently and is estimated to be capable of producing up to 250,000 ounces of gold per year.

Foreign military forces in Mali

There are some concerns that the presence of foreign troops in Mali may be generating new recruits for the ‘jihadist’ forces and/ or other insurgent or extremist groups even as they attempt to confront and eliminate them. Keenan argues that there could be a rational explanation for this apparent contradiction:

In 2003, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon published a series of maps of Africa which depicted the western Sahel (Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Southern Algeria, southern Libya, northern Nigeria and Chad) as a “Terrorist Corridor”.

While designed to demonstrate why Washington needed to take its global “war on terror” to North Africa, the maps were also part of the propaganda prepared by the Pentagon to support Rumsfeld’s Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG). This was a covert program to provoke terrorist groups into undertaking violent acts, or to penetrate terrorist groups and local peoples to dupe them into conducting terrorist activities, often in the form of “false-flag” operations, in order to expose them or others to counterattack by US forces.

The most infamous P2OG operation in North Africa involved taking 32 European tourists hostage in the Algerian Sahara in 2003. Allegedly seized by “terrorists”, under the leadership of “Osama bin Laden’s man in the Sahara”, the operation was, in fact, a “false-flag” operation, managed on behalf of the US by Algeria’s Departement du Renseignement et de la Securite (DRS). It’s purpose was to justify the launch of the “Saharan-Sahelian front” in the “war on terror”.

The front was launched in January 2004 through what former president George W Bush called the Pan-Sahel Initiative (PSI), with 1,000 US forces rolled into action across Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad. Local people called it the “American invasion”. At the time, I warned that it would lead to a regionwide conflagration.

That has now been achieved. One decade later, on 8 May, France’s Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announced that France was deploying 3,000 troops, in addition to 1,000 retained in Mali, to fight militant Islamists across the Sahara-Sahel, which he described as “the danger zone, the zone of all types of smuggling”.

“It is absolutely necessary to solve the problems and the dangers of trafficking and terrorism across the region, ” said Drian  “This area is key to the security of African states. But it is also for our own security. […] France is therefore reorganizing its forces to pursue counter-terrorism across several states.”

Equally disconcerting was Le Drian’s statement: “We will stay as long as necessary. There is no fixed date.”

French troops will be based in Mali, Niger, Chad and Burkina Faso, with more covert basing facilities available in Mauritania. In addition to its three major military bases at Gao in Mali, Niamey in Niger and N’Djamena in Chad, France is establishing a number of smaller bases, such as at Tessalit in northern Mali, Agades and Diffa in Niger, and Faya and Zouar in Chad.

The main difference between France’s operation and Bush’s PSI, apart from France deploying four times as many troops, is that unlike the PSI, it is not based on fiction. Rumsfeld’s “Terrorist Corridor” has become a self-fulfilled prophecy. LINK

While it is arguable the extent to which the exponential growth and proliferation of extremist groups in the region may be the result of a deliberate plan by powerful groups in Western countries to destabilize, militarize and dominate the region or whether it is purely the result of endogenous factors and a general failure to identify and effectively pre-empt ongoing developments, the military campaign by NATO to overthrow the Libyan government at any cost has undeniably contributed enormously to the region’s difficulties and in particular the severe deterioration in the security situation.

At least four immediate objectives were identified as being behind France’s decision at the time: heavily armed ‘jihadists’ were still operating in northern Mali; Mali serves as a major hub for trans-Saharan trafficking routes of weapons, fighters, drugs and other contraband; there were additional perceived terrorist threats to destabilize Chad; the threat posed by the considerable presence of Boko Haram in neighbouring countries. At the same time, the US maintained a substantial covert military training and assistance program in the region which only became public knowledge when three US commandos from the ‘Green Berets’ were killed in Niger.

Another detailed study, by Gary Busch, examines the long-term role and objectives of the French military in Africa. Among many other things, the study notes that during the de-colonization process France’s former colonies were obliged to sign a pact with their colonial master:

The Colonial Pact Agreement enshrined a number of special preferences for France in the political, commercial and defence processes in the African countries. On defence, it agreed to two types of continuing contact. The first was the agreement on military co-operation or Technical Military Aid (AMT) agreements. These covered education, training of soldiers and officers of African security forces.

The second type, secret and binding, were defence agreements supervised and implemented by the French Ministry of Defence, which served as a legal basis for French interventions within the African states by French military forces. These agreements allowed France to have pre-deployed troops and police in bases across Africa…

The Colonial Pact was much more than an agreement to station soldiers across Africa. It bound the economies of Africa to the control of France. It made the CFA franc the national currency in both former colonial regions of Africa and created a continuing, and enforceable, dependency on France.

In summary, the colonial pact maintained French control over the economies of the African states…

France not only set limits on the imports of a range of items from outside the franc zone but also set minimum quantities of imports from France. These treaties are still in force and operational. LINK

Beyond the US’ and later Europe’s ‘War on Terror’, in more recent times to the existing geopolitical plots and disputes pummelling the region has been added a new ‘Cold War’, as Western countries and experts express great concern over the increasing presence of Russia and China in many countries in the region.

The main foreign military forces that have been active in Mali since 2013 when they were first sent their in force include the following.

On 11 January 2013, France launched Operation Serval, deploying 1,700 soldiers, warplanes and helicopters to halt the southwards advance of jihadist groups that were taking over northern Mali.

In August 2013, France replaced Serval with Operation Barkhane, a mission that was extended to apply across the Sahel, an area the size of Europe. Barkhane is the largest operation deployed abroad by the French armed forces, with around 4,500 troops as of late 2019.

Ten French soldiers were killed during in Operation Serval and 28 more have been killed during Operation Barkhane.

The European Union Training Mission in Mali (EUTM Mali) was launched in February 2013 and consists of 620 soldiers from 28 European nations, tasked with training Mali’s army. The task force operates at a camp in Koulikoro, 60 kilometres northeast of the Malian capital Bamako.

In May 2018 the European Union extended the mission’s mandate for two years and almost doubled its budget to 59.7 million euros ($65.7 million), while expanding its duties to training for troops in the G5 Sahel force.

The first 6,000 UN peacekeeping troops of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) deployed to Mali in July of 2013. The deployment replaced an African International Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA) which had been sent by the 15-nation Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

As of late 2019 MINUSMA had approximately 13,000 Blue Helmets on the ground, one of the largest UN military operations in the world. More than 200 soldiers have died, including more than 100 killed in hostile action.

In November 2015, the G5 Sahel countries – Burkina Faso, Chad, Mauritania, Mali and Niger – decided to create a joint military force to fight extremist forces in the region. The targeted groups included Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Boko Haram movement which has its main bases in northeast Nigeria.

However, the G5 Sahel military forces remain extremely limited in their capabilities due to a lack of funding, training and equipment. LINK

It has been reported that Turkey has recently signed a ‘military cooperation agreement’ with Niger, though there are very few details as to the location, size and activities of the anticipated Turkish military contingent beyond the ubiquitous ‘training and assistance’ objectives.

Main extremist and ‘jihadist’ armed groups in the region

The regional security situation has deteriorated to unprecedented levels since the overthrow of the Libyan government. Crux, a Christian news agency, states that as of late 2019:

Islamist militants with links to al-Qaeda and so-called Islamic State have continued to extend their reach across the region, even as they lose ground in the Middle East.

According to ECOWAS, a regional body for West Africa, over 2,200 terrorist attacks have taken place across the Sahel in the last four years, resulting in the deaths of 11,500 people. Thousands more have been wounded and millions of others displaced.

The Islamist insurgency is also stoking inter-tribal and ethnic tensions in the region, exacerbating the problem…

In 2012, the militants largely operated in northern Mali, where they joined forces with separatist Tuareg rebels to take over a number of strategic towns, including the legendary city of Timbuktu.

In January 2013, French forces dislodged them, but they later regrouped and spread into Central Mali, Burkina Faso and the Tahoua and Tillaberi regions of southwestern Niger.

And the spread of the insurgency has been aided by geography: The Sahel’s vast desert and porous borders make the flow of arms from Libya relatively easy. In addition, all three of the most affected countries have a weak state sector…

While jihadist groups used to primarily target government officials, soldiers and local leaders who opposed them, they are now attacking ordinary civilians and entire villages.

Churches are also a popular target, with Islamist groups trying to force the Christian population to convert to Islam or flee the region.

Burkina Faso is 60 percent Muslim, with Christians making up about a quarter of the population. Mali is around 90 percent Muslim, with Christians making up about 5 percent of the population. Niger is over 99 percent Muslim, with just 0.3 percent Christian. LINK

A report by Foreign policy describes the impact this has had in central Mali:

Jihadi groups have been able to exploit local concerns. Previously contained to the north by MINUSMA and the G5 Sahel force, jihadi groups have spread into the center of Mali and into Burkina Faso since 2015. Two are of particular concern. The first is the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims (known as JNIM), which is affiliated with al Qaeda and claimed responsibility for the March 2018 attack on the French Embassy in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, and on Burkinabe troops near the village of Toeni in December 2018. The other group is Ansarul Islam, which was formed in 2016 and has received support from both al Qaeda and the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara.

Although Islamist terrorist groups have not taken control of territory in central Mali, they have been able to set up bases from which they launch raids on nearby villages and towns. They target the Dogon and Bambara, as well as those who are affiliated with—or provide information to—the security forces. JNIM has also conducted attacks it says are in retaliation for the targeting of the Fulani. LINK

According to a report by Human Rights Watch in 2018, the Fulani Islamist leader Hamadou Koufa Diallo is particularly influential in recruiting locals. Fulani groups have accused the Malian military of cooperating with armed groups from other ethnic communities to attack them on numerous occasions. However, the rank and file soldiers are also in an extremely difficult position, as they find themselves amidst warring communities and subject to ambushes by armed extremist groups that often outnumber them and are better equipped.

Some communities have also form their own militia groups for self-defence given the inability of the central government and international forces to protect them, however these armed militia groups have also been accused of attacking other ethnic communities in the region as they become embroiled in the escalating and increasingly violent disputes.

Future developments

The military coup has greatly complicated the fight against extremist and ‘jihadist’ terrorist groups in the region as well as what paltry efforts there were to address the grievances of the Tuareg communitiers and thereby reach peace with their armed insurgent groups. The European and multilateral international military forces in the country, or cooperating with Mali’s armed forces to combat armed extremist groups, are unable to operate effectively in the current situation.

The other G5 Sahel Group members are considering imposing sanctions on Mali and have temporarily closed their borders with Mali in response to the coup. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has also suspended financial flows between its 15 members and Mali. The African Union has also condemned the military coup.

Both the African Union and the 15-nation Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) condemned the coup and suspended Mali’s membership. Seeking to pressure the country’s military leaders to hand over power, ECOWAS set a deadline of September 15 for the junta, which calls itself the National Committee for the Salvation of the People, to appoint a civilian to lead a transitional government. It’s unclear what steps will be taken if the demand is not met. The bloc imposed sanctions on Mali in the wake of the coup, closing borders and banning trade, and called for elections to be held within 12 months.

The leadership void, legitimacy crisis of what there is in terms of leadership, and social and economic turmoil that are simultaneously afflicting the country represent an unprecedented existential threat for the nation as it struggles to contain and eliminate the threat from armed extremist groups and pacify the increasingly agitated and angry ethnic groups in the centre and north of the country.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Amid growing controversy over a possible International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into Israel, newly published results from a survey conducted by EKOS Research Associates show that Canadians do not want Israel to be treated differently than other countries when it comes to consequences for alleged war crimes or human rights violations. The survey found that Canadians support an ICC investigation of any country accused of war crimes, including Israel, and they do not want Canada to overlook Israel’s human rights violations. The survey further found that Canadians do not support recognizing Jerusalem as exclusively Israel’s capital.

The survey was co-sponsored by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV), and the United Network for Justice and Peace in Palestine-Israel (UNJPPI). All survey results, charts, and the report entitled “No Double Standards: Canadians Expect Greater Impartiality vis-à-vis Israel” can be accessed at www.cjpme.org/survey2020 or www.ijvcanada.org/survey2020 or https://unjppi.org/survey-2020-part-2.html.

The results show that a strong majority of Canadians want the ICC to investigate war crimes wherever they occur, including those committed by Israel. 84% of Canadians would support an investigation of Israeli officials. Further, only one-third of Canadians think that Canada should consider stepping in if it is opposed to an investigation.

“Canadians support an impartial ICC, and they oppose the idea that Canada should interfere in investigations it doesn’t like,” Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. Early this year, Canada surprised many when it attempted to deter a possible ICC investigation into alleged war crimes by Israeli and Palestinian officials. “Evidently, Canadians do not think that Israel, or any other government, should be shielded from accountability over its actions,” said Woodley.

The survey results also show that most Canadians do not want their government to overlook any country’s human rights violations, including Israel’s, no matter the circumstances. For example, 86% of Canadians disagree with the idea that Canada should overlook Israel’s human rights violations just because it is considered to be an ally.

“This demonstrates that Canada’s tendency to apply double standards when it comes to Israel is very unpopular with Canadians,” said IJV’s National Coordinator Corey Balsam. “Although successive governments have tended to mute their criticism of Israel, Canadians believe that Israel’s violations should be treated as seriously as those of any other country.”

The results of the poll also show that four out of five Canadians (82%) want Canada to maintain its current policy on Jerusalem and continue to call for the city to be shared, rather than recognizing Jerusalem as exclusively Israel’s capital. Even among Conservative Party supporters, a slim majority support maintaining Canada’s current policy on Jerusalem (54%). Despite this, newly minted Conservative leader Erin O’Toole has pledged to move the Canadian embassy to Jerusalem: a move that would break with longstanding Canadian policy and potentially further ignite tensions in the region.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

“The execution and spinning of 9/11 were instrumental in creating the repertoire of political trickery presently being adapted in the manufacturing and exploiting of the COVID-19 hysteria.”

– Anthony Hall, August 23, 2020 [1]

.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

 

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 marked a staggering moment of confusion and chaos for Americans, and much of the world.

Four hijacked airlines, three demolished towers and nearly 3000 people dead in an event that committed the US and the world on course for a War on Terrorism, intended to prevent the event from ever happening again.

Americans were now set for a long term endeavour to snuff out each last one of the ‘fiends.’ As a consequence military men and women were active and between their lives and the hundreds of thousands of others unfortunate enough to reside in the places the White House considered Terror Targets, the numbers of people victimized by the attacks would soon explode.

Now, on the 19th anniversary of 9/11, some people might be doubting whether the narrative still connects with a dreary and desolate planet. Resources have shifted away from countries supporting terrorism to a new cold war with Russia and China. In the last seven years or so, Putin alone was found responsible (or so the story goes) of illegal violence in Ukraine, stirring up trouble in Syria, poisoning an ex-Russian spy and his daughter (they recovered), and now taking on his political rival, opposition leader Alexey Navalny. Heck, he is even responsible for putting Trump in the White House!

With Osama bin Laden now clearly no longer a threat and these new and different menaces forcing their way into the public mindset, does the 9/11 narrative and the call to ‘chase them out of their caves’ still possess the same traction now as it did when the smoke was still settling from the blasts in New York City?

On this week’s Global Research News Hour broadcast, we sit down with three guests who believe that the War On Terrorism still matters, though not in the obvious way we are used to thinking.

My first guest, Anthony Hall, believes that Wall Street and the Federal Reserve definitely used the attacks to launch wealth appropriation and kleptocratic activities serving the elites. He argues this harvest of cash is active today in 2020 with the arrival of the COVID 19 crisis.

Our next guest is Graeme MacQueen. Very active as a 9/11 skeptic, MacQueen builds on other aspects of the 9/11 narrative still active today. He also builds on an article he co-wrote which details that reporters on the day of September 11 discussed the reactions as that of ‘explosions’ and not of fire-induced collapses which is the official story.

Finally, Richard Gage, AIA, appears at the end of the show to detail the latest updates in the field of 9/11 politics, 9/11 legal Challenges and a special evening event starting on September 11.

Prof. Anthony James Hall is Editor In Chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is Professor emeritus of Globalization Studies and Liberal Education at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta.

Dr. Graeme MacQueen is the former Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University in Canada. He was an organizer of the Toronto Hearings on 9/11, is a member of the Consensus 9/11 Panel, and is a former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Richard Gage AIA is a San Francisco Bay Area architect, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 286)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-2020-covid-global-economic-meltdown-political-trickery-and-the-relevance-of-911/5721860

Virtual School Dangers: The Hazards of “Police State Education” During COVID-19

By John W. Whitehead, September 16, 2020

As a result, over the course of the past 30 years, the need to keep the schools “safe” from drugs and weapons has become a thinly disguised, profit-driven campaign to transform them into quasi-prisons, complete with surveillance cameras, metal detectors, police patrols, zero tolerance policies, lock downs, drug sniffing dogs, school resource officers, strip searches, and active shooter drills.

How Xinjiang “Interferes” with the EU-China Deal

By Pepe Escobar, September 16, 2020

What the EU essentially wants is equal treatment for their companies in China, similar to how Chinese companies are treated inside the EU. Diplomats confirmed the key areas are telecoms, the automobile market – which should be totally open – and the end of unfair competition by Chinese steel.

Last week, the head of Siemens, Joe Kaeser, threw an extra spanner in the works, telling Die Zeit that “we categorically condemn every form of oppression, forced labor and threat to human rights”, referring to Hong Kong and Xinjiang.

The End of the Balkans. President Vučić signs the White House Agreement. A Dark Day in the History of Serbia

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos, September 16, 2020

According to what we know so far, Serbia and Kosovo signed an economic cooperation agreement in the Oval Office of the White House in the presence of Trump.Serbia has said it is moving its Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and Kosovo is recognizing Israel and opening an embassy in Jerusalem. The two sides also denounced the actions of the Lebanese Hezbollah and agreed to participate in the international campaign to decriminalize homosexuality. The agreements were reached as part of a US-Israeli initiative to resolve the Kosovo issue, which includes measures against China (5G) and Russia (gas). In Serbia, however, President Vucic is already sharply criticized for the agreement as indirectly acknowledging Kosovo’s secession.

COVID-19: Guidance for School Reopening. Report by The Hospital For Sick Children and Unity Health Toronto

By SickKids, September 16, 2020

This living document is meant to provide information to policy-makers by highlighting paediatric-specific considerations based on our collective experience with children and their families/caregivers. The first version of the document was created by a core group of health- care workers at The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) and Unity Health Toronto, including those with expertise in paediatrics, infectious diseases, infection prevention and control, school health, psychiatry and mental health.[1] In this updated version, refinements have been made with contributions and endorsements from other Ontario paediatric hospitals (CHEO, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Children’s Hospital at London Health Sciences Centre, McMaster Children’s Hospital and Unity Health Toronto), epidemiologists, public health physicians, and a volunteer advisory group of teachers and parents. It was also reviewed by physicians from adult infectious diseases.

Video: Why Lockdowns Are the Wrong Policy. Sweden’s Covid-19 Strategy

By Prof. Johan Giesecke, Anders Tegnell, and UnHerd, September 16, 2020

Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, advisor to the Swedish Government (he hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing Swedish strategy), the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO, lays out with typically Swedish bluntness why he thinks.

Video: Saudi Air Force Is Leveling Yemeni Capital to Ground in Response to Houthi Strikes on Riyadh

By South Front, September 16, 2020

According to pro-Houthi sources, Saudi warplanes conducted over 60 airstrikes on different targets across the country during the past few days. They insist that the most of the targets that were hit were objects of civilian infrastructure. At the same time, Riyadh claims that it has been precisely bombing Houthi military positions.

New Initiative to Expose Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) Crimes to the World

By Paul Antonopoulos, September 16, 2020

Veterans from the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) terrorist organization feel confident that because they were once supported and backed by the US and Western Europe in their campaign to violently separate Kosovo from Serbia, they are immune from prosecution and believe that their crimes can remain hidden. However, Milovan Drecun, the president of the Working Group of the Assembly Committee for Kosovo and Metohija, will soon launch a drive aimed at international audiences to highlight the brutal crimes committed by the KLA during the Kosovo War of 1998-1999, and have those responsible prosecuted.

---

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

GLOBSEC is probably one of the most well-known and influential political think-tanks in not only Slovakia, but also Central Europe. It aims to support a pro-Atlantic direction for Slovakia. Despite being founded in only 2005, it organizes annual events that are often attended by up to a thousand people from dozens of different countries. Although it receives millions of euros from the Slovak government, it is also funded by the US, and has hosted prominent liberal and pro-Atlanticist speakers such as former British Prime Minister David Cameron, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, long time US Senator John McCain, and well known former US diplomat and political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski.

It is clear that this institution is trying to influence public opinion in Slovakia. However, its own research shows that its efforts are not as successful as they would hope it to be. A recently published  GLOBSEC report titled “Voices of Central and Eastern Europe: Perceptions of democracy & governance in 10 EU countries,” found that 50% of respondents believe that their values ​​are threatened by the “West,” and 53% found that the US specifically was a threat to their “identity and values.” This is in stark contrast to neighboring Poland where only 12% of respondents thought the US was a threat. In fact, no other country surveyed, such as Bulgaria (43%), Czechia (33%), Hungary (21%) and Lithuania (19%), had a majority that thought the US was a threat to their “identity and values.”

The way Slovak politicians communicate Western values is the main reason for this unprecedented result in Central and Eastern Europe. Slovakia, as a traditionally conservative society, has been inundated with Western liberalism that has resulted in draconian political correctness and identity politics. The idea that these values ​​will be forcibly implemented in Slovak society is receiving major backlash.

Washington’s unilateral policies have had a negative global consequence that has not solved geopolitical problems, but in fact worsened them. Intervention against the former Yugoslavia to support the establishment of a narco-state like Kosovo, is one such example. In fact, Slovakia is only one of five countries in the European Union that has not yet recognized Pristina’s independence from Belgrade. Western intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria is also negatively perceived in Slovakia.

According to the GLOBSEC report, people who are more prone to what the think-tank describes as conspiracy theories, without mentioning specific examples, and the fact that anti-American sentiment in Slovakia is significantly higher than anti-Russian sentiment, would certainly be very frustrating for the researchers. Despite a strong message from the mainstream media and the organization of extravagant events by GLOBSEC, only 26% of Slovaks perceived Russia as a threat to their country, the think-tank said in its 2019 Trends report. This is because “Slovaks have been known for having stronger anti-US sentiments than their neighbours,” as well as “stronger pro-Russian sentiments based on a historical and cultural context.” Slovakia is also the least Russophobic nation in Central Europe because Russia is perceived as a non-aggressive partner that provides a regular and safe supply of raw materials, like gas and oil.

Although 79% of Slovaks believe that their media is “rather or completely free” of influence, only 46% of Slovaks trusted the “standard” of mainstream media. This shows that Slovaks are aware of the gradual monopoly control of their media. It is also this lack of trust in the media that has made Slovakia an anomaly out of the Central and Eastern European countries surveyed in how they trust the US.

The conclusions of this survey would be extremely frustrating for GLOBSEC. Their long-term and systematic effort in trying to influence Slovak opinion has thus far produced poor results. It is likely that we will see increased funding for the think-tank, which will mean more extravagant events, more talks, and more penetration into the mainstream media by GLOBSEC to force Atlanticism onto Slovaks. Whether this will be successful or not still remains to be seen.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Saudi-led coalition has been bombing Yemen with a renewed energy following the recent missile and drone strikes on the Kingdom’s capital by the Ansar Allah movement (also known as the Houthis).

According to pro-Houthi sources, Saudi warplanes conducted over 60 airstrikes on different targets across the country during the past few days. They insist that the most of the targets that were hit were objects of civilian infrastructure. At the same time, Riyadh claims that it has been precisely bombing Houthi military positions.

For example, on September 12, the Saudi-led coalition announced that it had carried out a series of airstrikes on the Military Engineering Complex in the Sa’wan Suburb, east of the Yemen capital of Sanaa. According to pro-Saudi sources, the Yemeni Armed Forces loyal to the Houthi government, which controls Sanaa, were “manufacturing and assembling” ballistic missiles and combat drones. The pro-Houthis al-Masirah TV confirmed that Saudi-led coalition warplanes had targeted the Military Engineering Complex with six airstrikes.

On the next day, the new wave of Saudi airstrikes hit the countryside of Sanaa. They allegedly targeted Four drones at Al Dailami Air Base, a military research facility in the Weapons Maintenance Camp, a number of barracks and military posts in the districts of Bani Harith and Arhab, and a headquarters in the al-Sawad Camp.

On September 14, additionally to the Yemeni capital, the Saudi Air Force also conducted raids against Houthi forces in the province of Marib, where the defense of pro-Saudi groups has been collapsing. Clashes between Saudi-led forces and the Houthis have been ongoing across the districts of al-Jubah and Rahbah. However, the main target of the Houthi advance is still the Maas base. Yemeni sources claim that as soon as the base falls, Houthi units will launch an advance on the provincial capital. The Saudi-led coalition captured it in April of 2015 and since then it has successfully kept it under its own control.

Nonetheless, in late 2019 and early 2020, the course of the conflict with no doubt turned to favor the Houthis and Saudi Arabia found itself in conflict even with the main formal ally in the intervention coalition, the UAE. So, the Houthi government now has a good chance to take back the city and the entire province.

This development will become a panful blow to the Saudi leadership and became yet another piece of smoking gun evidence showcasing the failure of its military campaign in Yemen. In response, the Saudi Air Force will likely continue its intense bombing campaign aiming to level Sanaa and other big cities in the hands of the Houthis. The problem with this approach is that this very campaign forces the Houthis to conduct more intense and regular missile and drone attacks on targets inside Saudi Arabia itself.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

President Trump hosts a signing ceremony today in Washington which joins Bahrain, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Israel in the ‘Abraham Accord’ which establishes full diplomatic relations between Israel and the Persian Gulf monarchies, and portends the possibility that other Arab states will join the strategic realignment of the Middle East.

The accord comes with a prize: for Trump, it is a boost for his re-election campaign, for UAE it is US-made F-35 fighter jets, Reaper drones, and EA-18G Growler jets, and Bahrain is expecting air defense systems.

The ‘Abraham Accord’ is not a peace agreement, but rather an accord to join Israel, UAE, and Bahrain in the suppression of struggles for freedom in Palestine and Bahrain.  Noura Erakat, a human rights attorney, explains the accord provides the military, financial and diplomatic infrastructure to repress popular struggles for democracy and freedom in the Middle East.

The Al-Khalifa monarchy of Bahrain is a Sunni royal family ruling over a population which is mainly Shia, poor, and voiceless. Pro-democracy protests broke out in early 2011 and were met with a brutal crackdown by security forces.

Bahrain’s monarch, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, declared martial law and authorized 1,500 troops from Saudi Arabia and the UAE to enter the country to brutally crush the protesters.  In May 2017, Ebtisam al-Saegh, a Bahraini human rights activist, was interrogated for seven hours by Bahraini authorities where she was beaten and sexually assaulted.

Bahrain is part of the coalition at war with Yemen since 2015, alongside UAE and Saudi Arabia, which has launched at least 20,000 airstrikes and killed 17,500 civilians, in a military campaign that has bombed hospitals, school buses, and left 10 million Yemenis at risk of famine.

Bahrain and the UAE had the opportunity to secure a concession for Palestinians in their accord with Israel: to ease the 13-year blockade of Gaza, which has turned it into an open-air prison.  The two royal dynasties who live lives of opulent luxury seemingly can’t imagine what the Palestinian lifestyle is like.

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son in law, has said, “The Palestinians are stuck in the past.” He is right, as their past deprivations were horrific, and those denials of human rights continue today, connecting their collective past with the present in an unchanging nightmare.  The Persian Gulf monarchies have shaken-off their past: the tents are palaces, and the camels were replaced by Ferraris.  “Free Palestine” is a political ideology best remembered by the parents and grandparents of many of the Arab Gulf communities, as the younger generations have shaken-off the past and are embracing a modern society that resembles “Disneyland”.

Israel and some Arab leaders in the Persian Gulf had been discretely developing ties for years, as they share a common animosity of Iran. This animosity is shared by Trump, who ran on a 2016 campaign promise to break the nuclear deal with Iran, which he did.  Trump tasked Kushner with developing and selling the ‘Deal of the Century’, but it failed to be accepted by Israel and the Palestinians. As the Trump re-election bid draws near, his campaign needed a boost, and the ‘Abraham Accord’ comes at the right time.

The Gulf monarchies see Israel as a trading partner with a high-tech economy, and Israel sees them as a way to end its isolation while being infused with cash investments.

All eyes are on Saudi Arabia, and its de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has suggested he is open to recognizing Israel; however, his father King Salman has maintained his position of the Saudi proposed ‘Arab Peace Initiative’ of 2002, which would give full recognition to Israel from the entire Arab world after the Palestinians were granted statehood. The ‘Abraham Accord’ affords Israel normalization with UAE and Bahrain while putting annexation of the illegal settlements of the West Bank on hold.  Saudi Arabia has already taken the first step by allowing Israeli commercial flights to use its airspace.

Kushner recently met the Saudi Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia’s Neom region, which is a massive high tech hub being built by the Kingdom and reportedly the site of the first open business deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

They discussed Palestinian issues and ways to support the US-Saudi partnership. Kushner said last month that normalization with Saudi Arabia was an “inevitability.”

Trump’s first presidential visit was to the Saudi capital, Riyadh and he has boasted about negotiating a multibillion-dollar arms sale to the kingdom while defending the Crown Prince against evidence that he ordered the brutal murder and dismemberment of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

If Saudi Arabia recognizes Israel, it would be an immense prize for Trump, and the signing ceremony would likely call for a Hollywood director’s talent to craft a royal pageant, and possible fly-over with green, white, and blue plumes in the sky.

Oman’s Sultan Haitham bin Tariq welcomed Bahrain’s decision to normalize relations with Israel and hopes it will contribute to Israeli-Palestinian peace, he said on Sunday. It is thought that Oman, Sudan, and Morocco will be the next in line to sign the accord.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist.

Featured image is from MD

Swami Agnivesh has left us. And yet he is still with us.

He was undoubtedly one of the most courageous fighters against religious fanaticism and religious bigotry of our time. He spoke out without hesitation against fanatical Hindus who distorted religious teachings to justify exclusive interpretations of the faith. Chauvinistic trends within the community that have been gaining currency in recent years —- trends that demean Hinduism’s inclusivism and universalism — earned Agnivesh’s wrath. He denounced those who resorted to narrow, bigoted interpretations of the religion’s perennial truths as traitors and opportunists.

Even before some of these more recent trends in the community, Agnivesh was already a vocal critic of caste practices and the entire caste system just as he was an uncompromising opponent of Brahminical power and influence. Widow immolation in some rural localities in India and other traditions which degraded women also incensed the reformer.

Conventional Hindu leaders like their counterparts in other religions often allowed attitudes and practices that contradicted the essence of their faith to flourish partly because they did not want to antagonise the powerful within their respective communities or because they too benefitted from the prevalence of such attitudes and practices. One such practice which Agnivesh the activist combated with all his energy for decades was bonded labour. He rightly saw it as a blot upon human dignity.

Even more abhorrent institutions and systems have co-existed with religions for millennia. Slavery and racism would be two such examples. Religion should cease to provide the cloak of legitimacy to such blatant wrongdoings including ‘Casino Capitalism’ in our age, Agnivesh insisted. Only then will faith in the Divine, belief in the Almighty, become a conduit for the expression of justice, compassion, love and other such virtues.

For Agnivesh it was the triumph of these values through human action that was the real purpose of life. Organised religion as it is presently constituted will not allow these values to reign supreme.  This is why he often espoused a deeper, broader spirituality that went beyond religion as it is normally understood.

The advocacy of a deeper spirituality at the level of the real and concrete meant defending the legitimate rights of all human beings. Agnivesh did this on numerous occasions. The rights of minorities such as Muslims and Christians in India were also his concern. It is believed that it is for championing such causes that he was assaulted by a group of hoodlums in July 2018 in the Pakur area of Jharkand state. It is alleged that Agnivesh’s assailants were linked to power and authority. They and their ilk often claim that they are defending their faith.

By standing up against such ugly forces, Agvinesh has set an outstanding example for all of us.  This is why he remains eternally relevant. This is why I had opened this obituary by emphasising that he is still with us.  Indeed, Agnivesh’s words and deeds resonant much more with us today than ever before because bigotry and fanaticism are getting stronger in many parts of the world.  Our resistance — purportedly Agnivesh’s last message as  conveyed to a friend —  should therefore also get more organised and more focussed.

There is no better way of honouring the man than by continuing his struggle which is our struggle — the struggle to nurture a true spirituality expressed through our lives while exposing a false religiosity that conceals stark hypocrisy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement of a Just World (JUST), Malaysia.

Veterans from the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) terrorist organization feel confident that because they were once supported and backed by the US and Western Europe in their campaign to violently separate Kosovo from Serbia, they are immune from prosecution and believe that their crimes can remain hidden. However, Milovan Drecun, the president of the Working Group of the Assembly Committee for Kosovo and Metohija, will soon launch a drive aimed at international audiences to highlight the brutal crimes committed by the KLA during the Kosovo War of 1998-1999, and have those responsible prosecuted.

Drecun, a Member of the Serbian Parliament since 2012 for the Serbian Progressive Party, has been collecting facts and evidence with the working group to shed light on crimes against not only the Serbian minority in Kosovo, but also against other national communities like the Roma, Gorani (Slavic Muslims in southern Kosovo) and Bosnian Muslims. He also refutes allegations made by the Secretary of the Association of KLA War Veterans, Faton Klinaku, that the facts and evidence collected were from interviews conducted in Serbia under pressure and from threats of death.

“First, the representatives of that association are lying when they talk about the manner of questioning witnesses. Our authorities can mediate in establishing contact with our citizens with whom the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office wants to talk,” said Drecun.

Statements are taken by the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office, and that is a major inconsistency in the claims made by the KLA veterans association. The Specialized Prosecutor’s Office was formed on the basis of law adopted by the Pristina Parliament. Drecun highlights that his group do not hide that they “have an extremely important database and documents” and “have the names of potential witnesses for crimes committed by the criminal KLA.”

Authorities in Serbia meticulously collected all data on crimes committed during and after the 1998-1999 conflict. The findings were made available to the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office to try and establish the truth about criminal allegations and to punish perpetrators if found guilty.

“However, we now have a completely different situation here, where terrorists from the criminal KLA are trying to hide the truth and compromise the evidence available to Serbia. We have never hidden our cooperation with the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office,” said the Serbian MP.

The Republic of Albania, for example, knows a lot about KLA crimes, not only against Serbs, but also against Albanians. Drecun’s Working Group has made available the data that the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office was interested in, and if there are lawsuits, they will be verified and accepted as evidence in court.

“We will present all the documentation at our disposal, and I will present a lot of things to the entire international public through the Working Group, because we will launch an international campaign to show the extent of the criminal activities of the terrorist KLA,” Drecun announced.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić was due to meet Kosovo leader Hashim Thaçi in June for a historic meeting at the White House at the behest of US envoy for Kosovo-Serbia negotiations, Richard Grenell. However, this meeting ended before it could even begin as Thaçi became indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity for actions he allegedly undertook during the Kosovo War.

Thaçi in 1993 became a prominent member of the “Kosovo Liberation Army” (KLA) and became responsible for the finances and armaments of the terrorist organization. The KLA financed its activities by turning Kosovo into a drug smuggling hub to distribute heroin and cocaine throughout Europe.

A 2008 report by German intelligence service BND accuses Thaçi of having deep involvement in organized crime, saying that “The key players (including Thaçi) are intimately involved in inter-linkages between politics, business, and organised crime structures in Kosovo,” and that Thaçi is leading a “criminal network operating throughout Kosovo.” The charges laid against him by the prosecutor’s office in the Hague include murder, enforced disappearance of persons, persecution, and torture. He has also been accused of organ harvesting and drug trafficking by other reports and institutions.

Thaçi has not been found guilty yet, but it is well established that the KLA engaged in such activities under the watchful eye of NATO who were satisfied to allow such a prevalence of criminality to occur in order to weaken a Serbia, who especially in this period, was extremely pro-Russia. However, by ignoring such illicit activities, Kosovo has become a cemented crime hub of Europe that is now difficult to control as Western Europe continues to be flooded with narcotics and human trafficking.

Although the Working Group has ambitions to broadcast internationally the crimes of the KLA, it is likely that their finding will be ignored by the Western press. This is not only to cover their own embarrassment for supporting a drug trafficking terrorist organization, but also because Yugoslavia has already been dismantled and Kosovo is no longer a top priority for the West, even when considering the recent Belgrade-Pristina economic deal made in the US just days ago.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”—George Orwell, 1984

Once upon a time in America, parents breathed a sigh of relief when their kids went back to school after a summer’s hiatus, content in the knowledge that for a good portion of the day, their kids would be gainfully occupied, out of harm’s way, and out of trouble.

Back then, if you talked back to a teacher, or played a prank on a classmate, or just failed to do your homework, you might find yourself in detention or doing an extra writing assignment after school or suffering through a parent-teacher conference about your shortcomings.

Of course, that was before school shootings became a part of our national lexicon.

As a result, over the course of the past 30 years, the need to keep the schools “safe” from drugs and weapons has become a thinly disguised, profit-driven campaign to transform them into quasi-prisons, complete with surveillance cameras, metal detectors, police patrols, zero tolerance policies, lock downs, drug sniffing dogs, school resource officers, strip searches, and active shooter drills.

Suddenly, under school zero tolerance policies, students were being punished with suspension, expulsion, and even arrest for childish behavior and minor transgressions such as playing cops and robbers on the playground, bringing LEGOs to school, or having a food fight.

Things got even worse once schools started to rely on police (school resource officers) to “deal with minor rule breaking: sagging pants, disrespectful comments, brief physical skirmishes.”

As a result, students are being subjected to police tactics such as handcuffs, leg shackles, tasers and excessive force for “acting up,” in addition to being ticketed, fined and sent to court for behavior perceived as defiant, disruptive or disorderly such as spraying perfume and writing on a desk.

This is what constitutes a police state education these days: lessons in compliance meted out with aggressive, totalitarian tactics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has added yet another troubling layer to the ways in which students (and their families) can run afoul of a police state education now that school (virtual or in-person) is back in session.

Significant numbers of schools within the nation’s 13,000 school districts have opted to hold their classes online, in-person or a hybrid of the two, fearing further outbreaks of the virus. Yet this unprecedented foray into the virtual world carries its own unique risks.

Apart from the technological logistics of ensuring that millions of students across the country have adequate computer and internet access, consider the Fourth Amendment ramifications of having students attend school online via video classes from the privacy of their homes.

Suddenly, you’ve got government officials (in this case, teachers or anyone at the school on the other end of that virtual connection) being allowed carte blanche visual access to the inside of one’s private home without a warrant.

Anything those school officials see—anything they hear—anything they photograph or record—during that virtual visit becomes fair game for scrutiny and investigation not just by school officials but by every interconnected government agency to which that information can be relayed: the police, social services, animal control, the Department of Homeland Security, you name it.

After all, this is the age of overcriminalization, when the federal criminal code is so vast that the average American unknowingly commits about three federal felonies per day, a U.S. Attorney can find a way to charge just about anyone with violating federal law.

It’s a train wreck just waiting to happen.

Image on the right: The toy gun was neon green and black with an orange tip featuring the words on the handle: “Zombie Hunter.” (Photo illustration from Fox News)

In fact, we’re already seeing this play out across the country. For instance, a 12-year-old Colorado boy was suspended for flashing a toy gun across his computer screen during an online art class. Without bothering to notify or consult with the boy’s parents, police carried out a welfare check on Isaiah Elliott, who suffers from ADHD and learning disabilities.

An 11-year-old Maryland boy had police descend on his home in search of weapons after school officials spied a BB gun on the boy’s bedroom wall during a Google Meet class on his laptop. School officials reported the sighting to the school resource officer, who then called the police.

And in New York and Massachusetts, growing numbers of parents are being visited by social services after being reported to the state child neglect and abuse hotline, all because their kids failed to sign in for some of their online classes. Charges of neglect, in some instances, can lead to children being removed from their homes.

You see what this is, don’t you?

This is how a seemingly well-meaning program (virtual classrooms) becomes another means by which the government can intrude into our private lives, further normalizing the idea of constant surveillance and desensitizing us to the dangers of an existence in which we are never safe from the all-seeing eyes of Big Brother.

This is how the police sidestep the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for probable cause and a court-issued warrant in order to spy us on in the privacy of our homes: by putting school officials in a position to serve as spies and snitches via online portals and virtual classrooms, and by establishing open virtual doorways into our homes through which the police can enter uninvited and poke around.

Welfare checks. Police searches for weapons. Reports to Social Services.

It’s only a matter of time before the self-righteous Nanny State uses this COVID-19 pandemic as yet another means by which it can dictate every aspect of our lives.

At the moment, it’s America’s young people who are the guinea pigs for the police state’s experiment in virtual authoritarianism. Already, school administrators are wrestling with how to handle student discipline for in-person classes and online learning in the midst of COVID-19.

Mark my words, this will take school zero tolerance policies—and their associated harsh disciplinary penalties—to a whole new level once you have teachers empowered to act as the Thought Police.

As Kalyn Belsha reports for Chalkbeat,

“In Jacksonville, Florida, students who don’t wear a mask repeatedly could be removed from school and made to learn online. In some Texas districts, intentionally coughing on someone can be classified as assault. In Memphis, minor misbehaviors could land students in an online ‘supervised study.’”

Depending on the state and the school district, failing to wear a face mask could constitute a dress code violation. In Utah, not wearing a face mask at school constitutes a criminal misdemeanor. In Texas, it’s considered an assault to intentionally spit, sneeze, or cough on someone else. Anyone removing their mask before spitting or coughing could be given a suspension from school.

Virtual learning presents its own challenges with educators warning dire consequences for students who violate school standards for dress code and work spaces, even while “learning” at home. According to Chalkbeat,

“In Shelby County, Tennessee, which includes Memphis, that means no pajamas, hats, or hoods on screen, and students’ shirts must have sleeves. (The district is providing ‘flexibility’ on clothing bottoms and footwear when a student’s full body won’t be seen on video.) Other rules might be even tougher to follow: The district is also requiring students’ work stations to be clear of ‘foreign objects’ and says students shouldn’t eat or drink during virtual classes.”

See how quickly the Nanny State a.k.a. Police State takes over?

All it takes for you to cease being the master of your own home is to have a child engaged in virtual learning. Suddenly, the government gets to have a say in how you order your space and when those in your home can eat and drink and what clothes they wear.

If you think the schools won’t overreact in a virtual forum, you should think again.

These are the same schools that have been plagued by a lack of common sense when it comes to enforcing zero tolerance policies for weapons, violence and drugs.

These are the very same schools that have exposed students to a steady diet of draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech, school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students, standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking, politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them, and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.

Zero tolerance policies that were intended to make schools safer by discouraging the use of actual drugs and weapons by students have turned students into suspects to be treated as criminals by school officials and law enforcement alike, while criminalizing childish behavior.

For instance, 9-year-old Patrick Timoney was sent to the principal’s office and threatened with suspension after school officials discovered that one of his LEGOs was holding a 2-inch toy gun. David Morales, an 8-year-old Rhode Island student, ran afoul of his school’s zero tolerance policies after he wore a hat to school decorated with an American flag and tiny plastic Army figures in honor of American troops. School officials declared the hat out of bounds because the toy soldiers were carrying miniature guns.

A high school sophomore was suspended for violating the school’s no-cell-phone policy after he took a call from his father, a master sergeant in the U.S. Army who was serving in Iraq at the time. In Houston, an 8th grader was suspended for wearing rosary beads to school in memory of her grandmother (the school has a zero tolerance policy against the rosary, which the school insists can be interpreted as a sign of gang involvement).

Even imaginary weapons (hand-drawn pictures of guns, pencils twirled in a “threatening” manner, imaginary bows and arrows, even fingers positioned like guns) can also land a student in detention. Equally outrageous was the case in New Jersey where several kindergartners were suspended from school for three days for playing a make-believe game of “cops and robbers” during recess and using their fingers as guns.

With the distinctions between student offenses erased, and all offenses expellable, we now find ourselves in the midst of what Time magazine described as a “national crackdown on Alka-Seltzer.” Students have actually been suspended from school for possession of the fizzy tablets in violation of zero tolerance drug policies. Students have also been penalized for such inane “crimes” as bringing nail clippers to school, using Listerine or Scope, and carrying fold-out combs that resemble switchblades.

A 13-year-old boy in Manassas, Virginia, who accepted a Certs breath mint from a classmate, was actually suspended and required to attend drug-awareness classes, while a 12-year-old boy who said he brought powdered sugar to school for a science project was charged with a felony for possessing a look-alike drug.

Acts of kindness, concern, basic manners or just engaging in childish behavior can also result in suspensions.

One 13-year-old was given detention for exposing the school to “liability” by sharing his lunch with a hungry friend. A third grader was suspended for shaving her head in sympathy for a friend who had lost her hair to chemotherapy. And then there was the high school senior who was suspended for saying “bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezed.

Screenshot from CBS News

In South Carolina, where it’s against the law to disturb a school, more than a thousand students a year—some as young as 7 years old—“face criminal charges for not following directions, loitering, cursing, or the vague allegation of acting ‘obnoxiously.’ If charged as adults, they can be held in jail for up to 90 days.”

Things get even worse when you add police to the mix.

Thanks to a combination of media hype, political pandering and financial incentives, the use of armed police officers (a.k.a. school resource officers) to patrol school hallways has risen dramatically in the years since the Columbine school shooting (nearly 20,000 by 2003). What this means, notes Mother Jones, is greater police “involvement in routine discipline matters that principals and parents used to address without involvement from law enforcement officers.”

Funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, these school resource officers (SROs) have become de facto wardens in the elementary, middle and high schools, doling out their own brand of justice to the so-called “criminals” in their midst with the help of tasers, pepperspray, batons and brute force.

The horror stories are legion.

One SRO is accused of punching a 13-year-old student in the face for cutting in the cafeteria line. That same cop put another student in a chokehold a week later, allegedly knocking the student unconscious and causing a brain injury.

In Pennsylvania, a student was tased after ignoring an order to put his cell phone away.

A 12-year-old New York student was hauled out of school in handcuffs for doodling on her desk with an erasable marker. Another 12-year-old was handcuffed and jailed after he stomped in a puddle, splashing classmates.

On any given day when school is in session, kids who “act up” in class are pinned facedown on the floor, locked in dark closets, tied up with straps, bungee cords and duct tape, handcuffed, leg shackled, tasered or otherwise restrained, immobilized or placed in solitary confinement in order to bring them under “control.”

In almost every case, these undeniably harsh methods are used to punish kids for simply failing to follow directions or throwing tantrums.

Very rarely do the kids pose any credible danger to themselves or others.

For example, a 4-year-old Virginia preschooler was handcuffed, leg shackled and transported to the sheriff’s office after reportedly throwing blocks and climbing on top of the furniture. School officials claim the restraints were necessary to protect the adults from injury.

A 6-year-old kindergarten student in a Georgia public school was handcuffed, transported to the police station, and charged with simple battery of a schoolteacher and criminal damage to property for throwing a temper tantrum at school.

This is the end product of all those so-called school “safety” policies, which run the gamut from zero tolerance policies that punish all infractions harshly to surveillance cameras, metal detectors, random searches, drug-sniffing dogs, school-wide lockdowns, active-shooter drills and militarized police officers.

Yet these police state tactics did not made the schools any safer.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, police state tactics never make anyone safer so much as they present the illusion of safety and indoctrinate the populace to comply, fear and march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

Now with virtual learning in the midst of this COVID-19 pandemic, the stakes are even higher.

It won’t be long before you start to see police carrying out knock-and-talk investigations based on whatever speculative information is gleaned from those daily virtual classroom sessions that allow government officials entry to your homes in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

It won’t take much at all for SWAT teams to start crashing through doors based on erroneous assumptions about whatever mistaken “contraband” someone may have glimpsed in the background of a virtual classroom session: a maple leaf that looks like marijuana, a jar of sugar that looks like cocaine, a toy gun, someone playfully shouting for help in the distance.

This may sound far-fetched now, but it’s only a matter of time before this slippery slope becomes yet another mile marker on the one-way road to tyranny.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

A Beijing-Brussels-Berlin special: that was quite the video-summit.

From Beijing, we had President Xi Jinping. From Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel. And from Brussels, President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. The Chinese billed it as the first summit “of its kind in history”.

It was actually the second high-level meeting of the Chinese and European leadership in two months. And it took place only a few days after a high-level tour by Foreign Minister Wang Yi encompassing France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway, and the visit by the powerful “Yoda” of the State Council, Yang Jiechi, to Spain and Greece.

The Holy Grail at the end of all these meetings – face-to-face and virtual – is the China-EU investment treaty. Germany currently heads the EU presidency for six months. Berlin wanted the treaty to be signed at a summit in Leipzig this month uniting the EU-27 and Beijing. But Covid-19 had other plans.

So the summit was metastasized into this mini videoconference. The treaty is still supposed to be signed before the end of 2020.

Adding an intriguing note, the mini-summit also happened one day before Premier Li Keqiang attended a Special Virtual Dialogue with Business Leaders, promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF). It’s unclear whether Li will discuss the intricacies of the Great Reset with Klaus Schwab – not to mention whether China subscribes to it.

We are “still committed”

The mini EU-China video summit was quite remarkable for its very discreet spin. The EU, officially, now considers China as both an essential partner and a “strategic rival”. Brussels is adamant on its will to “cooperate” while defending is notorious human rights “values”.

As for the investment treaty, the business Holy Grail which has been under negotiation for seven years now, Ursula von der Leyen said “there’s still much to be done”.

What the EU essentially wants is equal treatment for their companies in China, similar to how Chinese companies are treated inside the EU. Diplomats confirmed the key areas are telecoms, the automobile market – which should be totally open – and the end of unfair competition by Chinese steel.

Last week, the head of Siemens, Joe Kaeser, threw an extra spanner in the works, telling Die Zeit that “we categorically condemn every form of oppression, forced labor and threat to human rights”, referring to Hong Kong and Xinjiang.

That caused quite a stir. At least 10% of Siemens business is generated in China, where the company is present since 1872 and employs over 35,000 people. Siemens was forced to publicly state that it is “still committed” to China.

China has been Germany’s top trade partner since 2017 – ahead of France and the US. So it’s no wonder alarm bells started to ring, on and off. It was in January last year that the BDI – the Federation of German Industries – first defined China as a “systemic competitor”, and not only as a “partner”. The concern was centered on market “distortions” and the barriers against German competition inside China.

The mini video-summit took place as the trade war unleashed by Washington against Beijing has reached Cold War 2.0 proportions. EU diplomats, uncomfortably, and off the record, admit that the Europeans are caught in the middle and the only possible strategy is to try to advance their economic interests while insisting on the same panacea of human rights.

Thus the official EU demand this Monday – unreported in Chinese media: allow us to send “independent observers” to Xinjiang.

Those Uighur jihadis

So we’re back, inevitably, to the hyper-incandescent issue of Xinjiang  “concentration camps”.

The Atlanticist establishment has unleashed a ferocious, no holds barred campaign to shape the narrative that Beijing is conducting no less than cultural genocide in Xinjiang.

Apart from United States government rhetoric, the campaign is mostly conducted by “influencer” US thinks tanks such as this one, which issue reports that turn viral on Western corporate media.

One of these reports quotes “numerous firsthand accounts from Uighurs” who are defined as “employed” to perform forced labor. As a result, the global supply chain, according to the report, is “likely tainted with forced labor”.

The operative word is “likely”. As in Russia is “likely” interfering in US elections and “likely” poisoning opponents of the Kremlin. There’s no way to verify the accuracy of the sources quoted in these reports – which happen to be conveniently financed by “multiple donors interested in commerce in Asia.” Who are these donors? What is their agenda? Who will profit from the kind of “commerce in Asia” they are pushing?

On a personal level, Xinjiang was at the top of my travel priorities this year – then laid to rest by Covid-19 – because I want to check by myself all aspects of what’s really goin’ on in China’s Far West.

As it stands, US copycat “influencers” in the EU are having free reign to impose the narrative about Uighur forced labor, stressing that the clothes Europeans are wearing “could” – and the operative word is “could” – be made by forced laborers.

Don’t expect the Atlanticist network to even bother to offer context in terms of China fighting terrorism in Xinjiang.

In the old al-Qaeda days, I visited and interviewed Uighur jihadis locked up in a sprawling prison set up by the mujahideen under commander Masoud in the Panjshir valley. They had all been indoctrinated by imams preaching in Saudi-financed madrassas across Xinjiang.

More recently, Uighur Salafi-jihadis have been very active in Syria: at least 5,000, according to the Syrian embassy in Beijing.

Beijing knows exactly what would happen if they return to Xinjiang, as much as Moscow knows what would happen if Chechen jihadis return to the Caucasus.

So it’s no wonder that China has to act. That includes closing madrassas, detaining imams and arresting – and “re-“educating” – possible jihadis and their families.

Forget about the West offering context about the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), which declared an Islamic Emirate, ISIS/Daesh-style, in November 2019 in Idlib, northwest Syria. TIP was founded in Xinjiang 12 years ago and has been very active in Syria since 2011 – exactly the same year when they claimed to be responsible for a terror operation in Kashgar which killed 23 people.

It’s beyond pathetic that the West killed and displaced Muslim multitudes – directly and indirectly – with the “war on terror” just to become oh so worried with the plight of the Uighurs.

It’s more enlightening to remember history. As in the autumn of 821, when princess Taihe, sister of a Tang dynasty emperor, rode in a Bactrian camel, her female attendants following her in treasured Ferghana horses, all the way from the imperial palace in Chang’an to the land of the Uighurs.

Princess Taihe had been chosen as a living tribute – and was on her way to wed the Uighur kaghan to cement their peoples’ friendship. She came from the east, but her dress and ornaments were from the west, from the Central Asian steppes and deserts where she would live her new life.

And by the way, the Uighurs and the Tang dynasty were allies.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

In a solemn ceremony at the White House today, President Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the foreign ministers of UAE and Bahrain for the signing of the accord establishing formal diplomatic relations between the three countries.

Oman could be next in line as its late Sultan Qaboos had already hosted Israeli prime minister once before, though Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar are unlikely to establish diplomatic ties with Israel in the near term, because being conservative monarchies, they are more receptive to mainstream Arab sentiment firmly against Israel for violating the rights of the Palestinians.

Existence of informal ties between the Gulf States and Israel is no secret. They’ve been fighting wars together in regional conflicts against Iran and allied forces, notably in Syria, for almost a decade. But it must’ve taken some persuasive skills by the Trump administration to convince Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Zayed and Bahrain’s King Hamad bin al-Khalifa to formally recognize Israel in the run-up to the US presidential elections slated for November 3.

Regarding the reciprocal relationship between Washington and the Gulf’s autocrats, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister threatened [1] that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack – though the bill was eventually passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment in the Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf’s investments in North America and Western Europe.

Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry’s sales of arms to the Gulf Arab States, a report [2] authored by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during its eight-year tenure.

Similarly, the top items in Trump’s agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were: firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led “Arab NATO” to counter Iran’s influence in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales and, over a period of 10 years, total sales could reach $400 billion, as Donald Trump himself alluded to in his conversations with American journalist Bob Woodward described in the newly released book “Rage.”

Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.

Similarly, when King Abdullah’s successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars’ worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.

In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf’s petro-sheikhs contribute substantial investments to the tune of trillions of dollars to the Western economies.

Washington’s interest in Syria’s proxy war has been mainly about conceding to security concerns of the Gulf’s autocrats and ensuring Israel’s regional security. The United States Defense Intelligence Agency’s declassified report [3] of 2012 clearly spelled out the imminent rise of a Salafist principality in northeastern Syria – in Raqqa and Deir al-Zor which were occupied by the Islamic State until October 2017 – in the event of an outbreak of a civil war in Syria.

Under pressure from the Zionist lobby in Washington, however, the former Obama administration deliberately suppressed the report and also overlooked the view in general that a proxy war in Syria would give birth to radical Islamic jihadists.

The hawks in Washington were fully aware of the consequences of their actions in Syria, but they kept pursuing the ill-fated policy of nurturing militants in the training camps located in Syria’s border regions with Turkey and Jordan in order to weaken the anti-Zionist Syrian government.

The single biggest threat to Israel’s regional security was posed by the Iranian resistance axis, which is comprised of Tehran, Damascus and their Lebanon-based surrogate, Hezbollah. During the course of 2006 Lebanon War, Hezbollah fired hundreds of rockets into northern Israel and Israel’s defense community realized for the first time the nature of threat that Hezbollah and its patrons posed to Israel’s regional security.

Those were only unguided rockets but it was a wakeup call for Israel’s military strategists that what would happen if Iran passed the guided missile technology to Hezbollah whose area of operations lies very close to the northern borders of Israel. Therefore, the Zionist lobbies in Washington literally coerced then-President Obama to coordinate a proxy war against Damascus and its Lebanon-based surrogate Hezbollah in order to dismantle the Iranian resistance axis against Israel.

Over the years, Israel has not only provided medical aid and material support to the militant groups battling Damascus – particularly to various factions of the Free Syria Army (FSA) and al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate al-Nusra Front in Daraa and Quneitra bordering the Israel-occupied Golan Heights – but Israel’s air force has virtually played the role of the air force of Syrian militants and conducted hundreds of airstrikes in Syria during the eight-year conflict.

In an interview to New York Times [4] in January last year, Israel’s outgoing Chief of Staff Lt. General Gadi Eisenkot confessed that the Netanyahu government approved his shift in strategy in January 2017 to step up airstrikes in Syria. Consequently, more than 200 Israeli airstrikes were launched against the Syrian targets in 2017 and 2018, as revealed [5] by the Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz in September 2018.

In 2018 alone, Israel’s air force dropped 2,000 bombs in Syria. The purpose of Israeli airstrikes in Syria has been to degrade Iran’s guided missile technology provided to Damascus and its Lebanon-based proxy, Hezbollah, which poses an existential threat to Israel’s regional security.

Though after Russia provided S-300 missile system to the Syrian military after a Russian surveillance aircraft was shot down by Syrian air defenses during an Israeli incursion into the Syrian airspace, on September 2018, killing 15 Russians onboard, the Israeli airstrikes in Syria have been significantly scaled down.

Following the incident, though Israel has conducted occasional airstrikes in Daraa and Quneitra in southern Syria and Deir al-Zor in eastern Syria, Israeli airstrikes in northwest Syria, which is within the range of missile defense systems deployed at Hmeimim Air Base near coastal Latakia, have almost entirely ceased.

Taking cover of the Israeli airstrikes, Washington has conducted several airstrikes of its own on targets in Syria and Iraq and blamed them on Israel, which frequently mounts air and missile strikes against Iranian operatives and Hezbollah militia in Syria and Lebanon.

Besides the airstrikes on the missile storage facilities of Iran-backed militias in Iraq, it is suspected that the US air force was also behind an airstrike last year at the newly built Imam Ali military base in eastern Syria at al-Bukamal-Qaim border crossing alleged to be hosting the Iranian Quds Force operatives.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html?_r=0 

[2] The Obama administration’s arms sales offers to Saudi top $115 billion:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ

[3] The United States Defense Intelligence Agency’s declassified report of 2012:

http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/

[4] An interview with Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, Israel’s chief of staff:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/opinion/gadi-eisenkot-israel-iran-syria.html

[5] Israel Katz: Israel conducted 200 airstrikes in Syria in 2017 and 2018:

https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/benjamin-netanyahu-admits-israel-to-blame-for-damascus-strikes-1.812590

Featured image: White House photo

Once again, the whispers of phantoms masquerading as administration officials have attempted to put Donald Trump on the defensive only two months before the fall election. And in typical fashion, the roused president has gone on an immediate rhetorical offensive.

Trump has doubled down on his affirmations towards the U.S. military and the American soldier, while simultaneously confronting the class of generals who command them.

“I’m not saying the military’s in love with me—the soldiers are,” Trump said at a Labor Day press conference. “The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.” 

This is a dramatic shift in perspective from the man who spent the first two years of his presidency surrounding himself with top brass like Michael Flynn, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, and James Mattis (along with almost being beguiled into nominating David Petraeus as Secretary of State). Perhaps Trump learned the hard way that the generals of the forever wars don’t measure up to the twentieth-century soldiers he adulated growing up. 

For instance, when George Marshall oversaw the deployment of 8.3 million GIs across four continents in World War II, he did so with the assistance of only three other four-star generals. In retirement, Marshall refused to sit on any corporate boards, and passed on multiple lucrative book deals, lest he give the impression that he was profiting from his military record. As he told one publisher, “he had not spent his life serving the government in order to sell his life story to the Saturday Evening Post.”

The day before yesterday, Serbian President Vucic was ridiculed by signing an agreement in the White House without even knowing what said agreement contained. It was a dark day in the history of one of the most heroic peoples of the Balkans and of all Europe, and also constitutes a very serious warning to all the Balkan nations.

According to what we know so far, Serbia and Kosovo signed an economic cooperation agreement in the Oval Office of the White House in the presence of Trump. Serbia has said it is moving its Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and Kosovo is recognizing Israel and opening an embassy in Jerusalem. The two sides also denounced the actions of the Lebanese Hezbollah and agreed to participate in the international campaign to decriminalize homosexuality. The agreements were reached as part of a US-Israeli initiative to resolve the Kosovo issue, which includes measures against China (5G) and Russia (gas). In Serbia, however, President Vucic is already sharply criticized for the agreement as indirectly acknowledging Kosovo’s secession.

Any free and dignified man can feel only deep sorrow for the kind of humiliation these Serbian “leaders” have put on their people, the people who fought the Austrians almost alone in World War I, who resisted as few to both Hitler and Stalin, who resisted for ten years NATO’s imperialism and its bombing. For the people who founded Yugoslavia of self-management, seeking an alternative between Capitalism and Stalinism, Yugoslavia which was the pride of both East and West throughout the post-war period, starring in the Non-Aligned Movement, along with Soekarno’s Indonesia and Makarios’ Cyprus.

The agreement mercilessly illuminates the planned and already realized future of the entire Balkans, now turning into a zone of miserable American-Israeli protectorates, destined to be a giant military base against Russia and Islam, but also a wedge on the side of the “old” Europe. A pioneer in the emerging new Capitalism of Mafia and Crime, with a number of micro-states whose main economic activity tends to be all kinds of smuggling of products, weapons, drugs and people.

It would be interesting to hear from those who supported (from both the European Left and the European Right) the dismantling of Yugoslavia by Imperialism, with various arguments, supposedly “anti-nationalist” and “in defense of human rights” , for them to tell us how they regard this agreement. How do they comment on the practical conversion of a large part of all the Balkan peoples into defacto slavery? Do they like it? How do they see the prospect of a Europe surrounded by miserable protectorates?

The only hope now is that the Serbian people and the Serbian army again find the strength to overthrow those who “rule” their defeated nation, but it is not certain that they will succeed, nor that they still have the strength to do so.

In 1993, Serbian resistance to imperialism began to wake Yeltsin’s Russia to the West’s real intentions against it, although this awakening came too late and it was too reluctant to save Serbia. One can at least hope that the great geopolitical defeat Moscow is now experiencing in the Balkans from Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s action will cure it of some delusions quite common in Russia.

History is never a one-way street. The Americans managed to organize a coup in Kiev in 2013, forgetting that where evil grows, the means to fight it also appear (Henderlin). Two years later they saw the Russian army in Syria and they could not believe their eyes.

The (erroneous) sense of omnipotence that leads to such adventurism today is exactly what is preparing disasters for both the United States and Israel tomorrow. The real question is what cost humanity will have to pay to discover it.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos is a journalist, expert in geopolitics (Greece).

Featured image is from United World

Already strained EU relations with Russia potentially reached a new low over the great novichok poisoning of Alexey Navalny hoax.

On Tuesday, Russia’s EU mission challenged the bloc’s fake news about what happened to him, saying the following:

“In recent weeks, we have been witnessing a rapidly growing information campaign in the EU — both in official circles and media — over an incident which occurred with a Russian political activist and blogger Alexey Navalny on 20 August 2020,” adding:

“Not claiming to be experts in toxicology, we still consider it necessary to draw your attention to multiple inconsistencies regarding this case.”

“In the light of forthcoming debate in the European Parliament, we call on EU officials and MEPs to look into a number of following questions.”

“Would there be any rationale behind the Russian authorities’ alleged decision to poison Alexey Navalny with the use of a military-grade chemical nerve agent of the ‘novichok’ group, which falls under CWC ban, in a Russian city with half a million population and then to do their utmost to save his life and let him go for further medical treatment to Germany, where ‘ovichok’ could (allegedly) be identified?”

“What would be the reason for the Russian authorities to poison Alexey Navalny, taking into account that his actual popularity level hardly reaches 2%, according to the recent survey conducted in July 2020 by Levada Centre, an independent nongovernmental polling and sociological research organization?”

On the same day, Russian Foreign Intelligence Service head Sergei Naryshkin said the following:

Russian “medics at the Omsk hospital, who saved Alexei Navalny’s life, conducted a deep complex of examinations in a short time span, including examinations for presence of toxic and…poisonous substances.”

“These examinations were performed using the newest equipment and in compliance with the strictest medical protocols.”

Their comprehensive tests found no toxins of any kind in his blood, urine, liver, or elsewhere in his system — no traces of novichok or other nerve agent poisoning that would have killed him before boarding a flight from Tomsk, Russia to Moscow.

Naryshkin stressed that

“(w)e  have a lot of questions to the German side, and the Prosecutor General’s Office requested aid in the investigation twice, but there is still no response” — suggesting a cover-up by Berlin.

Russian lower house State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin called the Navalny incident an anti-Kremlin US-led Western provocation aimed at hampering Russian development by wanting construction of its Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany halted.

Russian State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Leonid Slutsky said (unlawful) Western sanctions imposed on the country and/or its officials over the Navalny incident will amount to “dirty political scheming.”

He stressed that in 2017, the OPCW confirmed the entire elimination of Russia’s chemical weapons.

On October 11, 2017 in the Hague, Netherlands, during the organizatioin’s 86th Executive Council session, a ceremony was held to mark Russia’s achievement.

A statement by OPCW director general Ahmet Uzumcu “acknowledged the remarkable achievement by the Russian Federation and presented a memorable certificate to Deputy Minister Kalamanov marking the full destruction of the 39,967 metric tons of Russian chemical weapons.”

Separately on September 27, 2017, Uzumcu said the following:

“The completion of the verified destruction of Russia’s chemical weapons programme is a major milestone in the achievement of the goals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.”

“I congratulate Russia and I commend all of their experts who were involved for their professionalism and dedication.”

On Tuesday, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell falsely accused Russia of poisoning Navalny despite no evidence suggesting it, adding:

The Navalny incident “will have an impact on European Union-Russia relations,” an issue to be “discuss(ed) in the next Foreign Affairs Council” meeting.

At a European parliament plenary session, Borrell defied reality by claiming “irrefutable evidence that a nerve agent of the novichok  group…was used to try to assassinate Mr Navalny (sic),” adding:

“I hope that what has happened to Mr Navalny will represent an encouragement for member states to…approv(e) (a) human rights sanctions regime…”

“(W)e could call it the ‘Navalny sanctions regime” — a way to continue unjustifiably bash Russia to undermine normalized relations with the EU.

On issues relating to Nord Stream 2, Borrell said it’s for nations involved in its construction to handle, not Brussels.

Will the Navalny novichok poisoning hoax undermine the nearly completed Russian gas pipeline to Germany, along with Kremlin/EU relations?

Will Berlin and other Western capitals shoot themselves in the foot to benefit imperial USA?

A Final Comment

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke to his German counterpart Heiko Mass on Tuesday.

According to a ministry press release they “focused on the state of and prospects for Russian-German relations, and the development of bilateral and international cooperation against the backdrop of the Alexey Navalny case,” adding:

Lavrov stressed that Moscow is willing to cooperate with Berlin on this issue.

It’s waiting for relevant German bodies to provide information requested by “the Russian Prosecutor’s Office on August 27 and September 14” so far not sent.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry explained that Moscow’s request is “in accordance with the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of April 20, 1959 and the additional protocols to it of March 17, 1978 and November 8, 2001,” adding:

“This legal agreement implies the transfer of the bio materials, test results, clinical analyses and medical documents required for a meticulous, comprehensive investigation into the reasons for Navalny’s illness and hospitalization, which (Western countries are) actively urging us to conduct in public.”

If Germany continues to stonewall Russia, it will clearly show “a lack of desire to establish the truth following an objective and comprehensive investigation into the incident.”

Lavrov called on his German counterpart Heiko Mass “to stop any further politicizing of the Navalny case,” adding:

Moscow rejects unacceptable claims about “the independence” of judicial bodies and need to request approval by Navalny and his family to release information Germany has about his medical condition.

This runs counter to the above-mentioned convention, said Lavrov.

As for involvement of the OPCW,  it’s unrelated to Russia’s request for Germany to provide relevant information on Navalny.

While bilateral differences weren’t resolved on Tuesday, both ministers agreed to continue dialogue on the Navalny and other international issues.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

That was one of the more extraordinary interviews we have done here at UnHerd.

Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, advisor to the Swedish Government (he hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing Swedish strategy), the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO, lays out with typically Swedish bluntness why he thinks:

• UK policy on lockdown and other European countries are not evidence-based
• The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
• This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
• The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
• The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished paper have so much policy impact
• The paper was very much too pessimistic
• Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway
• The flattening of the curve is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
• The results will eventually be similar for all countries
• Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
• The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 is the region of 0.1%
• At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available

In just a few short months Anders Tegnell, architect of Sweden’s unique response to the Covid-19 pandemic, has gone from unknown physician and technocrat to a household celebrity in Sweden and in countries around the world. He is beloved by some (people have even had tattoos made with his face) and intensely disliked by others. Today he is suntanned and relaxed, having just returned from his summer holiday, and wearing an open-necked polo shirt. Here is a summary of what he said:

• In terms of migrants, travel and urban areas Sweden is more similar to the Netherlands and the UK than Norway or Finland
• Lockdown may have made a difference, but closing schools and people being out of work is also bad for public health
• Numbers of new infections arriving at the same time seems to make a big difference, so Stockholm half-term travellers to the Alps a big factor for Stockholm epidemic
• Eradication is not an option, ‘we have to learn to live with this disease’
• Evidence for masks still very weak, and they may yet be counterproductive. With all the trends going sharply down, it would make no sense to introduce them now
• Additional immunity such as T cells playing a substantial role in slowing spread
• ‘what we see right now is a rapid fall in the number of cases, and of course some kind of immunity has to be involved in that as nothing else has changed.’
• Sweden will be better placed than other countries to limit further waves and outbreaks because of higher immunity
• IFR of Covid-19 in final account will be 0.1% to 0.5% “and that is not radically different to what we see with the yearly flu”
• Judge me in a year, he says.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

If you say “September 11” most people automatically think of the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. What they probably don’t even remember happened on September 11, were the attacks on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012.

Once the Libyan Revolution began in February 2011, the CIA began placing assets in the region, attempting to make contacts within the region. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, whose name and image would soon become synonymous with the Benghazi attacks, was the first liaison between the United States and the rebels. The task before the American intelligence community at that time was securing arms in the country, most notably shoulder-fired missiles, taken from the Libyan military.

Eastern Libya and Benghazi were the primary focal points of intelligence-gathering in the country. But there was something else at work here: The CIA was using the country as a base to funnel weapons to anti-Assad forces in Syria, as well as their alleged diplomatic mission.

Early Rumblings of Disorder in Benghazi

Trouble started in April 2012. This was when two former security guards of the consulate threw an IED over the fence. No casualties were reported, but another bomb was thrown at a convoy just four days later. Soon after, in May, the office of the International Red Cross in Benghazi was attacked and the local al-Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility. On August 6, the Red Cross suspended operations in Libya.

This was all part of a troubling escalation of violence in the region. The British Ambassador Dominic Asquith was the victim of an assassination attempt on June 10, 2012. As a result of this and of rocket attacks on convoys, the British withdrew their entire consular staff from Libya in late June of that year.

American military and consular personnel on the scene were increasingly troubled by the situation and communicated their concerns to top brass through official channels. Two security guards in the consulate noticed a Libyan police officer (or at least someone dressed as one) taking pictures of the building, which raised alarms. Indeed, consular officials had been requesting additional security as far back as March.

On June 6, 2012, a large hole was blown in the wall of the consulate gate. It was estimated that 40 men could go through the hole in the wall. In July, the State Department informed officials on the ground that the existing security contract would not be renewed. On August 2, Ambassador Stephens requested additional security detail. The State Department responded by completely removing his security detail three days later. Three days after this, his security detail had left Libya entirely. On August 16, the regional security officer warned then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the security situation in Libya was “dire.”

The Day of the Attack on Benghazi: The Cover-Up Begins

The September 11, 2012 attack was actually two attacks by two separate militias. The first was the attack on the diplomatic mission, the second was a mortar attack on the CIA annex. But the attacks themselves were effectively watched in real time by the White House, thanks to security drones in the region. By 5:10pm ET, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta were watching real-time footage via a drone deployed to the area.

Half an hour later, the State Department officially refused to deploy the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST). FEST exists specifically for rapid response to terrorist attacks around the world and have special training with regard to defending American embassies. Within three hours, an Islamic group in the region had claimed responsibility for the attack. Approximately six hours after the first shots were fired, two former Navy SEALs who constituted the only serious defense forces for the consulate were killed by enemy fire. The surveillance drone had been watching them fight on their own for over two hours.

At 10:30 that night, Hillary Clinton nebulously blamed “inflammatory material on the Internet” for the attack. The notion that the attack was motivated by Innocence of Muslims was absurd: On the day before the attack, the leader of al-Qaeda in the region called for vengeance due to the death of his secretary. Three days after the attack, Stephens’ personal diary was found unsecured, along with all the other sensitive intelligence information in the compound.

For days, the film was blamed despite the White House having full knowledge that it was a terrorist attack. Indeed, on September 14, Barack Obama promised the father of one of the slain Navy SEALs not that he would bring to justice those who planned the attack, but the man who made the movie.

On September 20, 2012, the White House spent $70,000 on apology videos for the film. One day later, ten days after the attack, Clinton admitted to the public what she had known for over a week: That this was a coordinated terrorist attack. However, on the 25th, President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations once again blaming the video, giving what is perhaps one of the more memorable quotes of his presidency: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

On September 27, 2012, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested in Los Angeles for parole violations, all of which were related to his production of the film and served a year in jail. He was later sentenced to death in absentia by the Egyptian government.

Barack Obama did not attend his daily intelligence briefing for six consecutive days prior to the attacks, instead campaigning for re-election against Mitt Romney.

Susan Rice, then acting as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, made the rounds on no fewer than five major Sunday morning talk shows, a process known as “the Full Ginsburg.” On these shows, she was armed with a set of talking points from the CIA. These talking points included the false assertion that these were spontaneous protests inspired by similar protests against the American Embassy in Cairo, with no connection to institutional terrorism.

The Rice appearances and the talking points she was provided with further confirm a general pattern: The Obama Administration was fundamentally incapable of acknowledging who the real enemy was. And when things went wrong, the focus was not on setting them right to protect Americans in the future, but on protecting the image of the Obama Administration – most notably the President and the Secretary of State. Hence the blame was shifted from Islamic terrorist groups onto a YouTube video.

The (Seemingly Endless) Benghazi Investigations

There were no fewer than 10 investigations of the attack on Benghazi, none of which found evidence of wrongdoing, despite several of them having been run by Republicans.

However, the American public did get some valuable information out of these hearings, not least of all that Hillary Clinton doesn’t value the lives of American servicemen. For example, the attention of Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails first came to the State Department and the United States Congress thanks to these investigations. Indeed, approximately 30 of the “gone with the wind” emails from her private, home-brewed server related to the non-response to the attack on Benghazi. This is according to the State Department itself.

But still the question remains: Why let these men die? And why lie about it for days after the fact?

The answer lies in two political concerns: First, the re-election of Barack Obama, second the planned candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

The date of the attack is very important: This was the final weeks of a presidential election campaign. And while Obama won handily (in no small part due to the aloof, patrician image of Bain Capital principal Mitt Romney), he is nothing if not a savvy politician. An attack on the United States Consulate in Libya was not something he wanted in public consciousness during an election season, not least of all if it were the result of a terrorist attack from what had formerly been a stable nation, slowly coming into the fold of what is euphemistically called “the International Community.”

For Clinton, the situation was even more dire. She effectively “owned” the situation in Libya, as the remaking (and ultimately destruction) of North Africa was one of the signature projects of her tenure at State. What’s more, she certainly owned the security situation on the ground, which likely was never secure.

The building was given the designation of “temporary,” largely to get around a number of regulations that apply to permanent State Department buildings. The request for more security from Ambassador Stephens might have been ill advised not because it was impossible to secure the location in any kind of long-term and sustainable way. The right move might very well have been to remove American personnel entirely, but this would have gone against the official narrative that everything was going swimmingly in Libya.

Other countries and organizations (such as the Red Cross) were leaving because they could not protect their people. The Clinton State Department saw this as unthinkable, because it would represent a failure and contradict the narrative.

And while Republican-led committees did not find any wrongdoing, it’s important to note that they also complained of being stonewalled by the administration at every turn. It’s hard to uncover evidence of wrongdoing when there is an institutional campaign to prevent you from getting any evidence at all.

A number of whistleblowers and other sources show that there were additional forces ready to go in the region to defend the consulate. So why were none of them deployed? Why were four American lives lost due to inaction at the highest levels of government?

Why no one was deployed is perhaps down more to incompetence and bad policy than any kind of a conspiracy. Our article on 9/11 is instructive on this matter: sometimes the cover-up is a conspiracy to conceal idiocy and failure of the actual event. In the case of Benghazi, while there is evidence to point toward a politically motivated cover-up, the actual event, like the 9/11 attacks, seems mostly to be a result of bad policy and incompetence rather than malice.

In this case, the bad policy was the Obama Administration’s desire to avoid even the appearance of “boots on the ground” and hand wringing about getting the permission of Libya (and about 12 other countries) to deploy assistance to the consulate. This was part of the general political philosophy of appeasement of Islamic terrorists that marked the Obama Administration.

This explains the stand-down orders which official sources have denied, but which have been confirmed by a number of whistleblowers and leaked documents since the attacks.

Both the President and the Secretary of Defense issued orders to deploy forces, but none were deployed. Once the Ambassador was confirmed as missing, a two-hour meeting ensued where top men within the Obama Administration came up with a number of action items, mostly revolving around the YouTube video (fully five of ten action items were related to the video) and hand wringing regarding a lack of permission from the Libyan government to protect our own forces.

The Americans in the CIA Annex were eventually evacuated to the airport by members of a militia comprised of former Qadaffi regime loyalists, notthe opposition militias that were nominally allied with the United States. Meanwhile, actual American forces spent a bunch of time putting on and taking off their uniforms and tactical gear because the instructions from Washington changed by the minute.

It was a total paralysis of action on the ground by the top brass in D.C., because they were afraid of it looking like ground forces were being deployed, both from the perspective of the political response at home and the political response in Libya. As a result, four Americans died and a massive cover-up was rolled out to protect those responsible for grossly negligent inaction.

After the fact, emails were sent out, the purpose of which was less about finding out what went wrong to prevent it from happening again and to assign responsibility, than it was about making sure everyone was on the same page with regard to talking points.

The attack on Benghazi, the deaths of four Americans and the ensuing cover-up are an insightful view into the reality lurking behind many so-called “conspiracy theories.” What began as bureaucratic bungling and ideologically driven hamfistedness became a cover-up and, in a sense, a conspiracy after the fact. None of this is meant to let Obama-Clinton off the hook. Indeed, none of the criticisms of Obama-Clinton become any less sharp when they are considered as incompetence and butt-covering.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Ammo.com

The loud applause that followed the US-brokered Mideast “peace” deals between “Israel” on one hand and the UAE & Bahrain on the other is misplaced since there was never any real state of war between the “opposing” sides to begin with, but presenting these accords as a “breakthrough for peace” is meant to pressure those remaining countries that refuse to recognize the self-professed “Jewish State” by portraying them as “obstacles to peace” so that they too consider abandoning their principled support for Palestine in exchange for positive media coverage and other perks such as economic support.

***

Hear from Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet speaking at the Keep Our NHS Public AGM 2020.

Horton asks and tentatively answers five questions:

1. What is the current situation with the pandemic with focus on the United Kingdom?
2. What lessons might we learn from the past eight months?
3. What could we have done better?
4. Will we have a vaccine? Not when will we have a vaccine.
5. What should the government do now?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

As I wrote last week, Kevin Zeese died unexpectedly in his sleep, likely from a heart attack, early in the morning on September 6. He had not shown signs of illness and was working until the end.

Many of you know Kevin from Popular Resistance, from his writing and podcast Clearing the FOG. He had a deep knowledge of history and the issues. He often spoke of his time working for Ralph Nader in 2004 when he wrote policy briefs as a “PhD in public policy.” Kevin understood how political power works.

Kevin’s work in activism spanned more than 40 years. He worked on political campaigns during high school in Queens, New York and protested the Vietnam War. When radical lawyers Ramsey Clark and William Kunstler spoke at SUNY Buffalo, where he was studying political science, Kevin was inspired to join the civil rights movement. He went to Boston to be a marshal for an anti-racism march and was attacked with others by police on horseback.

During law school at George Washington University, Kevin’s favorite class was on legal activism. He describes the experience in Americans Who Tell the Truth:

“‘We created a group SEXCE (Students for the Examination of Contraceptive Effectiveness) and got legislation introduced in Congress, got the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to correct their advertising, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to start a rulemaking process to correct their labeling. It was pretty amazing to see all of that come out of one law school course on Legal Activism.’ Through this project, Zeese says he ‘learned guerilla law and legal judo’—how to leverage the law with minimum cost and maximum impact.”

Kevin’s first internship was with the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) answering letters from prisoners. He said this gave him a deep understanding of the destructive impact the War on Drugs has on people and their families. After law school, Kevin worked as legal counsel for NORML and then as executive director. He was working to legalize marijuana when Reagan was president and popular opinion strongly supported the Drug War. Kevin sued the Drug Enforcement Agency three times over the reclassification of medical marijuana and won, but each time the decision was overturned on appeal.

During this time, Joe Biden was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee who worked with the racist head of the Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond, to push for a ‘drug czar’ (Reagan vetoed that) and for more severe punishments. Kevin called Biden the architect of the drug war and mass incarceration.

After NORML, Kevin created the Drug Policy Foundation, which later became the Drug Policy Alliance, and the Alliance of Reform Organizations, which brought all of the groups working on various aspects of the Drug War together as one movement. Kevin understood early on that popular power required building a movement of movements to be effective. He often worked to create unity and collaboration among people and organizations.

Arnold Trebach (left) and young Kevin Zeese (right) who founded the Drug Policy Foundation.

In his later years, Kevin’s advocacy work expanded to include peace, economic justice, election integrity, single payer health care and much more. He often recognized issues as important before they were popular and had the courage to take them on even when they were controversial. He had a moral clarity that was unwavering and told the truth even when it was not what people wanted to hear.

Kevin also saw the potential in people and wasn’t afraid to tell them. He touched the lives of and mentored countless people throughout his career. Kevin was the person many people turned to for guidance and assistance, whether it was helping them figure out what they want to do in life or what to do in a time of crisis or advice on strategy. People felt safe when Kevin was around because of his calm steadiness and he always seemed to know what to do. He was a gentle giant who looked out for everyone. He also had a great sense of humor and loved to laugh.

The weekend before his death, Kevin participated in an online rally about how to build power for the changes we need before and after the coming election. He spoke to us about what we must do (video and transcription):

Power to the people! We have the power to change if we stay united. We have incredible opportunity now. We see the movement’s growing, especially after the Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention. The conventions showed us that those parties do not represent the people and that our power is not in elections. Our power is in building people power — and we see that happening.

We need to build power, so that in 2021 people can rule from below. So that we can call general strikes. So we can stop business as usual. That is the only way change will occur. It will not come from Joe Biden or Donald Trump. It will come from the people.

We also have to understand — and it’s often very hard for people to understand — that the only path to success is failure. We fail and fail and fail until we win. But every time we try, we build the movement. And we get stronger. We can never tell how close we are to success. It’s like we’re banging on a wall, pounding and pounding, and it’s not until that wall begins to crack and we start to see the light come through that we realize we’re getting close to that breakthrough moment when change can occur.

We see the 2020s as a decade of transformation. The movements have been growing since Occupy in 2011,  then the Black Lives Matter movement, Fight For 15 — all during the Obama era – and now the growing of the movements during the Trump era. We see the 2020s as a decade of social transformation. In order to have that transformation, we need to be organized and educated . . . It’s normal for us to not always be on a linear path to success. It’s a jagged path. We move up and down, we get stronger.

We all know that Donald Trump is terrible. The worst president of my life! His overt racism; his open support for violent white supremacists; his mishandling of the COVID-19 virus, causing more than 180,000 deaths so far and probably more than 200,000 by the time of the election; his poor response to the economic collapse. He’s leading us into another Great Depression, and he constantly puts in place laws for the wealthy — while poverty, homelessness, debt and joblessness increase.

But Biden is no better. And I mean no better. For 47 years he’s been wrong on every important issue. When I was in college going to an anti-racism demonstration in Boston in favor of school integration, at that time Biden opposed school integration. Then I worked on ending mass incarceration, ending the drug war, while Biden was passing laws to escalate the drug war, passing laws for mandatory sentencing to increase mass incarceration. He’s the architect of mass incarceration!

Later in his career Biden became chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and led in not just voting for the Iraq War, but in the effort to make the Iraq War happen. As chair of Foreign Relations, he put in place massive military budgets, bloated corrupt budgets, while leading us into war after war. When it came to student bankruptcy, he led the effort to make it so students can’t get rid of student debt even in bankruptcy. Now he’s even calling for cutting Social Security when we should be doubling or even tripling Social Security payments.

So I’m going to vote against Trump by voting for what I believe in. There are more alternatives than the two parties. I’ll be voting for the Green [Party] candidates Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker, because I’m going to be voting for Medicare For All. I’m going to be voting for community control of the police, for the eco-socialist Green New Deal, for ending the wealth divide and ending the never-ending wars.

We all have the power to vote for what we believe in, for candidates [who] reflect the movement. There are many more choices than a few corrupt candidates of the millionaires. And we need to use what little power we have in the elections to send a message of what we are for, to show that those who speak for movement issues get the movement’s support. After we vote, we must build people power, so that people can rule from below.

We must build people power, so that no matter who’s in office, we can stop the government from operating. We can make the country ungovernable. We can put in place general strikes, so that our demands are heard and met. That is how we will win.

We have a lot to build on. . . . There have been over 900 wildcat strikes since March. The labor movement is growing. The climate justice movement is growing. The anti-racist movement is growing. The anti-inequality movement is growing. We have a lot to build on. The One Percent cannot defeat the 99%. So let’s not underestimate ourselves.

An online tribute to Kevin Zeese will be held on Saturday, September 19 at 3:00 pm Eastern/12 noon Pacific. Simultaneous translation will be provided in English and Spanish. It will be live streamed on Facebook and YouTube. Register at bit.ly/KevinZeese.

We created a Kevin Zeese Emerging Activists Fund to continue Kevin’s legacy by sponsoring young activists and front line grassroots organizations that work for economic, racial and environmental justice and peace. We can best honor Kevin by continuing to support new movement leaders and visionaries who recognize injustice before the rest of us do and have the courage to address it.

Americans Who Tell the Truth writes:

“Zeese sees one of his most important jobs as empowering people because ‘what we’re working on will not be resolved in my lifetime. Part of my job is to help others become their own powerful force that will continue the work after we’re gone…Economic democracy and system-wide political change are multi-decade challenges.’”

Now, more than ever, you are Popular Resistance. Kevin is gone but the work continues and so we need to carry on. Popular Resistance was created in part to inform about what people are doing to stop the machine (resistance) and create the new world (build alternative systems). If you see articles or have a press release from your local group on resistance, constructive programs or movement strategy, please share it with us at [email protected].

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

On September 11, 2020, Bahrain announced that it had agreed to normalize relations with Israel, following a similar agreement by the United Arab Emirate (UAE). Both agreements are being packaged and sold as historic peace plans.

They’re Not Peace Plans

When President Carter brokered the peace plan between Israel and Egypt, that was a historic and significant achievement because every Arab-Israeli war up to that point was initially or primarily an Egyptian-Israeli war. For two countries to sign a peace plan, they have to have not already been in a state of peace. For two countries to sign a peace plan, they have to have been at war. But neither the UAE nor Bahrain have ever been at war with Israel. They have never been involved in a war with Israel. And, so, unlike Carter’s achievement, Trump’s achievement is not significant because it does not bring about a significant change in the Middle East. The relations that the agreements supposedly normalize have, covertly, been in the process of being normalized for a long time: a very long time.

Israel and the UAE have for a long time been engaged in commercial and security ties. In July, two Israeli defense companies signed agreements with an UAE tech firm that works in artificial intelligence. And, even before the new normalization of relations, senior Israeli officials had visited the UAE for a number of years. More importantly, according to Rashid Khalidi, professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University, the UAE’s air defense system and missile defense system are manufactured in Israel. They are made by Raytheon, which is an American company, though they are largely made in Israel. And the ties between Israel and the UAE are not new. Reporting by UPI in January of 2012 had already revealed that the UAE had “discreet ties with private security companies in Israel to protect its oil fields and borders.” They report that ties between the UAE’s Critical National Infrastructure Authority and several Israeli companies may go back to as early as 2007. Shockingly, and little discussed, clandestine ties go back even further than that. According to intelligence columnist for Haaretz, Yossi Melman, Israel and the UAE established community ties at least as early as the 1970s. And, he says, “Every head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency since then has had a relationship with his counterpart in the UAE.”

The same is true of Bahrain: Israel and Bahrain began forging ties decades ago. Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, told me in a personal correspondence that there have been informal economic relations between Israel and Bahrain going back at least a couple of decades. Israel has reportedly sold spy software to Bahrain. According to reporting by the New York Times, Bahrain had already hosted an Israeli cabinet official as early as 1994. Three years ago, in 2017, Bahrain even sent a delegation to Israel. In the same year, at a security conference in Munich, Bahrain’s foreign minister approached Israel’s foreign minister to pass on a message from the king that he had already decided to “move towards normalization with Israel.” Bahrain is ruled by a US backed dictator whose family has ruled the kingdom for over two hundred years. The U.S. fifth fleet is based in Bahrain, making Bahrain one of the most crucial allies in the web of US allies. The US military actually controls about 20% of Bahrainian land.

Iran: They’re More About War than Peace

The deals are less about peace between the Gulf States and Israel than they are about war between the Gulf States and Israel and Iran.

In February of 2017, at a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump declared that his “administration is committed to working with Israel and our common allies in the region towards greater security and stability.” Netanyahu then identified those common allies as “our newfound Arab partners.”

Three years earlier in a September 2014 speech at the UN, Netanyahu had been clearer about what was meant by “security and stability”: “After decades of seeing Israel as their enemy, leading states in the Arab world increasingly recognize that together we and they face many of the same dangers: principally this means a nuclear-armed Iran.” In November, 2017, Netanyahu claimed that “Iran is devouring one nation after the other…The good news is that the other guys are getting together with Israel as never before. It is something that I would have never expected in my lifetime.” He then added that Israel is “’working very hard’ to establish an effective alliance with ‘the modern Sunni states’ to condemn and counter Iranian aggression.”

Netanyahu was very clear that the road to the new peace plans was not about peace. It was about war: war with Iran. It is not at all surprising, then, that Trump used the promise of F-35 fighter jets and other advanced US weaponry to pressure the UAE and Bahrain into publicly recognizing Israel. The US administration also reassured a nervous Israel that the jets sold to the UAE “would not erode Israel’s edge as they would be used to defend against the common enemy of Iran.” The New York Times put this reassurance into context:

“Trump administration officials say the détente between the Emirates and Israel – and possibly future deals between Israel and other Arab nations – are also part of a wider effort to counter Iran. Administration officials have tried to placate Israeli concerns about an Arab nation getting the F-35 by emphasizing that the Emirates, like Israel, is an avowed enemy of Iran and that strengthening the Emirati military will help Israel’s security.”

The peace plans were not about peace between countries already at peace, they were about war with Iran, a country they were already essentially at war with. The peace plans contribute more to war than to peace.

Perhaps the most telling sign that the Israel/UAE agreement was always more about war with Iran than peace in the Middle East is that Brian Hook, the US envoy for Iran, accompanied Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to his meetings with Israel and the UAE. Hook promised that the Trump administration would help the UAE to defend itself against Iran while protecting Israel’s qualitative military edge. Speaking at the White House, Hook said that

“Peace between the Arabs and the Israelis is Iran’s worst nightmare… And what we see today is a new Middle East. The trend lines are very different today. And we see the future is very much in the Gulf and with Israel. In the past, it was with the Iranian regime.”

Bahrain is a 70% Shiite population ruled by a repressive, torturous US backed dictatorship. Bahrain’s geography is symbolic: it is attached to Saudi Arabia by a causeway and separated from Iran by a gulf. Located between Saudi Arabia and Iran, on the Strait of Hormuz, Bahrain is seen by the US as a crucially located check on Iranian influence and power. So, it is not surprising that the normalization of relations agreement has at least one eye on Iran.

In 2011, peaceful protests in Bahrain was brutally put down by Saudi Arabia. US weapons featured largely in that brutal suppression.

Last year, Bahrain made its relationships with Israel and Iran clear. As Israel bombed Bahrain’s fellow Arab states in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – states seen as allied with Iran – Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, Bahrain’s foreign minister, sided with Israel over Iran:

“Iran is the one who declared war on us, with its Revolutionary Guards, its Lebanese party, its popular mobilization in Iraq, its Houthi arm in Yemen and others…Those who beat them and destroy their equipment are not to blame. It’s self-defense.”

Separate Peace: the Abandonment of the Palestinians

The UAE was aware of the need to package their normalization agreement with Israel a an advancement of, or at least consistent with, the Saudi Peace initiative that promises never to normalize relations with Israel until Israel has returned to the pre-1967 borders and granted a state to the Palestinians. The deal with Israel does not do that, but it was to made to look like it does that for consumption by the outside world and, especially, by the Arab world and the UAE’s own domestic population.

So, the UAE’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed packaged the plan and delivered it to his people and to the world as the attainment of the end of annexation of 30% of the West Bank.

But the agreement does not require Israel to “stop” annexation of the 30% of the West Bank promised to it in Trump’s Middle East peace plan. The text of the agreement says “suspend,” not stop. And “suspend,” according to Jared Kushner, means that the annexation won’t happen “for some time.” But any amount of time is some time. Trump explained it as “right now it’s off the table” and added that “I can’t talk about some time into the future.” American Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman was a lot clearer: “The word ‘suspend’ was chosen carefully by all the parties. ‘Suspend,’ by definition – look it up – means ‘temporary halt.’ It’s off the table now, but it’s not off the table permanently.”

Trump never actually asked Netanyahu to stop the planned annexation. According to a senior Israeli political source, the Trump administration asked only “that we temporarily postpone declaring [sovereignty over parts of the West Bank] in order to achieve the beginning of this historic peace agreement with the Emirates.”

The UAE/Israel agreement gave the Palestinians a suspended annexation that had already been suspended. Yisrael Katz, a member of Netanyahu’s cabinet, confirmed on Israeli media on Sunday, August 16 “that the annexation of parts of the occupied West Bank was already suspended before the announcement of a deal to normalize relations with the United Arab Emirates (UAE).” He then explained that “presenting the agreement as related to [the annexation] is more suitable to all Arab countries”.

The UAE agreement, for the first time, normalized relations with Israel while abandoning the promise to never to do so without addressing the Palestinian issue. But at least it was cognizant of the need to pretend.

The Bahrainian agreement doesn’t even pretend to keep one eye on Iran and one eye on the Palestinians. The agreement blatantly keeps both eyes on Iran and Bahrain’s own interests.

The text of the Joint Statement issued by Bahrain, Israel and the US says only that Israel and Bahrain will “continue in their efforts in this regard to achieve a just, comprehensive, and enduring solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to enable the Palestinian people to realize their full potential.” The only thing to continue, of course, is nothing.

Bahrain’s Information Minister promised that “All historical precedents confirm that all the Kingdom’s initiatives and decisions have always been in the interest of the Palestinian people and protecting them, and no one can outbid the Kingdom in this regard.” But there is nothing in this agreement that addresses “the interest of the Palestinian people.” There is only the betrayal of Bahrain’s previous position that it would never establish diplomatic ties with Israel as long as Israel had not signed a peace deal with the Palestinians that included a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders. Bahrain defended its position by suggesting that the agreement sends a “positive and encouraging message to the people of Israel that a just and comprehensive peace with the Palestinians is the best path forward and truly serves their interests.” But, in fact, it shows just the opposite: that Israel can negotiate a deal with the Gulf States that is in its interest without a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians.

Trump naively said that the “Palestinians [are] in a very good position, they’re going to want to come in because all of their friends are in.” The Palestinians, however, recalled their ambassador to Bahrain and called the deal “a “dangerous violation of the Arab Peace Initiative” and a “threat to Palestinian rights.”

Last year, Bahrain’s foreign minister Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa telegraphed his kingdom’s abandonment of the Palestinians. No longer keeping one eye on Palestine and the other on Iran and its own interests, he explained that

“We grew up talking about the Palestine-Israel dispute as the most important issue. But then at a later stage, we saw a bigger challenge. We saw a more toxic one, in fact the most toxic in our modern history, which came from the Islamic Republic, from Iran.”

The two peace agreements between the Gulf States and Israel have nothing to do with peace. They are between nations that were already at peace and offer no peace to the Palestinians, while they proliferate US arms in the region and have much more to do with the threat of war with Iran.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ted Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.

September 15.  Central Criminal Court, London.  Today, witnesses appearing in the extradition trial of Julian Assange fleshed out some points touched upon the previous day: the fate awaiting the WikiLeaks publisher in the US prison system, and the political nature of process.  Before commencing, Judge Vanessa Baraitser was a touch peeved.  She noted that one defence witness who took the stand last week, Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, had been drinking coffee during his testimony.  Such behaviour was “inappropriate” and future witnesses would be disallowed to do so while her court was in session.     

Coffee-less, defence witness and Reprieve’s board president Eric Lewis considered the timing of the Assange indictment “significant”.  The Obama administration had grown cool on the subject; the Trump administration renewed interest.  “The case was dormant when the Trump administration began.  The evidence hasn’t changed.  Witnesses haven’t changed.” 

The US Department of Justice had itself become politicised and could no longer be considered an independent arm, but rather the prosecutorial plaything of President Donald Trump.  Both US Attorney Generals Jeff Sessions and William Barr had instituted a top-down structure condemned by former federal prosecutors for obstructing justice. 

“Jeff Sessions pressured the Eastern District of Virginia to bring the case.  I’m not saying individual prosecutors are acting in bad faith, I’m saying the department is highly politicised and many Americans would agree with that sentiment.”

Eric Lewis also referred to a 19-page memo authored by Barr pointing out that

“the attorney-general and his lawyers are the president’s ‘hand’.  It’s the unitary executive theory.  It’s a fringe theory this attorney general has articulated that it is his job to follow the president.”

Steep sentences for the Australian publisher were also suggested as probable outcomes, notably in light of the language used in the second superseding indictment.  A “base level” estimate should he be convicted of the alleged offences was somewhere between eight to 10 years.  His record, however, might come into play; Assange had previously pled guilty to 24 charges for hacking the Canadian telecommunications company Nortel. 

Throw in matters of organisational skill and leadership “of criminal activity that involved 5 or more participants,” and we were looking at a rather “expensive” ledger.  As the superseding indictment from the DOJ outlines conspiracy charges, adjustments might be made to lengthen the sentence.  An example was offered: that of Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson, remunerated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct surveillance on WikiLeaks and convicted in Iceland on multiple charges.  Being both a minor at the time, and purportedly under Assange’s direction, would add to the ledger.

Eric Lewis also noted that having “special abilities that help [the accused] commit the crime” would encourage a stiffer sentence.  “I would think,” he ventured, “that Mr Assange’s technical proficiency would be adjustment.”  This could result in an increase of the sentence to 19 years and five months, if factoring the lower end, or 24 years and five months towards if the higher end of sentencing was applied.

Just to darken the prospects even more, the defence witness suggested that eluding the investigation of a crime and purportedly exposing the identities of intelligence sources or embassy officials both had a combined effect of a life sentence which, given the statutory maximum, would yield the grand total of 175 years.

James Lewis QC for the prosecution stayed on familiar terrain, the sort embraced by critics of WikiLeaks since its inception.  His first notable, and dangerous proposition for the court, was that the First Amendment did not bar a journalist from being prosecuted for the unauthorised publication of classified information.  “The right to free speech and the public’s right to know are not absolutes.”  Unfortunately for the prosecutor, no examples of doing so could be found.

Image on the right: Claude M. Hilton

Assange facing 175 years in prison on US soil was also said to be an arithmetical exaggeration, yet another fantastic claim on the part of the defence.  Eric Lewis marshalled a few salient facts to disabuse the prosecutor.  Consider which judge would be conducting the trial in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia: one Claude M. Hilton.  Mercy was not his forte. 

Hilton had already shown rough treatment towards Chelsea Manning, jailing her last year for contempt of court for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks.  Doing so, as her lawyer Moira Meltzer-Cohen said at the time, was an act of needless cruelty.  As for her medical treatment, Judge Hilton considered US marshals more than competent to handle it.

Eric Lewis also drew attention to the vengeful flavour of the US case against Assange: that the leaks by the publishing organisation were considered by officials the biggest in history, a boon for adversaries of the US.  When compared to Manning’s own trial – resulting in conviction for 10 counts under the Espionage Act, as against 17 for Assange, the picture was a gloomy one.  The prosecution in Manning’s trial had asked for 60 years; the eventual sentence was pared down to 35.  Were things to go “brilliantly” for Assange, he might face a 20-year sentence.

Such comparisons irritated prosecutor Lewis.  He suggested that other cases involving the Espionage Act had not resulted in heavy sentences for the whistleblowers in question.  Former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling, former FBI employee Terry Albury, and NSA contractor Reality Winner were cited as glittering testaments of a generous justice system.  Sterling was unimpressed, tweeting that the prosecution’s referral to his “travesty case to assuage sentencing fears” was more than a tad disingenuous. 

“The prosecution was incensed I received 42 months, they wanted far more.  Tell the truth.”  For good measure, Sterling also scorned the prosecution effort to powder the US prison system with caring credentials.  “My sentence was 42 months and I could have died because of conditions and horrible medical care.”   

In the LA Progressive, Sterling reiterated the “deplorable living conditions, disregard for human life, and perpetual punishment” that marked the US prison system.  Only an intervention by a US senator on his behalf “to receive the health care … quite possibly saved my life.”  With Assange’s case,

“I fear there will be nothing reasonable with regard to any sentence to be imposed.”  Sterling’s case should not serve as a “benchmark” of reasonable sentencing, as James Lewis argued, but “a warning about how the perverse use of the Espionage Act started by the Obama administration and continued by the Trump administration to quell and silence dissent is a threat to free speech, not only in this country, and, as the extradition proceedings demonstrate, in the entire world.”

The conditions of confinement awaiting Assange was also revisited in Eric Lewis’s testimony.  In the pre-trial phase, he faced the euphemistically termed treatment of administrative segregation in Alexandria Detention Center, Virginia.  In his view, Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) would be applied during both pre- and post-trial processes, given Assange’s standing as a national security defendant.  Axiomatically, it followed that the defendant would be gagged and attorney-client confidentiality nullified.  Throw in the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) impairing the defendant’s means to inspect classified documents, and the situation would look parlous. The combination of both administrative segregation and SAMs would be akin to solitary confinement and present a danger to Assange’s psychological wellbeing. 

The second witness called by the defence was Thomas Durkin, a seasoned criminal defence attorney hailing from Chicago.  “I do not think,” he emphatically stated, “[Assange] would be able to get what I would consider a fair trial in the US.”  Such formidable impediments as CIPA would obstruct Assange’s access to classified documents necessary for his case.  On this point, Durkin noted that US assistant attorney Gordon Kromberg had been in error in assuming otherwise.  The testimony also served to underscore what has so far been said at this trial: that the resumption of interest by the Trump administration after the Obama administration’s reluctance to pursue Assange indicated political motivation.

Durkin’s testimony painted a picture of the grim world of pleadings. An incentive, known as a “trial tax”, formed part of the sentencing guidelines.  “You get penalized for going to trial.”  Guilty pleas would be encouraged to reduce sentences, and along with that, the sort of seedy cooperation with authorities amounting to betrayal (the revealing of sources, contacts and so forth).  The differences could be considerable: a 24-year sentence clipped by seven years; the difference between seeing one’s partner and children privately before one’s death or not.  Any ensuing sentence was bound to be heavy; the prosecution had taken the position that Assange was more culpable than Manning, leading Durkin to conclude that something more than the 60 years asked for Manning awaited the WikiLeaks founder. 

In his written submission, Durkin affirmed the position taken by other witnesses that the US justice system was woefully unprepared in dealing with the challenges of mental health.  Along with Assange’s reputation for having compromising information on powerful interests, the attorney had little confidence that Assange “will be safe from harm – whether inflicted by himself or others”.  

Again, the sessions were plagued by issues of connectivity and clarity.  The audio for Eric Lewis, for instance, was described by the tireless Kevin Gosztola as coming “from inside a wrapping paper tube.”  Journalists observing Judge Baraitser’s demeanour were also unimpressed.  All that mattered to her, for a change, was that these problems were happening to others. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Activist Post

A high level Russian delegation met recently with President Assad in Damascus. In an effort to further understand the importance and implications of the meeting, Steven Sahiounie at MidEastDiscourse reached out to Andrey Ontikov, a Special Correspondent at Izvestia daily newspaper, in Moscow and a political commentator specializing in the Middle East.

***

Steven Sahiounie (SS):  Recently, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and a delegation were in Damascus for a high level meeting. What was the outcome of this meeting?

Andrey Ontikov (AO):  To my mind those negotiations demonstrate a change in priorities of Russian policy in Syria. Now we see that most of Syrian territories are free from terrorists. Meanwhile Damascus is facing other threats and challenges. First of all, these are problems in the economy due to western sanctions and Caesar Act recently adopted in the US. And Moscow is ready to help Damascus. It was no coincidence that Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov headed the Russian delegation. And among the issues discussed were joint projects in various fields.

Another challenge for Syria is the continued US-presence in areas east of Euphrates and at the Al-Tanf base. We see that Washington helps the Kurds in every possible way in creating the so-called autonomous region. In other words, we are talking about supporting separatism in Syria, which poses a threat to the country’s territorial integrity. Of course, Russia will try to prevent this. We see this at least in the recent meeting between Qadri Jamil and Ilham Ahmed, which took place in Moscow. They signed a memorandum of cooperation. I think that the Russian Foreign Ministry has played an important role here. Russia also intends to facilitate dialogue between the central Syrian authorities and the Kurds and, in addition, intends to protect the rights of the Kurds in every possible way, but within the framework of a united Syria. Of course, all this does not mean that Moscow is abandoning the fight against terrorism. This threat persists primarily in Idlib, but also in other parts of Syria. Thus, the global goals remain the same: the restoration of Syrian sovereignty throughout the country and ensuring security there.

SS: As part of the UN resolution 2254, to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, there have been a series of meetings to draft a new constitution, including a recent meeting.  How is the current status on this process?

AO:  The process is progressing slowly. But it was difficult to expect otherwise. Still, there are a lot of contradictions between the parties, besides, there is a strong foreign influence on some participants in the dialogue. However, it is important to understand that the situation is not in a deadlock. I would like to remind you that there were no significant advances until the beginning of 2018. But in January 2018, Russia hosted the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. And thus the process of creating a constitutional committee was launched. Now this committee has been formed and started to work. As officials in Moscow point out, it would be wrong to set a time frame for its work. Ultimately, the Syrians need a constitution that will ensure the functioning of the state and the rights of various groups of the population. So in light of the difficulties that remain on the battlefield and in the political plane, it seems to me that progress is obvious. The main thing is that some countries that find themselves outside the process do not create artificial obstacles.

SS: What is the Russian role in the Syrian Mediterranean gas-field?

AO:  It can be said that gas in the Eastern Mediterranean is one of the main reasons for the current stage in the Libyan conflict. It is no secret that in November 2019, Turkey signed an agreement on the division of maritime zones with the Government in Tripoli. This has become a serious challenge for the countries that are members of the East Mediterranean Gas Forum and are going to build a gas pipeline to Europe. Therefore, it is important for Ankara that the current government remains in Tripoli, under which the agreements will not be denounced. This is the reason for the ongoing escalation, sending Turkish military and Syrian militants to Libya. Russia, for its part, has been making efforts for a long time to resolve the situation in Libya peacefully. Moscow is also ready to mediate in the conflict between Turkey and Greece, since it has good relations with both countries. In any case, it is important for Moscow to overcome the conflict and stabilize the situation in the region.

SS:  There are tensions between the Russian military, who are in Syria legally, and the US military who are an occupation force in Eastern Syria.  How do you see this situation?

AO:  I have already mentioned that Russia insists on the withdrawal of US troops from Syria and the stop of support for separatist tendencies. And it will do everything to achieve these goals. At the same time, the Americans, apparently, will arrange provocations against the Russian military. And we have already seen them many times. The goal is to impose their own rules of the game in that part of Syria and to force Russia to retreat. So far, these attempts have been unsuccessful. Be that as it may, Moscow is somewhat limited in methods. It cannot enter into an open confrontation with the Americans, as it fought against terrorists. It can only act by diplomatic methods, exert informational pressure on the United States itself, promote dialogue between the Kurds and Damascus, and so on. At the same time, Syria itself has slightly more opportunities. In particular, the country’s authorities often talk about popular resistance against external occupiers. And it seems to me that developing the partisan movement could bring good results along this path. In fact, we already see how the local population east of the Euphrates from time to time oppose the American presence. In any case, if the Syrians manage to make the presence of the United States in Syria unprofitable for Washington, then it will immediately withdraw its troops. Russia will contribute to this in every possible way.

SS:  There is Russian and Turkish cooperation in Idlib, Syria. The agreement was supposed to result in a safe passage way on the M4 Highway from Latakia to Aleppo, but this has never been achieved.  What is the reason for this failure, and can it be achieved?

AO:  There are indeed problems. But, as is the case with the constitutional committee, the situation is not at a standstill. We see how Idlib is gradually being freed from terrorists. Who could imagine a year ago that free movement on the M4 would in principle be discussed? Nevertheless, the work here must be very clear, based on compromises. After all, Russia and Turkey have their own interests, often opposite. Therefore, it is necessary to look for common ground.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Sputnik International