russiainsider--2020-02-28--America’s Endless Wars Persist Because They Don’t Exist (For Americans)

There is no significant antiwar movement in America because there ’ s no war to protest .
Let me explain .
In February 2003 , millions of people took to the streets around the world to protest America ’ s march to war against Iraq .
That mass movement failed .
The administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had a radical plan for reshaping the Middle East and no protesters , no matter how principled or sensible or determined , were going to stop them in their march of folly .
The Iraq War soon joined the Afghan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disaster , yet the antiwar movement died down as US leaders worked to isolate Americans from news about the casualties , costs , calamities , and crimes of what was by then called “ the war on terror.
” And in that they succeeded .
Even though the US now lives in a state of perpetual war , for most Americans it ’ s a peculiar form of non-war .
Most of the time , those overseas conflicts are literally out of sight ( and largely out of mind ) .
Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that our attention isn ’ t required , nor is our approval asked for , so we carry on with our lives as if no one is being murdered in our name .
War without dire consequences poses a conundrum .
In a representative democracy , waging war should require the people ’ s informed consent as well as their concerted mobilization .
But consent is something that America ’ s leaders no longer want or need and , with an all-volunteer military , there ’ s no need to mobilize the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I argued that our military was , in fact , becoming a quasi-foreign legion , detached from the people and ready to be dispatched globally on imperial escapades that meant little to ordinary Americans .
That remains true today in a country most of whose citizens have been at pains to divorce themselves and their families from military service – and who can blame them , given the atrocious results of those wars in Afghanistan , Iraq , Somalia , and elsewhere across the Greater Middle East and Africa ?
Yet that divorce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s left our society in a state of low-grade war fever , while accelerating an everyday version of militarism that Americans now accept as normal .
A striking illustration of this : President Trump ’ s recent State of the Union address , which was filled with bellicose boasts about spending trillions of dollars on wars and weaponry , assassinating foreign leaders , and embracing dubious political figures to mount illegal coups ( in this case in Venezuela ) in the name of oil and other resources .
The response : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s representatives , but rare rapturous applause by members of both political parties , even as yet more troops were being deployed to the Middle East .
WHAT A YOUTHFUL HOBBY HAS TAUGHT ME ABOUT AMERICA ’ S WARS When I was a kid , I loved to collect American stamps .
I had a Minuteman stamp album , and since a stamp and coin dealer was within walking distance of my house , I ’ d regularly head off on missions to fill the pages of that album with affordable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ linked to military history .
Given the number of wars this country has fought , there were plenty of those to add to my album .
Consider , for instance , the stamps issued after the December 7 , 1941 , US entry into World War II .
Unsurprisingly , for a war that entailed mass mobilization and involved common sacrifice , many of them were meant to highlight the war in progress and what it was all about .
So , for example , stamps were issued to remind Americans about subjects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany ; Chinese resistance to the Japanese occupation of their country ; President Franklin D. Roosevelt ’ s Four Freedoms ( FDR , too , was an avid stamp collector ) ; and , as the tide turned , this country ’ s momentous victory against the Japanese on the island of Iwo Jima .
Other stamps enjoined Americans to “ win the war ” and work “ toward [ a ] United Nations.
” These and similar stamps formed a tiny part of a vast war effort accepted by nearly all Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the war finally ended in August 1945 , Americans rightfully celebrated .
Now , try to bring to mind stamps from America ’ s wars since then .
If you ’ re old enough , try to recall ones you stuck on envelopes during the Korean War of the 1950s , the Vietnam War of the 1960s , or especially the war on terror of this century .
How many of them celebrated momentous US victories ?
How many hailed allies working in common cause with us ?
How many commemorated an end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention to stamps .
I still enjoy walking to my local post office and seeing the new commemoratives as they come out .
And I ’ m sure you won ’ t be surprised to learn that , in stamp terms , there ’ s simply nothing to commemorate in America ’ s recent wars .
Shouldn ’ t that tell us something ?
I ’ m not saying that there are no stamps whatsoever related to those wars .
In 1985 , for instance , 32 years after the signing of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stamp in honor of its veterans was issued and , in 2003 , another for the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington .
Several stamps have similarly highlighted Vietnam veterans and Maya Lin ’ s iconic memorial to them .
But stamps that told us what either of those wars were for or that sought to mobilize Americans in any way ?
Not a chance .
Ditto when it comes to this century ’ s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or to the larger never-ending war on terror .
Yes , a 2002 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raising the flag at the World Trade Center and was meant to provide money for injured first responders ; and yes , there ’ s currently a “ Healing PTSD ” stamp for sale that raises money for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder .
But as for stamps celebrating decisive victories in Kabul or Baghdad or Tripoli , you know the answer to that one as well as I do ; nor , of course , were there any reminding us of the freedoms we were supposedly fighting to uphold in those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s return to that FDR Four Freedoms stamp , which was very popular during World War II .
Its message couldn ’ t have been more succinct .
It read : “ Freedom of speech and religion , from want and fear.
” Of course , World War II was an atrocious war , as all wars are .
But what ( partially ) redeemed it were its ideals , however imperfectly realized in the postwar world .
Still , when ’ s the last time the US Postal Service issued a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why we fight ” ?
There are no such stamps today because our present wars have no higher purpose .
It ’ s that simple .
We ’ re not supposed to notice that , since we ’ re not supposed to notice those wars to begin with , not in any visceral way at least .
Even stamps like the recent PTSD one ( with a 10-cent surcharge that goes to veterans ) are an artful dodge .
Should we really feel any better donating a few nickels or dimes to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from wars made more horrendous because they were ( and remain ) so unnecessary ?
Or thought of another way , why is the post office raising money for veterans ’ health care ?
Perhaps because a staggering ( and still rising ) Pentagon budget only ensures that there will be more war – with more wounded veterans .
Looking Back , Yet Again , to World War II I never miss the opening ceremonies to the Super Bowl .
As an exercise in pure Americana , they have no equal .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : a military color guard , an oversized flag , and a flyover by combat jets , including the new F-35 stealth fighter , a trillion-dollar boondoggle of the military-industrial complex .
Since 2020 marked the 100th anniversary of the National Football League as well as the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II , the opening ceremony featured centenarian veterans of that war helping with the pre-game coin toss .
It was heartwarming to see those redoubtable vets and recognize their service .
But I can tell when my emotions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I knew I was supposed to get warm and fuzzy about military service and maybe feel better about the NFL as well .
Yet my respect for them and “ the good war ” they fought ( to use Studs Terkel ’ s ironic title for his oral history of World War II ) didn ’ t stop me from wanting to shower hot wrath on the leaders who have lied us into so many bad wars since then .
Speaking of warm fuzzies , consider the long opening commercial for the NFL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ceremonies .
It featured an African-American boy running with a football , dodging various obstacles on a transcontinental journey to the Super Bowl , during which he pauses , reverentially , before a statue of Pat Tillman , the safety for the Arizona Cardinals who famously gave up a multimillion-dollar contract to enlist in the Army after 9/11 .
Tragically , he was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan , a fact the US military attempted to cover up in a conspiracy that went as high as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was right for that young boy to honor Tillman ’ s memory .
But to what end ?
To make the NFL look patriotic or perhaps to overcome any lingering taint from principled ( yet widely misunderstood ) take-a-knee protests by players like Colin Kaepernick ?
An honest accounting of America ’ s recent wars by the NFL might reflect on the fact that no other players have ever joined Tillman in giving up millions to enlist in the war effort .
In fact , no players from any major league @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or hockey , have done so .
Not even NASCAR drivers , supposedly the salt of the earth , have , as far as I know , exchanged race cars for Humvees .
Why should they ?
America ’ s recent wars might as well not exist for them – and , to be honest , for most of us as well .
I ’ m not calling for major sports stars to be drafted into the military as they were in World War II ( though many athletes of that era volunteered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting is that , some 18-plus years later , they – like the rest of us – should begin paying real attention to America ’ s wars and what they ’ re about .
Because that ’ s the only way , as a nation , we ’ ll ever come together and put a stop to them .
The answer to our collective apathy is not that war must become bloody awful here in the “ homeland ” before we finally do something to end it .
Instead , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the awfulness of war and the atrocious behaviors it enables and rewards .
Consider the words of E.B .
Sledge , a Marine who fought at Peleliu and Okinawa in World War II ’ s Pacific island campaign against the Japanese .
Nightmares haunted him for 25 years after the brutal fighting on those islands ended .
He described the war he experienced as an exercise in sheer terror with grown men screaming in agony and sobbing in pain , with fighting so sustained that soldiers moved about like zombies , having been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on end .
Exhaustion bred murderous mistakes that too often were dismissed with a mind-numbing euphemism I ’ ve already succumbed to in this piece : “ friendly fire.
” And that , mind you , was “ the good war.
” So , while saluting those photogenic centenarian vets featured by the NFL , we should also remember those who didn ’ t come home and those who came home with radically altered lives .
Sledge , for instance , recalled a buddy of his , Jim Day , who dreamed of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the war .
But as Sledge recounted in a talk in 1994 , “ At Peleliu , a Japanese machine gun shattered one of Jim ’ s legs.
” All that was left was a stump with blood spurting out of it .
” Later , when Jim came to the First Marine Division reunions ( maybe some of you can ’ t conceive of this ) , we would have to help him go to the bathroom .
His wife had to do that at home .
The poor man couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that stump of a leg cut off at the hip .
He died a premature death after years of pain and back trouble.
” Sledge and his horrific nightmares , his friend Jim and his crippling injury , those are glimpses of the true face of even the least indefensible of wars ( and America ’ s twenty-first-century versions of the same are , unfortunately , anything but defensible ) .
The question is : why don ’ t more Americans react with genuine horror when a draft dodger like Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country is buying ( and using and selling ) that are proudly “ Made in the USA ” ?
No longer should we permit the powerful to obfuscate war , to boast ( as George W. Bush did ) of “ mission accomplished ” or of game-changing “ surges , ” or of “ turning corners.
” Such lies serve only to distract us .
Instead , Americans need to turn “ eyes front ” and face the ugly realities of permanent war .
Do that and we may well reinvigorate our democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill what ’ s left of it .

“The question is: why don’t more Americans react with genuine horror when a draft dodger like Donald Trump boasts of all those wonderful weapons this country is buying?”
There is no significant antiwar movement in America because there’s no war to protest. Let me explain. In February 2003, millions of people took to the streets around the world to protest America’s march to war against Iraq. That mass movement failed. The administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had a radical plan for reshaping the Middle East and no protesters, no matter how principled or sensible or determined, were going to stop them in their march of folly. The Iraq War soon joined the Afghan invasion of 2001 as a quagmire and disaster, yet the antiwar movement died down as US leaders worked to isolate Americans from news about the casualties, costs, calamities, and crimes of what was by then called “the war on terror.”
And in that they succeeded. Even though the US now lives in a state of perpetual war, for most Americans it’s a peculiar form of non-war. Most of the time, those overseas conflicts are literally out of sight (and largely out of mind). Meanwhile, whatever administration is in power assures us that our attention isn’t required, nor is our approval asked for, so we carry on with our lives as if no one is being murdered in our name.
War without dire consequences poses a conundrum. In a representative democracy, waging war should require the people’s informed consent as well as their concerted mobilization. But consent is something that America’s leaders no longer want or need and, with an all-volunteer military, there’s no need to mobilize the rest of us.
Back in 2009, I argued that our military was, in fact, becoming a quasi-foreign legion, detached from the people and ready to be dispatched globally on imperial escapades that meant little to ordinary Americans. That remains true today in a country most of whose citizens have been at pains to divorce themselves and their families from military service – and who can blame them, given the atrocious results of those wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and elsewhere across the Greater Middle East and Africa?
Yet that divorce has come at a considerable cost. It’s left our society in a state of low-grade war fever, while accelerating an everyday version of militarism that Americans now accept as normal. A striking illustration of this: President Trump’s recent State of the Union address, which was filled with bellicose boasts about spending trillions of dollars on wars and weaponry, assassinating foreign leaders, and embracing dubious political figures to mount illegal coups (in this case in Venezuela) in the name of oil and other resources. The response: not opposition or even skepticism from the people’s representatives, but rare rapturous applause by members of both political parties, even as yet more troops were being deployed to the Middle East.
WHAT A YOUTHFUL HOBBY HAS TAUGHT ME ABOUT AMERICA’S WARS
When I was a kid, I loved to collect American stamps. I had a Minuteman stamp album, and since a stamp and coin dealer was within walking distance of my house, I’d regularly head off on missions to fill the pages of that album with affordable commemorative stamps. I especially liked ones linked to military history. Given the number of wars this country has fought, there were plenty of those to add to my album.
Consider, for instance, the stamps issued after the December 7, 1941, US entry into World War II. Unsurprisingly, for a war that entailed mass mobilization and involved common sacrifice, many of them were meant to highlight the war in progress and what it was all about. So, for example, stamps were issued to remind Americans about subjects like: the countries overrun by Nazi Germany; Chinese resistance to the Japanese occupation of their country; President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms (FDR, too, was an avid stamp collector); and, as the tide turned, this country’s momentous victory against the Japanese on the island of Iwo Jima. Other stamps enjoined Americans to “win the war” and work “toward [a] United Nations.” These and similar stamps formed a tiny part of a vast war effort accepted by nearly all Americans as necessary and just. And when the war finally ended in August 1945, Americans rightfully celebrated.
Now, try to bring to mind stamps from America’s wars since then. If you’re old enough, try to recall ones you stuck on envelopes during the Korean War of the 1950s, the Vietnam War of the 1960s, or especially the war on terror of this century. How many of them celebrated momentous US victories? How many hailed allies working in common cause with us? How many commemorated an end to such wars?
I pay close attention to stamps. I still enjoy walking to my local post office and seeing the new commemoratives as they come out. And I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that, in stamp terms, there’s simply nothing to commemorate in America’s recent wars. Shouldn’t that tell us something?
I’m not saying that there are no stamps whatsoever related to those wars. In 1985, for instance, 32 years after the signing of an armistice not-quite-ever-ending the Korean War, a stamp in honor of its veterans was issued and, in 2003, another for the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington. Several stamps have similarly highlighted Vietnam veterans and Maya Lin’s iconic memorial to them.
But stamps that told us what either of those wars were for or that sought to mobilize Americans in any way? Not a chance. Ditto when it comes to this century’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or to the larger never-ending war on terror. Yes, a 2002 “Heroes USA” stamp featured firefighters raising the flag at the World Trade Center and was meant to provide money for injured first responders; and yes, there’s currently a “Healing PTSD” stamp for sale that raises money for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. But as for stamps celebrating decisive victories in Kabul or Baghdad or Tripoli, you know the answer to that one as well as I do; nor, of course, were there any reminding us of the freedoms we were supposedly fighting to uphold in those wars.
In that context, let’s return to that FDR Four Freedoms stamp, which was very popular during World War II. Its message couldn’t have been more succinct. It read: “Freedom of speech and religion, from want and fear.” Of course, World War II was an atrocious war, as all wars are. But what (partially) redeemed it were its ideals, however imperfectly realized in the postwar world.
Still, when’s the last time the US Postal Service issued a stamp that so perfectly summed up “why we fight”? There are no such stamps today because our present wars have no higher purpose. It’s that simple.
We’re not supposed to notice that, since we’re not supposed to notice those wars to begin with, not in any visceral way at least. Even stamps like the recent PTSD one (with a 10-cent surcharge that goes to veterans) are an artful dodge. Should we really feel any better donating a few nickels or dimes to help veterans with their physical and mental struggles from wars made more horrendous because they were (and remain) so unnecessary?
Or thought of another way, why is the post office raising money for veterans’ health care? Perhaps because a staggering (and still rising) Pentagon budget only ensures that there will be more war – with more wounded veterans.
Looking Back, Yet Again, to World War II
I never miss the opening ceremonies to the Super Bowl. As an exercise in pure Americana, they have no equal. This year’s included the usual trappings: a military color guard, an oversized flag, and a flyover by combat jets, including the new F-35 stealth fighter, a trillion-dollar boondoggle of the military-industrial complex. Since 2020 marked the 100th anniversary of the National Football League as well as the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, the opening ceremony featured centenarian veterans of that war helping with the pre-game coin toss. It was heartwarming to see those redoubtable vets and recognize their service.
But I can tell when my emotions are being manipulated. Watching them, I knew I was supposed to get warm and fuzzy about military service and maybe feel better about the NFL as well. Yet my respect for them and “the good war” they fought (to use Studs Terkel’s ironic title for his oral history of World War II) didn’t stop me from wanting to shower hot wrath on the leaders who have lied us into so many bad wars since then.
Speaking of warm fuzzies, consider the long opening commercial for the NFL that kicked off this year’s ceremonies. It featured an African-American boy running with a football, dodging various obstacles on a transcontinental journey to the Super Bowl, during which he pauses, reverentially, before a statue of Pat Tillman, the safety for the Arizona Cardinals who famously gave up a multimillion-dollar contract to enlist in the Army after 9/11. Tragically, he was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan, a fact the US military attempted to cover up in a conspiracy that went as high as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Even though it was just a commercial, it was right for that young boy to honor Tillman’s memory. But to what end? To make the NFL look patriotic or perhaps to overcome any lingering taint from principled (yet widely misunderstood) take-a-knee protests by players like Colin Kaepernick?
An honest accounting of America’s recent wars by the NFL might reflect on the fact that no other players have ever joined Tillman in giving up millions to enlist in the war effort. In fact, no players from any major league sport, whether baseball, basketball, or hockey, have done so. Not even NASCAR drivers, supposedly the salt of the earth, have, as far as I know, exchanged race cars for Humvees. Why should they? America’s recent wars might as well not exist for them – and, to be honest, for most of us as well.
I’m not calling for major sports stars to be drafted into the military as they were in World War II (though many athletes of that era volunteered first). What I’m suggesting is that, some 18-plus years later, they – like the rest of us – should begin paying real attention to America’s wars and what they’re about.
Because that’s the only way, as a nation, we’ll ever come together and put a stop to them.
The answer to our collective apathy is not that war must become bloody awful here in the “homeland” before we finally do something to end it. Instead, it’s to listen to those who have seen the awfulness of war and the atrocious behaviors it enables and rewards.
Consider the words of E.B. Sledge, a Marine who fought at Peleliu and Okinawa in World War II’s Pacific island campaign against the Japanese. Nightmares haunted him for 25 years after the brutal fighting on those islands ended. He described the war he experienced as an exercise in sheer terror with grown men screaming in agony and sobbing in pain, with fighting so sustained that soldiers moved about like zombies, having been in the line of fire for days on end. Exhaustion bred murderous mistakes that too often were dismissed with a mind-numbing euphemism I’ve already succumbed to in this piece: “friendly fire.” And that, mind you, was “the good war.”
So, while saluting those photogenic centenarian vets featured by the NFL, we should also remember those who didn’t come home and those who came home with radically altered lives. Sledge, for instance, recalled a buddy of his, Jim Day, who dreamed of running a horse ranch in California after the war. But as Sledge recounted in a talk in 1994, “At Peleliu, a Japanese machine gun shattered one of Jim’s legs.” All that was left was a stump with blood spurting out of it.
”Later, when Jim came to the First Marine Division reunions (maybe some of you can’t conceive of this), we would have to help him go to the bathroom. His wife had to do that at home. The poor man couldn’t handle it by himself, because of that stump of a leg cut off at the hip. He died a premature death after years of pain and back trouble.”
Sledge and his horrific nightmares, his friend Jim and his crippling injury, those are glimpses of the true face of even the least indefensible of wars (and America’s twenty-first-century versions of the same are, unfortunately, anything but defensible). The question is: why don’t more Americans react with genuine horror when a draft dodger like Donald Trump boasts of all those wonderful weapons this country is buying (and using and selling) that are proudly “Made in the USA”?
No longer should we permit the powerful to obfuscate war, to boast (as George W. Bush did) of “mission accomplished” or of game-changing “surges,” or of “turning corners.” Such lies serve only to distract us. Instead, Americans need to turn “eyes front” and face the ugly realities of permanent war.
Do that and we may well reinvigorate our democracy. If not, we may well kill what’s left of it.


russiainsider--2020-02-28--The Incompetent Sodomite Trump Just Put in Charge of ALL Intelligence Agencies

Here in the Land of Oz , otherwise known as Washington , one continues to run into people who should know better who insist that they have a friend in the White House who confirms that President Donald Trump is really a man of peace being obstructed as he seeks to withdraw the United States from senseless wars in Asia .
They argue that the Deep State or Establishment , to include the media , are so blinded by Trump Derangement Syndrome that they can not get behind his policies even when they would be good for Americans .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been clear instances when the president could have followed through on pledges to reduce troop levels or withdraw completely from war zones before reversing himself and doubling down rather than doing the right thing .
One need only cite the increases in numbers of combatants in both the Middle East and Afghanistan and the reversal of an initial decision to stage a complete withdrawal from Syria which instead turned into a move to occupy the country ’ s oil fields .
Others might argue that Trump reveals himself through his quixotic decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with powerful opponents as if he were upping the ante over a real estate transaction .
Withdrawing with the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran was a major blunder , recognized as such by nearly every country in the world with the usual exception of Israel , while Trump ’ s repeated offers to talk with the Ayatollah reflect willful ignorance of Iranian political dynamics .
The White House apparently considered the assassination of an Iranian Major General to be an inducement to the Persians to come to the table to discuss a broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there has been a concerted effort to destroy the Trump administration which started even before it came into being , a conspiracy that has included a number of key players in the national security structure , to include the Directors of both CIA and the FBI .
And Trump has a right to be angered by the ridiculous impeachment “ process , ” initiated by a Democratic Party that has still not figured out why the unspeakable Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 .
But Donald Trump has also been his own worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his critics , with his divisive tweets , his constant search for subversion within and outside his own party ’ s ranks , and his highly offensive language and demeanor .
It is hard to imagine that anyone can take pleasure from such an overly-sensitive and essentially ignorant snake oil salesman actually being president of the United States , but there you have it .
And Trump will long be remembered as a president who could not put his own house in order , presiding over a musical chairs arrangement whereby senior officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a whim , often based on “ loyalty.
” In such an arrangement , the sycophants inevitably rise to the top .
Even John Bolton , protégé of party funder Sheldon Adelson , apparently did not suck up enough and was replaced by Robert O ’ Brien , who did not have any relevant experience qualifying for the job .
Prior to his becoming National Security Advisor O ’ Brien featured in a taxpayer funded trip to Stockholm to obtain the release of rapper ASAP Rocky , who had been arrested after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Brien had orders to threaten unspecified retaliation against the Swedish government if it did not accede to White House demands .
That exercise in international bullying means that O ’ Brien is quintessentially Trump ’ s kind of guy .
He has written a book entitled While America Slept : Restoring American Leadership to a World in Crisis , calling on the United States to end any “ appeasement and retreat , ” and has described the basically defunct nuclear agreement with Iran , in predictable neocon fashion , as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And there is always Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , who , like his boss , has discovered that there is no lie , no matter how preposterous , that is not worth repeating .
Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels promoted a similar approach back in 1939 , saying “ It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle .
They are mere words , and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointment , guided purely by malevolence , is , however , in another category completely , even in an administration where bullheaded ignorance is considered a virtue .
Rick Grenell , currently the United States Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany , is completely unqualified to be Director of National Intelligence ( DNI ) , where he would be the nominal head of the entire intelligence community ( IC ) , 17 organizations including the Central Intelligence Agency , National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office .
Just as Grenell had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he will undoubtedly continue in that vein as DNI .
Among the Office of National Intelligence ( ONI ) responsibilities is the briefing of the president on national security related issues .
The appointment of Grenell is as an interim “ acting ” director for a term of six months because even Trump knows that he could never be approved by the Senate in the normal fashion .
Even though Grenell has limited access to intelligence product as a consumer while ambassador , he has no experience as an intelligence officer at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been in charge of any large government bureaucracy .
He was the communications director for the American ambassador to the U.N. under George W. Bush , and , since May 2018 , has served as ambassador to Germany .
Given his lack of experience , Grenell will be unable to provide objective intelligence and will instead emphasize briefing on information that supports the president ’ s policies while also cheerleading for those very policies .
That is precisely what Trump would expect from a DNI .
In truth , Richard Grenell has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low standards set by the Trump State Department .
Reportedly inclined to ignore the advice of his professional Foreign Service staff , he is a non-German speaking protégé of National Security Adviser John Bolton who would seem to have enough on his plate defending the unpopular Trump Administration decisions on climate change , the Iran nuclear deal , NATO spending , the Nord Stream-2 Russian gas pipeline project and on tariffs directed against European Union exports , but he has apparently gone out of his way to make the bilateral relationship with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House withdrew from the Iran agreement , Grenell tweeted that German businesses should “ wind down operations immediately ” in Iran .
The ineptly worded advice was inevitably taken by the Germans as a threat .
Nils Schmid , a German Social Democratic Party foreign policy spokesman , goes so far as to say that “ He does not understand what the role of an ambassador should be .
An ambassador is a bridge-builder who explains how American politics works , how the American government works , and at the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Grenell has , however , “ defined his role for himself , and it is not the traditional role of an ambassador .
… He [ works ] as a propagandist [ for Donald Trump ] ” The New York Times is reporting that Grenell will continue to be Ambassador to Germany while he is simultaneously serving as DNI , an arrangement that is as absurd as it sounds if only due to the distance between Washington and Berlin .
He is reportedly already assembling his ONI staff and is “ cleaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firing last Friday of Maguire as well as ONI number two Andrew Hallman .
It was also reported that even though a number of senior Republicans had privately advised Trump to appoint an intelligence professional for the DNI position , the president is keen to punish a “ disloyal ” IC .
The appointment of Grenell appears to be connected to an incident two weeks agoin which briefers of the ONI told members of the Democratic Party dominated House Intelligence Committee that Russia is planning to interfere in the 2020 presidential election to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sweeping conclusion was not made public , but Trump was apparently enraged that ex-Navy Seal at-that-time DNI Joseph Maguire had allowed the briefing to take place and rebuked him sharply in an Oval Office meeting .
Trump was particularly angry because committee chairman Congressman Adam Schiff was present at the Intelligence Committee briefing .
Trump claimed that Schiff will “ weaponize ” the intelligence information to use against him .
For what it ’ s worth , the office of the DNI is required to brief appropriate congressional committees on intelligence matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active in promoting worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality , an agenda that has Donald Trump ’ s blessing but which has not please some administration religious fundamentalists like Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence .
Grenell objected to Pompeo ’ s decision not to support the International Day Against Homophobia , Transphobia and Biphobia , and was also critical of Pompeo ’ s blocking of a proposal to fly the gay pride flag from the same flagpole as the American flag at embassies across the world .
During the recent Pompeo visit to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partner Matt Lashey to the airport to meet the Secretary of State .
The irony is that up until a few years ago homosexuality was grounds for denial of a security clearance to perform certain IC jobs , based on the presumption that homosexuals might be vulnerable to blackmail by hostile intelligence agencies .
Currently , two of the top positions in the IC , Director of National Intelligence and Director of Central Intelligence are homosexual .
Trump is taking both deserved and undeserved lumps over the new appointment .
Former head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admiral William McRaven has decried the dismissal of Joe Maguire because Maguire was “ only doing his job.
” He wrote an op-ed which might be regarded to a certain extent as special pleading on behalf of a former fellow Seal : “ As Americans , we should be frightened — deeply afraid for the future of the nation .
When good men and women can ’ t speak the truth , when facts are inconvenient , when integrity and character no longer matter , when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
” Former CIA Director John Brennan , who is an open Trump enemy with close ties to the Clintons and Obama , and who should be in prison for his attempt to frame the Trump campaign , declared himself “ disturbed.
” He inevitably invoked the Russians , demonstrating that he has not learned anything since he left office at the end of 2017 .
He said that “ We are now in a full-blown national security crisis… By trying to prevent the flow of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow ’ s interests , not America ’ s. ” By all means Donald Trump should have a free hand in cleaning out the Augean stables of top national security officials like Brennan who have been politicized and corrupted , but it should not be carried out by replacing some agency directors with ignorant cronies who will filter and spin the information that winds up being shared with congressional intelligence committees and with the president .
There are plenty of honest people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on and who would have done a good job in serving national interests .
Grenell is a solution from hell which will only make it even more likely that the poor decision making on foreign and national security policies that has characterized the past two decades will continue unabated and indefinitely into the future .

Here in the Land of Oz, otherwise known as Washington, one continues to run into people who should know better who insist that they have a friend in the White House who confirms that President Donald Trump is really a man of peace being obstructed as he seeks to withdraw the United States from senseless wars in Asia. They argue that the Deep State or Establishment, to include the media, are so blinded by Trump Derangement Syndrome that they cannot get behind his policies even when they would be good for Americans.
The problem with that argument is that there have been clear instances when the president could have followed through on pledges to reduce troop levels or withdraw completely from war zones before reversing himself and doubling down rather than doing the right thing. One need only cite the increases in numbers of combatants in both the Middle East and Afghanistan and the reversal of an initial decision to stage a complete withdrawal from Syria which instead turned into a move to occupy the country’s oil fields.
Others might argue that Trump reveals himself through his quixotic decision making and his willingness to play brinksmanship with powerful opponents as if he were upping the ante over a real estate transaction. Withdrawing with the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran was a major blunder, recognized as such by nearly every country in the world with the usual exception of Israel, while Trump’s repeated offers to talk with the Ayatollah reflect willful ignorance of Iranian political dynamics. The White House apparently considered the assassination of an Iranian Major General to be an inducement to the Persians to come to the table to discuss a broad range of disagreements.
To be sure, there has been a concerted effort to destroy the Trump administration which started even before it came into being, a conspiracy that has included a number of key players in the national security structure, to include the Directors of both CIA and the FBI. And Trump has a right to be angered by the ridiculous impeachment “process,” initiated by a Democratic Party that has still not figured out why the unspeakable Hillary Clinton lost in 2016.
But Donald Trump has also been his own worst enemy, playing into the hands of his critics, with his divisive tweets, his constant search for subversion within and outside his own party’s ranks, and his highly offensive language and demeanor. It is hard to imagine that anyone can take pleasure from such an overly-sensitive and essentially ignorant snake oil salesman actually being president of the United States, but there you have it.
And Trump will long be remembered as a president who could not put his own house in order, presiding over a musical chairs arrangement whereby senior officers in his administration were appointed and removed at a whim, often based on “loyalty.” In such an arrangement, the sycophants inevitably rise to the top. Even John Bolton, protégé of party funder Sheldon Adelson, apparently did not suck up enough and was replaced by Robert O’Brien, who did not have any relevant experience qualifying for the job. Prior to his becoming National Security Advisor O’Brien featured in a taxpayer funded trip to Stockholm to obtain the release of rapper ASAP Rocky, who had been arrested after getting involved in a fist fight. O’Brien had orders to threaten unspecified retaliation against the Swedish government if it did not accede to White House demands. That exercise in international bullying means that O’Brien is quintessentially Trump’s kind of guy. He has written a book entitled While America Slept: Restoring American Leadership to a World in Crisis, calling on the United States to end any “appeasement and retreat,” and has described the basically defunct nuclear agreement with Iran, in predictable neocon fashion, as a repeat of 1938, Hitler and Munich.
And there is always Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who, like his boss, has discovered that there is no lie, no matter how preposterous, that is not worth repeating. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels promoted a similar approach back in 1939, saying “It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”.
Donald Trump’s latest appointment, guided purely by malevolence, is, however, in another category completely, even in an administration where bullheaded ignorance is considered a virtue. Rick Grenell, currently the United States Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany, is completely unqualified to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI), where he would be the nominal head of the entire intelligence community (IC), 17 organizations including the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office. Just as Grenell had no qualification beyond loyalty to become an ambassador, he will undoubtedly continue in that vein as DNI. Among the Office of National Intelligence (ONI) responsibilities is the briefing of the president on national security related issues.
The appointment of Grenell is as an interim “acting” director for a term of six months because even Trump knows that he could never be approved by the Senate in the normal fashion. Even though Grenell has limited access to intelligence product as a consumer while ambassador, he has no experience as an intelligence officer at any level, nor has he ever been in charge of any large government bureaucracy. He was the communications director for the American ambassador to the U.N. under George W. Bush, and, since May 2018, has served as ambassador to Germany. Given his lack of experience, Grenell will be unable to provide objective intelligence and will instead emphasize briefing on information that supports the president’s policies while also cheerleading for those very policies. That is precisely what Trump would expect from a DNI.
In truth, Richard Grenell has been a ghastly ambassador, even by the low standards set by the Trump State Department. Reportedly inclined to ignore the advice of his professional Foreign Service staff, he is a non-German speaking protégé of National Security Adviser John Bolton who would seem to have enough on his plate defending the unpopular Trump Administration decisions on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, NATO spending, the Nord Stream-2 Russian gas pipeline project and on tariffs directed against European Union exports, but he has apparently gone out of his way to make the bilateral relationship with a key ally even worse. After the White House withdrew from the Iran agreement, Grenell tweeted that German businesses should “wind down operations immediately” in Iran. The ineptly worded advice was inevitably taken by the Germans as a threat.
Nils Schmid, a German Social Democratic Party foreign policy spokesman, goes so far as to say that “He does not understand what the role of an ambassador should be. An ambassador is a bridge-builder who explains how American politics works, how the American government works, and at the same time explains to America how Germany sees things.” Grenell has, however, “defined his role for himself, and it is not the traditional role of an ambassador. … He [works] as a propagandist [for Donald Trump]”
The New York Times is reporting that Grenell will continue to be Ambassador to Germany while he is simultaneously serving as DNI, an arrangement that is as absurd as it sounds if only due to the distance between Washington and Berlin. He is reportedly already assembling his ONI staff and is “cleaning house,” which has included the firing last Friday of Maguire as well as ONI number two Andrew Hallman. It was also reported that even though a number of senior Republicans had privately advised Trump to appoint an intelligence professional for the DNI position, the president is keen to punish a “disloyal” IC.
The appointment of Grenell appears to be connected to an incident two weeks agoin which briefers of the ONI told members of the Democratic Party dominated House Intelligence Committee that Russia is planning to interfere in the 2020 presidential election to help Trump. The evidence for such a sweeping conclusion was not made public, but Trump was apparently enraged that ex-Navy Seal at-that-time DNI Joseph Maguire had allowed the briefing to take place and rebuked him sharply in an Oval Office meeting. Trump was particularly angry because committee chairman Congressman Adam Schiff was present at the Intelligence Committee briefing. Trump claimed that Schiff will “weaponize” the intelligence information to use against him. For what it’s worth, the office of the DNI is required to brief appropriate congressional committees on intelligence matters and national security.
Grenell is also active in promoting worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality, an agenda that has Donald Trump’s blessing but which has not please some administration religious fundamentalists like Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence. Grenell objected to Pompeo’s decision not to support the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, and was also critical of Pompeo’s blocking of a proposal to fly the gay pride flag from the same flagpole as the American flag at embassies across the world. During the recent Pompeo visit to the Munich Security Conference, Grenell brought his partner Matt Lashey to the airport to meet the Secretary of State. The irony is that up until a few years ago homosexuality was grounds for denial of a security clearance to perform certain IC jobs, based on the presumption that homosexuals might be vulnerable to blackmail by hostile intelligence agencies. Currently, two of the top positions in the IC, Director of National Intelligence and Director of Central Intelligence are homosexual.
Trump is taking both deserved and undeserved lumps over the new appointment. Former head of the U.S. Special Operations Command retired Navy admiral William McRaven has decried the dismissal of Joe Maguire because Maguire was “only doing his job.” He wrote an op-ed which might be regarded to a certain extent as special pleading on behalf of a former fellow Seal: “As Americans, we should be frightened — deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.”
Former CIA Director John Brennan, who is an open Trump enemy with close ties to the Clintons and Obama, and who should be in prison for his attempt to frame the Trump campaign, declared himself “disturbed.” He inevitably invoked the Russians, demonstrating that he has not learned anything since he left office at the end of 2017. He said that “We are now in a full-blown national security crisis… By trying to prevent the flow of intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow’s interests, not America’s.”
By all means Donald Trump should have a free hand in cleaning out the Augean stables of top national security officials like Brennan who have been politicized and corrupted, but it should not be carried out by replacing some agency directors with ignorant cronies who will filter and spin the information that winds up being shared with congressional intelligence committees and with the president. There are plenty of honest people in the IC that could have been called on and who would have done a good job in serving national interests. Grenell is a solution from hell which will only make it even more likely that the poor decision making on foreign and national security policies that has characterized the past two decades will continue unabated and indefinitely into the future.


russiainsider--2020-02-28--Your Man in the Public Gallery – The Assange Hearing Day 3

In yesterday ’ s proceedings in court , the prosecution adopted arguments so stark and apparently unreasonable I have been fretting on how to write them up in a way that does not seem like caricature or unfair exaggeration on my part .
What has been happening in this court has long moved beyond caricature .
All I can do is give you my personal assurance that what I recount actually is what happened .
As usual , I shall deal with procedural matters and Julian ’ s treatment first , before getting in to a clear account of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under a clear instruction to mimic concern by asking , near the end of every session just before we break anyway , if Julian is feeling well and whether he would like a break .
She then routinely ignores his response .
Yesterday he replied at some length he could not hear properly in his glass box and could not communicate with his lawyers ( at some point yesterday they had started preventing him passing notes to his counsel , which I learn was the background to the aggressive prevention of his shaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baraitser insisted he might only be heard through his counsel , which given he was prevented from instructing them was a bit rich .
This being pointed out , we had a ten minute adjournment while Julian and his counsel were allowed to talk down in the cells – presumably where they could be more conveniently bugged yet again .
On return , Edward Fitzgerald made a formal application for Julian to be allowed to sit beside his lawyers in the court .
Julian was “ a gentle , intellectual man ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ releasing Assange from the dock into the body of the court would mean he was released from custody .
To achieve that would require an application for bail .
Again , the prosecution counsel James Lewis intervened on the side of the defence to try to make Julian ’ s treatment less extreme .
He was not , he suggested diffidently , quite sure that it was correct that it required bail for Julian to be in the body of the court , or that being in the body of the court accompanied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was no longer in custody .
Prisoners , even the most dangerous of terrorists , gave evidence from the witness box in the body of the court nest to the lawyers and magistrate .
In the High Court prisoners frequently sat with their lawyers in extradition hearings , in extreme cases of violent criminals handcuffed to a security officer .
Baraitser replied that Assange might pose a danger to the public .
It was a question of health and safety .
How did Fitzgerald and Lewis think that she had the ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It would have to be up to Group 4 to decide if this was possible .
Yes , she really did say that .
Group 4 would have to decide .
Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control .
“ Risk assessment ” and “ health and safety ” featured a lot .
She started to resemble something worse than a Dalek , a particularly stupid local government officer of a very low grade .
“ No jurisdiction ” – “ Up to Group 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firmly that delivery to custody can only mean delivery to the dock of the court , nowhere else in the room .
If the defence wanted him in the courtroom where he could hear proceedings better , they could only apply for bail and his release from custody in general .
She then peered at both barristers in the hope this would have sat them down , but both were still on their feet .
In his diffident manner ( which I confess is growing on me ) Lewis said “ the prosecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course but , err , I really don ’ t think that ’ s right ” .
He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party .
Baraitser concluded the matter by stating that the Defence should submit written arguments by 10am tomorrow on this point , and she would then hold a separate hearing into the question of Julian ’ s position in the court .
The day had begun with a very angry Magistrate Baraitser addressing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a photo had been taken inside the courtroom .
It was a criminal offence to take or attempt to take photographs inside the courtroom .
Vanessa Baraitser looked at this point very keen to lock someone up .
She also seemed in her anger to be making the unfounded assumption that whoever took the photo from the public gallery on Tuesday was still there on Wednesday ; I suspect not .
Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her .
I suspect she shouts a lot on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of photography – she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet .
Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa Baraitser .
Which is no crime on her part , but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort .
Somebody suggested to me she might be a hologram , but I think not .
Holograms have more empathy .
I was amused by the criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courtroom .
How incompetent would you need to be to attempt to take a photo and fail to do so ?
And if no photo was taken , how do they prove you were attempting to take one , as opposed to texting your mum ?
I suppose “ attempting to take a photo ” is a crime that could catch somebody arriving with a large SLR , tripod and several mounted lighting boxes , but none of those appeared to have made it into the public gallery .
Baraitser did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom ( or indeed to attempt to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom ) .
I suspect it is .
Anyway Le Grand Soir has published a translation of my report yesterday , and there you can see a photo of Julian in his bulletproof glass anti-terrorist cage .
Not , I hasten to add , taken by me .
We now come to the consideration of yesterday ’ s legal arguments on the extradition request itself .
Fortunately , these are basically fairly simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five hours of legal disquisition , it largely consisted of both sides competing in citing scores of “ authorities ” , e.g .
dead judges , to endorse their point of view , and thus repeating the same points continually with little value from exegesis of the innumerable quotes .
As prefigured yesterday by magistrate Baraitser , the prosecution is arguing that Article 4.1 of the UK/US extradition treaty has no force in law .
The UK and US Governments say that the court enforces domestic law , not international law , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This argument has been made to the court in written form to which I do not have access .
But from discussion in court it was plain that the prosecution argue that the Extradition Act of 2003 , under which the court is operating , makes no exception for political offences .
All previous Extradition Acts had excluded extradition for political offences , so it must be the intention of the sovereign parliament that political offenders can now be extradited .
Opening his argument , Edward Fitzgerald QC argued that the Extradition Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make an actual extradition .
The extradition requires two things in place ; the general Extradition Act and the Extradition Treaty with the country or countries concerned .
“ No Treaty , No Extradition ” was an unbreakable rule .
The Treaty was the very basis of the request .
So to say that the extradition was not governed by the terms of the very treaty under which it was made , was to create a legal absurdity and thus an abuse of process .
He cited examples of judgements made by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treaty rights were deemed enforceable despite the lack of incorporation into domestic legislation , particularly in order to stop people being extradited to potential execution from British colonies .
Fitzgerald pointed out that while the Extradition Act of 2003 did not contain a bar on extraditions for political offences , it did not state there could not be such a bar in extradition treaties .
And the extradition treaty of 2007 was ratified after the 2003 extradition act .
At this stage Baraitser interrupted that it was plain the intention of parliament was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offences .
Otherwise they would not have removed the bar in previous legislation .
Fitzgerald declined to agree , saying the Act did not say extradition for political offences could not be banned by the treaty enabling extradition .
Fitzgerald then continued to say that international jurisprudence had accepted for a century or more that you did not extradite political offenders .
No political extradition was in the European Convention on Extradition , the Model United Nations Extradition Treaty and the Interpol Convention on Extradition .
It was in every single one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries , and had been for over a century , at the insistence of the United States .
For both the UK and US Governments to say it did not apply was astonishing and would set a terrible precedent that would endanger dissidents and potential political prisoners from China , Russia and regimes all over the world who had escaped to third countries .
Fitzgerald stated that all major authorities agreed there were two types of political offence .
The pure political offence and the relative political offence .
A “ pure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , espionage or sedition .
A “ relative ” political offence was an act which was normally criminal , like assault or vandalism , conducted with a political motive .
Every one of the charges against Assange was a “ pure ” political offence .
All but one were espionage charges , and the computer misuse charge had been compared by the prosecution to breach of the official secrets act to meet the dual criminality test .
The overriding accusation that Assange was seeking to harm the political and military interests of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a political offence in all the authorities .
In reply Lewis stated that a treaty could not be binding in English law unless specifically incorporated in English law by Parliament .
This was a necessary democratic defence .
Treaties were made by the executive which could not make law .
This went to the sovereignty of Parliament .
Lewis quoted many judgements stating that international treaties signed and ratified by the UK could not be enforced in British courts .
“ It may come as a surprise to other countries that their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no legal force ” he joked .
Lewis said there was no abuse of process here and thus no rights were invoked under the European Convention .
It was just the normal operation of the law that the treaty provision on no extradition for political offences had no legal standing .
Lewis said that the US government disputes that Assange ’ s offences are political .
In the UK/Australia/US there was a different definition of political offence to the rest of the world .
We viewed the “ pure ” political offences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political offences .
Only “ relative ” political offences – ordinary crimes committed with a political motive – were viewed as political offences in our tradition .
In this tradition , the definition of “ political ” was also limited to supporting a contending political party in a state .
Lewis will continue with this argument tomorrow .
That concludes my account of proceedings .
I have some important commentary to make on this and will try to do another posting later today .
Now rushing to court .
With grateful thanks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this reporting possible .
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish , including in translation , and I very much hope people will do so actively .
Truth shall set us free .

In yesterday’s proceedings in court, the prosecution adopted arguments so stark and apparently unreasonable I have been fretting on how to write them up in a way that does not seem like caricature or unfair exaggeration on my part. What has been happening in this court has long moved beyond caricature. All I can do is give you my personal assurance that what I recount actually is what happened.
As usual, I shall deal with procedural matters and Julian’s treatment first, before getting in to a clear account of the legal arguments made.
Vanessa Baraitser is under a clear instruction to mimic concern by asking, near the end of every session just before we break anyway, if Julian is feeling well and whether he would like a break. She then routinely ignores his response. Yesterday he replied at some length he could not hear properly in his glass box and could not communicate with his lawyers (at some point yesterday they had started preventing him passing notes to his counsel, which I learn was the background to the aggressive prevention of his shaking Garzon’s hand goodbye).
Baraitser insisted he might only be heard through his counsel, which given he was prevented from instructing them was a bit rich. This being pointed out, we had a ten minute adjournment while Julian and his counsel were allowed to talk down in the cells – presumably where they could be more conveniently bugged yet again.
On return, Edward Fitzgerald made a formal application for Julian to be allowed to sit beside his lawyers in the court. Julian was “a gentle, intellectual man” and not a terrorist. Baraitser replied that releasing Assange from the dock into the body of the court would mean he was released from custody. To achieve that would require an application for bail.
Again, the prosecution counsel James Lewis intervened on the side of the defence to try to make Julian’s treatment less extreme. He was not, he suggested diffidently, quite sure that it was correct that it required bail for Julian to be in the body of the court, or that being in the body of the court accompanied by security officers meant that a prisoner was no longer in custody. Prisoners, even the most dangerous of terrorists, gave evidence from the witness box in the body of the court nest to the lawyers and magistrate. In the High Court prisoners frequently sat with their lawyers in extradition hearings, in extreme cases of violent criminals handcuffed to a security officer.
Baraitser replied that Assange might pose a danger to the public. It was a question of health and safety. How did Fitzgerald and Lewis think that she had the ability to carry out the necessary risk assessment? It would have to be up to Group 4 to decide if this was possible.
Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide.
Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control. “Risk assessment” and “health and safety” featured a lot. She started to resemble something worse than a Dalek, a particularly stupid local government officer of a very low grade. “No jurisdiction” – “Up to Group 4”. Recovering slightly, she stated firmly that delivery to custody can only mean delivery to the dock of the court, nowhere else in the room. If the defence wanted him in the courtroom where he could hear proceedings better, they could only apply for bail and his release from custody in general. She then peered at both barristers in the hope this would have sat them down, but both were still on their feet.
In his diffident manner (which I confess is growing on me) Lewis said “the prosecution is neutral on this request, of course but, err, I really don’t think that’s right”. He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.
Baraitser concluded the matter by stating that the Defence should submit written arguments by 10am tomorrow on this point, and she would then hold a separate hearing into the question of Julian’s position in the court.
The day had begun with a very angry Magistrate Baraitser addressing the public gallery. Yesterday, she said, a photo had been taken inside the courtroom. It was a criminal offence to take or attempt to take photographs inside the courtroom. Vanessa Baraitser looked at this point very keen to lock someone up. She also seemed in her anger to be making the unfounded assumption that whoever took the photo from the public gallery on Tuesday was still there on Wednesday; I suspect not. Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her. I suspect she shouts a lot on trains.
Ms Baraitser is not fond of photography – she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort. Somebody suggested to me she might be a hologram, but I think not. Holograms have more empathy.
I was amused by the criminal offence of attempting to take photos in the courtroom. How incompetent would you need to be to attempt to take a photo and fail to do so? And if no photo was taken, how do they prove you were attempting to take one, as opposed to texting your mum? I suppose “attempting to take a photo” is a crime that could catch somebody arriving with a large SLR, tripod and several mounted lighting boxes, but none of those appeared to have made it into the public gallery.
Baraitser did not state whether it was a criminal offence to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom (or indeed to attempt to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom). I suspect it is. Anyway Le Grand Soir has published a translation of my report yesterday, and there you can see a photo of Julian in his bulletproof glass anti-terrorist cage. Not, I hasten to add, taken by me.
We now come to the consideration of yesterday’s legal arguments on the extradition request itself. Fortunately, these are basically fairly simple to summarise, because although we had five hours of legal disquisition, it largely consisted of both sides competing in citing scores of “authorities”, e.g. dead judges, to endorse their point of view, and thus repeating the same points continually with little value from exegesis of the innumerable quotes.
As prefigured yesterday by magistrate Baraitser, the prosecution is arguing that Article 4.1 of the UK/US extradition treaty has no force in law.
The UK and US Governments say that the court enforces domestic law, not international law, and therefore the treaty has no standing. This argument has been made to the court in written form to which I do not have access. But from discussion in court it was plain that the prosecution argue that the Extradition Act of 2003, under which the court is operating, makes no exception for political offences. All previous Extradition Acts had excluded extradition for political offences, so it must be the intention of the sovereign parliament that political offenders can now be extradited.
Opening his argument, Edward Fitzgerald QC argued that the Extradition Act of 2003 alone is not enough to make an actual extradition. The extradition requires two things in place; the general Extradition Act and the Extradition Treaty with the country or countries concerned. “No Treaty, No Extradition” was an unbreakable rule. The Treaty was the very basis of the request. So to say that the extradition was not governed by the terms of the very treaty under which it was made, was to create a legal absurdity and thus an abuse of process. He cited examples of judgements made by the House of Lords and Privy Council where treaty rights were deemed enforceable despite the lack of incorporation into domestic legislation, particularly in order to stop people being extradited to potential execution from British colonies.
Fitzgerald pointed out that while the Extradition Act of 2003 did not contain a bar on extraditions for political offences, it did not state there could not be such a bar in extradition treaties. And the extradition treaty of 2007 was ratified after the 2003 extradition act.
At this stage Baraitser interrupted that it was plain the intention of parliament was that there could be extradition for political offences. Otherwise they would not have removed the bar in previous legislation. Fitzgerald declined to agree, saying the Act did not say extradition for political offences could not be banned by the treaty enabling extradition.
Fitzgerald then continued to say that international jurisprudence had accepted for a century or more that you did not extradite political offenders. No political extradition was in the European Convention on Extradition, the Model United Nations Extradition Treaty and the Interpol Convention on Extradition. It was in every single one of the United States’ extradition treaties with other countries, and had been for over a century, at the insistence of the United States. For both the UK and US Governments to say it did not apply was astonishing and would set a terrible precedent that would endanger dissidents and potential political prisoners from China, Russia and regimes all over the world who had escaped to third countries.
Fitzgerald stated that all major authorities agreed there were two types of political offence. The pure political offence and the relative political offence. A “pure” political offence was defined as treason, espionage or sedition. A “relative” political offence was an act which was normally criminal, like assault or vandalism, conducted with a political motive. Every one of the charges against Assange was a “pure” political offence. All but one were espionage charges, and the computer misuse charge had been compared by the prosecution to breach of the official secrets act to meet the dual criminality test. The overriding accusation that Assange was seeking to harm the political and military interests of the United States was in the very definition of a political offence in all the authorities.
In reply Lewis stated that a treaty could not be binding in English law unless specifically incorporated in English law by Parliament. This was a necessary democratic defence. Treaties were made by the executive which could not make law. This went to the sovereignty of Parliament. Lewis quoted many judgements stating that international treaties signed and ratified by the UK could not be enforced in British courts. “It may come as a surprise to other countries that their treaties with the British government can have no legal force” he joked.
Lewis said there was no abuse of process here and thus no rights were invoked under the European Convention. It was just the normal operation of the law that the treaty provision on no extradition for political offences had no legal standing.
Lewis said that the US government disputes that Assange’s offences are political. In the UK/Australia/US there was a different definition of political offence to the rest of the world. We viewed the “pure” political offences of treason, espionage and sedition as not political offences. Only “relative” political offences – ordinary crimes committed with a political motive – were viewed as political offences in our tradition. In this tradition, the definition of “political” was also limited to supporting a contending political party in a state. Lewis will continue with this argument tomorrow.
That concludes my account of proceedings. I have some important commentary to make on this and will try to do another posting later today. Now rushing to court.
With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.