Archive | December 9th, 2010



Don’t Visit WikiLeaks Website if You Want a Government Job

December 7, 2010

by Dr. Ashraf Ezzat 

The Public has the Right to Know What’s Going On…


“Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism …China blocking Google…Pakistan is backing up Taliban …The American military is keeping Saddam’s legacy of brutality alive in Iraq”….

….  This is some of the tidal wave of secret documents unleashed by the whistleblower site WikiLeaks … they even got Sarah Palin`s email account content.  Julian Assange, the founder of the website and the man responsible for all the disclosures is now hiding in undisclosed location in England awaiting an arrest warrant.

Although WikiLeaks has managed to hit the mainstream, still, something remains odd about it, something doesn’t feel right.  I personally believe that the public has the right to know. But I also think that the individuals should have the right to know what kind of information that’s being revealed to them.

  • Is it useful or worthless information?

  • Are they true revelations… or deliberate leaks?

  • Who decides what to release and when?

  • Is the disclosure of the information in the public interest?

  • Is it serving somebody’s hidden agenda?

  • Has the released information made any difference …has it changed things to the better?

  • What can an ordinary man do with what is supposed to be government classified information?

  • Is the information been disclosed to sway the public opinion or to expose the backstage policies in the world?

  • Is it all about the truth?

  • Is it about stolen goods?

  • Or is it all about Assange?

  • Who are behind WikiLeaks? Are they the cyber crusaders or cyber frauds?

  • Is it WikiLeaks or is it wicked-leaks?

So far, a lot of politicians and governments refrain from commenting on the released data.   The American government branded the leak of more than a quarter-million classified files an attack on the United States and raised the prospect of criminal prosecution against the online site WikiLeaks.

Prospective employees all over the US are being warned not to access the WikiLeaks website or it will jeopardize their chances of getting a job with the Federal Government.  State Department employees are also being told not to access the WikiLeaks website from work or at home.   The site, itself has been blocked at the Department of State.

WikiLeaks could be the new school of journalism or it could turn out be a front to some covert agency for that matter. But one thing is certain about wikiLeaks, it has shown us that nobody knows the whole truth.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on DON’T VISIT WIKILEAKS



December 7, 2010

by Michael Leon  

It’s common knowledge just about everyone has an angle or tool in the Wikileaks exercise, but the manipulation by the usual players—with two casualties being Julian Assange and the truth—is taking off as Assange’s arrest is portrayed as though Assange is “Osama bin Laden or something” by the American media.


Militaristic Israel-firsters find numerous ways to lie.

By Glenn Greenwald in Salon

1) In The New Republic today, Todd Gitlin writes an entire anti-WikiLeaks column that is based on an absolute factual falsehood.  Anyone listening to most media accounts would believe that WikiLeaks has indiscriminately published all 250,000 of the diplomatic cables it possesses, and Gitlin — in the course of denouncing Julian Assange — bolsters this falsehood:  “Wikileaks’s huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables, is indiscriminate” and Assange is “fighting for a world of total transparency.”

The reality is the exact opposite– literally — of what Gitlin told TNRreaders.  WikiLeaks has posted to its websiteonly 960 of the 251,297 diplomatic cables it has.  Almost every one of these cables was first published by one of its newspaper partners which are disclosing them (The Guardian, the NYT, El Pais, Le Monde, Der Speigel, etc.).  Moreover, the cables posted by WikiLeaks were not only first published by these newspapers, but contain the redactions applied by those papers to protect innocent people and otherwise minimize harm.  Here is an AP article from yesterday detailing this process: 

[T]he group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material. “They are releasing the documents we selected,” Le Monde’s managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview at the newspaper’s Paris headquarters. . . .

 ”The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it,” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian’s website Friday.

 Just as they did prior to releasing the Afghanistan war documents, WikiLeaks — according to AP – “appealed to the U.S. ambassador in London, asking the U.S. government to confidentially help him determine what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released.”  Although the U.S. — again — refused to give such guidance, WikiLeaks worked closely with these media outlets to ensure that any material which has no valid public interest value and could harm innocent people was withheld.  And Assange’s frequent commitments to engage in “harm minimization”when releasing documents gives the lie to Gitlin’s assertion that he is “fighting for a world oftotal transparency.”

I understand that the media has repeated over and over the false claim that WikiLeaks “dumped” all 250,000 diplomatic cables on the Internet — which is presumably how this falsehood made its way into Gitlin’s brain and then into his column — but that’s no excuse for him and TNReditors failing to undertake the most minimal due diligence (such as, say, checking WikiLeaks’ website) before publishing this claim.  I’ve emailed Gitlin andTNR Editor-in-Chief Franklin Foer early this morning and advised them of the need for a correction, but have heard nothing.  I will post any reply I get.  They’re entitled to condemn WikiLeaks all they want, but not to propagate this factual falsehood.

 (2) According to The New York Times‘ Brian Stelter, Matt Lauer — when announcing Assange’s arrest in London this morning — proclaimed:  ”The international manhunt for Julian Assange is over” — as though Assange is Osama bin Laden or something.  I don’t know if it’s sheer empty-headedness or excessive servile-to-power syndrome — probably both, as is usually the case — but that claim is both painfully dumb and misleading.  There was no valid arrest warrant in England for Assange until yesterday; he then immediately turned himself into British law enforcement.  There was no “international manhunt.”  How long before Matt Lauer and his friends start featuring playing cards with all the WikiLeaks Villains on the them(“and here we have Julian Assange, the Terrorist Mastermind, who is the Ace of Spades!”)?  Answer:  as soon as the Government produces them and hands them to the media with instructions to use them.

 (3)Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein ran today to The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page to call for the prosecution of Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917.  Legal experts overwhelmingly believe that any such prosecution under that law would be extremely difficult and “extremely dangerous,” but that’s of no concern to the Surveillance-State-protecting, Iraq-War-supporting, defense-contractor-plutocrat:  the “liberal” Democratic Senator from California.  To argue this, she invokes the most tired and simple-minded platitude beloved by all those who want to curtail basic press and speech freedoms:  ”Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security.” 

Every line of pro-prosecution rationale cited by Feinstein applies equally to journalists — includingespecially the newspapers from around the world which are publishing all of the same diplomatic cables as WikiLeaks is, and which are publishing them before WikiLeaks even does.  How can it possibly be that WikiLeaks should be prosecuted for espionage, but not The New York Times, or The Guardian, or any other newspaper that publishes these cables? 

In 2006, Alberto Gonzales threatened to prosecute The New York Times for revealing Bush’s illegal NSA program, and The Weekly Standard ran numerous articles calling for the prosecution of NYT journalists and editors under the Espionage Act for having done so.  Bill Bennett demanded the prosecution of The Washington Post‘s Dana Priest for revealing the CIA black sites.  How can all the Good Democrats who condemned that mentality possibly not condemn Dianne Feinstein and those who think like her?  What’s the difference?

(4) Here is the American justice system under Obama in a nutshell:

 The New York Times, January 11, 2009:


The New York Times, June 11, 2010


Salon, yesterday

  To recap “Obama justice”:  if you create an illegal worldwide torture regime, illegally spy on Americans without warrants, abduct people with no legal authority, or invade and destroy another country based on false claims, then you are fully protected.  But if you expose any of the evils secretly perpetrated as part of those lawless actions — by publishing the truth about what was done — then you are an Evil Criminal who deserves the harshest possible prosecution.

 (5) I was on Democracy Nowthis morning talking about Assange’s arrest; in particular, I was describing why and how I believe that these attacks on WikiLeaks are a literal war over who controls the Internet and the purposes to which it can be used (see my post yesterday for some of that explanation) 



Posted in PoliticsComments Off on ANTI-WILILEAKS LIES & PROPAGANDA



December 7, 2010

by Paul J. Balles  

That Afghanistan is Corrupt is NOT News. Just How Corrupt is News!


Paul Balles

According to a report by Scott Shane, Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins of the New York Times, WikiLeaks exposes how, “From hundreds of diplomatic cables, Afghanistan emerges as a looking-glass land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm and the honest man is a distinct outlier.”

The New York Times report reveals how “…the collection of confidential diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of publications, offers a fresh sense of its pervasive nature, its overwhelming scale and the dispiriting challenge it poses to American officials who have made shoring up support for the Afghan government a cornerstone of America’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.”

Several commentators have complained of the embarrassment engendered by the WikiLeaks exposure. Washington Post commentator Charles Krauthammer claims that WikiLeaks have caused more problems than embarrassment.

First, says Krauthammer, “damage to our war-fighting capacity…Second, we’ve suffered a major blow to our ability to collect information…Third, this makes us look bad, very bad.”

As an example of damage to our war fighting capacity, Krauthammer says, “This will undoubtedly limit our freedom of action against (al-Qaeda’s) Yemeni branch.  Translated into reality, that means the CIA will be constrained from going into Yemen at will and assassinating al-Qaeda suspects on its hit list.

But that’s an argument that you might expect from a neocon commentator who pushed for the invasion of Afghanistan and pre-emptive strikes and occupation of Iraq.

Krauthammer’s rationale for his second argument reads, “Success in the war on terror depends on being trusted with other countries’ secrets. Who’s going to trust us now?”

This displays Krauthammer’s ignorance of the US classification system. In the U.S., information is “classified” if it has been assigned one of the three levels: confidential, secret, or top secret.

If information related to “the war on terror” is vital to other’s trust or US security, it should have been classified top secret.  None of the documents released by WikiLeaks were top secret. “By law, information may not be classified merely because it would be embarrassing or to cover illegal activity; information may only be classified to protect national-security objectives.”

“Third, this makes us look bad, very bad,” writes Krauthammer. “What’s appalling is the helplessness of a superpower that not only cannot protect its own secrets but shows the world that if you violate its secrets – massively, wantonly and maliciously – there are no consequences.”

If there are consequences that should be imposed, they should fall to the US government. They complained bitterly about how Afghan informants names were included in the WikiLeaks report, thus endangering the informants.

However, Australian investigative journalist John Pilger reported that prior to the release of the Afghan War Diaries in July, WikiLeaks contacted the White House in writing, asking that it identify names that might draw reprisals, but received no response.

Yet Krauthammer has called the WikiLeaks documents “sabotage” and concludes by saying “I’m not advocating that we bring out of retirement the KGB proxy who, on a London street, killed a Bulgarian dissident.”

If that’s not what Krauthammer advocates, why does he even mention such a fate in his hammering of WikiLeaks?

Countries and organizations need to protect their valid secrets with the right kind of classification.  Laws concerning classifications were not created to allow careless failure to protect legitimate national interests.

At the same time, classification should not be used as a shield to inhibit whistle-blowers and to prevent public

disclosures of activity that should be exposed.

Transparency precludes keeping secrets that should not be secret.

Copyright @ Paul Balles

PAUL BALLES: American Public Generally Unaware of Israel’s Theft of U S Military Secrets

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on WICKED WIKILEAKS



“Is Iran Really the Threat to the Region and the World it is Alleged to be by Israeli and Arab Leaders?”

Alan Hart

Some commentators, bloggers and other writers, were quick to jump to the conclusion that the avalanche of documents being released by WikiLeaks is part and parcel of an Israeli/Mossad deception strategy. One implication being that WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange is, knowingly or not, manipulated by Zionism.


On the basis of the first two or three days of the Wikileaked revelations as reported by the mainstream media, in America especially, there most definitely was a case for saying that the agenda best served by the leaked diplomatic cables was that of the Zionist state of Israel, its lobby in America and its many stooges in Congress. The essence of the case was in the message that Iran is the biggest single threat to the peace of the region and the world not only because the Israelis say so but also because Arab leaders agree with them.

In my last post I quoted Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, as saying he thought it was possible that Wikileaks was being fed and manipulated by intelligence services. And I stated my own belief of the moment that the question of whether or not this is so was worthy of investigation.

But as the flow of leaked cables increases, and with time for reflection, I no longer believe that such an investigation is necessary.

The problem is not the manipulation of WikiLeaks by any foreign intelligence service but, in effect, the manipulation by key players in the mainstream media, in America especially, of the material WikiLeaks is providing.

And here’s just one example to  make the point.

When it learned from Wikileaked diplomatic cables that Arab leaders were at one with Israeli leaders in wanting the U.S. to attack Iran, journalism with integrity would have asked something like the following question. “Is Iran really the threat to the region and the world it is alleged to be by Israeli and Arab leaders?”

If that question had been asked, the honest answer would have been “No, of course it isn’t!”

As I and others have pointed out a number of times, even a nuclear-armed Iran would not pose a threat to Israel’s existence or that of the states of the impotent and repressive Arab regimes which are more or less content to do the bidding of America-and-Zionism. To really believe otherwise (as opposed to not really believing but saying so for propaganda purposes) is to assume that a nuclear-armed Iran would at some point launch a first strike. That would never happen because Iran would be inviting its own complete destruction.

If Iran does end up with a nuclear bomb or several, it will be for the purpose of deterrence only. (As I said in my last post, if I was an Iranian, even one who hated the regime of the mullahs, I would feel more secure in the face of Israeli and American threats if my country did possess a nuclear bomb for deterrence).

Though much of it was confirmatory for informed journalists and politicians, the Wikileaked information is new but the real problem is not. It is (generally speaking) the mainstream media’s lack of integrity, in America especially; a lack of integrity which, in its reporting of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, manifests itself in one of two ways – in some cases by knowingly peddling Zionist propaganda, in other cases by self-censoring the truth about Israel’s crimes out of fear of offending Zionism too much or at all.

In my view Assange has damaged his own cause by releasing details of facilities around the world which U.S. authorities regard as being vital to America’s national security. By doing so he has given his enemies in governments everywhere what they did not previously have – a fig leaf of justification for their efforts to silence him.

If they succeed, the threat to what passes for democracy in the Western world, in America especially, will be even greater than it currently is.

2010 Copyright – Alan Hart==================



Posted in WorldComments Off on IS IRAN REALLY THE THREAT TO THE WORLD?



December 6, 2010

by J. Bruce Campbell 


In comparison with the father, the son hasn’t killed as many people yet. We seem to forget just how many Iraqis George H. W. Bush really killed with his Desert Storm and follow-up punishments of the Iraqi people, which were in the guise of “UN sanctions.” Ramsey Clark was claiming over a million victims back in the late ’90s, I believe. The sardonically-named Operation Iraqi Freedom is just a continuation of the Bush/Clinton years of Zionist sadism against the Semitic people – the only people entitled to live in the Middle East (plus the Persians). Zionists are not Semitic. Arabs are Semitic. Zionists are anti-Semitic. They are also the biggest liars on the face of this earth.


Bush War Criminal

Back in ’91, when I was freshly outraged by Bush’s aggression against Panamanians and Iraqis, I was visited by three agents of the Secret Service at my home in Los Angeles. A couple of others named Silverman and Levine had pushed their way into my mother’s house in Carmel, looking for me, the day before. I had written something called Executive Action, a chapter of my new book, and had sent it out to subscribers who wanted to get the thing hot off the presses.

The CIA assassin, Bo Gritz, got a hold of it and passed it to his colleagues in the FBI, who passed it along to the Secret Service. In the piece I went over Bush’s role in the assassination of Jack Kennedy, just to show his CIA pedigree, and also his treachery against his Central American and Mesopotamian victims. I wrote that this country-club commando had an extremely sinister side: He was a client of the Nebraska child-sex procurer Larry King, according to John DeCamp and Ted Gunderson, and he was the assassin known as “Icepick,” according to Admiral Gunther Russbacher of the Office of Naval Intelligence and CIA, who was in a position to know.

The Secret Service didn’t care for my attitude and the three amigos who came to my house said they would kill me if I were seen anywhere near their boss. I had been classified as a terrorist by the Secret Service and FBI during the summer of 1990. I was probably lucky to survive the visit. The SS doesn’t operate under the same rules of engagement as do the regular police. They are truly licensed to kill, at their discretion. No questions asked. They just said they’d kill me if they saw me near Bush.

Bush sent Russbacher to prison around 1990 to keep him from talking about the October Surprise of 1980, in which Bush made a deal with the Iranian ayatollahs to hold on to their American hostages for a few extra months so that Jimmy Carter couldn’t free them in time for the November election. That was the birth of the Iran-Contra scandal in which Israel was given billions of dollars of military spare parts which they sold to the Iranians and gave some of their profits to Oliver North, who then set up the Mena, Arkansas operation to trade AK-47s for cocaine with the CIA mercenaries we knew as the Contras.

The Contras were “against” the people Jimmy Carter installed in Nicaragua the year before – the Sandinistas. Bill Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, ran “the Enterprise” for North and Bush until he got too greedy and it was shut down and temporarily run out of Guadalajara by North’s agent, Terry Reed, who described the dirty details in his astonishing book, Compromised. Oliver North, using his CIA name (“John Cathey”) and Bill Clinton flooded American cities with cocaine, which Gary Webb tried to describe in his series in the San Jose Mercury News before he was murdered.

Russbacher approached me from federal prison around 1992. His boss, a higher-ranking admiral, gave him my book, The New American Man – A Call to Arms, which called for the violent overthrow of the US government. (I couldn’t think of any other way to do it and I still can’t.) They thought I might be useful as part of their Faction 2 group to take over from the Rockefeller/Bush gang they called Faction 1. They released certain sensitive information through my column in the National Educator newspaper. Russbacher revealed to me that he was the pilot of a business jet who flew Bush and a dozen politicians of both parties to Paris in October, 1980 to meet with the Iranians to make the deal. And he flew Bush alone back to Washington DC in an SR-71 Blackbird at supersonic speeds that gave Bush the ability to deny that such a trip had ever occurred, with the help of corrupt, lying Secret Service agents faking his schedule that day. The hostages were held until his and Reagan’s inauguration ceremony, as agreed in Paris.

After he became the acting president following the near-death of Reagan, Bush started helping Saddam’s Iraq against the Iranians, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides. This was a world-class war crime by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their Zionist managers. No one in America knew that we were supplying the Iraqis against the Iranians until the USS Stark was attacked by Iraq in May, 1987 and thirty-seven US sailors killed. George Schultz assured us that it was a mistake because we were in fact supplying Iraq in its war against Iran. Fourteen months later, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner and slaughtered two hundred ninety Iranian passengers. This was a notable war crime. What made it more notable was the aftermath.

In 1990, after an official enquiry, the captain of the Vincennes was awarded by President George H. W. Bush the Legion of Merit for “exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of an outstanding service.” Al Capone couldn’t have put it better!

One of Bush’s first independent actions as president was his 1989 invasion of Panama and the kidnapping and silencing of his cocaine stooge, Manuel Noriega. This is where we saw the secret mass graves of approximately six thousand Panamanian civilians, dug by US army bulldozers and shown on CBS’s 60 Minutes one Sunday evening in 1990. The next week, CBS apologized for showing that and said it never really happened. This was a major war crime and cover-up by the Zionist media/government combination.

I think it was around this time that the US press lost its guts in the realization that the Bush gang was a bunch of stone killers.

Right after Desert Storm, Bush nearly got killed by the Israelis. He always gave Israel about 99% of what it wanted, including 10 billion dollars in “loan guarantees” for allowing America to wipe out its Iraqi enemy in 1991. But when Bush and Baker told Israel to back off on the “settlements,” and threatened to delay the loan guarantees, the Mossad decided to assassinate Bush, according to Victor Ostrovsky, who wrote about the plot in his second book, The Other Side of Deception. Ostrovsky himself warned the Secret Service that Bush would be killed in Spain at the G-8 conference. They believed him, since Ostrovsky was a career Mossad officer. The loan guarantees, obviously, were given to Israel after that.

Bush was a conflicted guy whose voice was a combination of John Wayne and Liberace. Russbacher told me that the bisexual Bush started out after Yale as an assassin for the CIA, and liked to use an icepick on his victims. Russbacher was also an assassin for the ONI and CIA and the son of a founder of CIA, and was thus in a position to know his colleagues and their resumes.

Bush came from the Yale sex and power club known as the Brotherhood of Death, or Skull & Bones. His penchant for killing became apparent to us all in 1991, less than a year after he bragged on television about the New World Order (on September 11, 1990). His version of it began with the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent mass murders of over a million souls on behalf of the Zionist entity and his own powerbase, Big Oil. Bush was himself a one-third partner in Pennzoil and as that an owner of Getty Oil and Texaco.

As I wrote in Jewish Rule, our criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq is for the purpose of keeping Iraqi oil in the ground, and out of the gas tanks of consumers, where it would lower the price of fuel due to its fabulous abundance. Proven Iraqi reserves place it in the Top Five, along with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela and Gulf States. That’s the admitted Top Five. There are other Top Fives that are kept secret and include the Beaufort Sea, Colorado, MacKenzie River and the Falkland Islands. Fact is, there’s just too much oil and something has to be done to keep it in the ground. The first place to do that is Iraq. To add to Big Oil’s problems, a Florida man has recently patented a device that alters water molecules slightly for use as a clean and virtually free replacement for gasoline as fuel. He has prudently withdrawn his brilliant invention from the market for a few years.

Anyway, the subject is War Crimes, which are the most serious of all crimes as they include murder, rape, torture, kidnapping and general aggression and lying. The murder is mass murder and this cannot be overemphasized. Our government employees are mass murderers and they do it in our name. Some Americans still justify the nuclear bombing of Japanese civilians by citing the brutal behavior of their soldiers, sailors and airmen, all of which was uncontrollable by the civilians. Many Americans still insist that collective punishment in the form of evaporation for most and agonizing slow death for some was proper. But because the women and children and old men of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t disarm the Japanese army, they deserved to be incinerated.

I disagree. I believe that only the guilty should be punished. And the punishment should fit the crime. But by the prevailing standard in this country, we are all due for collective punishment for sponsoring and supporting our warlords of Washington.

George W. Bush is a certified war criminal. He’s a chip off the old block. When I say “Bush,” of course I refer to the whole organized crime syndicate under – and over – him. Every single person in the Bush Administration is subject to prosecution for war crimes and this is demonstrated by the actions of the sinister little character known as Alberto R. Gonzales, our 80th Attorney General, when he warned Bush of their exposure and then went to GOP lawmakers seeking an exemption from the War Crimes Act of 1996. Gonzales is a Harvard Law School graduate and he knows how to read a statute. It is easy to see why he is worried:

“The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. The law defines a war crime as a violation or grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions. The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the US armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims.” (Wikipedia)

Gonzales is the one who advised Bush to ignore the Geneva Conventions with regard to kidnap, torture and murder of Moslems. He’s the one who called those protections “quaint.” He recommended the building and staffing and use of offshore torture centers in Cuba, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and throughout Europe. They’re all modeled on the Israeli torture centers. Alberto Gonzales represents a dangerous specimen of humanity – the highly educated professional who sells his skills to rich and greedy murderers such as George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Now, this might not affect the Bush crime syndicate as long as he remains in office, but it could. These Bush hoodlums are all subject to the death penalty, according to the War Crimes Act of 1996, because their conduct has resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of victims. They waged aggressive war, something so heinous that our own government made it a hanging offense right when they declared it illegal. And our government hanged a bunch of people who hadn’t known about the law, because it wasn’t against the law when they went to war (to defend themselves from us). We call that an ex post facto law, and at the time of the kangaroo court in Nuremberg, such a law was illegal for the US to enforce. But that was then and this is now. Now, everyone knows that if you wage aggressive war you can be hanged as a war criminal. That’s why we’ve got Saddam in that kangaroo courthouse in Baghdad – for waging aggressive war against the Kurds. It’s the most serious crime with hanging as the expected punishment. Knowing well how the Germans were abused at Nuremberg, Saddam has asked to be shot rather than hanged.

Gonzales knew all this and he warned Bush that taking the US to war in Iraq under false pretenses was going to be judged as a war crime and that they all could be arrested, tried and hanged as war criminals. And he went to the Republican Party leadership and begged for some kind of exemption for them all. Maybe he got it, but I don’t know how.

But let’s say he got it. Let’s say that Senator Bill Frist and Senator Pat Roberts and the GOP warlords somehow stymie a special prosecutor that the Democrats might appoint if the elections go sour. Or that the Democrats lose their nerve and let the war criminals off, since most of them voted for the war crimes to take place, although they now claim ignorance. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Let the politicians handle it?

Keep on voting?

I say no. No more voting. No more Elephant and Donkey puppet shows. See where voting has got us? Voting has got us into the slaughterhouse. Next stop: the poorhouse. Voting is for cowards. Voting is weak people hiring strong people to boss them around and steal their money and make all their decisions for them.

Voting is for cowardly fools who will not take responsibility for their own lives. And that’s ignoring the subject of vote fraud and our rigged elections. Even if the vote was honest, and it’s not, it’s still a cowardly practice.

How do we regain our honor and dignity now that we know that we are led by sadistic war criminals who have ordered the torture, rape and murder of thousands upon thousands of harmless and friendly people? War criminals whose only hope to escape the hangman is more corruption by lawmakers and police and prosecutors and judges, most of whom are corrupt Freemasons?

Voting is the trademark of Democracy, right? So, what is Democracy? I’ll tell you.

Democracy is what we could call Jewish rules of conduct. Last month I wrote something called Jewish Rule. It was a warning of the horrors involved in allowing Jews to rule a society, as they ruled Russia after 1917, all of East Europe after 1945 and Palestine since 1948. By Jewish Rule I referred to Communism and Zionism.

Democracy, however, is a transition stage from liberty to Communism in which Jews make the rules of society by controlling the currency and credit and virtually all media of communication, thereby keeping public criticism within bounds acceptable to Jewish censors, and they censor everything. Practically every special interest group in America has a Jew in it who tries to control the group’s actions and policies. No group is exempt, not even the Toy Train Collectors’ Association, for example, or the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association or your homeowners’ association. Certainly no group devoted to anything remotely connected with politics does not have a Jew in it who gravitates to a position of power very quickly and makes his or her position even more powerful.

Nowadays, all these Jews are Zionists who demand support for Israel, or prohibit criticism of Israel.

Israel is called “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is true, because “democracy” now means Rule by Jews, or at least Jewish rules of conduct. It doesn’t mean majority rule, it means minority rule. Our craven politicians vie for the crucial “Jewish vote,” even though it represents only 2% of the population. Notice that in Israel, the Semitic majority does not have a political voice at voting time. The Semitic majority doesn’t get to vote in that democracy. They can’t even vote in their own Palestinian elections the way they want, as we see in the case of Hamas being voted into power by a landslide in the little sliver of land that is still called Palestine. Israel simply nullified the election and started arresting and murdering the newly-elected representatives. Now, that is pure Democracy!

It has just been revealed that the Bush crime syndicate is behind the invasion of Lebanon by the inept Israeli killers and that the invasion has been in the works for over two years as a run-up to an invasion by joint US/Israeli aggressors against Iran and Syria. Bush’s neo-con geniuses figured it would be another cakewalk, as they figured the invasion of Iraq would be a cakewalk. As this is written, Israel is begging for some kind of international force to replace its battered killers in south Lebanon. America can’t do it, due to its little misadventure in Iraq. How these Zionist planners figure to take over Syria and Iran, even after they nuke them, is beyond this cowboy’s imagination.

Have you heard talk radio lately, since the invasion of Lebanon by Israel? It is like something out of a William Pierce novel. All the hosts I’ve heard in the past month, Jew and Gentile alike, are united in their snarling support of Israel’s “right to defend itself.” They are also united in their desire that Syria and Iran be attacked with nuclear weapons. In other words, they are all war criminals. We hanged a man at Nuremberg named Julius Streicher because he had a tabloid in the early days of the NS period that was critical of Jews.

He was no more a part of the Hitler government that Sean Hannity is of the Bush government, but he was hanged in the most sadistic fashion by a Jewish hangman. It is something that I have warned Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh about, because they have exhorted Americans and the American government to wage aggressive war against the enemies of Israel on behalf of Israel and as such they are subject to arrest, prosecution and hanging as war criminals.

They’ve done far worse than Julius Streicher ever did. All Streicher did was tell the truth about Jews, and print political caricatures of them. Hannity, Doyle, Coulter, Limbaugh, the Savage Wiener, O’Reilly and the rest are paid liars who owe their stinking careers to the Zionists at Fox, Clear Channel and the Anti-Defamation League. Their favorite new buzz-word is “Islamo-fascist,” which Bush copped from the Savage Wiener. Now, “fascist” is a real word with an actual definition. But that’s not how Jews and their useful idiots use it.

For example, thirty years ago, Clint Eastwood’s script-reader, a Jewess named Sonia Chernus, told me that my first screenplay was “fascist.” It was about my anti-terror work in Rhodesia which by its nature was anti-Communist. Jews hate anti-Communists because to them it is the same as anti-Jewish. So, while the average Birch anti-Communist didn’t know it, the Jews knew that he was anti-Jewish and their dirty word for that is “fascist.” It is the next step up from “anti-Semitic,” which can lose you your job. “Fascist” can get your house burned, depending how active you are, and “amalek” can get you arrested and killed. This is because the Amalek not only didn’t like Jews, they didn’t like the Jewish god.

I personally want to see them all hanged. I want to be the hangman of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and all the Zionist liars on radio and television who have helped to get so many people killed. The damage they have done is really beyond calculation. I realize that there a lots of guys such as myself, but I want to be the first to put it on the record.

The other night the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, gave a masterful interview to CBS Television. The next day and ever since, the Zionist gasbags have been united in their condemnation not only of Ahmadinejad but of Mike Wallace, the old Zionist who interviewed him, mainly because Wallace was half-way polite, in his own obnoxious way. “Answer the question!” [about the president’s demand that Israel disappear] Ahmadinejad finally asked him, “Are you the representative of the Zionist regime? Or a journalist?” Wallace answered, “I am a journalist. I am a journalist.”


The point is that our government is apparently planning to wage nuclear warfare against Iran and possibly Syria while Bush is still president. The Zionists know that the Democrats may win next time and that they won’t be as easy to manipulate. The Zionists are desperate to seize the entire Middle East NOW. They blew their best chance in 1967 when they failed to sink the USS Liberty and blame it on the Egyptians. That one would have worked because many people admired Israel then. This current one is a messy failure that no one is buying because Israel has been revealed as a tiny nation of liars, psychopaths and pirates. They may never have the opportunity again in their lifetimes to steal the entire Middle East and call it Eretz Israel. So they’re going for it now. They want to control all the oil.

So we must make it clear to the war criminals that we shall punish them. We must punish them or we are not men. All those who have committed war crimes in our name must be punished in ways that match their crimes. This is the only way that America can be saved. There must be public executions of all the men and women who took us to war based on lies, who ordered the slaughter and torture and kidnap of totally innocent people who offered not the slightest threat to our precious American way of life.

The sadists of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay must be punished for crimes against humanity. The bomber pilots must be punished, the infantrymen who destroyed homes and slaughtered the people, the ones who launched the cruise missiles from ships at sea. All of them. Our government already established at Nuremberg that “just following orders” is no excuse when it comes to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are one and the same thing.

These people must all be hanged, which is the accepted and traditional American punishment for capital crimes and especially for war crimes. They have already committed the crimes that call for their hanging, so they feel they have nothing to lose by nuking Iran and Syria for their Israeli masters. How the nuking of Iran and Syria would be good for the Jews is another question that we can’t examine here because of its mind-numbing insanity. We are up against a combination of cunning, greed and insanity that is hard to describe, let alone argue with. It can only be exterminated, as we do with dangerous or filthy insects and vermin in our homes. And when we’re dealing with rats and cockroaches, we don’t take any of them prisoner.

If we don’t hang our war criminals then we are subject to collective punishment by our victims down the road. This is obvious, because that’s what we have done to everyone else. We must show the rest of the world that we are responsible for our leaders’ crimes. We must take total responsibility for the direction of this country before our war criminals destroy the Middle East and probably Europe. This is the only way we can avoid being destroyed ourselves by those who must do something in self-defense. The Iranians know that Bush and Olmert are contemplating their nuclear annihilation. They therefore are justified right now to attack us anyway they can. That is the law of survival and everyone is entitled to defend himself. Everyone has the right to survive, except aggressors. Aggressors deserve to die. Traitors must die because their treachery puts all countrymen in deadly danger. It is the law of survival.

As this is written, while we have thousands of soldiers defending South Korea’s border, thousands more defending Israel’s borders, Bush has smeared the defenders of the Mexican border as “vigilantes.” Bush really hates those guys. They’ve shown what a rat-fink he is, especially when he gave their locations to the Mexican government so the wetbacks could be diverted around the Minutemen. Remember that? That has to qualify as a text-book example of Treason, for Mexico is waging war against us, sending illegal invaders day and night, with the aid and support of George W. Bush.

The question is probably being asked: How can our war criminals be punished if we get yet another sell-out special prosecutor such as Ken Starr or this useless Fitzgerald, who talked so tough about Karl Rove and then faded? That’s the point of this essay, which is that war criminals must be hanged. It doesn’t matter anymore if the government won’t protect us from war criminals. We’ll do it ourselves, since we pay the bills. War criminals may be above the law of the American Bar Association but they are not above the law of frontier justice, the dreaded law of the vigilante or the law of our survival.

To survive as Americans, to demonstrate our responsibility to the rest of the world and to take charge of this shipwreck before it sinks into the murky depths, we must take the law into our own hands. All war criminals must be captured, tried in a manner that reveals the true nature of their crimes and hanged by the neck until they are dead. From this time forward, there is an open season on war criminals. If we don’t do this then it shows the world that we endorse the war criminals. And payback will be a bitch because these guys have made some very bad karma for us.

The reasons for this should be obvious. However, these same war criminals are the ones who have designed the North American Union, scheduled to take effect in 2010. This will be a martial law style of dictatorship over us, run by the ubiquitous criminals of the Council on Foreign Relations, located at 58 E. 68th Street in Manhattan in the building known as Harold Pratt House. This building is the de facto seat of government of the United States, soon to be known as the Central District of the North American Union.

This building, for symbolic reasons, should be reduced to ashes and rubble at our earliest possible convenience. It houses the world’s most dreadful war criminals who have been and are now responsible for the untimely and terror-filled deaths of millions of people around the world since 1914.

Their little private ministry of war wasn’t officially formed until 1921, but the same war criminals seized power in Wilson’s administration and started World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution. The CFR was just their method to guarantee continuity and control of the staffing of the State Department and the White House under all presidents after Wilson, most of whom were also CFR members. The Council on Foreign Relations is the Rothschild central control of our country and it reportedly has a membership that is 70% Jewish, which is pretty good for a group that has only 2% of our population.

The various agencies of the gangster state of Israel must be similarly disposed of. No more Jewish rules of conduct, and no Jewish Rule under the North American Union. Do we want to be the laughingstock of the world? I should say, do we want to continue to be the laughingstock of the world? To be big, tough Americans who let a bunch of creepy Jews run us like cattle? Right now, they’re the cowboys and we’re the cows. They make us commit war crimes against their enemies. They make us as hated as they are because the two governments are in lock-step.

The issue now is War Crimes. Some of us require a just cause to take the law into our own hands (where it truly belongs). That just cause is War Crimes, whether or not we need a just cause. War Crimes give us the power we need to seize control of our lives.

We can never be real men until we accept total responsibility for our government’s crimes. Our government cannot be changed or turned into a positive force – it can only be dismantled and outlawed and prohibited from ever forming again. Government can only destroy us, never help us. Study the Masonic US Constitution and try to find any way that the American government was designed to do something good. It was only designed to keep the powerful men in power. It took the Bill of Rights to protect us from the Constitution.

Most people don’t understand this basic fact, that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in mortal opposition. And now the Bill of Rights is technically dead, thanks to Bush’s so-called PATRIOT Act, which has been declared “Constitutional” by the Gang of Nine, by the simple fact that it has not been declared “un-Constitutional.” Almost all crimes committed by the government have been declared “Constitutional” by the Supreme Court. Where is the “check and balance” on the Masonic Supreme Court, if it should, say, appoint a demented war criminal as the President of the United States, even though he didn’t get enough votes? Because that’s exactly what happened six years ago.

This government must be dismantled and the war criminals removed from society before they kill us all.

This essay may have shocked some readers. It is high-time to face reality and the reality is that the US government is the main enemy of mankind. Its little puppet state, Israel, is the American “force projection” against the oil-producing countries of the Middle East. Whether America controls Israel or vice-versa doesn’t matter. What matters is that the combination of the American government and Israel is the malignant tumor that will kill this world if it is not taken apart and crushed, piece by piece.

* The article was originally published in 2006.  It has been reposted by the author because it’s relevant today.

Posted in USAComments Off on WAR CRIMES



December 6, 2010

by Gordon Duff 



Forever, Israel told us that the Arab nations couldn’t be trusted, that they were ruled by duplicitous back stabbers.  Now, Wikileaks has proven that right beyond question.  It turns out, the Arab world, all those nations that we thought were preparing to attack Israel, you know, the ones whose tanks were getting ready to close in on Tel Aviv, were actually on Israel’s side.  Wikileaks tells us that, since 1979, the countries the US has given Israel more than a hundred billion dollars to protect themselves from where actually working with Israel all along.

Boy, that must be egg on America’s face.

Not only that, Israel had been telling us all along that these countries were petty dictatorships, run by liars and fools, petty criminals who would sell their own people down the river for a dollar.  Now we find those same criminals and dictators have been working with Israel for over 30 years, information from Wikileaks that has the people of these Middle East dictatorships reeling in shock.

So, now we have it, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and others, several others, all nations America had been told time and time again were preparing to attack Israel were, in fact, allied with Israel against Iran.  This means, of course, that when Wikileaks put this information out, it didn’t really expose the American government but rather two other groups:


  1. Israel:  A nation that pretended to be a poor victim while becoming a nuclear power and the third largest arms exporter in the world, in fact selling billions in weapons each year to the very nations they convinced Americans were ready to attack them.  Bravo Israel!!

  2. The Press:  For decades, the press has grossly misrepresented political alignments within the Middle East, creating an atmosphere of fear and threat, terrorizing the Jewish community in the United States with decades of outright lies and total fabrications.  Do we cheer liars and criminals?  Sure we do.  Hurrah for the press, champion liars of the world!!


Discounting Syria, Iran and part of Lebanon, the entire region, all the way to China, is one oligarchy after another, countries run by the rich with governments that have one purpose above all others, to crush the poor and downtrodden, even if it causes religious extremism in the process.  They can always sell more oil, borrow more money or, as with Yemen, call in the United States to kill off anyone who doesn’t like what is going on.

What makes all this possible is the stranglehold Israel has over the American government.  This is a boon to the Islamofascists.  Without Israel there, America would simply ignore things and democracy might just set in and spoil everything.  Keeping Israel and America around keeps the petrodollars in the right pockets and the poor and ignorant, well, poor and ignorant.

Now and then, some of those poor and ignorant would strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves and those around them to pieces.  However, from a cost/benefit analysis standpoint, such things were really good business.


Long ago, there was a Peter Sellers movie call The Mouse that Roared (1959).  The film is about a small duchy, East Fennwick, that is going broke.  They decide to declare war on the United States to take advantage of the reconstruction projects.  I know few American believe there could have been real corruption like that before Cheney and Halliburton, but it was there and well known enough to make a movie about.

There has been so much profit in terrorism and war that many economies in the Middle East are entirely built on it.  With over $3 trillion dollars disappearing into the Middle East, $100 billion going missing here and there on a whim, pretty soon it began to mount up.  As they say in Washington,

“A trillion here, a trillion there and, pretty soon, you are talking big money.”


Wiki Leaks Zionist War

For decades, American Jews and America’s congress, have been told Israel is ready to fall to the Arab armies.  However, since 1979, nearly every nation in the Middle East has been behind Israel and Israel and America have known it.  Everything Americans have heard, everything Jews have been warned about has been a lie.

Americans  had been ready to sacrifice everything to stem the collapse of Israel.  We were told Saudi Arabia was spending billions, arming the nations surrounding Israel, building their armies to crush the Jews.  Wikileaks now tell us that every word of that is a lie, every word from Israel, every word from Washington, every movie, every TV show, all of it made up, simply a way of scamming billions of dollars from the American taxpayer, not just for Israel but to build a military presence in the Middle East for reasons that never existed.

There never was a threat against Israel.  Instead, all the nations in the region have always been ready to attack Iran, led by Israel and the United States.

When the top intelligence officials of Pakistan tell me that Osama bin Laden has been dead for nearly a decade but it has to be kept secret, it all seems to be clear now.  When the BBC, years ago, told us that Al Qaeda never existed;


Wikileaks tends to “leak” one side of the story.  Anyone who has looked into it has, at one time or another, wondered why Wikileaks had nothing on this or nothing on that, even with the huge “dumps” of material.  How do you “dump” material with certain things missing unless someone has carefully picked through it?

I am not sure to anyone that news about America being unreliable is news at all.  It’s like Wikileaks slept through the entire Bush administration.  Hmm.  that’s a curious thought in itself?  Where were they when the phony intelligence on Iraq came out or when we found out that Building 7 at Ground Zero had been pre-wired for explosives.  (According to Geraldo Rivera of Fox News)

In fact, Wikileaks seems to be an Obama thing, acting as though the entire Bush administration never happened.  There were lots of things to talk about then, massive corruption, phony intelligence, military failures, all those crooked contractors.  It was the spring of 2010 when Wikileaks gave us the famous helicopter murder video, a timely piece, only 7 years late.

Now we learn that everything we were told about Middle East politics for 31 years was simply made up as part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy by congress, by the Pentagon, by a hand full of presidents, every president from Reagan onward, all petty crooks.

Oh, the media missed this?

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on ISRAEL WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG



December 6, 2010

by Allen L. Roland  



President Obama still doesn’t get the message from 2008 that he was elected as an agent of change ~ instead he refused to lead, lost his base, wasted his mandate  and thus ensured himself of a one term presidency: Allen L Roland 


 Here is a recent quote from President Barack Obama to reporters after he and congressional Republicans pledged warily to seek common ground on tax cuts and reducing spending in their first meeting since the midterm elections and where Obama apologized to the Republicans for not being more cooperative.“The American people did not vote for gridlock. They didn’t vote for unyielding partisanship. They’re demanding cooperation and they’re demanding progress. “

Now let me edit President Obama’s quote with what the American people really voted for ~

“The American people voted for dramatic change and mistakenly saw Obama as an agent of that change. They did not vote for the status quo or more of the same ~ which is what they have received from President Obama. They demanded real leadership and change while Obama has postured leadership but delivered equivocation and appeasement thus insuring his one term presidency ”

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman sums it up ~ “It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Obama’s measure ~ that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right… all indications are that the party will have to look elsewhere for the leadership it needs.”

The basic problem is that the Obama administration unfortunately is just as committed to American exceptionalism as the morally bankrupt Bush/Cheney was ~ which explains the present two party Oligarchy.

The time has come to clearly define the enemy as this two party oligarchy and concentrate on core common-ground issues versus the lesser of two evils  ~ here are the seven key core issues that keep 99% of the US population without political representation:

  1. The two-party system;

  2. Campaign finance;

  3. Lobbying;

  4. The revolving door;

  5. The concentration of media ownership;

  6. The big banks;

  7. The rule of law does not apply to the richest one-tenth of one percent of the population.

Here is a leader who gets it ~ an impassioned Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont takes the Senate to task on core issues of inequality / Must watch video     


First we define and articulate the change we desire and the true leaders and change agents will appear. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

 Allen L Roland

 Freelance Alternative Press Online columnist and psychotherapist Allen L Roland is also available for comments, interviews, speaking engagements and private consultations (




8 December 2010


CWP Update: New Report “All-Out War: Israel Against Democracy”

   1. Comprehensive Report on Intensifying Political Persecution in Israel

    CWP published a new report today, titled “All-Out War: Israel Against Democracy.” This comprehensive report documents the increasing political persecution of peace and human rights organizations and activists, and describes the connections between the assaults led by Israeli government officials, security forces, courts, journalists, and extreme-right organizations in this well-orchestrated offensive on democracy.

    The report was published in Hebrew, Arabic, Russian, and English.
    To download the full report (in English):

    “In the past two years, CWP has witnessed a growing wave of assaults on Israeli peace and human rights NGOs, and delegitimization and persecution of Jewish and Palestinian human rights defenders,” states the report. “According to our research and analysis, the assault on Gaza between December 2008 and January 2009, and the subsequent Goldstone Report, increased and accelerated international pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, voices of resistance within Israel , and the support and information they provide to international bodies and to the global peace movement, have become a strategic threat to the continued enforcement of the occupation. Silencing them has therefore become a primary goal for the Israeli government and Knesset and for right-wing movements within Israel .”

    But the report ends with the somewhat optimistic conclusion that: “The rise of such a coordinated offensive against the forces fighting the occupation, specifically at this moment in time, indicates the success of the local and global movements against the occupation […] This means that Israel will sooner or later have to address the criticism it attempts to suppress today.” The report marks the launch of a new CWP campaign responding to this political persecution.

    2. Petition to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

    CWP’s new report on the growing political persecution in Israel, and specific cases of violations of freedom of expression of human rights NGOs, peace activists, academics, and Arab Members of Knesset, were sent today to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion, Frank La Rue. The report was sent following a request from La Rue for information on violations of freedom of expression, for his upcoming visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in January.

    Among the examples of violations of freedom of expression and opinion documented in the report: anti-democratic bills proposed in the Knesset, such as the Nakba Bill, a proposed bill to dismantle NGOs that aid in the prosecution of Israeli officials abroad, and the Prohibition on Instituting a Boycott Bill; the recurring assaults on Arab Members of Knesset;  police brutality against protesters in solidarity vigils in Sheikh Jarrah and in peace demonstration during the assault on Gaza; and the attacks on leftist Israeli academics, led by the Minister of Education, Gideon Saar, and by the extreme right-wing movement Im Tirtzu.

     “The circumstances and cases described raise concerns regarding an orchestrated and widespread assault on the freedom of expression and opinion of Israeli human rights and peace organizations and Palestinian and Israeli human rights defenders,” concludes the letter sent to the UN Special Rapporteur. “Based on the documents we have enclosed, we respectfully request that you investigate these matters and communicate your concerns to the government of Israel and to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.”

    3. CWP in the Media

    A few links to articles in English about CWP’s work:

Associated Press: “Israeli Fast Train to Run Through West Bank ”
“Israeli government officials say they have taken steps to ensure that the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem line would one day benefit Palestinians […] But researcher Dalit Baum said that idea is ‘a cynical ploy that is only suggested in order to justify this train route as legal.’ Baum wrote a report on the project published this week by an Israeli watchdog group, the Coalition of Women for Peace.”

Der Spiegel: “German Rail Under Fire for Controversial Israeli Project”,1518,730090,00.html
“‘By crossing the border into the West Bank , the train line is unlawful and unethical,’ argues the Coalition of Women for Peace, a group of Israeli feminist peace organizations which has compiled a report on the project. The coalition argues that international law states that an occupier may not use occupied resources solely for the benefit of its own citizens.”

Ha’aretz: “Settlement Bus Company Hired to Shuttle OECD Jerusalem Participants”
“’The Coalition of Women for Peace and other organizations opposed Israel joining the OECD precisely because it’s impossible to separate the occupation economy – an exploitative element which runs contrary to international law – from the normative economy of Israel,’ the research coordinator for the organization’s Who Profits project, Merav Amir, told Ha’aretz.”

Associated Press: “Jewish Settlements Targeted in Divestment Campaign”
“’The big success is that is has become an issue,’ added Merav Amir of the Tel Aviv-based Coalition of Women for Peace, whose database of companies has become a resource for investors and activists.”

Baltimore Chronicle: “Israeli Banks Profiteering from Occupation”

And if you haven’t seen it yet, check out the fabulous video of the “Opertheid” flashmob, 
organized by the Coalition of Women for Peace and BOYCOTT!:
Ynet: “Leftists Chant ‘Stop Apartheid’ Outside Tel Aviv Opera”,7340,L-3985119,00.html

    In solidarity,

    The Coalition of Women for Peace

     To be removed from CWP’s international mailing list, please email:

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on ALL OUT WAR: ISRAEL AGAINST DEMOCRACY




J Street sends me their regular cracked-out strategies for achieving a two-state “solution” in Israel-Palestine. It’s endearing to see a sector of the American ruling-class even more clearly out of touch with reality than the rest of it. Here’s what Amy Spitalnick writes:

To address persistent stagnation in Israeli-Palestinians negotiations, J Street is putting forth a new policy proposal urging President Obama to adopt a bolder, more assertive strategy to resolve the conflict.

The pro-Israel, pro-peace movement is asking the administration not to pin its strategy on obtaining a 90-day extension of the partial settlement moratorium alone, but instead to focus on moving the parties towards a permanent agreement on borders and security.  Should the sides fail to reach such an agreement in a short, set period of time, J Street suggests that President Obama be prepared to put forward his own proposal and to create a clear moment of choice for both parties on central final status issues.

J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami released a short statement summarizing the key points of J Street’s new platform:

Should the U.S. and Israel reach an agreement that could extend by 90 days the partial moratorium on West Bank settlement construction, we would certainly welcome the resumption of direct talks.

However, whether direct talks resume or not, we believe the time has come for American efforts to shift from a heavy focus on getting the parties to decide whether to keep talking – to one that puts fundamental choices squarely before the parties about whether and how to end the conflict.

Therefore, we believe that it is time for the Obama Administration to adopt a “borders and security first” strategy that focuses on delineating a permanent border between Israel and a future state of Palestine, based on 100 percent of the land beyond the 1967 Green Line with one-to-one land swaps, as well as finalizing the necessary security arrangements for a two-state agreement.  Such a strategy should be adopted with or without a 90-day extension of the limited moratorium on settlement construction.

Setting an agreed-upon border would both create positive momentum to address other final status issues and eliminate the issue of settlements as a barrier to continued negotiations, as Israel and the Palestinians would be able to build where they please within their established borders.

Time is running out on the possibility of a two-state solution. Israel, the Palestinians, and America cannot afford yet another impasse that will make achieving a resolution all the more difficult and jeopardize Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic home, the viability of a Palestinian state, and America’s own interests in the region.

I’ll look more closely at the pipe dream “policy proposal” later. In the interim, the problem here is that it does not address the institutionalized reasons behind the Israeli refusal to put in place a Palestinian state on the ’67 borders. It does not address both the welfare-state components of the settler project, as well as the messianic zealotry behind the religious settlers as well as their supporters in Israeli society. Nor does it recognize that given that large sectors of Israeli power less ideologically attached to Zionism have most of their money parked outside Israel, they will see no reason to risk civil war, conflagration, or social restructuring of Israeli society for a very uncertain gain or outcome, which in any event their Zionism pre-disposes them to care very little about in the first place. J Street basically is saying, well, Obama’s dual bribe to the Israeli ruling class and Lockheed Martin failed to produce political support behind a settlement freeze, so let’s offer less and demand more. That’s utterly insane.

Technorati Tags: ,

Related posts:

  1. Open Shuhada Street! There will be an inter­na­tional day of action of…
  2. J Street hits a Roadblock: International Law I have just seen this J Street action notice claiming…
  3. J Street on “peace” Has J Street’s ridicu­lous reaction to the armed take-over of…
  4. the Lobby is powerful, but not all powerful Perhaps the most bizarre thing about attempts to really analyze…
  5. The Contradictions of J Street: Because Zionism Doesn’t Stop J Street has been a messy con­tra­dic­tion from the outset….


Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Posted in USAComments Off on J.STREET, FROM OUTER SPACE




Now it’s time for the MSM to stand up and stand firm


Posted: 07 Dec 2010 03:48 PM PST


So the New York Times may be investigated for espionage after publishing the Wikileaks cable documents?


Australia’s view of the world; suck Washington’s left toe hard


Posted: 07 Dec 2010 06:37 AM PST

More invaluable insights into how diplomacy really works. Egos and bowing to the US and Israel. That’s quite a vision for world peace and security (and what’s a few thousand civilians killed by our cluster bombs?)

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd is an abrasive, impulsive ”control freak” who presided over a series of foreign policy blunders during his time as prime minister, according to secret United States diplomatic cables.

The scathing assessment – detailed in messages sent by the US embassy in Canberra to Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton over several years – are among hundreds of US State Department cables relating to Australia obtained by WikiLeaks and made available exclusively to The Age.

”Rudd … undoubtedly believes that with his intellect, his six years as a diplomat in the 1980s and his five years as shadow foreign minister, he has the background and the ability to direct Australia’s foreign policy. His performance so far, however, demonstrates that he does not have the staff or the experience to do the job properly,” the embassy bluntly observed in November 2009.

Advertisement: Story continues below

The cables show how initially favourable American impressions of Mr Rudd, as ”a safe pair of hands”, were quickly replaced by sharp criticism of his micromanagement and mishandling of diplomacy as he focused on photo and media opportunities.

In a December 2008 review of the first year of the Rudd government, US ambassador Robert McCallum characterised its performance as ”generally competent” and noted Mr Rudd was ”focused on developing good relations with the incoming US administration [of President Barack Obama], and is eager to be seen as a major global player”.

Despite this, what were described as ”Rudd’s foreign policy mistakes” formed the centrepiece of the ambassador’s evaluation. Mr McCallum thought the prime minister’s diplomatic ”missteps” largely arose from his propensity to make ”snap announcements without consulting other countries or within the Australian government”.

According to the embassy, the government’s ”significant blunders” began when then foreign minister Stephen Smith announced in February 2008 that Australia would not support strategic dialogue between Australia, the US, Japan and India out of deference to China. ”This was done without advance consultation and at a joint press availability with visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi,” Mr McCallum wrote.

Mr Rudd’s June 2008 speech announcing that he would push for the creation of an Asia-Pacific Community loosely based on the European Union was cited as a further example of a major initiative undertaken ”without advance consultation with either other countries (including South-East Asian nations, leading Singaporean officials to label the idea dead on arrival) or within the Australian government (including with his proposed special envoy to promote the concept, veteran diplomat Richard Woolcott)”.

Similarly Mr Rudd’s establishment of an international commission on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was ”rolled out … during a photo-op heavy trip to Japan … His Japanese hosts were given insufficient advance notice and refused a request for a joint announcement”.

The US embassy noted that Mr Rudd did not consult any of the five nuclear weapons states on the United Nations Security Council and that Russia had lodged a formal protest. One of Mr Rudd’s staff gave the US embassy a few hours’ advance notice of the announcement ”but without details”.

The cables also refer to ”control freak” tendencies and ”persistent criticism from senior civil servants, journalists and parliamentarians that Rudd is a micro-manager obsessed with managing the media cycle rather than engaging in collaborative decision-making”.

Eleven months later, in November 2009, the embassy delivered another sharp assessment that Mr Rudd dominated foreign policy decision-making, ”leaving his foreign minister to perform mundane, ceremonial duties and relegating the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to a backwater”.

”Other foreign diplomats, in private conversations with us, have noted how much DFAT seemed to be out of the loop,” US Charge d’Affaires Dan Clune reported. ”The Israeli ambassador [Yuval Rotem] told us that senior DFAT officials are frank in asking him what PM Rudd is up to and admit that they are out of the loop.” Mr Clune added that morale within DFAT had ”plummeted, according to our contacts inside as well as outside the department”.

The embassy also assigned blame for DFAT’s decline to the weakness of Mr Smith, who was dismissed as being ”on vacation”.

”Surprised by his appointment as foreign minister, Smith has been very tentative in asserting himself within the government,” Mr Clune wrote. ”DFAT contacts lamented that Smith took a very legalistic approach to making decisions, demanding very detailed and time-consuming analysis by the department and using the quest for more information to defer making decisions.”

David Pearl, a Treasury official who served on Mr Smith’s staff in 2004, told American diplomats that the foreign minister was ”very smart, but intimidated both by the foreign policy issues themselves and the knowledge that PM Rudd is following them so closely”.

Former DFAT first assistant secretary for north Asia, Peter Baxter, lamented to embassy officers that ”Smith’s desire to avoid overruling DFAT recommendations meant that he often delayed decisions to the point that the PM’s office stepped in and took over”.

The US embassy further recounted that after Israel initiated its military offensive in Gaza in December 2008, Israeli Ambassador Yuval Rotem contacted Mr Smith at his home in Perth to ask for Australia’s public support. Despite the obvious diplomatic and political sensitivity of the issue, ”Rotem told [the embassy] that Smith’s response was that he was on vacation, and that the ambassador needed to contact deputy prime minister Gillard, who was acting prime minister and foreign minister at the time.”

Paradoxically, Mr Rudd’s determination to dominate the foreign policy agenda diminished the influence of his own department, with one DFAT assistant secretary explaining to the embassy that the foreign policy staff of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) were ”overwhelmed supporting Rudd’s foreign policy activities, particularly his travel, which has reduced its ability to push its own agenda”.

In concluding his assessment, Mr Clune suggested that Mr Rudd’s ”haphazard, overly secretive decision-making process” would continue to generate foreign policy problems.

Seven months later, Mr Rudd lost the prime ministership, but he remains very much in charge of Australia’s diplomacy.


Media likes to be led by Washington how to react to news


Posted: 07 Dec 2010 06:28 AM PST

MacLeod Cartoons gets it:


Wikileaks in Catalan


Posted: 07 Dec 2010 06:20 AM PST


I was interviewed today by a Spanish Catalan publication based in Barcelona about the Wikileaks scandal. For those a little rusty on the language (hands up who can understand this?) I talked about the authoritarian impulse in many Western governments:

Julian Assange ja és en dependències judicials des de les 14 hores aproximadament, acompanyat dels seus advocats britànics Mark Stephens i Jennifer Robinson. Segons ha informat aquest mati Sky News, l’editor i cap visible de Wikileaks ha estat detingut per la policia britànica. Assange s’ha entregat acompanyat dels seus advocats per evitar que la seva imminent detenció es convertís en un circ mediàtic. Està previst que

en les properes hores es faci públic un vídeo amb declaracions de l’acusat.

Un cop ha prestat declaració davant la policia, Assange s’ha presentat als jutjats de City of Westminster i haurà d’esperar la decisió judicial, en virtut de la qual podria ser extradit a Suècia, d’acord amb l’ordre tramesa per l’Interpol per una presumpta violació. Segons ha fet saber el seu advocat Mark Stephens a la Britain’s Press Association, Assange intentarà evitar l’extradició als jutjats britànics.

Comunicat de la policia metropolitana de Londres

La Unitat d’Extradicions de la Policia Metropolitana de Londres ha informat en un comunicat que Assange s’ha entregat i ha estat detingut en el marc de l’Ordre Europea de Detenció. “Està acusat per les autoritats sueques d’un delicte de coacció, dos delictes d’abús sexual i un delicte de violació, que s’haurien comès l’agost de 2010″, diu el comunicat emès aquest matí, vora les 9:30 hora local.

Les filtracions continuaran

La detenció d’Assange no aturarà el flux de filtracions. Wikileaks ha informat a través de Twitter que aquest mateix vespre publicaran nous documents tot i “les actuacions d’avui contra el nostre editor”. En la mateixa línia s’ha pronunciat un portaveu sense identificar, que en declaracions a la BBC ha qualificat la dentenció d’”atac a la llibertat de premsa” que “no aturarà l’organització”.

Es convoquen protestes en defensa de Wikileaks

A l’espera de la compareixença d’Assange, s’estan portant a terme diverses protestes amb accions als carrers de Londres i a internet. Un grup anomenat Justice for Assange ha convocat una concentració de suport al detingut davant els jutjats, mentre que Anonymous, el grup d’activistes que setmanes enrere van deixar inoperativa la web de la SGAE, han fet un atac informàtic de denegació de servei contra la web del banc que va tancar el compte bancari d’Assange, deixant-la inaccessible durant diverses hores. Es tracta del mateix tipus d’atac que ha estat rebent el servidor de Wikileaks fins ahir mateix.

D’altra banda, per al proper divendres hi havia prevista una concentració a Syndney per recolzar el projecte. El periodista Antony Loewenstein, un dels ponents de l’acte, ha dit en declaracions al diari ARA que pretenen recordar la pressumció d’innocència d’Assange al govern del seu país natal. “Volem visibilitzar el recolzament públic a un ciutadà australià acusat pel seu govern de cometre actes il·legals sense cap prova. Wikileaks està fent un favor a la democràcia en revelar la veritable naturalesa de les accions del govern: ens han mentit durant massa temps”. Loewenstein ha assegurat que hi haurà parlament de ponents importants, “entre ells alguns polítics”.


This is how Australia is seen; vassals used by Washington over Wikileaks


Posted: 07 Dec 2010 05:46 AM PST


Wikileaks news is coming thick and fast.

Some “highlights” over the last 24 hours.


[Israeli] Defense Minister Ehud Barak Tuesday told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that a deal was never reached with the United States on a renewed settlement freeze because the US is preoccupied with the mass of documents being released by WikiLeaks.

Barak said, “At the moment, it has been completely halted” because of what he called a loss of American attention and concentration, saying they were “very busy with North Korea and the WikiLeaks releases.”


Several large Australian web-hosting companies said today they would be unlikely to host the Wikileaks repository if asked to by a customer, for a number of reasons.

Bulletproof Networks has earned a reputation for stability and reliability with its customers. The Australian company hosts several large Australian sites which attract record amounts of traffic — and sometimes controversy.

For example, the hosting provider houses broadband information site Whirlpool, one of Australia’s most controversial customer forums. Whirlpool has attracted numerous legal threats over the years, as well as denial-of-service attacks not dissimilar to the attacks that have targeted Wikileaks over the past several weeks as it released 250,000 US diplomatic cables to the public.

Bulletproof Networks director Lorenzo Modesto said his group hadn’t been approached, but that he would have to seriously consider ethical, political, commercial and “the most obvious” legal or potentially criminal implications of hosting a Wikileaks mirror for a customer if requested to do so.

“More than $1 billion per annum worth of transactions are served by Bulletproof’s mission-critical hosting infrastructure. As such, given potential issues with any number of the above considerations, we would probably kindly refuse, but refer them to another hosting partner like Rackspace,” he said. “The issue will be that the commercials required would preclude local public managed cloud hosting without the provider sponsoring it in some way.”

Another local web-hosting provider not known to shy away from controversy is Netregistry, run and co-founded by chief executive officer Larry Bloch.

Today, Bloch said that in many ways his sympathies were with the Wikileaks organisation, as he believed in transparency, but he thought the organisation had overstepped the mark in terms of the diplomatic cable release. “For the effective functioning of many sorts of relationships, you do need a bit of diplomatic secrecy,” he said.

In addition, the CEO said that typically Netregistry would tend not to make decisions about customers based on the content they wanted to host — as long as it wasn’t obviously illegal or unethical.

However, Bloch noted that the Wikileaks case was special, because of the scale of the situation from a technical perspective.

“It’d be suicide to put forward a hosting service other than one that is tailored absolutely to them,” he said, noting issues like the denial-of-service attacks could cause “ancillary damage”, and that Netregistry wasn’t set up for such needs.


Less than a month before a battle erupted in Beirut between Hezbollah and members of the ruling anti-Syrian coalition in May 2008, senior officials in the Lebanese government sent the U.S. embassy detailed intelligence that the militant group was operating an independent communications network across the country.

The uncovering of the network and the demand to shut it down were a central cause of the domestic rift in Lebanon.

A classified cable published by the online whistleblower WikiLeaks reveals that Minister of Telecommunications Marwan Hamadeh told U.S. diplomats that “Iran Telecom is taking over the country!”

The classified cable, sent by Charge d’Affaires Michele Sison in April 2008 from the embassy in Beirut to Washington, underscores the drama taking place in Lebanon over the course of those months and led to a “mini” civil war in Beirut.

The American diplomat wrote that Minister Hamadeh had asked to meet her urgently and disclosed to her a detailed survey of what he described as the complete fiber optic system that Hezbollah had established throughout Lebanon.

The previous evening, the Lebanese television station LBC had aired a program on Hezbollah’s telecommunications network, but Hamada told Sison that its existence had already been widely known.

Four (Glenn Greenwald in Salon):

Just look at what the U.S. Government and its friends are willing to do and capable of doing to someone who challenges or defies them — all without any charges being filed or a shred of legal authority.  They’ve blocked access to their assets, tried to remove them from the Internet, bullied most everyone out of doing any business with them, froze the funds marked for Assange’s legal defense at exactly the time that they prepare a strange international arrest warrant to be executed, repeatedly threatened him with murder, had their Australian vassals openly threaten to revoke his passport, and declared them “Terrorists” even though — unlike the authorities who are doing all of these things — neither Assange nor WikiLeaks ever engaged in violence, advocated violence, or caused the slaughter of civilians.



Let’s not get overly focused on Assange legal wranglings (and do US job for her)


Posted: 07 Dec 2010 05:45 AM PST

Just what the US wants; anything to not talk about its bankrupt foreign policy:

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has been arrested by London police on behalf of Swedish authorities on suspicion of rape.

The Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit confirmed at 10.30am London time (2030 AEDT) that the 39-year-old Australian had been arrested “by appointment” on a European Arrest Warrant an hour earlier.

Advertisement: Story continues below

The Swedish warrant cites one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape – all allegedly committed in August this year.

The Australian-born human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC, has cut short his annual summer holiday in Sydney to represent Mr Assange.

Mr Robertson and another specialist extradition lawyer from his Doughty Street Chambers are to act for Mr Assange and appear in a magistrate’s court within 24 hours to argue for bail. A full hearing of the extradition case must be heard inside 28 days.

However, London legal sources warned that the type of European arrest warrant issued against Mr Assange over sexual assault claims in Sweden was extremely difficult to “avoid or challenge”. He and his lawyers planned to fight the extradition with every available resource because of growing fears that this case would allow for preparation for an immediate follow-up and handover to US authorities in the wake of the release of hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables.

This website understands that Mr Robertson, whose Chambers are one of the few with specialist experience in extradition proceedings with Scandinavian nations, has been in contact with Mr Assange for some time about his defence and met with federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland last week about the case.

The surrender of Mr Assange is unfolding as his whistleblower’s website continued to battle a seemingly concerted global effort to combat further information release led by the US Attorney-General, Eric Holder.

Mr Holder said he had authorised “significant” actions aimed at prosecuting the WikiLeaks founder, but refused to specify what these might be.

“The lives of people who work for the American people have been put at risk. The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that I believe are arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way. We are doing everything that we can.”

Mr Assange is reported by The Guardian to be seeking supporters to put up surety and bail and has said he expected to have to raise between £100,000 and £200,000 – and six people offering surety – to stave off attempts to hold him in remand.

Mr Assange has reportedly told friends that he was increasingly convinced the US was behind Swedish prosecutors’ attempts to extradite him for questioning on the assault allegations.

He has previously said that the original allegations were the product of “personal issues” but that he now believed Sweden had behaved as “a cipher” for the US.

Mr Assange is wanted by Swedish detectives after two women claimed they were sexually assaulted by him when he visited the country last August. The Swedish supreme court upheld an order to detain him for questioning after he successfully appealed against two lower court rulings.

Mr Assange has also said that he declined to return to Sweden to face prosecutors because he feared he would not receive a fair trial and that prosecutors had requested that he be held in solitary confinement and incommunicado.

He has admitted that he was becoming exhausted by the battle to keep defending the allegations in Sweden while running the carefully managed release of the US cables at the same time.

A Swiss bank announced this week said that had shut down Mr Assange’s account because he had allegedly given “false information”, while the US-based commerce business PayPal has also frozen the WikiLeaks accounts, hindering the site’s ability to raise funds.

Assange has $61,000 (£38,000) in PayPal and $37,000 in the Swiss account, sources said.



New Assange op-ed in Aussie Murdoch paper


Posted: 07 Dec 2010 05:09 AM PST


Julian Assange, before being arrested in London, wrote the following article for Rupert Murdoch’s Australian newspaper. A curious choice of outlet considering the paper’s love of wars against, well, most Arab people, but there you go:

In 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide’s The News, wrote: “In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.”

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch’s expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.

I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.

These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia , was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.

WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.

If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.

WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain ‘s The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.

Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be “taken out” by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be “hunted down like Osama bin Laden”, a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a “transnational threat” and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister’s office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.

And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.

We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn’t want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.

Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: “You’ll risk lives! National security! You’ll endanger troops!” Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can’t be both. Which is it?

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US , with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan . NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn’t find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran ‘s nuclear program stopped by any means available.

Britain’s Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect “US interests”.

Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay . Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”. The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.

Julian Assange is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.



Open letter to Julia Gillard and the Australian government over Julian Assange


Posted: 07 Dec 2010 01:45 AM PST


I was honoured to be called by Overland editor Jeff Sparrow on Sunday to discuss the possibility of launching a petition in support of Julian Assange. I offered a little advice and was one on the first signatories.

Released publicly today (and lead story on ABC) and already garnering more than 2000 comments, this issue has hit a raw nerve. As it should:

Editor’s note: There’s no doubt that WikiLeaks and its figurehead-on-the-run Julian Assange are among the hottest items for discussion on the planet right now.

Feelings are running high, and many in this country take the view that the Australian Government ought do more to assist its vilified, beleaguered citizen.

Assange has become a cause celebre, as evidenced by the signatories to this open letter, a who’s who of sorts, from Noam Chomsky to Helen Garner…

We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law – and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them.

The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly.

We know that many others would have liked to sign. But given the urgency of the situation, we though it expedient to publish now rather than collect more names.

If, however, you agree with the sentiments expressed, we encourage you to leave your name in the comments section.

Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.

“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing.

Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.

As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.

We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.

We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange’s passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial – it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.

We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.

We look forward to your response.

Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor

Lizzie O’Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn

Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic

Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author

Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer

Professor Peter Singer, author and academic
Adam Bandt, MP

Senator Bob Brown

Senator Scott Ludlam

Julian Burnside QC, barrister

Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions

Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic

Rob Stary, lawyer

Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer

The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC

Brian Walters SC, barrister

Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic

Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation

Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation

Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist

Christos Tsiolkas, author

James Bradley, author and journalist

Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer

Louise Swinn, publisher

Helen Garner, novelist

Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic

Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator

John Birmingham, writer

Guy Rundle, writer

Alex Miller, writer
Sophie Cunningham, editor and author

Castan Centre for Human Rights Law

Professor Judith Brett, author and academic

Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights

Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre

Sylvia Hale, MLC

Sophie Black, editor

David Ritter, lawyer and historian

Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic

Dr Mark Davis, author and academic

Henry Rosenbloom, publisher

Ben Naparstek, editor

Chris Feik, editor

Louise Swinn, publisher

Stephen Warne, barrister

Dr John Dwyer QC

Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher

Joan Dwyer OAM

Greg Barns, barrister

James Button, journalist

Owen Richardson, critic

Michelle Griffin, editor

John Timlin, literary Agent & producer

Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher

Alison Croggon, author, critic

Daniel Keene, playwright

Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer

Bill O’Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria

Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School

Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney

Anthony Georgeff, editor

Max Gillies, actor

Shane Maloney, writer

Louis Armand, author and publisher

Jenna Price, academic and journalist

Tanja Kovac, National Cooordinator EMILY’s List Australia

Dr Russell Grigg, academic

Dr Justin Clemens, writer and academic

Susan Morairty, Lawyer

David Hirsch, Barrister

Cr Anne O’Shea

Kathryn Crosby, Candidates Online

Dr Robert Sparrow, academic

Jennifer Mills, author

Foong Ling Kong, editor

Tim Norton,  Online Campaigns Co-ordinator,  Oxfam Australia

Elisabeth Wynhausen, writer

Ben Slade, Lawyer

Nikki Anderson, publisher

Dan Cass

Professor Diane Bell, author and academic

Dr Philipa Rothfield, academic

Gary Cazalet, academic

Dr David Coady, academic

Dr Matthew Sharpe, writer and academic

Dr Tamas Pataki, writer and academic

Miska Mandic

Associate Professor Jake Lynch, academic

Professor Simon During, academic

Michael Brull, writer

Dr Geoff Boucher, academic

Jacinda Woodhead, writer and editor

Dr Rjurik Davidson, writer and editor

Mic Looby, writer

Jane Gleeson-White, writer and editor

Alex Skutenko, editor

Associate Professor John Collins, academic

Professor Philip Pettit, academic

Dr Christopher Scanlon, writer and academic

Dr Lawrie Zion, journalist

Johannes Jakob, editor

Sunili Govinnage, lawyer

Michael Bates, lawyer

Bridget Maidment, editor

Bryce Ives, theatre director

Sarah Darmody, writer

Jill Sparrow, writer

Lyn Bender, psychologist

Meredith Rose, editor

Dr Ellie Rennie, President, Engage Media

Ryan Paine, editor

Simon Cooper, editor

Chris Haan, lawyer

Carmela Baranowska, journalist.

Clinton Ellicott, publisher

Dr Charles Richardson, writer and academic

Phillip Frazer, publisher

Geoff Lemon, journalist

Jaya Savige, poet and editor

Johannes Jakob, editor

Kate Bree Geyer; journalist

Chay-Ya Clancy, performer

Lisa Greenaway, editor, writer

Chris Kennett – screenwriter, journalist

Kasey Edwards, author

Dr. Janine Little, academic

Dr Andrew Milner, writer and academic

Patricia Cornelius, writer

Elisa Berg, publisher

Lily Keil, editor



US Library of Congress continues its censorship of Wikileaks


Posted: 07 Dec 2010 12:29 AM PST


The Library of Congress, which recently shutoff access to WikiLeaks on its computers, may be unintentionally undermining the research its analysts perform for lawmakers, classification expert Steven Aftergood, who regularly publishes a government secrecy newsletter, blogged on Monday.

The Congressional Research Service, a branch of the library that scours bills, news and other primary sources to inform lawmakers of pressing issues, “will be unable to access or to cite the leaked materials in their research reports to Congress,” wrote Aftergood, who runs the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, a nonpartisan think tank.

Several current and former library employees told him that restricting access to WikiLeaks could degrade CRS analysts’ research and may not have a legal basis, he added.

  • “It’s a difficult situation,” said one CRS analyst. “The information was released illegally, and it’s not right for government agencies to be aiding and abetting this illegal dissemination. But the information is out there. Presumably, any Library of Congress researcher who wants to access the information that WikiLeaks illegally released will simply use their home computers or cell phones to do so. Will they be able to refer directly to the information in their writings for the library? Apparently not, unless a secondary source, like a newspaper, happens to have already cited it.”


  • “I don’t know that you can make a credible argument that CRS reports are the gold standard of analytical reporting, as is often claimed, when its analysts are denied access to information that historians and public policy types call a treasure trove of data,” a former CRS employee said.
  • In a press release, LOC explained its actions by citing an Office of Management and Budget memo regarding the obligation that federal agencies and federal employees have to protect classified information. “But LOC is statutorily chartered as the library of the House and the Senate. It is a legislative branch agency. I don’t recall either chamber directing the blocking of access to WikiLeaks for/or by its committees, offices, agencies, or members,” a different former analyst said.

The library did not respond to Aftergood’s request for comment on the issue over the weekend. Aftergood’s summation: “If CRS is ‘Congress’ brain,’ then the new access restrictions could mean a partial lobotomy.”



Colombo must be getting PR advice from Zionist central


Posted: 07 Dec 2010 12:04 AM PST

A rogue state makes a decision that would make Israel proud:

The Sri Lankan government has appointed a senior army officer accused of war crimes in the conflict with Tamil rebels as its deputy permanent representative to the United Nations.

Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva‘s presence in New York coincides with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon setting up a panel of experts to advise him on accountability for human rights violations during the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka.

In an interview with theSunday Leader newspaperlate last year, Gen. Sarath Fonseka, the Sri Lankan army chief who led a campaign that ended more than two decades of conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009, said Defense Secretary Gothbaya Rajapaksa gave Gen. Silva orders “not to accommodate any LTTEleaders attempting surrender and that ‘they must all be killed.’”


Shoah’s pages