Monday, May 27, 2019

WFTJ, WTF?

"The “Forever Wars” Enshrined: Visiting Mar-SAYLZ" (Bacevich).  The Wars For The Jews Memorial (not forgetting that, in one way or another, they are all WFTJ).  They even have USS Liberty Attack victims!  Luckily, they have lots of room for expansion, as Sheldon's shekels promise big losses for the future.

"Bolton’s Trap: Iran Cast as a Nuclear Threat, Diverting us from his Occulted Project" (Crooke).  I'm not a fan of the classic ruse of finding a scapegoat (Leviticus 16), in this case the Christian Zionists.  They are a factor, sure (particularly the asshole megachurch grifter-preachers, and a few weirdo billionaires who help finance professional Islamophobia), but they are not the main culprit.  Many of them in recent years have received a stern personal education in the wages of sin, and they are not the warmongering monolith they are claimed to be by the (((media))).

"The Guardian's war on Assange:  Dump the Guardian!"

The question isn't whether Assange is a journalist.  Who in the fuck would want to be insulted by being called a journalist?  It is whether a future American court will be able to distinguish things that some future reporter did, or is claimed to have done, from what Assange did, or is claimed to have done.  Don't let them get you tied up in investigating what 'journalist' means. 

For one thing, Assange can't possibly be a journalist, as he doesn't lie constantly.

"Guillaume Long on Ecuadorian President Moreno’s betrayal of Assange and the Citizens Revolution" (Emersberger) (interview with Guillaume Long former Ecuadorian Minister of Foreign Affairs):
"There are a number of violations of international and national law that Moreno engaged in by handing Assange over to the British authorities. I think that is why it took him so long. He wanted to do it earlier but he knew that by handing in Assange he would have to violate international asylum law. I was in the foreign ministry so I obviously have information that they were very worried. International law is very specific about non-refoulement – the technical term that means non-devolution. You cannot take away somebody’s asylum once you’ve granted it. You can deny someone asylum on request. When it is requested you can say “no we will not give you asylum” and you don’t have to give any reason. You can just say no, but once you’ve granted someone asylum there is a sacrosanct institution called non-refoulement which is a French word they use in international law. It applies unless the case for political persecution is not there anymore. Clearly there was no change because the major motivation for the asylum was a US request for extradition. Whenever there has been any ambiguity the institution of non-refoulement has been strengthened.

For example, in 2018 the Inter-American Human Rights Court – which is quite a powerful institution for those who have ratified the San Jose pact including Ecuador – warned Ecuador not to violate non-refoulement. The Ecuadorians were nervous about that. That’s why they had to really prepare by trying to pathologize Assange, making him into a crazy man smearing feces on the walls and all these lies. They really had to work on that for several months to push their international law violation through.

As for what you mentioned about the naturalization of Assange, the Ecuadorian nationality, yes it is even more serious than what you mentioned because on the day Assange was handed over to British authorities Assange was still Ecuadorian. It is still not clear, because the Foreign Ministry hasn’t been transparent on this issue, if Assange is still Ecuadorian to this day. We know they’ve started the process of taking away his citizenship. Let’s say nationality. Citizenship in Ecuador is a bit different. There is a residency criteria but anyway they’ve started this process. We don’t know if it is yet concluded. Certainly on the day he was taken by British police from the Embassy he was still Ecuadorian. The Ecuadorian constitution prohibits extradition of Ecuadorians to other countries. It is very clear. So that is a really serious illegality committed by the Ecuadorian government which I think will have massive legal consequences.

I think Moreno has enough legal trouble as it is. It is probably not the first thing that he’ll be nailed on. I think his corruption case will end badly for Moreno. That’s my own belief, but certainly on the Assange issue there have been a number of illegalities. I think we’ll see a number of court cases in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the Ecuadorian state."
Then a long discussion on how an asshole like Moreno could have been allowed to happen, particularly after a champ like Correa.

Tweets by Monbiot collected by Niqnaq.  Monbiot is a huge practitioner of the 'dialectic', but, unlike his conspiratorial mentor Noam, who used American imperialism, Monbiot pretends to care about the environment.


blog comments powered by Disqus