Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Annexation mapping committee

"With Grenell Appointment, the Israel Lobby’s Foothold on US Intelligence Grows Even Stronger" (Webb).  Lots and lots more ((())).  It is ridiculous the extent to which the American government has been taken over.  Note the prominence of the MEGA Group.  Blackmail pays.

"Trump and Netanyahu prepare for West Bank annexation" (Nassar).  The "joint US-Israel annexation mapping committee".

"We should applaud the Syrian military’s actions in Idlib, not deplore them" (Gowans).  Really excellent.  It shouldn't be so hard to find common sense in writing about Syria.

Tweet (هادي نصرالله):
"The recently liberated Idlib and Aleppo countrysides. A thread.

There was no “moderate rebels”. There was no “rebels” in Syria.

They were always Al Qaeda and ISIS.

We were called conspiracy theorists and liars when we said Syria is fighting global terrorism. Who’s lying now?"
The most amazing thing about all this crap we're being fed is that this is literally al Qaeda we're talking about. Remember al Qaeda?  9/11?  Osama bin Laden?  The stated cause of all those disastrous Wars For The Jews?  Now the (((media))) is telling us that protecting these monsters is the single most important humanitarian mission in world history!

What Erdoğan is up against is that the Russians can't accept his idea that an al-Qaeda statelet in Syria would be a good thing, as such a terrorist base of operations is literally an existential threat to Russia:  "Ankara has Shot Itself in the Foot in Syria" (Kulikov).  Putin can't bend on this point as stopping this vary thing is the whole basis for Russian involvement in Syria.

"Credibility of European Court of Human Rights lies in ruins after judges’ links to Soros revealed" (Laughland).  Soros weaponizing 'human rights'.

Ha!:  tweet (Chip Gibbons) (you're not supposed to say that out loud!):
"Thank you to everyone who thought resurrecting paranoid Cold War rhetoric was a surefire way to "resist" Donald Trump. This moment couldn't have happened without your help."
Tweet (Michael Tae Sweeney) (as was the case with Corbyn, they are trying to use Sanders' long history of being right against him):
"So one year after they toppled the democratically elected government of Chile and installed Pinochet and one year before the Church Committee revealed widescale illegal domestic spying and CIA lawbreaking?"
 "How We Stay Blind to the Story of Power" (Cook):
"(Trump’s relation to power could be the basis for an entirely separate post. He is not an ideological threat to power, he is one if its functionaries. But he is a potential Harvey Weinstein or Prince Andrew. He can be sacrificed if needs be. The Russiagate narrative has served two purposes useful to power. It has tamed Trump’s ego-based politics to ensure he does not threaten deep power by making it more visible. And it has created a compelling political drama that channels and dissipates the “resistance” to Trump, satisfying much of the left’s own need to feel they are doing something, when in fact they are simply strengthening Trump and deep power.)"
"Six-Year-Olds Being Trained To Save Opioid OD's In Appalachia" (Langum).  You won't read that this is entirely a problem caused by anti-gentilism and Khazar shekel grasping.

Tweet (Madame Boukman - Justice 4 Haiti):
"President of #Haiti issued a decree on FEB 12 to declare energy, mining, offshore islands, and ALL other resources for development a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY, thus no parliament approval or contract bidding required, just hand everything to multinational business vultures."
Murray on Day 1, the Kafkaesque show trial of Assange, locked in a plastic box as if he might explode at any minute:  "Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day One" (the prosecutor seems none too bright!):
"There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media. That is a bold claim, but I fear it is perfectly true. So I have much work to do to let the world know what actually happened. The mere act of being an honest witness is suddenly extremely important, when the entire media has abandoned that role.
James Lewis QC made the opening statement for the prosecution. It consisted of two parts, both equally extraordinary. The first and longest part was truly remarkable for containing no legal argument, and for being addressed not to the magistrate but to the media. It is not just that it was obvious that is where his remarks were aimed, he actually stated on two occasions during his opening statement that he was addressing the media, once repeating a sentence and saying specifically that he was repeating it again because it was important that the media got it.
I am frankly astonished that Baraitser allowed this. It is completely out of order for a counsel to address remarks not to the court but to the media, and there simply could not be any clearer evidence that this is a political show trial and that Baraitser is complicit in that. I have not the slightest doubt that the defence would have been pulled up extremely quickly had they started addressing remarks to the media. Baraitser makes zero pretence of being anything other than in thrall to the Crown, and by extension to the US Government.
The points which Lewis wished the media to know were these: it is not true that mainstream outlets like the Guardian and New York Times are also threatened by the charges against Assange, because Assange was not charged with publishing the cables but only with publishing the names of informants, and with cultivating Manning and assisting him to attempt computer hacking. Only Assange had done these things, not mainstream outlets.
Lewis then proceeded to read out a series of articles from the mainstream media attacking Assange, as evidence that the media and Assange were not in the same boat. The entire opening hour consisted of the prosecution addressing the media, attempting to drive a clear wedge between the media and Wikileaks and thus aimed at reducing media support for Assange. It was a political address, not remotely a legal submission. At the same time, the prosecution had prepared reams of copies of this section of Lewis’ address, which were handed out to the media and given them electronically so they could cut and paste.
Following an adjournment, magistrate Baraitser questioned the prosecution on the veracity of some of these claims. In particular, the claim that newspapers were not in the same position because Assange was charged not with publication, but with “aiding and abetting” Chelsea Manning in getting the material, did not seem consistent with Lewis’ reading of the 1989 Official Secrets Act, which said that merely obtaining and publishing any government secret was an offence. Surely, Baraitser suggested, that meant that newspapers just publishing the Manning leaks would be guilty of an offence?
This appeared to catch Lewis entirely off guard. The last thing he had expected was any perspicacity from Baraitser, whose job was just to do what he said. Lewis hummed and hawed, put his glasses on and off several times, adjusted his microphone repeatedly and picked up a succession of pieces of paper from his brief, each of which appeared to surprise him by its contents, as he waved them haplessly in the air and said he really should have cited the Shayler case but couldn’t find it. It was liking watching Columbo with none of the charm and without the killer question at the end of the process.
Suddenly Lewis appeared to come to a decision. Yes, he said much more firmly. The 1989 Official Secrets Act had been introduced by the Thatcher Government after the Ponting Case, specifically to remove the public interest defence and to make unauthorised possession of an official secret a crime of strict liability – meaning no matter how you got it, publishing and even possessing made you guilty. Therefore, under the principle of dual criminality, Assange was liable for extradition whether or not he had aided and abetted Manning. Lewis then went on to add that any journalist and any publication that printed the official secret would therefore also be committing an offence, no matter how they had obtained it, and no matter if it did or did not name informants.
Lewis had thus just flat out contradicted his entire opening statement to the media stating that they need not worry as the Assange charges could never be applied to them. And he did so straight after the adjournment, immediately after his team had handed out copies of the argument he had now just completely contradicted. I cannot think it has often happened in court that a senior lawyer has proven himself so absolutely and so immediately to be an unmitigated and ill-motivated liar. This was undoubtedly the most breathtaking moment in today’s court hearing.
Yet remarkably I cannot find any mention anywhere in the mainstream media that this happened at all. What I can find, everywhere, is the mainstream media reporting, via cut and paste, Lewis’s first part of his statement on why the prosecution of Assange is not a threat to press freedom; but nobody seems to have reported that he totally abandoned his own argument five minutes later. Were the journalists too stupid to understand the exchanges?
The explanation is very simple. The clarification coming from a question Baraitser asked Lewis, there is no printed or electronic record of Lewis’ reply. His original statement was provided in cut and paste format to the media. His contradiction of it would require a journalist to listen to what was said in court, understand it and write it down. There is no significant percentage of mainstream media journalists who command that elementary ability nowadays. “Journalism” consists of cut and paste of approved sources only. Lewis could have stabbed Assange to death in the courtroom, and it would not be reported unless contained in a government press release.
I was left uncertain of Baraitser’s purpose in this. Plainly she discomfited Lewis very badly on this point, and appeared rather to enjoy doing so. On the other hand the point she made is not necessarily helpful to the defence. What she was saying was essentially that Julian could be extradited under dual criminality, from the UK point of view, just for publishing, whether or not he conspired with Chelsea Manning, and that all the journalists who published could be charged too. But surely this is a point so extreme that it would be bound to be invalid under the Human Rights Act? Was she pushing Lewis to articulate a position so extreme as to be untenable – giving him enough rope to hang himself – or was she slavering at the prospect of not just extraditing Assange, but of mass prosecutions of journalists?
The reaction of one group was very interesting. The four US government lawyers seated immediately behind Lewis had the grace to look very uncomfortable indeed as Lewis baldly declared that any journalist and any newspaper or broadcast media publishing or even possessing any government secret was committing a serious offence. Their entire strategy had been to pretend not to be saying that."
The ancient Wet’suwet’en legal/political system (which seems weird to us, based as it is on 'feasts'):
  • "Give the Wet’suwet’en space to conduct their law-making, away from barricades" (Sanderson); 
  • "#Wetsuweten Hereditary Chiefs and House system explainer"; and
  • tweets by Margareta Dovgal.
"Let's tell the truth about Blatchford's toxic legacy." (Mastracci). 'Journalists' should know that we're not fooled by their bullshit. Blatchford was simply a monster, and we're well rid of her.
blog comments powered by Disqus