Gangster State US/UK

» Gangster State US/UK — Paul Craig Roberts

President Barack Obama meets Prime Minister David Cameron in Washingto

On July 23 I wrote about how the US reversed roles with the USSR and became the tyrant that terrifies the world. We have now had further confirmation of that fact. It comes from two extraordinary actions by Washington’s British puppet state.

David Miranda, the Brazilian partner of Glenn Greenwald, who is reporting on the illegal and unconstitutional spying by the National Stasi Agency, was seized, no doubt on Washington’s orders, by the puppet British government from the international transit zone of a London airport. Miranda had not entered the UK, but he was seized by UK authorities. http://rt.com/op-edge/uk-gay-greenwald-freedom-police-679/

Washington’s UK puppets simply kidnapped him, threatened him for nine hours, and stole his computer, phones, and all his electronic equipment. As a smug US official told the media, “the purpose was to send a message.”

You might remember that Edward Snowden was stuck for some weeks in the international transit zone of the Moscow airport. The Obama tyrant repeatedly browbeat Russia’s President Putin to violate the law and kidnap Snowden for Obama. Unlike the once proud and law-abiding British, Putin refused to place Washington’s desires above law and human rights.

The second extraordinary violation occurred almost simultaneously with UK authorities appearing at the Guardian newspaper and illegally destroying the hard drives on the newspaper’s computers with the vain intention of preventing the newspaper from reporting further Snowden revelations of US/UK high criminality.

[pullquote] The question is: are there sufficient brainwashed people in both countries to sustain the US/UK myth that “freedom and democracy” are attained via war crimes? [/pullquote]

It is fashionable in the US and UK governments and among their sycophants to speak of “gangster state Russia.” But we all know who the gangsters are. The worst criminals of our time are the US and UK governments. Both are devoid of all integrity, all honor, all mercy, all humanity. Many members of both governments would have made perfect functionaries in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany.

This is extraordinary. It was the English who originated liberty. True, in 1215 it was the freedom of the barons’ rights from the king’s infringement, not the freedom of the commoner. But once the principle was established it spread into the entire society. By 1680 the legal revolution was complete. The king and the government were subject to law. The king and his government were no longer the law and above the law.

In the 13 colonies the Englishmen who populated them inherited this English achievement. When King George’s government refused the colonies the Rights of Englishmen, the colonists revolted, and the United States was born.

The descendants of these colonists now live in an America where their Constitutional protections have been overthrown by a tyrannical government that claims it is above the law. This raw fact has not stopped the US government or its puppets from continuing to cloak the war crime of military aggression in the faux language of “bringing freedom and democracy.” If the Obama and Cameron governments were in the dock at Nuremberg, the entirety of both governments would be convicted.

The question is: are there sufficient brainwashed people in both countries to sustain the US/UK myth that “freedom and democracy” are attained via war crimes?

There is no shortage of brainwashed Americans who love to be told that they are “indispensable” and “exceptional,” and therefore entitled to work their will on the world. It is difficult to discern in these clueless Americans much hope for the revival of liberty. But there is some indication that the British, who did not inherit liberty but had to fight for it for five centuries, might be more determined.

[pullquote] Washington’s UK puppets simply kidnapped him, threatened him for nine hours, and stole his computer, phones, and all his electronic equipment. As a smug US official told the media, “the purpose was to send a message.” [/pullquote]

The British Home Affairs Committee, chaired by Keith Vaz, is demanding an explanation from Obama’s lap dog, the British prime minister. Also, Britain’s watchman over anti-terrorism enforcement, David Anderson, is demanding that the UK Home Office and police explain the illegal use of anti-terrorism laws against Miranda, who is not a terrorist or connected to terrorism in any way.

Brazil’s foreign minister has joined the fray, demanding that London explain why the UK violated its own law and abused a Brazilian citizen.

Of course, everyone knows that Washington forced its UK puppet to violate law in order to serve Washington. One wonders if the British will ever decide that they would be better off as a sovereign country.

The White House denied involvement in Miranda’s kidnapping, but refused to condemn the illegal action of its puppet.

As for the UK’s destruction of press freedom, the White House supports that, too. It is already happening here.

Meanwhile, get accustomed to the police state: http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/now-big-brother-targets-your-fedex-ups-packages/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Paul Craig Roberts is a former distinguished establishmentarian, onetime cabinet member in the Reagan administration, academic, and contributing editor of the Wall Street Journal. Today, his voice is one of the most clear and eloquent against the same establishment.



The Syrian (Government) Use of Chemical Weapons—the Story that Won’t Go Away—Why?

alQaedaThankYouBelow we offer two interpretations of this news, one by left analyst Stephen Lendman, whom we trust, and the other by the UK Guardian (which publishes Glenn Greenwald’s dispatches), an establishment liberal paper.  Being a liberal organ we find that its reporting on this topic must be taken with extreme caution. Despite its current status as an enemy of the imperial state due to the NSA imbroglio, the Guardian is essentially an establishment institution and a class ally. This has been demonstrated on a number of occasions. 

Still, we include the Guardian article here for media education purposes, to show how even papers that regard themselves—on balance— as “progressive”, the best of the liberal lot, can often serve as smooth propaganda platforms for the world imperial propaganda system. For if the US itself has not come out and endorsed the veracity of this latest report of {Syrian] Government crimes…why lend it credence by running it in whole and without any editorial cautionary notes? But the “smoking gun” in what we regard as a criminal fabrication is simply the test of logic.  The Syrian government or army have little nothing to gain by lobbying gas canisters at the rebels. Consider:

(1) The use of dreaded chemical weapons on their foes by the Syrian government is a stupid political and military move. Such an act immediately gives the Western media and the governments they shill for (US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, etc., all intent on toppling Assad but NOT for human rights reasons) a huge propaganda victory to whitewash the escalation of their meddling in Syria’s affairs;

(2) Chemical weapons are tactically as effective as many other available weapons and they can be highly indiscriminate, something the Syrian government is well aware of.  So why use them at all unless pinned against the wall, which they certainly are not as the tides of this civil war have actually tuned against the so-called rebels, despite the immense aid rendered by the NATO/Arab cabal? Given the history of the chief protagonists, this story continues to have all the earmarks of a fabrication, a classic case of provocation. —P. Greanville

 

The Syrian Chemical Weapons Use Canard

by Stephen Lendman

Throughout months of conflict, Assad faced repeated accusations of chemical weapons use. No evidence whatever suggests it.   Clear evidence suggests otherwise. Wrongful accusations persist. They ring hollow. They lack credibility. It doesn’t matter. They repeat with disturbing regularity.  On August 21, The New York Times headlined “Syrian Rebels Accuse Government of Chemical Attack.”

They claimed rockets targeting areas east of Damascus “carr(ied) poison gas. (They said) people had been killed in their sleep and that local hospitals were filled with casualties.”  eports are conflicting. Some suggest hundreds died. “The attacks will undoubtedly increase the pressure on a team sent to Syria by the United Nations to investigate allegations of chemical weapons that was to begin working on Monday,” said The Times.

“Numerous allegations of chemical weapons use have surfaced” throughout months of conflict. None suggest government involvement.  On August 21, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined “Media source: Reports on chemical weapons in Ghouta untrue,” saying:

“A media source on Wednesday dismissed as untrue the news broadcast by some media outlets that chemical weapons have been used in the Ghouta region in Damascus Countryside.”

“The source stressed that the reports circulated by the TV channels of (Qatar-run) al-Jazeera, (Saudi Arabia’s) al-Arabiya and (Murdoch’s) Sky News among other channels which are involved in the shedding of the Syrians’ blood and supporting terrorism are completely baseless.  The source said the aim behind broadcasting such reports and news is to distract the UN chemical weapons investigation commission away from its mission.”

A government security source called accusations about Syria’s use of chemical weapons “lies.”

“There is nothing new happening here because there’s fighting every day. Operations are under way in all regions to chase armed groups,” he said.

The Times quoted someone named Abu Yassin, saying:

“We thought this regime would not use chemical weapons, at least these days with the presence of the U.N. inspectors. It is reckless. The regime is saying, ‘I don’t care.”  Opposition Syrian National Council media coordinator Louay Mekdad was cited, saying:

“Bashar al-Assad doesn’t care any longer about red lines since he has already exceeded too many of them while the world has showed no reaction. This means the alleged lines never existed.”

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague [a criminal hypocrite himself—Eds] was quoted. He expressed “deep concern.” He admitted reports are uncorroborated. He wants more information.

He suggested Syrian government use, saying:

It’s “clear that if (reports) are verified, it would mark a shocking escalation in the use of chemical weapons in Syria.”

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Vincent Floreani condemned the “murderous attacks attributed to the Syrian regime in the region of Damascus.”  Photos and videos were posted online. Images are graphic (see below). They show bodies on a makeshift hospital floor. They’re being hosed down with water.  Another shows a child treated with a hand-held respirator. Others show victims gasping for air. Whether they reflect Ghouta’s incident remains undetermined.

Images are unverified. They contain no DNA. They could be from anywhere. They can be new, old or contrived. Hollywood sound stages expertly recreate them. (As the pro-CIA film ARGO aptly indicated.)

 

If Ghouta evidence is credible, at issue is who’s responsible. Throughout months of conflict, no evidence suggested government use. Plenty corroborated insurgent responsibility. A previous article explained.

Times writers, contributors and editors marginalize, downplay or ignore voices of truth. It’s standard Times practice. One-sided reporting is featured. Readers are betrayed in the process.  Ghouta was strategically timed. It came with UN investigators present in Syria. Doing so raises obvious red flags. Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain.

According to IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center analyst Charles Lister:

“Logically, it would make little sense for the Syrian government to employ chemical agents at such a time, particularly given the relatively close proximity of the targeted towns.”

Al-Watan’s a Syrian Arabic language daily. It’s privately owned. It said Assad “pledged to cooperate and facilitate the work” of UN chemical weapons inspectors.  On August 20, their mission began. They seek firsthand evidence of chemical weapons use. They won’t determine who used them. They’ll only confirm whether or not they were used and which ones.

According to chemical weapons expert Jean Pascal Zanders:

If they only plan “going in and coming back with definitive confirmation that chemical weapons have been deliberately used, there is reason to be skeptical that the investigation will bear fruit.”

Key is pointing fingers the right way. Failure lets media scoundrels take full advantage. They accused Assad all along.  They’ve done so unjustifiably. They do it anyway. They regurgitate Big Lies. In July, Russia submitted firsthand evidence. It’s credible. It’s clear and unequivocal. It indicated insurgent use. Media scoundrels ignored it. They featured duplicitous US claims.

Assad’s wrongfully blamed. So-called evidence Washington cited falls short of required standards. It’s hollow. It doesn’t pass the smell test. Independent analysis would reject it.  New York Times editors aren’t deterred. On April 24, they headlined “Were Chemical Weapons Used in Syria?”

“Its not hard to imagine that President Bashar al-Assad, desperately clinging to power, might use chemical weapons against the Syrian people,” they said.  “He has already pummeled them with warplanes and missiles and shows no signs of ending a bloody onslaught that has lasted more than two years.”

At the same time, Times editors admitted no proof of government chemical weapons use. Suggesting it comes close.  An accurate headline would read: No evidence proves Syrian government chemical weapons use. Don’t expect it from Times editors. They prioritize pointing fingers the wrong way. They accuse Assad of insurgent crimes. They downplay or ignore their worst ones.  They quoted Israeli General Itai Brun claiming Syria “has increasingly used chemical weapons.” Another Israel official suggests sarin gas. He claimed Syria stockpiled it.

Times editors accused Russia of “unconscionably” “defend(ing) and enabl(ing) Mr. Assad.”  They endorse whatever political Washington supports. They substitute lies for truth and full disclose. It’s official Times policy.

Forbes magazine calls itself “a capitalist tool.” On August 19, it featured a Claudia Rosett op-ed. She’s a Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) journalist-in-residence.  She heads its Investigative Reporting Center. She substitutes managed news information for responsible journalism.

FDD’s a right-wing neocon think tank. Its Leadership Council includes Forbes CEO Steve Forbes, former CIA head James Woolsey, Project for the New Century co-founder Bill Kristol and former Senator Joe Lieberman among others.  Its Executive Team includes comparable rogues gallery scoundrels. So does its Board of Advisors.

Rosett misinformed readers. She did so duplicitously. She did it willfully. She did it maliciously. She headlined “North Korean-Syrian Chemistry: The Weapons Connections,” saying:

“Is North Korea complicit in the use of chemical weapons in Syria? For a host of reasons, this question ought to be high priority for the United Nations chemical weapons experts.”

Reasons to do so “range from recent press reports – unconfirmed, but plausible – of direct North Korean involvement in the alleged chemical attacks themselves,” as well as “partner(ing) (in) proliferat(ing) weapons of mass murder – not only chemical, but nuclear.”

Rosett cited a nonexistent Middle East Syrian/Iranian/Hezbollah terror axis. North Korea’s involved, she said.

When evidence doesn’t exist, it’s invented. Doing so facilitates Washington’s imperium. It’s standard scoundrel media practice. Right-wing think tanks feature it.

Big Lies substitute for truth and full disclosure. They launch wars. They facilitate mass killing and destruction. It’s the longstanding  American way. Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.  It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.  http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

••••••••

_______________

Syria conflict: chemical weapons blamed as hundreds reported killed

Death toll claimed to be as high as 1,400 as Syrian government admits launching offensive but denies using chemical weapons

Warning: contains graphic contentLink to video: Syria: footage shows horrific aftermath of alleged gas attackHundreds of people are believed to have been killed in an apparent gas attack on rebel-held parts of eastern Damascus that is thought to be the most significant use of chemical weapons since thousands of Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein in Halabja 25 years ago.Medics, as well as opposition fighters and political leaders, said the death toll had reached 1,400 and was likely to rise further with hundreds more critically wounded in districts besieged by the Syrian military. Other estimates put the current toll at between 200 and 500. None of the figures could be independently verified.

The Syrian government acknowledged it had launched a major offensive in rebel-held districts in the east of the capital – described by pro-regime media as the biggest since the start of the civil war – but strongly denied using chemical weapons during the attack.

“These are lies that serve the propaganda of the terrorists,” a Syrian official said, referring to the armed opposition. “We would not use such weapons.”

However, George Sabra, the head of the main Syrian opposition group, laid the blame squarely at the Assad regime, saying the scenes of widespread death “constitute a turning point in the regime’s operations”.

“This time it was for annihilation, rather than terror,” he said.

Syria gas attack

Location of Wednesday’s attack. Credit: Guardian graphicsInternational reaction intensified throughout the day. The UN security council called an emergency session and the White House formally requested the UN to investigate the attack. William Hague, the foreign secretary, said the UK was “deeply concerned”.A UN inspection team arrived in Damascus this week to look into earlier claims of chemical weapon use, but was granted permission to enter Syria with a limited mission to investigate only three specific sites. An expanded mandate to investigate Wednesday’s attack in eastern Ghouta – only 10 miles from the team’s hotel – must be sought by the UN secretary general and then approved by Syria.The US moved quickly to make the request. The White House said: “For the UN’s efforts to be credible they must have immediate access to witnesses and affected individuals, and have the ability to examine and collect physical evidence without any interference or manipulation from the Syrian government. If the Syrian government has nothing to hide and is truly committed to an impartial and credible investigation of chemical weapons use in Syria, it will facilitate the UN team’s immediate and unfettered access to this site.”

Rescuers and victims said the shelling of eastern Ghouta started shortly after 2am and targeted three districts, Ein Tarma, Zermalka and Jobar, all rebel strongholds for the past year.

“It was around 2.30am Wednesday when we received calls from Zemalka and Jobar,” said a Free Syria Army (FSA) officer, Captain Alla’a al-Basha, who has documented previous alleged chemical attacks in the area.

“The FSA members were asking for more forces to evacuate the civilians as the shells were coming in at around five per minute. As soon as I and my team arrived at the scene, I saw bodies scattered in the streets. I saw whole houses – none of their residents were alive. When I got there, I could smell what seemed to be burning sulphur and something like cooked eggs. The smoke was not pure white.

“Most of the victims were shivering and they turned yellow in colour. I saw a woman who was tearing at her clothes as she could not breath. The number of the casualties that we were able to document so far is 1,228 martyrs. The doctors think that more than 20 shells were fired with fatal gases.

“Most of the victims did not appear to be injured but died out of suffocation. I held a young boy whose body was like a piece of wood and his colour was very blue. He did not have any wound.”

By Wednesday night, more than 120 videos had been uploaded to the internet, most depicting scenes of men women and children in respiratory distress, on watery floors, and doctors describing the victims’ symptoms. Other videos showed scores of bodies wrapped in white shrouds, or lying on grey concrete.

White foam was bubbling from the mouth and nostrils of many victims. Some writhed in distress, apparently struggling to breathe.

Doctors at makeshift clinics said they were working without oxygen and had been overrun by the number of victims, many of whom needed lifesaving treatment that they could not provide.

Treatment of victims appeared rudimentary, with water and vinegar among the means of trying to dilute the effects. “We know when we have an area targeted by fatal gases we would take plastic masks and put wet cloths on our noses and mouths,” said Basha. “But most of the civilians do not know that they have to do that.”

Sergeant Abu Ali, who runs a field hospital in the Nashabiya area of eastern Damascus, said he had received patients who were vomiting and had high temperatures, breathing problems, limb stiffness and were in comas. “We received 60 cases. Most of them were sent to the nearby farms after their situation was stabilised and those with acute symptoms were kept here. I have very few medicines and all the oxygen tubes I have had run out now. People need intensive care.”

One witness told Reuters by Skype from the suburb of Erbin: “We would go into a house and everything was in its place, every person was in their place. They were lying where they had been. They looked like they were asleep. But they were dead.”

Ralf Trapp, a consultant on chemical and biological weapons, said getting access to the scenes of the attacks was paramount for inspectors. “The logical thing to do would be to go in and start interviewing doctors and getting blood and urine samples.

“This is the ideal moment to collect samples because it is so shortly after the attack. They may get intact agent – in the first day or so you would still find intact sarin, for example. Within a few days you would find degradation products. If you link those to clinical examinations and testimony, you can build up a very precise picture of what happened.

“They need to try to get to the site where it happened, talk to people who were on the spot when it happened, to victims and observers, to create as complete a picture of the actual attack. They want to discriminate against other types of weapons that might cause similar effects or release something by chance.”

Charles Duelfer, a former US chief weapons inspector, said: “[Video] reports of doctors treating these people, that’s real data.” Duelfer said the scale of the attack could probably be proved by the intelligence community. “It will be pretty clear pretty quickly because various countries’ intelligence apparatus will have noticed something on this scale, whether it’s artillery, rockets, or shells. These are knowable things.

“The White House is going to be hard pressed to construct an answer to this one. It was easy to waffle a bit so long as alleged use was minor and didn’t happen again, but this is really putting the administration in a corner.”



Detention of Glenn Greenwald’s partner approved at highest levels of US and UK governments

By Thomas Gaist and Joseph Kishore, wsws.org

miranda-greenwald-63-20130820-444

The UK government is aggressively defending its decision to detain David Miranda (above, left), the partner of Glenn Greenwald, for nearly nine hours at Heathrow Airport, seizing his laptop, camera, cell phone and other personal items. Miranda was detained under a UK terrorism law while traveling from Berlin to his home in Rio de Janeiro.

The detention of Miranda was a blatant act of political intimidation directed at all those who seek to reveal crimes and conspiracies against democratic rights carried out by the British and US governments, including former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Snowden, who has worked closely with Greenwald, is currently exiled in Russia. He has been the subject of an international campaign of vilification, led by the Obama administration.

According to a report by the Reuters news agency, “One US security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government’s detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden’s materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks.”

In other words, the detention had nothing to do with “terrorism” or “national security,” but was, rather, a political decision. This decision clearly involved the highest levels of the US and British governments. On Monday, a White House spokesman acknowledged that the Obama administration had been given a “heads up” about the planned detention.

British Prime Minister David Cameron also had advance notice of the plans to detain Miranda, Downing Street confirmed yesterday. The Guardian quoted a source within the government as saying, “We were kept abreast in the usual way. We do not direct police investigations.”

The suggestion from the UK government that somehow the final decision was made by local police agencies is a fraud. The approval of Miranda’s detention clearly came from No 10 and the White House.

A UK government spokesperson issued a statement yesterday defending the action, saying that, “the government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security. If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that.”

The statement went on to threaten: “Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.”

UK Home Secretary Theresa May also acknowledged that she was briefed on the plans to detain Miranda. “If the police believe somebody has in their possession highly sensitive stolen information then it is right that the police act,” she said. These documents could help terrorists and “lead to a loss of lives.”

That is, the exposure of massive and illegal spying programs run by the US, UK and other governments is equated with aiding terrorists. With such arguments, the government is preparing the ground for even more direct action targeting those who have revealed these criminal programs.

London’s Metropolitan Police also defended the detention of Miranda, calling it “legally and procedurally sound.” Scotland Yard issued a statement declaring, “The examination of a 28-year-old man under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at Heathrow Airport on Sunday 18 August was subject to a detailed decision making process.”

There was nothing “legal” about the seizure of Miranda. A private citizen was held, threatened and had his belongings seized entirely because of his association with a journalist who has worked to reveal government secrets. These are the methods of a police state.

Miranda said of his nine-hour detention, “They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put in jail if I didn’t co-operate. They treated me like I was a criminal or someone about to attack the UK.” Miranda was refused any explanation for his detention during the nine-hour period, was not allowed an interpreter (his primary language is Portuguese), and was not even allowed a pen.

Miranda is arguing that the seizure of his equipment and data by the police was illegal. A letter from Miranda’s legal counsel asserts that Miranda’s detention was an illegal “deprivation of liberty,” violating article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 



Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and Other Telecoms Fighting to Cash In… on You

An aggressive anti-consumer effort is underway, aimed at turning your private behavior into dollar signs.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

They call it “modernizing the rules.” We call it “cashing in on your privacy.”

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, DIRECTV, and other giant U.S. cable and telecommunications companies are going hard-core with an aggressive anti-consumer agenda aimed at turning your private behavior into dollar signs. Citing antiregulatory buzzwords like “competition” and “economic growth’, they are lobbying hard to loosen privacy rules in Washington for a very simple reason: They’ve got their hands on the wires that connect millions of homes with Internet and television services, and they want to sell information about your use of them to the highest bidder.

[pullquote] As expected, Obama has picked Tom Wheeler, an industry insider, to be the next head of the FCC, and it looks like he’s going to get the job. Wheeler is, among other things, a venture capitalist, an Obama fundraiser, and a former top telecom lobbyist — not exactly the qualities one wants in a watchdog. Obama has referred to Wheeler as “the only member of both the cable television and the wireless industry hall of fame.” Very reassuring. [/pullquote]

These companies are trying to move away from their traditional treatment as public utilities and get treated more like Google and Facebook. The shift they seek would strip authority from America’s privacy watchdog, the Federal Communications Commission and expand the mandate of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has brought privacy cases against Google and Facebook, but it lacks authority to be a truly effective privacy enforcer and has been seen as unresponsive to public pressure to get tough on powerful Internet players. The FCC, on the other hand, strengthened privacy rules in 2007 and has extracted large fines from Big Telecom for violating customer data-protection protocol. The FCC has a tendency to look at the potential for wrongdoing before it happens, whereas the FTC tends pay attention only after the fact.

Naturally, Big Telecom would rather interact with the FTC. It must be pointed out, however, that Obama has picked Tom Wheeler, an industry insider, to be the next head of the FCC, and it looks like he’s going to get the job. Wheeler is, among other things, a venture capitalist, an Obama fundraiser, and a former top telecom lobbyist — not exactly the qualities one wants in a watchdog. Obama has referred to Wheeler as “the only member of both the cable television and the wireless industry hall of fame.” Very reassuring.

Writing in the Financial Times, Stephanie Kirchgaessner explains telecom logic for selling your private information, which is essentially, “hey, everybody’s doing it”:

“Proponents say the move would simplify an antiquated regulatory structure that has not kept pace with the changing media landscape. Traditional media companies face tougher restrictions than their new media rivals even though the services they offer are becoming increasingly similar.”

Oh, really! Actually, the move is simply a strategy to create a Wild West regulatory atmosphere in which your private information is, well, no longer private.

There’s plenty of dough to be made for Big Telecom from third-party marketers and others who would like to know who you’re calling, what TV shows you watch, and so on. What happens to that information once it gets sold? Might identity thieves or other nefarious entities like to get their hands on your data? We already know Big Telecom has been implicated in NSA spying. They don’t exactly have your back. Perhaps executives are thinking, why not get paid for what we give away to the government for free? And that, ladies and gentlemen, is yet another reason that government spying is so dangerous. It’s contagious.

The regulatory change would mean getting a new law passed in Congress. So the industry has gotten up a new lobbying group with an Orwellian name: the 21st Century Privacy Coalition. It is led by two revolving-door champions, Jon Leibowitz, who just left his post as chairman of the FTC and former Rep. Mary Bono Mack, a California Republican, who, as Mike Ludwig of Truthout put it “raked in thousands of dollars of donations from the telecom industry before leaving Congress last year.”

Barack Obama has very close ties to the cable industry, which lavished his campaign with money in the 2012 election cycle. Recently while vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard, he hit the golf course with Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, who also came over to the house for a friendly visit.

Gee, wonder what they discussed over lemonade?

Lynn Parramore is an AlterNet senior editor. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of ‘Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture.’ She received her Ph.d in English and Cultural Theory from NYU, where she has taught essay writing and semiotics. She is the Director of AlterNet’s New Economic Dialogue Project. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.



Bradley Manning Wrongfully Sentenced

bradley-manning1

by Stephen Lendman

On July 30, he was wrongfully convicted on 20 of 22 charges. They included multiple Espionage Act violations. It’s a WW I relic.  It belongs in history’s dustbin. It’s unrelated to exposing serious government wrongdoing.

With some VIDEO inserts from ABC News. Watch with caution.

 

Manning revealed what everyone needs to know. He disclosed grave war crimes. Perpetrators are free to kill again. Doing the right thing got Manning convicted.  Judge Col. Denise Lind sentenced him to 35 years. It’s by far the longest ever punishment for leaking government information.

Manning will be 26 years old in December. He’ll be eligible for parole in around eight years. Chances appear slim to none. His conviction and sentencing sent a message. It warns other potential whistleblowers not to reveal what Washington wants suppressed.

Manning will serve hard time. Initially he’s heading for Fort Leavenworth, KS incarceration. He faces potential Supermax harshness. They’re maximum security prisons. Authorities say they’re for society’s most incorrigible. They’re for “the worst of the worst.” Hyperbole substitutes for reality.

Inmates endure horrific conditions. Punishment substitutes for justice. They’re isolated longterm. They monitored round-the-clock. It’s done visually and by closed-circuit TV.

They’re confined in windowless single cells. They’re about 8 x 10 feet. They remain there 23 hours a day. Fluorescent lights stay on round-the-clock. Prisoners lack constructive activity. Visits are rare. Direct contact’s denied.

Food’s delivered twice daily through cell door slots. Central control booth guards control things. One prisoner at a time’s permitted to shower.  Supermax confinement’s the closest thing to hell on earth. It replicates some of the worst Guantanamo practices.

Torture is commonplace in many US prisons. Inmates are savaged by dogs, brutally shocked with cattle prods, burned by toxic chemicals, harmed by stun guns, beaten, stripped naked and abused in various other ways.

It’s standard practice. Manning’s vulnerable. He may never again see the light of day. If so, he’ll never be the same.  Judge Lind reduced Manning in rank. He went from private first class to E1. It’s the lowest military status. He’ll forfeit all pay, allowances and benefits. He’ll be dishonorably discharged.

Manning stood while Lind read her sentence. He did so expressionless. Lawyer David Coombs represents him. He’s submitting a presidential pardon application. He’ll appeal. He’ll do so up to the Supreme Court.

Chances of success are slim to none. Obama wanted his head. He pronounced guilt by accusation. He did so before proceedings began. Compassion isn’t his long suit. After pronouncing sentence, Lind left. Military guards escorted Manning out of court. Supporters shouted encouragement, saying:

“We’ll keep fighting for you Bradley.” “You are a hero.” “We love you.”

Manning’s a 2013 Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Over 100,000 people support him. He stands no chance of winning.  Nobel Committee members reserve their award for notorious war criminals. Peace advocates have no chance. It’s a Nobel tradition.

Manning’s sentence is automatically reviewed. Major General Jeffrey Buchanan heads Washington’s Military District. He’s responsible for doing it. He can reduce Manning’s sentence. He can’t increase it.

His case automatically goes to the Army Court of Appeals. The entire process takes time. A full transcript of proceedings must be produced. Defense counsel, prosecutors and Judge Lind must approve it.

On August 21, the Bradley Manning Support Network headlined “Press conference: Bradley Manning’s lawyer to address 35 year sentence,” saying:

David Coombs represents him. He’ll discuss legal avenues for redress. He’ll take reporters’ questions. He’ll do so for the first time.

A “crowd-funded college trust is being established.” It’s to help Manning attend college on release.

His supporters held an early morning vigil. They’ll rally tonight outside the White House. They’ll do it again and again and again.

“The Bradley Manning Support Network will continue to be responsible for 100% of Manning’s legal fees, as well as international education efforts.”  “Funded by over 22,000 individuals, the Support Network has mustered $1.4 million in Manning’s defense.”

Manning was confined for 1,294 days. They included 112 day sentencing credit. Judge Lind ordered it.

She said Manning was subjected to lawless pretrial harshness. Credit reduces his sentence to around thirty-one and a half years.

Coombs will petition General Buchanan for clemency. An Army clemency parole board can review his case after a year.

Coombs can petition for clemency annually. Manning must serve a third of his sentence for parole eligibility.  Good behavior credit’s possible. Whether it holds for Manning remains to be seen. Thirty-five years hard time for doing the right thing suggests not.

If granted, sentencing can be reduced as many as ten days for each month’s confinement.

On August 19, prosecutors argued for harshness. They said:

“There is value in deterrence, Your Honor. This court must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing classified information.”

“National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously. Punish Pfc. Manning’s actions, Your Honor.”

They urged 60 years. Chief prosecutor Capt. Joe Morrow said “(h)e’s been convicted of serious crimes.”

He “betrayed the United States and for that betrayal he deserves to spend the majority of his remaining life in confinement.”

David Coombs called Manning “a young man capable of being redeemed. We should not throw this man out for 60 years. We should not rob him of his youth.”

“The appropriate sentence would be (one) that takes into account all facts and circumstances that you’re aware of. (T)hat it gives Pfc. Manning an opportunity to be restored to a productive place in society.”

That would give him “the opportunity, perhaps, to live the life he wants in the way that he would like, perhaps find love, maybe get married, maybe have children, to watch his children grow and perhaps have a relationship with his children’s children.”

He’s at the mercy of dark US forces. They want a message sent. They want Manning destroyed. They already administered cruel and unreasonable punishment. Longterm hard time compounds it. Doing so sends a clear message. Whistleblowers aren’t tolerated. Obama targeted more than all his predecessors combined.

Potential ones are warned. Revealing what Washington wants suppressed risks replicating harsh Manning treatment.  Doing the right thing’s criminalized. War criminals go unpunished. US-style justice is none at all. Rogue states operate that way.

A Final Comment

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) calls itself “the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.”

In response to Manning’s sentencing it headlined “Manning’s 35-Year Sentence Intended to be a Message to All Whistleblowers.” In part it said:

“It is the position of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) that this sentence, though not the 60+ year sentence that the prosecution had requested, is intended to be a message to all whistleblowers, present and future.”

“Further, the sentence is excessive and unjust for the following reasons:

“It has never been proven that Manning’s conduct did harm to the US.”

“Manning informed the public of clear wrongdoing.”

He “suffered egregious and unlawful pretrial detention.

“No individuals have been punished as a result of Manning’s revelations despite clear atrocities.”

“This was a show trial done largely in secret,” said GAP National Security & Human Rights Counsel Kathleen McClellan.  “This case is of public interest, but the public has been kept in the dark through severely limited media access. America is better than secret courts.”

“GAP champions government and corporate accountability and transparency by advancing occupational free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists.”

“Since its founding in 1977, GAP has fought to make large bureaucratic institutions accountable through the effective exercise of conscience.”

America today represents heart of darkness harshness. It’s a hair’s breadth from full-blown tyranny. Manning’s fate can be anyone’s.  Dissent’s an endangered species. Freedom’s fast eroding. It’s disappearing in plain sight.

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.  It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour