“With the legal persecution of Julian Assange finally over, the FBI must come clean to the American people,” Chip Gibbons, policy director for Defending Rights & Dissent.
The civil liberties organization Defending Rights and Dissent sued the FBI and United States Justice Department for withholding records on WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.
“For nearly a decade and a half, we’ve been trying to get at the truth about the U.S. government’s war on WikiLeaks,” declared Chip Gibbons, the policy director for Defending Rights and Dissent.
Gibbons added, “With the legal persecution of Julian Assange finally over, the FBI must come clean to the American people.”
On June 25, 2024, U.S. government attorneys submitted a plea agreement [PDF] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands after Assange agreed to plead guilty to one conspiracy charge under the U.S. Espionage Act.
Assange was released on bail from London’s Belmarsh prison, where he had been jailed for over five years while fighting a U.S. extradition request. He flew on a charter flight to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory where a plea hearing was held.
The plea agreement marked the end of a U.S. campaign to target and suppress Assange and WikiLeaks that spanned 14 years and first intensified after WikiLeaks published documents from U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning that exposed crimes committed in U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as U.S. complicity in human rights abuses in dozens of countries around the world.
“As soon as we began publishing newsworthy stories about US war crimes in 2010, we know the US government responded to what was one of most consequential journalistic revelations of the 21st century by spying on and trying to criminalize First Amendment-protected journalism,” stated WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.
Hrafnsson continued, “While WikiLeaks has fought for transparency, the U.S. government has cloaked its war on journalism in secrecy. That’s why Defending Rights & Dissent’s lawsuit is so important, as it will help unmask the FBI’s efforts to criminalize journalism.”
On June 27, Defending Rights and Dissent requested [PDF] “all records created, maintained, or in the custody of the FBI that mention or reference: WikiLeaks; Julian Assange.”
The FBI separated the request into two requests—one for files mentioning “WikiLeaks,” one for files mentioning Julian Assange. And by August 19, the organization was informed by the FBI that it would take around five and a half years (2,010 days) to “complete action.”
Previously, on June 22, 2021, Defending Rights and Dissent submitted a nearly identical request. It took the FBI two years to respond and notify the organization that the documents could not be provided because there was a “law enforcement” proceeding that was pending against Assange.
The FBI became involved in pursuing an investigation against Assange and WikiLeaks in December 2010.
In 2011, FBI agents and prosecutors flew to Iceland to investigate what they claimed was a cyber attack against Iceland’s government systems. But as Iceland Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson told the Associated Press in 2013, it became clear that the FBI agents and prosecutors came to Iceland to “frame” Assange and WikiLeaks.
The FBI was interested in interviewing Sigurdur Thordarson, a serial liar and sociopath who embezzled funds from the WikiLeaks store and sexually preyed on underage boys. As I recount in my book “Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case Against Julian Assange,” Thordarson subsequently became an FBI informant or cooperating witness.
“When I learned about it, I demanded that Icelandic police cease all cooperation and made it clear that people interviewed or interrogated in Iceland should be interrogated by Icelandic police,” Jónasson added.
A little more than a year before the U.S. government’s prosecution against Assange collapsed, the FBI approached three journalists who had worked with Assange but had a falling-out with him. Each refused to help U.S. prosecutors further their attack on journalism.
“The decision to respond to reporting on U.S. war crimes with foreign counterintelligence investigations, criminal prosecutions, and dirty tricks continues to cast a dark shadow over our First Amendment right to press freedom,” Gibbons said.
Gibbons concluded, “We will work tirelessly to see that all files documenting how the FBI criminalized and investigated journalism are made available to the public.”
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 14 Sept 24
Kamala Harris has a lot more to be concerned about than possibly losing to Donald Trump November 5…her boss President Biden escalating the Ukraine war beyond control.
As early as this weekend President Biden may approve Ukrainian long range missile strikes into Russia, even reaching Moscow, using US and UK missiles. That would represent a huge US escalation that further overturns Biden’s initial comments on the Russian invasion that he would not foolishly escalate US involvement, least it provoke nuclear war.
But during the 31 months of war largely destroying Ukraine as a functioning nation, Biden has taken increasingly provocative actions risking wider war. Blowing up a Ukraine Russia peace agreement early on to win a zero sum game, check. F-16’s, check. Abrams tanks, Check. Providing long range missiles with strings attached, check.
But removing those strings may be a missile to far for Russian President Putin. He shot back at Biden’s deranged likely escalation charging “This would in a significant way, change the very nature of the conflict. It would mean that NATO countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia. If that’s the case, then taking into account the change of nature of the conflict, we will take the appropriate decisions based on the threats that we will face. Supporting long-range Ukrainian strikes inside Russian territory is a decision on whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not.”
President Biden keeps double and tripling down on his refusal to concede it has turned Ukraine into the Humpty Dumpty of Europe. But unlike the poor soul of the nursery rhyme, Ukraine didn’t fall of the wall of functioning nations. President Biden pushed it with his lust to bring Ukraine into NATO and weaponize Ukraine’s civil war against Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas Ukraine.
It’s possible Harris understands Biden’s reckless folly and will pivot from bombs and missiles to diplomacy to end it should she become president.
But don’t count on it. Harris has been an unbridled proponent of US exceptionalism and world dominance her entire political career. She is unlikely to buck the US security establishment which has and will exert virtually total control over her if elected.
Let’s all push a President Harris to pivot to peace to prevent her blowing up the world. We don’t want her to be America’s last president….that is unless Joe Biden, with his reckless war escalations in Ukraine, beats her to it.
My read is that they are desperately scrounging for some symbolic targets to allow Ukraine to hit, which can be approved with a secret backdoor handshake between Russia, where all parties can be satisfied. US and Russia will agree to not escalate, and US may even make some secret small concession in order to allow Ukraine their slight indulgence. But we’ll see what happens.
It seems every news cycle there is now some major new development surrounding Ukraine, which threatens to plunge the war into some elevated state of risk and threat. This is by design because Zelensky and his curators need to constantly drum up a sense of advancement in the narrative, otherwise the increasingly dire situation on the front threatens to swallow the entire war effort whole.
Today that “shiny new object” meant to give UA supporters some small glint of hope is the information package surrounding permission for deep strikes into Russia.
First let’s clear up the nuances to this report. Some believe the decision has already been made and the media is merely trotting out its regular theater to warm up the public. But the other missed detail is two-fold:
First the US apparently wants Ukraine to demonstrate a tangible plan for how it would utilize these ‘deep strikes’ to actually achieve victory, rather than merely some vague psychological effect.
And for this precise reason, Zelensky is traveling to the US to present his plan, which some sources have claimed has three points, which I outlined last time, but as reminder:
1. Zelensky wants the US to allow long-range strikes into Russia with foreign missiles to destroy all military bases, airfields, ammunition and fuel depots within the European part of Russia.
2. The West (US/NATO) must protect Western Ukraine with Polish and Romanian air defense systems from Russian retaliation strikes so Ukraine could transfer own air defense systems closer to the battlefield.
3.The West must guarantee to be prepared to get more involved by sending ground troops to certain parts of Ukraine to free up Ukraine’s manpower which could be sent to the front lines. Zelensky believes after this campaign Russia would be forced to retreat, at some point Putin’s leadership would be destabilized and replaced, with the new leadership signing a peace deal.
Another report:
Zelensky and Biden will meet in Washington in two days, US Secretary of State Blinken said.
Zelensky said that in two days he will present Joe Biden with a “plan for victory over Russia.” The latecomer said the plan would be, in particular, psychological and political in nature, as well as “weapons of various kinds,” which, according to Zelensky, should encourage Russia to end the war.
This is not corroborated officially as yet, so take it with a grain of salt. However, we already have some sand to throw on the above via another breaking story, which is that infamous Russian pranksters Vovan & Lexus had just caught Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski in their net. Sikorski directly addresses two of the points above, totally dispelling them. He was under the impression he was speaking to Ukraine’s Petro Poroshenko as part of the gag.
Here he plainly states that right now there is no chance for Poland, and likely the rest of NATO, in shooting down any Russian assets or joining the war: [Video on original]
…………………………………………… affirmation that NATO membership is a carrot-on-a-stick being used by the West against Ukraine, and that Ukraine has no real chance of joining the alliance: [Again – Video on original]
This is particularly timely because Blinken has just released a new statement claiming Ukraine will definitely join NATO.
The relief, of course, is that Sikorski confirms: “There is no willingness in Europe to have a war with Russia, this is an absolute red line.”
This is good news, as it shows behind the scenes Europe has a few saner and cooler heads than we sometimes imagine, and Sikorski even goes on to admit that much of his posturing is for the public’s sake to make Putin “wonder”—i.e. part of the infamous “strategic ambiguity” that Europe has banked on out of desperation.
But let’s continue on.
So: we know that the US wants to see concrete plans for why Ukraine needs to strike Russian territory in order to “win”. The only plausible scenario that Zelensky can sell them is that he intends to “hurt” Russia in some way, by striking sensitive sites, as to force it into a peace settlement. That would be the ostensibly public “plan”, whereas the real plan would be to force Russia and NATO into a confrontation—but Zelensky can’t say this part out loud. The former plan would lead to Zelensky’s political demise, as peace would see him removed from power; the latter plan would allow a continuation of his criminal regime’s rule.
One of the problems is: major transnational conglomerates like BlackRock and the Soros Empire have all signed deals with Zelensky’s regime—and it’s in their great interest to keep those contracts active. Should Zelensky be removed, they know a new leader could annul their deals, causing trillions in future losses…..
Now, the second part of the ongoing developments is that even should the US give Ukraine some new discretion to strike Russia, it appears to be a limited one:
As you can see in the above, the US will likely attempt to “sit on both chairs” by acceding to Ukraine’s demands to give them some more leeway in strikes, but still hoping to not provoke Russia into an uncontrollable or runaway escalatory spiral. This would logically entail Ukraine given conditional permission to strike certain conventional targets, but not anything even remotely sensitive, with a long list of red-line “no-gos” which would of course include things like nuclear plants, but even likely governmental or institutional structures, for instance—at the extreme end of the case—striking the Kremlin.
This may sound absurd at face value, but Zelensky literally stated: “It’s a pity we can’t strike the Kremlin” in an interview days ago—citing the poor range of his weapons—and Ukraine would love the ability to “humiliate” Russia and boost its morale by doing something like that.
Now comes the final element. Ukraine is begging to strike Russian territory with long range weapons, but are there really that many remaining?
There have been reports that Ukraine has already used almost “all” of its supplied ATACMS. This was stated explicitly by CNN in their new article:………………………………………………..
People are underestimating just how expensive the ATACMS is. At upwards of $1.5 to $1.7 million each, the total complement of ~300 would have cost around $500,000,000 dollars. The problem with this is that the US has very little military aid left to Ukraine, and its recent “packages” have been only a couple hundred million each, and that is needed to pay for a vast array of different types of ammunition for all systems—you know, the systems actually fighting the real battle on the frontline, like artillery, not systems meant to be used for fancifully pointless PR attacks deep inside Russia.
Not only does the US not have many ATACMS left for itself in case of war, supplying another several hundred of them to Ukraine is prohibitively costly—do people just think these high-level prestige systems grow on trees? From the same CNN piece:
These $1.5+ million dollar missiles, by the way, are being shot down by Russian interceptors costing $100-200k or less. The math simply does not work from any perspective.
The second issue is that, as CNN noted above, “several hundred” of these ATACMS, which potentially represents upwards of 20-40% of the entire US stockpile, have already been expended—and to what effect? If a major portion of the entire US stockpile has had negligible effect in degrading Russia’s warfighting ability, don’t you think that might be a kind of bellwether of things?
Even some of Ukraine’s top ‘experts’ admit the fallacy:
Of course, now there’s talk of JASSM missiles, and the above is merely the underscoring of the point I had made several articles ago where I stated that JASSMs do not represent some “new” wunderwaffe ability but rather the desperate measure of carrying over Ukrainian strike capability from the depleted ATACMS. The JASSMs are much cheaper, at reportedly $700k or so, and on top of that, the US has far more of them in stock—supposedly in the several thousands.
Finally, we get to the most important part. Putin released his new statement regarding the recent developments about potentially greenlighting these deep strikes into Russia. He makes an extremely significant point that most people have missed, which explains why, specifically, Russia considers this as a direct involvement by NATO in the war.
Listen carefully:
Most people simply assumed that Russia fears having some important rear areas being destroyed. But what Putin points out is the distinction between Ukraine’s own paltry drone strikes deep into Russia, which can be carried out by Ukraine acting independently, with the long range strikes of these advanced weapons systems which require direct Western integration, support, and ultimately, participation in the strikes. That’s because many of these systems, like the Storm Shadows, as it was explained to us long ago, require the originating country’s direct involvement in programming the coordinates into them, not to mention the initial satellite surveillance necessary for obtaining the targeting itself.
This was why, you may recall, Germany expressly forbid sending Taurus missiles, as it was declared that German technicians would need to be on the ground directly programming the targeting solutions into the missiles, which would mean their explicit involvement in the war as combatants. You can hear the leaked German Army call discussing precisely this, here.
For those that still don’t understand, let me explain a little more clearly: when Ukraine sends its cardboard drones to Moscow, it can get the coordinates on google maps or whatever other open source database, and does not really need Western involvement. But advanced missiles and weapons systems are often run by proprietary software that requires special keys, programs, equipment, etc., to input the coordinates into them which cannot be done by the Ukrainians themselves, because giving them such digital ‘keys’ could compromise the entire system even in the home NATO countries in case of future conflict.
Thus, Putin is saying that for these systems to strike deep into Russia would necessarily mean NATO would be directly involved as a combatant in striking Russian territory in a more express way than ever before. The most obvious immediate Russian response would likely be to arm the Houthis with advanced anti-ship missiles which would straightaway endanger the entire US fleet.
The ramifications of this are far greater than most can imagine, given the cascading effect it would have. The US fleet is there to deter Iran and Hezbollah in protecting Israel. Should the Houthis possess an ability to completely cripple the US fleet, the falling chips would be: Israel’s defeat, which would mean the entire Empire’s defeat in the Middle East as Iran would reign supreme. This catastrophic sequence of events would result in the entire eventual collapse of the Western order. As such, the US obviously would not like to risk this scenario.
In classified briefings, American intelligence officials have expressed deeper concerns about direct, visible American participation in Ukraine’s move to seize and hold positions near Kursk. There are indications, they have warned, that Russia could provide technological help that would allow Iran and its proxy forces to attack American forces in the Middle East.
For those interested here is Putin’s full statement transcribed, which clarifies my thesis:
Putin:The FULL Statement on the “permission” by US and UK for long range Western missiles attacking the territory of the Russian Federation:
“There is an attempt to substitute concepts. Because we are not talking about allowing or prohibiting the Kiev regime to strike at Russian territory. It is already striking with the help of unmanned aerial vehicles and other means. But when it comes to using high–precision long-range Western-made weapons, it’s a completely different story. The fact is that, as I have already said, and any experts will confirm this (both here and in the West), the Ukrainian army is not able to strike with modern high-precision long-range systems of Western production. It can’t do that. This is possible only with the use of satellite data, which Ukraine does not have — this is data only from satellites of either the European Union or the United States, in general, from NATO satellites. This is the first one. The second, and very important, perhaps key, is that flight missions to these missile systems can, in fact, only be carried out by military personnel of NATO countries.Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. And therefore, it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not to allow it. It’s about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict or not. If this decision is made, it will mean nothing more than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, and European countries in the war in Ukraine. This is their direct involvement. And this, of course, significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict. This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created to us.”
Lastly, let me state that despite the hubbub surrounding this, with many outlets reporting with near ‘certainty’ that permission is about to be, or has already been, granted, it seems to me like the opposite is the case, and Biden’s fear-stricken administration is flip-flopping as ever. The official statements today still resoundingly said “no policy change” is expected. My read is that they are desperately scrounging for some symbolic targets to allow Ukraine to hit, which can be approved with a secret backdoor handshake between Russia, where all parties can be satisfied. US and Russia will agree to not escalate, and US may even make some secret small concession in order to allow Ukraine their slight indulgence. But we’ll see what happens.
In light of the above, there have been some odd new reports claiming that drones flying from either Norway or Finland have been attacking Murmansk, with radar maps showing various NATO aircraft surveilling Russia’s borders at the time of the attack:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Now let’s complete the overview of Sikorski’s very interesting compromised interview with the Russian prankster……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Important one about nuclear weapons: Sikorski says Poland absolutely does not want American nuclear weapons on its territory. ……………….. the clearest admission yet that Ukraine did not own its nukes in the ‘90s, which belonged to Russia:
Previously he stated that Ukraine joining NATO is just a carrot-on-a-stick, while here he states that Ukraine joining the EU is a pipedream that will take over a decade to realize…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
In light of Blinken’s visit and the Sikorski revelations above, here’s Polish MEP Grzegorz Braun sending a strong message:
According to The Guardian, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken “gave the strongest hint yet” about permitting Ukraine to use long-range ATACMS missiles against Russia during his visit to Kiev on Wednesday. The decision is “understood to have already been made in private,” the British outlet claimed.
The Western media is manufacturing public consent for the move, according to a Russian senator
Washington and London may have already decided to let Kiev use long-range missiles for strikes deep inside Russia and are now seeding the narrative through the media, Russian Senator Aleksey Pushkov has said.
Britain has already given the green light for the use of Storm Shadow missiles, The Guardian reported on Wednesday, citing anonymous government sources. London, however, is not expected to announce the move publicly, the sources claimed.
“The decision to strike Russian territory is clearly being prepared,” Pushkov wrote on Telegram on Wednesday. “There are too many conversations and hints about it for it to be reversed. Even if it has not been made yet, it looks like it will be a matter of days. The leak via The Guardian is not accidental. Public opinion is being prepared.”
Limitations on the use of Western-supplied weapons were originally put in place to allow the US and its allies to claim they were not directly involved in the conflict with Russia, while arming Ukraine to the tune of $200 billion. Kiev has been clamoring for the restrictions to be lifted since May, however.
According to The Guardian, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken “gave the strongest hint yet” about permitting Ukraine to use long-range ATACMS missiles against Russia during his visit to Kiev on Wednesday. The decision is “understood to have already been made in private,” the British outlet claimed.
Blinken “signaled” the potential shift from Washington on Tuesday, according to Bloomberg, by bringing up Iran’s alleged delivery of missiles to Moscow.
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who tagged along with Blinken to Kiev, has said the Iranian missile delivery was a “significant and dangerous escalation” that influenced the thinking in London and Washington.
The escalator here is [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. Putin has escalated with the shipment of missiles from Iran. We see a new axis of Russia, Iran and North Korea,” The Guardian quoted Lammy as saying.
Iran has denied sending any missiles to Russia, calling the accusations “psychological warfare” and particularly rich coming from countries heavily involved in arming Ukraine.
An open letter from 27 US congressmen and senators sent to President Joe Biden on Wednesday did not mention Iranian missiles at all. Instead, it claimed that Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region “changed the very nature of the war” and argued that “Ukraine is not intimidated by Putin’s tyranny, and in the defense of liberty, we should not be either.”
The US “continues to test the limits of our tolerance for hostile steps,” and is “paving the way to World War III,” the Russian ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov, told reporters on Wednesday.
“It is impossible to negotiate with terrorists. They must be destroyed,” Antonov added. “As in the years of the Great Patriotic War, fascism must be eradicated. And the goals and objectives of the special military operation must be fully achieved. No one should doubt that it will be so.”
Putin has previously warned NATO members to be aware of “what they are playing with” when discussing plans to allow Kiev to strike deep inside Russian territory using weapons provided by the West. The Russian military is “taking appropriate countermeasures,” according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the use of Storm Shadow missiles inside Russian territory “playing with fire.”
Grzegorz Braun’s fiery remarks highlight growing divisions within Poland over its involvement in the Ukraine conflict. As tensions escalate, Poland finds itself caught between supporting Western allies and safeguarding its security against potential Russian retaliation. Watch an exclusive on India Today Global.
Grzegorz Braun, a Polish member of the European Parliament, recently made a strong statement opposing Poland’s alignment with the United States in the ongoing war in Ukraine. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the U.S. Secretary of State’s involvement, stating,
“Blinken, go home as soon as possible. Get lost! We don’t want you here. We don’t want Polish people paying and dying for your wars.”
Die Welt predicts a mass exodus of people from Ukraine in winter
▪️ The article states:
Rolling power outages are already occurring across the country. In the summer, they are perhaps a minor inconvenience, and only cause real problems when it comes to refrigeration units or storage facilities. However, in the winter, such a situation could lead to a large-scale catastrophe. Millions of people would flee en masse.
▪️ The publication notes that only half of Ukraine’s energy production capacity remains, and the situation could become extremely difficult by winter.
One defence official, not involved in the audit, said: “The war has tested our stockpiles, but it’s a good thing for us that we have cleared out old kit and can now replace it with new equipment.”
Defence ministry dispatched kit ‘due to be scrapped or replaced’, according to National Audit Office
Much of the military aid the UK has given to Ukraine has consisted of old equipment, such as army boots that otherwise would have had to be thrown away, according to a spending watchdog.
Military gear that was “often due to be scrapped or replaced” was prioritised by the Ministry of Defence because it was believed to have “immediate military value” to Ukraine — but sending it to Kyiv also “reduced waste or costs relating to disposal”, the National Audit Office said on Wednesday.
The ministry also used other “innovative ways of sourcing military equipment”, such as reverse-engineering replacement tracks for Soviet-era T72 tanks from samples at a tank museum in Dorset, the NAO noted.
The findings come as some of Kyiv’s western allies tire of supporting Ukraine almost three years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion. The £7.8bn of military aid the UK has pledged or sent to Kyiv make it the third-largest supplier of western support to Ukraine after the US at £56.5bn, and Germany at £16.2bn, the NAO said. The UK has pledged to continue providing £3bn a year of military aid. Other western allies have also given ageing equipment to Kyiv: in one recent US example, 10 donated vehicles ostensibly worth more than $7mn had a combined book value of zero.
However, ageing military equipment cleared from British stockpiles was only a small portion of total UK aid sent to Ukraine, because it had a book value of just £171.5mn versus an estimated replacement cost of £2.7bn. Three-quarters of it also came during the first year of the invasion. The UK spent a further £2.4bn on procuring equipment, contributed £500mn to an international fund, and spent £830mn on operational support, some channelled via Nato………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
One finding concerned the value of UK military supplies. The report cited 17,000 pairs of army boots, which the UK donated in March 2022. The shoes were nearing the end of their usable life and, if not sold, “would have been sent to landfill”. In another example, the NAO said the 14 Challenger 2 tanks sent in 2023 had a book value of just £17mn, compared to their original purchase price at the end of the 1990s of £47mn.
One defence official, not involved in the audit, said: “The war has tested our stockpiles, but it’s a good thing for us that we have cleared out old kit and can now replace it with new equipment.”
The UK has set aside £2.5bn to replenish its stockpiles depleted by the war. In April, the previous Conservative government pledged £10bn in investment to boost munitions productions over the next decade.
The police used riot tactics and baton charges, mace and teargas to bludgeon the good people of Indinthakarai into submission. Which is the situation today. They are too scared to come out of their homes in mass protest. The Government of India, of Prime Minister Modi has become a terrorising state of its own people.
David Bradbury 14 September 24
I flew from Bangkok to Chennai Tuesday night with my two children – Nakeita Bradbury (21) and Omar Bradbury (14).
We all have visas issued by the Indian Govt in Australia before we left Sydney, last Saturday, Sept 7th.
After three days in Bangkok we flew to Chennai to begin what was to be a family holiday to remember: five major tourist destinations in two weeks.
Accommodation and internal flights (non refundable…) booked in advance in several locations.
(In Bangkok I showed my latest doco – a tribute to Neil Davis who was tragically killed in a 24 hour coup in Bangkok 39 years ago. Death is a Lady was shown at the Foreign Correspondents Club and we raised $Aust407 for the children of Gaza).
Arriving at Immigration counter at Chennai airport, my two children got their passports stamped and were able to go through no problem. When it came my turn, the perplexed official had to call for help as he laboured over his computer terminal.
Putting in my details had obviously triggered alarm bells. He called for his Supervisor who similarly winced as he looked over his shoulder. It was
2am in the morning. My kids waited patiently on the ot her side of the glass barrier between us.
Eventually I was told it would not be possible for me to enter India. I asked why not? I had a legitimate visa I told them.
And my kids were on the other side of the barrier separating us.
We were here on a family holiday we’d planned and saved for many months. With the usual Indian courtesy of avoiding the question:
‘Why not? What is wrong with my visa..?’
My kids were on one side of the border…and I was on this side. I could not join them. As they waved sadly, reluctantly Goodbye to me, I was led off down a corridor to a small room with high ceilings. Pretty disgusting room with papers and rubbish on the floor under a bed which had a filthy mattress on it, no sheets. A metal grill window that looked out to a blank corridor wall.
Occasionally a guard would come and stare through it at me.
During the course of the rest of the day and into the night various Immigration
Plainclothes police would come and interrogate me. What was I doing in India? What did I do here before in previous visit in 2012? Who did I know here in India and who have you been talking to before I came to India this time. Can you open up your phone and give it to us, please? Can we have their phone number?
I was cold and asked for my long trousers and socks which were in my suitcase and some medication I was taking for an enlarged prostrate. They never got them for me, only an hour before they forced me back onto the flight to Bangkok. My bag still hasn’t arrived here in Bangkok.
I asked if I could make a phone call to the Australian embassy in Delhi but that request was ignored.
As the plane took off from Chennai yesterday morning for Bangkok at 1.30am, it hurt my world weary heart to accept being separated from my kids and our plans to have a grand tour of the Indian subcontinent which included going to Varanasi to show my Omar how Hindus deal with death and farewelling their loved ones into the next life.(Omar lost his mum, my wife to breast cancer five months ago. We both feel strongly attached to each other).
What had caused the cancellation of my Indian Visa? Over the course of the afternoon and being interrogated by Indian Immigration plainclothes, I quickly concluded the Indian Govt had not forgiven me for writing an article for my local newspaper back in Australia and daring to enter a ‘No-go’ zone for both Indian national press and foreign media like myself in 2012.
Back then after I’d done my duties on the jury of the Mumbai International film festival, with wife Treena (Lenthall) and son Omar, then aged 3, we went and stayed in a small fishing village on the southern most tip of India. At a village called Indinthakarai where thousands of locals led by Dr Udayakamur, Catholic priests and nuns. Since the 1980’s the good fisherfolk of Indinthakarai had maintained a David and Goliath struggle against the pro-nuclear designs of the central Govt in far away New Delhi.
These people embraced Treena, Omar and I because we felt for them in their struggle against the central Government 3,000kms away in New Delhi who had run roughshod over their rights and their community. We lived in the village for the next two weeks and filmed their everyday lifestyle, their fishing in the ocean which their livelihood depended upon. I interviewed their leaders on why they were so upset with the Government. One of them, a wonderful man called Dr Udayakamur stood out. He told me why they were determined to keep on with their struggle.
It was because their Government had signed a very dodgy deal with the Russians to build six nuclear powers plants on top of a major earthquake fault line. That faultline right where a cabal of corrupt senior Indian politicians and senior bureaucrats had signed the contract with the Russians had seen 1,000 villagers swept to their deathswhen the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami hit.
He told me on camera how the humble fisherfolk of Idinthakarai
whose ancestors had ploughed the ocean for millennia;
How the Delhi Govt refused to have any community consultation and refused repeated requests by the people of Indinthakarai to be given access to environmental assessment reports.
Dr Udayakamur is an earnest practitioner of Gandhi’s non violent protest actions to effect Change.
The locals under Dr Uday staged sit-down protests where they buried their bodies in the sand up to their necks on the foreshore where the nuclear plants were being built. Thousands of people marched into the sea out front of the power plants defying police orders.
In the end their actions were in vain. The police used riot tactics and baton charges, mace and teargas to bludgeon the good people of Indinthakarai into submission. Which is the situation today. They are too scared to come out of their homes in mass protest. The Government of India, of Prime Minister Modi has become a terrorising state of its own people.
Dr Uday faces 58 criminal charges which includes ’Sedition’. He faces many years in gaol and long years before that in drawn out court proceedings. It has taken its toll on his health and his family.
All this happening out of sight of reporter’s notebooks and cameras in the world’s largest ‘Democracy’.
Rosatom has said that its work to resolve nuclear legacy issues in Russia’s Far East has been successful, including the dismantling of dozens of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. In total, the state nuclear corporation said, 202 Russian nuclear-powered submarines decommissioned before 2022 have been dismantled, including 82 from the country’s Far East.
It added that all used nuclear fuel has been removed from the region. The reactor compartments of the dismantled nuclear submarines have been placed in specially constructed containers in a secure site on land, and are subject to radiation monitoring and maintenance, such as checking the condition of the anti-corrosion protective coating, the company said.
The program will model a scenario in which the region faces an atomic disaster, documents show
The US Defense Department has ordered a study to simulate the impact of a nuclear conflict on global agriculture. According to a solicitation notice posted on a government procurement platform, the study will focus on regions “beyond Eastern Europe and Western Russia,” which in the simulation is the epicenter of the hypothetical nuclear weapons deployment.
The project will be spearheaded by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC).
According to the notice posted earlier this week, the ERDC has already chosen Terra Analytics, a Colorado-based company that specializes in advanced data visualization and analyses, as the contractor. However, it states that other potential contractors are invited to share their proposals if they are able to provide similar services.
The notice lists requirements for contractors to fulfill, such as providing personnel, equipment, facilities, supervision, and other items necessary to conduct the study. The contractor would, among other things, need to incorporate aerial mapping in the simulation and model a scenario in which a “non-destructive nuclear event” takes place. The cost of the contract has been set at $34 million.
It is unclear from the notice how the Pentagon intends to use the study. However, the order comes at a time when talk of a potential nuclear war has intensified in light of the Ukraine conflict and the growing discord between the NATO and Russia. Many experts have warned that a direct confrontation between Russia and the US-led bloc could result in a nuclear disaster. According to the Federation of American Scientists, Washington and Moscow control the largest atomic arsenals in the world, with around 5,000 and 5,500 warheads, respectively.
The New York Times reported last month that the US administration had approved a new version of its nuclear strategy. According to the newspaper, the document ordered US forces to prepare for possible coordinated nuclear confrontations with Russia, China, and North Korea.
Two former provincial cabinet ministers would have been barred by conflict of interest legislation from the senior positions they’ve taken with engineering services and nuclear energy giant AtkinsRéalis if they’d been in federal politics, an expert in government and corporate ethics has concluded.
Former New Brunswick natural resources minister Mike Holland and Ontario energy minister Todd Smith both left their positions over the summer and signed on with Montreal-based AtkinsRéalis within a couple of weeks of quitting politics. Holland resigned from cabinet in late June and was appointed as Atkins’ director of business development for North America in early July. Smith quit in mid-August and was hired as vice-president, marketing and business development for Atkins subsidiary Candu Energy two weeks later……………………………………………………
Holland’s and Smith’s career moves are permitted by New Brunswick’s and Ontario’s conflict of interest rules, respectively. Both provinces set 12-month bans on activities like direct lobbying after a former official leaves office, but do not bar other employment with a company that does business with the official’s former government.
……………………………………………… Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher said neither official would have been allowed to make the move if they’d been serving in the federal cabinet. And Smith would have been barred by Ontario rules if he had been working as minister’s staff, rather than as minister.
A Preceding Transaction
“At the federal level you wouldn’t be allowed to do what they did,” Conacher told The Energy Mix.
“There’s a preceding transaction, a negotiation they provided advice on. They were both quoted in AtkinsRéalis’ news release.”
That was a reference to an April 13, 2022 release in which Candu Energy and Saint John, New Brunswick-based Moltex Energy announced a “strategic partnership to advance the development and deployment of next-generation Small Modular Reactor (SMR) nuclear technology in Canada,” including a “first of a kind” installation in New Brunswick. In that release, Holland and Smith both showed up as early boosters for the partnership.
“New Brunswick welcomes investment in clean energy, especially as it builds on the province’s established core of expertise in nuclear technology,” Holland said. “This agreement contributes not only to the growth of long-term, high-quality jobs in New Brunswick’s energy sector; it also recognizes the leadership role of both Moltex and the province in advancing the next generation of nuclear technology.”
“I’m thrilled to welcome this new partnership between Moltex and SNC-Lavalin that builds our provincial energy industry, one renowned for its talented work force and strong nuclear supply chain,” Smith added. “This partnership enhances our clean energy advantage and reputation as a global hub for SMR expertise, making Ontario an even more attractive place to do business and create jobs.”
The release cited Candu Energy as a subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin, the politically connected but often deeply troubled global firm that eventually rebranded as AtkinsRéalis in September, 2023. But not before it set up Candu Energy by acquiring key commercial nuclear contracts, intellectual property, and personnel from federally-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in 2011.
‘You’re Never Allowed’
Neither Holland nor Smith would have been allowed to join AtkinsRéalis if they were bound by the federal Conflict of Interest Act, Conacher told The Mix.
“You’re never allowed to act on behalf of any person or organization connected with something you were involved with in government. It’s not 12 months. It’s never. You’re never allowed,” Conacher said.
“And then secondly, you’re not allowed to give advice to anyone using confidential information,” he added. That amounts to a blanket restriction because “they learn things every day that are not disclosed,” which means all the advice a former cabinet official gives is based on confidential information.
“How do you unknow what you know and then give advice pretending you don’t know what you know? It’s impossible.”
That concern doesn’t apply in New Brunswick or Ontario, and Conacher said New Brunswick’s conflict of interest rules are the weaker of the two. In mid-August, Holland was listed in the federal lobbying registry as an AtkinsRéalis senior officer whose lobbying activities represented more than 20% of his duties.
Other Ways to Be Useful
But direct lobbying isn’t the only way, or even the most useful way, a former cabinet minister can help out a new corporate employer.
Israel and its lobby today try to conflate the state with Jews around the world, that it speaks for Jews and encompasses the entire diaspora. Richard Silverstein, author and journalist of the Tikun Olam blog, says that this couldn’t be further from the truth. As the genocide in Gaza rages on, along with the killing of Israeli citizens and the mass torture of Palestinians, the support for Israel among Jews, particularly the younger generation, will continue to falter as the state itself plunges deeper into despair.
Silverstein speaks to host Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast to detail his relationship with Israel and Zionism and how his views have evolved over time, ultimately leading to a complete disconnection from the state, especially in light of the ongoing genocide, and now calling himself an anti-Zionist.
Being raised Jewish and earning degrees from Jewish Theological Seminary and Columbia University, as well as studying Hebrew literature at the Hebrew University in Israel, Silverstein makes clear: “[F]or you and for me and for most American Jews, Judaism is not genocide in Gaza, is not $20 billion or $80 billion in arms being sent by the US to Israel to kill Palestinians. That’s not the kind of Judaism that I represent.”
Not only is the genocide a driving force behind the alienation of the Israel state but also the way it treats its own citizens, looking at them as expendable in its objective to kill Hamas operators. Silverstein refers to the Hannibal Directive, a procedure used by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to prevent the capture of soldiers by killing them and their captors. “[Y]ou now have a code that is expanded to also killing your own civilians. And that’s, I think, what is even more profoundly upsetting, disturbing about the way in which Hannibal is being used right now,” Silverstein tells Scheer.
orture and rape of Palestinian prisoners is also something that has emerged from Israel’s onslaught on Gaza and the West Bank, according to Silverstein. “We have Palestinians in Gaza who were swept up in detention raids and brought to concentration camps, really, in Israel, and there they’re tortured,” he states.
Jubilation all round – this is what Zelensky has been clamouring for! It’s the next exciting development, following all the joy of Ukraine’s incursion into the Russian area of Kursk. Best to get over that one quickly, with its huge cost in Ukrainian troops’ lives, without any actual military usefulness to Ukraine.
The dramatic need for these missiles is emphasised as Blinken confirmed that Iran was sending ballistic missiles for Russia to use against Ukraine. These are in fact Project 360 close-range missiles. But no matter – it sounds like a good reason for Ukraine to get long- range ones.
Anyway the point is – we all have to be reassured that Ukraine is winning this war. The Western media dwells on each exciting new development like this, rather than the unpalatable facts that Ukraine is falling back in the critical Donbass area, and that it’s running out of troops, that Zelensky’s survival as president depends on the war continuing a losing fight.
Meanwhile Putin is strongly warning of severe repercussions if the West lets Zelensky attack Russia with long-range missiles. USA and NATO are well aware of the danger of the war expanding into a Russia versus NATO and USA. They don’t want this. Russia doesn’t want this.
The dilemma is for the USA to demonstrate its “iron-clad” support for Ukraine, without actually really upsetting Putin too much. Hence there’s a lot of debate in the West about how to go about sort of sending long-range missiles for Ukraine, but sort of not really using them too much. And how to train and support Ukrainians in the use of them?
To further complicate this issue, it is important for Joe Biden in his last months as President to demonstrate that he’s a tough guy – not some sort of weak sop who would – heaven forfend! sink to negotiations with Putin and end the carnage. So – a forceful decision about long-range missiles for Ukraine would look pretty good in that context.
Only you need some intricate diplomatic footwork to spin it all – which is where the silver-tongued skills of manipulators like Antony Blinken come in. It all has to look very hard and dangerous, without actually being so – without too much provocation of Wladimir Putin, who probably understands all this, underneath his bombastic pronouncements.
So – the war drags on, the deaths continue, Ukraine faces a winter with possibly great suffering, as Russia continues not only its troop attack, but also attacks on Ukraine’s power supply.
But – look on the bright side – it’s great for the USA’s weapons companies and their investors. And we, distant media-watchers continue to be awed with the drama, wait for the next development, and wonder if it’s a dress rehearsal for the Taiwan-China one to follow this.
the mainstream media and many commentators are making the case for additional nuclear weaponry and the modernization of weapons currently in the nuclear arsenal.
Washington’s “Nuclear Employment Guidance” is based on the threat of nuclear coordination between Moscow and Beijing, but there is no evidence of such coordination
Last month, I reported on the Biden administration’s new nuclear doctrine to prepare the United States for a coordinated nuclear challenge from Russia, China, and North Korea. The Biden doctrine revives the concept of “escalation dominance,” one of the main drivers of the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s.
President Biden’s neglect of arms control and disarmament means that the next president will inherit a nuclear landscape that is more threatening and volatile than any other since the Cuban missile crisis more than 60 years ago. The Cuban missile crisis, however, was a wake up call for both President John F. Kennedy and General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev, leading to a series of arms control and disarmament treaties beginning with the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963.
We need another wake up call.
Currently, there is little discussion of reviving arms control and disarmament. Instead the mainstream media and many commentators are making the case for additional nuclear weaponry and the modernization of weapons currently in the nuclear arsenal. The influential British newsweekly, The Economist, is leading the way in this campaign, arguing that the concept of deterrence demands that the United States build up and modernize its nuclear arsenal. An oped in the New York Times this week, written by the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, argues that credible deterrence will prevent our adversaries from “even considering a nuclear strike against America or its allies.”
Deterrence requires that nuclear weapons must be in a high state of readiness in order to address the danger of surprise attack, which increases the possibility of unintentional use of nuclear weapons. We need a discussion of alternatives to deterrence, such as negotiations for confidence-building measures as well as arms control and disarmament.
Instead, we are getting a discussion of the need for low-yield nuclear weapons. The Economist and others have been making the case for such weapons—20 kilotons of explosive power, roughly Hiroshima-sized—that can be delivered with “extreme precision and less collateral damage.” U.S. think tanks, such as the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), have argued that the “line between low-yield tactical nuclear weapons and precision-guided conventional weapons in terms of their operational effects and perceived impact is blurring,” and that “nuclear arms are more efficient at destroying large-area targets.”
The current discussion is dangerously reminiscent of the nuclear discussion of the 1950s, which was dominated by false notions of a vast Soviet superiority in deployed nuclear ballistic missiles, the so-called “missile gap,” as well as the so-called “bomber gap” regarding strategic aircraft. The conventional wisdom in the defense community was that we were facing a powerful enemy that was undertaking costly efforts to exploit the potential of nuclear weapons in order to gain unchallenged global dominance. Is history abut to repeat itself, particularly in view of exaggerated concerns regarding greater threats from both China and North Korea as well as the possibility of Sino-Russian collusion?
Henry Kissinger, the most famous and most controversial American diplomat of the 20th century, was responsible for initiating the idea that nuclear powers could wage a war that would involve limited use of nuclear weapons. In his “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy,” Kissinger made the case for limited uses of nuclear weapons, which attracted him to Richard Nixon who made Kissinger the national security adviser in 1969. It was fifteen years before a U.S. president—Ronald Reagan— and a Soviet leader—Mikhail Gorbachev—agreed that a “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” and that the two sides must not “seek to achieve military superiority.” The initiative for these statements originated with Gorbachev, and they received greater attention in Soviet media than in their U.S. counterparts.
Now, we are facing a disturbing situation that finds the United States modernizing its nuclear arsenal at great cost; China ending its doctrine of limited nuclear deterrence and expanding its nuclear arsenal, and Russia threatening the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine and issuing warnings of a World War III. Russian publications are discussing the possibility of placing a nuclear weapons in space. U.S. defense analysts project that China could have as many as 1,000 nuclear warheads over the next ten years.
Washington’s “Nuclear Employment Guidance” is based on the threat of nuclear coordination between Moscow and Beijing, but there is no evidence of such coordination and it’s unlikely that these former adversaries are formalizing their nuclear and strategic plans. U.S. guidance is based on worst-case analysis, but there needs to be a recognition of similar worst-case analyses in Moscow and Beijing. In view of greatly expanded U.S. defense spending over the past several years as well as the discussion of a strategic missile defense, Russia and China have much to worry about. Even worse, the United States quietly announced in July that it will deploy conventionally armed ground-launched intermediate-range missiles in Germany on a rotational basis beginning in 2026. This is madness.
Iran’s nuclear program is also expanding in size and sophistication, and North Korea has a nuclear arsenal that rivals three nuclear powers—Israel, India, and Pakistan—that were never part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran’s Ayatollah has indicated a readiness to open discussions with the United States on nuclear matters, but the Biden administration has turned a deaf ear to such a possibility. North Korea’s Kim Jong Un has similarly indicated an interest in discussing nuclear matters with the United States.
The only remaining nuclear disarmament treaty—the New START Treaty—expires in February 2026, and there is no indication that U.S. and Russian officials are planning for talks to renew the treaty. The election year predictably finds Kamala Harris and Donald Trump boasting about maintaining and improving U.S. military prowess. Next to nothing is known about Harris’s view of nuclear matters, and the thought of facing a new nuclear age with Trump back in the White House is positively frightening. We are confronting this difficult situation because the Bush and Trump administrations abrogated two of the most important disarmament treaties in history: the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.
It’s time for the nuclear experts of the nine nuclear powers as well as the general public to read M.G. Sheftall’s “Hiroshima: The Last Witnesses.” These first-person accounts educate and re-educate the global community on the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago. The accounts of gut-wrenching recollections should be enough to make any sane individual reject the notion of “modernizing” nuclear weapons or discussing “tactical” uses of nuclear weapons.
The danger of nuclear war resulting from an accident, an unauthorized action, the danger of alert practices, or false alarms should never be far from our thinking. Another nuclear arms race in the current international environment would be far more threatening and terrifying than any aspect of the Soviet-American rivalry in the Cold War.
nuclear-news 