Journalists Abandoned Julian Assange and Slit Their Own Throats
The failure by journalists to mount a campaign to free Julian Assange, or expose the viscous smear campaign against him, is one more catastrophic and self-defeating blunder by the news media.
CHRIS HEDGES, JUL 10, 2023
LONDON: The persecution of Julian Assange, along with the climate of fear, wholesale government surveillance and use of the Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers, has emasculated investigative journalism. The press has not only failed to mount a sustained campaign to support Julian, whose extradition appears imminent, but no longer attempts to shine a light into the inner workings of power. This failure is not only inexcusable, but ominous.
The U.S. government, especially the military and agencies such as the CIA, the FBI, the NSA and Homeland Security, have no intention of stopping with Julian, who faces 170 years in prison if found guilty of violating 17 counts of the Espionage Act. They are cementing into place mechanisms of draconian state censorship, some features of which were exposed by Matt Taibbi in the Twitter Files, to construct a dystopian corporate totalitarianism.
The U.S. and the U.K. brazenly violated a series of judicial norms and diplomatic protocols to keep Julian trapped for seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy after he had been granted political asylum by Ecuador. The CIA, through the Spanish security firm UC Global, made recordings of Julian’s meetings with his attorneys, which alone should invalidate the extradition case. Julian has been held for more than four years in the notorious Belmarsh high-security prison since the British Metropolitan Police dragged him out of the embassy on April 11, 2019. The embassy is supposed to be the sovereign territory of Ecuador. Julian has not been sentenced in this case for a crime. He is charged under the Espionage Act, although he is not a U.S. citizen and WikiLeaks is not a U.S.-based publication. The U.K. courts, which have engaged in what can only be described as a show trial, appear ready to turn him over to the U.S. once his final appeal, as we expect, is rejected. This could happen in a matter of days or weeks.
On Wednesday night at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Stella Assange, an attorney who is married to Julian; Matt Kennard, co-founder and chief investigator of Declassified UK, and I examined the collapse of the press, especially with regard to Julian’s case. You can watch our discussion here.
“I feel like I’m living in 1984,” Matt said. “This is a journalist who revealed more crimes of the world’s superpower than anyone in history. He’s sitting in a maximum-security prison in London. The state that wants to bring him over to that country to put him in prison for the rest of his life is on record as spying on his privileged conversations with his lawyers. They’re on record plotting to assassinate him. Any of those things, if you told someone from a different time ‘Yeah this is what happened and he was sent anyway and not only that, but the media didn’t cover it at all.’ It’s really scary. If they can do that to Assange, if civil society can drop the ball and the media can drop the ball, they can do that to any of us.”
When Julian and WikiLeaks released the secret diplomatic cables and Iraq War logs, which exposed numerous U.S. war crimes, including torture and the murder of civilians, corruption, diplomatic scandals, lies and spying by the U.S. government, the commercial media had no choice but to report the information. Julian and WikiLeaks shamed them into doing their job. But, even as they worked with Julian, organizations such as The New York Times and The Guardian were determined to destroy him. He threatened their journalistic model and exposed their accommodation with the centers of power.
“They hated him,” Matt said of the mainstream media reporters and editors. “They went to war with him immediately after those releases. I was working for The Financial Times in Washington in late 2010 when those releases happened. The reaction of the office at The Financial Times was one of the major reasons I got disillusioned with the mainstream media.”
Julian went from being a journalistic colleague to a pariah as soon as the information he provided to these news organizations was published. He endured, in the words of Nils Melzer, at the time the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, “a relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing, intimidation and defamation.” These attacks included “collective ridicule, insults and humiliation, to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination.”
Julian was branded a hacker, although all the information he published was leaked to him by others. He was smeared as a sexual predator and a Russian spy, called a narcissist and accused of being unhygienic and slovenly. The ceaseless character assassination, amplified by a hostile media, saw him abandoned by many who had regarded him a hero.
“Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide,” Melzer concluded.
The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and Der Spiegel, all of which published WikiLeaks documents provided by Julian, published a joint open letter on Nov. 28, 2022 calling on the U.S. government “to end its prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secrets.”
But the demonization of Julian, which these publications helped to foster, had already been accomplished……………………………………………………………………………
“This is not just about Assange,” Matt continued. “This is about all of our futures, the future for our kids and our grandkids. The things we hold dear, democracy, freedom of speech, free press, they’re very, very fragile, much more fragile than we realize. That’s been exposed by Assange. If they get Assange, the levies will break. It’s not like they’re going to stop. That’s not how power works. They don’t pick off one person and say we’re going to hold off now. They’ll use those tools to go after anyone who wants to expose them.”
“If you’re working in an environment in London where there’s a journalist imprisoned for exposing war crimes, maybe not consciously but somewhere you [know you] shouldn’t do that,” Matt said. “You shouldn’t question power. You shouldn’t question people who are committing crimes secretly because you don’t know what’s going to happen…The U.K. government is trying to introduce laws which make it explicit that you can’t publish [their crimes]. They want to formalize what they’ve done to Assange and make it a crime to reveal war crimes and other things. When you have laws and a societal-wide psyche that you cannot question power, when they tell you what is in your interest, that’s fascism.” https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/journalists-abandoned-julian-assange?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=778851&post_id=134153872&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Despite Zelensky’s claims, there’s no evidence that Russia has rigged Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya plant with explosives, nuclear watchdog says
Business Insider, Charles R. Davis , Jul 8, 2023
- The IAEA said Friday there’s no sign Russia plans to destroy the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant.
- Inspectors “have not seen any mines or explosives,” according to the head of the nuclear watchdog.
- However, the IAEA said its experts have not been provided full access to the facility.
The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said Friday that it has seen no evidence that Russia intends to blow up the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, a finding that comes after the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence walked back an earlier warning of impending disaster.
In a status report on the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, which Russian forces occupied soon after last year’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Rafael Mariano Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said inspectors were recently provided “some additional access” to the facility after Ukraine claimed it had been rigged with bombs……………………………………..
Russia has repeatedly denied it has any intention of causing a nuclear disaster. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov this week argued that the real threat is Ukrainian “sabotage.”…. https://www.businessinsider.com/no-sign-russia-has-mined-zaporizhzhya-plant-nuclear-watchdog-says-2023-7
Ben & Jerry’s, CodePink Co-Founders Arrested in DC Demanding Freedom for Julian Assange
“It seems to me,” said Ben Cohen, “that, right now, unless things change, and unless we change them, freedom of the press is going up in smoke.”
By Brett Wilkins / Common Dreams
Ben Cohen, the co-founder of the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s, and Jodie Evans, who co-founded the peace group CodePink, were arrested Thursday outside Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, D.C. for blocking an entrance to the building to protest the U.S. government’s prosecution of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.
Cohen and Evans were arrested while other demonstrators chanted slogans demanding freedom for Assange, the 52-year-old Australian facing extradition from the United Kingdom to the U.S., where he has been charged with Espionage Act violations and could be imprisoned for up to 175 years if convicted on all counts.
“It’s outrageous. Julian Assange is nonviolent. He is presumed innocent. And yet somehow or other, he has been imprisoned in solitary confinement for four years. That is torture,” Cohen said during the protest. “He revealed the truth, and for that he is suffering, and… we need to do whatever we can to help him, and to help preserve democracy, which is based on freedom of the press.”
“It seems to me that, right now, unless things change, and unless we change them, freedom of the press is going up in smoke,” Cohen asserted before lighting an effigy of the Bill of Rights in four places.
Evans asked, “Why do we have freedom of the press?”
“Because there needs to be someone reporting the truth about the violence of power,” she said. “When you don’t have freedom of the press and no one’s telling the truth, it weaponizes your capacity to feel, to have compassion and empathy.”
“If you don’t have the full story and if your heart is being manipulated with lies, then we’re all lost,” Evans added. “How can we have peace in the world if we’re just drowning in lies?”‘
Assange—who suffers from physical and mental health problems including heart and respiratory issues—published classified U.S. government documents, many of them provided by whistleblower Chelsea Manning. Some of the files exposed U.S. and allied war crimes, including the “Collateral Murder” video showing a U.S. Army helicopter crew killing a group of Iraqi civilians, the Afghan War Diary, and the Iraq War Logs.
According to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Assange has been arbitrarily deprived of his freedom since he was arrested on December 7, 2010. Since then he has been held under house arrest, confined for seven years in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London while he was protected by the administration of former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, and jailed in Belmarsh Prison, where he is now.
After a U.K. court last month rejected Assange’s appeal against his extradition order to the United States, press freedom groups renewed calls for U.S. President Joe Biden to drop the charges against him.
Nuclear Contaminated Water Dumping: IAEA Concludes ‘Absolute Safety of Nuclear Contaminated Water’ – with Japanese Government Money?
Date: June 29, 2023 Author: dunrenard FUKUSHIMA 311 WATCHDOGS
Foreign Ministry official reveals in alleged transcripts of conversations
“More than 1 million euros handed over to IAEA officials, director general, etc.”
“IAEA report conclusion of nuclear contaminated water was ‘absolutely safe’ from the beginning”
Adopting an investigation method that detects only easy-to-detect elements129 etc.
South Korea’s Kim Hong-seok and others “IAEA experts are just decorations”
A memo from a senior official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ 1
A document has surfaced in Japan that raises suspicions that the Japanese government is paying IAEA officials large sums of money to work with each other and “collude” in the dumping of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the ocean.
‘Foreign Ministry Executive A Memo’, 1 million euros to IAEA
According to the document, which was obtained by citizen journalist Mindle on Nov. 21, the final report of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safety inspection, which is expected to be released later this month, has already concluded that the plant is “absolutely safe,” as demanded by Japan. To this end, the Japanese government has paid more than 1 million euros in “political contributions” to IAEA officials, so there is “no need to worry” about opposition from South Korea and China to the dumping of contaminated water into the ocean, which will begin as early as mid to late July, according to “Foreign Ministry official A” in the document.
Date: June 29, 2023Author: dunrenard0 Comments
Foreign Ministry official reveals in alleged transcripts of conversations
“More than 1 million euros handed over to IAEA officials, director general, etc.”
“IAEA report conclusion of nuclear contaminated water was ‘absolutely safe’ from the beginning”
Adopting an investigation method that detects only easy-to-detect elements129 etc.
South Korea’s Kim Hong-seok and others “IAEA experts are just decorations”
A memo from a senior official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ 1
A document has surfaced in Japan that raises suspicions that the Japanese government is paying IAEA officials large sums of money to work with each other and “collude” in the dumping of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the ocean.
‘Foreign Ministry Executive A Memo’, 1 million euros to IAEA
According to the document, which was obtained by citizen journalist Mindle on Nov. 21, the final report of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safety inspection, which is expected to be released later this month, has already concluded that the plant is “absolutely safe,” as demanded by Japan. To this end, the Japanese government has paid more than 1 million euros in “political contributions” to IAEA officials, so there is “no need to worry” about opposition from South Korea and China to the dumping of contaminated water into the ocean, which will begin as early as mid to late July, according to “Foreign Ministry official A” in the document.
A even says that “if the relationship with the IAEA Secretariat is good, the experts are just a decoration.” Thus, the criticism that the Korean inspection team’s visit to Fukushima was nothing more than a bridesmaid to support Japan’s “safety” claims can be found here.
Like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s “Handling Caution” report, which was obtained and reported by the citizen media Dandelion on the 8th of this month (“Fukushima Contaminated Water Already Declared “Harmless” During Korean Inspection Team’s Visit?”), this document does not reveal its source or how it was written, but its contents are very specific and in line with the actual situation, so there is a lot of room for insiders to leak confidential documents.
Date: June 29, 2023Author: dunrenard0 Comments
Foreign Ministry official reveals in alleged transcripts of conversations
“More than 1 million euros handed over to IAEA officials, director general, etc.”
“IAEA report conclusion of nuclear contaminated water was ‘absolutely safe’ from the beginning”
Adopting an investigation method that detects only easy-to-detect elements129 etc.
South Korea’s Kim Hong-seok and others “IAEA experts are just decorations”
A memo from a senior official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ 1
A document has surfaced in Japan that raises suspicions that the Japanese government is paying IAEA officials large sums of money to work with each other and “collude” in the dumping of Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the ocean.
‘Foreign Ministry Executive A Memo’, 1 million euros to IAEA
According to the document, which was obtained by citizen journalist Mindle on Nov. 21, the final report of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safety inspection, which is expected to be released later this month, has already concluded that the plant is “absolutely safe,” as demanded by Japan. To this end, the Japanese government has paid more than 1 million euros in “political contributions” to IAEA officials, so there is “no need to worry” about opposition from South Korea and China to the dumping of contaminated water into the ocean, which will begin as early as mid to late July, according to “Foreign Ministry official A” in the document.
A even says that “if the relationship with the IAEA Secretariat is good, the experts are just a decoration.” Thus, the criticism that the Korean inspection team’s visit to Fukushima was nothing more than a bridesmaid to support Japan’s “safety” claims can be found here.
Like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s “Handling Caution” report, which was obtained and reported by the citizen media Dandelion on the 8th of this month (“Fukushima Contaminated Water Already Declared “Harmless” During Korean Inspection Team’s Visit?”), this document does not reveal its source or how it was written, but its contents are very specific and in line with the actual situation, so there is a lot of room for insiders to leak confidential documents.
‘Memo A from a Foreign Ministry official’ 2
‘Recovered from the meeting table’ external secret (社外秘)
The three-page document exposed this time is titled “Memo of Foreign Ministry Executive A,” and is written in the form of a conversation with a foreign ministry executive named A (hereinafter referred to as A) in which the “person in charge” Asakawa asks questions and A answers. ……………………..
……………………….this document is also marked with a red lettering of “seat recall,” and the words “private secret” in pale large letters are stamped at an angle throughout the document.
The IAEA’s methodology and conclusions were dictated by Japan.
…………………………… Japan provides not only technical but also financial support to the IAEA, handing over “more than 1 million euros (about KRW 1,421.5 million)” to “Mr. Freeman” and “Mr. Grossi” as “political contributions”.
He also claims that the IAEA’s first test of contaminated water during the “release of treated water” (dumping of contaminated water), which is expected to begin in “mid or late July,” is a low-precision “rapid analysis”……………………………
‘Memo A of the Foreign Ministry Executive’ 3
Radioactivity in ALPS coarse contaminated water 30,000 times above the standard
However, he said that the testing of ALPS-treated contaminated water is not perfect due to some constraints, and in 2020, the concentration of strontium 90 in the contaminated water in the J1 tank group that had undergone nuclide filtration was 100,000 Bq/L, which is 30,000 times higher than the standard.
Perhaps more importantly, he said, they still don’t know why it happened. That’s why the IAEA uses rapid analysis, he said, because they don’t know the cause. In Mr. A’s words, the Japanese government and the IAEA are “colluding” not to find and fix the faulty ALPS operation and its cause, but to cover it up with other tricks and present it as safe. The process and results of IAEA final inspections are reported to Japanese officials before IAEA headquarters. One cannot help but suspect that this is also a conspiracy to hide and mislead and, if necessary, to pay off.
“You won’t want to eat fish for a while after the release of treated water”………………………………….
Below [on original] is a translated version of the three-page document in question, which calls for the “immediate retrieval of the statue from the meeting table…………… more https://dunrenard.wordpress.com/2023/06/29/nuclear-contaminated-water-dumping-iaea-concludes-absolute-safety-of-nuclear-contaminated-water-with-japanese-government-money/
Report Shows How Military Industrial Complex Sets Media Narrative on Ukraine
by EDITOR, July 3, 2023, By Bryce Greene / Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/03/report-shows-how-military-industrial-complex-sets-media-narrative-on-ukraine/
Wealthy donors have long funded think tanks with official-sounding names that produce research that reflects the interests of those funders (Extra!, 7/13). The weapons industry is a major contributor to these idea factories; a recent report from the Quincy Institute (6/1/23) demonstrates just how much influence war profiteers have on the national discourse.
The Quincy Institute—whose own start-up funding came mainly from George Soros and Charles Koch—looked at 11 months of Ukraine War coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, from March 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023, and counted each time one of 33 leading think tanks was mentioned. Of the 15 think tanks most often mentioned in the coverage, only one—Human Rights Watch—does not take funding from Pentagon contractors. Quincy’s analysis found that the media were seven times more likely to cite think tanks with war industry ties than they were to cite think tanks without war industry ties.
With 157 mentions each, the top two think tanks were the Atlantic Council and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Both of these think tanks receive millions from the war industry. The Atlantic Council has long been the brain trust of NATO, the military organization whose expansion towards Russia’s borders was a critical factor in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. (See FAIR.org, 3/4/22.) Both think tanks receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, companies which have already been awarded billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts as a result of the war in Ukraine.
CSIS was revealed in a New York Times expose (8/7/16) to produce content that reflected the weapons industry priorities of its funders. It also “initiated meetings with Defense Department officials and congressional staff to push for the recommendations” of military funders.
Think tank media mentions related to US military support for Ukraine (Quincy Institute, 6/1/23).
In addition to showing think tanks’ enormous influence, the Quincy report highlights how difficult it is to trace just how much war industry funding these think tanks receive, and exactly whose interests they represent. “Think tanks are not required to disclose their funders,” study author Ben Freeman wrote, and “many think tanks list donors without indicating the amount of donations and others just list donors in ranges (e.g., $250,000 to $499,999).”
While the study was not aimed at establishing a causal connection between weapons industry funding and the think tanks’ positions, it acknowledges that funding typically plays a major role in shaping the institutions. “Funders,” Freeman wrote, “are able to influence think tank work through the mechanisms of censorship, self-censorship, and perspective filtering.” In other words, people with points of view antithetical to the funders likely would not last long in these think tanks.
Causal or not, there is a marked correlation between war industry funding and hawkish positions. “Think tanks with financial ties to the arms industry often support policies that would benefit the arms industry,” the report noted. For example, one Atlantic Council article (2/6/23) advocated against “any compromise with the Kremlin,” while another, titled “Equity for Ukraine” (1/16/23), argued that Ukraine has a “right to destroy critical infrastructure in Russia and plunge Moscow and other cities into darkness.”
Earlier this year, the president of the American Enterprise Institute—fifth on the list, with 101 mentions—was cited numerous times in the Wall Street Journal (e.g., 1/20/23, 1/25/23) arguing that “tanks and armored personnel carriers are essential,” and agreeing to provide them will “let Ukraine know that it can afford to risk and expend more of its current arsenal of tanks in counteroffensive operations because it can count on getting replacements for them.” AEI (6/9/23) has gone so far as to suggest that the US give tactical nuclear weapons to Ukraine, something that could easily escalate to all-out nuclear war.
The Quincy Institute did not find a single instance in which a media organization disclosed the fact that its source received funding from the war industry, obscuring how interested parties may be shaping coverage or promoting policy recommendations that directly benefit their funders.
The study found that for the few think tanks that receive little or no Pentagon contractor funding, positions on the war are dramatically different. With less influence from the war industry, the study found, these organizations emphasize “expository rather than prescriptive analysis, support for diplomatic solutions, and a focus on the impact of the war on different parts of society and the region.”
Human Rights Watch, which takes no war industry money, “was agnostic on the issue of providing US military assistance to Ukraine,” and instead “focused on human rights abuses in the conflict.” The Carnegie Endowment, which receives less than 1% of its funding from that industry, was never quoted advocating an increase in military spending or weapons sales during the Ukraine War.
One critical way that corporate news media manufactures consent for US foreign policy is by carefully selecting the sources and voices that they present, and narrowing the spectrum of debate. While this can take the form of uncritically repeating pronouncements from government officials, this research demonstrates that there are more subtle ways in which media outlets can push a corporate/state agenda under the guise of independent journalism.
High nuclear crimes don’t pay
by beyondnuclearinternational, By Linda Pentz Gunter
Politicians and executives snared for their roles in bribery and racketeering schemes
Breaking: On June 29, former Ohio Speaker of the House, Republican, Larry Householder, was handed down the maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for his role in the high crimes described below. His co-conspirator, Matt Borges, the former Ohio GOP Chairman, was sentenced on June 30 to fiveyears in federal prison.
This is part one of a two-part story on bribery and corruption in the nuclear power realm and the questionable ethics of legal lobbying. The original article was published in its entirety in Capitol Hill Citizen, a print-only newspaper published by Ralph Nader. These articles are reproduced with kind permission of the editor. Part two will be published in the next few weeks. Capitol Hill Citizen comes out in print only. To subscribe or purchase single copies, click here.
It all began when Ohio nuclear power plant owner, FirstEnergy, began “bleeding cash” in a desperate effort to keep its aging and uneconomical Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power plants solvent.
The effort bankrupted FirstEnergy subsidiary, FirstEnergy Solutions, then owner of the two nuclear plants. The shareholders wanted out. FirstEnergy threatened to close the plants. But Ohio House Republican, Larry Householder, had other plans.
Householder concocted a nefarious scheme to extract $61 million from the failing company to ensure his re-election and that of enough political allies to guarantee his return to the House Speakership.
This, in turn, would secure enough votes to ensure passage of a $1.3 billion bailout bill, known as HB6, that would rescue the two nuclear plants along with struggling coal plants.
And it worked. For a while.
Householder, who had previously held the Ohio House Speakership from 2001-2004, was duly re-elected to that position in January 2019. Millions of dollars also poured into the campaign war chests of 21 political candidates in order to stack the House with votes in favor of the bailout bill. It duly passed the House on May 29, 2019 and the Senate on July 17, 2019. But the July 23, 2019 Ohio House concurrence vote passed the bill by only one vote. And then it all unraveled.
On July 21, 2020, Householder and four others were arrested for what investigating US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, David DeVillers, described as “the biggest criminal racketeering conspiracy in Ohio history.”
Householder, who was re-elected to the Ohio House shortly afterwards and refused to resign, was unanimously voted out as Speaker on July 30, 2020. Eleven months later the House voted 75-21 to expel Householder.
After a seven week trial, Householder and fellow conspirator, former GOP Chairman Matt Borges, were found guilty of racketeering conspiracy on March 9, 2023. The jury took just nine hours to reach their verdict. Householder was sentenced on June 29 to 20 years in prison — the maximum penalty. Borges was sentenced on June 30 to five years in federal prison. Both men said they would appeal.
The U.S. District judge in the case, Timothy Black, scolded Householder at sentencing, saying: “Beyond financial greed, I think you just liked power. You weren’t serving the people. You were serving yourself.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Glatfelter described Householder as “the quintessential mob boss, directing the criminal enterprise from the shadows and using his casket carriers to execute the scheme”, in a sentencing memorandum to the judge.
FirstEnergy Corp. was also charged with conspiring to commit honest services wire fraud, but the company signed a deferred prosecution agreement that could see the charges dismissed. FirstEnergy also agreed to pay a $230 million monetary penalty.
But an ongoing civil lawsuit against FirstEnergy alleging insider trading and other offenses has brought documents to light released by Ohio Consumers’ Council that reveal the true depth and scope of involvement of its executives in the scheme to ensure passage of HB6.
Nevertheless, Householder defense attorney, Steve Bradley, argued during the trial that Householder was just “being a good politician” and is simply “good at fundraising”. Never mind that Householder hid the source of the $61 million by funneling it through a murky 501(c)(4) called Generation Now, then redirected around $500,000 of it to pay off his personal credit card debt, settle a lawsuit, and repair a Florida home.
The flow of dark money to Generation Now, which FirstEnergy has now admitted supplying, also paid for a disinformation campaign to suppress a public petition drive to repeal HB6, launched by a coalition called Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts. ……………………………………………………..
It remains to be seen whether the fate of those politicians and corporate executives who fell prey to greed and deception and to whom punishment will now be meted out, will serve as an adequate deterrent against further such conduct.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/07/02/high-nuclear-crimes-dont-pay/
Cover up? Did atom bosses collude to ‘manage message’ of Japanese plan to poison Pacific?
Disturbing documentary evidence has been seen by the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities which appears to suggest collusion between the Japanese nuclear industry, government ministries and the UN International Atomic Energy Authority to ‘manage the message’ over the ocean dumping of 1.3 million tonnes of radioactive water held over from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
The purported IAEA-letterheaded document titled ‘IAEA REVISION PROPOSAL FOR THE FINAL REPORT OF HANDLING ALPS TREATED WATER AT TEPCO’S FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR POWER STATION’ may not sound very exciting, but, if genuine, amounts to a clear admission that the international agency has been keen to collaborate at the highest level with the Japanese nuclear industry and ministry officials to downplay the dangers associated with discharging millions of barrels of water which remain contaminated with highly toxic tritium.
The document, seemingly issued by the Department of Nuclear Safety at the IAEA, was posted to the website/blogsite dunrenard[i] by an anonymous whistle-blower on 28 June 2023 and then forwarded to renowned marine radiation expert and campaigner Tim Deere-Jones, who brought it to the NFLA’s attention. In response to the release of the document, Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi has condemned it as a ‘forgery’. This document can be found at the end of this media release.
Operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the Fukushima Plant was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami on 11 March 2011. A disaster unfolded with three nuclear meltdowns, three hydrogen explosions and a release of radiation from three reactors, and Government authorities were forced to evacuate 154,000 people from the surrounding area over a 20-mile radius.
Since the disaster, seawater water used to cool the destroyed reactors, along with rain- and groundwater that has leached into the damaged plant, has accumulated on site with over 1.3 million tons now being stored in barrels. Last year, the Japanese government confirmed its intention to build an underwater pipe 1km out to sea to discharge the radioactive water there, and now this work has been completed the dumping is scheduled to begin imminently, despite massive domestic and international opposition.
Opponents are fearful that although the contaminated water is treated by a process known as ALPS (the Advanced Liquid Processing System) this cannot remove deadly tritium, a beta-emitting radioactive isotope of hydrogen, and other radioactive materials, which if ingested can trigger cancers and appeals to stop this process citing the health risks and environmental damage that will result have been expressed by the local fishing and farming community, civic leaders, the Pacific Islands Council, regional governments, and anti-nuclear activists everywhere.
The NFLA has itself objected in letters to Japanese Ministers, TEPCO officials and the United Nations on two occasions and recently signed a partnership agreement with its Japanese equivalent, Mayors for a Nuclear Power Free Japan, in part to collaborate in opposing the plan.
In the released document, the IAEA supports the discharge of the radioactive water ‘even though the activity concentrations of some radionuclides above the [permitted] discharge limits are reported’ and agrees not to conduct a full radioactive analysisof every batch of the waterheld‘due to the concerns of [operator] TEPCO and relevant authorities [the Japanese Government]’.
More worryingly, the report clearly advises that ‘data and results that could be viewed negatively by the public should be removed from the final report’ and thatIAEA Director General Raphael Grossi has instructed that ‘positive conclusions supporting ALPS treated water discharging shall be included in the executive summary of the Final Report’.
The NFLA’s source was Mr Tim Deere-Jones, a graduate in Marine Studies from Cardiff University. Tim, an independent marine pollution researcher and consultant since 1983, is highly regarded by the many international organisations who have engaged him in their campaigns against the damage caused to our oceans and inland waterways by radioactive and other contaminants. Amongst his recent notable achievements, Mr Deere-Jones provided an invaluable professional advice to the successful Greenlandic campaign to ban the mining of Uranium and Rare Earths at Kuannersuit, which led to his report being translated into Kalaallisut, the official Inuit based language of Greenland.
Here Tim gives his analysis of the alleged IAEA document:
‘Documentary evidence of deep collusion between the IAEA, Japanese Government Ministries and TEPCO intended to suppress, “fudge” and spin evidence related to the scientific data related to the treatment, monitoring and sea-discharge of ALPS treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster site.
Preliminary analysis:
Language of origin of the document is uncertain, the extent English language copy appears to have been either translated from the original or compiled by someone with English as a second language.
The document reports that the original draft “Notional Plan for Source and Environmental Monitoring associated with IAEA LPS Safety Review” was presented to the Japanese government in March 2023, and that the original Notional Plan proposed that environmental monitoring of the ALPS treated water should be based on “rapid analysis” of all batches of treated water and “full analysis” of selected batches of treated water.
While it appears to be clear that the proposed “rapid analysis” would not have been as thorough or detailed as the proposed “full analysis”, in the event the Document has confirmed that the Final Report has recommended the “rapid analysis” but that the “full analysis” of selected batches will not be recommended in the Final Report “due to the concerns of TEPCO and relevant authorities” (presumably the ministries of the Government of Japan).
The document confirms that, in May 2023, the IAEAs Director and Co-ordinator of Nuclear Safety & Security Department and the head of the IAEAs task force on the Fukushima releases, shared the IAEAs Draft Report on the releases with the GoJ (Government of Japan) and TEPCO officials.
The IAEA document notes that it’s Draft Report on the handling of ALPS treated water concludes with the finding in favour of the proposed discharge of the treated water to sea “even though the activity concentrations of some radionuclides above the discharge limits are reported”
The document comments on “The public’s captiousness on radioactivity issues”. (“Captiousness” is defined in dictionaries as “the disposition to find and point out trivial issues or faults”)
In the context of the above the document recommends that “data and results that could be viewed negatively by the public should be removed from the final report ……. Issued in later June.”
The document reports that, following negotiations with the GoJ, IAEA Director General Grossi, instructed that “positive conclusions supporting ALPS treated water discharging shall be included in the executive summary of the Final Report”
And that “the Final Report will highlight that TEPCO’s discharge plan is in accord with international safety standards to address public concerns and doubts. The IAEA will conduct discussions with all task force experts, but their recommendations will not be reflected in the Report”
The document confirms that the IAEA has agreed to make revisions to the Report on the basis of feedback from the Japanese Ministries of Economy/Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs, Environment and TEPCO because TEPCO and the Ministries had “expressed concerns regarding the potential public opposition to some data and results. The IAEA fully understands these concerns and would make revisions”
The document reports that the GoJ “requested to fudge” responses to the Pacific Island Forum’s demand for a full analysis of ALPS treated water, and questions raised by neighbouring countries about Organically Bound Tritium (OBT). In that context the document reports that, presumably in response to the request, “the concerns were not included in the ALPS safety review”
My submissions on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum
Despite the evidence reported above, the document confirms that the GoJ “recommended to stress the fact that Japanese Authorities never interfered with IAEAs safety review” and that “the independence of the Report is guarantee as no political elements involved”’
Commenting on the shocking revelations, Mr Deere-Jones said:
“Since the original Fukushima disaster, I have made multiple submissions to, and on behalf of, the Pacific Islands Forum, Japanese Citizens Groups, Environmental NGOs, and Commercial Fishermen’s Associations. My submissions have repeatedly called for full analysis of the ALPS treated water and the sludges at the bottom of the ALPS treated water holding tanks, and referenced the peer reviewed scientific evidence demonstrating that marine Organically Bound Tritium posed a greater health risk through multiple dose delivery pathways than was recognised by the nuclear establishment (Japanese Govt ministries and agencies, TEPCO and the IAEA)”.
In response to the release of this alleged document, Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi was quick to condemn it as a forgery and to refute any suggestion of Japanese government collusion, issuing the following statement to Associated Press:
“The IAEA is aware of the existence of the forged documents. The IAEA’s comprehensive final report is a document prepared under the responsibility of the IAEA, and the Japanese government is not in a position to manipulate its contents. “I would like to stress that we are firmly opposed to any attempt to undermine the independence and neutrality of the IAEA with false information.”[ii]
Tim Deere-Jones retorted: “Such a response is exactly what we would expect from the IAEA when such information is leaked to the public. To suggest that the document is fraudulent is clearly intended to imply that concerned scientists, campaigners, marine stakeholders, and communities are implicated.
“However, the matters disclosed in the leaked document are very much in accord with the experience of scientists and campaigners who have been raising these concerns since the Fukushima disaster and its subsequent botched response first occurred.
“Since that time, we have submitted numerous fully scientifically referenced documents highlighting the issue of Organically Bound Tritium, the multiple other radionuclides not removed from the ALPS treated water, the failure to discuss the radioactive solids that have settled on the bottom of the holding tanks, the behaviour and fate of these multiple radioactive materials once discharged to sea and their impact on marine ecologies and the health of coastal communities.
“The submission of such information has been consistently met by the IAEA and nuclear industry with hostility, contempt, dismissal, and a refusal to engage with the issues raised.
“The leaked document is on IAEA headed paper and typeface, bears the imprint of the relevant department, is couched in language characteristic of the IAEA, and refers to the ‘The public’s captiousness on radioactivity issues’; captiousness being defined in dictionaries as “the disposition to find and point out trivial issues or faults”. Such language is a precise reflection of our long-term experience and understanding of the IAEA and nuclear industry attitude and response to our concerns.
“I would remind readers that the IAEAs Founding Statutes state that its principal objective is as follows ‘The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy’.”
In conclusion, NFLA Chairman, Councillor Lawrence O’Neill said:
“The contents of this report, if true, are deeply disturbing and suggest a plan in which, at the highest level, officials from the international agency responsible for nuclear safety, the Japanese nuclear industry and the Japanese government have colluded to underplay the dangers posed to Pacific marine life and the world community by the expedient, but irresponsible, discharge of tritium-contaminated water.
“Most bitterly disappointing is that this document suggests that such a plan has the tacit endorsement of IAEA Director-General Grossi; for Mr Grossi is the man in which the world community has placed its faith to put safety before political considerations to prevent a nuclear disaster at the imperilled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine.”
Ends://…
Chris Hedges: They Lied About Afghanistan. They Lied About Iraq. And They Are Lying About Ukraine.
The U.S. public has been conned, once again, into pouring billions into another endless war.
The playbook the pimps of war use to lure us into one military fiasco after another, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, does not change. Freedom and democracy are threatened. Evil must be vanquished. Human rights must be protected. The fate of Europe and NATO, along with a “rules based international order” is at stake. Victory is assured.
The results are also the same. The justifications and narratives are exposed as lies. The cheery prognosis is false. Those on whose behalf we are supposedly fighting are as venal as those we are fighting against.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a war crime, although one that was provoked by NATO expansion and by the United States backing of the 2014 “Maidan” coup which ousted the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych wanted economic integration with the European Union, but not at the expense of economic and political ties with Russia. The war will only be solved through negotiations that allow ethnic Russians in Ukraine to have autonomy and Moscow’s protection, as well as Ukrainian neutrality, which means the country cannot join NATO. The longer these negotiations are delayed the more Ukrainians will suffer and die. Their cities and infrastructure will continue to be pounded into rubble.
But this proxy war in Ukraine is designed to serve U.S. interests. It enriches the weapons manufacturers, weakens the Russian military and isolates Russia from Europe. What happens to Ukraine is irrelevant.
“First, equipping our friends on the front lines to defend themselves is a far cheaper way — in both dollars and American lives — to degrade Russia’s ability to threaten the United States,” admitted Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
“Second, Ukraine’s effective defense of its territory is teaching us lessons about how to improve the defenses of partners who are threatened by China. It is no surprise that senior officials from Taiwan are so supportive of efforts to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Third, most of the money that’s been appropriated for Ukraine security assistance doesn’t actually go to Ukraine. It gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for the U.S. armed forces to replace the older material we have provided to Ukraine. Let me be clear: this assistance means more jobs for American workers and newer weapons for American servicemembers.”
Once the truth about these endless wars seeps into public consciousness, the media, which slavishly promotes these conflicts, drastically reduces coverage. The military debacles, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue largely out of view. By the time the U.S. concedes defeat, most barely remember that these wars are being fought.
The pimps of war who orchestrate these military fiascos migrate from administration to administration. Between posts they are ensconced in think tanks — Project for the New American Century, American Enterprise Institute, Foreign Policy Initiative, Institute for the Study of War, The Atlantic Council and The Brookings Institution — funded by corporations and the war industry. Once the Ukraine war comes to its inevitable conclusion, these Dr. Strangeloves will seek to ignite a war with China. The U.S. Navy and military are already menacing and encircling China. God help us if we don’t stop them.
…………………………………………………………………………………… And what of the Ukrainian democracy we are fighting to protect? Why did the Ukrainian parliament revoke the official use of minority languages, including Russian, three days after the 2014 coup? How do we rationalize the eight years of warfare against ethnic Russians in the Donbass region before the Russian invasion in Feb. 2022? How do we explain the killing of over 14,200 people and the 1.5 million people who were displaced, before Russia’s invasion took place last year?
How do we defend the decision by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ban eleven opposition parties, including The Opposition Platform for Life, which had 10 percent of the seats in the Supreme Council, Ukraine’s unicameral parliament, along with the Shariy Party, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Left Forces, State, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialists Party and Volodymyr Saldo Bloc? How can we accept the banning of these opposition parties — many of which are on the left — while Zelenskyy allows fascists from the Svoboda and Right Sector parties, as well as the Banderite Azov Battalion and other extremist militias, to flourish?
How do we deal with the anti-Russian purges and arrests of supposed “fifth columnists” sweeping through Ukraine, given that 30 percent of Ukraine’s inhabitants are Russian speakers? How do we respond to the neo-Nazi groups supported by Zelenskyy’s government that harass and attack the LGBT community, the Roma population, anti-fascist protests and threaten city council members, media outlets, artists and foreign students? How can we countenance the decision by the U.S and its Western allies to block negotiations with Russia to end the war, despite Kyiv and Moscow apparently being on the verge of negotiating a peace treaty?
I reported from Eastern and Central Europe in 1989 during the breakup of the Soviet Union. NATO, we assumed, had become obsolete. President Mikhail Gorbachev proposed security and economic agreements with Washington and Europe. Secretary of State James Baker in Ronald Reagan’s administration, along with the West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured Gorbachev that NATO would not be extended beyond the borders of a unified Germany. We naively thought the end of the Cold War meant that Russia, Europe and the U.S., would no longer have to divert massive resources to their militaries.
The so-called “peace dividend,” however, was a chimera……………………
It was universally understood in Eastern and Central Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO expansion was unnecessary and a dangerous provocation. It made no geopolitical sense. But it made commercial sense. War is a business.
In a classified diplomatic cable — obtained and released by WikiLeaks — dated Feb. 1, 2008, written from Moscow, and addressed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, NATO-European Union Cooperative, National Security Council, Russia Moscow Political Collective, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of State, there was an unequivocal understanding that expanding NATO risked conflict with Russia, especially over Ukraine………………………………………………………..
The Russian invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if the western alliance had honored its promises not to expand NATO beyond Germany’s borders and Ukraine had remained neutral. The pimps of war knew the potential consequences of NATO expansion. War, however, is their single minded vocation, even if it leads to a nuclear holocaust with Russia or China.
The war industry, not Putin, is our most dangerous enemy. https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/02/chris-hedges-they-lied-about-afghanistan-they-lied-about-iraq-and-they-are-lying-about-ukraine/
Biden Would Need His Pound of Flesh From Assange
The case of David Hicks, an Australian imprisoned by the United States in Guantanamo Bay is relevant. Hicks ultimately was released by the U.S., after pressure from the Australian government, when he agreed to a so-called Alford Plea, in which he pled guilty to a single charge, but was allowed to assert his innocence at the same time. on the grounds that he understood he would not receive a fair trial.
The U.S. president would not likely move on the case without some face-saving measure to ward off pressure from the C.I.A. and his own party, writes Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria / Consortium News 23 June 23 https://scheerpost.com/2023/06/23/biden-would-need-his-pound-of-flesh-from-assange/
The coming days or weeks could be the most pivotal in imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange’s four-year legal drama. There are five possible scenarios:
- Assange may have his appeal against extradition heard by the High Court;
- He may have his appeal rejected and be put on a plane to the United States;
- That plane may be stopped by an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights;
- A last-minute plea deal may be worked out guaranteeing Assange’s eventual freedom or, least likely
- the U.S. may abruptly drop its charges against him.
Following the decision by High Court Judge Sir Jonathan Swift this month to reject Assange’s application to appeal his ordered extradition to the United States to stand trial on espionage charges, Assange’s legal team filed a new application to the High Court last week. The decision on this application could come any day.
If it is refused, Assange will have run out of legal options in Britain, and could only be saved by the intervention of the European court. There is also still a chance of a plea deal in which President Joe Biden would need to exact punishment of Assange to cover his political posterior.
Given new revelations in the UC Global case in Spain about C.I.A. spying on Assange there’s even an outside chance the Biden administration may drop the case to avoid exposure in the media circus that would ensue in Alexandria, VA if Assange is extradited to stand trial there.
Rollercoaster
Assange and his supporters have been on a rollercoaster since the beginning of May.
Expectations grew in Australia last month that a deal may be in the works to liberate him. The hopes began with the clearest statements yet on the case from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. On May 4, he said for the first time that he had spoken directly to U.S. authorities about Assange; that he wanted the prosecution to end and that he was concerned for his health.
Optimism grew further when five days later, Caroline Kennedy, the U.S. ambassador to Australia and daughter of slain President John F. Kennedy, agreed to meet a group of six, pro-Assange, Australian MPs, from three different parties, plus an independent.
It is highly unlikely that Kennedy would have invited them to the U.S. embassy for lunch to discuss Assange’s case without approval from at least the State Department, if not the White House.
A few days after that, Albanese said Assange would have to play his part in any deal to be freed. That was widely interpreted to mean that Assange would have to agree to some sort of plea deal, in which he agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, perhaps serve a short sentence in Australia and then walk free.
All this was leading up to President Joe Biden’s scheduled May 24 visit to Australia to meet with Albanese. Speculation ran wild that a deal to release Assange might be announced.
A rally in Sydney’s Hyde Park was planned for the day of Biden’s visit. One of his London lawyers, Jennifer Robinson, and Julian Assange’s wife, Stella Assange, made plans to be in Australia, her first ever trip to her husband’s native country.
Biden canceled his trip to Sydney, he said because of the then debt crisis, and met instead with Albanese in a bilateral meeting in Japan on the sidelines of the G7 Summit. There is no indication Assange was discussed.
Stella Assange went to Australia anyway with Robinson and both addressed the National Press Club in Canberra on May 22. Stella Assange called this period the “end-game, the closet my husband has been to release.”
Robinson said for the first time on behalf of Assange’s legal team that they would consider a plea deal.
Robinson said:
“We are considering all options. The difficulty is our primary position is, of course that the case ought to be dropped. We say no crime has been committed and the facts of the case don’t disclose a crime. So what is it that Julian would be pleading to?”
Two days later, Stella Assange and Assange’s brother and father whipped up a huge crowd of Assange supporters at the Hyde Park rally.
The Alford Plea
It is hard to imagine Assange admitting to having done anything wrong, when the case against him, as argued in his extradition hearing, appears to prove no wrongdoing at all.
The case of David Hicks, an Australian imprisoned by the United States in Guantanamo Bay is relevant. Hicks ultimately was released by the U.S., after pressure from the Australian government, when he agreed to a so-called Alford Plea, in which he pled guilty to a single charge, but was allowed to assert his innocence at the same time on the grounds that he understood he would not receive a fair trial.
Can an Alford Plea be a face-saving solution for both Biden and Assange? Can Assange’s team frame it as Assange denying participation in any crime while at the same time having to plead guilty to at least a lesser charge?
FBI Continues Probe
Some of this optimism was punctured on May 31 when The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the F.B.I. was still carrying out its investigation of Assange, three years after issuing its last superseding indictment.
The Herald reported that the F.B.I. in May sought an interview in London with Andrew O’Hagan, who worked as a ghostwriter on Assange’s autobiography in 2011. The London Metropolitan Police’s counterterrorism command sent the letter to O’Hagan, which said: “The FBI would like to discuss your experiences with Assange/WikiLeaks …”
O’Hagan told the Herald: “I would not give a witness statement against a fellow journalist being pursued for telling the truth. I would happily go to jail before agreeing in any way to support the American security establishment in this cynical effort.”
What could this mean in the context of speculation about negotiations over a plea deal? Did the F.B.I. want to bolster its case to make it easier for Assange to accept a plea on the lesser charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion? Or was it just trying to strengthen a very weak case against him?
Assange’s Australian lawyer, Stephen Kenny, told the Herald:
“I would think it is of some concern because we have been working to try to secure an arrangement that would see Julian come home. It would be very unusual if the FBI was trying to gather evidence that could help clear his name.”
Judge Rejects Application to Appeal
The rollercoaster plunged further with the news that a single judge on the High Court of England and Wales rejected Assange’s 11-month old request to cross appeal the lower court ruling in his case as well as the home secretary’s decision to extradite him.
Judge Swift, who has manifest conflicts of interest, rejected the 150-page application for appeal of the home secretary’s decision to extradite Assange to the U.S. as well as a cross appeal of the lower court judge who initially released Assange on health grounds and conditions of U.S. prisons but who agreed with the U.S. on everything else.
Swift took just three pages to dismiss the 150-page application to appeal, complaining about the length of the submission in the process. He called Assange’s appeal “new evidence,” which he rejected, while the same court accepted the new evidence of U.S. assurances not to mistreat Assange to overturn the lower court’ decision to release him on health grounds.
Assange’s legal team has one last chance with the court. On Tuesday last week they submitted a 20-page document to the High Court arguing why it should listen to the appeal against extradition. His team will get no more than a humiliating 15 minutes of a 30-minute hearing to argue before two judges on the High Court, according to former British diplomat Craig Murray.
If this application is refused there are no more legal steps for Assange in Britain and he could be theoretically put on a plane to the U.S. that day.
At that point, only an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights can stop the plane from taking off until that court examines the case. Assange’s lawyers filed a submission to the ECHR in December.
But there is also the possibility of a last-minute plea agreement or the U.S. dropping the case.
What Biden Needs
This flurry of bad news for Assange, after weeks of encouraging developments, has buried talk of a plea agreement. But a last minute deal cannot be ruled out.
Biden would need his pound of flesh from Assange if he would allow his administration to offer a plea. Assange would most likely have to plead guilty to something and serve more time, likely in Australia, before Biden would entertain ending the case.
Though he was never charged for the Democratic National Committee or the C.I.A. leaks, Assange is the continuing target of their ire, and would be unlikely to look kindly on Biden letting him go, especially a year before a U.S. presidential election. Biden knows he’s wrong on Assange, if he can remember it. He clearly stated his position on Assange on Meet the Press in December 2010.
Vice President Biden told the program that Assange could only be indicted if it could be proved he conspired to steal the published documents. That could not be proved and the Obama-Biden administration did not indict Assange. The Trump administration did. But only on the original 2010 espionage charges.
The U.S. indictment does not accuse Assange of stealing U.S. government documents, but only receiving them. If Biden stuck to his original principles he would have these charges dropped and let Assange go. But it’s political dynamite for him.
The C.I.A. and DNC would likely be furious with Biden so he will need something in return to show them for letting Assange go. Whether that satisfies them is another matter.
Dropping the Case
The last, long-shot possibility, is that the U.S. drops the case altogether. This is what Assange’s supporters, parliamentarians around the world, human rights and press freedom groups, journalists’ unions and even WikiLeaks‘ five corporate media partners have been calling for.
But until now it’s been like talking to a marble wall in Washington. Yet, developments in the UC Global case in Spain and the upcoming U.S. presidential election might provide conditions for the U.S. to want to get out of its pursuit of Assange.
A recent development in the Madrid criminal trial against UC Global chief David Morales for violating Assange’s privacy by spying on him in Ecuador’s London embassy with 24/7 live surveillance for the Central Intelligence Agency as well on his privileged conversations with his lawyers has solidly confirmed the C.I.A’s role.
Would Langley want that exposed at Assange’s trial federal court in Alexandria, VA, where U.S. media interest would be intense?
Also, would Biden welcome during a presidential campaign the protests in the plaza before the Alexandria courthouse, highlighting his administrations efforts to convict a journalist for publishing accurate information exposing U.S. state crimes, handing his political opponents a cudgel to expose his hypocrisy about defending press freedoms?
It might indeed be in Biden’s and the C.I.A.’s interests to wash their hands of this filthy endeavor once and for all. (There is precedence for this in the Katharine Gun case.)
In one way or the other, the coming weeks appear to be leading to a climax in the extradition phase of arguably the most important press freedom case in U.S. history.
Zelensky bans Russian books
The Ukrainian president has signed a controversial bill outlawing the import of Russian and Belarusian publications
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky announced on Thursday that he had signed a law making it illegal to import and distribute Russian and Belarusian language products in Ukraine. However, some Ukrainian officials have pointed out that the step could hinder Kiev’s plans to join the EU.
The move comes after Ukrainian citizens registered an online petition on the official presidential website asking for the ban, back in May. The petition reached the 25,000-vote threshold required for it to be formally considered by the head of state.
The author of the petition noted that the Ukrainian parliament had already approved the law on June 19, 2022, but that Zelensky had never signed the bill. As a result, Russian books continued to be sold in Ukraine, which undermines “the information security of the state and the economic foundations of Ukrainian book publishing,” according to the petition.
“I consider the law to be correct,” Zelensky stated in a Telegram post announcing that he had finally signed the legislation.
He noted, however, that the text of the legislation had been sent to EU institutions for an “additional assessment” of whether it could breach Kiev’s obligations to protect minority rights, particularly linguistic ones, in the context of Ukraine’s application for EU membership.
In a written response to the petition last month, Zelensky explained that there had been a “number of reservations” that prevented the law from being adopted.
The president stated that Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice had proposed applying the right of veto to the bill, arguing that completely banning the import and distribution of Russian publications would contradict several articles of Ukraine’s constitution.
Additionally, Zelensky said that despite agreeing with the nature of the law, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry had also advised vetoing the bill. The ministry had warned that its current version “does not meet the norms and standards of the EU in the field of human rights, including freedom of opinion, protection of the rights of national minorities, prohibition of discrimination on the basis of language, and therefore may complicate the process of negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.”
The Imminent Extradition of Julian Assange and the Death of Journalism
Julian Assange’s legal options have nearly run out. He could be extradited to the U.S. this week. Should he be convicted in the U.S., any reporting on the inner workings of power will become a crime.
By Chris Hedges / Original to ScheerPost more https://scheerpost.com/2023/06/18/chris-hedges-the-imminent-extradition-of-julian-assange-and-the-death-of-journalism/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=chris-hedges-the-imminent-extradition-of-julian-assange-and-the-death-of-journalism
High Court Judge Jonathan Swift — who previously worked for a variety of British government agencies as a barrister and said his favorite clients are “security and intelligence agencies” — rejected two applications by Julian Assange’s lawyers to appeal his extradition last week. The extradition order was signed last June by Home Secretary Priti Patel. Julian’s legal team have filed a final application for appeal, the last option available in the British courts. If accepted, the case could proceed to a public hearing in front of two new High Court judges. If rejected, Julian could be immediately extradited to the United States where he will stand trial for 18 counts of violating the Espionage Act, charges that could see him receive a 175-year sentence, as early as this week.
The only chance to block an extradition, if the final appeal is rejected, as I expect it will be, would come from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The parliamentary arm of the Council of Europe, which created the ECtHR, along with their Commissioner for Human Rights, oppose Julian’s “detention, extradition and prosecution” because it represents “a dangerous precedent for journalists.” It is unclear if the British government would abide by the court’s decision — even though it is obligated to do so — if it ruled against extradition, or if the U.K. would extradite Julian before an appeal to the European court can be heard. Julian, once shipped to the U.S., would be put on trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia where most espionage cases have been won by the U.S. government.
Judge Vanessa Baraitser at Westminster Magistrates’ Court refused to authorize the U.S. government’s extradition request in Jan. 2021 because of the severity of the conditions Julian would endure in the U.S. prison system.
“Faced with the conditions of near total isolation without the protective factors which limited his risk at [Her Majesty’s Prison] Belmarsh, I am satisfied the procedures described by the U.S. will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide,” said Baraitser when handing down her 132-page ruling, “and for this reason I have decided extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm and I order his discharge.”
Baraitser’s decision was overturned after an appeal by U.S. authorities. The High Court accepted the conclusions of the lower court about increased risk of suicide and inhumane prison conditions. But it also accepted four assurances in U.S. Diplomatic Note no. 74, given to the court in Feb. 2021, which promised Julian would be well treated. The U.S. government claimed that its assurances “entirely answer the concerns which caused the judge [in the lower court] to discharge Mr. Assange.” The “assurances” state that Julian will not be subject to Special Administrative Measures (SAMs).
They promise that Julian, an Australian citizen, can serve his sentence in Australia if the Australian government requests his extradition. They promise he will receive adequate clinical and psychological care. They promise that, pre-trial and post-trial, Julian will not be held in the Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado. No one is held pre-trial in ADX Florence. But it sounds reassuring. ADX Florence is not the only supermax prison in the U.S. Julian can be placed in one of our other Guantanamo-like facilities in a Communications Management Unit (CMU). CMUs are highly restrictive units that replicate the near total isolation imposed by SAMs.
None of these “assurances” are worth the paper they are written on. All come with escape clauses. None are legally binding. Should Julian do “something subsequent to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX” he will, the court conceded, be subject to these harsher forms of control.
If Australia does not request a transfer it “cannot be a cause for criticism of the USA, or a reason for regarding the assurances as inadequate to meet the judge’s concerns,” the ruling read. And even if that were not the case, it would take Julian 10 to 15 years to appeal his sentence up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would be more than enough time to destroy him psychologically and physically.
No doubt the plane waiting to take Julian to the U.S. will be well stocked with blindfolds, sedatives, shackles, enemas, diapers and jumpsuits used to facilitate “extraordinary renditions” conducted by the CIA.
The extradition of Julian will be the next step in the slow-motion execution of the publisher and founder of WikiLeaks and one of the most important journalists of our generation. It will ensure that Julian spends the rest of his life in a U.S. prison. It will create legal precedents that will criminalize any investigation into the inner workings of power, even by citizens from another country. It will be a body blow to our anemic democracy, which is rapidly metamorphosing into corporate totalitarianism.
I am as stunned by this full frontal assault on journalism as I am by the lack of public outrage, especially by the media. The very belated call from The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País — all of whom published material provided by WikiLeaks — to drop the extradition charges is too little too late. All of the public protests I have attended in defense of Julian in the U.S. are sparsely attended. Our passivity makes us complicit in our own enslavement.
Julian’s case, from the start, has been a judicial farce.
Former Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno terminated Julian’s rights of asylum as a political refugee, in violation of international law. He then authorized London Metropolitan Police to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy — diplomatically sanctioned sovereign territory — to arrest a naturalized citizen of Ecuador. Moreno’s government, which revoked Julian’s citizenship, was granted a large loan by the International Monetary Fund for its assistance. Donald Trump, by demanding Julian’s extradition under the Espionage Act, criminalized journalism, in much the same way Woodrow Wilson did when he shut down socialist publications such as The Masses.
The hearings, some of which I attended in London and others of which I sat through online, mocked basic legal protocols. They included the decision to ignore the CIA’s surveillance and recording of meetings between Julian and his attorneys during his time as a political refugee in the embassy, eviscerating attorney-client-privilege. This alone should have seen the case thrown out of court. They included validating the decision to charge Julian, although he is not a U.S. citizen, under the Espionage Act. They included Kafkaesque contortions to convince the courts that Julian is not a journalist. They ignored Article 4 of the U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty that prohibits extradition for political offenses. I watched as the prosecutor James Lewis, representing the U.S., gave legal directives to Judge Baraitser, who promptly adopted them as her legal decision.
The judicial lynching of Julian has far more in common with the dark days of Lubyanka than the ideals of British jurisprudence.
The debate over arcane legal nuances distracts us from the fact that Julian has not committed a crime in Britain, other than an old charge of breaching bail conditions when he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Normally this would entail a fine. He was instead sentenced to a year in Belmarsh prison and has been held there since April 2019.
The decision to seek Julian’s extradition, contemplated by Barack Obama’s administration, was pursued by the Trump administration following WikiLeaks’ publication of the documents known as Vault 7, which exposed the CIA’s cyberwarfare programs designed to monitor and take control of cars, smart TVs, web browsers and the operating systems of most smart phones, as well as Microsoft Windows, MacOS and Linux.
Julian, as I noted in a column filed from London last year, is targeted because of the Iraq War Logs, released in Oct. 2010, which document numerous U.S. war crimes, including images seen in the Collateral Murder video, of the gunning down of two Reuters journalists and 10 other civilians and severely injuring two children.
He is targeted because he made public the killing of nearly 700 civilians who had approached too closely to U.S. convoys and checkpoints, including pregnant women, the blind and deaf, and at least 30 children
He is targeted because he exposed more than 15,000 unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians and the torture and abuse of some 800 men and boys, aged between 14 to 89, at Guantánamo Bay detention camp.
He is targeted because he showed us that Hillary Clinton in 2009 ordered U.S. diplomats to spy on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other U.N. representatives from China, France, Russia, and the U.K., spying that included obtaining DNA, iris scans, fingerprints, and personal passwords, all part of the long pattern of illegal surveillance that included eavesdropping on U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
He is targeted because he exposed that Obama, Hillary Clinton and the CIA backed the June 2009 military coup in Honduras that overthrew the democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya, replacing him with a murderous and corrupt military regime.
He is targeted because he released documents that revealed the United States secretly launched missile, bomb and drone attacks on Yemen, killing scores of civilians.
He is targeted because he made public the off-the-record talks Hillary Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs, talks for which she was paid $657,000, a sum so large it can only be considered a bribe, as well as her private assurances to Wall Street that she would do their bidding while promising the public financial regulation and reform.
For revealing these truths alone he is guilty.
The U.S. court system is even more draconian than the British court system. It can use SAMs, anti-terrorism laws and the Espionage Act to block Julian from speaking to the public, being released on bail, or seeing the “secret” evidence used to convict him.
The CIA was created to carry out assassinations, coups, torture, kidnapping, blackmail, character assassination and illegal spying. It has targeted U.S. citizens, in violation of its charter. These activities were exposed in 1975 by the Church Committee hearings in the Senate and the Pike Committee hearings in the House.
Working with UC Global, the Spanish security firm in the embassy, the CIA put Julian under 24-hour video and digital surveillance. It discussed kidnapping and assassinating him while he was in the embassy, which included plans of a shoot-out on the streets with involvement by London Metropolitan Police. The U.S. allocates a secret black budget of $52 billion a year to hide multiple types of clandestine projects carried out by the National Security Agency, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies, usually beyond the scrutiny of Congress. All these clandestine activities, especially after the attacks of 9/11, have massively expanded.
Senator Frank Church, after examining the heavily redacted CIA documents released to his committee, defined the CIA’s covert activity as “a semantic disguise for murder, coercion, blackmail, bribery, the spreading of lies.”
The CIA and intelligence agencies, along with the military, all of which operate without effective Congressional oversight, are the engines behind Julian’s extradition. Julian inflicted, by exposing their crimes and lies, a grievous wound. They demand vengeance. The control these forces seek abroad is the control they seek at home.
Julian may soon be imprisoned for life in the U.S. for journalism, but he won’t be the only one.
Israel Worries U.S. Weapons for Ukraine Are Ending Up in Iran’s Hands
NewsWeek, BY TOM O’CONNOR ON 6/15/23
high-ranking Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commander has told Newsweek that Israel is concerned over the risks of weapons provided by the United States and other Western nations to Ukraine ending up in the hands of Israel’s foes in the Middle East, including Iran.
With experts too backing these worries, the situation could mark yet another chapter in a long legacy of U.S. arms shipments being diverted, empowering adversaries of both Israel and the U.S. in another restive region, while the focus of Western governments is on the volatile conflict playing out in Eastern Europe.
The Israeli commander, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic, said the diversion of weapons, such as the Javelin shoulder-fired anti-tank missile system, was being monitored from paramilitary forces operating on both sides of the Russia-Ukraine war………………………………………………………..
The U.S. has provided nearly $50 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since Russia launched its war in February 2022. Prior to the conflict, the U.S. sent up to 7,700 Javelins to Ukraine and, by two months into the war, had sent an additional 5,500.
More batches of these systems and other portable weapons such as Tube-Launched, Optically Tracked, Wireless-Guided (TOW) anti-tank missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles have continued to come in new aid packages, such as one announced Wednesday, as part of a growing and increasingly advanced array of Western weapons made available to Ukraine………………………………….
The issue channels a long history of U.S. arms inadvertently ending up in the hands of adversarial forces.
This trend was demonstrated most clearly this century in the large quantities of U.S.-supplied weapons wielded by the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) as a result of the mass surrender of U.S.-partnered forces in the face of the jihadis’ lightning advances in Iraq and the defeat and absorption of U.S.-backed rebel groups by ISIS in neighboring Syria………………………………… more https://www.newsweek.com/israel-worries-us-weapons-ukraine-are-ending-irans-hands-1806131
Why Biden Wants Assange in Jail: Case at the Tipping Point
15 Jun 2023 A London High Court judge rejected Wikileaks editor Julian Assange’s appeal against his extradition to the United States. He now faces up to 175 years in prison — despite public opinion around the world and in his home country, Australia. The UN has declared his detention “arbitrary,” which usually results in the release of the detainee, but not so far. The fate of the man who revealed so many of the hidden crimes of the US empire hangs in the balance. Brian Becker is joined by Joe Lauria, editor in chief of Consortium News
Democracy out the window in USA – as teachers and others punished for making pro-Russian comments
Tammy, 17 June 23
Three St. Louis residents indicted on charges of illegally pushing pro-Russian propaganda
First of all Russia is not a socialist country and being a socialist in the usa is not a crime. Bernie sanders is a democratic socialist. The biden administration, is behind these prosecutions.
https://news.yahoo.com/substitute-teacher-suspended-remarks-supporting-004938324.html
Substitute teacher suspended for remarks supporting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine
Other teachers in Florida, Utah, and Idaho have been suspended or fired for similar views.
Not democratic. Semi totalitarian.
People from across the usa, have complained about FBI interrogations about, their views on Russia and the Ukraine. Some taken from social media. This is totalitarian at many levels.
CIA: Black Market of Arms Trade. Part 1
CIAGATE, MAY 26, 2023
We can see that the CIA controls a significant part of the arms trade black market. Millions of dollars are being spent on financing terrorist groups and political radicals around the globe. Biden has already allocated more than $50 billion for purchasing weapons for Ukraine.
We know that the vast part of this money ends up in the pockets of corrupt CIA agents and officials bribed by them, and are also spent on other illegal activities.
In the first part of our investigation, we publish a list of the CIA agents who are involved in corrupt schemes for weapons supply to hotspots all around the world. We want their activity to become public and be thoroughly investigated. The U.S. foreign policy should emphasize peace with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
List of persons involved in the weapons supplies to Ukraine.…………………………… more https://ciagate.substack.com/p/cia-black-market-of-arms-trade-part
1 This Month
of the week – Shut Down Drone Warfare!
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (7)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 