WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could die in prison without urgent medical care, according to an open letter signed by more than 60 doctors.

The medics, from the UK, Australia, Europe and Sri Lanka express serious concerns about 48-year-old Assanges fitness to stand trial in the letter addressed to Home Secretary Priti Patel.

He is being held in Belmarsh prison, in southeast London, ahead of a hearing in February to fight extradition to the US, where he faces 18 charges, including conspiring to hack into a Pentagon computer.

Mr Assange is accused of working with former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak hundreds of thousands of classified documents.

The doctors are calling for Mr Assange to be transferred to a university teaching hospital, where he can be assessed and treated by an expert medical team.

The letter, which has also been copied to shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, says: From a medical point of view, on the evidence currently available, we have serious concerns about Mr Assanges fitness to stand trial in February 2020.

Most importantly, it is our opinion that Mr Assange requires urgent expert medical assessment of both his physical and psychological state of health.

Any medical treatment indicated should be administered in a properly equipped and expertly staffed university teaching hospital (tertiary care).

Were such urgent assessment and treatment not to take place, we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison.

The medical situation is thereby urgent. There is no time to lose.

Last week WikiLeaks welcomed the decision by the Swedish authorities to drop a rape investigation into Mr Assange.

He was jailed for 50 weeks in May for breaching his bail conditions after going into hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden over the sex offence allegations, which he has always denied.

Mr Assange has been in custody since he was dramatically removed from the building in April, and at a hearing last month appeared to struggle to say his own name, telling Westminster Magistrates Court: I cant think properly.

Dr Lissa Johnson, a clinical psychologist in Australia and one of the letters signatories, said: Given the rapid decline of his health in Belmarsh prison, Julian Assange must immediately be transferred to a university teaching hospital for appropriate and specialised medical care.

If the UK Government fails to heed doctors advice by urgently arranging such a transfer on medical grounds, there is a very real possibility that Mr Assange may die.

As it stands, serious questions surround not only the health impacts of Mr Assanges detention conditions, but his medical fitness to stand trial and prepare his defence.

Independent specialist medical assessment is therefore needed to determine whether Julian Assange is medically fit for any of his pending legal proceedings.

Consistent with its commitment to human rights and rule of law, the UK Government must heed the urgent warning of medical professionals from around the world, and transfer Julian Assange to an appropriately specialised and expert hospital setting, before its too late.PA

Go here to read the rest:
Assange could die in prison without urgent medical care medics - The Irish Times

Caitlin Johnstone blasts The Guardian for its belated defense of Julian Assange and its harmful coverage in the past.

By Caitlin JohnstoneCaitlinJohnstone.com

The Guardianhaspublished an editorialtitled The Guardian view on extraditing Julian Assange: dont do it, subtitled The US case against the WikiLeaks founder is an assault on press freedom and the publics right to know. Thepublicationseditorial board argues that sincethe Swedish investigation has once again been dropped, the time is now to oppose U.S. extradition for the WikiLeaksfounder.

Swedens decision todrop an investigationinto a rape allegation against Julian Assange has both illuminated the situation of the WikiLeaks founder and made it more pressing, the editorial board writes.

Oh okay,nowthe issue is illuminated and pressing. Not two months ago, when Assanges ridiculous bail sentence ended and he was still kept in prisonexplicitly and exclusively because of the U.S.extradition request. Not six months ago, when the U.S. government slammed Assange with17 charges under the Espionage Actfor publishing the Chelsea Manning leaks. Not seven months ago, when Assange was forcibly pried from the Ecuadorian embassy andslapped with the U.S.extradition request. Not any time between his April arrest and his taking political asylum seven years ago, which the Ecuadorian governmentexplicitly granted himbecause it believed there was a credible threat of U.S. extradition. Not nine years agowhen WikiLeakswas warningthat the U.S. government was scheming to extradite Assange and prosecute him under the Espionage Act.

Nope, no, any of those times would have been far too early forThe Guardianto begin opposing U.S. extradition for Assange with any degree of lucidity. They had to wait until Assange was already locked up in Belmarsh prison and limping into extradition hearingssupervised by looming U.S.government officials. They had to wait until years and years ofvirulent mass media smear campaignshad killed off public support for Assange so he could be extradited with little or no grassroots backlash. And they had to wait until they themselves had finished participating in those smear campaigns.

This is after all the sameGuardianwhich published thetransparently ridiculousandcompletely invalidatedreport that Trump lackey Paul Manafort had met secretly with Assange at the embassy, not once but multiple times. Not one shred of evidence has ever been produced to substantiate this claim despite the embassy being one of the most heavily surveilled buildings on the planet at the time, and the Robert Mueller investigation, whose expansive scope would obviously have included such meetings, reported absolutely nothing to corroborate it. It was a bogus story which all accusedpartieshaveforcefully denied.

This is the sameGuardianwhichran an article last yeartitled The only barrier to Julian Assange leaving Ecuadors embassy is pride, arguing that Assange looked ridiculous for remaining in the embassy because The WikiLeaks founder is unlikely to face prosecution in the U.S.

The article was authored by the odious James Ball, whodeleted atweetnot long ago complaining about the existence of UN special rapporteurs after one of them concluded thatAssange is a victim of psychological torture. Balls article begins, According to Debretts, the arbiters of etiquette since 1769: Visitors, like fish, stink in three days. Given this, its difficult to imagine what Ecuadors London embassy smells like, more than five-and-a-half years afterJulian Assangemoved himself into the confines of the small flat in Knightsbridge, just across the road from Harrods.

This is the sameGuardianwhichpublished an articletitled Definition of paranoia: supporters of Julian Assange, arguing that Assange defenders are crazy conspiracy theorists for believing the U.S. would try to extradite Assange because Britain has a notoriously lax extradition treaty with the United States, because why would they bother to imprison him when he is making such a good job of discrediting himself?, and because there is no extradition request.

This is the sameGuardianwhichpublishedaludicrous reportabout Assange potentially receiving documents as part of a strange Nigel Farage/Donald Trump/Russia conspiracy, a claim based primarily on vague analysis by a single anonymous source described as a highly placed contact with links to US intelligence. The sameGuardianwhich just flushed standard journalistic protocol down the toilet by reporting on Assanges ties to the Kremlin (not a thing) without even bothering to use the word alleged, notonce, buttwice. The sameGuardianwhich has been advancing many more virulent smears as documented inthis article byThe Canarytitled Guilty by innuendo: the Guardian campaign against Julian Assange that breaks all the rules.

You can see, then, how ridiculous it is for an outlet likeThe Guardianto now attempt to wash its hands of Assanges plight with a self-righteous denunciation of the Trump administrations extradition request from its editorial board. This outlet has actively and forcefully paved the road to the situation in which Assange now finds himself by manufacturing consent for an agenda which the public would otherwise have found appalling and ferociously objectionable.Guardianeditors dont get to pretend that they are in some way separate from whats being done to Assange. Theycreatedwhats being done to Assange.

The deployment of a bomb or missile doesnt begin when a pilot pushes a button, it begins when propaganda narratives used to promote those operations start circulating in public attention. If you help circulate war propaganda, youre as complicit as the one who pushes the button. The imprisonment of a journalist for exposing U.S. war crimes doesnt begin when the Trump administration extradites him to America, it begins when propagandistic smear campaigns begin circulating to kill public opposition to his imprisonment. If you helped promote that smear campaign, youre just as responsible for what happens to him as the goon squad in Trumps Department of Justice.

Before they launch missiles, they launch narratives. Before they drop bombs, they drop ideas. Before they invade, they propagandize. Before the killing, there is manipulation. Narrative control is the front line of all imperialist agendas, and it is therefore the front line of all anti-imperialist efforts. When you forcefully oppose these agendas, that matters, because youre keeping the public from being propagandized into consenting to them. When you forcefully facilitate those agendas, that matters, because youre actively paving the way for them.

Claiming you oppose an imperialist agenda while helping to advance its propaganda and smear campaigns in any way is a nonsensical and contradictory position. You cannot facilitate imperialism and simultaneously claim to oppose it.

They work so hard to manufacture our consent because theyneedthat consent. If they operate without the consent of the governed, the public will quickly lose trust in their institutions, and at that point its not long before revolution begins to simmer. So, dont give them your consent. And for Gods sake dont do anything that helps manufacture it in others.

Words matter. Work with them responsibly.

Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularlyat Medium. Follow her work onFacebook,Twitter,or herwebsite. She has apodcastand a new bookWoke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

This article was re-published with permission.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those ofConsortium News.

Before commenting please read Robert ParrysComment Policy.Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers will not be published. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons, please refrain from inserting links in your comments, which should not be longer than 300 words.

Follow this link:
Advancing Propaganda for Evil Agendas Is the Same as Perpetrating Them - Consortium News

The theme of the peace vigil and pie social will be peace, integrity and equality, or PIE.

The peace vigil will be 1 p.m. at the intersection of Sixth and Washington streets, Brainerd, near the Sawmill Inn.

Vigil participants will meet at the vigil site. Signs, flags and banners are available for vigil participants.

The peace vigil will demand the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Middle East and Afghanistan, an end to U.S. drone assassinations, and the termination of U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's bombing of Yemen.

The vigil will demand the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela and Iran and support normalizing U.S. diplomatic and trade relations with Venezuela and Iran. The vigil opposes possible U.S. wars against Venezuela and Iran.

The vigil will condemn the coup in Bolivia, which overthrew President Evo Morales on Nov. 10. The vigil supports protests calling for Morales' return to office.

The vigil supports whistleblowers who expose abuses of power and corruption. The vigil will call for pardoning whistleblowers, including Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou, Thomas Drake, Jeffrey Sterling and Reality Winner, who exposed massive surveillance, official corruption, torture and war crimes. The vigil opposes the possible federal prosecution of Wikileaks editor Julian Assange and calls for all charges against him to be dropped. The vigil will demand the release of Assange, Manning and Winner.

The vigil reaffirms BACP's belief in equal rights for all and economic justice. The vigil rejects prejudice and discrimination. The vigil opposes the Trump administration's immigration and refugee policies.

After the peace vigil ends at 2 p.m., a pie social will be in the Brainerd United Church of Christ Fellowship Hall, 415 Juniper St., Brainerd, near Gregory Park.

Pie social attendees are welcome to bring pies, homemade or store bought. Extra store bought pies will be donated to the Sharing Bread Soup Kitchen. Beverages provided.

The UCC Fellowship Hall will be open starting at 1 p.m. for people who would like to join the pie social, but are unable to participate in the vigil. If bad weather forces the vigil to be canceled, the pie social in the UCC Fellowship Hall will begin at 1 p.m.

The BACP peace vigil and pie social is a free event open to the public.

For more information, visit http://www.brainerdpeace.org, or the Brainerd Area Coalition for Peace Facebook page.

Read more:
Brainerd Area Coalition for Peace vigil and pie social planned - Brainerd Dispatch

With Western armed forces already using embedded reporters to tell the story they prefer, a UK think tank now calls for national security training for journalists so they don't help out Russia or China by telling the truth.

A British defence think tank with close, high-level links to the armed forces, defence contractors, foreign governments and huge multinational corporations is suggesting military-backed media training for Western journalists to stop Russia using their own reporting against them.

The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), located over the road from 10 Downing Street in London, hoovers up masses of cash in funding from the European Commission, defense contractor BAE systems, the Qatari government, Big Tobacco's Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco, the US State Department, Google and many others.

Now Elisabeth Braw, who directs the RUSI Modern Deterrence project, suggests teaching "national security" as a journalism specialty to help rein in impartial reporters who might want to write freely about what they witness during armed conflict and elsewhere.

The suggestion is, basically, to turn journalism into a public relations operation where a compliant media actually colludes with the military to give the unquestioning public a version of the news that omits uncomfortable details, even when they're both true and non-secret.

In arguing her case under the headline "Loose Lips Sink Democracies" (and she doesn't mean it ironically) on the Foreign Policy website, Ms Braw recalls the domestic reporting of the Swedish Navy pursuing what it believed to be an "enemy" submarine in 2014, only to find one of the many leads it chased up turned out to be a faulty weather buoy. While the report was true, it was the tone of the article that Ms Braw objects to because, she says, it led to a dent in the credibility of the Swedish Navy.

She blames the mockery that followed in Russian media outlets on "sloppy journalism."

Sloppy it may have been, and the headlines could be worded with less clickbait, but it was still true. Any newspaper editor worth his or her salt will look for the hook on a story and in this case, it was that the navy had spent time, money, and energy chasing a funny, dead-end lead.

Then there were the reports of NATO troops on an exercise in Norway relieving themselves against the wall of a day care centre, followed by the Dutch story of their soldiers having to buy their own underwear, and the German newspaper article on German troops having to wait 18 months for their boots.

All true, all accurately reported but according to Ms Braw, undermining Western military operations by opening them up to ridicule by an irreverent Russian media. And that cannot be allowed to happen.

She admits that it is an "uncomfortable thought" to have to rein in a free press but considers the apparently sacrosanct nature of national security is worth the occasional journalist because "no supporter of Western democracy cherishes Russian or Chinese influence."

It was the USA during the Iraq war in 2003 that first decided to deal with those nosy guys and gals writing embarrassing stories about poor troop behaviour, botched missions, sub-standard kit and hardware bedevilled with problems; they embedded those reporters with the armed forces on the ground.

Of course, embedding journalists with troops is sold as a golden opportunity for gullible media organisations to give their battlefield reporters a front row seat with the full cooperation of the services themselves.

But in reality, as evidenced by US Army intelligence whistleblower Chelsea Manning during her stint in Iraq, the vetting of reporters by military public affairs officials was used "to screen out those judged likely to produce critical coverage," and that once embedded, journalists tended "to avoid controversial reporting that could raise red flags" in case they had their access terminated.

"A result is that the American public's access to the facts is gutted, which leaves them with no way to evaluate the conduct of American officials," said Manning.

Since the PR brainstorm of what became known as 'inbeds,' this cosy, vetted, accredited, and decidedly one-way relationship has led to a rise in shameless propaganda attempting to pass itself off as journalism.

The recent gushing report on the National Interest website of the "unstoppable" F35 jeton maneuvers is just one example. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the US F35 project has been struggling for years with technical and financial problems.

Meanwhile, the same website reported earlier this year that a Russian stealth plane project was a "lame duck," mocking alleged shortcomings in a piece straight out of the RUSI playbook.

This sort of reporting could be discounted simply as a nave piece of "sloppy journalism" or, for those of more suspicious disposition, a masterclass in propaganda.

By Damian Wilson, UK journalist & political communications specialist

Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media wont tell you.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Original post:
Journalists need 'national security' training to stop flow of embarrassing but true NATO stories, defense-backed think tank warns - RT

Karim Amer and Jehane Noujaims documentary The Great Hack, released directly to Netflix this past summer, opens at Burning Man. Its there that we find Brittany Kaiser, one-time business director of Cambridge Analytica, the consulting firm outed for misusing data harvested from Facebook and potentially affecting the outcomes of the 2016 presidential election and the Brexit referendum. The film gets up close and personal with Kaiser as she flees to Thailand and returns to Europe to testify against her former employer, CEO Alexander Nix.

She provides valuable insight on the extent of the companys wrongdoing, but the film refrains from making her out to be a hero. Amer and Noujaim instead go the print-the-legend route and cover the entire fog of controversy that soon surrounded Kaiser, as some applauded her stand in the face of power, and others denounced her as a complicit party looking to get some money or attention by turning on her boss.

Going by pure verisimilitude, documentary cinema has the edge on fictionalized films about real life, and the gulf of difference in how the two fields have approached portraying the whistleblower as a concept, and as a human individual lays that bare. With upper-level malfeasances all over the place and citizens desperate for someone to do something, the past year or so has seen an odd spike in movies about people speaking truth to power, no matter the consequences. These narrative works make use of a universal model of struggle, pitting a morally upstanding David against a sinister, institutional Goliath. This approach may amount to stirring drama, having someone easy to root for, but it all bears little resemblance to how similar events have played out beyond the cineplex. Everyone loves someone who does the right thing, but for the audience, only within the four walls of the theater can the right thing be so clear-cut.

The whistleblower is something of an American myth, a type ossified over decades of pop culture valorizing those who dare to go up against The System. Those are the terms of the conflict, always an all-but-independent operator (if they are a lawyer, the head of the firm will gruffly tell them to stop wasting resources and pursue something safer and more lucrative; if they are a journalist, this talk will come from an editor) who puts it all on the line to get some justice for the common folk, possibly unaware that theyve been victimized. The 2000 film Erin Brockovich managed the triple crown of box-office returns, critical praise, and Oscar glory for the retelling of a single mothers mission to mount a lawsuit against a gas-and-electric behemoth. It pushed all the right buttons: an incredible true instance of victory for the little guy, hard proof that good can still win out over evil.

That sure sounds like the model for Dark Waters, Todd Haynes account of the corporate lawyer Robert Bilotts decision to switch teams and prosecute DuPont Chemical for contaminating huge swaths of West Virginian land. But in interviews, Haynes has clarified that his central point of reference was in fact All the Presidents Men, the classic retelling of Woodward and Bernsteins investigation that uncovered Richard Nixons wiretapping at the Watergate Hotel. In any case, all three films revolve around what Haynes articulated to this writer in a soon-to-run interview as the sensation of discovering something covered up. The truth would be that covered-up something, and once our protagonist shines a light on it, whatever resistance may have come from management or ornery townspeople evaporates. These films court a feel-good response, even if the final moments of Dark Waters cycle through title cards explaining that DuPont continues to wreak wide-scale ruin on the environment. At least weve got someone out there fighting the good fight.

This draws a harsh contrast with the reception of whistleblowers in the US and UK of today, which has not been nearly as universally positive. Once again, documentary tells the real story; such recent films as Laura Poitrass Citizenfour and Risk, along with this past summers XY Chelsea, have all focused on the publics polarized impression of the political whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Their supporters have vaunted them as defenders of the republic, courting charges of treason just to expose crimes at the highest level of classified intelligence. Detractors have branded them traitors, their actions having jeopardized the security of American operatives just to promote a partisan agenda. An honest assessment lies somewhere in between, far closer to the former take, but these films recognize that the conflicted reception is the meat of the work.

Even when whistleblowers do face opposition, fictionalized films depict them in a less ambiguous light. As Dan Jones, the Senate investigator responsible for uncovering the horrific torture practices utilized by American forces at black sites in the war on terror, Adam Driver leads Scott Z Burns terrific procedural The Report. The drum-tight script focuses on Jones quest to get his scandalous memo on the inefficacy of torture out into the world, and while his efforts were hindered both by Republicans and the hesitation of his overseer Senator Dianne Feinstein (Annette Bening), the film concludes with him triumphant.

Same goes for Official Secrets, in which Keira Knightley plays the British translator Katharine Gun, leaker of confidential documents revealing that the US had illegally spied on diplomats deciding a UN resolution on the Iraq war. Like Jones, Gun cuts an admirable figure, unquestionably correct even in her difficult choices. These films sell a relatively sober version of a fantasy, in which sunlight really can be the best disinfectant. The revelation of ill deeds is all it takes to place the whistleblower in the right, while back on planet Earth, the people will dig their heels in on whatever beliefs theyve already held. Look no further than the current hubbub over the mystery agent who pulled back the curtain on Donald Trumps possibly impeachable conduct on a phone call with the president of Ukraine. In the future, when Jay Roach or whoever turns this all into an Oscar horse fall release, the anonymous subversive will undoubtedly get a swell of string music and a vindicating third act. Meanwhile, those at the uppermost levels of authority are figuring out how to get this person in prison, with ardent support from huge swaths of the populace.

A greater ethical clarity sadly absent from everyday life can exist in these films, where its not that the moral nuance gets flattened as much as our relation to it. In the new reboot of Charlies Angels, our everywoman Elena (Naomi Scott) discovers that the miracle doohickey manufactured by the tech giant she works for can be turned into a weapon, and she does what she thinks shes supposed to. For reporting the problem, shes rewarded with a dismissal from the office and later an attempt on her life, but the film takes good care of her. Shes a feminist icon, both for her scientific acumen and her moral compass, and she makes it official in the final scenes by becoming an Angel herself. Her heroism couldnt be plainer, and it earns her a feel-good finish the likes of which her real-world equivalents will never get to enjoy.

View original post here:
Why 2019 has been a big year for the big-screen whistleblower - The Guardian

Still, Persson said her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed.

Elisabeth Massi Fritz, the lawyer for the rape victim a Swedish woman who was never identified told Swedish broadcaster SVT that the plaintiffs information is supported by heavy written evidence plus verbal evidence in the form of doctors who examined the plaintiff.

To me that would be sufficient, she said.

However, the current prosecutor has done a thorough and solid job and she should be commended for that, Massi Fritz wrote according to Swedish news agency TT.

The decision follows a ruling in June by a Swedish court that Assange should not be detained. Two months earlier, Assange was evicted from the Ecuador Embassy in London where he had been holed up for nearly seven years. He was immediately arrested and is currently serving a 50-week sentence in Britain for jumping bail in 2012.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, said in a tweet that the focus should now move to the threat that Assange has been warning about for years: the belligerent prosecution of the United States and the threat it poses to the First Amendment.

Swedish authorities have been investigating Assange since August 2010, when two women accusedhimof sexual offences.Sweden thenasked Britain to extraditeAssangefor questioning, and in June 2012 he sought refuge in Ecuadors London embassy to avoid arrest. That request was granted two months later.

After that, the investigation stalled. Swedish prosecutors dropped the case of alleged sexual misconduct when the statute of limitations ran out in 2015, leaving only the rape allegation.

While denying the allegations in Sweden, he sought asylum for protection from possible extradition to the U.S. on charges.

Ecuador withdrew Assanges asylum status in April and Assange was arrested by British police. He was sentenced in May to 50 weeks in prison for jumping bail in 2012. He remains in prison after authorities ruled he was a flight risk and faces an extradition hearing next year to the U.S. to face spying charges.

There, the Australian faces an 18-count indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia that accuses him of soliciting and publishing classified information and with conspiring with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a Defence Department computer password.

___

Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark, contributed to this report.

David Keyton, The Associated Press

The rest is here:
Sweden drops Assange rape investigation after 9 years - CFJC Today Kamloops

In his full-bore efforts to impeach President Donald Trump, Congressman Adam Schiff has repeatedly demanded that the whistleblower responsible for the fiasco need protection. Just dont mention Snowden, Assange or Manning to him.

The whistleblower reportedly a CIA officer whose name has been circulating in the media but remains officially anonymous kicked off the impeachment inquiry by claiming that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine unless President Volodymyr Zelensky reopened a corruption investigation into former US VP Joe Bidens family. Despite Trumps release of a transcript of the call that showed the allegation of quid-pro-quo was flimsy at best, Schiff has nevertheless pressed ahead.

Cue a parade of deep state bureaucrats testifying over whether or not this quid-pro-quo took place, the answer to which varies wildly depending on the witness, and often on the wording of the question. Schiff has repeatedly denied knowing the identity of the whistleblower, but cuts off any questioning by Republicans that comes remotely close to picking out the agency he works for, under the auspices of not outing him.

Schiff has even gone as far as to suggest that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity a statement that, for better or worse, is simply not true. He also insisted that it may put the person in danger. Yet he has not shown such care for any other whistleblowers.

Whatever his reasons, Schiff has demonstrated a remarkable turnaround in his opinion on whistleblowing. Back in 2016, then-ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee didnt defend National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden. Instead, Schiff signed off on a report accusing Snowden of serial lying, colluding with Russia, and spilling agency secrets for personal gain.

"Snowden and his defenders claim that he is a whistleblower, but he isn't," Schiff said. "Most of the material he stole had nothing to do with Americans privacy... The US government must hold him accountable for his actions.

Unlike the supposed quid-pro-quo arrangement spelled out by the mystery CIA whistleblower, the NSAs warrantless collection of Americans phone records was very much illegal, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Schiff and a bipartisan consensus of swamp-dwellers didnt expend any energy defending Snowdens rights, however. Instead, Schiff personally wrote to President Barack Obama, urging him not to pardon Snowden. The former NSA contractor now lives in Moscow, where he sought asylum from espionage charges.

Ditto for Chelsea Manning, the US Army whistleblower who handed evidence of US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq over to WikiLeaks. Though Mannings sentence was commuted by Obama in 2016, she was thrown back in jail earlier this year for refusing to testify against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Schiff couldnt care less about Manning, though. When asked about Mannings sentence by a reporter at a gay pride parade in 2014, the California congressman simply responded Im just here for the party today.

Nor does he care about Assange, jailed in Britain and facing extradition to the US for his role in publishing Mannings revelations. As Schiff and his fellow Democrats thundered non-stop about Russian collusion last year, Assange offered to meet with Schiff and show proof that no such collusion took place, according to an intermediary.

Schiff was neither interested in the truth nor in protecting Assanges rights. Our committee would be willing to interview Julian Assange when he is in US custody, not before, he responded.

Thus far, with the whistleblower absent from Schiffs hearings, all the impeachment inquiry has on Trump is that he practiced foreign policy in a way that was inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency, in the words of witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman on Tuesday. In other words, Trump set his own agenda when speaking to Zelensky, and didnt act as a sock puppet for the US deep state.

The whistleblowers testimony may also prevent Schiff from ad-libbing the content of the Trump-Zelensky phone call, as he did before Congress in September, in a bizarre attempt to divine the essence of what the president communicates. After all, if the star witness cant confirm the allegations, he also cant deny them.

The noncommittal conclusion of the Mueller report was seen as grounds for impeachment by certain Democrats, and as a complete exoneration by Trump and the GOP. In selling the public on Schrodingers impeachment inquiry, first-hand testimony from the whistleblower himself might send Schiffs house of cards tumbling down.

By Graham Dockery, RT

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Here is the original post:
All whistleblowers are equal, as long as they hate Trump - RT

If you read history, especially firsthand accounts of war, it gives the brutal honesty of what war is. If we used the same legal microscope that governs our military today on our greatest generation, we would have convicted and jailed tens of thousands of soldiers and generals and even President Harry Truman; wars havent changed, but laws have. I understand we are not lawless pirates on the battlefield like our enemies, but the benefit of the doubt should always go to the person who is actually in the arena fighting for their lives and this country.

Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher never got that benefit of the doubt in our system, even though he was a highly decorated eight-time war veteran and among the few in this generation who has seen more combat than any in history.

Ultimately the president of the United States is accountable for the military and everything that happens during his watch; he is the commander in chief. He has a lot of influence on our country and our reputation around the world. Every president inherits a less than perfect country. But no matter what presidents inherit, they still own the outcome of their presidency; they need to make their own decisions.

It doesnt matter who you voted for, the president was elected to do what he thought best within his powers that the Constitution allows. Every president has generals and admirals who can give expert advice, which they can either take or dismiss. Im sure President George W. Bush was advised by some generals not to invade Iraq in 2003, but he did. Im also sure that generals advised President Barack Obama to not pull out of Iraq in 2011, fearing that it would fall to chaos, but he did. So its not unheard of for a president to decide unilaterally on major military decisions, opposing his most trusted experts. But the president is ultimately accountable. He can take the advice or dismiss it. That is how the system works. The military is led by a civilian by design; it didnt just happen.

The decision by these presidents to ignore their military leaders is not uncommon, nor is it significant that President Donald Trump did not take expert advice with regards to the case of Gallagher. It happens, and he has the authority and moral obligation to this nation to decide for himself; accountability cannot be delegated.

Soon after the invasion of Iraq, Eddie Gallagher went to Mosul and fought to take control of the city. More than a decade later, after we pulled out of Iraq, parts of the country fell to ISIS. Eddie went back and fought in Mosul in the same streets and buildings he risked his life in more than a decade earlier, all because of decisions made at the top that went against expert advice. If presidents decided to ignore experts on major war decisions that impact millions of lives, national security and world peace, what would taking expert advice now signal to the troops, the ones in the arena doing the fighting and suffering the consequences of higher decisions? During this second liberation of Mosul Eddies eighth combat deployment he was accused of premeditated murder of an ISIS fighter and faced life without parole.

Eddie went to a court-martial and was found not guilty of murder. Also, a witness admitted on the stand that he had taken the life of the wounded ISIS terrorist, not Eddie. Eddie was found guilty of a petty crime of taking a photograph with the dead body, which he never denied. But since he was at court-martial, it was a felony conviction, something that normally would have been nonjudicial punishment, and a slap on the wrist, had he not been on trial for a crime he was not guilty of.

Every president pardons or commutes sentences. The last president even commuted convicted traitor Chelsea Manning.

I believe President Trump has made his commanders intent about Gallagher crystal-clear. Eddies pretrial confinement of nearly a year is more than enough punishment for a photo. President Trump is the commander in chief, and clearly intends for Eddie to retire; I believe any further action against Gallagher may be seen as insubordination or as retribution. The president just wants to help a hero with his transition home.

Hiner, a retired Navy SEAL, is the author of First Fast Fearless and founder of the Hiner Group.

Read more from the original source:
Commentary: Why President Trump was right to intervene in Navy SEAL Gallagher case - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Sunday that he has great faith in the military justice system following President Donald Trumps interference last week in three military war crimes cases against Pentagon guidance.

So Id say first of all that we have a very effective military justice system, I have great faith in the military justice system, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are trained from day one about the laws of armed conflict and how to conduct themselves during wartime, Esper said in a response to a reporters question about the Presidents actions on Friday.

Trump granted full pardons to Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance and Army Major Mathew Golsteyn, and restored the rank of Navy SEAL Eddie R. Gallagher, who had been demoted. Lorance was found guilty in 2013 of second-degree murder for ordering his men to fire on three men on a motorcycle in Afghanistan. Gallagher who had faced a court-martial for premeditated murder and attempted murder, but was acquitted was demoted after being found guilty for posing for a photo with a casualty, and Golsteyn has been charged with the murder of an Afghan man in 2010. He pleaded not guilty in June.

Esper and other senior military leaders had told Trump that a presidential pardon could potentially damage the integrity of the military judicial system, the ability of military leaders to ensure good order and discipline, and the confidence of US allies and partners who host US troops.

Speaking Sunday during a joint press conference in Thailand with South Korean Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong-doo, Esper also told reporters that US service members conduct themselves professionally in accordance with (the law) and if they dont then the United States military will take action in accordance with the (Uniform Code of Military Justice) to make sure that they are held accountable.

Both the Pentagon and the Army said last week that they have confidence in the military justice system, with Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman saying the President is part of the military justice system as the Commander-in-Chief and has the authority to weigh in on matters of this nature.

On Sunday, Trump shared a tweet by the Fox News contributor and Army veteran Pete Hegseth, who had lobbied the President to take action in the cases, writing in his own tweet: Our great warfighters must be allowed to fight.

Trump also said in the tweet that he would not have taken the same action for Bowe Bergdahl, an Army sergeant who was demoted and dishonorably discharged for deserting his outpost in Afghanistan in 2009, or former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who served seven years in prison for a massive leak of military and diplomatic secrets to WikiLeaks in 2010.

Click here to read full story

See original here:
Defense secretary says he has 'great faith in the military justice system' following Trump's intervention in military war crimes cases - WBAP...

What was David Morales, owner of UC Global S. L., the Spanish company that spied on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during his stay at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, doing in Alexandria, Virginia?

Located around 10 kilometers from Washington DC, Alexandria is home to the US federal court that has been investigating the Australian cyberactivist for years and has requested his extradition from the United Kingdom, where he remains in prison after he was expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy in April following a seven-year asylum.

Morales was in Alexandria near the date when WikiLeaks announced the publication of Vault 7

An analysis of emails sent by Morales to several of his employees shows that this former member of the military was in Alexandria on March 1 and 2, 2017. The IP addresses of these messages, which EL PAS has seen, show that at the time that they were sent Morales was in Alexandria, where a federal court is seekingAssanges extradition on 18 counts stemming from accusations that he revealed classified intelligence about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which could lead to a prison term of 175 years.

Morales was in Alexandria near the date that WikiLeaks announced the publication of Vault 7, a collection of thousands of documents about an alleged cyber-surveillance program by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) capable of compromising cellphones, smart TVs and computers with internet access produced by US companies, transforming them into microphones to spy on their users. The disclosure revealed an enormous security gap at the CIA and triggered a scandal similar to the ones involving former CIA subcontractor Edward Snowden and former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

Assange was spied on 24 hours a day at the embassy.

UC Global S. L. spied on Assange for the CIA, as shown by testimony and documents disclosed by this newspaper. Morales allegedly gave the intelligence agency audio and video material on the cyberactivists meetings with his lawyers and collaborators at the embassy. Following this newspapers revelations, Judge Jos de la Mata of Spains High Court, the Audiencia Nacional, agreed to consider a criminal complaint filed by Assange against Morales, who was arrested and is now the target of an investigation into alleged violations of Assanges privacy and attorney-client privilege, as well as misappropriation, bribery, money laundering and illegal possession of arms.

Morales often traveled to the United States. The IP addresses of the emails he sent his workers showed him to be variously in New York, Dallas, Miami, Washington, Chicago, Lakewood and Las Vegas. At this last location, the messages were sometimes sent from the hotels owned by Sheldon Adelson and his Las Vegas Sands Corporation. Morales has been working for the billionaire business magnate for years, taking care of security on the latters yacht during trips to the Mediterranean. The companys personnel includes a former CIA official. Adelson is one of the main donors to the Republican Party and a personal friend of Donald Trump.

Although UC Global had been hired by Senain, the secret services of Ecuador, to watch the embassy in London, Morales confided to a few trusted employees that they were also working for the Americans, to whom he was allegedly handing over video and audio footage of Assanges conversations with his visitors at the embassy.

UC Global S. L. spied on Assange for the CIA, as shown by testimony and documents disclosed by this newspaper

I want to alert you to the fact that we have to be very careful about the information that we send over...and tell everyone to be careful with the information... Senain (the secret service of Ecuador) is investigating us. Thats why I would like, in the first place, for my geographical location to be handled with discretion as much as possible, especially my trips to the US, wrote Morales in an email addressed to several of his workers.

We have been informed of suspicions that the guest [this is how Assange was alluded to] is working for the Russian intelligence services, thus the profiling of his visitors and aides, he wrote in another message.

Morales ordered his workers at the Ecuadorian embassy in London to spy on, and record the conversations of, any Russian or US citizens who visited the WikiLeaks founder.

On November 22, 2018, several months after UC Global had stopped providing its services at the embassy, Morales asked his employees to give him the records of every visit by Paul Manafort in 2013, 2015 and 2016. Manafort is a US lawyer who joined Donald Trumps presidential campaign in 2016. He has since been sentenced to three and a half years in prison for various irregularities and for conspiracy as a member of a lobby group in Ukraine. Sources close to the cyberactivist state that Manafort never visited Assange. Manafort himself denies ever having met with the founder of WikiLeaks.

investigacion@elpais.es

English version by Susana Urra.

Link:
The US trail of the man whose security firm spied on Julian Assange - EL PAIS