Siouxland Chamber of Commerce, 36th Annual Dinner – The Volante

The Siouxland Chamber of Commerce hosted its 36th annual dinner last Thursday at the Sioux City Convention Center. Mike Pompeo, the 70th Secretary of State and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), delivered the keynote address with over 1,400 people in attendance. It was estimated to be the largest indoor gathering in Sioux City since March 2020.

During his 20-minute speech, Pompeo spoke about his accomplishments as Secretary of State, including meeting with North Koreas Kim Jong Un, closing down a Chinese consulate in Houston accused of spying on American citizens and facilitating the Abraham Accords.

Pompeo criticized the Biden Administration on their handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and the economy. He named the Chinese Communist Party as the greatest foreign adversary, but stated that the largest threat to our country is from within.

Following the address, he answered three questions as part of a Q&A session with Siouxland Chamber of Commerce President Chris McGowan.

Pompeo spoke amid rumors he is considering a run for the presidency. He is also named as a defendant in a recent lawsuit against the CIA over allegations that the CIA violated the fourth amendment by unlawfully downloading data from the personal devices of those visiting Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Originally posted here:

Siouxland Chamber of Commerce, 36th Annual Dinner - The Volante

The Chris Hedges Report: Julian Assanges Father on Looming Extradition and Imperative of Mass Resistance – Scheerpost.com

The persecution of Julian Assange is a window into the collapse of the rule of law, the rise of what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls our system of inverted totalitarianism.

Clickhereor the picture below to listen to the podcast:

Tyrannies invert the rule of law. They turn the law into an instrument of injustice. They cloak their crimes in a faux legality. They use the decorum of the courts and trials, to mask their criminality. Those, such as Julian Assange, who expose that criminality to the public are dangerous, for without the pretext of legitimacy the tyranny loses credibility and has nothing left in its arsenal but fear, coercion and violence.

The long campaign against Julian and WikiLeaks is a window into the collapse of the rule of law, the rise of what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls our system of inverted totalitarianism, a form of totalitarianism that maintains the fictions of the old capitalist democracy, including its institutions, iconography, patriotic symbols and rhetoric, but internally has surrendered total control to the dictates of global corporations.

I was in the London courtroom when Julian was being tried by Judge Vanessa Baraitser, an updated version of the Queen of Hearts in Alice-in Wonderland demanding the sentence before pronouncing the verdict. It was judicial farce. There was no legal basis to hold Julian in prison. There was no legal basis to try him, an Australian citizen, under the U.S. Espionage Act. The CIA spied on Julian in the embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide embassy security. This spying included recording the privileged conversations between Julian and his lawyers as they discussed his defense. This fact alone invalidated the trial. Julian is being held in a high security prison so the state can, as Nils Melzer, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, has testified, continue the degrading abuse and torture it hopes will lead to his psychological if not physical disintegration.

The U.S. government directed the London prosecutor James Lewis. Lewis presented these directives to Baraitser. Baraitser adopted them as her legal decision. It was judicial pantomime. Lewis and the judge insisted they were not attempting to criminalize journalists and muzzle the press while they busily set up the legal framework to criminalize journalists and muzzle the press. And that is why the court worked so hard to mask the proceedings from the public, limiting access to the courtroom to a handful of observers and making it hard and at times impossible for us to access the trial online. It was a tawdry show trial, not an example of the best of English jurisprudence but the Lubyanka.

It is imperative that those of us who care about a free press and the persecution of an innocent man, for Julian has not committed a crime, make our presence felt in the streets. I will be in Washington on October 8 with, I hope, thousands of others to ring the capital to call for Julians release, an act that will be replicated by protesters surrounding the British parliament the same day. Joining me from Mexico, where Mexican president Mexicos President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has defended Julians innocence and offered asylum to the WikiLeaks founder, is Julianss father John Shipton.

Like Loading...

Read the original:

The Chris Hedges Report: Julian Assanges Father on Looming Extradition and Imperative of Mass Resistance - Scheerpost.com

Julian Assange Update – Malcolm Roberts

Senator Malcolm Roberts met with Julians father, Mr John Shipton, and his brother, Mr Gabriel Shipton in Parliament at the last sitting.

They met in Parliament at a meeting attended by Members of the House and Senators with their staff and members of Julians supportive campaign team.

Those attending were brought up to date with Julians situation. Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. He is currently in Belmarsh Prison in England, a High Security Prison. He has not been convicted of any offence.

He is currently set to be deported to the United States to face espionage charges related to the release of documents through Wikileaks.

His legal team are appealing the most recent British decision to deport him.

His family have implored the Albanese government to intervene on his behalf and have the deportation decision rescinded. His family want to Bring Julian Assange home.

Senator Roberts supports bringing Julian Assange home.

Excerpt from:

Julian Assange Update - Malcolm Roberts

Roger Waters at the Moda Center on 09/10/22 – Oregon Music News

Home > Rock 09/12/2022

Photos and Review by Brent Angelo

To say that Roger Waters has had a huge impact on the culture of music is a major understatement.

As a founding member of Pink Floyd, he was a driving force in that band as a songwriter, co-lead singer, instrumentalist, and concept director. Pink Floyd pushed the limits of what was possible at that time.

Albums like 1973s Dark Side of the Moon remain one of the most respected and beloved albums of all time by both fans and critics. Pink Floyds success would grow through the seventies and by the eighties, Pink Floyd were one of the biggest bands in the world reaching a super stardom level that not too many have achieved.

In the mid-eighties, Roger Waters left Pink Floyd and would again then push musical boundaries on his own. In 1990 for example, he staged one of the biggest concerts ever done to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Wall was an epic performance and done at pivotal time in world history.

Roger Waters' current tour is titled This Is Not a Drilladdresses many world issues and packs a lot of punches. The tour was originally scheduled to take place in 2020, but the Covid 19 pandemic pushed back those plans until this year. Portland just got its rescheduled show on September 10th at the Moda Center. The tours stage is set in the round stage and is adorned with large video screens filled with his stunning visuals. With the music of Pink Floyd and Roger Waters' solo work, the show is a brutally honest reminder of things going on in our world.

Right before the concert starts, he makes a public announcement over the speakers and on the video screens. The audio/visual message goes if you are one of those I love Pink Floyd but I cant stand Rogers politics you might do well to fuck off to the bar right now, which was followed by massive applause.

As the show began, video screens showed an animated city with its people, who were seen in the dark as Comfortably Numb filled the arena. That stripped-down version of the song along with that video created such a heavy mood in the arena and painted a dark picture of people in the world right now.

Roger Waters then walked up on stage to start the show officially with The Happiest Days of Our Lives, which segued into, Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2. Roger Waters' solo song The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range called out recent US Presidents as War Criminals for things like the use of drone strikes. The first act would include a new Roger Waters song The Bar. The song was written during the pandemic lockdown period. This is Roger Waters explanation of the song.

The Bar is a place in my head, an imaginary place, but its also a real place. There are bars all over the world. In my head, its a place where you can maybe have a drink, certainly meet your friends, and hopefully meet strangers. You can exchange opinions with strangers and friends with no fear or favor, and its somewhere where you are welcome and can exchange your love for your fellow man without fear. There are two characters towards the end of this little bit of this song, and theyre two women. One of them is a homeless Black lady who lives in a cardboard box somewhere with a chihuahua. The other younger lady, a Lakota Sioux from North Dakota, sees this lady and decides to cross over and help her. She helps by bringing her to the bar, where we all look after her.

The first act would also see Pink Floyd classics like Wish You Were Here and Shine of You Crazy Diamond then close with Sheep before the show Intermission.

The second act would be hardest hitting. Run Like Hell would shine a light on the terrible story behind Chelsea Mannings leaked video of an US military attack on Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. It is a hard video to watch telling some awful truths about some of our own in the US military. First it was Rogers angry response to what happened, and it was also Rogers plea with the audience to get WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange set free from prison. Dj Vu would tackle tough issues as well with screens displaying Fuck the Supreme Court, Fuck Drones, and Fuck Your Guns. You could see the last one didnt sit too well with many in the crowd. Remember he warned you at the start of the show.

It was Pink Floyds Two Suns in the Sunset along with video animation that hit me the hardest. The video showed a van driving through an area that could be a forested area like we have in the Pacific Northwest. On that road, a van comes to a screeching halt, the driver gets out as he watches in horror as a nuclear bomb mushroom cloud goes up into the sky and now sees the fires of destruction are headed his way. It was a terrifying visual and one that could honestly happen with increased tensions in our world right now especially with Russia and Ukraine, Roger Waters argued that the US specifically Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin need to get together, have real talks, and bring an end to what is going on with Ukraine.

Roger Waters is very passionate about what he believes in. He continues to fight for the human rights of all people in our world and continues to use his musical theater as his way of getting his views through to the people. This Is Not a Drill delivers great music, amazing imagery and a hope for real changes to be made in our world.

Roger WatersThis Is Not a Drill (Tour 2022)Moda Center, Portland, OregonSeptember 10, 2022

Set OneComfortably Numb (Pink Floyd)The Happiest Days of Our Lives (Pink Floyd)Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2 (Pink Floyd)Another Brick in the Wall, Part 3 (Pink Floyd)The Powers That BeThe Bravery of Being Out of RangeThe Bar (new song)Have a Cigar (Pink Floyd)Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd)Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Parts VI-IX) (Pink Floyd)Sheep (Pink Floyd)

Set TwoIn the Flesh (Pink Floyd)Run Like Hell (Pink Floyd)Dj VuDj Vu (Reprise)Is This the Life We Really Want?Money (Pink Floyd)Us and Them (Pink Floyd)Any Colour You Like (Pink Floyd)Brain Damage (Pink Floyd)Eclipse (Pink Floyd)Two Suns in the Sunset (Pink Floyd)The Bar (Reprise)Outside the Wall (Pink Floyd)

More here:

Roger Waters at the Moda Center on 09/10/22 - Oregon Music News

Legal options running out for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

Julian Assange has been detained at London's high-security Belmarsh Prison, one of the UK'stoughest detention centers,since 2019. The WikiLeaks founder has long since completed his original 50-week sentencefor skipping bail in 2012. But he has remained in custody ever since, in extremely harsh conditions, in what is essentially detention pending deportation.

British Home Secretary Priti Patel signed the judicial extradition order in June. Assange has one lastchanceto beallowed to appealthe judicial order, to the High Court in London. A ruling is expected next month.If his request is rejectedAssange will be extradited to the United States within four weeks.

If the judges deny her husband the chance to launch another round of appeals, Assange's wife and lawyer, Stella, fears the worst. "Julian's life depends on him winning this," she said, in an interview with DW. "Julian is clinically depressed. If he is extradited, and placed in the type of isolation that the US government says it reserves the right to place him in, then he will commit suicide."

Assange's Australian family are also very worried. Speaking to Sky Australia last week, his father, John Shipton, described Assange's health as "very worrying and becoming dire now."

"His health is in decline," Assange's brother Gabriel confirmed in the same interview. "He's in a very, very precarious situation It really is heartbreaking to see Julian, this gentle genius, in a maximum-security prison alongside the most violent criminals in the United Kingdom."

The family has appealed to the new Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, asking him to intercede on behalf of his compatriot. During his election campaign, Albanese had declared, "Enough is enough," indicating that the persecution of the WikiLeaks founder must come to an end.

However, Assange's father and brother have said no progress has been made since the new prime minister took office, and that so far they have been unable to make an appointment with the prime minister to discuss the issue. In a recent public statement, Albanese pointed out that negotiations like these must be conducted quietly and diplomatically, behind the scenes.

According toStella Assange, the High Court must allow further appeals against an earlier decision made by the same court. The principal bone of contention, however, is the formal interpretation of the extradition treaty between the UK and the US.

In the first instance, a district court judge also took the prisoner's state of health into account, and ruled against extradition. The more senior judges, however, did not accept this argument as decisive.

There are other aspects of Assange's case that have been ignored to date, despite the best efforts of his lawyers. For example: the question of whether Assange's right to freedom of expression and the protection of journalistic work ought not, in fact, to prevent extradition. Or whether the US made the request for political reasons.

"Ultimately, once the domestic remedies have been exhausted, he can then appeal to the European Court of Human Rights," said Stella Assange. However, it remains unclear whether the British judges would be prepared to wait for an ECHR ruling.

Assange's two sons, now 3 and 5 years old, have only ever known their father as a prisoner

That's because the British government is set on a collision course with the European Convention on Human Rights. A draft bill submitted to the British Parliament at the end of June proposes to reduce protection for refugees. Instead of going through the asylum process in Britain, migrants would be sent to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. If the Tory hard-liner Liz Truss moves into Downing Street in September, Assange has little hope of a successful political intervention.

Once a week, Stella Assange is allowed to visit her husband in Belmarsh with their children for an hour. The two boys, now 3 and 5 years old, have only ever known their father as a prisoner.

Every family visit resembles an obstacle course even the children are thoroughly searched. "They check inside their mouth, behind their ears, in their hair, under their feet; they have to go through the dogs that sniff them from head to toe, and they understand this is a place where their father is not allowed to leave," said Stella Assange.

Ultimately, though, she said this fight is not just for her husband's life, but forpress freedom in Europe. "Is it permissible for a foreign power to reach into the European space and limit what the press can publish?" she asked. "Think about if China were to do the same thing and prosecute a journalist in Germany on the same principle, because that journalist exposed Chinese crimes."

But an extradition treaty like the one between the UK and the US exists only between friendly nations, where there is in fact trust in each other's democratic justice system. And where, it appears, geopolitical factors weigh heavier than the fate of a single man.

See the rest here:

Legal options running out for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

Help Us Stop the Extradition of Julian Assange! – a Community …

Priti Patel approves Assange's Extradition. This is a dark day for Press freedom and for British democracy.

Stella Assange: 'We are going to fight this, we are going to use every appeal avenue. I am going to spend every waking hour fighting for Julian until he is free."

Defence submissions to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel have just been filed, arguing why the US extradition of #Assange must be blocked. A decision is expected from Priti Patel in the coming days.

Priti Patel must now decide whether or not to extradite Assange.UKs Home Secretary Priti Patel must now decide whether or not to approve the extradition. Julian's defence has until May 17th to submit it's arguments to Priti Patel, who will then have 2 weeks to make her decision.

UK Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in Assange extradition.The case will soon move to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to decide on the extradition.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is facing a 175-year sentence for publishing truthful information in the public interest.

Julian Assange is currently being detained in UK prison - his third anniversary in Belmarsh is coming 11 April 2021.

For over 7 years, the US government has been fighting to extradite Julian Assange so he can be prosecuted in US courts for publishing their secrets which include evidence of war crimes.

In January this year, Julian Assange lost his appeal at the UK High Courts and it looks more likely than ever that he will be extradited

We cannot let that happen - if Julian Assange is convicted, his prosecution will carry long reaching and troubling consequences for journalism around the world

Your rights are at risk. Assanges right to publish is our right to know. We must stop Julian Assange being extradited to the USA.

Julian Assange is being sought by the current US administration for publishing US government documents which exposed war crimes and human rights abuses. The politically motivated charges represent an unprecedented attack on press freedom and the publics right to know seeking to criminalise basic journalistic activity.

If convicted Julian Assange faces a sentence of 175 years, likely to be spent in extreme isolation.

We cant fight this without your support. Please donate to help us prevent Julian Assanges Extradition to the USA.

---

US charges against Assange pose a huge threat, one that could criminalise the critical work of investigative journalists & their ability to protect their sources.-- The NUJ

The only thing standing between an Assange prosecution and a major threat to global media freedom is Britain. It is urgent that it defend the principles at risk.-- Human Rights Watch

Were Julian Assange to be extradited or subjected to any other transfer to the USA, Britain would be in breach of its obligations under international law. -- Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International

The right of Mr. Assange to personal liberty should be restored -- The UN working group on abritrary detention

Julian Assange shouldnt be the subject of a grand jury hearing, he should be given a medal. Hes contributing to democracy.-- Noam Chomsky, academic and activist

Assange must NEVER be extradited to the USA. Its a serious threat to him personally and freedoms we usually honor, such as press freedom, freedom of expression and FOI. -- Agnes Callamard, Amnesty International

Julian Assanges potential extradition has human rights implications that reach far beyond his individual case. -- Dunja Mijatovi, Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe

The case is a huge scandal and represents the failure of Western rule of law. If Julian Assange is convicted, it will be a death sentence for freedom of the press. -- Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture; Human Rights Chair, Geneva Academy

Read more:

Help Us Stop the Extradition of Julian Assange! - a Community ...

Venice Review: Laura Poitras All The Beauty And The Bloodshed – Deadline

The scourge of the opioid crisis has been documented in the press and in government reports; the culpability of the Sacklers, the multi-billionaire pharmaceutical family whose former company Purdue made the painkiller Oxycontin, has been successfully dramatized. The Sacklers are everywhere in Laura Poitras gripping documentary All the Beauty and the Bloodshed, but they are supporting players.

At its center is Nan Goldin, the 68-year-old photographer who was prescribed Oxycontin, quickly became addicted to it, found recovery through a replacement drug and then threw her energies into calling the Sacklers to account. Goldin became the most public face of the campaigning group PAIN, leading the charge into museums with Sackler wings, Sackler rooms and Sackler money to shame their well-heeled executives into cutting those ties. The Sacklers might have hijacked Goldins body, but she could at least work to turf them out of the places that held her pictures.

Laura Poitras has a great ear for a dissenting voice. Her first full-length documentary My Country, My Country was about ordinary Iraqis living under U.S. occupation; it brought her critical acclaim and an Oscar nomination. It also put her on the Department of Homeland Security watchlist. Subsequent films have focused on the trials of two drivers who worked for Osama bin Laden, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and intelligence whistle-blower Edward Snowden in Citizenfour, which won the Oscar as best documentary in 2015.

In All the Beauty and the Bloodshed, screening in competition at the Venice Film Festival, she draws a thread through the phases of Nan Goldins life as a child instinctively at odds with her frigid suburban family, as the famous chronicler of New Yorks bohemian fringes and the Goldin we see here, the stalwart campaigner leading a chant rejecting the Sackler familys patronage in the foyer of the Guggenheim. Poitras, the most meticulous of researchers in other contexts, doesnt provide a great deal of detail about the opioid crisis or the Sacklers part in it. The fight and Goldins fight in particular, as a surviving addict who has survived so many things in life is the thing.

Goldin is a household name, at least in households with a passing interest in art. Her photographs of sexual and social outsiders are vivid and heartfelt, a nether world of sequins, sex, drugs, dissipation and genuine joy. For the people who see them in galleries, Goldin observes, they look like cinema stills. Because most people think they are characters. But for the people being photographed, its just them.

Less known was Goldins own story which, as she tells it here, was grounded in a childhood of arid affluence. Her older sister Barbara cared for her, giving her the hugs, love and stories that were beyond her prim mother, until she was diagnosed as mentally ill and, in her early teens, sent to an orphanage. A couple of years later, she committed suicide. Barbara was a rebel at heart, says Goldin. She just didnt have the power to go into full-blown rebellion, the way I did.

Nobody was supposed to speak about it. Nobody was supposed to discuss anything that didnt sound respectable. For an entire year, the child who became Nan Goldin didnt speak at all. Her parents placed her in foster care; talking to Poitras, she suddenly remembers being physically sick with fear. Fortunately, she wound up in a progressive school the only one that would have her, after many expulsions where she was provided with a camera. It was the only voice I had. It also gave her a passage out.

Everyone involved in PAIN, the Oxycontin survivors campaign for redress, knows how crucial it is that one of the most recognized names in the contemporary art world is seen to be at the forefront of a battle within that world. It isnt the war, which they would feel had been won if the Sacklers were in jail, but winning the battle is certainly something. One by one, the museums they target announce they wont be taking the Sacklers tainted money any more. Their name starts to be removed from gallery walls. It may be a victory of largely symbolic value, but patronage in itself is symbolic, a way to make dirty money seem clean.

Just as crucial as Goldins place in that world, however, is her willingness to make headlines by talking and writing about her own addiction, describing the abjection of a life built around scoring and using without pulling her punches. What All the Beauty and the Bloodshed makes clear is that this is all of a piece with the photographs of drag queens, prostitutes and parties, the angry records of AIDS sufferers, the portraits that show glamour and tenderness where others might see the grotesque.

Poitras never shoots Goldin in a way that lionizes her or gives her the stature of a warrior queen, even though that would be easy enough to do with some emphatic angling and the right lighting. She puts her camera squarely in front of Goldin and shows her at work. In the process, she makes a stupendous work of her own.

Read more:
Venice Review: Laura Poitras All The Beauty And The Bloodshed - Deadline

Roger Waters Brings Stunning Visuals, Fiery Politics to NYC on This Is Not a Drill Tour – Billboard

Before Roger Waters even took the stage Wednesday (Aug. 31) night for the second Madison Square Garden show on his This Is Not a Drill tour, the British rockers genial yet prickly voice issued forth a pre-recorded warning from the speakers: If youre one of those, I like Pink Floyd but I cant stand Rogers politics people, you might do well to fk off to the bar night now, he said with a laugh.

See latest videos, charts and news

See latest videos, charts and news

It was a fair warning, as the 78-year-old legends current tour rescheduled from 2020 due to the pandemic is as heavy on no-holds-barred political commentary as it is on music from the influential psych-rock band that made him famous. And theres certainly no shortage of Floyd songs (which account for more than half of his setlist) over the course of his generous two-act show involving harrowing dystopian visuals, remote-controlled floating animals and a ton of smoke. (Well, the smoke wasnt so much from Waters 140-person crew as it was the gray-headed fans who sparked up the moment he began singing Another Brick in the Wall near the top of the show.)

If there were any shut up and sing types in the audience that night, they were either strangely silent or took his advice about fking off to the bar. The crowds response was either supportive or respectfully neutral to images branding everyone from Ronald Reagan to sitting President Biden a war criminal. There were claps, and even tears, when he ran footage of police officers mercilessly beating unarmed, nonviolent civilians along with the names of murder victims from George Floyd in Minneapolis to journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in Palestine. All of that went down during a driving, funky take on The Powers That Be from his 1987 solo album Radio K.A.O.S., which sounds pretty dated if youre listening to the studio version (the MOR 80s rock production is strong on that one) but boasts a weightier urgency when delivered by his current touring band.

Waters deserves credit for forcing 20,000 nostalgia-seeking Floyd fans to face uncomfortable realities that most concerts serve as an escape from. He reminded everyone that MSG (and all of New York City) sits on land stolen from the Munsee-Lenape people centuries ago. And during a thumping version of Run Like Hell that segued into an acoustic Dj Vu from his most recent solo effort, Is This the Life We Really Want?, he made us Americans confront the bone-chillingly blas footage of U.S. troops gunning down two Reuters journalists in a peaceful public spaceafter they mistook cameras for weapons back in 2007. (After Chelsea Mannings decision to leak the footage caused a reckoning three years later, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command said, We regret the loss of innocent life, although no one was ever punished for the deaths. A Free Julian Assange message accompanied the footage).

Significantly less laudable, however, are Waters ongoing comments on the war in Ukraine, which he doubled down on Wednesday night. Fresh off a euphoric, laser-laden performance of the entire second side of The Dark Side of the Moon, Waters chided the U.S. and NATO for not ending the war in Ukraine. What we are doing, poking sticks in Russian bears, is completely insane, he offered, while seated at a piano toward the end of the show.

The audience, at that point, was either too hypnotized by the music or stoned off second-hand smoke to do much other than exchange quizzical glances, wondering if theyd heard him correctly; presumably, not everyone in attendance was familiar with Waters recent comments on Russias invasion of Ukraine, where he has faulted both Biden and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy for insufficient negotiations with Russia, which many have seen as a victim-blaming stance, considering that Russia was the invading aggressor. Hes also insisted Russia was pushed into this war, saying, This war is basically about the action and reaction of NATO pushing right up to the Russian border, a line of logic not too dissimilar from someone trying to say Nazi Germany was pushed to invade Poland because of stiff reparations imposed on the country after World War I as if explaining the cause of a hostile invasion somehow frees the invading country of moral responsibility.

The muted response to his cringe-worthy Ukraine comments could also have simply been a result of the crowd giving him a pass, considering how astonishing This Is Not a Drill looks and sounds; its an arresting spectacle complemented by an equally immersive sonic experience that manages to be loud as hell without veering into head-splitting levels that have you reaching for earplugs. And when that inflatable sheep made the rounds above the heads of fans during, naturally, Sheep, the visible delight on everyones face was as life-affirming as the darker imagery was depressing. (Plus, theres a delicious irony in watching hundreds of people reflexively pull out their cell phones the moment a giant sheep appears above their heads.)

All in all, Waters This Is Not a Drill tour serves as a reminder of two important truths: His visual and musical art remains as vital, timely and invigorating as ever, and if someone talks politics at you for two hours, theyre eventually going to say something that does indeed find you wishing you were at the bar instead.

Visit link:
Roger Waters Brings Stunning Visuals, Fiery Politics to NYC on This Is Not a Drill Tour - Billboard

Why Donald Trump will soon be indicted – Washington Times

OPINION:

It gives me no joy to write this piece.

Even a cursory review of the redacted version of the affidavit submitted in support of the governments application for a search warrant at the home of former President Donald Trump reveals that he will soon be indicted by a federal grand jury for three crimes: Removing and concealing national defense information (NDI), giving NDI to those not legally entitled to possess it, and obstruction of justice by failing to return NDI to those who are legally entitled to retrieve it.

When he learned from a phone call that 30 FBI agents were at the front door of his Florida residence with a search warrant and he decided to reveal this publicly, Mr. Trump assumed that the agents were looking for classified top-secret materials that theyd allege he criminally possessed. His assumptions were apparently based on his gut instinct and not on a sophisticated analysis of the law. Hence, his public boast that he declassified all the formerly classified documents he took with him.

Unbeknownst to him, the feds had anticipated such a defense and are not preparing to indict him for possessing classified materials, even though he did possess hundreds of voluntarily surrendered materials marked top secret. It is irrelevant if the documents were declassified, as the feds will charge crimes that do not require proof of classification. They told the federal judge who signed the search warrant that Mr. Trump still had NDI in his home. It appears they were correct.

Under the law, it doesnt matter if the documents on which NDI is contained are classified or not, as it is simply and always criminal to have NDI in a non-federal facility, to have those without security clearances move it from one place to another, and to keep it from the feds when they are seeking it. Stated differently, the absence of classification for whatever reason is not a defense to the charges that are likely to be filed against Mr. Trump.

Yet, misreading and underestimating the feds, Mr. Trump actually did them a favor. One of the elements that they must prove for any of the three crimes is that Mr. Trump knew that he had the documents. The favor he did was admit to that when he boasted that they were no longer classified. He committed a mortal sin in the criminal defense world by denying something for which he had not been accused.

The second element that the feds must prove is that the documents actually do contain national defense information. And the third element they must prove is that Mr. Trump put these documents into the hands of those not authorized to hold them and stored them in a non-federally secured place. Intelligence community experts have already examined the documents taken from Mr. Trumps home and are prepared to tell a jury that they contain the names of foreign agents secretly working for the U.S. This is the crown jewel of government secrets. Moreover, Mr. Trumps Florida home is not a secure federal facility designated for the deposit of NDI.

The newest aspect of the case against Mr. Trump that we learned from the redacted affidavit is the obstruction allegation. This is not the obstruction that Robert Mueller claimed he found Mr. Trump committed during the Russia investigation. This is a newer obstruction statute, signed by President George W. Bush in 2002, that places far fewer burdens on the feds to prove. The older statute is the one Mr. Mueller alleged. It characterizes any material interference with a judicial function as criminal. Thus, one who lies to a grand jury or prevents a witness from testifying commits this variant of obstruction.

But the Bush-era statute, the one the feds contemplate charging Mr. Trump with having violated, makes it a crime of obstruction by failing to return government property or by sending the FBI on a wild goose chase looking for something that belongs to the government and that you know that you have. This statute does not require the preexistence of a judicial proceeding. It only requires that the defendant has the governments property, knows that he has it and baselessly resists efforts by the government to get it back.

Where does all this leave Mr. Trump? The short answer is: in hot water. The longer answer is: He is confronting yet again the federal law enforcement and intelligence communities for which he has rightly expressed such public disdain. He had valid points of expression during the Russia investigation. He has little ground upon which to stand today.

I have often argued that many of these statutes that the feds have enacted to protect themselves are morally unjust and not grounded in the Constitution. One of my intellectual heroes, the great Murray Rothbard, taught that the government protects itself far more aggressively than it protects our natural rights.

In a monumental irony, both Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks journalist who exposed American war crimes during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency employee who exposed criminal mass government surveillance upon the American public, stand charged with the very same crimes that are likely to be brought against Mr. Trump. On both Mr. Assange and Mr. Snowden, Mr. Trump argued that they should be executed. Fortunately for all three, these statutes do not provide for capital punishment.

Mr. Rothbard warned that the feds aggressively protect themselves. Yet, both Mr. Assange and Mr. Snowden are heroic defenders of liberty with valid moral and legal defenses. Mr. Assange is protected by the Pentagon Papers case, which insulates the media from criminal or civil liability for revealing stolen matters of interest to the public, so long as the revealer is not the thief. Mr. Snowden is protected by the Constitution, which expressly prohibits the warrantless surveillance he revealed, which was the most massive peacetime abuse of government power.

What will Mr. Trump say in his defense to taking national defense information? I cannot think of a legally viable one.

Andrew P. Napolitano is a former professor of law and judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey who has published nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

Originally posted here:
Why Donald Trump will soon be indicted - Washington Times

Its All Political: Julian Assange Appeals His Extradition – Countercurrents.org

Julian Assanges legal team has taken its next step along their Via Dolorosa, filing an appeal against the decision to extradite their client to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 based on the odious US Espionage Act of 1917.

Since his violent eviction from the Ecuadorian embassy in April 2019, much to the delight of the national security establishment and its media cheerleaders, Assange has been held captive at Her Majestys Belmarsh Prison awaiting his fate. In a facility reserved for the countrys most hardened criminals, Assange has had to face the COVID-19 pandemic, isolation, limitations on visits, restrictions on regular access to legal counsel, and a stroke. Warnings about his declining health by health professionals have been coldly ignored. The agenda is attritive, one of prolonged, even lethal process.

Along this potted judicial road, Assange chalked up a qualified success before District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser on January 4, 2021, who held that he would be at serious risk of suicide occasioned by the effects of Special Administrative Measures and confinement in the ADX Florence supermax facility in Colorado. This was deemed oppressive within the meaning of the US-UK Extradition Treaty. The most obvious aspect of the prosecution its self-evidently political nature was given little thought.

Since then, the US government has won each round of legal sparring. Outrageously, the High Court agreed with the prosecutors in December last year that diplomatic assurances on how Assange would be treated on being extradited no SAMS, no ADX Facility, even the prospect of seeking a return to Australia to serve the balance of any sentence could be trusted as fair and ingenuous. It mattered not one jot that these were made after the original extradition trial and smacked of opportunistic calculation. The blinkered reasoning of the judges also ignored how US officials had, in the spring of 2017, chewed over the proposed assassination of an Australian subject on British soil. (At stages, abduction was also floated through the ranks of the Central Intelligence Agency.)

Other gaping defects were also put to one side: the revelations of US-directed surveillance efforts of the London Ecuadorian embassy while Assange was in residence; and the fact that a hefty portion of the indictment is based on fabricated testimony from the adventurous conman, embezzler and convicted paedophile Sigurdur Siggi Thordarson.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, Assange found a legal body fixated with one aspect of the case: whether assurances made by the US government were worth any weight at all. No other blotches and glaring defects mattered. As matters unfolded, the judges were not even willing to delve into the case. In the cool words of the Deputy Support Registrar delivered on March 14, The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law.

It all fell to the UK Home Secretary, Priti Patel, to act upon what had been a monumental miscarriage of justice. But blocking the extradition request was too much to expect from an individual who has shown a deep and abiding affection for the national security state. In July, the Home Office merely reiterated the point the view that the UK courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr Assange.

On August 26, Assanges legal team filed his Perfected Grounds of Appeal before the High Court of Justice Administrative Court. The claims stretch back to the original decision of January 4 last year and focus on the seminal points that make the case scandalous. They include the claim that Assange is being prosecuted and punished for his political opinions (s. 81(a) of the Extradition Act); that he is being prosecuted for speech protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights; that the request itself violates the US-UK Extradition Treaty and international law because it comprises political offences; that the US government has misrepresented core facts of the case to the UK courts; and that the extradition request and its surrounding circumstances constitute an abuse of process.

The application also makes the claim that Patel erred in approving the extradition order on grounds of specialty and because it violates Article 4 of the US-UK Extradition Treaty. Article 4 stipulates that extradition will not be granted where the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated. As Julian Assanges wife, Stella, stated, overwhelming evidence had emerged since the previous ruling proving that the United States prosecution against the publisher is a criminal abuse.

From the issue of ailing health, deemed a primary consideration in the lower courts approach to Assange, the focus now turns upon the entire raison dtre of the case. Assange, through provocative publishing, came to be seen as an agent of political disruption and disorder. An informed populace is, as governments have found out, a dangerous thing.

In giving the rules of the sordid game away exposing the atrocities, the abuses of power, the bankruptcy of unrepresentative politics the Australian founder of WikiLeaks became the most prominent political target of the US imperium. Journalism and activism have, in Assange, combined, his case nothing if not political. It remains to be seen if the competent authority, to use the words of the poorly drafted, ill-weighted Extradition Treaty, agrees.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Originally posted here:
Its All Political: Julian Assange Appeals His Extradition - Countercurrents.org