International Terrorist Julian Assange One Step Closer to American Justice

Article first published as International Terrorist Julian Assange One Step Closer to American Justice on Technorati.

With all the attention focused on events in the Middle East, it would be easy to think that American authorities have forgotten about Julian Assange, but rest assured that those responsible for our security still place the WikiLeaks founder higher on their list of international threats than Osama binLaden.

U.S. security people moved closer to getting their hands on this terrorist master-mind with the deportation order just issued by the British court, although the inevitable appeals will likely see this case drag on for months yet. These unseemly delays are extremely frustrating for those seeking the blood of the man who has caused them so much embarrassment, but may prove helpful by giving them more time to find proof (so far lacking) of serious wrongdoing.

The powers-that-be would love to bring charges that would result in a lengthy prison sentence for Mr. Assange, although fond hopes of a speedy execution seem to have evaporated, along with much of the evidence that he did anything more than just print material that fell into his hands. U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder won’t discuss what exact charges could be pursued, but legal experts feel that they may include espionage and conspiracy. Lately authorities have resorted to bottom-of-the-barrel efforts to find anything of substance.

Attempts to bribe Bradley Manning with a reduced sentence didn’t prove very helpful to the cause of justice. Either Mr. Manning is a lot tougher than he appears, or they are trying to find evidence of non-existent criminal activity. Despite the massive effort put into finding some, there is no real proof that Julian Assange played any role in stealing the documents, but our security agencies are seldom deterred by mere facts.

Recent tactics have included trying to squeeze information out of social media sites. Prosecutors obtained a court order aimed at getting Twitter to hand over records on Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and several others. There are suspicions that other sites, including Facebook, may have already bowed to pressure and turned over material.

It’s fascinating to hear our leaders praising freedom of speech, and urging other nations to allow their citizens more right to express themselves without fear. For many countries striving to free themselves from tyranny, social media sites have become the main avenue for free communication, yet our leaders see no hypocrisy in trying to exercise the same sort of political control over these sites that they condemn elsewhere. They have become so obsessed with bringing down Julian Assange, that they show no concern for the freedoms that they claim to hold so dear.

Julian Assange’s legal team believe that as he isn’t an American citizen, and hasn’t committed any crime in the U.S., American courts have no jurisdiction. The international community is growing increasingly puzzled by what they see as American obsession with what is already yesterday’s news, and not such a big deal to begin with. What foreigners fail to understand is the monstrous egos of our elected officials. Some of those egos have been seriously bruised by the head of WikiLeaks, and “justice” must be pursued.

Using whatever methods necessary U.S. officials will undoubtedly get their hands on Julian Assange. What a triumph for American justice and democracy, and what an example for other countries struggling for their rights.

Freedom and Democracy for other Countries: America’s Hypocrisy

Article first published as Freedom and Democracy for Other Countries: America’s Hypocrisy on Technorati.

Hosni Mubarak is out, and Barack Obama is hailing his ouster as a triumph of democracy.

Isn’t this the same President (in fact one of several) that supported the former Egyptian strong-man because he was seen as a friend and ally of the West? Could it be possible that America lends support to foreign leaders for purely selfish and self-serving motives, with no regard for democracy or human rights?

Hosni Mubarak certainly isn’t the first ruthless and corrupt dictator propped up by  U.S. politics.  Over the decades many autocrats have been kept in power with American support, with no interest in the welfare of the people under these tyrants.

The years of suffering of the Cuban people under Juan Batista was a direct result of U.S. protection of American interests on the island, and a wish to keep the Communists from gaining a base so close to home.“I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime” Despite this admission John Kennedy still did everything possible to stop the overthrow of the Cuban dictator.

The Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos was as autocratic and corrupt as any third-world dictator, and the main source of his power was American interests in the country. “… the Marcos regime he (Ronald Regan) and previous American presidents had strongly supported even after Marcos declared martial law. The United States, which had provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, was crucial in buttressing Marcos’s rule.” After the People Power (or EDSA) Revolution, the United States allowed him to enjoy his stolen billions of dollars in exile in Hawaii.

The Shah of Iran, while initiating many reforms, used torture and execution without trial to brutally suppress all opposition. After the nationalization of the country’s oil industry by Prime Minister Dr. Mosaddeq, the CIA played a crucial role in having him removed and replaced by one of the Shah’s generals, Fazollah Zahedi. Secretary of State, Madeleine K Albright, stated: “…it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.” Yet the Shah continued to receive America’s blessing as a friend and ally, as he kept militant Islam at bay, and guaranteed the flow of oil to the West.

These are just a few of the more notable dictatorships to receive the blessing and support of the United States. There have been many other brutal and corrupt foreign governments that couldn’t have held power without American interference in their internal affairs.

It’s fine to make impressive speeches advocating freedom and democracy in foreign countries, but the hypocrisy of America propping up oppressive regimes for purely selfish motives, makes these fancy words sound shameful.

WikiLeaks – Hillary’s Pet Monster

Article first published as WikiLeaks – Hillary’s Pet Monster on Technorati.

 

 

WikiLeaks has taken on a life of its own, and grows in stature by the day. This emerging monster thrives on a diet rich in rhetoric, rant and bluster. Why are U.S. officials, especially Hillary Clinton, so determined to continue feeding it?

The greatest casualty of all these leaked documents is The Secretary of State. As America’s face of international diplomacy, she has been the one to suffer the most embarrassment, and has had the unenviable task of dealing with the world’s leaders to try to repair the damage.

How serious the damage to America really is, depends on who you choose to believe, but it would seem the one with the greatest interest in downplaying the effect of the leaks would be Ms. Clinton. Instead she seems determined to give WikiLeaks, and its founder, Julian Assange as much free publicity as she can, and as Secretary of State that is plenty.

Hillary appears remarkably driven to keep this sordid affair on the world stage for as long as possible. Her determination to label Julian Assange a terrorist, and bring him to trial, has kept him and his previously unassuming little outfit on the front pages of the world media far longer than he could ever have managed on his own. She has elevated him from relative obscurity to a media darling.

Was she so humiliated by this affair that she has become blinded by a desire for revenge? There is little doubt that her career has been seriously damaged by the information in some of these leaked documents. There has even been speculation that this could be the end of her time in politics. The time for her departure may come next week or next month, but sooner or later, the weakened and humiliated secretary of state will have to pay. Hillary herself has been sending signals that this could be the end of the line. In a speech in Bahrain she stated that her current role would be her last public position.

Perhaps, having decided that there is nothing else left for her, she should dedicate her remaining time in office to destroying Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. If so, this is a serious error in judgment, at a time when the rest of the world is already questioning the judgment of The Secretary of State, and thus of the government she represents. Putting Julian Assange behind bars won’t be the end of WikiLeaks, and even if it were, others would just take its place. “You can’t un-invent WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is part of the phenomenon of the online, empowered citizen … these are facts that aren’t going to go away. Government and authorities need to wise up to that.”

The harder that U.S. authorities work at getting rid of Julian Assange and his organization, the more they are feeding the monster. Maybe Hillary Clinton should just keep quiet, and let it return to its cave to starve to death.

U.S. Investigation of Julian Assange – Legal Process or Witch-Hunt?

Article first published as U.S. Investigation of Julian Assange: Legal Process or Witch-Hunt? on Blogcritics.

 

 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange committed the worst possible crime, but it’s not the one that the U.S. government wants to prosecute him for. His most serious offense isn’t the theft or publication of thousands of documents, but the loss of face he has caused for some very powerful people.

Hillary Clinton has vowed to vigorously investigate and prosecute those responsible, but who is really to blame? Julian Assange published the documents, and it may be possible to prove he had some complicity in the theft, but he has no responsibility for the lapses in security, and he certainly wasn’t the author of these documents.

Australia’s foreign minister has said the US is to blame for the release of thousands of diplomatic cables on Wikileaks, not its Australian founder, Julian Assange. He went on to say that these leaks throw into question the state of American security. Mr. Rudd certainly isn’t the only one who feels that WikiLeaks is being used to divert attention away from those who should be taking at least some of the responsibility for this diplomatic disaster. There appears to be at least as much support for Julian Assange as for those trying to prosecute him.

Attempts to shut down WikiLeaks only resulted in thousands of mirror sites taking over, and companies cutting off WikiLeaks funding saw their sites targeted. The American authorities, not surprisingly, labeled those responsible as criminal hackers, which is a fine example of politics in action. Others see their actions as a legitimate protest against government control.

It’s convenient to keep the focus on Julian Assange, and away from American liability, or criminal wrong-doing. There is a concerted effort to label these leaks as a foreign attack, and even an act of terrorism, but is this an accurate interpretation of the facts, or simply face-saving spin by an embarrassed government?

Julian Assange makes a convenient scapegoat. As a foreigner, and head of an organization that operates outside of the United States, American authorities would love to make him the sole villain in this affair.

Is there any reality to the idea that this diplomatic fiasco is entirely the work of a foreign terrorist organization? It is at best a shaky premise. The idea that Julian Assange is a professional spy, who infiltrated American security agencies, to make off with thousands of classified documents, is hard to swallow. Branding a web-site that merely publishes whatever embarrassing information that comes its way, a terrorist organization, only makes U.S. officials look silly (or desperate).

The actual theft resulted from a combination of ineptitude and an insider with a grudge. Pte. Bradley Manning had little trouble hacking into government computers, to steal classified information that he shouldn’t have had access to. The government’s case against Mr. Assange hinges on the degree to which he may have instigated the theft. Being actively involved in obtaining classified information is much more serious than simply publishing it.

Now U.S. authorities are reputedly offering Mr. Manning a plea bargain in return for implicating Julian Assange in the theft. Considering the seriousness of the charges faced by Bradley Manning, it will be difficult for him to refuse some sort of deal, but will the world see this as justice?

The American government already looks bad enough. If the rest of the world sees the prosecution of Julian Assange as nothing more than a show trial with trumped-up evidence, designed to blame foreigners for something that is really more a domestic issue, then mild resentment over the contents of the documents could turn into real hostility.

There is a big difference between American authorities making a legitimate attempt to defend against foreign attack, and using brute force, as the world’s most powerful country, to launch a witch-hunt, for no other purpose than to divert attention away from themselves. If the Justice Department succeeds in convicting the head of WikiLeaks of espionage, and putting him in jail for a long time, will the rest of the world see this as democracy in action, or the long arm of a vengeful Uncle Sam?

Important, powerful people don’t appreciate being made to look foolish, and need their revenge. If this is the real reason for the government’s aggressive pursuit of Julian Assange, and they are willing to go to any lengths to prove that this whole affair can be pinned on foreign agents, then the result could prove more humiliating than the contents of the documents.

American relations with other governments have suffered serious setbacks from these leaks. Politicians have a God-given talent for making bad situations worse, and are well on their way to turning embarrassment into diplomatic disaster.

KORUS: Good For South Korea, But Who Else?

Article first published as KORUS: Good for South Korea, but Who Else? on Blogcritics.

President Obama recently signed the KORUS FTA trade deal with South Korea. The advantages for S. Korea are obvious, but what impact will it have on the U.S. economy, and how will it affect relations with the rest of Asia?

The deal lowers trade barriers for both sides. President Obama boasts it will boost the domestic auto industry and support tens of thousands of American jobs, by lowering S. Korean tariffs on American cars. The other side of the story, however, is that in five years the 2.5% tariff on Korean cars sold in the U.S. will be lifted. The real effect on the economy hinges on how many autos American manufacturers can sell in S. Korea, compared to the potential hike in Korean models imported here. While the U.S. manufacturers generally favor the deal, some of the big unions fear that it will actually result in a loss of jobs in their plants.

American autos sold in S. Korea will still have to meet their safety requirements, something which has stood in the way in the past. Asians prefer reliable, very small, fuel-efficient cars (to the extent that the Honda Civic is considered too big and is being discontinued in Japan). Quality issues continue to plague domestic models, with The Big Three having 50% more reported serious problems than Asian models. American automakers have shown little love for developing this type of vehicle, which is the reason that there are so many Asian cars on our roads. In 2009 Asian imports were nearly 50% of all light vehicles sold here.

Other issues, including the high subsidies paid to farmers in S. Korea may make this deal’s passage through congress less than certain. Beef exports (Korea has been reluctant to accept American beef since the mad-cow scare) is a sticking point for meat producers in the mid-west states, and the tariffs on pork products won’t be dropped until 2016. S. Korea produces a surplus of rice, and would like to protect itself from foreign competition to keep prices up.

KORUS is already being seen by other Asian trading partners as giving an unfair advantage to S. Korea. The Taiwan Ministry of Economic Affairs has come out against the pact, feeling that Taiwanese exports to the U.S. will be squeezed out by similar products from S. Korea. Others, including China, will undoubtedly condemn this agreement, as failing to give all competitors a level playing-field.

While KORUS is a diplomatic way of supporting an ally, it also has the serious side-effect (by boosting trade with the south) of further isolating the north . While barriers are lowered for S. Korea, sanctions are increasingly strangling the economy in North Korea. In the volatile atmosphere of recent months, tipping the scales any more can only increase tensions. What seems a well-intentioned show of support, may actually push the two sides closer to war.

Barack Obama, of course, can’t lay claim to this accord, as it was originally negotiated by George W. Bush, but never signed due to unresolved issues. Mr. Obama’s recent visit to South Korea gave him the opportunity to iron-out some remaining problems, and now he is the one left with the job of getting it passed. KORUS, however, is far from a done-deal, as the President hasn’t done that well with his legislation in the past, and given the politics since the mid-terms, getting his bills passed into law will be tougher than before.

Even some of Barack Obama’s critics are giving grudging respect for this pact, even though it doesn’t deal with all outstanding issues, and its effect on our relations with other Asian countries is still unknown. What remains to be seen is whether it is good enough to convince those who get to decide its future.