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.

Why Sarah Palin Will Never be President

Article first published as Why Sarah Palin Will Never be President on Blogcritics.

“But I will tell you … I am not going to sit down. I am not going to shut up.” These words might well serve as Sarah Palin’s political epitaph. While few might care if she sits down, there are many, including members of the Republican Party (Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee for instance), who think she should shut up.

Shutting up, unfortunately, isn’t a Palin strong-point. Having been infected with the Tea Party’s interpretation of freedom of speech (the right to blurt out whatever hateful nonsense happens to flit through one’s mind), she has proven herself incapable of keeping her tongue under the control of her brain.

Tea Party followers can afford to indulge in rash, or even irrational speech. This organization isn’t actually a political party, and its members don’t have to worry about getting elected, but if Sarah Palin, is not ruling out a run for the Presidency in 2012, she needs to give more thought to what she says in public.

The Tuscon shootings provided both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin equal opportunity to prove that they are worthy of the Oval Office, and highlighted why Mr. Obama is, and Ms. Palin isn’t. The President seized the moment, and came up with a speech that pushed all the right buttons to boost his image. Sarah chose to focus on her favorite topic (Sarah Palin), selfishly portraying herself as the true victim in this affair, and once again belligerently lashing out at those who would try to prevent her from exercising her God-given right to recklessly shoot-off her mouth whenever the urge strikes.

Her latest attack of verbal diarrhea came at the expense of breast-feeding mothers. With her usual lack of ability to focus on the real issue, she declared that the only reason for Michelle Obama urging mothers to breast-feed, is the high price of milk. This mother of a large brood, conveniently overlooked the fact that, nursing children are not generally given cow’s milk to replace breast milk, but instead drink baby formula.

These types of statements are even bringing condemnation from within her own party. Mike Huckabee …joined Republicans saying Palin should have controlled her urge to lash out at all things Obama. This wasn’t the first time she drew fire form a Republican Party notable. On the occasion of her infamous “blood-libel” speech, Newt Gingrich suggested she be “…more careful and think through what she’s saying and how she’s saying it.”

This would-be contender in 2012 should have learned something from her run for the office of Vice-President in 2008. Her lack of ability to take direction from people with more experience than herself, saw John McCain’s campaign disintegrate, and her own political ambitions left temporarily in tatters.

Sarah Palin undoubtedly employs professional speech-writers, but seems unwilling to let others put words in her mouth, and as she proved in 2008, believes that she knows better than anyone what to say, and when to say it. If this were true all would be well, but instead she displays an uncanny knack for always saying whatever might prove most damaging to her political future.

As she says herself, Ms. Palin will not sit down and shut up, nor will she ever be President of the United States.

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.

Egypt Without Mubarak – What Lies Ahead?

Article first published as Egypt Without Mubarak -– What Lies Ahead? on Blogcritics.

W73E5NQ67UVY

The only certainty in Egypt these days is that Hosni Mubarak is out. Whether it happens in the next few days, or in several months, his time is up. What isn’t certain, is what the future holds for Egypt, and the rest of the world, without the dictator that has been an ally of the West, and a much-needed element of stability in the region.

Barack Obama, and other world leaders, are urging Mubarak to step aside, and allow democratic reforms. This may seem a noble goal, but little thought is being given to who will succeed the Egyptian strongman. Any successor he might name himself would likely be unacceptable to those demanding change, and after thirty years in office he has few political rivals.

The group best positioned to take control of the government is the Muslim Brotherhood, and though banned from holding political office themselves, they get around this by running as independents. Their current strategy is the backing of Mohamed ElBaradei, who is emerging as the main opposition leader.

ElBaradei hasn’t spent much time in Egypt in recent years. In fact he has been out of the country since 1964, devoting many of those years to heading the United Nations nuclear inspection program. Despite being part of an organization that requires political neutrality, he says Israel is “the number one threat to the Middle East,” and attacks America and Israel for the “civilian carnage” they cause.

The Muslim Brotherhood, although claiming to oppose violence to achieve their goals, seem to limit this non-violent philosophy only to Jihad against the corrupt Western democracies. They agree with ElBaradei that Israel is the enemy, and must be destroyed by any means possible. Speaking for the Brotherhood, Muhammad Ghannem stated that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”

The United States has backed Mubarek by providing Egypt with one of the largest arsenals in this part of the world, and if it falls into the hands of the extremists, war is inevitable. Peace is always precarious in Middle East politics, and a stable ally of America, willing to respect a peace accord with Israel has been instrumental in maintaining a delicate balance of power.

The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t limit its activities to the Arab world. They have established themselves as a political force throughout Europe, especially in Germany, by employing the same strategy currently being used in Egypt (the backing of respected candidates). Americans shouldn’t be deluded into thinking that they don’t have ambitions on this side of the ocean. They see their work here as a Jihad aimed at destroying our culture and replacing all religions with Islam. While they may not support terrorism against the West, there is no question that they seek our destruction.

President Obama is increasingly forceful in urging Hosni Mubarak to step aside. Given the present alternatives, this haste is likely a mistake. The most likely successor will be the Muslim Brotherhood, and with this group’s attitude towards Egypt’s neighbor, Israel, and its formidably armed military, the consequences will be catastrophic.

If The Muslim Brotherhood succeeds in Egypt, other Islamic countries in a state of crisis could prove easy pickings. Western leaders, instead of hastening events in Egypt, might be better off using what diplomatic influence they have, to try to stabilize the situation long enough to buy some time for other leaders to emerge.