Richard Phillips

Todos Somos Julian Assange - We're all Julian Assange...

If Assange’s conflict is purely with the Swedish government, then why is his asylum application of such concern in Washington?

While the Obama administration and its allies continue to deny the existence of a sealed US Grand Jury indictment against Julian Assange, further information has come to light about the extent of Washington’s operation against the founder of the WikiLeaks web site.

Assange, who is fighting extradition to Sweden on dubious sexual assault allegations, is seeking political asylum in Ecuador and remains inside its embassy in London. He has good reason to fear that if he is extradited to Sweden, Washington will intervene, extraditing him to face a Grand Jury trial on espionage charges.

According to WikiLeaks, special task forces have been established by US intelligence agencies, and subpoenas have been issued compelling WikiLeaks associates to appear before a Grand Jury. The US Justice Department has served subpoenas on ISPs and online services for the Twitter accounts and other private data of WikiLeaks staff and supporters.

Further preparations emerged at recent pre-trial hearings of Army Private Bradley Manning, who is accused of disclosing classified military data—later published on WikiLeaks as Cablegate, the Afghan War Diaries, the Iraq War Logs and the Collateral Murder video footage. Manning has been incarcerated for more than 760 days without facing trial.

Recent prosecution testimony indicates that the case against Manning is only a small element in a massive FBI investigation. US Army Major Ashden Fein, the lead prosecution counsel, told hearings this month that the FBI file on the case, most of it classified, totalled 42,135 pages or 3,475 documents. “Manning is a piece of the FBI file,” Fein said, and only accounted for “8,741 pages or 636 different documents.”

More »

Justin Raimondo

Which historical analogy fits the present moment?

We hear cries of “another Munich” with very little provocation: it’s the War Party’s pat response to any attempt to negotiate or otherwise engage our alleged enemies. It was a favorite neoconservative trope during the cold war era, one that greeted every diplomatic approach to the reds, from Nixon’s China trip to Reagan at Reykjavik. This analogy persisted long after the Soviets landed in history’s dustbin: indeed, its use has increased over the years, with every Enemy of the Moment, from Slobodan Milosevic to Saddam Hussein, routinely likened to Hitler and the Nazis. With the Israelis conjuring visions of a second Holocaust at Iranian hands, ghosts from the 1930s haunt the current foreign policy debate: in the unlikely event the ongoing negotiations with Tehran generate an agreement, odds are it will be characterized as “another Munich” by All the Usual Suspects.

Yet as Pat Buchanan was the first to point out in the run up to the first Gulf War, Saddam was no Hitler: the German leader conquered Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals, while Saddam’s “empire” consisted of the tiny enclave of Kuwait. Hitler commanded the mighty Wehrmacht, while the best of Saddam’s army, the Republican Guards, melted away before the American assault.

As a historical analogy for the present moment, the 1930s are a natural reference point for neoconservative intellectuals, the original authors and most vocal advocates of the series of Middle Eastern wars that have kept us preoccupied since the end of the cold war. After all, neoconservatism was itself born in that tumultuous era of war and depression, in Alcove 1 at the City College cafeteria, or, at least, its seeds were sown. World War II was the defining moment of a whole generation of leftist intellectuals, whose storied journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the neoconservative right has been lovingly chronicled by themselves in endless memoirs.

More »

Joseph Kishore

Led by the United States, the major powers have issued a series of bellicose statements and threats after Syria shot down a Turkish F4 Phantom jet that had entered its airspace. Backed by the Obama administration, the Turkish government has taken actions that mark a major step in the direction of all-out war.

Representatives of NATO countries will participate today in a meeting called under Article 4 of the alliance convention, which provides for discussion between members on joint action against a threat.

While the meeting is not being held under Article 5, which calls for military action of all NATO members, Turkey said on Monday it would press NATO to consider Article 5 at the meeting. It is also the first time Article 4 has been invoked since Turkey did so against Iraq in February 2003—one month before the US-led invasion.

After speaking with the US over the weekend, Turkey shifted from its initially more measured tone. “It was an act of war,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Selcuk Unal said Monday. Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc added that Turkey will use “all rights granted under international law until the end. This also includes self-defense. This also includes retaliation many-fold.”

Behind the scenes, the United States is employing a well-tested modus operandi: engage in a series of provocative measures that amount to acts of war, then reply with extreme belligerence to any response, using it to justify even more provocative measures.

For months, the US has been engaged in stoking civil war in Syria, funneling arms with the help of several Gulf monarchies. Over the weekend, Saudi Arabia announced, with the approval of the US, that it would begin paying the salaries of members of the opposition Free Syrian Army, effectively bankrolling (with payment in dollars or euros) anyone fighting against the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

More »