Friday, April 12, 2019

TRNN - Assange Arrested for Exposing U.S. War Crimes - Paul Jay

Exposing horrendous crimes against humanity is a crime, according the Washington. It's shocking to see this. As a teen I thought mankind was becoming enlightened, and I was optimistic. I believed it when they said that good always wins in the end, but now I know it is the winners who get to write history. 

They complain that Wikileaks doesn't go after authoritarian states, but the US supports most of these states. There is no democracy in the US.

PAUL JAY: Well, I think it was deliberate, obviously. He’s known that he was going to be arrested for quite some time, and certainly in the last couple of days it was just a question of when. So I mean, I’ve never met or talked to Julian. But I’m assuming he did it with some intent. And I think it’s to send the message that this is the national security state that has come for him, and that the national security state is a dangerous thing for people and they should be aware of it.
I think the most important thing to keep in mind here is just what he’s been arrested for; this alleged collusion, if you want to use the word, with Chelsea Manning to leak the various reams of information that Chelsea Manning leaked. They’re claiming he crossed the line in helping to create a password–crack a password–which a journalist is only supposed to receive the information, not in any way collaborate. I have no idea whether Julian did or didn’t do what they’re alleging. But I think a far more important thing is being lost in, so far, most of the media coverage I’ve seen of this arrest, which is they exposed war crimes; they being Julian, Chelsea Manning. They exposed American war crimes in Iraq. And of course there’s this famous footage of a helicopter essentially murdering people as they walk across a square in–I guess it’s Baghdad. But we know in that story that not only did they kill the people in the original video, but they go ahead and strafe a van where there were children in it. And that was just a tip of the iceberg of the kind of war crimes being committed by the United States in Iraq.
And most importantly, what should be discussed again at this moment is that the war itself was a war crime. It was an illegal war. It was not sanctioned by the United Nations. The United States did not face a threat of imminent attack by Iraq, which is the only justification for war. These types of wars of aggression–and it’s clear it was a war of aggression. There was no weapons of mass destruction, and the UN inspectors were all saying so. The Nuremberg trials, they put the Nazis on trial. And it was said at the time and it’s been said since it’s the highest form of war crime, an aggressive war.
So what did WikiLeaks, what did Julian Assange, what did Chelsea Manning do? They exposed war crimes. So whether it may have technically broken an American law or not, if there’s ever going to be democracy, there better be whistleblowers. And the fact that the Obama administration and now the Trump administration, the deep state is going after whistleblowers–and particularly the most well known other than Snowden, Assange–is to send a message. And it comes at a very critical time when I think the Trump administration is planning for some kind of attack on Iran; certainly massive economic destabilization. And who knows what other nefarious things they are planning.
So it’s not just an attack on press freedom, which it is. It’s not just a way to intimidate journalists and news organizations from accepting leaked material, which it is. But it’s saying even if you’re exposing war crimes, we’re coming after you. And the corporate media is ignoring the whole substance of what was done by Chelsea and Julian.


Bob Roddis said...

Again, it's a good thing that the Deep State and the war mongers are not revenue constrained. They might be SOL under a strict gold standard, completely unable to obtain their funding without seeking it openly from the public and they'd likely be denied. And that would be so wrong. It's a good thing we have MMT and fiat funny money to get us around the will of the people and which put those important decisions in the hands of the corrupt government elite.

Konrad said...

“They might be SOL under a strict gold standard, completely unable to obtain their funding without seeking it openly from the public and they'd likely be denied.”

The “gold standard” was always a gimmick; a pretense. It never stopped the US government from creating as much money as it liked out of thin air, e.g. for the world wars.

Kaivey said...

Hi Bob.

In a libertarian state the elite would have private armies and would not be revenue restrained. They would form cartels and semi-monopolies and raise money from tolls which would replace taxes. They would do everything they can to maximise profits, i.e, fleece the public. They would not spend any of the money they made on anything that benefited siciety, so all the revenue they raised from the tolls would go straight into their pockets and to fund their wars.

Libertarianism is a recipe for disaster, as the most crooked amongst the elite would get free reign and be able to do as they please. It will be like the Middle-Ages - Medieval - with barons ruling again.

It is impossible for libertarianism to bring anyone freedom. Only enslavement to the bosses. Libertarianism is winner takes all. It is the subjugation of the majority by the warlords and bandits.

Why did Hayek want this? Because he was an aristocratic snob who hated 'common people' who felt the elite should rule.

Kaivey said...

Libertarians want to give all the power over the the elites.

I agree that the government is controlled by the elite, but getting rid of democratic government won't solve the problem of the elite controlling everything. Only more democracy can do that, but to be effective we need to break up their media monopolies, and to encourage crowd funded media.

This is why the elite fund libertarianism, to ensure we do not try to control them to make a better society for the rest of us. Their version of freedom is our enslavement. They want to do a they please and get away with it.

We can only control the elite collectively, through government and regulations. They have far too much power over us otherwise. But their propaganda media machine needs to be controlled too.

Bob Roddis said...

In a libertarian state the elite would have private armies and would not be revenue restrained.

Preposterous. They would be like record companies fighting off Napster. If they cannot employ violence or the threat of violence to attract customers, they could only collect revenue from willing customers who would have a myriad of other options. They could and would be sued for breach of contract including any actions which disturb the self-ownership and property rights of even the poorest people. You have no idea what you are talking about. Ever.

The market DOES NOT LEAD TO MONOPOLY. Read the freakin' book.

The market also does not lead to mass unemployment. Monopoly, wealth concentration and unemployment are CAUSED by fiat funny money emissions. Duh.

Bob Roddis said...

The “gold standard” was always a gimmick; a pretense. It never stopped the US government from creating as much money as it liked out of thin air, e.g. for the world wars.

When a "gold standard" didn't actually exist, it didn't exist. Right, smart guy? OMG. You are SO SMART. But when it existed, then governments actually had to go out and EXPRESSLY ASK for money to fund wars. Which cut down on the number of wars.

During World War I federal expenditures ballooned and although the new income tax was able to partially finance the war effort, most of the financing was done through federal borrowing and by the highly accommodating monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. The role of the Federal Reserve at this time was expressed unambiguously by the New York Federal Reserve Bank Governor Benjamin Strong, who told a Congressional committee in 1921 that ‘I feel that I, or the bank at least, was their [the Treasury’s] agent and servant in those matters’ and further added that the wartime inflation caused by the low interest rates maintained by the bank were ‘inevitable, unescapable, and necessary’ for prosecuting the war. (Strong, 1930) [emphasis added}

This is the pure Rothbardian explanation. Wars are funded with fiat money which robs average people of purchasing power without the victims understanding exactly what is being done to them and without any due process of law. If the citizens had to make an immediate sacrifice in the form of a forced contribution of tax money to fund wars on a pay-as-you-go format, there would be far fewer wars. Kuehn then notes that the inflation encountered by the populace had been caused by the “expansionary policy of the Federal Reserve” and thus not any alleged “market failure”. After the war, such policy was “sharply curtailed” as was government spending leading to the predictable bust, the 1920 depression.

Bob Roddis said...

Libertarians want to give all the power over the the elites.

Total nonsense. Rigorously prohibiting the initiation of violence will defang the elites so that the only way they can obtain money is by providing superior goods and services. The entire leftist critique of the proposal to prohibit the initiation of violence is to presume a scenario where violence is not, in fact, prohibited. Pitiful.

Konrad said...

@ Roddis

The US government does not have to ask anyone for permission to create money of thin air.

Nor does income tax finance any federal operations, including war-making. This is basic MMT.

You are way out of your depth.

Konrad said...


[1] Under president Correa, the Ecuadorian government granted asylum to Assange in 2012, and citizenship in 2017 -- thereby preventing Assange’s extradition to the USA. However the subsequent Moreno government recently declared Assange’s asylum and citizenship invalid because…well…just because.

[2] The Moreno government was eager to secure a $10.2 billion loan from the IMF and World Bank, which are controlled by the US government. The IMF and World Bank made loans conditional on the Moreno government handing over Assange, and dropping all charges against Chevron, which had destroyed Ecuador’s environment, and had gravely sickened tens of thousands of people. Moreno complied with both orders. Moreno also ordered Ecuador’s government to clean up Chevron’s pollution just enough to hide the evidence for Chevron’s crimes.

[3] The IMF and World Bank always make their loans conditional on “structural adjustments” (i.e. neoliberal attacks) such as mass privatization, and mass termination of public employees. Moreno was so eager for a loan that he terminated 10,000 public officials over three days (30 Feb to 1 March 2019) which was three weeks before the loan deal was finalized on 21 March 2019.

$4.2 billion came from the IMF, and another $6 billion came from other U.S.-dominated institutions like the World Bank, for a total of $10.2 billion. Moreno will dump this $10.2 billion debt on Ecuador’s masses.

[4] U.S. government vengeance against Assange has nothing to do with the Russia-gate hoax, or with the 2016 election with Hillary’s emails, etc. Assange will be crucified because he exposed U.S. war crimes in the Middle East.

[5] Chelsea Manning was ordered to appear in a Virginia court to help the U.S. government destroy Assange. Manning refused, and was jailed in Alexandria VA on 8 March 2019. Manning remains in jail.

[6] The US government uses its financial power to threaten everyone, including allies. For example, in July 2018 the Moreno government introduced a measure at the UN that supported breastfeeding over infant formula. This threatened U.S. companies. In response, the U.S. threatened Moreno with “punishing trade measures” if Moreno continued to push the measure. Moreno immediately dropped it.

More info here

Ryan Harris said...

Assange didn't commit any crime. Have some faith in our systems to constrain deep stater ambitions. Why would a jury convict him of anything? My experience with juries is that they are pretty careful and do their job. When prosecutors over reach, aquittals happen. Of course they make mistakes but President, judges and others can remedy that during appeals.

Bob Roddis said...

Why would a jury convict him of anything?

Hmmmm. Because they are brainwashed to be morons in government school? How else can one explain MMT?

Ryan Harris said...

True. Willful blindness and feigned ignorance toward obvious flaws in MMT by progressive activists makes them seem hypocrites and transparent in their use of MMT to snatch power rather than improve the lives and real wealth of people.

S400 said...

“obvious flaws in MMT”

Now Ryan is the time for you to point out the OBVIOUS FLAWS in MMT.
And don’t come dragging with some right wing opinion based stuff. Obvious flaws only.