Why isn't Julian Assange in Guantanamo? Where are the drones?

Peter King, a member of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, said the latest release "manifests Mr Assange's purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan".  BBC News

David Seaton's News Links

Let us assume for a moment that the United State of America is a democracy and it's officials represent the American people and that its institutions genuinely represent, define and defend the interests of the American people.

Let us also assume, merely for argument's sake, that as Congressman and member of the Homeland Security Committee of the House of Representatives, Peter King, says, the  release of the latest batch from Wikileaks proves Julian Assange's, "purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan". 

Taking these two assumptions as true: that one, America's government has the democratic legitimacy to define and defend the interests of the American people, and two, Julian Assange is aiding the enemies of the United State in time of war, then the following question arises.

Why isn't Julian Assange either dead or imprisoned in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp?

If this question seems overly provocative,  a mere boutade, let me remind readers that at this very moment remote control, drone aircraft are probably flying the skies of Pakistan and Yemen, armed with rockets, looking to fire them at men, women and even children who the US government believes to have "purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan". And of course, Guantanamo Bay prison is chock full of people held without trial or habeas corpus, who the US government believes to have "purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan".

What makes Assange any different from all of them?

You might think it is because Julian Assange, although not a citizen of the United States, is an Australian and Australia is an American ally... But, there have been  quite a few Australians in Guantanamo and Brits and citizens of other allied countries and American drones over Pakistan have killed citizens of countries allied to the USA and even American citizens. 

What makes Assange any different from all of them? 

Frankly the only difference I can see is that Mr. Assange is not a Muslim.

It is hard not to come to the conclusion that the United States of America has finally gathered to itself, under one flag, all the venal, violent defects of a militaristic empire and combined them with all the potential feebleness of a democracy and the results of this mixture are being splashed all over the world's newspapers and the only reaction up till now is that Sweden is accusing Julian Assange of date-rape. DS

Posada Carriles and the naked super power

David Seaton's News Links

One very positive thing that has come out of the aftermath of 9-11 and the disaster of Iraq is a thirst for truth, a great unmasking. The world, and for once that includes the American people too, is taking an accelerated, master-class in who and how and why. The thirst for truth is the first step on the path to wisdom and wisdom is the father and mother of peace.

The number of people who can make a Chomsky-like connection of the dots is growing exponentially. The "noble lies" of the followers of Leo Strauss wither in the heat and light of this environment.

To free the right-wing Cuban terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles while at the same time maintaining the Guantanamo prison, where suspected terrorists from all over the world are being held without recourse to due process of law simply leaves the world's most powerful country the United States of America and all who derive legitimacy from the United States, stark, mother naked.

As the new information technology seems to be essential for the economy that feeds the powerful, perhaps this thirst and search for truth will be allowed to continue. DS

To fry the smallest fish - The Guardian
Abstract: A man accused of blowing up an airliner and killing 73 people, who has already admitted to bombing hotels with fatal consequences and who has a conviction for a failed assassination attempt on a head of state, was freed on a technicality in a Texas court this week, and can look forward to a quiet retirement in Florida.(...) Luis Posada, a veteran anti-Castro militant and CIA operative under George Bush Sr, was told that he was free to go due to administrative errors in the case against him for entering the US illegally. Posada is wanted in Venezuela and Cuba for allegedly plotting to blow up a Cuban airliner in which 73 people died in 1976. The US authorities have already indicated that they will not extradite him to either country, and all the other states to which they have sought to deport Posada have refused him entry. No wonder his lawyer remarked, without apparent irony, that "he is very gratified that the system has worked".(...) The Posada case has caused concern inside the United States and outside. Last month a Boston Globe editorial noted that "the administration is treating this case with delicacy, perhaps because of the CIA connection. Who knows what dirty dealings he [Posada] might reveal? ... Yet justice for the deaths of 73 people should outweigh any concerns about ancient CIA revelations." The editorial also suggested that Posada should face trial on the murder charges either in Venezuela or the US. Under a 1971 international convention, a nation that refuses to extradite a suspect in an airliner attack is obliged to try the person in its own courts. The Non-Aligned Movement, which represents some 118 countries - whose support one would have thought the US would value in the "war on terror" - has also expressed its concern. Yesterday it issued a statement that called on America to fulfil its obligations under the United Nations charter that proscribes the harbouring of terrorists. READ IT ALL

A little thought for May Day

David Seaton's News Links

When George W. Bush talks about the problem of human rights in Cuba, perhaps he should begin with that part of Cuba that he controls, Guantanamo. Very possibly Fidel Castro's Cuban prisoners have more legal guarantees than George W. Bush's Cuban prisoners do. DS

Gitmo: still a 'legal black hole - Editorial - Los Angeles Times
Abstract: The Bush administration has a shameful record when it comes to detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base who assert that they are wrongly being held as "enemy combatants." At first, the administration argued that detainees had no right to consult a lawyer, period. Later, it had to disavow a mean-spirited attack by a Pentagon official on lawyers who had dared to represent "terrorists." Now the administration is rightly being criticized for asking a federal court to scale back the detainees' access to their lawyers (only three visits once an attorney has been retained) and to place restrictions on attorney-client mail. The rationale for the crackdown is that lawyers have encouraged a hunger strike and other "threats to security" by informing detainees about events in the outside world, including the war in Lebanon and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. READ IT ALL

Python: the killer rabbit on Iran

David Seaton's News Links
Terry Jones of Monty Python shows that there is life in the "killer rabbit" yet.

Britain and the United States have lost any "moral authority" that they might have had on the subject of human rights, which in a sense is as if the French had lost all their authority on food or the Germans on engineering. "You don't know what you've got till it's gone." DS

Terry Jones: Call that humiliation? - Guardian
Abstract: I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are. It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.(...) And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed". What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on. READ IT ALL