Here’s a radical idea: instead of tinkering around the edges of a truly bad law, how about getting rid of it entirely? From Jacob G. Hornberger at fff.org:
World War I is the gift that just keeps on giving. Although the U.S. government’s intervention into this senseless, immoral, and destructive war occurred 100 years ago, the adverse effects of the war continue to besiege our nation. Among the most notable examples is the Espionage Act, a tyrannical law that was enacted two months after the U.S. entered the war and which, unfortunately, remained on the books after the war came to an end. In fact, it is that World War I relic that U.S. officials are now relying on to secure the criminal indictment of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks head who released a mountain of evidence disclosing the inner workings and grave wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. national-security establishment, especially with respect to the manner in which it has waged it undeclared forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Some news media commentators are finally coming to the realization that if the Espionage Act can be enforced against Assange for what he did, it can be enforced against anyone in the press for revealing damaging inside information about the national-security establishment — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. Therefore, they are calling on the Justice Department to cease and desist from its prosecution of Assange.
Of course, they are right, but the problem is that they don’t go far enough. Their mindsets reflect the customary acceptance of the status quo. The mindset is that we Americans simply have to accept the way things are and plead with the government to go easy on us.
The article is long because it takes a long article to catalogue all the lies that Russiagate’s promoters, including Robert Mueller, have told. From Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform.com:
In the wake of Robert Mueller’s very bizarre nine-minute press conference on May 29, 2019, there can be no doubt his special counsel investigation was a political sham orchestrated, from the start, to undermine the Trump Presidency and increasingly divide the country. But the question remains whether or not we are witnessing legitimate legal warfare in the highest offices of American government or a Reality TV Live Action Role Play (LARP) designed to bleed the nation’s brakes before the big stop.
Indeed, for those seeking America’s demise, the Russian Collusion lie is the gift that won’t stop giving because it is, in fact, a wound that won’t ever heal. The damage is done and the psychology is so perfect it had to have happened either by destiny or design.
The seeds of destruction in the Russian collusion narrative remain rooted in the patriotism of both sides. No matter who wins in the end, it will be a pyrrhic victory because the other team will never surrender, accept any terms, or yield any ideological ground. Any chance of compromise is long past, so it’s all or nothing going forward. In fact, each side’s patriotism precludes any chance of concession. The irony therein, of course, is that the entire slate of premises of one side are predicated upon, and perpetuated by, lies and deception.
A substantial portion of the population believe that someone else will take care of them. From Daisy Luther at theorganicprepper.com:
Sometimes, warning labels concern me.
I mean, who inspired the label on blow dryers that points out the device should not be used in the shower? And what would even be the point, barring electrocution? Why would you dry your hair while the water is spraying you?
And are there actually people who need to be cautioned not to light a candle until they remove it from the package?
Also, you know those plastic bags that hold clothing when you order it online? Who needs to be offered the sage advice that it’s not a good idea to put said bag over their head?
Maybe, with all of these warning labels, we’re rendering Darwin’s principle of natural selection invalid.
Darwin’s hypothesis states that living organisms evolve by differential survival in a world with “Malthusian” overpopulation, in which only the fittest spread their genes into future generations. By fittest we mean best adapted to the prevailing environment, and by environment we mean both the living and the nonliving environment. (source)
Before the emails roll in telling me that I “don’t science,” I’m well aware that the theory of natural selection was about genetic changes that occur over a series of generations. However, the point remains that once upon a time, being stupid got you killed. And no one got sued. The person who couldn’t figure out that some ill-conceived idea was a bad one faced the consequences. If the consequences didn’t kill them, they learned not to do the stupid thing again, making them just a teeny bit smarter and more equipped to deal with the world. Some who believe our planet is overpopulated might even argue that the obsolescence of natural selection is the root cause of the people boom.
Julian Assange’s Wikileaks indirectly aided President Trump’s election effort, but now Trump is going to let both Assange and Wikileaks twist in the wind. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.org:
Last week in an episode of my daily Ron Paul Liberty Report we discussed whether the US and British government were actually trying to kill jailed Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange. More than seven years ago Assange was granted asylum from the government of Ecuador over fears that espionage charges were being prepared against him by Washington. He spent those years in a small room in the Ecuadorian embassy in London without sunlight. Without fresh air. Without exercise. Without medical treatment.
Assange’s critics mocked him for entering the embassy, saying his fear that the US government would indict him was paranoia. Then the US-controlled International Monetary Fund dangled a four billion dollar loan in front of Ecuadorian president Lenin Moreno (elected in 2017, replacing the president who granted him asylum), and Moreno eagerly handed Assange over to British authorities who the same day hauled him before the court to answer for skipping bail. No medical examination after what was seven years of house arrest. Straight to court. He was sentenced to 50 weeks – the maximum sentence.
And what happened while he was serving time in the notorious Belmarsh prison? The Trump Administration decided to go where the Obama Administration before him did not dare to tread: he was indicted on 17 counts under the US Espionage Act and now faces 170 years in prison – or worse – once the formality of his extradition hearing is over. He faces life in prison for acting as a journalist – publishing information about the US government that is clearly in the public interest.
But do they really want to put him up on trial?
Five nations have shredded the law in their vendetta against Julian Assange. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at the automaticearth.com:
With the news that Julian Assange is “wasting away” in Belmarsh prison hospital, and with UN rapporteur Professor Nils Melzer’s report detailing how this happens, I’m once again drawn towards the lawlessness that all “authorities” involved in his case have been displaying, and with impunity. They all apparently think they are literally above the law. Their own laws.
But they can’t be, nowhere, not above their respective national laws nor the international ones their countries have signed up to. They can’t, because that would instantly make any and all laws meaningless. So you tell me where we find ourselves today.
There’s this paragraph in an article by Jonathan Cook entitled Abuses Show Assange Case Was Never About Law, which lists “17 glaring anomalies in Assange’s legal troubles”, that sums it all up pretty perfectly:
Australia not only refused Assange, a citizen, any help during his long ordeal, but prime minister Julia Gillard even threatened to strip Assange of his citizenship, until it was pointed out that it would be illegal for Australia to do so.
See, Cook is already skipping a step there. Gillard didn’t take Assange’s citizenship away, because that is against Australian law, but it’s just as much against Australian law for a government to let one of its citizens rot in some kind of hell. Still, they did let him rot, but as an Australian citizen. At that point, what difference does anything make anymore?
Julian Assange may receive worse treatment from penal officials in Britain than any other prisoner. From Joe Lauria at consortiumnews.com:
The UN special rapporteur on torture has blasted four nations for imposing psychological torture on Julian Assange.
The UN special rapporteur on torture has issued a stinging rebuke to the United States, Great Britain, Sweden and Ecuador for “deliberately” exposing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to years of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” which can only be described as “psychological torture.”
“In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law,” Nils Melzer said in a statement published on the UN High Commissioner for Human Right’s website on Friday. “The collective persecution of Julian Assange must end here and now!”
Melzer: Collective persecution must end. (UN Photo)
“The evidence is overwhelming and clear,” Melzer said. “Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.”
Here’s an interesting parlay for you: political plus economic collapse. From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:
You’d think that Robert Mueller might know what any licensed attorney-at-law in the land tells a client in a tight spot with a lame alibi: better keep you mouth shut. Instead, Mr. Mueller crept Sphinx-like out of the Deep State woodwork on little cat’s paws and in a brief nine minutes blabbed out a set of whopperish riddles much more likely to get himself in trouble than the target of his hinky inquisition.
The key whopper was that he could not make “a determination” on an obstruction-of-justice charge against Mr. Trump because guidance policy from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel had said some years ago that a sitting president can’t be indicted. That is not what he told his boss, Mr. Barr, the Attorney General (and a roomful of the AG’s staffers who heard it), in person when he delivered his final report a few weeks ago.
Upon receipt of that report, Mr. Barr asked the Special Counsel three times whether his inability to conclude anything on an obstruction charge was due to the OLC guidance, and three times Mr. Mueller answered “no.” Mr. Barr relayed this on-the-record in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and, as averred above, he has plenty of witnesses. It should not be hard to reach a determination on who is telling truth here.