The Constitutionally deplorable intentions of the United States regarding Julian Assange and Wikileaks

At Occasional Planet, Madonna Gauding explains that the U.S. campaign to imprison Julian Assange and put him to death, has nothing to do with national security:

Unfortunately, prosecuting leakers is not really about upholding the law or maintaining national security. It is about making sure the government or corporations can continue to hide information they do not want citizens to know, such as the video of the horrific gunning down of Baghdad civilians by U.S. forces in Iraq that Private Bradley Manning exposed. In this example, this secret brings the lie to the official story of the so called humanitarian mission in Iraq. Exposing military wrongdoing undermines the power of the government and the corporations it supports who make their fortunes off war. Prosecuting Assange to the fullest extent, which could mean prison or even execution for espionage, is not about bringing a criminal to “justice,” or protecting the citizens of the United States. It is about instilling fear and intimidation in any one else (including mainstream journalists) who might want to expose information about government or corporate malfeasance. The purpose of Assange’s prosecution is to send a strong message that whistle blowing will not be tolerated.
Mauding's account is bolstered by the unrelenting and precise writings of Glenn Greenwald, who points out that the Wikileak's release of materials apparently provided by Bradley Manning have done the opposite of threatening U.S. security. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe Constitutionally deplorable intentions of the United States regarding Julian Assange and Wikileaks

Making banks pay for their secret $7 trillion free ride

Eliot Spitzer offers "5 Ways to Make Banks Pay for Their Secret $7 Trillion Free Ride." Here's the problem:

During the deepest, darkest period of the financial cataclysm, the CEOs of major banks maintained in statements to the public, to the market at large, and to their own shareholders that the banks were in good financial shape, didn’t want to take TARP funds, and that the regulatory framework governing our banking system should not be altered. Trust us, they said. Yet, unknown to the public and the Congress, these same banks had been borrowing massive amounts from the government to remain afloat. The total numbers are staggering: $7.7 trillion of credit—one-half of the GDP of the entire nation. $460 billion was lent to J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley alone—without anybody other than a few select officials at the Fed and the Treasury knowing. This was perhaps the single most massive allocation of capital from public to private hands in our history, and nobody was told. This was not TARP: This was secret Fed lending.

Continue ReadingMaking banks pay for their secret $7 trillion free ride

The dark side of the new military authorization bill

Glenn Greenwald spells out the concerns we should all have with the new military authorization bill (2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)), well on its way to passage:

Here are the bill’s three most important provisions:
(1) mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; it also unquestionably permits (but does not mandate) that even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil accused of Terrorism be held by the military rather than charged in the civilian court system (Sec. 1032); (2) renews the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) with more expansive language: to allow force (and military detention) against not only those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and countries which harbored them, but also anyone who “substantially supports” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces” (Sec. 1031); and, (3) imposes new restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo (Secs. 1033-35).
There are several very revealing aspects to all of this. First, the 9/11 attack happened more than a decade ago; Osama bin Laden is dead; the U.S. Government claims it has killed virtually all of Al Qaeda’s leadership and the group is “operationally ineffective” in the Afghan-Pakistan region; and many commentators insisted that these developments would mean that the War on Terror would finally begin to recede. And yet here we have the Congress, on a fully bipartisan basis, acting not only to re-affirm the war but to expand it even further: by formally declaring that the entire world (including the U.S.) is a battlefield and the war will essentially go on forever.

Continue ReadingThe dark side of the new military authorization bill

How to create money out of nothing

Dennis Kucinich explains how the Federal Reserve created 7.7 TRILLION out of nothing, allowing many big banks to profit while starving ordinary Americans of capital. This is a dramatic illustration of why there are Occupy protests. Kucinich is promoting the "Need Act "to reign in the Fed: "to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernize and provide stability for the monetary system of the United States, retire public debt and reduce the cost of public investment, and for other public purposes." Here's a more detailed description of the proposed "Need Act." It attempts to accomplish the following: 􀂾 Puts the Federal Reserve (Fed) into the Department of Treasury (Treasury) to make our monetary policy truly accountable to Congress and the American people. 􀂾 Ends the banks’ special privilege by no longer allowing them to create our money supply when they make loans, through a simple and non-disruptive accounting change. 􀂾 Invests money to renew our crumbling infrastructure, making it fit for the 21st Century; creating real wealth and millions of good jobs at the same time.

Continue ReadingHow to create money out of nothing

Occupy the Moment is on the air

A few weeks ago, I covered an event by the St. Louis Occupy protest, interviewing many of the protesters. One of these protesters (named "Matt") has (along with "Mark") created a website called Occupy the Moment, which is "Podcasting in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street." I just finished listening to the Episode 3 podcast (more than an hour in length), and was encouraged to hear extensive intelligent, well-informed and self-critical analysis regarding Occupy protests, both in St. Louis and nationwide.  The first 40-minutes of Episode 3 concerned the Occupy movement. Listening to this podcast, I heard that some protesters are charging that at least some St. Louis police officers are obscuring the names on their badges or even displaying false names. The hosts do recognize that the St. Louis Police Department has generally shown admirable restraint regarding the St. Louis protesters. From the same podcast I also learned that last week the Manhattan police (apparently illegally) seized a Wikileaks donation truck.  I've heard that J.P. Morgan/Chase donated more than $4 Million to the New York Police Department shortly before the Department evicted protesters from Zucotti Park. I heard the hosts discuss other substantial collaborations between large corporations and law enforcement. The hosts also commented at length on the recent and obviously coordinated simultaneous evictions of protesters nationwide. Matt and Mark voice many well-considered opinions regarding the motives and methods of the Occupy protests and the oftentimes disappointing response to these protests by law enforcement agencies and the national media.  The podcast covers issues raised by particular Occupy protests in many locations across the country.   Once they finish discussing the Occupy movement, the hosts moved on to discuss other issues, including hot issues regarding intellectual property. Based on Podcast 3, I plan to periodically return to Occupy the Moment to hear further insights regarding the Occupy movement, in St. Louis and beyond.

Continue ReadingOccupy the Moment is on the air