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

What the news media used to be

Comment following transcript of a speech by Dan Rather, this comment being authored by "fredboy":

We went from hardball reporting in the 60s, 70s, and 80s--I know, because I was an investigative reporter at the time and took heat from no one--to today's "news". Newspapers are but floor diapers to train new pups, and TV network "news" is eight minutes of Washington and campaign press releases and seven minutes of lollypop feel good softballs.

Continue ReadingWhat the news media used to be

Media rigging elections

This Huffpo article illustrates how the "news media" determines what candidates are acceptable before the People ever have a chance to vote for them. FOX has decided that it is time to pull Mitt Romney down and to prop up Newt Gingrich. FOX is but one media voice, but it is an especially strong one for many people who will be voting republican. Last election cycle, for example, FOX worked hard to make sure that Ron Paul didn't get the nomination--it was my sense that had FOX gotten behind him, he might have become the nominee. It is my belief that the cumulative effect of these sorts of media positions almost completely decide who the nominees of both parties will be. I suspect that if FOX wanted Romney to soar in the polls, they have enough influence to make that happen, but they don't want that to happen, so they will peck away to make Romney look "plastic," or whatever needs to be said to steer the audience away from him. The net result of this media input is that the media has influence--too much influence--over who will be the nominees of both parties. The media decides who are the "serious" candidates.  Eventually, the people get to vote on one of only two viable candidates, one a Democrat and other a Republican. That's one choice greater than countries (like the old Soviet Union) whose political systems are entirely corrupt.

Continue ReadingMedia rigging elections