Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, June 30, 2024
Απόφαση ορόσημο Β.Πούτιν: Kτυπήστε αμερικανικές βάσεις και στόχους του ΝΑΤΟ σε όλο τον κόσμο - Τέλος η παθητική στάση της Ρωσίας! - War News 24/7
Απόφαση ορόσημο Β.Πούτιν: Kτυπήστε αμερικανικές βάσεις και στόχους του ΝΑΤΟ σε όλο τον κόσμο - Τέλος η παθητική στάση της Ρωσίας! - War News 24/7
Milestone decision B.Putin: Hit US bases and NATO targets around the world - Russia's passive attitude is over!
900 US bases targeted - Medvedev "We will hit our common enemies"
[Salon] REFLECTIONS ON JULIAN ASSANGE, THE ESPIONAGE ACT, AND THE GREAT INTELLIGENCE HOAX - Guest Post by Bruce Fein
REFLECTIONS ON JULIAN ASSANGE, THE ESPIONAGE ACT, AND THE GREAT INTELLIGENCE HOAX
By Bruce Fein*
On Wednesday, June 26, 2024, Julian Assange pled guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act and was sentenced to time served, i.e., five years in detention defending against extradition to the United States from Great Britian. Mr. Assange immediately returned to his home country Australia with no restrictions on free speech.
The Espionage Act charge alleged that Assange conspired to disclose “information relating to the national defense” with “reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Despite the vast volumes of military or diplomatic secrets Assange’s WikiLeaks published over many years, the United States was unable to identify at sentencing or other platforms even one disclosure that was “used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”
Thereby hangs a tale of stupendous government disinformation to deceive the American people into accepting limitless surveillance power.
The omission of harm at Assange’s sentencing was predictable. The United States has never been able to demonstrate under the Espionage Act particularized concrete harm caused by the publication of national defense information—even in camera to a judge.
The famous 1971 Pentagon Papers case is exemplary. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the 47 top secret volumes of the Pentagon Papers revealing monumental government lies about the Vietnam War to The New York Times and The Washington Post. The government sued to enjoin the latter from continuing to publish the classified documents in New York Times v. United States. The United States Supreme Court adamantly refused. Justice Potter Stewart elaborated that an injunction would require proof that publication would “surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people.” That proof was not forthcoming.
Indeed, United States Solicitor General Erwin Griswald, former Dean of Harvard Law School, lamented that he ever defended the national security hallucinations of the United States in an op-ed in The Washington Post (“Secrets Not Worth Keeping”). Dean Griswold was not Code Pink. He was a crusty conservative recruited by the Nixon administration. His political orientation gives special weight to his likening national defense information as a synonym for political blunders or embarrassments:
“I have never seen any trace of a threat to the national security from the publication. Indeed, I have never seen it even suggested that there was such an actual threat. Sen. Gravel's edition is now almost completely forgotten, and I doubt if there is more than a handful of persons who have ever undertaken to examine the Pentagon Papers in any detail -- either with respect to national security or with respect to the policies of the country relating to Vietnam. It quickly becomes apparent to any person who has considerable experience with classified material that there is massive overclassification and that the principal concern of the classifiers is not with national security, but rather with governmental embarrassment of one sort or another.”
As with Assange, the government has never been able to show the disclosures associated with Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, or Massachusetts Air National Guard member Jack Teixera. Eugene Debs was convicted and sentenced to prison under the Espionage Act for uttering, among other things, the following commendable words opposing the pointless hecatombs of World War I.
“The working class have never yet had a voice in declaring war. If war is right, let it be declared by the people – you, who have your lives to lose.”
The United States Supreme Court sustained Debs’ conviction over a free speech defense in an opinion penned by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Debs v. United States. Holmes soon repented his blunder in Abrahms v. United States. Debs would have been exonerated under current First Amendment jurisprudence. He was a presidential candidate in 1920 while imprisoned. He attracted nearly one million votes running as a Socialist Party candidate. Debs’ supporters subconsciously understood the stupendous government lie in representing that World War I was fought to make the world safe for democracy. In fact, the war exponentially expanded the British and French racist empires while the United States was denying women and blacks the franchise and tolerating serial black lynchin
The feebleness of the government’s Espionage case against Assange is self-evident. It waited until 2019 under the Trump administration to indict him after long years of massive WikiLeaks disclosures. Publications that republished WikiLeaks information like The New York Times or Washington Post have never been charged although newspapers are not exempt from the Espionage Act.
The suggestion that the government is concealing information showing WikiLeaks has endangered the national security to protect sources and methods is fatuous. The government is notorious for declassifying or leaking classified information to publicize alleged intelligence successes or to demonize enemies. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, for example, leaked the name of CIA officer Valery Pflame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak to discredit Doubting Thomases that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, a delusion that occasioned the United States war of aggression in 2003. The catastrophic trillion-dollar misadventure that made Iran a regional hegemon continues to this very day.
Some suggested Assange’s free speech defense would have faltered because he was an Australian and WikiLeaks publications originated outside the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States declared in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. II (2020) that foreign organizations lack the same free speech rights as their domestic counterparts. True enough
But Assange could have asserted the First Amendment rights of his American audience to receive information about what their government is doing to defeat his Espionage prosecution. In Lamont v. Postmaster General, the Supreme Court recognized a First Amendment right of American citizens to receive “communist political propaganda” from Cuba. The Court further explained in Powers v. Ohio that a defendant may assert the constitutional rights of third parties if there is a “close relation” with them and there is “some hindrance” to the third parties’ ability to protect their own interests. Assange’s free speech interests in revealing to Americans what their government was doing aligned perfectly with the latter’s interests in transparency to hold their government politically accountable. Further, American citizens would confront more than “some hinderance” in defending their rights to receive WikiLeaks information in a criminal prosecution of Assange because they would not be a party to the proceedings.
If the First Amendment does not travel abroad, moreover, the government could suppress all foreign criticism no matter how truthful and informative to United States citizens. It could criminally punish any speech originated by a foreigner in a foreign country that failed to praise the United States as the world’s “indispensable nation” that scrupulously honors the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the laws of war. In other words, the United States could criminally punish foreigners for failing to become its propaganda organs to deceive the American people. It is inconceivable that such a law would pass First Amendment muster.
Assange, WikiLeaks, and the Espionage Act provoke deeper questions about the intelligence community itself and the value of spying. The Espionage Act postulates without a crumb of evidence that classified or national defense information is invaluable in fortifying the United States from foreign danger or in anticipating material developments abroad and adapting our foreign policy accordingly. In other words, the intelligence community with its vast access to secrets and resources is clairvoyant and saves the United States from national security blunders, ambuscades, or drive by shootings.
There may be greater intelligence hoaxes, but if there are, they do not readily come to mind. The hoax endures, like Nostradamus’ prophecies or astrology notwithstanding chronic forecasting errors, for example, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Soviet Empire, Arab Spring, the 1956 Suez Crisis, the Six-Day War, the Yom Kippur War, and the massive Israeli October 6 intelligence failure. In the intelligence forecasting world, there is no scientific certainty of the type that ordinary people rely upon to plan their affairs (like the force of gravity). The opposite story peddled by the intelligence community for power and money is fiction like the Wizard of Oz.
The hoax serves a psychological craving, like a placebo. Humans prefer0 certainty no matter how illusional to indeterminacy no matter how justified. A nation feels safer if its spies on adversaries even if national security is diminished by false confidence or the risk of provoking blowback.
An American is less likely to die of an international terrorist attack than by a falling vending machine. Yet the American people, through their representatives in Congress and the White House, eagerly spend trillions of dollars to prevent another 9/11 terrorist abomination with tools that have not aborted even one international terrorist attack in the United States. The notorious Shoe Bomber Richard Reid and Christmas Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab were foiled by airplane passengers, not by the intelligence community.
Transparency should be the coin of the realm, except for military deployments in times of actual or imminent war. The Espionage Act should be narrowed accordingly. All history teaches that the alarming evils of secrecy of the type exposed by the Church Committee are far worse for self-government and the rule of law than the theoretical loss of candor or compromise associated with transparency.
*Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan and author of American Empire Before The Fall. He is currently an international and constitutional lawyer www.lawofficesofbrucefein.com n
Andre Damon (WSWS) on X: "Reuters just reported exactly what kind of bombs the US has been sending Israel. Biden sent fourteen thousand 2,000-pound bombs – more than all other types combined. These bombs destroy whole city blocks. The destruction of Gaza is intentional. It's genoicde by design. https://t.co/8iS4m5vpRp" / X
Saturday, June 29, 2024
Friday, June 28, 2024
Moon of Alabama - Russian Note To The U.S.: Your Drones Are Now Targets
Moon of Alabama
Russian Note To The U.S.: Your Drones Are Now Targets
A new statement by the Russian Defense Ministry says:
The Russian Defence Ministry noted the increased intensity of U.S. strategic unmanned aerial vehicles over the Black Sea waters, which are conducting reconnaissance and targeting high-precision weapons supplied to the Armed Forces of Ukraine by Western states to launch strikes at Russian facilities.
This demonstrates the increasing involvement of the United States and NATO countries in the Ukrainian conflict on the side of the Kiev regime.
Such flights increase the possibility of air incidents involving the Russian Aerospace Forces' aircraft, increasing the risk of a direct confrontation between the alliance and the Russian Federation.
The NATO countries will be responsible for this.
The Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation Andrei Belousov has instructed the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces to make proposals on measures for rapid response to provocations.
NATO reconnaissance and radio relay drones were regularly patrolling over the Black Sea before and during recent 'Ukrainian' attacks with long reaching, western delivered weapons on Crimea. This was also case during the recent release of cluster ammunition over a popular beach near Sevastopol which has caused several civilian death and wounded some 100+ people.
While the drones are nominally flying in neural airspace they are obviously used for attacks on Russia assets in Crimea. That makes them, arguably, legitimate targets for Russian air defenses. Russia had so far held back at destroying them. This will now change.
NATO or the U.S. may well regard such attacks on their 'neutral' forces as hostile. Some will press for retribution. But I am convinced that mere attacks on drones will not be seen as sufficient reason to launch World War III.
Posted by b at 12:23 UTC | Comments (138)
[Salon] transcript of Judging Freedom - with Gilbert Doctorow, Ph.D
A reader has kindly sent in a transcript of yesterday's chat with Judge Andrew Napolitano in "Judging Freedom."
I wish to explain that my remarks in the discussion regarding the Sevastopol attack as a manifestation of state terrorism backed by Washington were informed by statements made a couple of days ago by a military analyst whom I consider the very best among those commenting on the Ukraine war, the Swiss colonel Jacques Baud. Hopefully he will appear soon on this same program to bring his neutral and highly professional point of view to global spectators. In the meantime I can recommend his book "The Russian art of war''
Transcription below by a reader
Judge Andrew Napolitano: 0:32
Hi, everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for "Judging Freedom". Today is Thursday, June 27th, 2024. Dr. Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you very much for your time. Professor Doctorow, is the United States at war with Russia?
Gilbert Doctorow, Ph.D.:
No, no war has been declared, but I think that Mr. Lavrov in making his comments, which are reported but haven't been published as such, his remarks to the American ambassador following this ... disastrous events in Sevastopol. I think that he was raising the level of threat to the United States. If we were at war, Russia wouldn't have a word to say about the confiscation of all of its assets that are now being frozen, because under the terms of a war, the United States and most of Europe would have every right to confiscate those assets. But it is heading in that direction, and we are a hair's breadth away from it, and this is what Lavrov had in mind.
Napolitano: 1:45
Here is what Lavrov said. Chris, if you could put up that full screen. "The U.S. is responsible for this massacre," referring to Sevastopol on the beach on Sunday, "and they will get an answer. All flight missions for American ATACMS missiles are programmed by American specialists based on their own US satellite intelligence data. Therefore, the responsibility for the deliberate missile strike against the civilian population of Sevastopol lies primarily with Washington, which supplied this weapon to Ukraine, as well as with the Kiev regime from whose territory this strike was launched. Such actions will not go unanswered."
2:27
That's on June 23rd, which was Sunday, the day of the attack. Is that the response to which you're referring?
Doctorow:
Oh, yes. That's what I'm referring to. And in the next day, there were reports that a Global Hawk drone, which is exactly the reconnaissance aircraft that Mr. Lavrov had in mind-- he spoke about satellites but the more pertinent directions in the final targeting of these missiles would be coming from that reconnaissance drone-- and there were reports that such a drone had disappeared from radar, with the interpretation being that the Russians had downed it ... with regard to russian ... talk show discussion of this very issue--
Napolitano: 3:19
Yes, yes, I was going to ask you that next.
Doctorow:
Yeah, the valid point they make is that these drones, like all other aircraft, have [trans]ponders and that this would have been turned off, not necessarily that the Global Hawk was shot down and landed in the sea, but that perhaps it was no longer recognizable. Of course, that is not the same thing as radar. So, it's disappearing from radar is a curious thing. The Russians have said nothing. The Americans have said nothing. We may assume that the Russians will be hunting actively these reconnaissance drones, knowing that they guide attacks like the one that took place. And there is talk about their hunting similar drones that are coursing all the time in the Baltic Sea. They are a direct threat to Russian security.
Napolitano: 4:26
Is there pressure on President Putin from his right, politically, or from ex-military or ex-intelligence, or from current military or current intelligence, to respond to this in a dramatic way with violence?
Doctorow:
Well, of course there is. And some of this is aired on Mr. Solovyov's program, which has always been rather heated from the presenter himself on down, calling for a very dramatic response. This is not in the nature of Mr. Putin, who reacts only after he has let the issue cool down a bit and found appropriate response in his understanding, but of course he's under pressure.
Napolitano:
I mean, can you-- what is the attitude of the Russian public? I can only imagine if something like that happened here on the New Jersey seashore or in Miami or in Los Angeles, the public would react here the way they did after 9-11. What is the reaction amongst the Russian public? These were children that were killed.
Doctorow: 5:49
Yes, the reaction is mixed, though. On the one hand, we have people who are hot-headed and who were responding just as you indicated. It's time to do something to show our resolve, that we are not soft, and that this should not escalate further because of perceived weakness. On the other hand, there is a widespread fear. A widespread fear of the immediate consequences of an escalation. There's widespread fear of what these, what these, the, the ATACMSs can do in the region of its 300-kilometer range.
We have friends who are in Crimea, they're vacationing in a little house, a tiny house that they have on the hillside of Theodosia, and they are very nervous. They're not responding as you're saying, well, let's go get them. No, nothing of the sort. They would like to live peaceful lives, and they are not looking for an escalation and for Russia to show its muscle. So the reaction on the ground is mixed.
Napolitano: 6:59
Here's the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, speaking in calm tones but using some very strong language. Cut number 10. Kyiv regime supported by the USA carried out a heinous attack against civilians in the Russian city of Sevastopol in Crimea. Ukraine launched five US-supplied ATACMS missiles armed with cluster munitions. An American Global Hawk UAV was patrolling the airspace over the Crimean peninsula.
There will be measures in response. The Russian Federation will continue to protect its people and its national security until no threat is posed by the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev that was breeded, raised and financed by the West. So a couple of phrases. "Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev", we've heard that before, "breeded, raised and financed by the West" and "cluster munitions".
Doctorow:
Well, the key word here is cluster munitions. There's been a lot of discussion about to and fro in the media in the West, and not only in the West, over what actually happened in Sevastopol. We know that five missiles were fired at Crimea, four of them were knocked out rather early in their flight pattern. One of them overwhelmed the Russian air defenses and got through rather far into its intended target area. And then it was knocked down by Russian air defense. And the parts of its warhead, its cluster bombs, spread out. A lot of them went into the sea, but some of them landed on the beach.
8:44
The question is not what these investigations, what was the actual target, were they Russian, were the Ukrainians going after an airfield said to be near one beach in Sevastopol, or what? What was the sense, what was the intended target that was missed because it was-- the missile was partially destroyed? This is irrelevant. The real matter is that it was carrying a warhead that has no application, no logical military application for where it was headed. The cluster bomb was by nature given to Ukraine by the United States in advance of the planned counter-offensive of this past summer, as a device that is used to attack infantry.
It has a devastating effect when it is used in the field of war, and that was the intended purpose. Instead it has been redirected to terror attack. There is no sense whatsoever in sending these missiles to Sevastopol, because there are no military targets worthy of the effort. And if there were, they would require a different type of warhead: a warhead that would blow things to bits, and not blow people to bits. These small bomblets are suitable only as anti-personnel use.
Napolitano: 10:13
And, of course, they have a devastating after-effect because of their dud rate, you know, the ones that don't explode until some child six months later picks it up and thinks it's a baseball or a rock or a souvenir of some sort. Professor Doctorow, did the United States engage in an act of terrorism as generally defined and understood internationally with this event on the beach in Sevastopol last Sunday?
Doctorow:
Well, given the nature of the weapon used, its intended capabilities, and the direction in which it was headed, the only logical interpretation of this act was terrorism. And since the act itself was made possible, was enabled only thanks to American intelligence and experts who guided the Ukrainians... yes, the United States is directly implicated in what was a terror campaign.
Napolitano: 11:17
Surely American intelligence knew there were families on that beach, it was a Sunday, it was a religious holiday, it wasn't just any Sunday, a holiday known for people who have access to the beach to go there. And yet they did this nevertheless, or and yet they did this knowing that, intentionally.
Doctorow:
When you are losing the war on the battlefield, and Ukraine is clearly losing the battle on the battlefield, it hasn't had the manpower, it's losing 2,000-plus men a day. and to try another way, a way that-- a manner of dealing with the war that has been present from the very beginning, and that is to terrorize Russia's civilian populations in the hope and expectation that they will pressure the Kremlin to get out. This has its own logic to it. The fact that it is inhumane, the fact that it is a violation of international law is clear.
At the same time, I want to draw attention to something else that has been in the news recently and bears closely on what we're talking about. And that is the indictment of Shoigu and Gerasimov by the ICC for allegedly destroying civilian infrastructure in the conduct of the war.
Napolitano: 12:52
Let me just stop you for a second, so everyone knows where we are. Shoigu is the former Russian defense minister, now head of national security. Gerasimov is still the chief of the military. do I have that correct?
Doctorow:
Yes, you do.
Napolitano:
Okay, please proceed.
Doctorow:
There are people in the alternative media who have been saying that it's all wrong, it's unjust. I disagree. I think it's totally just, but what's missing is the whole context. Taking the acts that the Russians are doing, which are destroying civilian infrastructure, let's be honest about it. As I said on one of my last appearances the Russians are not bunny rabbits and one of the responses--
Napolitano:
You did say that, Professor.
Doctorow: 13:40
One of the responses they have made to the occasionally devastating attacks on their own civilian populations and infrastructure, as in the Belgorod province has been to attack massively the energy infrastructure of Ukraine. Going back a year and more, when people spoke about the Russians dealing the Ukrainian population a nasty blow by leaving them in the cold in the midst of winter, that was light stuff compared to what's been going on now in Russian attacks. The Russians then were sparing in their attacks on the Ukrainian energy infrastructure: they only attacked substations. They caused inconvenience, they interrupted supply of energy to military units and military production centers. But they didn't really cause lasting damage.
14:45
What they have done this year is to cause lasting damage. Sixty percent or more of the generating power of Ukraine has been swept away by Russian attacks. This was made public by the "Financial Times", which later was denounced by Kiev for betraying them. Well, betrayal or not, it's a, the facts stand.
Napolitano:
Betraying them by revealing the truth.
Doctorow:
Exactly.
Napolitano: 15:16
There is a report-- we're going to run a little clip for you-- of US contractors headed to Ukraine. This is a Q&A. Well, it's a Q, but not an A, before General Patrick Ryder, who's the spokesperson for the Pentagon. It's frustrating, because he doesn't want to answer, but his silence speaks volumes. Cut number five.
Questioner:
There's a report out that the Biden administration is considering allowing U.S. military contractors in Ukraine to help maintain U.S.-provided weapons systems in Ukraine. Without getting into hypotheticals of what could be decided, what's the difference between doing this and having U.S. military boots on the ground?
Ryder:
Yeah, thanks for the question, Liz. What I'd say right now is I'm not going to comment on any reports of internal discussions or proposals that may or may not be under consideration. You know, the bottom line is the president and the secretary have been clear that we're not going to send us troops to fight in Ukraine, and that won't change.
Napolitano:
I mean, is this just semantics, "troops", "boots on the ground", or American human beings armed in civilian garb on the ground?
Doctorow:
The difference will be the reaction in the States when the body bags start coming back.
Napolitano:
Good point.
Doctorow:
There'll be very little political consequence to deaths of contractors, whereas there would be immediate coverage in the media and a great outcry if our boys are killed on the ground in Ukraine, and they will be killed. The Russians have now resorted to using three-ton glider bombs, which are devastating. And it's easy to understand that their reconnaissance is such that they will easily identify concentrations of these American contractors and deal with them very effectively.
Napolitano: 17:19
Are the facilities in Poland and Romania, where American military equipment is assembled, loaded, maintained, and repaired largely by American troops, literally boots on the ground? Fair game for Russian attack, in light of Sevastopol.
Doctorow:
Not yet. Everything goes gradually as far as the Russians are concerned. They want to leave options for further escalation. They're not going to jump into attacks on NATO countries until the moment comes. I think that we will see both by common agreement that the tests will be the test of how far does Russia go outside the boundaries of Ukraine?
The test will be when the F-16s are delivered. The latest scenario that Russian military experts who appear on talk shows are giving is they expect that these planes will be kept in Moldova. Why Moldova? Moldova borders on Ukraine. Moldova was part of the USSR. Moldova was a frontier of the USSR. And as such, it has hardened airports. By that I mean, they have airports with concrete hangers or underground storage for planes. So, these would be the safest possible place one would put such planes.
Secondly, the intent is a short hop, skip and jump to make it seem as though the flights are originating in Western Ukraine. The planes are launched from Moldova, they land briefly in whatever's left of airports in Ukraine, and then they go on to attack Russian forces or Russian heartland, depending on the missile load they carry. Well, the Russians will definitely attack Moldova, not a moment's hesitation. How they will approach attacking, as you say, Romania or Poland, that will take more consideration. There has to be something more painful that the Russians endure before they're willing to raise the risks.
Napolitano:
Here is General Ryder again. This time he is making a statement. I'd like your opinion on it. Apparently the Russian defense minister and Secretary Austin have spoken to each other for the first time since March of '23. Cut number four.
Ryder: 20:08
Secretary Austin also spoke by phone today with Russian Minister of Defense Andrei Belousov. During the call, the secretary emphasized the importance of maintaining lines of communication amid Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine. The last time Secretary Austin spoke to his Russian counterpart, then Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu, was on March 15, 2023. A brief readout will be posted to Defense.gov.
Napolitao: 20:35
I can't tell Tony Blinken, because he's absolutely opposed to any communications with his counterpart.
Doctorow:
Yes, this is the saddest thing about the progression of this war. It is all on body language now. There's almost no verbal contact between the parties to this confrontation. And the diplomacy as such doesn't exist. It is really a sadness that Tony Blinken, who was heralded by many liberals in the States when he was appointed or nominated by Joe Biden to fill that position at State, was spoken of as a sophisticate, as a person who knows different cultures, having grown up in France in a privileged family. And that this would be such a positive change from the slovenly, aggressive Pompeo whom he would be replacing.
And sadly, all that sophistication has been utterly useless. The man is incapable of conducting normal diplomacy. His travels abroad are only to issue U.S. diktats.
Napolitano: 21:56
What is Vladimir Putin's long-term goal?
Doctorow:
To remake Russia. And it's well underway, but it's a project that is in work. Russia is being remade in many ways. Economically, the Russian state has thrown away the playbook that it used from the 1990s, which were carried into the first two decades of Mr. Putin's position as head of government and head of state. That is, the liberal economics which has been thrown out, not entirely, but largely marginalized, as Russia has gone to a war economy, which means something that the Communist Party, for example, is delighted to see, that is to say the re-centralization of decision-making, master plans and heavy financial subsidies to preferred industries, not just military industries, but industries that the government believes hold a great future for Russia as it proceeds to become the fourth biggest economy in the world.
Napolitano: 23:18
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much. Thank you for your time, as always, much appreciated. Your insight is unique and invaluable, and we appreciate all of it that you share with us.
Doctorow: 23:31
Well, thanks for having me.
Napolitano:
Of course. Remaining today at 1:30, Richard Gage, the architect who has reassembled how 9-11 happened. At 2 o'clock, Phil Giraldi, at 3:15, Colonel Douglas McGregor, at 4 o'clock, Max Blumenthal, at 5 o'clock, Professor John Mearsheimer. An interesting day.
Judge Napolitano for "Judging Freedom".
Ben Norton on X: "The US government hired a "team of elite Wall Street financiers" from McKinsey, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and KKR to decide who should receive billions in subsidies from the CHIPS Act. This isn't real industrial policy so much as it's corporate handouts. https://t.co/Y6ivNy12BB" / X
Thursday, June 27, 2024
Wednesday, June 26, 2024
Christiane Amanpour on X: "“If we shall not end the occupation, we shall not have security,” warns Ami Ayalon, former head of Shin Bet, “and if we shall not end this occupation, we shall not have democracy.” In an extraordinarily candid interview, Israel’s former internal security chief condemns what he https://t.co/tUplALZY3G" / X
Ousman Noor on X: "I visited the site of Jesus's baptism & learned something shocking. The Jordan River is dry. Its water flow is 2% of its former level. Since the 60s, Israel's National Water Carrier has diverted water from the Sea of Galilee. A puddle remains where Jesus was baptised. This https://t.co/2Mu2lhqSHV" / X
Tuesday, June 25, 2024
Philosopher Kings or New-Age Militarists? - TomDispatch.com
Philosopher Kings or New-Age Militarists? - TomDispatch.com
Philosopher Kings or New-Age Militarists?
Silicon Valley and the Rush Toward Automated Warfare
By William D. Hartung
Venture capital and military startup firms in Silicon Valley have begun aggressively selling a version of automated warfare that will deeply incorporate artificial intelligence (AI). Those companies and their CEOs are now pressing full speed ahead with that emerging technology, largely dismissing the risk of malfunctions that could lead to the future slaughter of civilians, not to speak of the possibility of dangerous scenarios of escalation between major military powers. The reasons for this headlong rush include a misplaced faith in “miracle weapons,” but above all else, this surge of support for emerging military technologies is driven by the ultimate rationale of the military-industrial complex: vast sums of money to be made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)