The First Amendment protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers, whether it is the editor of the New York Times or the editor of WikiLeaks. The very notion of free speech is described as America’s “founding virtue” or, as Thomas Jefferson called it, “our currency”.

    Faced with this hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”. The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty.

    Assange’s ability to defend himself in such a #Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the “national security” investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was “active and ongoing” and would harm the “pending prosecution” of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show “appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security”. This is a kangaroo court.

    • Liberté d’expression Howard Zinn
      Le Premier Amendement en question


      Tous ceux qui grandissent aux états-unis apprennent que ce pays a le bonheur infini de jouir de la liberté d’expression. Et nous devons cette chance au fait que notre Constitution contient une Déclaration des droits dont le premier amendement s’ouvre sur cette affirmation décisive : « Le Congrès ne fera aucune loi relativement à l’établissement d’une religion ou en interdisant le libre exercice ; ou restreignant la liberté de parole ou de la presse ; ou le droit du peuple de s’assembler paisiblement et d’adresser des pétitions au gouvernement pour une réparation de ses torts. »

      L’idée selon laquelle le Premier Amendement garantit effectivement notre liberté d’expression est un élément de l’idéologie de notre société. D’ailleurs la foi dans les serments écrits noir sur blanc et l’aveuglement à l’égard des réalités politiques et économiques semblent profondément ancrées dans cet ensemble de croyances propagé par les faiseurs d’opinion américains. La ferveur quasi religieuse qui s’exprima à l’occasion de l’année du bicentenaire de l’élaboration de la Constitution en a livré suffisamment de témoignages.

      Pourtant, comme je vais tenter de le montrer maintenant, penser que la seule existence du Premier Amendement garantit notre liberté d’expression est une profonde erreur. Une erreur qui peut, parfois, nous coûter non seulement la liberté mais également, dans certaines circonstances, la vie.

  • A world war has begun. Break the silence.

    I have been filming in the Marshall Islands, which lie north of Australia, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Whenever I tell people where I have been, they ask, “Where is that?” If I offer a clue by referring to “Bikini”, they say, “You mean the swimsuit.”

    Few seem aware that the bikini swimsuit was named to celebrate the nuclear explosions that destroyed Bikini island. Sixty-six nuclear devices were exploded by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 — the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs every day for twelve years.

    Bikini is silent today, mutated and contaminated. Palm trees grow in a strange grid formation. Nothing moves. There are no birds. The headstones in the old cemetery are alive with radiation. My shoes registered “unsafe” on a Geiger counter.

    Standing on the beach, I watched the emerald green of the Pacific fall away into a vast black hole. This was the crater left by the hydrogen bomb they called “Bravo”. The explosion poisoned people and their environment for hundreds of miles, perhaps forever.

    On my return journey, I stopped at Honolulu airport and noticed an American magazine called Women’s Health. On the cover was a smiling woman in a bikini swimsuit, and the headline: “You, too, can have a bikini body.” A few days earlier, in the Marshall Islands, I had interviewed women who had very different “bikini bodies”; each had suffered thyroid cancer and other life-threatening cancers.

  • Ancien combattant
    Zao, Youtube, date inconnue

    L’Âge du désespoir : les fruits du soutien occidental à la violence extrémiste
    Chris Floyd, CounterPunch, le 13 novembre 2015

    Terrorisme : notre irresponsable part de responsabilité
    Le Yéti, Politis, le 15 novembre 2015

    (Deux jours après, le Yéti se faisait virer de Politis...
    http://www.politis.fr/Fin-du-monde-d-apres-sur-Politis,33038.html )

    Soyons ensemble, au-delà du cadre national
    Visceraoul, le 15 novembre 2015

    Choisissons Sun Tsu et non Clausewitz
    Gilles Bibeau, Le Devoir, le 16 novembre 2015

    De Pol Pot à ISIS : les racines du terrorisme
    John Pilger, le 16 novembre 2015

    Le courage de construire la paix
    William Martinet (président de l’UNEF), Médiapart, le 17 novembre 2015

    A Connecting Thing
    Susan Abulhawa, The New Inquiry, le 17 novembre 2015

    #Attentats #Paris #VosGuerresNosMorts #Zao #Ancien_combattant #Musique



  • Angry Arab : Quelques remarques sur le carnage de Paris
    As’ad Abu Khalil, Culture et politique arabes, le 14 novembre 2015

    Attentats de Paris : à la télé, la France a peur, la France est en guerre
    Samuel Gontier, Télérama, le 16 novembre 2015

    La peur, la colère et leur haine
    Valérie, Crêpe Georgette, le 16 novembre 2015

    Les exportations d’armement de la France entre 2010 et 2014
    Vogelsong, Twitter, le 16 novembre 2015

    Choisissons Sun Tsu et non Clausewitz
    Gilles Bibeau, Le Devoir, le 16 novembre 2015

    #Attentats #Paris #VosGuerresNosMorts

    Les jours précédents :


  • The problem of Greece is not only a tragedy. It is a lie.

    In their travels to the court of the mighty in Brussels and Berlin, Tsipras and Varoufakis presented themselves neither as radicals nor “leftists” nor even honest social democrats, but as two slightly upstart supplicants in their pleas and demands. Without underestimating the hostility they faced, it is fair to say they displayed no political courage. More than once, the Greek people found out about their “secret austerity plans” in leaks to the media: such as a 30 June letter published in the Financial Times, in which Tsipras promised the heads of the EU, the European Central Bank and the IMF to accept their basic, most vicious demands - which he has now accepted.

    When the Greek electorate voted “no” on 5 July to this very kind of rotten deal, Tsipras said, “Come Monday and the Greek government will be at the negotiating table after the referendum with better terms for the Greek people”. Greeks had not voted for “better terms”. They had voted for justice and for sovereignty, as they had done on January 25.

    The day after the January election a truly democratic and, yes, radical government would have stopped every euro leaving the country, repudiated the “illegal and odious” debt - as Argentina did successfully - and expedited a plan to leave the crippling Eurozone. But there was no plan. There was only a willingness to be “at the table” seeking “better terms”.

    The true nature of Syriza has been seldom examined and explained. To the foreign media it is no more than “leftist” or “far left” or “hardline” - the usual misleading spray. Some of Syriza’s international supporters have reached, at times, levels of cheer leading reminiscent of the rise of Barack Obama. Few have asked: Who are these “radicals”? What do they believe in?

    • Yánis Varoufákis a également affirmé au magazine britannique qu’il avait prévu « un triptyque » d’actions pour répondre à la situation que connait la Grèce aujourd’hui, et notamment à la fermeture des banques, pour éviter une hémorragie de l’épargne : « émettre des IOUs » (phonétiquement « I owe you », « je vous dois », des reconnaissances de dettes en euros) ; « appliquer une décote sur les obligations grecques » détenues par la BCE depuis 2012, pour réduire d’autant la dette, et « prendre le contrôle de la Banque de Grèce des mains de la BCE ».

      Cela laissait, selon lui, entrevoir une possible sortie de la Grèce de l’euro mais avec la certitude, explique-t-il, qu’il n’y avait de toute façon aucun moyen légal de la pousser dehors. Le tout pour faire peur et obtenir un meilleur accord des créanciers, selon lui. « Mais ce soir-là, regrette-t-il, le gouvernement a décidé que la volonté du peuple, ce "non" retentissant, ne devait pas être le déclencheur de cette approche énergique (...) au contraire cela allait mener à des concessions majeures à l’autre camp ».

    • Enfin Yánis Varoufákis, universitaire de formation, s’en prend à l’absence de débat de fond au sein des instances européennes : « Il y avait un refus pur et simple d’engager des débats économiques. » Et d’assurer que lorsqu’il exposait un argument économique, il était confronté à « des regards vides ».

    • The problem of Greece is not only a tragedy. It is a lie.

      In 2013, Yanis Varoufakis wrote: “Should we welcome this crisis of European capitalism as an opportunity to replace it with a better system? Or should we be so worried about it as to embark upon a campaign for stabilising capitalism? To me, the answer is clear. Europe’s crisis is far less likely to give birth to a better alternative to capitalism... I bow to the criticism that I have campaigned on an agenda founded on the assumption that the left was, and remains, squarely defeated... Yes, I would love to put forward [a] radical agenda. But, no, I am not prepared to commit the [error of the British Labour Party following Thatcher’s victory]... What good did we achieve in Britain in the early 1980s by promoting an agenda of socialist change that British society scorned while falling headlong into Thatcher’s neoliberal trip? Precisely none. What good will it do today to call for a dismantling of the Eurozone, of the European Union itself...?”

      Varoufakis omits all mention of the Social Democratic Party that split the Labour vote and led to Blairism. In suggesting people in Britain “scorned socialist change” - when they were given no real opportunity to bring about that change - he echoes Blair.

    • la suite :

      The leaders of Syriza are revolutionaries of a kind - but their revolution is the perverse, familiar appropriation of social democratic and parliamentary movements by liberals groomed to comply with neo-liberal drivel and a social engineering whose authentic face is that of Wolfgang Schauble, Germany’s finance minister, an imperial thug. Like the Labour Party in Britain and its equivalents among former social democratic parties such as the Labor Party in Australia, still describing themselves as “liberal” or even “left”, Syriza is the product of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, “schooled in postmodernism”, as Alex Lantier wrote.

      For them, class is the unmentionable, let alone an enduring struggle, regardless of the reality of the lives of most human beings. Syriza’s luminaries are well-groomed; they lead not the resistance that ordinary people crave, as the Greek electorate has so bravely demonstrated, but “better terms” of a venal status quo that corrals and punishes the poor. When merged with “identity politics” and its insidious distractions, the consequence is not resistance, but subservience. “Mainstream” political life in Britain exemplifies this.

      This is not inevitable, a done deal, if we wake up from the long, postmodern coma and reject the myths and deceptions of those who claim to represent us, and fight.

  • War by media and the triumph of propaganda - By John Pilger


    Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive their readers?

    Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what’s called the mainstream media is not information, but power?

    These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war - with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.

    The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an “invisible government”. It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.

    The information age is actually a media age. We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology by media; retribution by media; diversion by media - a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés and false assumptions. (...)

    In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn’t wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika - an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.

    #médias #propagande #information #désinformation #presse #conflits

  • The forgotten coup - how America and Britain crushed the government of their ’ally’, Australia

    Australia briefly became an independent state during the Whitlam years, 1972-75. An American commentator wrote that no country had “reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution”. Whitlam ended his nation’s colonial servility. He abolished Royal patronage, moved Australia towards the Non-Aligned Movement, supported “zones of peace” and opposed nuclear weapons testing.

    Although not regarded as on the left of the Labor Party, Whitlam was a maverick social democrat of principle, pride and propriety. He believed that a foreign power should not control his country’s resources and dictate its economic and foreign policies. He proposed to “buy back the farm”. In drafting the first Aboriginal lands rights legislation, his government raised the ghost of the greatest land grab in human history, Britain’s colonisation of Australia, and the question of who owned the island-continent’s vast natural wealth.

    Latin Americans will recognise the audacity and danger of this “breaking free” in a country whose establishment was welded to great, external power. Australians had served every British imperial adventure since the Boxer rebellion was crushed in China. In the 1960s, Australia pleaded to join the US in its invasion of Vietnam, then provided “black teams” to be run by the CIA. US diplomatic cables published last year by WikiLeaks disclose the names of leading figures in both main parties, including a future prime minister and foreign minister, as Washington’s informants during the Whitlam years.
    When Whitlam was re-elected for a second term, in 1974, the White House sent Marshall Green to Canberra as ambassador. Green was an imperious, sinister figure who worked in the shadows of America’s “deep state”. Known as the “coupmaster”, he had played a central role in the 1965 coup against President Sukarno in Indonesia - which cost up to a million lives. One of his first speeches in Australia was to the Australian Institute of Directors - described by an alarmed member of the audience as “an incitement to the country’s business leaders to rise against the government”.
    On 11 November - the day Whitlam was to inform Parliament about the secret CIA presence in Australia - he was summoned by Kerr. Invoking archaic vice-regal “reserve powers”, Kerr sacked the democratically elected prime minister. The “Whitlam problem” was solved, and Australian politics never recovered, nor the nation its true independence.

    L’article de John Pilger cite une richesse de documents qui détaillent les activités du MI 6 et de la CIA contre le premier ministre démocratiquement élu Gough Whitlam.

    Sur Wikipedia on trouve un récit du coup d’état orchestré par la CIA qui évite de mentionner les information disponibles aujourd’hui. Dans l’encycopédie de crowd on ne parle que d’une crise constitutionnelle. Va savoir pourquoi.

    1975 Australian constitutional crisis

    #Australie #politique #USA #CIA #MI6 #histoire