Queen Elizabeth won’t get involved in Julian Assange case because it’s a POLITICAL matter – Buckingham Palace


16-02-20 08:26:00,

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman has said the Queen will not intervene to release Julian Assange, vowing to remain “non-political.” The statement seemingly confirms that Assange’s detention is a political, not criminal, matter.

With WikiLeaks founder Assange holed up in HM Prison Belmarsh awaiting extradition to the US, activist Chris Lonsdale penned a letter to Queen Elizabeth II last month, asking the monarch to “ensure that Mr. Julian Assange is freed from Belmarsh Prison unconditionally,” in the spirit of “justice, peace and fair-mindedness.”

In a reply posted by Lonsdale on Sunday, a spokeswoman for the Queen said that Her Majesty “remains strictly non-political at all times,” and Assange’s detention is therefore “not a matter in which the Queen would intervene.”

I have received a reply back from Buckingham Palace following my letter & petition to the Queen in support of #JulianAssange some weeks ago. The response says, basically, that the Queen cannot intervene in issues which are Political. This should be used in court. pic.twitter.com/GJVRiAXcTV

— Chris Lonsdale⏳ (@kungfu_mandarin) February 16, 2020

Assange’s supporters have long argued that his arrest and imprisonment are motivated by politics, not justice. Assange has languished in Belmarsh since his arrest inside London’s Ecuadorian embassy last April, ostensibly on charges of skipping bail in 2012. He is also facing extradition to the US to answer to a litany of espionage charges, related to WikiLeaks’ publication of classified US military documents detailing potential war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. If convicted, he faces 175 years in prison.

Buckingham Palace’s response seemingly admits that Assange is being persecuted on political grounds. 

Also on rt.com
Australian senator calls on govt to bring Assange home as journalist faces ‘death’ if extradited to US

Assange’s health has been in steady decline since his incarceration. Following a visit to Assange in May, UN rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer declared that the former WikiLeaks boss showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture.”

Melzer added that Assange could be “exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights… including torture and other cruel,

 » Lees verder

Syria, War, And Elizabeth Warren: More Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix


21-10-19 09:42:00,

Things have gotten very strange, and they’re going to keep getting stranger. Patterns are dissolving faster and faster, and the little emperors who’ve built their empires on those patterns are having to work harder and harder to hold it all together. Buckle up.

It has been firmly established beyond any doubt that it is now literally impossible for an American political figure to vocally oppose US warmongering without being labeled a Russian agent.

All the faux humanitarian concerns we’ve heard from the political/media class about what’s happening in Syria are completely invalidated by their total indifference to what’s happening in Yemen.

It sure is interesting how you never, ever see bipartisan cries of humanitarian concerns across the entire US political/media class unless it benefits the globe-spanning forever war. How cool would it be if even one time the political/media class united across partisan lines to forcefully advocate for a humanitarian foreign policy involving charity, food, indigenous rights, or literally any other humanitarian agenda besides military mass murder? Whenever there’s talk of withdrawing US troops from any region anywhere, the political/media class begins shrieking that this will (A) hurt humanitarian interests, and (B) hurt US hegemony. Their real concern is B, and B has nothing to do with A. But they’re treated as one thing.

America created Al Qaeda, then hated them after 9/11, then loved them in Syria, now hates them in Syria. They’re like a bad relationship that keeps breaking up and getting back together. It’s like damn America, either end it or put a ring on it.

You might think you’re a rebel, but if you truly wanted to stop being a blind follower and really stick it to the man you’d join up with centrists, right wingers, the US State Department, the CIA, and 100% of all mainstream media to cheerlead for the protesters in Hong Kong.

All abusive relationships have two things in common: abuse and forgiveness. Because without forgiveness, there’d be no relationship. This is especially true of the people’s relationship with government and its controllers. Don’t let them memory hole the evil shit they’ve done.

People like to feel like they support the scrappy underdog in foreign power struggles, but they often fail to account for the hugely important role alliances play.

 » Lees verder

Elizabeth II. setzt britisches Parlament aus


29-08-19 03:26:00,

Auf Antrag von Premierminister Boris Johnson hat Königin Elizabeth II. das britische Parlament für den Brexit suspendiert.

Nach verfassungsrechtlicher Tradition hat die Königin kein Recht, gegen einen Antrag des Premierministers Einspruch zu erheben. In diesem Fall konnte sie es jedoch, – und manche werden sogar argumentieren, dass sie es tun musste -. Tatsächlich kann eine Aussetzung des Parlaments nur aus technischen Gründen (z. B. im Fall einer Wahl) erfolgen, aber niemals, um ein politisches Ziel zu erreichen. Darüber hinaus haben die Aussetzungen diese Zeitspanne (einen Monat) seit Königin Victoria nie erreicht.

Entgegen einer landläufigen Meinung ist die Königin keine folkloristische Figur. Die Monarchie ist ein politisches System, das sowohl auf dem Adel (Eigentümer der Mehrheit der Immobilien), vertreten im House of Lords (nicht gewählt), und dem Monarchen beruht. Dieser hat die ultimative Macht, die er nur in extremen Fällen nutzen darf. Und das ist der Fall beim Brexit, bei dem das Parlament seit zwei Jahren das Leben des Königreichs verdirbt.

Die Tagesordnung des Unterhauses (die einzige gewählte Versammlung) steht unter dem Vorbehalt der Zustimmung des Monarchen. Damit gelingt es ihm, die Diskussion über zehn Gesetzesvorschläge im Jahresdurchschnitt zu verhindern, ohne dass die Presse sie erwähnt. Es sind in der Regel kleinere Texte, die die Privilegien des Adels oder der Monarchie einschränken.

Noch wichtiger ist, dass der Monarch das Oberhaupt der Streitkräfte und der Militärjustiz ist. Als solcher hat er ein sehr wichtiges Recht auf Zensur in den Medien, wie es während der Revolte in Nordirland zu beobachten war. Er ist auch das Oberhaupt der anglikanischen Kirche (auch im Oberhaus vertreten) und ist nun auch Beschützer anderer Kulte. Seine Rolle kann mit der des Revolutionsführers in der Islamischen Republik Iran verglichen werden: sowohl militärischer als auch religiöser Führer. Aus diesem Grund erhält die Königin jeden Morgen, zur gleichen Zeit wie ihr Premierminister, eine sehr geheime rote Akte, die eine Zusammenfassung der Informationen aus ihren Spezialdiensten enthält.

Die Rolle des britischen Monarchen erstreckt sich auf die Dominions. 1975 beispielsweise erzwang Königin Elizabeth II. den Rücktritt des australischen Premierministers Gough Whitlam, der die US-amerikanische Abhörbasis der NSA in Pine Gap schließen wollte. Die Königin war der Ansicht, dass das “5-Augen”-Satellitenabhörsystem an die Atlantik-Charta gebunden sei und von ihrem australischen Premierminister nicht in Frage gestellt werden könne.

Horst Frohlich

 » Lees verder

Elizabeth Warren Unveils Radical Anti-Corruption Platform

Elizabeth Warren Unveils Radical Anti-Corruption Platform

21-08-18 02:58:00,

Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday unveiled a sweeping set of reforms that would radically restrict and publicly expose corporate lobbying in Washington.

In a major speech at the National Press Club, she laid out the parameters of what she is calling the “Anti-Corruption Act.” If just half of it were implemented, it could transform the political economy of Washington and fundamentally upend the lawmaking process as it currently exists.

Warren began her speech by noting that only 18 percent of the American people now say that they have trust in the government. “This is the kind of crisis that leads people to turn away from democracy,” she said. “The kind of crisis that creates fertile ground for cynicism and discouragement. The kind of crisis that gives rise to authoritarians.”

In broad strokes, Warren is attempting to take the profit motive out of public service by making it extremely difficult for former lawmakers and government officials to cash in on their government experience, while simultaneously giving Congress and federal agencies the resources needed to effectively govern without the motivated assistance of K Street.

In 1995, when Newt Gingrich and the “Republican Revolution” took over Congress, he systematically dismantled the intellectual infrastructure of the institution, defunding major functions of Congress and slashing budgets for staff. The public-facing explanation was to cut back on wasteful spending, but the true intent was to effectively privatize lawmaking, forcing Congress to outsource much of the work of crafting legislation to K Street. What followed was an explosion in the lobbying industry in Washington.

Warren proposes much stricter restrictions on the revolving door between public service and lobbying, but, more fundamentally, flat-out bans on any lobbying on behalf of foreign governments, an industry that has come under increased scrutiny as a result of the trial of Paul Manafort, who made his fortune carrying water for foreign governments in Washington, often whose interests ran against those of the U.S.

Under current law, foreign agents must register and disclose any contacts with government officials — they would now be banned and under Warren’s law, all lobbyists would have to do what foreign agents do now.

Her bill would also mandate that the IRS release tax returns for candidates, and that the president and vice president be subject to conflict-of-interest laws.

 » Lees verder

Elizabeth Warren Demands in Letter That U.S. Military Explain Its Role in Yemen Bombings

Elizabeth Warren Demands in Letter That U.S. Military Explain Its Role in Yemen Bombings

15-08-18 07:49:00,

In the wake of a U.S.-backed bombing last week that killed dozens of children on a school bus in north Yemen, Sen. Elizabeth Warren is demanding answers about how U.S. military advisers support and oversee the Saudi and UAE bombing campaign in Yemen.

Warren sent a letter on Tuesday to Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command and top commander for U.S. forces in the Middle East, requesting that he clarify past congressional testimony about the U.S. role in the Yemen war. Warren’s letter referenced an article by The Intercept about an airstrike in May, based on a U.S. intelligence report that recounts in detail, minute by minute, how the strike unfolded and American munitions were used.

Votel has previously suggested that the U.S. has little knowledge about how Saudi Arabia and the UAE use American weapons, and does not track the aircraft missions that the U.S. helps refuel. During a congressional hearing in March, Warren asked Votel whether CENTCOM tracks what aircraft do after the U.S. refuels them. He responded, “Senator, we do not.” Votel also denied knowing whether U.S.-produced munitions were used in specific strikes when the media has reported on civilian deaths.

However, earlier this month The Intercept published a detailed article about a coalition airstrike in May, which targeted a site in Yemen’s Northern Saada governorate where a dozen family members slept in tents; the bomb happened to miss the tents, so the civilians survived. The article quoted an intelligence report that includes “what appear to be comments from an American intelligence analyst” who closely supervised the strike from a coalition command center in Riyadh, suggesting that U.S. military observers have detailed information about how strikes unfold.

Eric Eikenberry, an advocacy officer for the U.S.-based Yemen Peace Project, told The Intercept that the existence of an intelligence report shows that coalition airstrikes are more closely supervised than Votel had indicated. “When it comes to Yemen, the priorities of General Votel and the rest of the administration are obscene,” he wrote in an email. “We knew that the United States was providing the fuel, weapons, and intelligence for coalition strikes, and now we know that the U.S. is perfectly capable of assessing strikes on civilian targets that use U.S.

 » Lees verder