Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Political Convictions?

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by punkmar77, Aug 8, 2012.

  1. nclpw

    nclpw Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    1

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    I think you forget that no one here knows her personally, and we don't know if she did get ptsd after being interrogated or not. I`m making my assumptions based on what I've read rather than what I think might be the case(because there are no other sources). Again, I can't stress this enough, if she just made a statement it would all be over. But her hiding from her friends doesn't really support her case.

    Its not blind standardization and comparing it to bureaucracy is taking it a little out of line in my opinion.
    I think the point here was that this isn't a past time you do for three years and then go back to living a "normal" life. If you're not willing to sacrifice everything there will never be a revolution. Its as simple as that. We can spend the rest of our lives handing out anarchist flyers, it won't get us anywhere. But thats not the point of this discussion, is it? This is not about weeding out the weaker ones.

    You are making a lot of assumptions and excuses on her behalf without actually knowing anything about her mental state.
     
  2. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    ncipw:
    I've just read her tumblr, leahxvx.tumblr.com , where she mentions PTSD. No matter if it's the case or not, I will take her word for it. That I think is the right thing to do, and I have no idea why she should lie, or why I shouldn't trust it when she says it.
    I agree - like I've said before - that a statement would be nice.

    I think it is blind standardization. I'm wondering if I would fight for a community who is so fast to judge me a snitch, and who has no understanding for my personal story.
    That depends - if our point is to get public support, make people understand that anarchism could benefit them, then maybe spending our life handing out anarchist flyers isn't too bad. What's the alternative? How exactly are you going to start a revolution if not by informing people about the benefits of anarchism?
    To me, fighting the system actively is not something I think I have any abilities to do. If you have, then it's great. My interest is in creating an alternative to the system, through building a subcultural scene where people can be accepted for who they are, and will feel a strong sense of community, as well as be able to express themselves. I believe that it's the best way to breed solidarity, and to spread anarchists ideals as well, as I personally would fight for my friends and my "home", more than I would fight for an ideal, who's main representatives are people who can't accept me for who I am. I mean, didn't any of you get interested in anarchist politics through DIY culture and friends?

    Maybe I am. I'm just seeing everything I find to be wrong about the anarchist community today in the way people are calling her a snitch and such. I mean, what do you want? What's the point? "Kicking her out" of the culture? Making sure she can't go to the local squat without being called a snitch? What are you trying to achieve here? I think I'm taking some of my general frustration of the dehumanization of the anarchist community on to this particular case.
    If we want people to don't talk, breed solidarity - also when her solidarity failed.
     
  3. nclpw

    nclpw Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    1

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    Well damn in that case you should defend her mental disorder and not her heritage or background. I do know it is difficult to have psychic problems, but again, as I said: she shouldn't have taken on all that responsibility. But its too late for that now. She is a snitch. I'm starting to think the real problem here is the word. I could say "she did cooperate" if that sounds any better? You can't argue on that.
    Begging never got anyone anywhere. Stop hoping and start doing something for yourself and your friends. As mentioned, creating an anarchist space would be a good start?
    I truly respect your opinions(I mean it) and you should keep doing what you do. I'm not questioning your legitimacy.
    The thing is that "your" friends will not always be there to hold your hand(politics as well as other aspects of your life), and you should not have to count on a whole community to make a change for yourself.

    No one is going to kick her out, she chose to leave herself. All I want is more openness, I would have so much more respect for her and what she did if she just came out and admitted that she couldn't handle the pressure. No one is the "perfect soldier" and no one expects you to be.
    Well then create your own community minus the assholes in the community you are in today.
     
  4. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    ncipw:
    Well, she did cooperate (or at least all point towards that for now), so it does sound better, but what's the point?
    Maybe you're right, maybe I should focus on the statements she has made on her mental health, but I do believe that it is naive to not consider social background to be an element in any person. I'm not saying it's the only factor, and there are probably american students (like Matt and Kteeo) who are able to stand longer for this treatment.
    Begging? I'm not begging. We are creating a sub-culture, being active in squats or at least DIY shows, demos, making music, making DIY culture, and Denmark does have anarchists spaces such as the youth house and to some extend Christiania, where we attempt to cooperate through an anarchist ideal of democracy.
    I believe the cultural aspect of the scene to be of equal importance.
    Well, I do understand the opinions that you express, I do, but I can only say, that I don't believe I can do much as a single person. I involve myself in the artistic scenes I care for, and mostly my interest is in DIY music, so I book shows and play music etc. I believe that the cultural is a foundation for the political. But as for direct action and such, I do not see myself doing it anytime soon.
    Second, I'm not heavily involved in the anarchists squats, mostly because of exactly some of the stuff I have been complaining about in here - they disrespect me for liking other music, for wearing make-up, for a lot of things, there's a clear hierarchy. There's a tendency amongst them towards revolutionary romanticism, though they can't agree on an alternative, etc.
    That's why I care more for the cultural aspect - Here, I know people I can relate, and we can stand together on that.

    I definitely agree she should come out and say it. But it might take time, especially if she fears consequences...

    How? if you mean through music and culture, I can. If you mean through squatting and direct action, I can't.
     
  5. nclpw

    nclpw Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    1

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    No I was just saying, it started to feel as if we were arguing over which word to use about this.
    Well yes, and the social background not being an issue with the two others is the exact reason I don`t feel it has anything to do with it. I'm sure there are people that have been victims of war that would not have been able to stay in prison or that would "break" during an interrogation. But again, really picking on details.
    I was referring to the "spreading awareness" -part. In today society(at least in my corner of the world) anarchists are never taken serious when they try getting involved in politics(which is a joke anyway). I mean standing in the streets, begging people to take our flyers.
    Well thats no wonder if you're not accepted into their little hierarchy you're pretty much left alone to yourself and your friends. And its true that that is a problem, the squats are normally very tight knit and aren't as welcoming as they claim to be. Thats a big scene killer, but it doesn't have anything to do with the anarchist movement. There are possibilities to organize outside squats as well. There are anarchists that aren't interested in punk, as surprising as it may sound to the little teeny punk rawkers that rule the squats. Its such a contradiction though isn't it, having a ruling elite in the scene.

    And revolutionary romanticism is a big problem too, its not realistic and they do not know what they're getting themselves into.
    So, you are an activist already. Your local squatters sound like dumbasses, I wouldn't want to be a part of that even if I got accepted.
     
  6. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Nah, I rather think it's about showing that she did something bad for the scene, but we acknowledge that she did her best, or making her seem like a traitor who did something to hurt her friends intentionally. But i guess it is in the words.
    Maybe, but we can't tell their reasons why they can and others can - but the sociological facts is, that your background can be a part of it, and I would say military training is a reason why some hold out longer, and therefore, they can not be compared.

    The part of spreading awareness can definitely be a losing battle. Honestly, I don't know what else to do. I don't really believe in violence, and as much as I fully approve of direct action, it's rare to have the possibility for an action that can spread awareness and not be discredited immediately in the media. I'm not saying we should give up because of what the media is saying, but I'm saying that we need to think of how to spread awareness the best. I believe that the subcultural movements are the best way. I you can have a strong subculture, you have people who are willing to spread awareness - also amongst people not involved in the scene.

    Well, just like any squat or any scene, most people are okay. I can say the same about the danish scene, most people in the scene are dedicated and including, but there are a hierarchy with a group leading too much, and they are not necessarily so.
    It's true. I attend university studying social science - I have been trying to inform about the ideas of libertarian socialism amongst students there. I'm aware that these people are going to be part of the established system - hell, we all are - but any understanding of the ideals of anarchism can help further understanding to it. My hope is, that even though it's not a revolution, just a slight reformation, some of the ideals might spill over on the left-wing intellectual elite highly present at the university. And if it doesn't, well, nothing changes.

    I think somehow, I don't see the most important for me as changing society - I see it as getting a break from society, somewhere to go where people who are different can be accepted on conditions free of society's norms and authority. So I see the most important as building a strong scene.
    But this is where it's good that people are different - Somebody might have a great idea for ways to create real social change. I don't have that idea.

    I fully respect you, as well as Punkmar, for thinking that it's important to have people capable of taking the other battles the anarchist movement is facing. It's just important to remember not to start thinking of people as a military unit, but as individuals. I realize that you probably are way more active than I am in anarchist politics.
     
  7. Harrison

    Harrison Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    187

    1

    2

    Nov 11, 2009
     
    There are a lot of things to be said about this incident as well as this thread. First of all, I think her release has to be considered with some objectivity, though not too much to forget that she is a human being, and an anarchist like all of us. But the fact is that the other two were incarcerated before her and there's no sign that they'll be released any time soon. They are not cooperating. She was released after 18 days and left the city and there's hearsay that she cooperated. I am of the belief that the feds would not have let her leave so soon if she didn't provide some key information and I personally think she probably snitched.
    As for her PTSD/S, this is a considerable point. I've had just minor PTSD before and I can say it was the worst feeling I've ever experienced. Nothing is the same when you have it and I can't imagine more severe forms of it that might be brought on by solitary confinement/prison abuse.
    I don't know how well I'd hold up in prison (I hope decently well), which is a question I think every serious anarchist should ask themselves and be realistic about. But I would hope that I would never snitch on my friends and comrades because that's really the ultimate betrayal. It destroys people's lives all the time and it's unforgivable.
    You might say that she didn't have the will for it or the strength to endure what was forced on her and not everyone does but that shouldn't be written off because the other two are still in there. I agree with Punkmar that you shouldn't get into direct action if you're not willing to accept the consequences which everyone should understand can be severe.

    I think the main point is that this isn't some game we play. I think that anarchists are sometimes quick to forget the significance of their beliefs and that they/we are at war with the state. To say that most lefties aren't soldiers (official and unofficial) is far from a compliment. We need to be more of soldiers about our beliefs. This isn't to say that the military police are just waiting to kick in our doors and grab us by the hundreds (though who knows where things are headed). But if you're going to do something that might get you thrown in jail then fucking own that shit. Don't try to pass of responsibility or garner sympathy, just own it.
     
  8. fubarista

    fubarista Experienced Member Experienced member


    129

    0

    0

    Nov 13, 2011
     
    I don't know if it's true, but I saw a Tweet that Bradley Manning had agreed to a plea deal in which he' would admit giving documents to Wikileaks, which is what the government had wanted him to do so as to implicate Julian Assange.

    Manning isn't female, he was in the military, whether or not he's pretty would be a matter of opinion, and he does have a large support network. He was held for an unconscionable length of time in conditions that international observers called torture.

    I kind of feel sad for him, because I know that many of his supporters, people who claimed that they wanted him freed, voted for the asshole who brought indefinite detention without trial to the US. That looks like a major betrayal to me. But I think that to him and his lawyers, it might look as if he'd lost any chance of ever being released.

    On 6/11/2012 Shuei wrote, "Honestly, it's this view on human beings from the anarchists here that made me leave the anarchist movements," and an hour later wrote of still being a part of the movement through culture and media. I found that a bit confusing.

    Right now in the US, you don't have to be associated with any movement, know anyone who is, or have any dissident literature to be arrested. Anyone can be arrested at any time without cause, held indefinitely without trial, tortured, and even killed. That's the law. That's just how it is. It doesn't matter if you're young, old, pretty, ugly, anarchist, fascist, or whatever. If somebody doesn't like you, they can secretly denounce you to the authorities and you'll never know what happened. Or you could be arrested by mistake because the cops went to the wrong address, and once they''ve filled out the paperwork and you've been booked, they can find or provoke minor violations to keep you in prison for life anyway. As the Supreme Court said with regard to the death sentence, factual innocence is irrelevant.

    In fact, the US is still holding some prisoners in Guantanamo that it admitted years ago were not terrorists, had no association with terrorists, were innocent of any crime, and had been arrested by mistake. The government won't release them because it doesn't want to release them. One died recently, having spent most of the teen and adult years of his short life in Guantanamo.

    Maybe things will turn out differently in Greece.

    If I'm not entitled to a trial, does it really matter if my friends implicated me in something that I had or hadn't done, or if they withstood horrific torture to try to protect me? Either way, I'm still not getting out.

    If I wrote this on any other forum, a bunch of jerks would rush in to accuse me of gloom and doom, negativity, and not looking on the bright side of things. We got any jerks here want to try?
     
  9. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Harrison:
    Thank you for that response. I can definitely see your point of view here, yet I can see that you show some understanding my points about remembering humanity.
    I do have to point out though:
    We don't know how implicated the girl was in direct actions or anything illegal. All I know that she has done is owning books, preaching anarchism and participating in DIY culture. All of these things aren't actually a crime.
    This leads to the question - should everyone who participate in the culture, no matter if you involve yourself in illegal actions, or only involve yourself in a minor way be expected to have the strength to resists police interrogation and imprisonment? Obviously, that would be ideal, but if they can't, then what? They are still part of the culture, and in my opinion, it's important to find the space for them - for people like me.
    We have to remember, that we're all part of a subculture or a variety of subcultures, and the personal relations between the members of these go beyond who is politically active in direct action, who is "legally" political active and who is culturally active. Everybody knows each other back and forth. The obvious question is then - what to do when the police uses the non-illegally political active members of the scene to get to the ones involved in political action?
    In my opinion, that could be the case here. I'm not saying it certainly was, and no matter what she probably shouldn't have been promoted as a resisters the same way when she couldn't really resist, but I'm saying it's a possibility. And a very real threat to any subculture or political movement.


    Mymarkx:
    Yes, I can see why that would be confusing - I did "leave" in the sense that I have for long been much more involved in other subcultures and tried to keep myself a-political. It didn't work out for me, and I do see anarchism as a political ideal I can relate to, so I've started renewing my interest in anarchism, though I still only participate on a cultural level, making DIY culture, music etc. And of course discussions, reading etc.
    As earlier stated, that is maybe for the best, and I find the cultural part to be equally important in our culture (actually, for me it's more important as I've mentioned) - While other would disagree and focus on the political parts.

    What you're telling about Manning and the situation in the US is extremely frightening. It seems were facing dark times - and it's coming to Europe now.
     
  10. fubarista

    fubarista Experienced Member Experienced member


    129

    0

    0

    Nov 13, 2011
     
    Dark times is the precisely correct phrase. By revoking the Magna Carta, Obama took the US back nine centuries to the Dark Ages of the 12th Century when there was no due process and the king could toss anyone they wanted into a dungeon and throw away the key, or have them killed, purely at will, that being part of the Divine Right of Kings. I certainly hope Europe doesn't follow suit, but I'd guess that in order to deliver Julian Assange to the United States, England will have no choice. It's either revoke the Magna Carta, or risk the wrath of the US, the latter being something I don't think they're prepared to do. They're already violated international law by having law enforcement invade the Ecuadoran embassy, but they reconsidered and backed off, as that precedent would have left all their own foreign embassies open to invasion and no other foreign embassy would have felt secure in the UK. Maybe they'll weasel around it and say that they hadn't exactly revoked the Magna Carta, that it was a one-time exception to the rule, but if Manning implicates Assange, the US will demand that the UK hand him over and they will.

    There are other possible scenarios. Russia and China have been trying to draw a line on Syria and if the US attacks Iran they might respond, but Ecuador, even with the support of the ALBA countries like Venezuela, isn't likely to go to war against the US, UK, and NATO over one man. It isn't just Julian, of course, it is freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom from torture, but that's all wrapped up in Julian, a brilliant young man who figured out how to single-handedly (with lots of help, some of it questionable, but he alone came up with the strategy--it's in his early writings) fuck the world. He knew what he wanted to do, he figured out how to do it, and he did it. But where he naively may have believed that once the war crimes and lies were exposed, the evil-doers would be held accountable, the only thing that happened was that he became Whistle Blower Number One and Bradley Manning became Whistle Blower Number Two, and war criminals don't like whistle blowers.

    I'm reading an interesting book called Chernobyl: Crime Without Punishment by Alla A. Yaroshinskaya. After Chernobyl, the Soviet authorities made all information about the accident secret. Doctors were forbidden to attribute cancer deaths to radiation exposure, exposure levels were kept secret from those exposed, including first responders, and it took years before the truth began to be made public. But even after the fall of the Soviet Union, glasnost, perestroika, etc., when the signed documents condemning millions of Chernobyl survivors to remaining in highly contaminated zones, eating contaminated foods, and going without medical care were discovered, no high ranking official was ever punished. A few low level scapegoats went to jail, but not a single big shot. Of course many doctors, journalists, and others who tried to expose the truth had their careers and their lives ruined, but a full and timely exposure could have saved many lives, and punishment of those responsible for the cover-up could even have prevented Fukushima. It is knowing that they can't be held accountable that allows the Japanese government to keep promoting nuclear power and enables Obama to keep extending the licenses of aging, unsafe nuclear power plants and building new ones. That's where Assange failed. Kings, emperors, dictators, and similar tyrants cannot be held accountable. That's why Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "If you shoot at a king, you must kill him."
     
  11. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    mymarkx:
    Wouldn't you say it happened before Obama, with the anti-terror laws ultimately taking away civil rights? Or was it not before Obama that the rights were taken away from american citizens?
    None the less, Europe has a lot of anti-terror laws which ultimately takes away civil rights from european, but especially immigrant citizens.

    I can only agree, I'm pretty sure the UK will hand him over. The question for me is, what will they do when he is in US custody? A long lawsuit will follow, and that might lead to massive protests - if he is sentenced to death, he is likely to become a martyr for freedom of speech. Will the population wake up and realize the lies and injustice? Or will he be made into a criminal, a mere traitor through massive media manipulation - if the latter is the case, we're facing even darker times, as we can see further renewal of nationalistic ideology. Which can be turned to more oppression of anarchists, protesters etc.

    I can only agree, Julian Assange is obviously just a man, but the conflict he represent is huge. But also, he is an example of a person who has DONE something. His faith will have an impact - either positive or negative - for whistleblowers, protesters, etc. I doubt the states - Venezuela etc. - Will dare react much. All in all, his current findings certainly is to the advantage of US-critical countries, but his methods are as much a threat to them as to the US.

    Very interesting, and I can only say, I think you're right. It's rare that federal institutions are held accountable (just look at the immense amount of police brutality cases in the EU which rarely if ever leads to any court sentence upon police officers). Even more rare is, like you said, "big shots" being condemned. The Soviet is an extreme case - the hard part is being able to make the same conclusion in the western society - a lot is covered up, and the major catastrophes are rarely blamed enough on government officials, even if it should be. Just think of the Kathrina Hurricane. Everybody agrees that the Bush administration did horribly during it, but no one is held accountable. And because it was a natural disaster, it doesn't give the same opportunity to expose administrational corruption as Chernobyl did, as people are less likely to blame the government it seems.

    Maybe this is all just my thoughts - I'm not sure I can back it all up with facts, so let's say it's just a random line of thought that shouldn't be seen as an ultimate truth.
     
  12. fubarista

    fubarista Experienced Member Experienced member


    129

    0

    0

    Nov 13, 2011
     
    No, Shuei, it didn't happen before Obama. There were anti-terror laws and there was a loss of civil liberties, but Obama personally was the one who asserted the right to imprison and kill anyone without due process. When the Senate tried to remove the clause that said it applied to US citizens, Obama personally intervened and insisted that the clause be restored. Nine centuries of due process since the Magna Carta, and Obama personally revoked it. And yet many of the people who voted for him consider themselves progressives. I don't see how going back nine hundred years is progress, and I think progressive is just a synonym for fascist.

    As for "a long lawsuit," that's absurd. He's already considered guilty, so at most they might have a quick kangaroo show trial, if they think it will be good publicity. More likely they'll just throw him in a cell and find him dead the next day, call it suicide, forbid an autopsy, and have the body cremated or thrown into the sea.

    As for the US population waking up, my theory is that the reason there's so much cocaine and amphetamine use here is because much of the population has severe and chronic narcolepsy. That's excluding those who are genuinely sleep deprived because they have to work two full-time jobs just to pay the rent so they'll have a bed to sleep in.
     
  13. nclpw

    nclpw Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    1

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    But he is in Ecuadors embassy, does the uk even have a right to take him out of there? As far as I know, that embassy is technically considered Ecuador soil. As long as he stays there no one can ship him off. Well unless they storm it of course, but who would do that? All the politicians might write angry letters and shake their fists at it!1 There is so so much barefaced hypocrisy in the world today.
     
  14. fubarista

    fubarista Experienced Member Experienced member


    129

    0

    0

    Nov 13, 2011
     
    The Mossad.

    With the covert connivance and support of the US and UK, of course.

    Or US/Saudi/Qatari-paid "Al-Qaeda terrorists" like the ones in Syria.

    Or any of the many US death squads (they might even wear Polish army uniforms as an inside joke).

    Politicians are puppets.

    But anyone who throws a cog in the plans of the Rothschild/Rockefellers of the world, is likely to find themself a target of the multitude of governments and militaries they control.

    As capitalist imperialism relies almost entirely on military force, diplomacy has become more and more irrelevant.

    I mean, who would build a nuclear reactor on a coast vulnerable to tsunamis, in an earthquake zone, close to a densely populated major city? Damned near any capitalist country you can name.

    Who would build more nuclear weapons, submarines, aircraft carriers, and power plants before they'd figured out a way to safely dispose of the radioactive wastes from the old ones?

    You think anarchists oppose governments because governments are sane, responsible, and law-abiding? Hell, give me one out of three and governments would have an argument for existing.
     
  15. nclpw

    nclpw Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    1

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    (Haha that was sarcasm btw)
    Of course they wouldn't care that its not uk soil. But The Mossad? You really think they'd let the Mossad storm an embassy in the UK? Or any "terrorist" group for that matter. I have my bets on britains riot squad or they just send the national guard to evict ONE person.
     
  16. fubarista

    fubarista Experienced Member Experienced member


    129

    0

    0

    Nov 13, 2011
     
    Well, the Mossad does seem to have a steady supply of UK passports. Whether they conned people out of them, forged them, stole them, or whatever the cover story is, they have 'em.

    And they wouldn't wear Mossad jackets. They'd probably use the same Arabic disguises that they used when committing terrorist acts in Arab countries while using British passports, or perhaps dress as the ordinary British citizens that many of them are. Plausible deniability.

    My thinking is that the UK backed off after invading the Ecuadoran embassy because they became concerned about possible diplomatic repercussions. So if they go in to grab Julian, they'll let some other group do it and pretend those darned terrorists just snuck past them while they were having a cuppa. I agree it probably couldn't happen without British collusion, but I'm not sure the UK wants to take responsibility for storming an embassy. On the other hand, if the US tells them to, they don't have much choice but to obey. They've still got the Magna Carta and Obama doesn't, so they can't touch him without due process, but he has no such silly limitations domestically or globally.
     
  17. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Mymarkx:
    It's very interesting what you're saying - though quite a scary scenario.
    But what about Guantanamo? People were put there without trials or charges before Obama?
    I'm not saying he's doing anything to help the situation, but I still can't help but think it was all well started under Bush?

    Second, maybe he is already seen as guilty, but having a case that size it will take time anyway. What is interesting is how much media coverage it will get, in fear of civil unrest... Public protests.

    As for who is going to take him out of the embassy, I personally think that the British could do it, under orders from the Americans. It's going to be a short diplomatic crisis, but at this current point, I don't think Equadors has enough influence for it to become a larger conflict... Maybe they'll have in some years, with the economic rise of some of these countries, who might collaborate, but at this current point no...
    Second, if nothing else, they'll just claim he had gone out of the embassy before they took him or something - No matter how many eyewitnesses will say otherwise, the majority will believe that story.
     
  18. fubarista

    fubarista Experienced Member Experienced member


    129

    0

    0

    Nov 13, 2011
     
    It started under Bush, Obama promised to close Guantanamo, and instead Obama expanded it, not closing Guantanamo, and extending indefinite detention without trial (which includes extraordinary rendition, something nobody seems to mention, but when you disappear somebody, you just grab them, take them away, and nobody knows where they are, and also includes torture, since people who don't know where you are, don't know what's happening to you), and assassination to US citizens.

    It is precisely because a case would bring publicity that they'd probably have him suicided, one of the most common methods being to claim to have found him dead in his cell the next day and not allow an autopsy so that nobody can prove he didn't hang himself.

    The US has China and Russia surrounded with US military bases, and both countries have been strategizing how to avoid being conquered by the US empire. Both Russia and China have long histories and happen to be very good at strategy. The US doesn't win wars, it just spends trillions of dollars on wars, war profiteers are happy, people suffer, and that's all the US really cares about.

    You might be interested in "Some history of embassies and asylum" by Bill Blum: http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1440

    Excerpt:

    Like they say on Facebook, it's complicated.

    The United States appears to have many allies, the UK prominent among them. But when there are UN votes about Apartheid Israel, there are often only two votes with Israel, the United States and Palau, a small island totally dependent upon the United States, with everyone else either voting against Israel or abstaining, including the UK. Most of the world's countries are smaller and weaker than the US, but taken together could be a formidable force, and while they may not have been natural allies, having a common enemy tends to promote alliances. Rather than defy the US, or, in the alternative, to alienate every other country in the world, I think the UK would try some subterfuge.
     
  19. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    Then it's as I though yes. And well yes, for me that was the ultimate proof that Obama was just another politician. Even if he might not have been able to close Guantanamo, due to the lack of power for his administration, due to the republican have power in one of the houses (can't remember which), I would have liked him to speak more clearly against Guantanamo and for the human rights. But he hasn't really, it seems he barely touches the subject.

    Sounds very interesting. I wish there was more I could add here, but not really - (Maybe I need my morning coffee) - but It's definitely interesting. I'm afraid to say you might be right about Assange.
     
  20. fubarista

    fubarista Experienced Member Experienced member


    129

    0

    0

    Nov 13, 2011
     
    What mainstream media liar or Democratic Party disinformation specialist told you that Republicans stopped Obama from closing Guantanamo? Why did you believe them instead of checking the facts?

    Obama can do whatever he wants by Executive Order. He doesn't need the Congress, the Senate, Republicans, or Democrats to help him, and they can't stop him. He just issues an Executive Order (sometimes secret) and that's that.

    Obama revoked the Magna Carta. When the Senate (the US House of Lords) tried to remove the part that said his right to imprison or assassinate anyone without trial extended to US citizens, he forced them to restore it. They have no power over him, he has power over them. If they hadn't agreed to what he wanted, he would have done it by Executive Order without them.

    The US is not a democracy or a republic. Obama answers only to Goldman Sachs and the other big corporations that finance both major political parties.

    Constitutionally, in the USA only Congress can declare war. Do you remember Congress voting to declare war on Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Mali, Yemen, and Somalia? They didn't. Obama started those wars all by himself.

    If Obama wanted to close Guantanamo, he wouldn't ask Congress, he'd issue an Executive Order and it would be closed.

    But if he doesn't want to do something, instead of issuing an Executive Order, he asks Congress so he can blame them for it not getting done. But if he wants to do something and not be blamed for it, he asks Congress to do it and then has Goldman Sachs and other big donors put pressure on them to force them to do it. Without corporate funding both major political parties in the US would collapse, so they have to do what they're told. Obama, like any other US President, does whatever the big corporations tell him to do, and they also tell him the best way to do it. If he defied them, he'd be JFK-ed and replaced with somebody more obedient. When you know that you can be assassinated at any time unless you do what you're told, why not assert the right to assassinate anyone else who isn't obedient?

    It was Congress that refused to impeach Bush and Cheney for war crimes and for violating their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, but Congress had a Democratic majority at the time. It was Obama who protected Bush, Cheney, and other Republican war criminals from prosecution by using the Eichmann defense, invalidated at Nuremberg, that those who were just following orders when they committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, should not be prosecuted. He then proceeded to commit more war crimes than they had. But he won't say whose orders they were following (Bush was President and Cheney was Vice-President, remember--so whose orders could they have been following?) or whose orders he is following.
     
Loading...