Mediaboss Marketing

By Amy Goodman & Denis Moynihan

Journalists are allowed to request documents that have been stolen and to publish those documents. So wrote U.S. federal Judge John Koeltl in a 2019 opinion dismissing a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against Julian Assange, Wikileaks and others. Assange published documents on the Wikileaks website in the very manner the judge described. Despite this, Julian Assange has been in solitary confinement in Britains maximum security Belmarsh prison for over three years. Before that, he spent seven years living in the cramped Ecuadorian embassy in London. Ecuador granted Assange political asylum as he faced mounting persecution from the U.S. government for his role in exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. is seeking Assanges extradition from the United Kingdom to face espionage and conspiracy charges and up to 175 years in prison. Assanges legal team is appealing the U.K.s approval of the extradition request. Meanwhile, a new case related to Wikileaks is before Judge Koeltl: journalists and several of Assanges attorneys have sued the Central Intelligence Agency and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo, alleging the CIA spied on them when they visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, recording conversations and secretly copying their phones and laptops.

Im a New York lawyer, Deborah Hrbek, an attorney who met with Assange at the embassy several times, said at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. I have the right to assume that the U.S. government is not listening to my private and privileged conversations with my clients, and that information about other clients and cases I may have on my phone or laptop are secure from illegal government intrusion. This is not just a violation of our constitutional rights. This is an outrage.

CIA spying on Julian Assange and his visitors became public through a Spanish court case against a company, UC Global, and its director, David Morales. UC Global was hired by Ecuador in 2012 to provide security for its embassy in London. The CIA, the new lawsuit alleges, recruited UC Global in January 2017, with the help of the late casino billionaire and Republican donor Sheldon Adelson, when Morales was at a gun convention in Las Vegas. Morales returned to Spain and, according to the lawsuit, told his employees that the company would now be operating in the big league and for the dark side with the CIA.

Donald Trump had been a big fan of Wikileaks during the 2016 campaign, after the site published thousands of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton and members of her inner circle. WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks, Trump said in a speech in October. Then, in March, 2017, Wikileaks published Vault 7, leaked CIA information that the agency itself later admitted was the largest data loss in CIA history.

Shortly after the first tranche of Vault 7 documents was published, Mike Pompeo blasted Wikileaks in his first public speech as Trumps new CIA Director:

WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence serviceIt overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations. Its time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service.

Last year, Yahoo News exposed a 2017 CIA plot to kidnap and possibly kill Julian Assange while in the Ecuadorian embassy. Yahoo reported that the plot was discussed at the highest levels of the Trump administration.

Plots to assassinate a publisher, warrantless surveillance of private conversations and secret duplication of attorneys and journalists private electronic devices all echo the notoriously criminal conduct of the Nixon administration in the early 1970s.

Back then, the target was whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who leaked The Pentagon Papers, a secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam that detailed the extent to which successive U.S. administrations lied to the public about the war. Dan Ellsberg was charged with espionage and faced life in prison.

President Nixons obsession with leaks led him to order the burglary of Ellbergs psychiatrists office, starting the chain of events that led to the Watergate scandal and Nixons resignation. When the presiding judge in Ellsbergs trial learned of the governments illegal conduct, he dismissed the case.

Fifty years later, First Amendment protections for publishers of government secrets, illegal CIA spying and more are before a federal judge again. Judge John Koeltl, as a young lawyer, served on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. Now presiding over this case, filed by journalists and Assanges attorneys, expect more CIA criminality to come to light. President Biden and his Justice Department should immediately drop all charges against Julian Assange.

Go here to see the original:
Assange Attorneys and Journalists Sue the CIA Over Spying - Democracy Now!

Gazprom began delivery of 700 million cubic meters (cm) of extra natural gas to Hungary, State Secretary Tamas Menczer announced on Facebook last weekend. This follows Foreign Minister Peter Szijjartos controversial trip to Moscow in July to request the gas over and above the long-term gas agreement signed last year for 4.5 billion cubic cm/y, or roughly half of Hungarys demand. With Western gas markets drying up, the Hungarian government became highly concerned about the winter and rushed to secure more gas from Moscow, despite the EUs consensus on reducing gas dependence on Russia. Menczer stated that in the first phase, until the end of August, 2.6 million cm of additional gas will arrive from the south via the Turkish Stream pipeline, and negotiations are already underway for September deliveries. It was not revealed how much the Hungarian government is paying for the gas.

Unsurprisingly, the government-controlled media this week launched vicious character attacks against Csaba Vasvari, a senior judge, after he criticised the governments approach towards the judiciary. The judge told The Observer: He and his colleagues on the bench have been witnessing external and internal influence attempts. He cited cases where court officials discussed firing or making life uncomfortable for judges who are too autonomous or had expressed concerns about nepotism when relatively unqualified friends or family members of high-ranking politicians were appointed to senior positions of the court system. The revelation is a massive blow to the Hungarian government, which is trying to convince the European Commission that it is not interfering in the judiciary as it pleads to unlock frozen EU funds. Among the attacks were that Vasvari served during the terror of the previous social-liberal government and sentenced innocent protesters to several years in prison. The government-affiliated daily Magyar Nemzet claimed that the paragraph containing this bit of info had been removed from his Wikipedia page in order to whitewash his reputation. In 2006, violent protests erupted following the leaked internal speech of then prime minister Ferenc Gyurcsany, who admitted he lied during the election campaign to secure victory. Right-wing media see the 2006 events as the original sin of the leftist government and proof they cant be trusted, and it is a typical strategy to associate people with the 2006 events to undermine their credibility.

Hungarys National Ambulance Service (OMSZ) announced it was conducting a pilot project for cycling ambulances. The electric bikes would be deployed primarily in cities, especially in areas with the most calls, such as Budapest. Tamas Kramarics, the first Hungarian paramedic on an e-bike, explained in a video that in England paramedics on bikes have been deployed for 20 years and help 17,000 people yearly. Nobody is going to substitute traditional ambulances with e-bikes, but all the necessary equipment to save lives can be transported on bikes, he says. Paramedics can apply voluntarily and receive extra pay for their e-bike shifts. Kramarics said he will mostly bike on the pedestrian streets of Budapest. The OMSZ confirmed the program will officially start in the spring of 2023.

See the rest here:
Democracy Digest: Paris Probes Babis while Spirit of Thatcher Lives On in Czechia - Balkan Insight

One of the most important races on the August ballot is the Democratic primary to decide who takes on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in November: Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried vs. Congressman Charlie Crist.

As the race goes down the home stretch, campaign donations have increasingly become an issue in the race. While both campaigns have hundreds of small-dollar donations, NBC 6 Investigators wanted to look at the major funders of both the candidates.

One of the most recent large donations was $100,000 from Michael Fernandez. In total, hes given Fried more than $400,000. Fernandez usually gives to Republican candidates; most notably supporting Jeb Bush or other opponents of then-candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primary for president.

Her Bold Move Action, a group supporting women candidates who support abortion access, donated $100,000 to Fried.

Fried has received several hundred thousand dollars from political committees commonly used by large sugar companies, public utilities, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, and the big business advocacy arm the Associated Industries of Florida.

Education for All, Floridians for Economic Advancement, Floridians for a Stronger Democracy, Florida Alliance for Better Government, and other similarly titled committees are largely funded by Florida Power and Light and its parent company NextEra Energy, sugar company Florida Crystals and Associated Industries. Usually, the donations come in the form of $10,000 or $15,000 chunks. The most recent ones were in July.

The NBC 6 Investigators get results

The Crist-supporting VoteWater advocacy group earlier drew attention to the donations from the sugar companies. NBC 6 requested a comment from Frieds campaign and has not yet heard back.

Political committees are a way for individuals, corporations, unions, other interests to hide money so to speak. This is all legal under Florida law, said NBC 6 political analyst Carlos Curbelo.

Curbelo says big business groups donate to Fried for several reasons. First, companies usually donate to get the ear of their regulators and as commissioner of agriculture, Fried plays a key role in regulating big industry. Some of their donations came into Frieds political committee Florida Consumers First before she announced her run for governor.

They just know her because theyve had to interact with her over the last four years. So, a lot of times companies and individuals feel comfortable supporting someone they know, Curbelo said.

Second, many of these companies may dislike Crist more than they like Fried, and they want to make his life difficult. When he was the Republican attorney general and governor, Crist often clashed with FPL and big sugar companies.

Charlie Crist is a populist. And even when he was a Republican governor, he still had a strong populist streak, Curbelo said.

Representative Charlie Crist has raised more money in the race for governor. He got an early boost from transferring $185,000 from his campaign for U.S. Congress.

Just this month, Crist received a $500,000 donation from the American Federation of Teachers, the largest teachers union in the country. Local and state teachers unions have also supported Crists campaign financially.

Then wealthy liberal philanthropists Barbara Steifel and Francoise Haasch-Jones have also cut checks totaling several hundreds of dollars.

Curbelo says the donations show that the states Democratic establishment is backing Crist over Fried.

Charlie Crist has fully transitioned to being a solid blue democrat. Charlie Crist was a Republican. Then he became an independent. For a time, he was a fairly centrist Democrat. And now, hes got the full support of the Democratic establishment, Curbelo said.

Crist, however, does also have some political committee donations. NBC 6 Investigators found one group called Winning Florida run by Fort Lauderdale election attorney Jason Blank gave to both Crist and Fried. That organization is partially funded by Florida sugar and utility interests.

You can explore the candidates donations online at the secretary of states database for:

Nikki Fried and Frieds political committee

Charlie Crist and his political committee

See more here:
Here Are the Major Donors to Democratic Gov. Candidates Fried and Crist - NBC 6 South Florida

Democracy is the problem that capital is always striving to solve. To maintain its rates of profit, it seeks to drive down the taxes it must pay and annul the regulations that defend the living world, workers and consumers. This tends to be unpopular. Governments that permit beautiful places to be trashed, workers lives to be endangered and consumers to be conned might find themselves voted out of office. So fixes need to be found.

Political funding often does the job: research from the US shows how, generally, the party that attracts the most money wins. Distraction works pretty well, especially when it takes the form of culture wars. The billionaire press does a sterling job at misrepresenting our choices to favour the very rich. But you can never be too careful. Its safer, if possible, to bypass democracy altogether.

How? One approach is to create places where the usual rules do not apply and citizens have less decision-making power. Im talking about freeports. In crucial respects, these special economic zones operate as if they were outside a nations borders. They are the equivalent of the royal forests of medieval England. Forest derives from the Latin foris, which means outside. The forests were hunting estates where the kings private interests overrode the rights of the common people, elevating them beyond the usual laws of the land. The Westminster government has so far designated eight freeports in England, and the Scottish government is considering bids for two.

Their objectives were set by an advisory panel chaired by the two most ardent supporters of freeports in the government: Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. The panel was composed of two public officials, two economists, five industry lobbyists, one cities advocate, one venture capitalist and two members of dark-money thinktanks (lobby groups that refuse to reveal who funds them). No trade unions, political rights, environmental or public interest groups were represented.

The new freeports will be run by operators, among whom are some highly controversial private companies. Companies using a freeport can claim a wide range of customs privileges and tax cuts. These include business rate relief, which will deprive central government of income (because local authorities will be fully compensated by the Exchequer for the loss of rates), and employers national insurance relief, which creates a two-tier workforce: cheap and even cheaper.

The government has also offered a radical curtailment of planning rules in these zones. Its not clear, since its attempt to demolish much of the planning system collapsed in the wake of a spectacular byelection defeat, whether this promise still holds. Like most important aspects of freeports, the policy is opaque and inscrutable. But the original proposals, which have nowhere been publicly amended, offer businesses permitted development rights and local development orders, allowing them to build without the usual planning requirements.

Another offer is a simpler framework for environmental assessment. Simpler, like streamlined and flexible, is government-speak for the removal of public protections. On Teesside, environmental standards already seem to have been junked to make way for the coming freeport.

A further freeport promise is to identify opportunities for regulatory flexibility and new regulatory sandboxes. A regulatory sandbox is a place where you can test new products in a real setting, without being constrained by the usual rules. The government gives the following example: a company trialling new automated vehicles, which, in a freeport, would not require regulatory approval. This sounds to me like a formula for putting workers at risk. In none of the government documents that Ive read on freeports is there a word about democracy.

There is a further, extraordinary aspect, which is beginning to come to public attention. While the tax sites and customs sites in a freeport cover a maximum of a few hundred hectares, the operators are allowed to set an outer boundary with a diameter of up to 45km (28 miles). Where a very strong case, with a clear economic rationale, is made, the area can be even wider. There must have been some very strong cases, because some of these zones are 75km from point to point. The Plymouth and South Devon freeport incorporates the whole of Dartmoor and the entire South Hams region. The Southampton freeport includes the New Forest and the Isle of Wight. The East Midlands zone extends from Nottingham to Leicester and Burton upon Trent to Upper Broughton. In Suffolk and Essex, everywhere from Sudbury to Felixstowe and Needham Market to Clacton-on-Sea is included. The Humber freeport boundary extends from Spurn Head to Howden; Teessides from Peterlee to Staithes and Redcar to Dinsdale; East Londons from Barking to London Gateway, and Liverpools from Birkenhead to Urmston.

What these boundaries mean is, as always, clear as mud. When I asked the government to show me the very strong cases, its spokesperson told me we dont publish that information, then refused to elaborate. Perhaps its because the government has told private operators that the information contained in their bids is commercially sensitive. This is another way in which theyre protected from democracy: they are not subject to the transparency and accountability required of public bodies.

The Department for Levelling Up tells me: It is categorically not the case that the entire area has been earmarked for development or has special planning status. But if there is one thing weve learned in recent years, its to attend to what the written policy says, not to what the government says it says. I think I have now read every public official document on freeports in the United Kingdom, and I have found no such assurance. On the contrary, one of them states: Outside of customs and tax sites, wider Freeport levers, including planning freedoms ... should be targeted within the Freeport Outer Boundary.

Understandably, all this opacity is beginning to cause alarm. Some people have proposed an even more sinister agenda: the government wants to turn these places into charter cities, corporate fiefs in which environmental and workplace protections are almost entirely stripped away. There is, as yet, no evidence of this. But if any senior politician is biddable and extreme enough to extend the stupidities of freeports, it is Liz Truss. Last month she started promoting the idea of low-tax, low-regulation investment zones. As usual, she seemed to have little idea what she meant by this: the line was probably fed to her by some unaccountable thinktank. Is it a repackaging of freeports, or something else?

In any case, it will deliver nothing but harm. Freeports attract organised crime, money-laundering, drug-trafficking and terrorist finance, while bringing minimal benefits to the nations that host them. But this was never about improving our lives. On the contrary, its about subordinating our needs to those of favoured capital.

This article was amended on 18 August 2022. An earlier version stated that freeports business rates relief deprives local authorities of income; however, the government says it will fully reimburse local authorities, so the cost will be to the Exchequer, not to local authorities.

Go here to see the original:
Welcome to the freeport, where turbocapitalism tramples over British democracy - The Guardian

Content

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

To look on the bright side for a moment, one effect of the Republican assault on electionswhich takes the form, naturally, of the very thing Republicans accuse Democrats of doing: rigging the systemmight be to open our eyes to how undemocratic our democracy is. Strictly speaking, American government has never been a government by the people.

This is so despite the fact that more Americans are voting than ever before. In 2020, sixty-seven per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot for President. That was the highest turnout since 1900, a year when few, if any, women, people under twenty-one, Asian immigrants (who could not become citizens), Native Americans (who were treated as foreigners), or Black Americans living in the South (who were openly disenfranchised) could vote. Eighteen per cent of the total population voted in that election. In 2020, forty-eight per cent voted.

Some members of the losers party have concluded that a sixty-seven-per-cent turnout was too high. They apparently calculate that, if fewer people had voted, Donald Trump might have carried their states. Last year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, legislatures in nineteen states passed thirty-four laws imposing voting restrictions. (Trump and his allies had filed more than sixty lawsuits challenging the election results and lost all but one of them.)

In Florida, it is now illegal to offer water to someone standing in line to vote. Georgia is allowing counties to eliminate voting on Sundays. In 2020, Texas limited the number of ballot-drop-off locations to one per county, insuring that Loving County, the home of fifty-seven people, has the same number of drop-off locations as Harris County, which includes Houston and has 4.7 million people.

Virtually all of these reforms will likely make it harder for some people to vote, and thus will depress turnoutwhich is the not so subtle intention. This is a problem, but it is not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that, as the law stands, even when the system is working the way its designed to work and everyone who is eligible to vote does vote, the government we get does not reflect the popular will. Michael Kinsleys law of scandal applies. The scandal isnt whats illegal. The scandal is whats legal.

It was not unreasonable for the Framers to be wary of direct democracy. You cant govern a nation by plebiscite, and true representative democracy, in which everyone who might be affected by government policy has an equal say in choosing the people who make that policy, had never been tried. So they wrote a rule book, the Constitution, that places limits on what the government can do, regardless of what the majority wants. (They also countenanced slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, excluding from the electorate groups whose life chances certainly might be affected by government policy.) And they made it extremely difficult to tinker with those rules. In two hundred and thirty-three years, they have been changed by amendment only nine times. The last time was fifty-one years ago.

You might think that the further we get from 1789 the easier it would be to adjust the constitutional rule book, but the opposite appears to be true. We live in a country undergoing a severe case of ancestor worship (a symptom of insecurity and fear of the future), which is exacerbated by an absurdly unworkable and manipulable doctrine called originalism. Something that Alexander Hamilton wrote in a newspaper columnthe Federalist Papers are basically a collection of op-edsis treated like a passage in the Talmud. If we could unpack it correctly, it would show us the way.

The Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would probably not have been ratified, is essentially a deck of counter-majoritarian trump cards, a list, directed at the federal government, of thou-shalt-nots. Americans argue about how far those commandments reach. Is nude dancing covered under the First Amendments guarantee of the freedom of expression? (It is.) Does the Second Amendment prohibit a ban on assault weapons? (Right now, its anyones guess.) But no one proposes doing away with the first ten amendments. They underwrite a deeply rooted feature of American life, the I have a right syndrome. They may also make many policies that a majority of Americans say they favor, such as a ban on assault weapons, virtually impossible to enact because of an ambiguous sentence written in an era in which pretty much the only assault weapon widely available was a musket.

Some checks on direct democracy in the United States are structural. They are built into the system of government the Framers devised. One, obviously, is the Electoral College, which in two of the past six elections has chosen a President who did not win the popular vote. Even in 2020, when Joe Biden got seven million more votes than his opponent, he carried three states that he needed in order towin the Electoral CollegeArizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvaniaby a total of about a hundred thousand votes. Flip those states and we would have elected a man who lost the popular vote by 6.9 million. Is that what James Madison had in mind?

Another check on democracy is the Senate, an almost comically malapportioned body that gives Wyomings five hundred and eighty thousand residents the same voting power as Californias thirty-nine million. The District of Columbia, which has ninety thousand more residents than Wyoming and twenty-five thousand more than Vermont, has no senators. Until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, in 1913, senators were mostly not popularly elected. They were appointed by state legislatures. Republicans won a majority of votes statewide in Illinois in the 1858 midterms, but Abraham Lincoln did not become senator, because the state legislature was controlled by Democrats, and they reappointed StephenA. Douglas.

Even though the Senate is split fifty-fifty, Democratic senators represent forty-two million more people than Republican senators do. As Eric Holder, the former Attorney General, points out in his book on the state of voting rights, Our Unfinished March (One World), the Senate is lopsided. Half the population today is represented by eighteen senators, the other half by eighty-two. The Senate also packs a parliamentary death ray, the filibuster, which would allow forty-one senators representing ten per cent of the public to block legislation supported by senators representing the other ninety per cent.

Many recent voting regulations, such as voter-I.D. laws, may require people to pay to obtain a credential needed to vote, like a drivers license, and so Holder considers them a kind of poll taxwhich is outlawed by the Twenty-fourth Amendment. (Lower courts so far have been hesitant to accept this argument.)

But the House of Representativesthats the peoples house, right? Not necessarily. In the 2012 Presidential election, Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by five million votes, and Democrats running for the House got around a million more votes than Republicans, but the Republicans ended up with a thirty-three-seat advantage. Under current law, congressional districts within a state should be approximately equal in population. So how did the Republicans get fewer votes but more seats? Its the same thing that let StephenA. Douglas retain his Senate seat in 1858: partisan gerrymandering.

This is the subject of Nick Seabrooks timely new book, One Person, One Vote: A Surprising History of Gerrymandering in America (Pantheon), an excellent, if gloomy, guide to the abuse (or maybe just the use) of an apparently mundane feature of our system of elections: districting.

We tend to think of a gerrymander as a grotesquely shaped legislative district, such as the salamander-like Massachusetts district that was drawn to help give one party, the Democratic-Republicans, a majority in the Massachusetts Senate in the election of 1812. The governor of the state, Elbridge Gerry, did not draw the district, but he lent his name to the practice when he signed off on it.(Seabrook tells us that Gerrys name is pronounced with a hard G, but its apparently O.K. to pronounce gerrymander jerry.)

Gerrys gerrymander was by no means the first, however. There was partisan gerrymandering even in the colonies. In fact, the only traditional districting principle that has been ubiquitous in America since before the founding, Seabrook writes, is the gerrymander itself. Thats the way the system was set up.

Partisan gerrymandering has produced many loopy districts through the years, but today, on a map, gerrymandered districts often look quite respectable. No funny stuff going on here! Thats because computer software can now carve out districts on a street-by-street and block-by-block level. A favorite trick is moving a district line so that a sitting member of Congress or a state legislator is suddenly residing in another district. Its all supposed to be done sub rosa, but, Seabrook says, those in the business of gerrymandering have a tendency to want to brag about their exploits.

Continue reading here:
American Democracy Was Never Designed to Be Democratic - The New Yorker