When the director of the CIA, an unelected public servant, publicly demonizes a publisher such as WikiLeaks as a “fraud,” “coward” and “enemy,” it puts all journalists on notice, or should. Pompeo’s next talking point, unsupported by fact, that WikiLeaks is a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” is a dagger aimed at Americans’ constitutional right to receive honest information about their government. This accusation mirrors attempts throughout history by bureaucrats seeking, and failing, to criminalize speech that reveals their own failings…
Words matter, and I assume that Pompeo meant his when he said, “Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms. He’s sitting in an embassy in London. He’s not a U.S. citizen.” As a legal matter, this statement is simply false. It underscores just how dangerous it is for an unelected official whose agency’s work is rooted in lying and misdirection to be the sole arbiter of the truth and the interpreter of the Constitution.
What’s most unique about Mike Pompeo isn’t the fact he’s a terrible human being, it’s the fact he’s so transparent and shameless about it. This became crystal clear last April when I read the transcript of a speech he gave at UAE-funded think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
First, he falsely characterized Wikileaks as a hostile non-state intelligence agency (despite lauding it during the election), and then used this false categorization to launch an attack on the First Amendment.
So we face a crucial question: What can we do about this? What can and should CIA, the United States, and our allies do about the unprecedented challenge posed by these hostile non-state intelligence agencies?
While there is no quick fix—no foolproof cure—there are steps that we can take to undercut the danger. First, it is high time we called out those who grant a platform to these leakers and so-called transparency activists. We know the danger that Assange and his not-so-merry band of brothers pose to democracies around the world. Ignorance or misplaced idealism is no longer an acceptable excuse for lionizing these demons.
Third, we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now…
Julian Assange and his kind are not the slightest bit interested in improving civil liberties or enhancing personal freedom. They have pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice. They may have believed that, but they are wrong.
Pompeo went even further in the Q&A stating:
A little less Constitutional law and a lot more of a philosophical understanding. Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges. He is not a U.S. citizen. What I was speaking to is an understanding that these are not reporters doing good work to try to keep the American Government on us. These are actively recruiting agents to steal American secrets with the sole intent of destroying the American way of life.
That is fundamentally different than a First Amendment activity as I understand them. This is what I was getting to. We have had administrations before that have been too squeamish about going after these people, after some concept of this right to publish.
Glenn Greenwald responded to this assertion with the following:
Pompeo’s remarks deserve far greater scrutiny than this. To begin with, the notion that WikiLeaks has no free press rights because Assange is a foreigner is both wrong and dangerous. When I worked at the Guardian, my editors were all non-Americans. Would it therefore have been constitutionally permissible for the U.S. Government to shut down that paper and imprison its editors on the ground that they enjoy no constitutional protections? Obviously not. Moreover, what rational person would possibly be comfortable with having this determination – who is and is not a “real journalist” – made by the CIA?
Meanwhile, Pompeo spent a lot of his speech demonizing Julian Assange as someone who cozies up to dictators, saying stuff like the following.
We know this because Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today. Yes, they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the language of liberty and privacy; in reality, however, they champion nothing but their own celebrity. Their currency is clickbait; their moral compass, nonexistent. Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement through the destruction of Western values.
It’s takes some nerve for Pompeo to say that considering the following, via Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept:
So how could Mike Pompeo – fresh off embracing and honoring Saudi tyrants, standing in a building funded by the world’s most repressive regimes, headed by an agency that for decades supported despots and death squads – possibly maintain a straight face as he accuses others of “making common cause with dictators”? How does this oozing, glaring, obvious act of projection not immediately trigger fits of scornful laughter from U.S. journalists and policy makers?
The reason is because this is a central and long-standing propaganda tactic of the U.S. Government, aided by a media that largely ignores it. They predicate their foreign policy and projection of power on hugging, supporting and propping up the world’s worst tyrants, all while heralding themselves as defenders of freedom and democracy and castigating their enemies as the real supporters of dictators.
Try to find mainstream media accounts in the U.S. of Pompeo’s trip to Riyadh and bestowing a top CIA honor on a Saudi despot. It’s easy to find accounts of this episode in international outlets, but very difficult to find ones from CNN or the Washington Post. Or try to find instances where mainstream media figures point out what should be the unbearable irony of listening to the same U.S. Government officials accuse others of supporting dictators while nobody does more to prop up tyrants than themselves.
This is the dictatorship-embracing reality of the U.S. Government that remains largely hidden from its population. That’s why Donald Trump’s CIA Director – of all people – can stand in a dictator-funded think tank in the middle of Washington, having just recovered from his jet lag in flying to pay homage to Saudi tyrants, and vilify WikiLeaks and “its ilk” of “making common cause with dictators” – all without the U.S. media taking note of the intense inanity of it.
If that’s not enough for you, on a separate occasion Pompeo called Edward Snowden a traitor who should be brought back to the U.S. and executed.
That’s your new Secretary of State, America.
Unfortunately, it gets worse. Much worse. For all his flaws, Rex Tillerson had a surprisingly sane take on the Middle East, at least relatively. He was known for being against the idiotic Saudi-UAE attempt blockade of Qatar, as well as in favor of keeping the Iran deal active. Pompeo shares no such sentiments.
Pompeo, named as his pick for secretary of state by Trump on Tuesday shortly after he announced Tillerson’s departure on Twitter, has taken a notoriously tough stance on Iran in the past in his erstwhile role as director of the CIA.
“Thuggish police state.” Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing with a CIA medal last year.
CIA Director Pompeo awards CIA medal to Saudi Arabia’s torturer-in-chief Mohamad bin Nayef. Saudi is CIA’s primary Syria overthrow partner. pic.twitter.com/NNOpLoREex
— Julian Assange
But there’s more…
In November 2016, when Pompeo was appointed to lead the CIA, he warned that Tehran is “intent of destroying America” and called the nuclear deal “disastrous.” He added that he was looking forward to “rolling back” the agreement.
Differences of opinion over how Iran should be treated are said to be the source of discord between Trump and Tillerson, whose firing followed a clash over the nuclear deal, the president said Tuesday.
“If you look at the Iran deal I think it’s terrible and I guess he thought it was OK … We weren’t really thinking the same,” Trump said in a statement outside the White House. He said he and Tillerson got on “quite well” but had “different mindsets.”
Iran has been increasingly marginalized during the Trump administration, which has sided with Saudi Arabia in the regional battle for influence in the Middle East.’
Here’s the bottom line. As I outlined multiple times last year, Trump is determined to have a war with Iran and Rex Tillerson was standing in the way. Putting unhinged war hawk Pompeo in place as Secretary of State is simply Trump getting his ducks in a row ahead of confrontation. Watch as the sales pitch for another war in the Middle East picks up considerably in the months ahead.
I believe this forthcoming war against Iran will have almost no international support. Probably just autocratic regimes in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as Israel and possibly the UK depending on who’s Prime Minister when it gets going. The rest of the world will be against it, which will lead to spectacular failure.
It’s become increasingly clear that a huge military error, such as a new major confrontation in the Middle East is what will spell the end of the U.S. empire. Such a confrontation is now increasingly likely with Tillerson out of the picture
Oh, and the person Trump picked to head the CIA to replace Pompeo is Gina Haspel, a 33-year CIA careerist who ran a torture black site in Thailand.
The new CIA director was a key part of the torture program and its illegal cover-up. Her name was on the Top Secret order demanding the destruction of tapes to prevent them being seen by Congress. Incredible. https://t.co/HjVHCPCbpohttps://t.co/VamIGa1A8w
Are these really the values the US should be promoting? The CIA might as well start issuing uniforms decorated with skulls and lightning bolts. https://t.co/ZIeHWP57l3
Donny boy sure has a strange way of “draining the swamp.”
In Liberty, Michael Krieger
Poster Comment:
Trump is determined to have a war with Iran and Rex Tillerson was standing in the way. Putting unhinged war hawk Pompeo in place as Secretary of State is simply Trump getting his ducks in a row ahead of confrontation. Watch as the sales pitch for another war in the Middle East picks up considerably in the months ahead.(1 image)
Trump is determined to have a war with Iran and Rex Tillerson was standing in the way.
Putting unhinged war hawk Pompeo in place as Secretary of State is simply Trump getting his ducks in a row ahead of confrontation. Watch as the sales pitch for another war in the Middle East picks up considerably in the months ahead.
Tillerson was the NWO-Globalist fox in the henhouse.
And frankly, how can anyone trust the judgment of a man who backed the LGBTQing of the Boy Scouts of America? OR dissing the President in public?? What kind of idiocy and arrogance is that from Tillerson?
Not a huge fan of Pompeo either. I guess this decision is a matter of an upgrade.
Q: WHY should anyone reject US defense policies and leadership on the singular issue of "torture"?? DO. NOT. CARE. Especially if it saves American and innocent lives.
With respect to our international standing, precisely because of 0bama's blatant pro-Muzzie policies that enabled ISIS, the Muzzie Brohood, and other T-ist orgs and nations (yes, like Iran, Turkey, NK and China) to take advantage of 0bama, Trump is compelled to (as a necessity) to flex some muscle and give the impression of unpredictability. (SAME AS REAGAN after Carter.) And if that means forging an alliance with the Saudis (who have also forged an alliance with Israel AND Egypt), then so be it.
Pompeo is smart, really smart. And he is extremely aggressive.
A lot of people are not going to like that.
Maybe too smart for his own good?
Aggression CAN work both ways as you know. There's is the impression of "aggression" but then a tangible application of aggression. (Hopefully, wielded wisely.)
Trump is determined to have a war with Iran and Rex Tillerson was standing in the way.
Trump's approach to North Korea seems like it might actually resolve a situation that evaded Truman and MacArthur, Ike and JFK, LBJ and Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton and Obama. Seems like we might see reunification and a peace settlement by the end of his term in office - a stunning outcome. And Trump may effect that without a war.
Nobody else's approach to Iran has worked. Trump's might. Simply prepare and position for war, as Trump has with North Korea: it might work.
Trump's approach to North Korea seems like it might actually resolve a situation that evaded Truman and MacArthur, Ike and JFK, LBJ and Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton and Obama.
Seems like we might see reunification and a peace settlement by the end of his term in office - a stunning outcome. And Trump may effect that without a war.
Simply prepare and position for war, as Trump has with North Korea: it might work.
"Peace through Strength."
Yup. This would be amazing. None of the American leaders came close to resolving this. Imagine an actual solution to a 60+ year old problem?
I'd settle for mere peace. I can't imagine a reunification without Kim Ung's ouster. (I just can't imagine how the ChiComs profit by losing NK as their pawn.)
You give Kim and his entourage something they can’t otherwise get: prosperity in security for the rest of their lives. You have a federal system, and Kim becomes one of the high archons of the state. He gets to keep his palace and his guards and a generous stipend, the constitutional monarch of the Northern State, with sovereign immunity for all past crimes. So now nobody is trying to kill him or depose him, Korea reunited peacefully, and all Koreans live better on account of it. Korea becomes a neutral state, neither American nor Chinese allied..
You give Kim and his entourage something they can’t otherwise get: prosperity in security for the rest of their lives. You have a federal system, and Kim becomes one of the high archons of the state.
He gets to keep his palace and his guards and a generous stipend, the constitutional monarch of the Northern State, with sovereign immunity for all past crimes.
I concur with a couple of your conditions in the new unified Korea. But remember -- Korea remains a crucially tactical land mass (which is why neither the US or China have been willing to let go of this bone. since the early 1950s.
China must necessarily have a large say-so in any unification. How would unification profit them? China -- a murderer of its Christians etal -- does NOTHING out of benevolence.
But let's assume; Once China approves any semblance of "unification," there are other monumental hurdles.
Yes, let's assume "Immunity" is granted as be part of any deal/exchange; Kim's palace, lifestyle and entourage of guards must remain -- as well as those who'd want to serve him.
But in your theoretical provincial "Northern State" of a unified Korea, how strictly would Kim's governance be subject to the very same letter of Korean law?
Do you believe Kim would agree to be subservient to a central unified Korean authority?
One obvious question: WHICH citizenry would actually trust Kim's governance and remain?
So now nobody is trying to kill him or depose him, Korea reunited peacefully, and all Koreans live better on account of it. Korea becomes a neutral state, neither American nor Chinese allied...
a) No, I don't believe Kim would be off the hook for his past evil. I don't see how he escapes vendettas. This guy has burnt more bridges than it's possible t count.
b) In what sense could Korea claim "Neutrality" status after the US devoted 65 years of blood, sweat and assets?
c) MY opinion: The entire "Reunification" status would be a ruse, a counterfeit peace that would be very temporary.
NK/China would use it as an opportunity to infest and establish "beachheads" in South Korean institutions in the South with its operatives (much as Leftists/Commies have done in the USA since the 1960s), and hijack/erode it from within. Only at a far more accelerated pace.
a) No, I don't believe Kim would be off the hook for his past evil. I don't see how he escapes vendettas.
He would be legally off the hook. He'd have his own palace and palace guards, to keep him safe. This was exactly the solution that England, Spain, France (for awhile), Holland and other European countries found ti deal with the reality of monarchies with bloody pasts, but that had too much residual loyalty towards them to simply wipe out without civil war.
You let the royal family live in exchange for peace. They have their palace guards because of individual vendetta. That's usually been sufficient.
He would be legally off the hook. He'd have his own palace and palace guards, to keep him safe.
This was exactly the solution that England, Spain, France (for awhile), Holland and other European countries found ti deal with the reality of monarchies with bloody pasts...
I understand the "legal" groundwork for the terms of peace.
What I'm saying is...Fat-Boy has made soooo many enemies that with the loosened security of freedom in the surrounding areas, not even his palace guard would be able to stave off countless avengers.
In the examples of the European nations who dealt with some of the more ruthless Monarchies, the difference (as I speculate) is in the belief system of those (mostly Christians) who didn't want to jeopardize their Eternal Soul by murdering Monarchs.
In the examples of the European nations who dealt with some of the more ruthless Monarchies, the difference (as I speculate) is in the belief system of those (mostly Christians) who didn't want to jeopardize their Eternal Soul by murdering Monarchs.
I think it's more that there is a great deal of deep ties between monarchs and a significant, portion of their people, such that it is not just the monarch who faces loss, but also the military class, and the wealthy and powerful. They close ranks and will wage civil war rather than march off meekly to the slaughter. It's why in places like Chile and South Africa, there had to be a long, long transition period before the popular forces felt they could risk taking on the then-geriatric old guard and start seeking "justice" against them. Settlement generally means immunity from prosecution for past acts, and a large part of the population needs that immunity.
I think it's more that there is a great deal of deep ties between monarchs and a significant, portion of their people, such that it is not just the monarch who faces loss, but also the military class, and the wealthy and powerful. They close ranks and will wage civil war rather than march off meekly to the slaughter.
That may be true generally and specifically with respect to Europe. And the era.
In the age of technology, memory and documentation of the degree of recent raw barbarism of Fat-Boy and his absolute remorselessness remains raw.
Those who remember and act to play a North Korean Charles Bronson will have no concern Fat-Boy's Immunity." Nor for any national ramification, civil war or any "code" affecting any class or rank.
However we're probably getting way ahead of ourselves. I don't see Kim making that kind of deal. EVER.