Julian Assange Arrested by Scotland Yard

Julian Assange

From The Independent UK:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested by officers from Scotland Yard’s extradition unit today.

The 39-year-old Australian was held when he attended a central London police station by appointment.

He is now expected to appear before a district judge at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court later today.

As everyone knows by now, Assange faces rape and sexual molestation charges in Sweden.

The accusations have stalked Assange since the summer, before his website began publishing portions of the huge cache of U.S. State Department diplomatic cables that have dismayed American officials and other governments around the world in recent days.

But Assange, who is Australian, and his lawyers and supporters believe that the U.S. has pushed the sexual assault case behind the scenes as a way of embarrassing, harassing and silencing him.

Assange is believed to have been in southern England for much of the past few weeks as the State Department cables have been released. Swedish prosecutors last month issued an international warrant for his arrest, but British authorities did not move to arrest him until this week, apparently because of a technical mistake on the warrant.

At his court hearing, Assange’s lawyers are expected to ask for him to be released on bail while he fights the attempt to extradite him.

That legal battle could take weeks or even months. Assange’s attorneys fear that a successful extradition to Sweden on the sexual assault allegations could also make it easier for him to be extradited to the United States if prosecutors there charge him with various offenses relating to the WikiLeaks disclosures.

According to The Guardian UK, Wikileaks will continue releasing documents from its cache of previously secret U.S. diplomatic cables.

The whistleblowers’ website has made arrangements to continue publishing the classified documents, the airing of which has embarrassed the US government. The leaked cables have provided a daily flow of revelations about the superpower’s involvement in the most sensitive issues around the world, including those affecting Iran, Afghanistan and China.

The decision to press on will help allay fears among Assange’s supporters that his arrest would hobble the organisation’s work.

Assange has also pre-recorded a video message, which WikiLeaks is due to release today. But the Guardian understands the organisation has no plans to release the insurance file of the remaining cables, which number more than 200,000. It has sent copies of the encrypted file to supporters around the world. These can be accessed only by using a 256 digit code.

In one piece of good news for Wikileaks and its supporters, a French judge has resisted pressure from France and the U.S. to shut down the organization’s website.

update 1

[MABlue here]
This whole development was predictable. Once the US got thoroughly embarrassed on the world stage through “Cablegate”, it was certain he was not going to freely roam around.
Julian Assange Becomes the US’s Public Enemy No. 1

He may be on the short list for Time magazine’s “person of the year,” but many Americans consider Julian Assange to be a criminal and a terrorist. The WikiLeaks founder has been fighting a battle on several fronts since the publication of the diplomatic cables. He has now been arrested in London.

[…]

London’s Metropolitan Police said in a statement that Assange had been arrested at around 9:30 a.m. local time, by appointment at a police station in the British capital. “He is accused by the Swedish authorities of one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, all alleged to have been committed in August 2010,” the statement read. Assange was due to appear before a London court later on Tuesday

update 2

[Dkat here]

If you want to know some background on these charges, you can check on the Daily Mail: ‘The Wikileaks sex files: How two one-night stands sparked a worldwide hunt for Julian Assange’.  It’s a bit of a pot boiler, but you probably should read it.

Using a number of sources including leaked police interviews, we can begin to piece together the sequence of events which led to Assange’s liberty being threatened by Stockholm police rather than Washington, where already one U.S. politician has called on him to executed for ‘spying’.

The story began on August 11 this year, when Assange arrived in Stockholm.

He had been invited to be the key speaker at a seminar on ‘war and the role of the media’, ­organised by the ­centre-Left Brotherhood Movement.

His point of contact was a female party official, whom we shall refer to as Sarah (her identity must be ­protected because of the ongoing legal proceedings).

An attractive blonde, Sarah was already a well-known ‘radical feminist’. In her 30s, she had travelled the world following various fashionable causes.

While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegee of a militant feminist ­academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte.

Glenn Greenwald has an op-ed up on this at Salon: ‘ Anti-WikiLeaks lies and propaganda – from TNR, Lauer, Feinstein and more’. He challenges some fabrications in the right wing press on charges that Wikileaks is endangering intelligence operations.

I understand that the media has repeated over and over the false claim that WikiLeaks “dumped” all 250,000 diplomatic cables on the Internet — which is presumably how this falsehood made its way into Gitlin’s brain and then into his column — but that’s no excuse for him and TNR editors failing to undertake the most minimal due diligence (such as, say, checking WikiLeaks’ website) before publishing this claim.

I imagine more news and reaction will be coming on this story today. We can use this post as a live blog for updates. Please let us know if you hear anything new.


Monday Reads

good morning!!

There’s another Wikileaks release on BP, Gitmo, and BOA on deck.  I’m dying to get my hands on the BP and the Bank of America data drop.  Right now, they’ve been sorted out to various people to publish should Assange disappear or meet some other bad end.  This has all the stuff of a real good IRL thriller and I’m just gleeful about it all.

That’s probably going to hit some time this week and will shoot to the top of the news.

This is from The NY Post.

The military papers on Guantanamo Bay, yet to be published, believed to have been supplied by Bradley Manning, who was arrested in May. Other documents that Assange is confirmed to possess include an aerial video of a US airstrike in Afghanistan that killed civilians, BP files and Bank of America documents.

We will do a live blog as the information becomes available.  You can also find a teaser on Fox News. Additionally, there’s an interesting bit up at the UK Guardian on the Chinese Government hacking Google.  Both of these come via Memeorandum.

The hacking of Google that forced the search engine to withdraw from mainland China was orchestrated by a senior member of the communist politburo, according to classified information sent by US diplomats to Hillary Clinton’s state department in Washington.

The leading politician became hostile to Google after he searched his own name and found articles criticising him personally, leaked cables from the US embassy in Beijing say.

That single act prompted a politically inspired assault on Google, forcing it to “walk away from a potential market of 400 million internet users” in January this year, amid a highly publicised row about internet censorship.

The explosive allegation that the attack on Google came from near the top of the Communist party has never been made public until now. The politician allegedly collaborated with a second member of the politburo in an attempt to force Google to drop a link from its Chinese-language search engine to its uncensored google.com version.

There’s more interesting tidbits up at the Daily Mail.

UK firm Rolls-Royce lost out on a £200million contract to supply helicopter engines to Spain after the U.S. lobbied Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero in Madrid. The deal was eventually signed by American company GE.

And European Union President Herman Van Rompuy told a U.S. ambassador that European troops were still in Afghanistan only ‘out of deference’ to America.

I’m sure the mothers and fathers and wives and husbands and sons and daughters of those dead European Troops certainly appreciate the ‘deference’ statement.  Whoa!

Here’s a really interesting link at The Economist.   I have to admit that I have a fairly limited attention span for management professors since I’m of the school that says you either got it or your don’t, but Henry Mintzberg who is Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at McGill University had me reading from the headline forward.

Too many corporate “leaders” have trashed their enterprises, taking with them America’s legendary sense of enterprise. The scorekeepers cannot fix that. To understand the basis for such a sweeping claim, add up the stories you have heard about the goings on in so many of the largest American enterprises. Then you may get it.

Get it, not just about the scandal of executive compensation, but also about its destructive consequences. Any chief executive who accepts a compensation package that so singles him or herself out from everyone else in the company is not a leader. Leadership is about conveying signals that engage other people in the company. How many leaders are left among America’s large enterprises? There is an Israeli expression that a fish rots from the head down. So too does an enterprise.

Many economists and journalists see the CEO as the be-all and end-all of corporate success. The worst CEOs believe it. They thus allow themselves to be paid accordingly to “shareholder value”, which is a fancy term for increases in the price of a company’s stock.

There are two basic ways to increase the price of the stock: by exploring and by exploiting. Explorer companies achieve this by doing better research, making improved products, and offering superior service. This is hard work, and it takes time. Exploiter companies have it easier: they depreciate the brand, cut investments in research, confuse the customers with bamboozle pricing, and stay as close as possible to the letter of the law while lobbying politicians to reduce its level. These behaviors can raise the price of the stock long enough for the executives to cash in their bonuses and run, as have so many in the large American companies.

It’s typical management professor talk, but the point that he makes that CEOS are way too often part of the problem and not part of the future or solutions is true.  They are still way over compensated for wrecking companies.

So, here’s a suggestion from the NYT: Cleopatra’s Guide to Good Governance.  Hey, I’m willing to look at Cleopatra as a role model.  Cleopatra as the ultimate central banker?

Egypt’s economic affairs were dismal when Cleopatra ascended to the throne. She devalued the currency by a third. She issued no gold and critically lowered the value of her kingdom’s silver. And she ushered in a great innovation: she introduced coins of various denominations. In an early prefiguring of paper currency, the markings rather than the metal content determined their value. A coin might feel light in the hand, but if Cleopatra said it was worth 80 drachmae, it was worth 80 drachmae. The arrangement was both lucrative to her and encouraged an export-driven economy.

Oh, well, back to the present and our central banker. I’m not sure if you caught the 60 Minutes segment on Ben Bernanke, but if you didn’t, here’s the transcript. You will also find taped interviews at the site.  Here’s Bernanke’s take on employment.

Chairman Ben Bernanke: The unemployment rate is just not going down. Unemployment is just about the same as it was in mid-2009, when the economy started growing. So, that’s a major concern. And it looks that at current rates, that it may take some years before the unemployment rate is back down to more normal levels.

Scott Pelley: We lost about eight million jobs from the peak. And I wonder how many years you think it will be before we get all those jobs back?

Bernanke: Well, you’re absolutely right. Between the peak and the end of last year, we lost eight and a half million jobs. We’ve only gotten about a million of them back so far. And that doesn’t even account the new people coming into the labor force. At the rate we’re going, it could be four, five years before we are back to a more normal unemployment rate. Somewhere in the vicinity of say five or six percent.

Four or five years. And Bernanke told “60 Minutes” something else that makes that even more painful.

Bernanke: The other aspect of the unemployment rate that really concerns me is that more than 40 percent of the unemployed have been unemployed for six months or more. And that’s unusually high. And people who are unemployed for such a long time, their skills erode. Their attachment to the labor force diminishes and it may be a very, very long time before they find themselves back in a normal working position.

Bernanke seems to be about the only person within the beltway who cares about the level of  unemployment  This bit from Bloomberg indicates he’s willing to take more steps because he believes that those in charge of fiscal policy will not do the right thing.

Bernanke and other Fed officials have defended the central bank’s announcement that it will purchase $75 billion in Treasury securities a month through June to prop up a recovery so weak that only 39,000 jobs were created in November. The unemployment rate last month rose to 9.8 percent, the highest level since April, the Labor Department said on Dec. 3, three days after the Bernanke interview.

The economy, which grew 2.5 percent in the third quarter, is so weak that Bernanke said growth could fizzle out without support. “It’s very close to the border,” he said. “It takes about 2.5 percent growth just to keep unemployment stable and that’s about what we’re getting. We’re not very far from the level where the economy is not self-sustaining.”

I’m not sure people know exactly how odd it is for a FED chair to say this and what it means to say that the “we’re not very far from a level where the economy is not self-sustaining”, but let me tell you it’s rare and alarming. Washington is playing parlor games and our lives are their pinatas.

In some ways it seems we’re very much on the verge of a much worse recession because things are no longer emanating from the financial markets.

Two Republicans, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker and Indiana Representative Mike Pence, last month proposed removing the Fed’s maximum employment mandate to focus the central bank on stable prices alone. Corker plans to introduce such legislation next year.

Bernanke said fears of inflation are “overstated” and that keeping consumer prices under control isn’t a diminished priority for the Fed.

The rate of inflation has slowed this year, with the personal consumption expenditures index, excluding food and energy, rising at a 0.9 percent annual pace in October, the slowest in 50 years. Including all items, the index increased 1.3 percent.

Without action by the central bank, the economy might have tipped into a period of deflation, or a prolonged drop in prices, Bernanke said.

I cannot emphasize enough that no matter what these people say to appeal to your inner demons, there is no problem with inflation and we desperately need stimulus for demand.  Sustaining tax cuts at the very high levels will not do it because rich people simply do not spend money like poor people do.  Additionally, more foreclosures will not help the housing market and loss of jobs will not help the economies of states.  I cannot believe that after so much information coming from the last 60 years that we still have to have these conversations.

Here’s an interesting piece from Medical Daily: People with a university degree fear death less than those at a lower literacy level.  Since I’m not the psychologist on board at Sky Dancing.  I’ll leave the explanations to Dr. BostonBoomer.

People with a university degree fear death less than those at a lower literacy level. In addition, fear of death is most common among women than men, which affects their children’s perception of death. In fact, 76% of children that report fear of death is due to their mothers avoiding the topic. Additionally, more of these children fear early death and adopt unsuitable approaches when it comes to deal with death.

I’m not sure you want to hear this news from NPR, but it is what it is:  Gingrich: A Run For President Is ‘Doable’.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says he’s more inclined to run for president in 2012 than not to make a bid.

Gingrich says he probably won’t make a decision until late February or early March. But he says that talking to friends and thinking about such an undertaking have made him more inclined to believe that “it’s doable.”

We are so f’d.

What’s on your reading and blogging list this morning?

Did Bush and Obama make a secret deal in 2008?

Around the time George W. Bush’s memoir was released, Alex Barker posted this bizarre anecdote at the Financial Times’s Westminster Blog.

George W. Bush’s bombastic return to the world stage has reminded me of my favourite Bush anecdote, which for various reasons we couldn’t publish at the time. Some of the witnesses still dine out on it.

The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain’s campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. “I probably won’t even vote for the guy,” Bush told the group, according to two people present.“I had to endorse him. But I’d have endorsed Obama if they’d asked me.”

Time Magazine later quoted a Bush “spokesman,” who said Barker’s anecdote was “ridiculous and untrue.”

“President Bush proudly supported John McCain in the election and voted for him,” said Bush spokesman David Sherzer to Politico.

Nevertheless, President Obama has gone to great lengths to protect members of the Bush administration from any accountability for the crimes they committed while in office. The Justice Department defended John Yoo, author of the torture memo. Justice also went to court to defend the Bush administration’s use “state secrets privilege” to excuse NSA domestic spying. They defended Donald Rumsfeld against charges related to torture.

Recently it was learned from formerly secret cables released by Wikileaks that the Obama administration pressured Spain to drop criminal charges against six Bush officials. David Corn writes:

In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A “confidential” April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.

The Bush officials were charged with

“creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture.” The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon’s former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Republicans who helped Obama pressure Spain were Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.). Corn again:

Back when it seemed that this case could become a major international issue, during an April 14, 2009, White House briefing, I asked press secretary Robert Gibbs if the Obama administration would cooperate with any request from the Spaniards for information and documents related to the Bush Six. He said, “I don’t want to get involved in hypotheticals.” What he didn’t disclose was that the Obama administration, working with Republicans, was actively pressuring the Spaniards to drop the investigation.

In general, as anyone with half a brain has noticed, the Obama administration has carried on Bush’s policies and sometimes has taken them even further–for example with Obama’s claiming the power to unilaterally order the assassination of American citizens.

Why would Obama defend Bush administration policies so assiduously? Is it just because Obama wants to hold onto the “enhanced” executive powers that Bush claimed during his tenure as president? Or are these two supposed political opponents actually engaged in a collaborative effort to expand the powers of the presidency?

Let’s look back at the 2008 general election campaign. In late September, Barack Obama and John McCain were preparing for the first presidential debate, to be held at the University of Mississippi on September 26, shortly after news of the financial meltdown broke. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had proposed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to Congress on September 20. Read the rest of this entry »


Friday Reads

Good Morning!! TGIF! It sure has been a busy week for news. Yesterday, the House passed a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for people who earn less than $250,000.

Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to expire.

Democrats were not united on the issue. Twenty voted with Republicans to kill the tax cut bill, as they hold out for extending additional cuts to wealthy Americans — though 3 Republicans, including Reps. Ron Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC) voted for the tax cut extensions. However the outcome will (and was designed to) allow Democrats to draw distinctions between themselves and Republicans during the 2012 election cycle.

Of course the chances of this bill passing the Senate are slim to none, since it will take 60 votes to get by a Republican filibuster. I hate to be completely cynical, but do you suppose the House Dems did this just for PR, knowing the bill would never become law?

At Huffpo, Howard Fineman, Ryan Grim, and Sam Stein (it took three people?) report that Democrats are afraid that Obama will “cave” and give the Republicans an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts. Now where would they get that idea? Oh yeah, because Obama caves on everything. It’s what he does.

I can’t figure out a way to excerpt this article. It’s a long treatise on process, and it’s just plain crazy-making. After reading it, I understand why it took three people to report it. Read the whole thing if you dare.

Republicans keep claiming over and over again that Americans voted for them in order to get more tax cuts for the rich. But according to a CBS News Poll, that just isn’t true:

“The American people want us to stop all the looming tax hikes and to cut spending, and that should be the priority of the remaining days that we have in this Congress,” incoming House Speaker Rep. John Boehner said Thursday. Boehner added that a House vote Thursday to extend the cuts for all but the highest-earning Americans amounted to “chicken crap.”

According to a new CBS News poll, however, Boehner is off-base in his claim that Americans “want us to stop all the looming tax hikes.”

The poll finds that 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year. That roughly matches the proposal put forth by the White House, which wants to extend the cuts only for incomes less than $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals.

Just 26 percent of Americans say they support extending the cuts for all Americans, even those earning above the $250,000 level, which is the GOP proposal.

The House also chose to publicly humiliate one of their oldest and most popular members yesterday. Charlie Rangel had to stand in the well of the House and listen to Nancy Pelosi censure him for some financial misdeeds.

As Representative Charles B. Rangel’s awkward day unspooled, the jammed House floor was buzzing for this once-in-decades happening. The press rows were busy. Traffic, though, was light in the high-up visitors’ gallery, grade school classes here earlier having left too soon to watch history.

Mr. Rangel entered alone, dressed well for the event in a buttoned dark suit, light blue tie and matching pocket handkerchief. Half his years had been spent in this workplace.

He sat among some of his keenest allies, Representative Robert C. Scott from Virginia and three members of the New York delegation, Representatives Joseph Crowley, Jerrold Nadler and Anthony D. Weiner.

All real liberals, you’ll notice… After the dirty deed was done,

A chastened Mr. Rangel asked for one more minute to speak. He called what had happened to him a “new criteria” and said there was more politics than justice on display. Then he finished by saying, “At the end of the day, compared to where I’ve been, I haven’t had a bad day since.”

As Dakinikat pointed out today, Tom DeLay was never censured. Neither were any of the other Congressmen who were involved with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. What is the real reason for the treatment given to Charlie Rangel? Did Obama want him off the Ways and Means Committee as punishment for supporting Hillary?

Is Julian Assange on the Obama assassination list? The U.S. wants him very badly, and Sweden wants to talk to him about sexual assault charges that according to his lawyer consist of having sex with two different women without using condoms.

James D. Catlin, a lawyer in Melbourne, Australia, says in an article published Thursday that Sweden’s justice system is destined to become “the laughingstock of the world” for investigating rape charges in two cases where women complained that Assange had had sex with them without using a condom.

Catlin, who confirmed to Raw Story that Assange retained his services for a “limited duration” in October but did not provide details, also said both of the accusers “boast[ed] of their respective conquests” after the alleged crimes had been committed. “The Swedes are making it up as they go along,” he wrote.

Catlin’s claims are likely to add fuel to speculation that Sweden’s investigation of Assange is politically motivated.

Raw Story links to this article by Catlin: When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along. Catlin writes:

Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.

Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was “no evidence”. The damage to Assange’s reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape. Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual.

He also writes that

Both women boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the events that they would now see him destroyed for.

In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape.

The Christian Science Monitor wonders if Assange has already been indicted by the U.S.

US officials publicly will only say that they are investigating the matter and that no legal options have been ruled out. But an indictment in such an important federal matter would be handed down by a grand jury, and grand jury proceedings are secret, notes Stephen Vladeck, an expert in national security law at American University. There may be an empaneled grand jury considering the Assange case right now.

“We wouldn’t know what they’re doing until the whole thing is concluded,” he says.

A judge could order an indictment of Assange sealed until such time as the US is able to apprehend him, or until he is in custody in a nation from which he is likely to be extradited. The purpose of such secrecy would be to keep the WikiLeaks chief from going even further underground.

At least one prominent US legal analyst thinks this is just the sort of thing that is going on.

“I would not be at all surprised if there was a sealed arrest warrant currently in existence against [Assange],” said CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin on Wednesday. “That question is whether the American authorities can find him and bring him back to the United States for trial.”

On the other hand, it might be faster and easier for President Obama to just have Assange killed. Obama has claimed the right to assassinate anyone on just his say-so. If Assange turns up dead, I for one won’t have any doubt who order the hit.

Obama and his “Justice Department” are pulling out all the stops to capture Julian Assange, but they aren’t at all interested in holding anyone in the Bush administration accountable for torture, for outing a CIA agent, or for starting two war based on lies.

Nigeria appears to have more cajones than Dear Leader: they are planning to charge Dick Cheney with bribery and ask Interpol to arrest the former VP.

The indictments will be handed up within three days, said Godwin Obla, prosecuting counsel at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, speaking Wednesday. An arrest warrant for Cheney will be transmitted through Interpol, he said.

Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, when he left to become then-Gov. George W. Bush’s running presidential mate, eventually winning the election.

“As the [former] CEO of Halliburton, he has the responsibility for acts that occurred during that period,” Obla later told AFP.

How will Obama handle this one? Will he try to strong-arm Nigeria like he did Spain? Andrew Belonsky speculates about this at Death and Taxes Magazine:

The idea [of] Cheney being arrested sounds absurd, and the Nigerian news has been received by many with an amused shrug, and no small amount of dismissal. ‘Washington Post’ reporter Al Kamen, for example, wrote, “It’s not as if Cheney, now suffering from some very serious heart problems, was planning to take the family on a cruise up the Niger Delta any time soon. The odds of his showing up in Africa – except maybe for a hunting trip – are zero.” I doubt the Obama administration’s taking this as lightly.

Despite what you may think about Interpol, the group does not command an international army of coppers and flatfoots. Its more of an information-sharing agency, one that helps coordinate information and efforts among its 188 member countries, whose own governments are meant to enforce potential warrants. It’s not Interpol‘s responsibility to arrest Cheney. That honor goes to the associated government, which puts Obama’s Department of Justice in a compromising position.

Political implications of arresting a former vice president aside, Obama and company are presented with two choices.

First, it can ignore the warrant, thereby straining relations with resource-rich Nigeria, and also undercut its current leadership role in Interpol, which is currently headed by American Ronald Noble, who worked for the Treasury Department during Bill Clinton’s presidential tenure.

The second option: move forward and nab Cheney.

Not bloody likely. Our Reagan-wannabe President is too afraid of angering Republicans.

Finally, Paul Krugman has taken the final step and accepted that Obama is really being Obama:

It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure — that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.

The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response?

What’s even more puzzling is the apparent indifference of the Obama team to the effect of such gestures on their supporters. One would have expected a candidate who rode the enthusiasm of activists to an upset victory in the Democratic primary to realize that this enthusiasm was an important asset. Instead, however, Mr. Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake.

Whatever is going on inside the White House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse — a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction.

That’s right, Paul. We’re on our own, with zero leadership from the WH!

That’s all I’ve got. What are you reading today?


Tuesday Reads

good morning!!!

Well, the top story is still the Wikileak’s data drop of all those diplomatic cables.  Here’s an interesting take on all the information that was released about the Arab states and their feelings about Iran by The Atlantic.

Sure, we knew that Middle East governments were concerned about Iran. But we didn’t know to what degree. The cumulative impact of these cables is profound.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the largest, wealthiest, and among the most conservative Middle East nations, made “frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program,” the American embassy in Riyadh reported in April 2008. “He told you to cut off the head of the snake,” one of the King’s aides reminded the American ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus when they were in the kingdom for a two day visit.

From tiny Bahrain, King Hamid, in a meeting with Gen. Petraeus seven months later, said that Iran was the source for much of the trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan. “He argued forcefully for taking action to terminate their nuclear program, by whatever means necessary,” according to a leaked cable from the American embassy there. “That program must be stopped,” the King told Gen. Petraeus. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.”

This the same chilling language, which the American public is accustomed to hearing from hardline Israeli officials. Hearing it expressed by Muslim leaders in the Middle East might now have a profound effect on American public opinion.

Robert Mackey at the Lede Blog of the NYT has a group of things up that you may want to explore including videos and reactions from around the world.  This one from Iran and its president takes the cake.

Asked about the leaked American cables — some of which frankly reveal the enmity of Arab leaders for Iran — Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told reporters in Tehran, “let me first correct you. The material was not leaked, but rather released in an organized way,” Iran’s state-run Press TV reported.

As my colleagues William Yong and Alan Cowell add:

Mr. Ahmadinejad said at a news conference on Monday that Iran’s relations with its neighbors would not be damaged by the reports.

“Regional countries are all friends with each other. Such mischief will have no impact on the relations of countries,” he said, according to Reuters.

“Some part of the American government produced these documents,” he said. “We don’t think this information was leaked. We think it was organized to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals.”

According to Press TV, Mr. Ahmadinejad also said the cables, “have no legal value and will not have the political effect they seek. He also called the documents released by WikiLeaks a “game,” adding that they are “not worth commenting upon and that no one would waste their time reviewing them.”

That seems to provide an answer to how Tehran would react to the disclosure of information that the leaders of several Arab countries had encouraged the United States to take action to stop its nuclear program. Speaking of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, for instance, is quoted in the documents urging Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” while there was still time.

What’s that old joke about de Nile and it not being just a river in Egypt?

Progrowth liberal has a post up about Obama’s proposed two year salary freezes for federal workers.  The title sounds oddly familiar.  I bet if you do a search of this blog, you’ll find an old post or two with that same title.  Hmmm.  The title is ‘Barack Hoover?

This strikes me as short-term fiscal restraint but not a really serious attempt to getting the long-term fiscal house in order. In other words precisely the opposite of what we should be doing while in a very depressed economy. So why would this President make such a recommendation?

Okay, so my thought was it’s really an 11th dimensional chess move by the President to make sure he gets credit for Republican policies that pass before the Republicans can do it so he can move towards reelection when he’ll REALLY start work on those FDR initiatives   Yes? (No, I didn’t write that with a straight face.)   Or, we can follow PGL’s suggestion to Lawrence (Larry)  Mishell over at Economic Policy Institute and a post called ‘Federal pay cuts:  A bad idea for what gain?’  Go check the table out–not nifty but still useful–and then you’ll see why Mishell’s bottom line is what it is.

This is another example of the administration’s tendency to bargain with itself rather than Republicans, and in the process reinforces conservative myths, in this case the myth that federal workers are overpaid. Such a policy also ignores the fact that deficit reduction and loss of pay at a time when the unemployment rate remains above 9% will only weaken a too-weak recovery

So, what I want to know is who is he listening to because it certainly doesn’t seem like it’s any economists that I can find or read.  Not even the monetarists and the conservatives are supporting these things.

The House will be voting on a bill to extend tax cuts to the middle class.  You may want to check out the process on CSPAN.  Here’s the coverage of that from The Hill. Frankly, I don’t need no stinking tax cuts.  I need a damned job! I also would like Wall Street to stop looting my retirement savings.

Lawmakers said there was only a limited discussion of the tax cut issue at a caucus meeting Monday night. No final decisions on the timing or procedure for votes are expected until after congressional leaders meet with Obama at the White House on Tuesday, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), said.

Van Hollen told reporters that the House vote would likely be held under a traditional rule, meaning Republicans would have at least one chance to offer an amendment to expand the tax cuts beyond the $250,000 level. If Democratic leaders hold the vote under suspension rules, the GOP would have no such opportunity but a two-thirds majority would be required for approval.

GOP leaders have argued against any tax hikes during a fragile economic recovery, saying that an increase for the top brackets could stifle small businesses.

Okay, so let me get this straight.  The GOP calls it “a fragile economic recovery’ for folks making more than $250k a year, but thinks that extending unemployment benefits for the nation’s long term unemployed is just about enabling whining, lazy people so it’s just a bad idea.  Right, ideology over economics and people.  Check.

Oh, speaking of ideology and bunnies over economics and people, here’s another take on that stupid video about the QE2 and the Ben Bernank.  It comes from Richard Alford–a retired economist for the NY FED–who guestposts on Naked Capitalism. (Oh, and any bunnies that talk like that down here get put into gumbo pots, just a warning.)

The video is popular and effective because it is not a detailed-footnoted-rigorous academic exercise. It humorously plays on what a substantial fraction of the audience already perceive to be true. It takes swipes at what many viewers see as an institution that is charged with promoting economic welfare yet they see it both detrimentally affecting their lives as well being arrogant and well insulated from accountability.

The Fed dismissed its critics while the housing bubble grew. It did so to its own detriment as well as to the detriment of the real economy and the financial sector. Those who defend of the Fed against the criticisms in this video may win every definitional battle, but they will lose the war for the hearts, minds and confidence of the American people.

Alford lists some things that the FED can do to counter the perceptions in the video that are at the heart of its effectiveness and viral status.  It is more about how people feel rather than what they don’t know.

A liberal response was released to the Cat Food Commission. Matt Yglesias overviews it and links to the entire document. You may want to check it out. It doesn’t recommend devastating Social Security which is nice. If my kids were to support ruining  Social Security, my assumption would be that they’re planning a house with a room for me some time soon. You might try that tactic with any mouthy young’n wanting privatization near you. Tell them that their moms will be moving back in with them or ask your kids which sofa is yours and when is it okay to move in?   (Actually, I have to h/t Susie Madrak for that one. It’s a good suggestion.) This blueprint balances the budget by 2018.

Liberals didn’t like the Simpson-Bowles deficit plan largely because neither Simpson nor Bowles is a liberal so their proposal doesn’t encapsulate liberal thinking. Today the Our Fiscal Security coalition, comprised of Demos, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Century Foundation have released their fiscal blueprint which shows you would that liberal take would look like.

If you go to the site, you’ll find more details on Our Fiscal Security. It also has a lot of interesting links to facts on the budget, the deficit, taxes, jobs, and the recovery.

Putting our nation on a path of broad prosperity will require generating new jobs, investing in key areas, modernizing and restoring our revenue base, and greatly increasing the cost efficiency of the health care system. Achieving these goals, however, will require an informed and engaged public to help set national priorities.

The following report puts forth a blueprint that invests in America and creates jobs now, while putting the federal budget on a long-term sustainable path. We document the hard choices that need to be made and suggest specific policies that will yield lower deficits and a sustainable debt while preserving essential initiatives and investments.

Not that’s a refreshing change to the statements of glee about gridlocking the federal government and all its services coming from Simpson McScrooge doesn’t it?

Oh, and in keep in line with all of this spending stuff, did you read this at HuffPo?

The Obama administration will spend less than a quarter of the $50 billion it promised to homeowners facing foreclosure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report Monday.

The CBO projection raises fresh questions about the success of the administration’s foreclosure-prevention efforts and its commitment to helping homeowners, even as unemployment hovers near 10 percent. Corporations and large banks appear to be in full-fledged recovery — last quarter, corporate profits reached an all-time high of $1.66 trillion on an annual basis — but households and small businesses seem to have been left out.

Washington policymakers talk constantly about helping “Main Street” recover from the steepest downturn since the Great Depression. Spending less than a quarter of the money promised to help residents of “Main Street” keep their homes may not seem in line with that goal

Okay, so, that’s about it from me this morning.  I’m not sure how much  of this FDR-style policy I can handle.  I might become a socialist and you’ll have to search under your beds for me daily.

[MABlue’s spooky pick]
Because BostonBoomer did a great job spooking us early this morning, I decided to stick with the program by sharing a story I read a couple of days ago.
CIA successfully inherited KGB’s psychoactive drugs technology

“The most important evidence to prove the use of psychotropic substances in “the land of the free” is the “KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation” manual, which was declassified in 1997. The manual was used by CIA counterintelligence from 1963 to 1985. According to the document, US special services used such methods as disrupting human biorhythms, threats, physical violence, hypnosis and narcotics.

“The USA used such methods in all armed conflicts in which the country was involved. Now look at what they do to Guantanamo prisoners. To crown it all, The Washington Times wrote in 2001 that US federal courts could approve the use of the serum of truth in the search for Bin Laden.

“Therefore, it does not seem appropriate for Americans or British to stir hysteria about “brutal Russians using inhuman methods for obtaining confessionary statements”

Oh! While you’re there you can also read this:
C.I.A.: Cocaine Import Agency

The increase of drugs in the U.S. and the EU, and the global drug trade, go hand in hand with imperial military expansion around the world. The “fight against drugs is a farce … ”

The Mercury News of San Jose, California, revealed that CIA agents sold hundreds of tons of cocaine in the U.S. during the years of the conflict in Nicaragua, in order to obtain funds for the Contras (US-created paramilitaries to prevent the Sandinista revolution). The report explains that Contra leaders met with a CIA agent to plan the operation. The drugs were transported in military aircraft to airports in Texas.

The drugs were first distributed in the black ghettos of Los Angeles, California, from there it spread throughout the country. In the early 80’s, crack and cocaine ravaged neighborhoods in the U.S., destroying the brains and the will to fight and protest.

 

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?