AUKUS servility just one facet of poor governance
By Paul KeatingJul 31, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-servility-just-one-facet-of-poor-governance/
Richard Marles has the Navy out in force firing torpedoes at AUKUS critics.
On Friday last, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead claimed the critics need to produce evidence of any challenges to AUKUS being realised, then on Saturday, Vice Admiral Hammond, Chief of Navy, raised his periscope claiming the AUKUS debate was being ‘hijacked’ by people with ‘specific agendas’ without indicating what these agendas might be or who was likely making them.
The fact is, what clearly is being ‘hijacked’ is national accountability – accountability for the most wayward strategic and financial decision any government has taken since Federation.
Despite AUKUS’s half trillion of budgetary cost and its dangerous strategic implications there has not been one Ministerial Statement explaining its rationale, its strategic policy objective or defending its hugely distorting impact on government expenditures.
Not a coherent or persuasive word has come from the Minister for Defence or for that matter, the Prime Minister, let alone from a parliamentary debate on what is significantly a seminal turn in the country’s strategic and defence policy settings.
Vice Admiral Hammond, ignoring Australia’s geography – its residence among populous and prosperous Asian states, fell back on the old Anglo glee-club adage ‘three developed nations who have over 100 years of shared history, heritage, values and sense of purpose.’
The likelihood is that Australia will not come into possession of nuclear submarines of its own making, but what it will certainly become is landlord and host to American nuclear submarines as the United States appropriates Australian real estate in its attempts, against all odds, to maintain strategic primacy in Asia. Odds that carry the likelihood of Australia being dragged into military skirmishes with China, or indeed, worse.
So irresponsible, secretive and smug has the government been in making its decision, that no amount of ‘hijacking’ by anyone else is likely to disrupt Australia from its current path of effectively falling into American hands, or at least, being abjectly at America’s beck and call.
Republished from Australian Financial Review, July 30, 2024
Assange, CIA Surveillance and Spain’s Audencia Nacional
Australian Independent Media, August 1, 2024, Dr Binoy Kampmark
The sordid story on the CIA-backed operation against the WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange during his time cramped in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy continues to froth and thicken. US officials have persisted in their reticent attitude, refusing to cooperate with Spain’s national high court, the Audiencia Nacional, regarding its investigation into theAgency’s espionage operations against the publisher, spearheaded by the Spanish security firm Undercover (UC) Global.
Since 2019, requests for assistance regarding the matter, including querying public statements by former CIA director Mike Pompeo and former head of counterintelligence, William Evanina, along with information mustered by the relevant Senate Intelligence Committee, have been made to US authorities by judges José de la Mata and Santiago Pedraz. These have been treated with a glacial silence.
On December 12, 2023, the General Subdirectorate of International Legal Cooperation furnished the US authorities “an express announcement” whether such judicial assistance would be denied.
Spain’s liaison magistrate in the US, María de las Heras García, duly revealed that the tardiness to engage had been occasioned by ongoing legal proceedings being conducted before the US District Court of the Southern District of New York. As Courtney E. Lee, trial attorney at the US Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs explained, supplying Spain’s national high court with such information would “interfere” with “ongoing US litigation”. Hardly a satisfactory response, given requests made prior to the putative litigation.
The litigation in question involved a legal suit filed in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York by civil rights attorney Margaret Ratner Kunstler, media lawyer Deborah Hrbek, and journalists John Goetz and Charles Glass.
In their August 2022 action, the complainants alleged that they had been the subject of surveillance during visits to Assange during his embassy tenure, conduct said to be in breach of the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs accordingly argued that this entitled them to money damages and injunctive relief from former CIA director Mike Pompeo, the director of the Spanish security firm Undercover (UC) GlobalDavid Morales, and UC Global itself.
On December 19, 2023 District Judge John G. Koeltl granted, in part, the US government’s motion to dismiss while denying other portions of it. The judge accepted the record of hostility shown by Pompeo to WikiLeaks openly expressed by his April 2017 speech and acknowledged that “Morales was recruited to conduct surveillance on Assange and his visitors on behalf of the CIA and that this recruitment occurred at a January 2017 private security industry convention at the Las Vegas Sands Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The litigants found themselves on solid ground with Koeltl in the finding that they had standing to sue the intelligence organisation. “In this case, the plaintiffs need not allege, as the Government argues, that the Government will imminently use their information collected at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.” The plaintiffs would “have suffered a concrete and particularized injury fairly traceable to the challenged program and redressable by favorable ruling” if the search of the conversations and electronic devices along with the seizure of the contents of the electronic devices were found to be unlawful.
-Advertisement-
The plaintiffs also convinced the judge that they had “sufficient allegations that the CIA and Pompeo, through Morales and UC Global, violated their reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their electronic devices.” But they failed to convince Koeltl that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their conversations with Assange, given the rather odd reasoning that they were aware the publisher was already being “surveilled even before the CIA’s alleged involvement.” Nor could such an expectation arise given the acceptance of video surveillance of government buildings. Problematically, the judge also held that those surrendering devices and passports at an Embassy reception desk “assumed the risk that the information may be conveyed to the Government.”
Sadly, Pompeo was spared the legal lash and could not be held personally accountable for violating the constitutional rightsof US citizens. “As a presidential appointee confirmed by Congress […] Defendant Pompeo is in a different category of defendant from a law enforcement agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.”…………………………………………………………………………..
As long as the Agency stifles and drags out proceedings on the grounds of this misused privilege, the Justice Department is bound to remain inert in the face of the Spanish investigation. https://theaimn.com/assange-cia-surveillance-and-spains-audencia-nacional/
TODAY. Who will honestly face up to the problem of nuclear wastes? Rolling Stewardship as a practical option.
Dr Edwards is the first I’ve come across to simply acknowledge that there really is no definitive solution for disposing of nuclear wastes. But he moves on to a practical method of managing the wastes that now exist, (along with the aim of not creating any more). He suggests adapting a plan by the National Academy of Sciences for dealing with long-lived toxic substances – Rolling Stewardship.
Do not trust the authorities on this problem. Get real.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was set up in order to promote the nuclear industry, (and to blur and assuage the guilt from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
So – don’t expect the IAEA, and all the other worthy bodies set up to manage the industry, to genuinely face up to the problem. If it means adding costs to today’s industry – they’re not interested. (Just let’s pass it on to our grandchildren)
Do not trust the “respectable” media to genuinely address, let alone even understand, this problem. They can’t – (A) because they want to keep their jobs, and (B) they are intimidated by their feeling of not really understanding such technical matters – best leave it to the experts!
Trouble is – the experts all have a vested interest in the nuclear/ nuclear-weapons and associated industries.
Having said that, I do acknowledge that there are a courageous few – experts who see the bad stuff about nuclear. (These are soon dismissed and labelled as cranks etc) .
There are a few courageous journalists who manage to speak the truth, and still hold down their jobs in the “mainstream” media. (I will not name these, for their own employment safety.)
So – now we come to talking about nuclear wastes.
I am grateful to Gordon Edwards for coming up with a genuine examination of the question of nuclear wastes. Gordon Edwards is a mathematician, physicist, nuclear consultant, and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (www.ccnr.org). No doubt he will soon to be trashed by the “experts” as a foolish and dangerous crank.
Dr Edwards is the first I’ve come across to simply acknowledge that there really is no definitive solution for disposing of nuclear wastes. But he moves on to a practical method of managing the wastes that now exist, (along with the aim of not creating any more). He suggests adapting a plan by the National Academy of Sciences for dealing with long-lived toxic substances – Rolling Stewardship.
Dr Edwards’ concept is outlined here – Rolling stewardship of nuclear wastes. In brief, it means that we should take responsibility now for nuclear waste – store it safely and strongly above ground, away from large water bodies, and monitor it, repair and repackage containers. This is an alternative to the present plan for bury it and forget about it – leave it to future generations to cope with any issues.
This stewardship plan is expensive – the costs of making the containers really strong, and kept in repair, and the ongoing work of monitoring and repair. Indeed it will add to the already well-known diseconomics of the industry.
So the authorities and experts will not like it. But perhaps – some will. Some will join the ranks of the discredited critics of the nuclear industry. It would be something to be proud of – to join with Gordon Edwards and others who look towards a positive plan – as we exit from the nuclear age.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 