Burying The CIA’s Assange Secrets
The Dissenter, Kevin Gosztola, Feb 19, 2025
The CIA won the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by four Americans who claimed they had their privacy rights violated when they visited Julian Assange in Ecuador’s London embassy.
A United States judge dismissed a lawsuit pursued by four American attorneys and journalists, who alleged that the CIA and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo spied on them while they were visiting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in Ecuador’s London embassy.
“The subject matter of this litigation,” Judge John Koeltl determined [PDF], “is subject to the state secrets privilege in its entirety.” Any answer to the allegations against the CIA would “reveal privileged information.”
Few publications followed this case as closely as The Dissenter. It unfolded at the same time that the U.S. government pursued the extradition of Assange, making any outcome potentially significant.
On August 15, 2022, Margaret Ratner Kunstler, a civil rights activist and human rights attorney, and Deborah Hrbek, a media lawyer, filed their complaint. Journalist Charles Glass and former Der Spiegel reporter John Goetz also joined them as plaintiffs.
The lawsuit claimed that the plaintiffs, like all visitors, were required to “surrender” their electronic devices to employees of Undercover Global, a Spanish security company managed by David Morales that was hired by Ecuador to handle embassy security. They were unaware that UC Global had allegedly “copied the information stored on the devices” and shared the information with the CIA.
Pompeo allegedly approved the copying of visitors’ passports, “including pages with stamps and visas.” He ensured that all “computers, laptops, mobile phones, recording devices, and other electronics brought into the embassy,” were “seized, dismantled, imaged, photographed, and digitized.” This included the collection of IMEI and SIM codes from visitors’ phones.
Morales and UC Global were named as defendants in the lawsuit, however, due to the fact that they were not in the U.S., the claims against them were never really litigated.
In December 2023, Koeltl dismissed multiple claims that were filed against the CIA. But remarkably, he found that the four Americans who had visited Assange had grounds to sue the CIA for violating their “reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“If the government’s search (of their conversations and electronic devices) and seizure (of the contents of their electronic devices) were unlawful, the plaintiffs have suffered a concrete and particularized injury fairly traceable to the challenged program and redressable by a favorable ruling,” Koeltl declared.
Soon after, the court was notified that the CIA would assert the state secrets privilege to block the lawsuit.
Bill Burns, who was the CIA director, submitted a declaration in April 2024 that asserted “serious” and “exceptionally grave” damage to the “national security” of the U.S. would occur if the case proceeded.
……………………………………………… Burying secrets so deep and for so long that the public does not find them is typically the CIA’s objective when they invoke the state secrets privilege. They have buried a 6,300-page Senate intelligence report on CIA rendition, detention, and torture during the global war on terrorism. They are now burying their Assange secrets.
The decision all but ensures that the CIA will be able to conceal what they allegedly did to Assange, WikiLeaks, and his supporters for several decades. The agency, with support from the U.S. Justice Department, has already frustrated a Spanish court trying to prosecute Morales and other UC Global employees for alleged criminal acts.
It was always unlikely that Assange’s defense would uncover details about the CIA’s alleged actions and share those revelations during an Espionage Act trial. The restrictions the government and courts impose on defendants come with procedures to shield the CIA from scrutiny.
When the prosecution against Assange ended in a plea deal in June 2024, that benefited the CIA even if it was not the outcome that current and former high-ranking officials had desired. The CIA would never have to worry about the agency’s actions being discussed by the press and on social media during a high-profile trial.
Of course, there is also the matter of the CIA allegedly violating the privacy rights of Assange visitors while the U.S government targeted a journalist living under political asylum in a foreign embassy. The U.S. news media never showed much interest in the CIA’s actions, however, let’s not forget there was widespread global opposition to the Assange prosecution that helped end the case. The agency is right to be concerned that if more was known it might erupt into an international scandal. https://thedissenter.org/burying-the-cias-assange-secrets/
Conveniently forgotten and ignored – the 8 years war in Ukraine up to 2022
https://theaimn.net/conveniently-forgotten-and-ignored-the-8-years-war-in-ukraine-up-to-2022/ 22 Feb 25
There’s uproar in the Western media, about Donald Trump wanting to negotiate with Putin, a peace deal in Ukraine. And Trump called Ukraine’s President Zelensky a dictator and blamed him for starting the present war Ukraine.war. And he said that that Zelensky’s approval rating has fallen to 4%. General agreement that Donald Trump was “rewriting history”.
Well, Trump is well known for lying, and it’s just so easy to scrutinise those statements and smugly assert that they are incorrect, and obviously Donald Trump has no idea of what he’s talking about.
And yet, and yet…. all those statements deserve further scrutiny. Because underneath their careless inaccuracy lies the real history of the Ukraine mess.
Historically, Ukraine as a sovereign State goes back only until 1991. In its previous history, it was dominated by a motley succession of European powers, but in the 19th and 20th.Century, by Russia. Cruel exploitation by Stalin’s rule in the 1930’s, was followed in 1941 by a brutal Nazi regime, and after 1944 back under oppressive Soviet control.
It is no surprise that there are long-standing resentments among both Ukrainian dwellers and in the diaspora. There is also a variety of ethnic backgrounds, and a clear difference between the ‘West-leaning” culture of Western Ukraine, and the more pro-Russian culture to the East.
At the end of World War 2, the Allies had the opportunity to include Russia in some co-operative Council of the powers, as was done by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, after the Napoleonic Wars. Instead, the USA, Britain and France chose to set up a co-operative group, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), that excluded Russia. American triumphalism gradually encouraged this into a defensive group against Russia, and encouraged former Soviet States to be part of America’s “sphere of influence” and to join NATO.
As Ukraine is the largest Western State on Russia’s border, it is obvious that Russia would not want it to be NATO state, potentially with U.S military bases aimed at Russia
Now, to go to the forgotten 8 years Ukrainian war.
In 2014, an American-sponsored coup overthrew the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych. He was subsequently followed by oligarch Petro Poroshenko, who removed Russian as an official language, – causing opposition in the Eastern provinces. The result was fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk). The rebels of Donetsk and Lugansk held referendums, seeking not to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language .
2014-15 Minsk Agreements. Leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine gathered in Minsk, and supported the agreements between Russia, Ukraine, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the leaders of separatist-held regions Donetsk and Luhansk. This formally gave Donetsk an Luhansk autonomous status within Ukraine.
2015 – 2022 . The agreements were never implemented. The Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive “anti-terrorist operation” against the Donbass, and the fighting continued. This war was not popular, reservists failed to tun up. “. In October/November 2017, 70% of conscripts did not show up for the “Fall 2017” recall campaign. This is not counting suicides and desertions (often over to the autonomists), which reached up to 30 percent of the workforce in the ATO area”. Young Ukrainians refused to go and fight in the Donbass and preferred emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the demographic deficit of the country.”
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)OHCHR estimates the total number of war-related casualties in Ukraine from 14 April 2014 to 31 December 2021 to be 51,000–54,000
This entire 8 years of war is rarely mentioned by the Western media. There’s no recognition of the impact of imposing the Ukrainian language on Russian-speakers. No consideration of some loyalties to Russia and her role in WW2. No consideration of the influence of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators, and the role of the minority neo-Nazis. There was one exceptional coverage by The Guardian in 2014 – It’s not Russia that’s pushed Ukraine to the brink of war.
2019. Volodymr Zelensky was elected with a huge majority, on his pledge to uphold the Minsk agreements, and bring peace to Ukraine. But soon after coming to power, Zelensky reneged on that pledge. He later made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk, give his country more time to prepare for war. A large-scale militarisation of Ukraine began. The build-up of the Ukrainian army was accompanied by the development of militias, notoriously the Azov brigade, with links to the Nazi past and the philosophy of past far-right leader Stepan Bandera.
2022. February 24. Russia launched its Special Military Operation into Ukraine, claiming that it was a limited operation, not a war. Russia argued that this was lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter, that it may use force against Ukraine in order to defend the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Peoples Republics. Anyway it soon turned into a full-scale war against Ukraine, which certainly was not legal, and Ukraine got the enthusiastic backing of the USA and NATO, though no foreign troops.
The Political situation in Ukraine. The Zelensky regime has banned opposition parties, cracked down on the use of the Russian language, restricted media and freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, violating international law. Zelensky signed a law that threatens to effectively shut down the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) – the largest faith-based organization in the country. He signed a law that restricted import of books from Russia.
So – to go back to Donald Trump’s inaccurate claims and “rewriting history”. How far off the mark was Trump? In fact, Zelensky was elected democratically, but has now turned Ukraine into a dictatorship. Zelensky did not start the war, but he provoked it, by overturning his election policy to implement the Minsk agreements. Zelensky’s approval rating is still above 50%, but has slipped over the past year.
It is Western dogma that you can’t approve of anything that Donald Trump does. So for anyone to even mention the 8 years’ war in Ukraine is to invite being branded as an idiotic puppet of Russian propaganda and disinformation.
The “progressive” West notices with disapproval, that Donald Trump’s aim is to get American business’s control of Ukraine’s mineral resources, in exchange for Russia getting territorial concessions. Well, what else would you expect from Trump – whose whole aim is to get American (and his) control of business, preferably everywhere? It still might be a better deal for Ukrainians than obliteration. Way back, the West, and Zelensky could have honoured the Minsk agreement, and given the Donbass provinces self-government within the state of Ukraine.
Peter Dutton’s nuclear accounting trick #3: Hide the costs of keeping coal
RENEW ECONOMY. Tristan Edis, Feb 21, 2025
This is part 4 of a five part series of articles examining the four accounting tricks that the Liberal-National Party employed in the costing of their energy plan to slow the roll-out of renewables and rely instead on nuclear power. The first article, which provides the overarching context is published here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here.
These four accounting tricks act to mislead voters that the Liberal-National Party could lower energy bills through a shift to nuclear when in reality it is likely to increase power bills.
This article focuses on accounting trick three of four: Hide most of the cost of replacing coal with nuclear to outside the time period considered in the costing.
It’s very important to note that the Coalition’s costing of its electricity system cuts out in the year 2051. It only accounts for costs incurred between 2025 to 2051 and anything after that date is ignored.
The LNP’s claim of a 44% saving does not represent the cost of two alternative systems for achieving near zero emissions once they are both completed to see how nuclear might reduce the cost of the system.
Instead, a heavy influence on the cost estimates in the model is the degree to which the scenarios can delay incurring costs in replacing the old, highly polluting and likely to be increasingly unreliable coal power plants.
How is this a problem?
Coal power stations are much like a car – they are exposed to extreme heat, pressure and general mechanical stress that means they wear out and become unreliable as they get old. That’s physics.
Many of us will have experience with an old car that has got to the point where it increasingly encounters mechanical problems and the mechanic is warning us that it really needs some major repairs but these would cost more than the car is worth.
At this point many of us can be tempted to take a gamble by putting off such repairs, and go for temporary, less costly patch-ups and hope the car keeps going. That will be a lot cheaper than buying a new car, at least for as long as we can keep the old car going. But it comes with the risk that it could leave us stranded with a broken-down car at an extremely inconvenient point in time and even pose a danger to our safety and that of others.
The Coalition’s modeled plan chooses to take that gamble with our electricity system. But it doesn’t account for the risks and potentially extreme costs this involves if the gamble goes wrong.
Clare Savage, the head of the Australian Energy Regulator has repeatedly warned that failing to replace aging coal plants risks both power system reliability and also affordability observing, “Coal can’t last until you have nuclear power available.”……………………………………………………………………
Unless Peter Dutton has a secret plan to prioritise curtailment of rooftop solar in favour of coal generators, this is likely to get worse over time.
Now, the way that the consultant, Frontier, constructed Dutton’s costing is that they space out the cost of constructing new power stations as an annualised payment – a bit like how you’d purchase a new car not by paying for it upfront but rather by taking out a loan and then paying it back incrementally over time.
Except in this case the annualised payment for a new power station is spaced out over several decades and for nuclear it is 50 years. Meanwhile for the existing, very old power plants the original cost of constructing those plants is omitted from the annualised costs.
By pushing out the point at which they replace the old power stations with new ones until the 2040’s, the Coalition gets to hide much of the cost of the nuclear plants until towards the very back end of the projection period. We’ll still have to pay for these nuclear power stations well after 2051, but that’s conveniently left out of the costing period.
Meanwhile, in the scenario said to represent Labor Policy, the coal-fired power stations are replaced quite quickly, so the cost of the new, replacement power stations is taken into account across almost the entire time period considered in the model. …………………………
The nuclear plants aren’t really delivering any meaningful saving in the unit cost of energy relative to relying on renewables and storage. Instead, the savings are coming from the Liberal Party delaying the point at which the coal power plants are replaced. ………………………………………. more https://reneweconomy.com.au/peter-duttons-nuclear-accounting-trick-3-hide-the-costs-of-keeping-coal/
Dutton hints at privatising nuclear – one day
Phillip Coorey, 21 Feb 25
Peter Dutton has suggested his proposed nuclear power plants would one day be privatised, as he rejected the idea of the Albanese government taking an equity stake in the Whyalla steelworks.
With the $2.4 billion rescue plan for the steelworks in mid-north South Australia sparking a broader discussion about the re-nationalisation of business, the opposition leader said while he supported the plan, he derided the prospect of an equity stake in the Whyalla plant as “Whitlamesque”………………………….
Dutton said he was “completely opposed” to an equity stake.
“The prime minister can’t run a government – how can he run a steelworks? He’s now proposing to own an airline. I mean, this is Whitlamesque,” Dutton said.
Asked to explain why he opposed governments buying into troubled businesses but planned to spend $331 billion to build own and operate seven nuclear power plants, Dutton said there was a key difference in the nuclear energy would be a start-up industry.
“Nuclear power carries with it, from our country’s perspective, a zero-based knowledge, or a very low level of understanding, unlike in the United Kingdom or in Canada or in France or other parts of the world, including the United States,” he said.
“It’s obvious to me that there is greater reassurance in the public’s mind about the safety and the safe delivery of nuclear technology if it’s in government ownership.
“Now, it doesn’t need to be in government ownership forever.” https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-hints-at-privatising-nuclear-one-day-20250221-p5ldzj
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 