Assange Case: Sweden, Britain, and Interpol Insult Rape Victims Worldwide

J'Accuse: Sweden, Britain, and Interpol Insult Rape Victims Worldwide

by Naomi Wolf     Dec. 13, 2010

How do I know that Interpol, Britain and Sweden's treatment of Julian Assange is a form of theater? Because I know what happens in rape accusations against men that don't involve the embarrassing of powerful governments.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in Wandsworth prison in advance of questioning on state charges of sexual molestation. Lots of people have opinions about the charges. But I increasingly believe that only those of us who have spent years working with rape and sexual assault survivors worldwide, and know the standard legal response to sex crime accusations, fully understand what a travesty this situation is against those who have to live through how sex crime charges are ordinarily handled -- and what a deep, even nauseating insult this situation is to survivors of rape and sexual assault worldwide.

Assange: recently released --under stringent conditions

Here is what I mean: men are pretty much never treated the way Assange is being treated in the face of sex crime charges.

I started working as a counselor in a UK center for victims of sexual assault in my mid-twenties. I also worked as a counselor in a battered women's shelter in the US, where sexual violence was often part of the pattern of abuse. I have since spent two decades traveling the world reporting on and interviewing survivors of sexual assault, and their advocates, in countries as diverse as Sierra Leone and Morocco, Norway and Holland, Israel and Jordan and the Occupied Territories, Bosnia and Croatia, Britain, Ireland and the united States.

I tell you this as a recorder of firsthand accounts. Tens of thousand of teenage girls were kidnapped at gunpoint and held as sex slaves in Sierra Leone during that country's civil war. They were tied to trees and to stakes in the ground and raped by dozens of soldiers at a time. Many of them were as young as twelve or thirteen. Their rapists are free.

Rape victims in a destroyed hamlet near Magburaka. Photo by Phillip C. Winslow

I met a fifteen-year-old girl who risked her life to escape from her captor in the middle of the night, taking the baby that resulted from her rape by hundreds of men. She walked from Liberia to a refugee camp in Sierra Leone, barefoot and bleeding, living on roots in the bush. Her rapist, whose name she knows, is free.

Generals at every level instigated this country-wide sexual assault of a generation of girls. Their names are known. They are free. In Sierra Leone and Congo, rapists often used blunt or sharp objects to penetrate the vagina. Vaginal tears and injuries, called vaginal fistulas, are rampant, as any health worker in that region can attest, but medical care is often unavailable. So women who have been raped in this way often suffer from foul-smelling constant discharges from infections that could be treated with a low-cost antibiotic -- were one available. Because of their injuries, they are shunned by their communities and rejected by their husbands. Their rapists are free.

Women -- and girls -- are drugged, kidnapped and trafficked by the tens of thousands for the sex industry in Thailand and across Eastern Europe. They are held as virtual prisoners by pimps. If you interview the women who spend their lives trying to rescue and rehabilitate them, they attest to the fact that these women's kidnappers and rapists are well known to local and even national authorities -- but these men never face charges. These rapists are free.

In the Bosnian conflict, rape was a weapon of war. Women were imprisoned in barracks utilized for this purpose, and raped, again at gunpoint, for weeks at a time. They could not escape. Minimalist hearings after the conflict resulted in slap-on-the-wrist sentences for a handful of perpetrators. The vast majority of rapists, whose names are known, did not face charges. The military who condoned these assaults, whose names are known, are free.

Women who testify to having been raped in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Morocco face imprisonment and beatings, and being abandoned by their families. Their rapists almost never face charges and are free. Women who testify to rape in India and Pakistan have been subjected to honor killings and acid attacks. Their rapists almost never face charges, are almost never convicted. They are free. A well-known case of a high-born playboy in India who was accused of violently raping a waitress -- who was willing to testify against him -- resulted in a cover-up at the highest levels of the police inquiry. He is free.

What about more typical cases closer to home? In the Western countries such as Britain and Sweden, who are uniting to hold Assange without bail, if you actually interviewed women working in rape crisis centers, you will hear this: it is desperately hard to get a conviction for a sex crime, or even a serious hearing. Workers in rape crisis centers in the UK and Sweden will tell you that they have deep backlogs of women raped for years by fathers or stepfathers -- who can't get justice. Women raped by groups of young men who have been drinking, and thrown out of the backs of cars, or abandoned after a gang-rape in an alley -- who can't get justice. Women raped by acquaintances who can't get a serious hearing.

"....Yet three-quarters of local authorities have no services for rape victims, and only one in twenty rapes reported to the police leads to a conviction. This failure to bring rapists to justice amounts to a near licence to rape."  (Ref: Fawcett Society, UK)

In the US I have heard from dozens of young women who have been drugged and raped in college campuses across the nation. There is almost inevitably a cover-up by the university -- guaranteed if their assailants are prominent athletes on campus, or affluent -- and their rapists are free. If it gets to police inquiry, it seldom gets very far. Date rape? Forget it. If a woman has been drinking, or has previously had consensual sex with her attacker, or if there is any ambiguity about the issue of consent, she almost never gets a serious hearing or real investigation.

If the rare middle-class woman who charges rape against a stranger -- for those inevitably are the few and rare cases that the state bothers to hear -- actually gets treated seriously by the legal system, she will nonetheless find inevitable hurdles to any kind of real hearing let alone real conviction: either a 'lack of witnesses' or problems with evidence, or else a discourse that even a clear assault is racked with ambiguity. If, even more rare, a man is actually convicted -- it will almost inevitably be a minimal sentence, insulting in its triviality, because no one wants to 'ruin the life' of a man, often a young man, who has 'made a mistake'. (The few exceptions tend to regard a predictable disparity of races -- black men do get convicted for assault on higher-status white women whom they do not know.)

In other words: Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven. In terms of a case involving the kinds of ambiguities and complexities of the alleged victims' complaints -- sex that began consensually that allegedly became non-consensual when dispute arose around a condom -- please find me, anywhere in the world, another man in prison today without bail on charges of anything comparable.

Of course 'No means No', even after consent has been given, whether you are male or female; and of course condoms should always be used if agreed upon. As my fifteen-year-old would say: Duh.

But for all the tens of thousands of women who have been kidnapped and raped, raped at gunpoint, gang-raped, raped with sharp objects, beaten and raped, raped as children, raped by acquaintances -- who are still awaiting the least whisper of justice -- the highly unusual reaction of Sweden and Britain to this situation is a slap in the face. It seems to send the message to women in the UK and Sweden that if you ever want anyone to take sex crime against you seriously, you had better be sure the man you accuse of wrongdoing has also happened to embarrass the most powerful government on earth.

Keep Assange in prison without bail until he is questioned, by all means, if we are suddenly in a real feminist worldwide epiphany about the seriousness of the issue of sex crime: but Interpol, Britain and Sweden must, if they are not to be guilty of hateful manipulation of a serious women's issue for cynical political purposes, imprison as well -- at once -- the hundreds of thousands of men in Britain, Sweden and around the world world who are accused in far less ambiguous terms of far graver forms of assault.

Anyone who works in supporting women who have been raped knows from this grossly disproportionate response that Britain and Sweden, surely under pressure from the US, are cynically using the serious issue of rape as a fig leaf to cover the shameful issue of mafioso-like global collusion in silencing dissent. That is not the State embracing feminism. That is the State pimping feminism.

Naomi Wolf

Bestselling Author, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot

Read More

"MUAD'DIB" AND HIS CLASH WITH THE NEW WORLD ORDER: A FRIEND CHECKS IN

"MUAD'DIB" AND HIS CLASH WITH THE NEW WORLD ORDER: A FRIEND CHECKS IN
A close friend of Muad'Dib, whose name is "Rob", has sent me an extremely interesting outline of his take on "The New World Order".   Since what he has to say makes more sense to me than anything else I have read about it, I wanted to share it.  He begins by responding to an exchange in which I am engaged on scientificamerican.com, which was initiated by a column written by Michael Shermer, who is the editor of SKEPTIC magazine.   The link to this exchange is  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-conspiracy-theory-director&page=2&posted=1&posted=1
_________________________

On the New World Order
 
by Rob
 
Thank-you for sending the link to the Michael Shermer article "The Conspiracy Theory Detector" in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and sharing your comments.  The very title of his article is proof of who he is working for and the disinformation media machine that THEY own and use to their benefit.  I use the term "THEY", which is from the John Carpenter film "THEY LIVE" and is an acronym meaning "The Hierarchy Enslaving You".  THEY refers to the New World Order International Banksters, who are known by many names and organizations they have created (e.g. Illuminati, Builderbergs, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Committee of 300, etc.).  THEY are the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, etc. using their private banking institutions, i.e. the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. to own and control the entire world.  THEY are also known as the hidden hand.

Obviously the Federal Reserve Bank is a misnomer purposely meant to deceive.  The Federal Bank isn't "federal" and it has absolutely nothing in reserve.  It isn't really even a "bank".  It is a private corporation, as you probably know, that is being used to fraudulently steal the wealth of the nation from the American people just like the Bank of England is doing to the British and all of the Commonwealth countries, through usury and the creation of money out of thin-air.  All these things are made possible by fraudulent legislation that THEY have their puppet politicians enact, which began with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. 

Both the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank of England are private banks working as front companies to an alliance of six major international banks, often referred to as the Big Six Beast Banks: Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Group, Inter-Allied Group, and JP Morgan Chase. The two banking cartel families at the top of all of this are the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who in turn are intermarried and inter-related to every major Royal Family in Europe: The British, Dutch, Spanish, Norwegian and Greek Royal Families to name the most important ones.  A primer article on the NWO can be found at http://www.educate-yourself.org/nwo/, which includes a link to the Tavistock Clinic that you might find informative as well.  If you are interested in a copy of the Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300, published in 1992 by Dr. John Coleman, that is referenced in the primer article, please let me know and I can provide you with a copy of the study, which is extremely thorough.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild is quoted as saying "I care not who makes a country's laws as long as I make their money" which was a LIE.  Rothschild was a CONMAN and he judged everyone by his own standards and assumed that everyone was like him and had their price. Unfortunately, it appears he was right about the majority of people. The fact that the New World Order got their puppet politicians to enact the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, and the fact that they had John F. Kennedy killed when he went to repeal it, is proof that Rothschild lied.

The powerbase of the NWO is their ability to enact fraudulent legislation.  Take away all of these fraudulent man-made laws that they have been using to "legally" set up their monetary policy and private banking institutions in virtually every country in the world, and their entire house of cards will come tumbling down.  If we don't make their puppet politicians back down, and repeal all of this fraudulent legislation—the same kind of legislation that is being used against John Hill (JAH/Muad'Dib) right now to supposedly make telling the truth a crime—then the NWO will continue to manipulate the world into what THEY want it to be, which most people don't realize eventually includes the extermination of 90% of the world's "useless eaters" (consumers) in this never ending war on terror, which is really a war OF terror. 

THEY control both sides of the isle in Congress and in Parliament, so they couldn't care less about which political party is in office or power.  THEY fund both sides of every war because bankrolling arms sales and lending money to governments on both sides of a conflict that THEY created is an extremely profitable business and also helps consolidate their power and control.  THEY are into and controlling EVERYTHING, including the mass media propaganda machine, the legal system and organized religion, of which the RCC is the largest.

The Vatican rules over approximately 2 billion of the world’s 6.5 billion people. The colossal wealth of the Vatican includes enormous investments with the Rothschilds in Britain, France, and the USA, and with giant oil and weapons corporations like Shell and General Electric. The Vatican solid gold bullion, worth billions, is stored with the Rothschild controlled Bank of England and the Federal Reserve Bank.  It is interesting to note that Vatican city is not part of Rome or Italy just as the District of Columbia is not part of the United States and the inner city of London isn't part of London or England.  These cities called “city states” have their own independent flag, their own separate laws, and their own separate identity.

The Roman Catholic church is the biggest business empire on the planet, possessing more material wealth than any bank, corporation, giant trust, or government anywhere on the globe.  They are the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator, and property owner in existence. The Pope, who is the visible ruler of this colossal global wealth, is one of the richest men on Earth. While two-thirds of the world earns less than two dollars a day, and one-fifth of the world is under fed or starving to death, the Vatican hordes the world’s wealth and their massive profits from it in the stock market, whilst at the same time preaching about giving.  Christ told us that we CANNOT serve God (the greater good) and money/materialism (Matthew 6:24), so how then can they possibly claim to be working for God and the greater good?  It should be noted that ALL other religions, including the rest of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are doing the very same thing, albeit not quite as successfully as the RCC or with as visible a ruler.

Similarly, Elizabeth Mountbatten, who is also known by the aliases "Windsor" and "QE 2", is the richest woman on Earth, whilst hundreds of thousands of British people are homeless, with millions living in relative poverty and she has political parties of both left and right, in her illegal democracy.  She is the head of the Committee of 300 and the head of the Church of England, and the head of ALL of the Commonwealth countries, not to mention her stock ownership in oil, minerals, gold and many other holdings.  Elizabeth Mountbatten has managed to keep the TRUTH about the British people's true identity from them just as she has kept from them that she is actually a FRAUD and not really the rightful heir to the British Throne, as evidenced by the fact that she was knowingly crowned on a fake coronation stone.  IF the British people knew the truth about these things they would LAWFULLY demand the monarchy give back the wealth it has defrauded the people out of, using its own fraudulent and illegal laws and taxes.  Please see http://jahtruth.net/britmon for the truth about the British Monarchy.

This is all part of the real reason that John Hill is currently imprisoned in England.  THEY don't want the British people nor the rest of the world to know who was really behind the 7/7 London bombings, and the "7/7 Ripple Effect" is embarrassing them and exposing the truth.  THEY are punishing John Hill in the hope of making an example of Him and silencing everyone who speaks the truth.  It is why THEY coined the term "conspiracy theory" and then had their propaganda machines go to work on programming the masses into believing that anyone who didn't believe their official nonsense must be crazy, just as the first comment under the above-referenced SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article stated.  In the face of the overwhelming evidence that 7/7 was an inside job, just like 911 and Madrid (which took place 911 days after 911) were inside jobs, how could any rationally-minded person not come to the conclusion that both events were the result of a global conspiracy?  False flag terrorists attacks following the exact same template and happening in different parts of the world are undeniable PROOF that there is a global conspiracy.

John Hill (JAH/Muad'Dib) has known this for quite some time and has been working diligently to make others aware of it and to teach us all by example what the right thing is to do and how to do it without fear.  He knows better than most what is at stake and that the only way we can all avoid another 911, Madrid or 7/7—or worse—is to open our eyes and let the puppet politicians know that we all know what they are up to and will be watching them to make sure they don't get away with it again.  The politicians have to be more afraid of the people than they are of their NWO puppet masters or they will continue to work for the NWO to enslave everyone that survives this war of terror.

WHO IS "MAUD'DIB" (ANTHONY JOHN HILL)?  

"Friends of Muad'Dib"  (http://mtrial.org/) have this to say:

Anthony John Hill, aged 62, also known as “Muad’Dib”, the producer of the documentary film,“7/7 Ripple Effect”, has been charged with “intending to pervert the course of justice,” after counter-terrorism police investigated him for sending copies of his film to the British court, requesting the court administrators deliver them to the judge and jury-foreman in a trial related to the London Underground bombings on July 7th, 2005.  This has always been common practice in Britain, as people send opinions or evidence, openly or anonymously, to courthouses all the time, acting as an “amicus curiae” (a friend of the court).
Now—posting DVDs to a court is a crime—and possibly “terrorism"?
Do you feel safer?  Or have things gone too far?
The DVD film itself,“7/7 Ripple Effect”, has gained international notoriety for using official government and mainstream media reports to highlight irregularities and impossibilities in the Home Office’s official take, and then re-take, on what happened.  Initially dismissed by many as “conspiracy theory”, recent testimony at the 7/7 inquest, in tandem with deeper independent investigations over the years, is increasingly proving that the film is more fact than theory—putting the government in an uncomfortable situation.

Those who are not "friends of Muad'Dib" have an entirely different viewpoint of Hill.  Their vilification of Hill is proceeding apace, as this "portrait" suggests.  Hill is easy to mockbecause he has written a complex Biblical-style set of writings -- available at  jahtruth.net/twh.pdf  -- which display not only a deep knowledge of most known traditional and contemporary religious systems, beliefs and legends,but also incorporates science fiction films and a methodology to defeat the New World Order into a theological format that appeals to some people yearning for a kinder and better Order in modern life.

However, these writings leave Hill wide open to accusations that he's a mentally unstable fruitcake.  Without presuming to pass judgment on Hill's revelations and writings in their religious context, which have been around for some time, his statements concerning the 7/7/05 London attacks, known through his DVD,  "7/7 Ripple Effect"  (Ref: http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/) offer some solid facts and intelligent statements that are indeed revelatory.

Perhaps not surprisingly, whistleblowers John Hill, and Wikileaks leader Julian Assange areboth being being held in London's Wandsworth prison.  Julian Assange’s own former Wikileaks associates are speaking out about Julian helping to cover-up evidence regarding how the US and Britain lied to get into the middle-eastern wars in the first place. Mr. Assange would also prefer that people don’t find out about his deals with Israeli figures like Benjamin Netanyahu. Assange also has plenty of access to the media, many think too much access, and through the above, it becomes clear that he is either working for the Establishment willingly, or as a dupe.

Read More

Targeted Assassinations: Challenging US Policy

Stephen Lendman
6 August 2010



The WikiLeaks "Afghan War Diaries" provided documented evidence of America's out-of-control lawlessness, including Special Forces death squads (Task Force 373) extrajudicially murdering or capturing suspected Taliban and Al-Qaeda figures, many hundreds or perhaps thousands on a so-called Jpel (joint prioritized effects) list, also willfully killing civilian men, women and children, the London Times Kabul-based Jerome Starkey reporting earlier on these crimes, suppressed in US media accounts, presenting an embedded view of the war, omitting the targeting of Americans until then Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair acknowledged it in February, explaining that:

CIA operatives and Special Forces death squads have been authorized to kill US citizens abroad, suspected of terrorist involvement, Blair saying:

"If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," the criteria being "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans. Those are the factors involved. We don't target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans or has resulted in it," based on suspicions, not evidence.

Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen living in Yemen, was perhaps the first "announced" candidate, targeted for opposing US belligerency, not crimes.

In late June, Deputy White House National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John O. Brennan, acknowledged a hit list with dozens of other names, saying:

"There are, in my mind, dozens of US persons who are in different parts of the world, and they are very concerning to us, not just because of the passport they hold, but because they understand our operational environment here, they bring with them certain skills, whether it be language skills or familiarity with potential targets, and they are very worrisome, and we are determined to take away their ability to assist with terrorist attacks."

"If an American person or citizen is in Yemen or in Pakistan or in Somalia or another place, and they are (suspected of) trying to carry out attacks against US interests, they also will face the full brunt of a US response. What we need to do is to apply the appropriate tool and the appropriate response," leaving little doubt what he meant, putting all Americans at risk globally, based on suspicions, not proof - potential targets for lawless assassinations with impunity.



It was standard policy under George Bush's November 2001 Military Order Number 1, authorizing the capture, kidnapping, or otherwise neutralizing of non-citizens (and later citizens) suspected of terrorist involvement, holding them indefinitely without charge, evidence, or due process, treating them as non-persons, disappearing them forever, the practice continuing under Obama.

Last September, it was learned that then Central Command head General David Petraeus issued a secret directive to send covert US Special Operations forces to friendly and hostile states in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Horn of Africa, and by implication anywhere in the world to "penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy" terror threats and "prepare the environment" for planned military attacks.

On June 4, Washington Post writers Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe headlined, "US 'Secret War' Expands Globally as Special Operations Forces Take a Larger Role," saying:

The Obama administration "has significantly expanded a largely secret US war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups with Special Ops forces in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year."

On June 5, London Sunday Times writers Tim Reid and Michael Evans repeated it, headlining, "Obama secretly deploys US special forces to 75 countries across the world," saying:

He usurped even greater power than George Bush to pursue an "aggressive secret war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups," using increased drone attacks and 9,000 Special Forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians, operations continuing daily.



Petraeus' order "also allowed for US special forces to enter Iran to gather intelligence" for potential future operations. The Pentagon's Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order authorizes Special Ops forces sent anywhere, and its Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) deploys covertly to kill suspected suspects, including US citizens.

Washington Denying Anwar al-Awlaki's Right to Legal Representation

US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets (OFAC) regulations, under The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, prohibit lawyers from defending accused terrorists pro bono without government permission, violators subject to up to 20 years imprisonment and fines up to $1 million.

According to Bill Quigley, Legal Director for the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the prohibition is unconstitutional, violating the Separation of Powers and First Amendment protection of "the right of non-profit lawyers and legal organizations to give pro bono legal representation to any US citizen," guaranteed also under the Fifth Amendment. CCR/ACLU'/s brief states:

"The notion that the government can compel a citizen to seek its permission before challenging the constitutionality of its actions in court is wholly foreign to our constitutional system, (and as) non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and human rights, Plaintiffs have a First Amendment (Fifth Amendment, and Separation of Powers) right to represent clients in litigation consistent with their organizational missions."

US law, not al-Awlaki, is at issue, the Obama administration exceeding its predecessor's lawlessness, expanding its imperial wars, threatening other parts of the world on every continent, openly targeting US citizens globally, perhaps even in America covertly by disappearing them, and denying lawyers the right to represent them - a clear example of despotism.

A US army Black Hawk helicopter flies as the sun sets over Baghdad, Iraq.


Several times it tried unsuccessfully to kill al-Awlaki. Covert efforts continue. CCR and ACLU want to defend him, saying civil law must decide, not Treasury regulations or Pentagon/CIA assassins. His father said "If the government has proof his son violated the law, then they should charge him in public and let the law take its course."

According to Quigley and others supporting the rule of law, "The right to go to court to challenge the government is a core US value."

As a result, on August 3, CCR and the ACLU sued Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Adam Szubin, Office of Foreign Assets Control Director, "challeng(ing) the legality of a regulatory scheme that requires attorneys to seek permission from the government before providing uncompensated legal representation to or for the benefit of individuals whom the government has designated as terrorists. In this case, the effect of the scheme may be to deny legal representation to a United States citizen whom the government is attempting to kill without any legal process."

The suit seeks an emergency order, invalidating the Treasury's unconstitutional regulation, permitting pro-bono representation to proceed without criminal or monetary penalties. If successful, a second suit will try to enjoin al-Awlaki's assassination. However, in today's lawless environment, the federal courts stacked with right-wing ideologues, and a reckless, out-of-control administration, CCR and ACLU lawyers face daunting obstacles to succeed - despite only wanting constitutional law enforced.



In early July, Nasser al-Awlaki, Anwar's father, retained CCR and the ACLU on his behalf. On July 16, OFEC named him a "specially designated global terrorist," prohibiting legal representation without permission. CCR and ACLU sought it but were denied, their suit challenging OFAC's decision "to invalidate the regulations and to make clear that lawyers can (represent "designated") individuals without first seeking the government's consent."

Its purpose is to challenge the lawless decision to kill American citizens, including al-Awlaki, without charge, evidence, trial, or due process - authority not allowed under US and international law.

"Under international human rights law, lethal force may be used in peacetime only when there is an imminent threat of deadly attack and (killing) is a last resort."

Designating US citizens terrorists, providing no criminal proof of guilt or evidence of an imminent threat, and denying them legal representation is lawless and egregious by any standard. Yet, post-9/11, "the US government has (targeted and) detained thousands of men as terrorists, only for courts or the government itself later to discover that the evidence (or charge) was wrong or unreliable and released them."

No one should be denied due process and judicial fairness. US policy is shocking, egregious and illegal, CCR, ACLU, numerous human rights groups, and others challenging it courageously, representing our rights like al-Awlaki's, fighting for the rule of law to prevent further democratic freedom erosions, vanishing in plain sight.

A Final Comment

In a late development, Politico.com reports that the Treasury Department will let CCR and ACLU represent al-Awlaki, OFAC Director Szubin saying Treasury's policy "is to broadly authorize the provision of pro bono legal services....To the extent that the particular legal services that the ACLU (and CCR wish) to provide in this instance do not fall into any of the broad categories that are generally licensed, (OFAC) will work with (them) to ensure that the legal services can be delivered."

At issue now is enjoining al-Awlaki's assassination, CCR Executive Director saying:

"President Obama is claiming the power to act as judge, jury and executioner while suspending any semblance of due process....The US government is going outside the law to create an ever-larger global war zone and turn the whole world into a battlefield. Would we tolerate it if China or France secretly decided to execute their enemies inside the US?"

In a separately filed March Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit, the ACLU wants information on procedures followed to put individuals like al-Awlaki on an unconstitutional hit list.

-------------

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Read More