1. “Rove Might Be Trying To “Pull A Siegelman” With Julian Assange
Is Karl Rove helping to export American-style political prosecutions to Scandinavia? Is “Bush’s brain” trying to fashion a bogus criminal case in Sweden against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, much like the one he helped build against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman?
The answer to both questions appears to be yes, based on a recent report by Andrew Kreig at Huffington Post. On top of that, we have information from Rove’s own Web site that confirms his close ties to Sweden, the subject of an earlier Legal Schnauzer post. And we have unearthed a video from Rove’s 2008 visit to Timbro, a “free market” think tank in Sweden.
Circumstantial evidence continues to build that Rove is behind, at least in part, the Assange case. If so, why? We will address that question in a moment.
Kreig, director of the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project, says the Assange arrest in Sweden has many of the hallmarks of the Siegelman case. And he notes that Rove has strong ties to Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who has been called “the Ronald Reagan of Europe.”
Here is what might be most disturbing about the Assange story: Rove appears to be working with the Obama administration to help muzzle WikiLeaks and its founder. “
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010/12/rove-might-be-trying-to-pull-siegelman.html
2. ““National Security” Means Tyranny
The term “national security” has become like the word “racism.” It has been applied so liberally for so long that its overstretched usage has rendered it meaningless. Definitions necessarily require a limited and fixed meaning. If everyone is a “racist” then no one is. If everything becomes “national security” then nothing is.
Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona announced this month that obesity “affects our national and global security.” We also learned this month that the Department of Homeland Security believes that “climate change has the potential to accelerate and intensify extreme weather events which threaten the nation’s sustainability and security.” Being fat is a matter of “national security?” Global warming falls into the category of “national security?” Really?
The entire WikiLeaks controversy has hinged upon the question of whether or not the whistleblower group has compromised America’s national security. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says it has not, yet adds, “The initial assessment in no way discounts the risk to national security.” So there you have it. WikiLeaks’ mere existence represents a permanent threat to national security. As dictated and defined by whom? The federal government, which not-so-coincidentally continues to vaguely say that everything WikiLeaks does is a potential threat to national security, while never being able to cite anything specifically, per Gates’s admission.
…
The basic function of any government is to protect citizens’ liberties, yet federal officials now use vague, peculiar, and questionable interpretations of “national security” to promote policies either antagonistic toward or antithetical to America’s most basic precepts and principles. Personal choice? Freedom of information? Constitutionally declared wars? Civil liberties? Each continues to be damaged to some degree in the name of “national security,” at the expense of our actual security, and at a cost our ancestors would have never tolerated.”
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/12/29/national-security-means-tyranny/
3. “Media Hit Job of the Year: Punishing White House Correspondent Helen Thomas for Criticizing Israel”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22559
