AuntyAmerican comments

Sarge Says: This is good, but it would be even better if the U.S. allows the Mexican police to come up to the U.S. and help catch the drug dealers and drug addicts buying and using the junk.

Because everyone right-thinking American knows that locking-up drug users is the best way to counter the illegal drug trade.

People of the ME should also be aware that the USA has been supporting their oppressive regimes for many years.

As the saying goes, they're tyrants, but they're OUR tyrants.

God bless America.

Gimme a break. Recent events in Iran make it abundantly clear that free speech is not a priority in Iran. Whine all you want but people in the US are free to protest their government.

The USA doesn't care about free speech unless it's being repressed in countries which don't follow the American line.

The USA supported Egypt ($1.5 Bn/year), a country which suppressed all opposition and free speech and tortured those who dissented.

Americans were always quick to bring to trial other people, (see the Tokyo trial, where they hanged some Japanese officer for waterboarding) but somehow those rules never apply to them...

As the only world superpower the USA gets to make the rules; it come with the territiory. A bitter pill to swallow but there it is.

It isn't just Rumsfeld. America has been guilty of many actions, which, were they committed by any other (non-Western) nation, would be considered terrorist actions. And you can be sure the USA would have been shouting loudest about it, too. The USA is the biggest terrorist state in the world.

Perhaps it's like the old joke 'when you have a hammer everything you see is a nail'

All that flag waving and unwarranted, sickening love of the military...

The sooner they fall the better. I hope I'm still around to see it happen.

I think the U.S. should respond, and respond forcefully, to show Russia that this soviet style aggresion wont be tolerated in this modern era of international discource.

Hahaha!

Hahahahahaha! Oh, my goodness......

You mean like the modern international discource the USA engaged in prior to invading Iraq and Afghanistan!?

I hope the Egyptian peoples are just as strongly averse to any further U.S. meddling in their politics.

How many U.S. tax dollars have been sucked up by Egypt during this guy's rule?

Sucked up!? They were very willingly donated in the interests of regioal stability.

I hate to say this, but the US can't have it both ways.

Why do you 'Hate to say this...'? The USA has backed Egypt to the tune of $1.5Bn every year including military training and equipment. That's $1.5BN to prop up an authoritarian, non-democratic, torturing regime.

Arabs are rebelling not just against decrepit autocrats but the foreign backers who kept them in power

Now hear Americans complain of the Muslim brotherhood gaining power - they wont, but it suits the USA to now attempt to instil fear of what the outcome might be. The Muslim brotherhood is only strong, as is Hamas, because of the years of corruption in these Arab states - fully supported by American Dollars and military.

So President Obama gave a speech in Cairo and the unrest is all his fault? Please enlighten us and tell us what he's guilty of, encouraging democracy or endangering your favorite dictator?

Propping up this dictatorial regime, that's what!

The reason the Egyptians have not had democracy (ya know, that thing that the USA stands for) is because American imperialism has been backing dictators for too long.

Putin is such a thug, but revenge is in order. I say do whatever needs to be done.

Spoken like a true American. Very nice. I doubt, however, that Putin's revenge will be as shocking and unwarranted as the American revenge attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan or the shameful revenge atomic bombing of Japan.

What both Russia and the USA consistently fail at is in look for the reasons behind Islamic terrorism (as distinguished from Western terrorism as practiced by the USA).

There is no discussion of the root causes which lead to attacks (the foreign policy stance, etc); there is much planning of vengeful wars and killing. Why is this?

I am quite surprise no one suggested the US will invade China YET........

The general strategy of the USA is to only attack/invade countries which stand little chance of defending themselves.

Never quite understood why the assassination of an American president (even this one) should be of any international interest.

Seems just another American event we'll never be allowed to forget because....it was an American event.

China is dangerous. Her human rights record, treatment of ethnic minorities and religious movements are all horrific. Add to that her incesant bullying of Asian neighbors and you have a dangerous country.

However the United States is in no position to wag a finger at China over human rights, foreign policy or any other matter. America simply does not have the moral high ground it likes to project. Propping-up abusive and corrupt regimes, extrordinary rendition, torture, invasion or soverign states etc, etc.

Constantly playing the 'China is dangerous' card is becoming embarrassing. China is doing nothing that the USA hasn't already been involved in for years and continues to do to this day.

China is in danger of becoming the next 'official' enemy of the USA because it challenges the current American hegemony and vision of US-led world order.

Ah yes. There's nothing like a little reminder of how terribly at risk we all are to get the new year off to a great start.

Thank you, USA.

The 'idiot' was Swedish, but he studied in Bedford in the UK and had some link to the house in Luton.

Yep this has now been confirmed by UK police; he lived and studied in Luton.

6bncapitalists proclaimed:

It won't be the last. The city of Malmo in Sweden has basically been taken over by "immigrants" (i.e., Muslims).

Um, except that the idiot in this case was from Luton in England.

Unless we accept Pearl Harbor to be an brilliant act in warfare and politically correct.

Well that really depends upon which side of the fence one sits. I feel the same can be said of any military action.

The attack plan was formed by the Japanese as a preemptive strike designed to knock the USA feet out of action, thus allowing Japan to continue seizure of resources/territories in SE Asia.

Japan clearly viewed the USA as a national threat. As such P. Harbour became a valid target.

The recent acts against Middle Eastern nations by the USA have been referred to as being 'in the national interest'.

Therefore the Pearl Harbour attacks - far from being murderous and slaughter - can be euphemistically referred to in the same way.

I think the wording to the article was poorly chosen. "Sacrifice" as opposed to "slaughter", "murder", or something similar.

Here is a case in point: when lives of Americans are taken it is 'slaughter or murder'; when Americans are taking the lives of others it is 'in the national interest' or 'collateral' damage.

History is truly written by the victors.

For nearly a quarter of a century, the US Pearl Harbor survivors sponsored a baseball game with the Japanese pilots who dropped the bombs. That is what the US is really all about.

People should Honour and remember Pearl Harbour.

No it isn't and no it shouldn't.

The USA has a very selective memory when it comes to their military adventures. Sure, they will never allow us to forget Pearl Harbour, 9/11, etc, blah, blah.

However, ask them to remember secretly carpet bombing peasants in Cambodia and South Vietnam, Nuking two cities in response to a naval base being attacked or invading a soverign nation in a vengeful and criminal rage and they don't want to know.

You see, USA, the past DOES matter, but not only as defined by how it directly impacted your fine country and it's people.

Today we learnt that Iraqi intelligence officials apparently believe Saudi Arabia has been 'leading a Gulf effort to destabilize the Maliki government' and 'financing "the current al Qaida offensive in Iraq"'.

While 'Shia contacts' of the U.S. 'like PM advisor Rikabi and NSC advisor al-Sheikh' believe that there is 'Iranian influence in Iraq' but 'that it . . . is not aimed, unlike that of some Sunni Arab neighbours*, at fomenting terrorism that would destabilize the government'.

*e.g. Saudi Arabia.

That alone is enough to justify continuing to highlight and publish these cables.

Y'know, Al Qaeda in Iraq, bogeyman no.1, an organisation that lets off car bombs in market places in Shia areas, and that sends suicide bombers into cafes in Shia areas? Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, major regional allies of both the U.S. and U.K. governments, are under heavy suspicion of financing them in a bid to destabilize Iraq because they don't like its current government.

Even allowing for the fact that these allegations could be self-serving, politicised, or borne of ulterior motives, it's a big, big story. The possibility of Iraq being deliberately destabilised by state sponsors of terror who we literally roll out of the red carpet for.

The US should be aware that it is judged internationally by its behaviour. The conclusion is that the US is no longer the 'good guy' - as if it ever was. America condemned the USSR for its gulags; now the US runs gulags. They condemned vicious dictatorships for torture and the killing of civilians; The US tortures and kills civilians. They condemned China for denying free internet access and free speech; now the US finds it convenient to behave like China, but with less tact and more hypocrisy.

This complete overreaction says more about the establishment than the leaks ever will.

Why is Wikileaks being pursued by the Americans - is it illegal for non Americans who are not in America to pass information they have received to newspapers to publish?

As far as I am aware, much as they dislike the idea, freedom of speech means that occasionally people outside the US will publish information that the Americans would rather they didn't, they should either learn to live with it or shut up with their never-ending holier-than-thou attitude towards freedom of expression.

A story which should be taken up is how many organisations such as banks, ISP's and server farms bend over and bow to US pressure without a crime having been proven.

TheQuestioned joked:

Those documents dealing with the middle east are actually putting the U.S in a better light

What facts has Wikileaks revealed:

The US pressured Spain over CIA rendition and Guantánamo US diplomats spied on the UN's leadership There is a 'Secret' US war in both Pak and Yemen which all three governments have lied about

Yes, the USA is a positvely glowing example openess, diplomacy and freedom. An example to us all.

Judging by the downtime of the Wikileaks website amongst other things, I'd suggest we've only just scratched the surface - This could well prove to be an interesting chapter in history for future generations, if the world survives that long.

mikehuntez declared:

And you have read all that yourself in these documents?

Then, TimRissert continued:

No, he doesn't. Assange represents himself, ridden by his own massive narcissism and some weird messiah complex.

mikehuntez keeps questioning where people have gotten their information - as if it was hidden. Mike, it's all over the internet and the WikiLeaks documents have been paraphrased for anyone, even someone like you, to digest easily.

TimRussert seems to think Assagne is not entirely sane. Far from it, Tim old chum. Assagne believes in truth and accountability. You may be happy to be led by the nose through life, but that doesn't go for the rest of us.

That the USA is fighting on the ground (not just with drones, that was widely known) in Pakistan and Yemen while agreeing with the leaders of those countries to cover it up deserves to be known. They have far wider inplications, and are killing far more innocents than the leaks possibly could.

Assagne is driven by a sceptical attitude to authority and domination.

He recognises, unlike Superlib who somewhat comically thinks Assagne is attemtping to bring down the governments of the world (by the way, doesn't this sound like every other hasty and cheap attempt to smear Assagne by the USA?), that any form of conrol or hierachy has a burden of proof. They can't simply be self-justifying. It has to demostrate that it is legitimate, just as any use of force or coercion does. Therefore it deserves to be challenged. If it can't justify it self then it deserves to be dismantled.

At the end of the day these are of course routine embassy communications, not top secret dispatches. They do, though, open a window on global US diplomatic dealings, unlike the earlier Iraq and Afghanistan material, which shone a light on some pretty horrific war crimes.

But the revelations about the Gulf states and Iran, Clinton's orders to ordinary US diplomats to spy on the UN and others, the confirmation that US troops are now fighting in Pakistan and Yemen while agreeing with local political leaders to cover that up - among a mass of others, including those yet to be published - are serious and important enough to be getting on with.

It is incredible the way some of you continue to tear in to Assange in defense of a government that craps on you and our allies.

I agree and don't fully comprehend this either. Furthermore, those same outraged Americans need to step back and consider that support of Assagne/Wikileaks does not have to equal hatred for the US or any other state. Rather, it is opposition to imperial power - whether it's exercised by the US, Britain or anyone else.

What is often said in public is not what is said in the back room and that has been the way of negotiations for millenniums and this is because otherwise hardliners would block everything.

...But seriously, folks, surely only in America could the Secretary of State order a secret intelligence operation against the principal figures in the United Nations, including the UN general secretary Ban Ki-moon and the permanent representatives on the security council - and yet call it negotiation!!

Please stop! My sides are hurting..!

I still find it interesting that while the popular press is happy to run the story of his alleged sex crime, none of them have thought to print the full story, including naming the accusers and a little background.

@bobbafett: Thanks for thowing a bit more light on this and for including the name of the accuser. This is what I've just been able to find quoted from The Press Enterprise. This case gets more interesting:

'Asked how the US could prosecute Assange, a non-US citizen, Holder said, "Let me be clear. This is not sabre-rattling," and vowed "to swiftly close the gaps in current US legislation…"

In other words the espionage statute is being rewritten to target Assange, and in short order, if not already, President Obama – who as a candidate pledged "transparency" in government - will sign an order okaying the seizing of Assange and his transport into the US jurisdiction. Render first, fight the habeas corpus lawsuits later.

Interpol, the investigative arm of the International Criminal Court at The Hague, has issued a fugitive notice for Assange. He's wanted in Sweden for questioning in two alleged sexual assaults, one of which seems to boil down to a charge of unsafe sex and failure to phone his date the following day.

This prime accuser, Anna Ardin has, according to the journalist Israel Shamir, writing on the CounterPunch site, "ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba…Note that Ardin was deported from Cuba for subversive activities.

It's certainly not conspiracism to suspect that the CIA has been at work in fomenting these Swedish accusations. As Shamir reports, "The moment Julian sought the protection of Swedish media law, the CIA immediately threatened to discontinue intelligence sharing with SEPO, the Swedish Secret Service.'

How anyone could trust these allegations, which have the reek of CIA all over them, is beyond me.