January 06, 2022
Whenever you move to any geographical point in Europe -where government centers and even courts remain- you will often see some representation of justice in the form of a blindfolded woman holding a sword in one hand and a scale in the other. As soon as Humanity began to agree to shape government systems, one of the first demands raised the need to have justice that was equal for all. This is not the same as denying that certain governments are characterized by corrupt mechanisms, designed so that the judicial system favors its own ends; however, the anecdote serves to vindicate the claim of thousands of years that equality before the law was fair. Now, apparently, those who seek justice find that it is denied them through a plethora of of artifices that have given governments increasing control, translating this into criminal behavior. Strictly speaking, there is an emphasis on punishment for those whom governments have decided to set as an example. For example, if one observes the treatment that the United States government bestows on informants -where the cases of Jeffrey Sterling and John Kiriakou gain notoriety-, it is concluded that the punishment has the sole purpose of discouraging any citizen who carries the purpose of exposing the criminal behavior of those in charge. Even though, in theory, whistleblowers should enjoy protection, since they have stepped forward in order to reveal illegal activities detected within a government, in practice, such protection only becomes abstract. And then there are the instances in which the administration of justice has been deliberately perverted, as in the example of Julian Assange - whom the US government would like to extradite, so that he ends up being tried under the Espionage Act of 1917. However, the charges against Assange appear hazy. He is accused of having collaborated with Chelsea Manning for the purpose of stealing and then publishing classified material, which presented clear evidence of atrocities perpetrated by American armed forces in Iraq, later covered up. And perhaps going more to the point on the political level, Assange is also accused of having participated in the theft of Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails, in 2016. It should be noted here that the federal government has never provided any evidence against that alleged crime. Thus, a British high court has approved Washington's extradition request, although the case will continue to mediate a final effort that will seek to appeal that decision. Assange is likely to be sentenced if he is sent to the United States, despite the fact that his only crime was having worked as a journalist, and having done what good journalists usually do. Regardless of the outcome, his life has been hopelessly destroyed. He spent eighty-two months in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, after having been granted asylum; Now, he is in solitary confinement at Belmarsh maximum security prison - site where the UK sends terrorists. Assange has been in Belmarsh for thirty-one months and recently suffered a stroke. It is a cruel and unusual punishment for a person who has not been sentenced for having committed any crime. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to consciously attend to the untidiness related to a criminal justice system, today administered by 'democratic' governments such as the of the United States and Great Britain. Indeed, one could estimate that reference manipulation could be synthesized as 'lawfare'. The concept came into the public domain after an essay developed by Coronal Charles J. Dunlap, then written for the Carr Center at Harvard University, became known. Dunlap defined lawfare as the 'use of the law as a weapon of war,' including the 'exploitation of actual, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of violations of the laws of war, as an unconventional means of confronting' an opponent of magnitude. It is a 'method of war in which the law is used as a means to consolidate a military objective', as well as 'a cynical manipulation of the rule of law and the humanitarian value it represents'. In the United States, lawfare has been particularly associated with the term 'universal jurisdiction', that is, that a nation or an international organization operating in a certain country can seize and prosecute officials of a different one. Or, as in the Assange case,an Australian citizen residing in the United Kingdom may be extradited for trial in Washington, based on the alleged theft of classified information - carried out by an informant of American nationality. Indeed, one of the most disturbing aspects of American foreign policy since on September 11, 2001, it has been the presumption that the decisions taken by the US are binding on the rest of the world, as exemplified by the warning of former President George W. Bush, when he stated: 'There are a new sheriff in town'. Wartime aside, no other country has sought to prevent third countries from trading with one another, nor has any government sought to rebuke foreign nationals by resorting to sanctions with the cynical arrogance displayed by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Exclusively, the US government intends to penalize other sovereign nations for alleged crimes that did not take place on American soil and that do not involve US citizens, while insisting that all nations must comply with the penalties designed by Washington. Simultaneously, too, the United States government certifies its own hypocrisy, by claiming sovereign immunity whenever foreign or US citizens go to court to hold it responsible for numerous crimes. Finally, it will not be surprising that the country that has openly and officially incorporated lawfare into its foreign policy is Israel. His dedicated lawfare center, Shurat HaDin, is partly funded by the government in Tel Aviv, and has been involved in numerous cases adjudicable on US soil, where it always finds an amicable court hearing in New York City. The ability to sue in American courts for imaginary crimes has led to the construction of a lawfare culture, in which lawyers seek to bankrupt an opponent, through legal costs and damages. To no one's surprise, the Shurat HaDin center is a major campaigner against entities that Tel Aviv does not like. On his website, for example, he flaunts methodologies for bankrupting his rivals financially. The Federal Court for the Southern District of Manhattan has become a branch to sue any foreign government or citizen of the country into poverty. whatever, with virtually no requirement for the presentation of a case - it is enough just to mention 'terrorism'. In February 2015, a lawsuit brought by the Shurat HaDin center led to the sentence of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization for responsibility for terrorist attacks carried out in Israel between 2000 and 2004. The New York Federal jury awarded damages for US$ 218.5 million but, under a special classification of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the figure automatically tripled, remaining at US$ 655.5 million. Quietly, the Shurat HaDin center claimed the resolution referred to an action to 'bankrupt terrorism'. Another legal victory for Israel and its friends was recorded in a federal district court in the District of Columbia on the 1st. June 2020, when Syria and Iran were found guilty of murdering American citizens amid Palestinian terror attacks in Israel. The Judge in the case, Randolph D. Moss, ruled that the Americans wounded and killed in seven attacks carried out by Palestinians in the State of Israel were eligible to receive benefits for damages paid by Iran and Syria, because they offered 'supporting material' to the militant groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. What is interesting is that the United States of America is copying Israel's use of lawfare. Their sanctions against foreign entities, backed up by information and comments from third parties, are then used to set in motion mechanisms to fine or imprison anyone who brings what is called 'supporting material' to their case. Some readers might take note of a recent move by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) targeting the international news and analysis website Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF). By all accounts, the web is not overly friendly to American foreign policy, but the Biden regime seems to believe that the page is serving as a malign tool of the Kremlin intelligence service - based on no evidence, apart from the clear hostility of his posts against Washington politics. During the first week of November,the Treasury Department issued a 'bond letter' - dated October 15 - against me and other citizens of the United States, who contributed items to SCF. The letters were hand-delivered by FBI Special Agents. The content of the letter was quite bizarre, describing how SCF was, from that moment, 'a designated entity pursuant to the recitals of Executive Order 13848 of September 12, 2018' which, in turn, was supported by a designation dated April 15 by OFAC. 'As a result of the OFAC designation, and unless otherwise authorized or otherwise raised, all of SCF's assets and interests subject to US jurisdiction are blocked, and US persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions with its owners'. Further on, the letter of the letter stated that SCF 'interfered with or compromised public confidence in the US elections, as defined in the regulations on US Electoral Interference (...) and Executive orders issued under the authority of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (...) Under applicable law, each violation of the above regulations is subject to a maximum civil money penalty of up to US$311,562, or twice the value of the underlying transaction.' american. The threat of a large punitive fine carries the warning that one will find yourself in bankruptcy, or else jail, if the letter is ignored - which is lawfare in its most effective form. As has been seen, all US-based journalists have terminated their respective contacts with SCF. Personally, I could share numerous observations regarding this blatant move to eliminate or at least to control freedom of expression in the United States of America. First of all, I would like to invite readers to visit the SCF website, a space where everyone will find material developed by numerous highly respected journalists and writers from around the globe, including also a number of former career diplomatic officials. Finally, as a former intelligence officer who was known to run operations for the CIA in the media in Europe and the Middle East, I categorically reject the description that has been made of SCF as an intelligence front. Intelligence operations are based on the absolute control of agents and assets by the competent authority, which would mean that the pieces published by SCF would have had to be designed and intended to influence opinion in a certain way. I have contributed to SCF with a weekly column for almost three years now, and no one has ever suggested that I write about certain topics to bias its content. I always stuck to reporting topics of interest. That kind of freedom has nothing to do with the way an intelligence organization operates, a point I took care to explain to the FBI couriers. In the epilogue, I'd like to note that the real damage being done today is directed at through the use of a model of lawfare protected by the government, against ordinary citizens who exercise their right to express themselves freely. It is easy to say that a foreign news service is 'compromising confidence in the US election', as this is a charge that must be proven. Indeed, it cannot be proven, and it functions as a weapon with the capacity to be used to administer dissent, and to narrow the borders of the acceptable story. At the same time, it serves to cover up an unpleasant reality, that is, that the actual US elections have been contaminated by two groups, which are called Democrats and Republicans. Assisted both by a somewhat credible media ecosystem; and not by someone sitting in some office in some corner of the Kremlin. Original article,
Follow@PhilipGiraldiAbout Philip GiraldiCounterterrorism specialist; former military intelligence officer of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America (CIA). He works as a columnist in the US media, and as Executive Director at the Council for the National Interest. Giraldi is a frequent contributor to Unz.com, the Strategic Culture Foundation and others. In Spanish, his works are syndicated with permission in El Ojo Digital.
Tags:
InternationalWorldPhilip GiraldiOffice for Foreign Assets Control of the Treasury Department (OFAC)Jeffrey Sterling and John KiriakouUnited StatesGeopoliticsStrategic Culture FoundationThe UNZ ReviewWashingtonPentagonLawfareWhat is LawfareWhite HouseJoe BidenJulian AssangeRule of lawLegal Justice in the United StatesIsraelTel AvivPalestinian AuthorityFreedom of expressionFirst AmendmentConstitution of the United States of AmericaFBIEspionageIntelligenceInternational analysisIranSyriaVladimir PutinHillary Rodham Clinton