“Riot” charges against journalist

In many parts of the world, authorities are interfering in journalism, for example by bribes or criminal prosecution of journalists. Many people are realizing that our world is not as free as we have thought, not even in what we usually call democratic countries, and that the concept of “free press” is at risk almost everywhere. One of the latest examples is that a North Dakota state prosecutor has sought to charge Amy Goodman from Democracy Now with participating in a “riot” for filming an attack on anti-pipeline protesters. As Jason Reynolds writes:

So, what is the real purpose of the criminal charges and the arrest warrant? That’s what you should be concerned about: a government that will stifle and silence a reporter for airing a story that they don’t agree with.

This is taking place in a country where the people thought that the First Amendment of their Constitution would guarantee freedom of speech and free press. And it is not the first time US authorities have participated in silencing a journalist. We remember Gary Webb (see, for example, Managing a Nightmare: How the CIA Watched Over The Destruction of Gary Webb and Gary Webb Was Right).

Also Danish authorities need more public scrutiny

Today, the newspaper Politiken stands up for the basic freedoms against Danish authorities and publishes a “forbidden book” about the Danish security and intelligence service, PET. See the editor in chief, Christian Jensen, explain why (in Danish). Earlier, Danish authorities have made headlines for participating in breaking the ceasefire in Syria, for not allowing Danish citizens to sue their own prime minister and regarding torture in Iraq and Afghanistan (links to content in Swedish).

“We own them”

In an article published yesterday, Paul Craig Roberts wrote that:

the main European political figures are bought-and-paid-for by Washington. As a high US government official told me as long ago as the 1970s, “we own them; they belong to us.”

The same corruption seems to go deep also in much of European media, key government agencies and military. NATO is obviously a tool for that. Sweden is a discouraging example, which is year by year leaving neutrality and becoming involved in very questionable military activities, including alleged war of aggression, violent regime change and extrajudicial killings in far-away countries. How can anyone still believe that the individuals behind this are serving the Swedish people? In 1993, Cecilia Steen-Johnsson wrote a book exposing some of the hidden influence of NATO in Sweden. And last month, the magazine Filter wrote about Swedish propaganda against Russia. It is time to bring the corrupt individuals behind this to court, before they bring more of war. We as citizens are paying them with our taxes, but it is obvious that they are serving someone else.

Speaking the truth about torture

The only countries that have ever refused the former ambassador Craig Murray entry clearance are Uzbekistan and USA, after he exposed their cooperation on torture. If you only follow mainstream media you have probably missed this story, but you can find it for example on CommonDreams and The Real News Network. He has compared this to Russia, which never denied him entry, despite highly critical things he has published about Putin and about civil liberties in Russia. However, the latest news in this story is that after a RootsAction petition, he has finally been awarded a US visa. He will be going to Washington to chair the presentation of the Sam Adams Award to John Kiriakou – the CIA agent who blew the whistle on waterboarding, and was jailed for it. Also, he will be speaking at the World Beyond War conference at American University (which is said to be sold out, but much of it will be livestreamed by the The Real News Network).

9/11 Terror Trading: 15 years later

Professor Marc Chesney sees it as a responsibility to identify frauds and financial crimes. Watch the recent interview with him by Lars Schall about the likely insider trading related to the 9/11 tragedy. It is one of many examples of experts that disapprove the official 9/11 Commission Report.