Full Spectrum Dominance

Obama Paved the Way for Trump’s Venezuelan Killings

By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | December 3, 2025

The Trump administration’s killings of scores of Venezuelans are justifiably provoking outrage. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recently proclaimed, “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.” Donald Trump and Hegseth are cashing a blank check for carnage that was written years earlier by President Barack Obama.

In his 2017 farewell address, Obama boasted, “We have taken out tens of thousands of terrorists.” Drone strikes increased tenfold under Obama, helping fuel anti–U.S. backlashes in several nations.

As he campaigned for the presidency in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama declared, “We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers.” Many Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 expected a seachange in Washington. However, from his first weeks in office, Obama authorized widespread secret attacks against foreign suspects, some of which spurred headlines when drones slaughtered wedding parties or other innocents.

On February 3, 2010, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair stunned Washington by announcing that the administration was also targeting Americans for killing. Blair revealed to a congressional committee the new standard for extrajudicial killings:

“Whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American has—is a threat to other Americans. We don’t target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”

But “involved” is a vague standard—as is “action that threatens Americans.” Blair stated that “if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” Permission from who?

Obama’s first high-profile American target was Anwar Awlaki, a cleric born in New Mexico. After the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki was showcased as a model moderate Muslim. The New York Times noted that Awlaki “gave interviews to the national news media, preached at the Capitol in Washington and attended a breakfast with Pentagon officials.” He became more radical after he concluded that the Geoge W. Bush administration’s Global War on Terror was actually a war on Islam. After the FBI sought to squeeze him into becoming an informant against other Muslims, Awlaki fled the country. He arrived in Yemen and was arrested and reportedly tortured at the behest of the U.S. government. After he was released from prison eighteen months later, his attitude had worsened and his sermons became more bloodthirsty.

After the Obama administration announced plans to kill Awlaki, his father hired a lawyer to file a challenge in federal court. The ACLU joined the lawsuit, seeking to compel the government “to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.” The Obama administration labeled the entire case a “State Secret.” This meant that the administration did not even have to explain why federal law no longer constrained its killings. The administration could have indicted Awlaki on numerous charges but it did not want to provide him any traction in federal court.

In September 2010, The New York Times reported that “there is widespread agreement among the administration’s legal team that it is lawful for President Obama to authorize the killing of someone like Mr. Awlaki.” It was comforting to know that top political appointees concurred that Obama could justifiably kill Americans. But that was the same “legal standard” the Bush team used to justify torture.

The Obama administration asserted a right to kill U.S. citizens without trial, without notice, and without any chance for the marked men to legally object. In November 2010, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter announced in federal court that no judge had legal authority to be “looking over the shoulder” of Obama’s targeted killing. The letter declared that the program involves “the very core powers of the president as commander in chief.”

The following month, federal judge John Bates dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit because “there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas” is “judicially unreviewable.” Bates declared that targeted killing was a “political question” outside the court’s jurisdiction. His deference was stunning: no judge had ever presumed that killing Americans was simply another “political question.” The Obama administration’s position “would allow the executive unreviewable authority to target and kill any U.S. citizen it deems a suspect of terrorism anywhere,” according to Center for Constitutional Rights attorney Pardiss Kebriae.

On September 30, 2011, a U.S. drone attack killed Awlaki along with another American citizen, Samir Khan, who was editing an online Al Qaeda magazine. Obama bragged about the lethal operation at a military base later that day. A few days later, administration officials gave a New York Times reporter extracts, a peek at the fifty-page secret Justice Department memo. The Times noted, “The secret document provided the justification for [killing Awlaki] despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis.” The legal case for killing Awlaki was so airtight that it did not even need to be disclosed to the American public.

Two weeks after killing Awlaki, Obama authorized a drone attack that killed his son and six other people as they sat at an outdoor café in Yemen. Anonymous administration officials quickly assured the media that Abdulrahman Awlaki was a 21-year-old Al Qaeda fighter and thus fair game. Four days later, The Washington Post published a birth certificate proving that Awlaki’s son was only 16-years old and had been born in Denver. Nor did the boy have any connection with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. Robert Gibbs, Obama’s former White House press secretary and a top advisor for Obama’s reelection campaign, later shrugged that the 16-year-old should have had “a far more responsible father.”

Regardless of that boy’s killing, the media often portrayed Obama and his drones as infallible. A Washington Post poll a few months later revealed that 83% of Americans approved of Obama’s drone killing policy. It made almost no difference whether the suspected terrorists were American citizens; 79% of respondents approved of preemptively killing their fellow countrymen, no judicial niceties required. The Post noted that “77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.” The poll results were largely an echo of official propaganda. Most folks “knew” only what the government wanted them to hear regarding drones. Thanks to pervasive secrecy, top government officials could kill who they chose and say what they pleased. The fact that the federal government had failed to substantiate more than 90% of its terrorist accusations since 9/11 was irrelevant since the president was omniscient.

On March 6, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder, in a speech on targeted killings to a college audience, declared, “Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, it does not guarantee judicial process.” TV comedian Stephen Colbert mocked Holder, quipping “Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper scissors, who cares? Due process just means that there is a process that you do.” One purpose of due process is to allow evidence to be critically examined. But there was no opportunity to debunk statements from anonymous White House officials. For the Obama administration, “due process” meant little more than reciting certain phrases in secret memos prior to executions.

Holder declared that the drone attacks “are not [assassinations], and the use of that loaded term is misplaced; assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self-defense.” Any termination secretly approved by the president or his top advisers was automatically a “lawful killing.” Holder reassured Americans that Congress was overseeing the targeted killing program. But no one on Capitol Hill demanded a hearing or investigation after U.S. drones killed American citizens in Yemen. The prevailing attitude was exemplified by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY):

“Drones aren’t evil, people are evil. We are a force of good and we are using those drones to carry out the policy of righteousness and goodness.”

Obama told White House aides that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” In April 2012, The New York Times was granted access for a laudatory inside look at “Terror Tuesday” meetings in the White House:

“Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.”

It was a PowerPoint death parade. The Times stressed that Obama personally selected who to kill next:

“The control he exercises also appears to reflect Mr. Obama’s striking self-confidence: he believes, according to several people who have worked closely with him, that his own judgment should be brought to bear on strikes.”

Commenting on the Times’ revelations, author Tom Engelhardt observed, “We are surely at a new stage in the history of the imperial presidency when a president (or his election team) assembles his aides, advisors and associates to foster a story that’s meant to broadcast the group’s collective pride in the new position of assassin-in-chief.”

On May 23, 2013, Obama, in a speech on his targeted killing program at the National Defense University in Washington, told his fellow Americans that “we know a price must be paid for freedom”—such as permitting the president untrammeled authority to kill threats to freedom. The president declared that “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set.”

Since almost all the data on victims was confidential, it was tricky to prove otherwise. But NBC News acquired classified documents revealing that the CIA was often clueless about who it was killing. NBC noted, “Even while admitting that the identities of many killed by drones were not known, the CIA documents asserted that all those dead were enemy combatants. The logic is twisted: If we kill you, then you were an enemy combatant.” Killings are also exonerated by counting “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants… unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” And U.S. bureaucrats have no incentive to track down evidence exposing their fatal errors. The New York Times revealed that U.S. “counterterrorism officials insist… people in an area of known terrorist activity… are probably up to no good.” The “probably up to no good” standard absolved almost any drone killing within thousands of square miles in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Daniel Hale, a former Air Force intelligence analyst, leaked information revealing that nearly 90% of people who were killed in drone strikes were not the intended targets. Joe Biden’s Justice Department responded by coercing Hale into pleading guilty to “retention and transmission of national security information,” and he was sent to prison in 2021.

Sovereign immunity entitles presidents to kill with impunity. Or at least that is what presidents have presumed for most of the past century. If the Trump administration can establish a prerogative to preemptively kill anyone suspected of transporting illicit narcotics, millions of Americans could be in the federal cross-hairs. But the Trump administration is already having trouble preserving total secrecy thanks to controversies over who ordered alleged war crimes. Will Trump’s anti-drug carnage end up torpedoing his beloved Secretary of War Hegseth and his own credibility with Congress, the judiciary, and hundreds of millions of Americans who do not view White House statements as divine revelations handed down from Mt. Sinai?

December 3, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | Afghanistan, CIA, Human rights, Obama, Pakistan, Somalia, United States, Yemen | Leave a comment

The Terrifying Case of Natalie Strecker

By Craig Murray | December 2, 2025

I am confident that over 2 million people in the UK have shared thoughts on the Genocide in Gaza that are stronger than anything Natalie Strecker has expressed.

I am quite certain that I am one of those 2 million.

Yet Natalie Strecker, an avowed pacifist and mother of young children, today faces up to ten years in prison under the Terrorism Act when the verdict in her case comes in.

Strecker is charged with eliciting support for Hamas and Hezbollah, based on 8 tweets, cherry-picked by police and prosecutors from an astounding 51,000 tweets she sent, mainly from the Jersey Palestine Solidarity Committee account.

The tweets were rather rattled off in court and referred to occasionally again in whole and in part. There may be minor inaccuracies not affecting sense, but this is the best reconstruction of those tweets that I can make (they were not displayed to the public):

“People will be individually resisting: otherwise we would be asking them to submit to genocide on their knees”

“Solidarity with the people of Lebanon and Hezbollah has the right to resist in international law, I remind you the occupier does not, and are legally obligated to try to prevent Genocide.”

“Solidarity with the resistance. In the same way that the reistance fought the Nazis in Europe, we must support the fight against the Nazis of our generation”.

“Resistance is their legal right under moral and international law. If you don’t want resistance, then don’t create the circumstances which require it. Solidarity with the Resistance.”

“This nonsense our nation has descended into, where one side is committing genocide, and the other is proscribed for fighting it. I believe Hezbollah may be Palestine’s last hope”.

“Hamas the resistance did not break out of their concentration camp to attack Jews as Jews. We can debate whether armed resistance is legitimate. Of course there should be no attacks on civilians.”

“I am sick of the MSM propaganda about “Hamas-run health ministry figures”. Hamas is the government in Gaza. Every health ministry in the world is run by its government.”

“Are you awake? So it is down to ordinary people like you an me to end it. We must take our power back. Join me in solidarity with the people of Lebanon and Palestine. Solidarity with the Resistance.”

That is it. The prosecution case is that these tweets, both collectively and individually, amount to an invitation of support for Hamas and Hezbollah resulting in up to ten years in jail in Jersey, or 14 years in jail on the UK mainland.

The prosecution explicitly stated, and the judge notably intervened to make sure that everybody understood, that it is the offence of supporting terrorism to state that the Palestinians have the right to armed resistance in international law.

Judge John Saunders interrupted the prosecution to ask whether they were saying that he would be guilty of support for terrorism if, in a lecture, he told an international law class that Palestinians have the right to armed resistance in international law.

After some kerfuffle when faced with such an awkward question, the prosecution replied that yes, it could be the offence to tell law students that.

I should point out, at risk of dying in jail, that the Palestinians are beyond doubt an occupied people in international law, and equally beyond doubt an occupied people have the right of armed resistance.

To state that the Palestinians have the right of armed resistance in international law is not in the least controversial as a statement of law. A few Zionist nutters would try to differ, but 95% of international lawyers on this planet would agree.

I assume by perfectly logical extension that this means the prosecution must believe it is a terrorist crime in UK law, for example, to quote UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43, which:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

It is also worth stating that on Friday the prosecution stated, in these precise words, that “Resistance is synonymous with Hamas and Hezbollah” and that any support for, or justification of, Palestinian resistance is support for a proscribed organisation.

To repeat, there are millions of people in the UK who have stated stronger things than the tweets above. Including me. And, as the defence pointed out repeatedly, just eight tweets had been found after hundreds of hours of police time, and found amidst tens of thousands of other tweets on the Middle East, hundreds of which specifically urge non-violence.

So why are the police doing this to Natalie? Why did six armed police storm her apartment and rouse her young family at 7am a year ago, seizing all her electronics and papers, arresting her in front of her children and not allowing her to have a pee without leaving the bathroom door open so she could be observed?

This is where the story gets very dark indeed.

This is not a local Jersey initiative.

The prosecution is directed from London and Alison Morgan KC, senior Treasury counsel (UK government lawyer) is seated beside the local prosecuting counsel, openly puppeteering him every step of the way.

So why has the UK government chosen Jersey to prosecute a local pacifist mother whose statements provide possibly the weakest case of support for terrorism that has ever been heard in any court in the western world?

The answer is that here in Jersey there is no jury.

Facing this charge on the UK mainland Natalie would have a jury, and there is not a jury in the UK that would not throw this self-evidently vindictive nonsense out in 5 minutes.

Why is it worth the time and expense for Whitehall to send Alison Morgan KC here to direct a weak case against somebody who is obviously not a terrorist?

The plain answer is that this is a pilot for what they can get away with on the mainland when they abolish juries in such trials, as “Justice Secretary” David Lammy has announced that they will indeed do.

In Jersey the system is inherited from the Normans. The judge sits with two “jurats” or lay magistrates. They determine innocence or guilt. These come from a pool of 12 permanent jurats. In practice these are retired professionals and frequently have strong connections to the financial services industry.

What the jurats emphatically are not is Natalie Strecker’s working class peers of a kind who would be represented on a jury. I strongly recommend this brief article on the corruption of Jersey society by a man who was for 11 years the Government of Jersey’s economic adviser.

The judge, Sir John Saunders, seems a decent old stick in a headmasterly sort of way. He has told the court that “Mrs Strecker’s good character is not in doubt”. On Friday he stated that this was “A very difficult and in many ways a very sad case for the court to deal with. But I have to construe it according to strict legal principles”.

In the Palestine Action proscription case, as I reported, counsel for the UK government openly stated “We do not deny that the law is draconian. It is supposed to be”. In the mass arrests of decent people over Palestine Action, people have understood what a dreadfully authoritarian law the proscription regime is.

An intelligent observer cannot sit in Judge Saunders’ courtroom without realising that he thinks this is a dreadful law, but accepts that it is his job to enforce it. He reminds me of the caricature of the lugubrious headmaster stating “This is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you”.

In effect, Alison Morgan and the UK government are attempting through this prosecution to make even the most basic expression of support for Palestine a serious criminal offence. Remember that a terrorism conviction destroys your life – it almost certainly brings loss of employment, debanking and severe travel restrictions.

The International Court of Justice has decided that Israel has a real case to answer on Genocide, and most experts believe that Israel is committing Genocide. In Natalie’s correct image, the UK government is trying to make it a terrorist offence to say anything other than that the Palestinians should quietly submit to Genocide on their knees.

The danger is that the hubris of lay magistrates will lead the jurats to try cleverly to construe Natalie’s comments as support for terrorism in line with the government’s wishes. Natalie has, however, one defence in Jersey not available in mainland UK – here in Jersey the prosecution has to show intent: that she intended to cause support for terrorist organisations.

The prosecution has also relied on the extremely wide definition of support adopted in UK terrorist cases, that “support of” merely means “expression of agreement with”.

In defending the tweet about Hamas-run health ministry figures, Natalie Strecker’s counsel Luke Sette countered this rather well when he said: “there is no offence of causing people to think less badly of Hamas”

I confess however I am slightly puzzled that I have not heard the defence argue that the prosecution positions are grossly disproportionate violations of freedom of expression in terms of Article X of the European Convention of Human Rights.

I would have thought, for example, that was the natural thing to say in response to the prosecution’s contention that it would be a crime for a law lecturer to tell his class that the Palestinian people had the right of armed resistance in international law.

The verdict was decided yesterday afternoon between the judge and jurats. It will be presented in full written judgment in an hour’s time.

This is a truly horrifying case for Natalie, who cannot afford to lose her job with a Jersey government agency and most certainly does not wish to be jailed away from her children. I pinch myself to be sure that this is all really happening.

It is a truly horrifying case in terms of what the Starmer government intends to do on the mainland in further criminalising support for Palestine.

I do not support Hamas nor Hezbollah, being opposed to theocracy. But for it to be illegal to discuss the Genocide in Gaza and the role of these two organisations, unless you do it absolutely without either context or nuance, is Orwellian.

Western dissent is also a victim of the Zionist Genocide.

December 2, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | Hamas, Hezbollah, Human rights, Israel, Palestine, UK, Zionism | Leave a comment

US tech giants to expand role in post-war Gaza strategy: Report

Press TV – December 2, 2025

A new report has revealed that US-based artificial intelligence firms Palantir and Dataminr are positioning themselves to take on a pivotal role in shaping the post-war security framework proposed for the Gaza Strip.

According to a report by the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine on Tuesday, the companies have been integrated into the newly established Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), a US-run operational hub in the southern part of the occupied territories where Washington and Israeli officials are coordinating the implementation of President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza.

An official seating chart reviewed by +972 indicates that a “Maven Field Service Representative” from Palantir, referencing their battlefield analytics platform Project Maven, is assigned to the CMCC.

The hub, situated approximately 20 kilometers from the northern Gaza boundary, was opened in mid-October and currently accommodates around 200 US military personnel.

Project Maven, for which Palantir recently secured a $10 billion Pentagon contract to upgrade, gathers intelligence from various sources such as satellites, drones, spy planes, intercepted communications, and online platforms, reorganizing it into an “AI-powered battlefield platform” aimed at expediting military decision-making, including lethal airstrikes.

Palantir executives have described the system as “optimizing the kill chain,” and it has been previously utilized in US operations in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.

Palantir has also strengthened its partnerships with Israeli forces during the current war, following a strategic agreement signed in January 2024 to support “war-related missions,” and has expanded its recruiting in Tel Aviv, doubling the size of its office over the past two years.

CEO Alex Karp has defended the collaboration amid international concerns over war crimes, saying that the company was the first to be “completely anti-woke.”

Documents reviewed by +972 also reveal the involvement of Dataminr, a US surveillance company, in internal CMCC presentations.

Dataminr, which utilizes AI to scan and analyze global social-media streams in real time, promotes its platform as providing “event, threat, and risk intelligence,” and has established partnerships with X to provide governments and law-enforcement agencies, including the FBI, with extensive access to public social-media data.

Both companies are expected to shape the “Alternative Safe Communities” model proposed under the Trump plan, which suggests relocating Palestinian civilians into fenced, heavily monitored compounds controlled by US and Israeli forces.

Within these zones, systems enabled by Palantir and Dataminr would be used to track mobile phones, monitor online activity, analyze movement, and flag individuals classified by AI as security risks.

Critics and analysts argue that this arrangement mirrors the predictive surveillance already deployed in Gaza over the past two years, including the AI-driven Lavender system used by Israel to create kill lists of suspected Hamas affiliates, which included public-sector employees such as police and medical workers.

Human-rights observers caution that such technologies have contributed to the extensive targeting of Palestinian families during an ongoing genocide.

The integration of US tech companies into the CMCC underscores a privatized model of occupation, one that sidelines Palestinian participation while expanding the role of AI-enabled policing, according to analysts.

For technology firms, the war presents an opportunity to access vast datasets and conduct real-world testing for new military systems.

Additionally, for Israel, it offers a way to outsource parts of the occupation while maintaining extensive control over Gaza’s population.

December 2, 2025 Posted by aletho | Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | Dataminr, Gaza, Human rights, Israel, Middle East, Palantir, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

French journalist groups file complaint over press freedom restrictions in Palestinian territories

MEMO | December 2, 2025

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the National Journalists’ Union (SNJ) announced on Tuesday that they filed a complaint over restrictions on press freedom and alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories, Anadolu reports.

The IFJ and SNJ said in a statement that they filed the complaint with Paris’s National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor on Nov. 26 against unknown parties, citing numerous testimonies from French journalists collected anonymously.

“The freedom to inform and to be informed, fundamental principles, must become a reality again in Gaza and the West Bank,” the organizations said, reiterating the need for action and the role of the French justice system.

They noted that the media lockdown of Gaza, an “unprecedented” blackout in the conflict, and the “ruthless repression” of Palestinian journalists, along with 225 killings verified by the IFJ, remain “at the heart of the complaint.”

The two organizations referred to French journalists’ descriptions of daily reality on the ground, marked by denial of access, threats, confiscation of equipment, occasional physical assaults, arbitrary detentions, and sometimes even manhunts.

Underlining that the complaint does not target any specific individual, the watchdogs stressed that the obstacles documented are carried out by military and police units, customs and administrative services, and private individuals, including settlers in the occupied territories.

“The risk of being killed is real, sometimes tangible, when you find yourself pursued by thirty armed settlers. These violations of journalists’ fundamental rights cannot go unpunished,” said Vanessa Ripoche and Julien Fleury, general secretaries of the SNJ.

The statement also underscored that the reported acts take place in occupied territories, which “prevents Israel from invoking state immunity” and “allows French courts to take action,” as the violations target French nationals and affect their fundamental freedoms.

“This is the first time that a legal action of this nature—based both on systematic obstruction of journalists’ work and on war crimes targeting media professionals—has been brought before a national court to protect French reporters in a conflict zone,” said Ines Davau and Louise El Yafi, lawyers for the IFJ and SNJ.

December 2, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | France, Israel, Palestine, Zionism | Leave a comment

Documents reveal UK’s secret media censorship over national-security reporting

Press TV – December 1, 2025

Newly released documents have offered a detailed look inside the UK’s Defense and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee, revealing how the body guides, shapes, and at times suppresses reporting on national-security issues, and now seeks to extend its influence to social media platforms.

A cache of DSMA files published by The Grayzone shows how the committee — made up of military, intelligence, and media representatives — routinely advises British newsrooms on sensitive subjects, including intelligence operations, special forces activity, and high-profile criminal inquiries.

Although the DSMA system is formally voluntary, the documents show the body boasts of a “90%+ success rate” in persuading journalists not to publish certain information, while categorizing independent media as “extremist” for publishing “embarrassing” stories.

Logs from 2011 to 2014 list dozens of “requests for advice” on topics ranging from the death of GCHQ employee Gareth Williams to UK cooperation with foreign intelligence services. The documents do not clarify whether journalists sought guidance proactively or whether the committee intervened pre-publication.

The Grayzone report interprets the large number of inquiries as evidence of substantial editorial influence, particularly regarding reporting on rendition programs, special forces operations in Libya, and Syria.

From May to November 2012, the Committee handled requests relating to British special forces “involvement in Syria.” It was widely speculated that British special forces were present in Syria at this time, though few details have emerged since.

The files also show DSMA involvement surrounding long-running, sensitive cases such as the Dunblane massacre, Operation Ore, claims about child sexual abuse involving public officials, and the death of Princess Diana.

In some instances, journalists reportedly offered formal apologies for publishing material the committee viewed as problematic.

The documents further reveal tensions between the DSMA and independent outlets. A briefing to Australian officials labels critical non-mainstream publications as “extreme,” citing examples of independent reporting that did not follow DSMA advice.

The committee’s internal review, however, asserts it does not act on information merely because it may “embarrass” the government.

As digital platforms have weakened traditional media controls, the DSMA has pushed to expand its remit. Internal reviews describe social media as a threat to its influence, and meeting minutes show the committee exploring ways to involve “tech giants” in a push to suppress revealing disclosures on platforms like Meta and Twitter/X.

While platforms have largely resisted direct engagement, the DSMA has expressed hope that future regulation could compel greater cooperation.

December 1, 2025 Posted by aletho | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | UK | Leave a comment

Could the French government be linked to political terror?

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 29, 2025

Behind the scenes of European politics, France is going through a phase in which its aura as a “democratic model” seems increasingly distant from reality. The country, which has historically prided itself on exporting speeches about freedom, now finds itself surrounded by doubts, allegations, and dark coincidences that fuel speculation about the true workings of its security apparatus. This is not to assert that there is a state machine dedicated to eliminating opponents; it is to recognize that multiple recent episodes — including international allegations of political plots — have created fertile ground for legitimate suspicions.

Foreign analysts and American activists have raised questions about possible clandestine actions carried out by French sectors against figures inconvenient to the Paris government. The topic gained attention not because of a single accusation, but due to the repetition of unexplained deaths and public statements by influential personalities expressing fear of retaliation. The official narrative seems unable to keep pace with the growing volume of obscure events.

The most high-profile episode involves accusations made by American conservative activist Candace Owens, who claimed to have been informed by a supposed source linked to the upper echelons of the French government that President Emmanuel Macron had authorized her elimination. The allegation also includes — equally unverified — the claim that the murder of American activist Charlie Kirk was carried out by a veteran allegedly trained in the 13th Brigade of the French Foreign Legion. Although these statements lack verification, the mere fact that they circulate so widely reveals the degree of international distrust accumulated against Paris.

The controversy grew when Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, described the suspicions raised by Owens as “plausible,” noting that Kirk had been a fierce critic of French measures against digital platforms and advocates of freedom of expression. Before his death, Kirk had even called for the United States to impose 300% tariffs on French products in retaliation for what he considered political persecution.

These allegations, even if unproven, do not arise in a vacuum. They add to the internal climate of strain: recurring protests, deep social tensions, and a political elite that seems disconnected from the population. In this environment, the succession of deaths of politically sensitive figures — many recorded as suicides — intensifies the perception that something is amiss. Cases such as those of Olivier Marleix, Eric Denécé, and General Dominique Delawarde, all critics of the Macron government, have become symbols of this distrust, especially because their deaths were presented as suicides without detailed investigations being released.

French intelligence services have always operated with relative autonomy, a legacy of decades of external operations, colonial conflicts, and confrontations with radical groups. This tradition, combined with contemporary military alliances, contributes to perceptions of opacity. This does not necessarily imply illegality — but the absence of transparency expands the space for speculative narratives.

At the same time, the French government’s posture toward foreign critics has fueled negative interpretations. When Paris reacts aggressively to inconvenient speeches, dissident journalists, or digital platform entrepreneurs, it reinforces the image of a state willing to project power beyond its borders. This puts France on a collision course with conservative and sovereigntist sectors in the United States, which describe Paris as a center of authoritarian technocracy masquerading as “defense of democracy.”

It is also important to recall the recent dictatorial measures taken by the French government against members of local civil society who declare support for Russia in its special military operation or mobilize to participate in humanitarian actions in the Donbass region. Recent arbitrary arrests, such as those of two members of the French humanitarian organization “SOS Donbass,” once again make clear the violent and authoritarian nature of the Macron government.

In the end, the central question is not to prove the existence of clandestine operations — something that would require independent investigations and broad transparency, which are currently absent. The crucial point is that France faces a credibility crisis. When a government loses the ability to persuade, any coincidence becomes suspicious, any death becomes scandal, any accusation finds an audience. Moreover, internal dictatorial measures against dissidents further reinforce distrust regarding the government’s actions.

If Paris intends to regain its legitimacy, it will need to go beyond mere denial of accusations: it must rebuild trust, explain what remains obscure, and abandon the posture of moral superiority that no longer convinces, inside or outside Europe. None of this will be possible as long as Paris remains under the control of representatives of the European liberal elites.

November 29, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | France | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s UOC Metropolitan Poisoned, Presumably With Heavy Metals – Orthodox Journalists

Sputnik – 29.11.2025

Hospitalized Metropolitan Theodosius of Cherkasy and Kanev of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), who is under investigation for treason in Ukraine, has been poisoned, presumably with heavy metals, the Union of Orthodox Journalists said on Saturday.

On Friday, the union said that the metropolitan had been hospitalized in a critical condition.

“Details regarding the health of Metropolitan Theodosius of Cherkasy and Kanev and possible reasons for his critical condition have become known. There is reason to believe that the religious leader was poisoned … Doctors say that during the diagnosis and treatment, they will test his body for a wide range of toxic substances. The metropolitan has been poisoned, presumably, with heavy metals,” the union said.

Orthodox journalists also said, citing the Cherkasy Diocese, that just over a month ago, the metropolitan had begun to show signs of an unusual illness, which was neither hypertension nor heart disease, which had plagued him for years. His body temperature rose frequently, and sharp jumps in blood pressure, from very high readings to critically low ones, were observed, the journalists said.

This week, the metropolitan’s health declined sharply, and his physician suggested immediate hospitalization, the union said.

“He still has severe intoxication. His condition is relatively stable, but the metropolitan remains hospitalized. Toxicology testing may take about a month,” a source in the hospital told journalists on the condition of anonymity.

In the spring of 2023, a court in Cherkasy placed Metropolitan Theodosius under house arrest provided that he wear an electronic bracelet. In December 2023, the court lifted his round-the-clock detention, leaving him under nightly house arrest. The metropolitan is charged with inciting religious hatred. In June 2024, another Ukrainian court imposed a 60-day, round-the-clock house arrest on Metropolitan Theodosius. In late October, the Union of Orthodox Journalists said that his pretrial detention had once again been extended for two months.

Since 2022, the Ukrainian authorities have been waging the largest wave of persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is recognized as canonical by the Russian Orthodox Church, in the country’s modern history — the authorities are imposing state sanctions against members of the clergy, organizing searches in churches, arresting clergy, initiating criminal cases, banning the activities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in various regions of the country, seizing monasteries and parishes.

November 29, 2025 Posted by aletho | Full Spectrum Dominance | Human rights, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Sally Rooney says Palestine Action ban could block publication of her books in Britain

Sally Rooney attends the 2019 Costa Book Awards held at Quaglino’s on January 29, 2019 in London, England [Tristan Fewings/Getty Images]

MEMO | November 27, 2025

Famed Irish novelist Sally Rooney told the UK High Court on Thursday that she may be unable to publish new work in Britain as long as the legal ban on activist group Palestine Action remains in place, citing her public support for the movement, local media reported, Anadolu reports.

Rooney warned that the ban, issued this summer, could even result in her existing books being pulled from shelves, with her case presented in court as an example of the ban’s wider impact on freedom of expression, reported The Guardian.

Rooney praised Palestine Action’s activities as “courageous and admirable,” saying the group is committed to stopping what it views as crimes against humanity by Israel in its two-year military offensive on the Gaza Strip.

In her written witness statement, the bestselling author of Normal People and Conversations With Friends said the ban would leave her effectively shut out of the UK market, explaining: “It is … almost certain that I can no longer publish or produce any new work within the UK while this proscription remains in effect.”

“If Palestine Action is still proscribed by the time my next book is due for publication, then that book will be available to readers all over the world and in dozens of languages, but will be unavailable to readers in the United Kingdom simply because no one will be permitted to publish it (unless I am content to give it away for free).”

Since the group was banned, Rooney has said she plans to direct earnings from her work to Palestine Action, a decision that prompted her to cancel a UK trip to collect an award over concerns she could be arrested.

The legal ambiguity makes it hard to foresee the full impact of the ban, she said, but warned her publisher Faber & Faber might be barred from paying her royalties. If that happens, she said, “my existing works may have to be withdrawn from sale and would therefore no longer be available to readers in the UK.”

READ: A historic decline in sympathy for Israel in Britain, and an unprecedented rise in solidarity with Palestine in 2025
Adam Straw, representing UN special rapporteur Ben Saul, told the court that growing legal opinion holds the ban to be an unlawful interference under international law, adding that terrorism definitions “do not extend to serious damage to property,” referring to the group spray-painting Royal Air Force planes this July which was cited in the ban.

Representing the home secretary, Sir James Eadie argued that it is for the UK parliament to define terrorism, noting: “Parliament has decided what terrorism is, which includes serious damage to property, whether or not alongside it there is violence against people.”

The hearing will conclude on Tuesday, when the final day of the judicial review is held.

In attacks in Gaza since October 2023, Israel has killed nearly 70,000 people, mostly women and children, and injured over 170,000 others.

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

November 28, 2025 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Israel, Palestine, UK, Zionism | Leave a comment

Censorship is a Western Value!

By Hans Vogel | November 27, 2025

The key to ruling over a great number of people is to keep them divided. That is how empires throughout history have been ruled. In the eighteenth century, Rousseau once observed that the bigger a state or comparable political construction, the less freedom for the individual. He was absolutely right!

The globalist rulers of Europe, the EU Commissars, and the extensive organizational pyramid they have put in place, ceaselessly remind all of us that “Europe” stands at the pinnacle of civilization and that democratic “European Values” (also known as “Western Values”) are superior. These include freedom of speech, and the inviolability of the human body. These values and rights are enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

These rights may still exist on paper, but in practice they have been subverted piecemeal and hollowed out by the EU evil elite. This process has been underway since the collapse of the Soviet Union and “real existing socialism” around 1990, and was accelerated during the twenty-first century.

As long as the Soviet Union existed, it was easy to keep the citizenry all over Western Europe subdued by pointing to the danger of a Soviet invasion. Therefore, after the end of the Cold War, for a while the sky seemed clearer than ever before.

The globalist elites now needed to find something else with which to keep the population subdued, so they came up with acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. All forests would soon disappear due to acid rain and anyone who would use anything ranging from hairspray to whipped cream from a can was guilty of accelerating the end of life as we know it, because it would make the hole in the ozone layer even bigger.

These issues disappeared overnight when the three WTC towers in New York were brought down on 11 September, 2001. Most definitely, this was a very elaborately planned and superbly executed enterprise, and the official narrative was swallowed hook, line and sinker by most people. Initially, that is. Very soon, however, doubts began to circulate. Modestly at first, but then morphing into a vast movement of disbelievers all over the West. In the US, those who refused to believe the official narrative were branded “conspiracy theorists” and the term was quickly translated into the various European languages and similarly weaponized.

Although the concept “conspiracy theorist” dated from the 1960s, when in the US it was used to disqualify and socially isolate those who would not believe the official narratives on the Kennedy murders, after 9/11 it became a tool to create social division all over the American Empire. The operations against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and later Syria planted even more seeds of doubt, to the effect that a basis was laid for a profound social dichotomy: on the one hand, those who continued to trust their government, on the other hand, a growing number of skeptics.

Their numbers grew even more during the Great Covid Show. Although statistics on who did and who did not take the jab sometimes show remarkable differences from one nation to another, it is an open question whether these statistics are anywhere near reliable. The best assumption seems to stick to the Pareto principle of 80-20, with 20% in the West not taking the jab.

The Great Covid Show and the subsequent great power confrontation in the Ukraine have solidified the social dichotomy that is now evident all over the West. It is especially in Europe (because of its status as a region under the US yoke) that this deep societal rift presents a special problem. If allowed to go unchecked, this might lead to individual European nations trying to leave the fold.

Although the European ruling elite has consistently failed to prove it is capable of independent, original thought, it seems to have understood the danger resulting from the current societal dichotomy. Yet instead of adapting its policies to the new reality in accordance with those celebrated “Western Values,” it has chosen to fight anyone who disagrees with the EU Commissars. For want of reliable data, it is reasonable to assume that the overall percentage of citizens rejecting the official narratives on anything ranging from Covid to the Ukraine and from anthropogenic climate change to the annual rate of inflation, stands at about twenty. As long as it stays there, everything is fine and dandy, but it becomes problematic whenever that percentage would rise to thirty or even higher.

That is why ever new methods and techniques of thought control have been unleashed on the European citizenry. And the end of it is not yet nearly in sight. Social media are currently the target of a wholesale attack on the freedom of speech. Ostensibly in an effort to protect minors from harmful content on social media and to fight the abuse of children by pedophiles, behind closed doors (remember those “Western Values”!) EU Commissars have decided to impose stricter “voluntary” controls. This will mean that users eventually have to identify themselves by way of digital or facial scans, All because the public is in need of protection! Besides, if a protection racket works for the Mafia, it will work for the government! Citizens need to feel safe and be protected against many dangers. Not only against child pornography, but also against hate speech. Moreover, they need to be properly informed at all times by the news that needs to consist of real information. No “disinformation” therefore!

Nobody seems to realize that the very concept of disinformation is utterly nonsensical, it is actually a non-word, a weaponized mind-fuck. Every message, each news item carries information. Some or all of it might be untrue, but it is still information. To put it differently, each and every lie also carries information. Therefore the word disinformation is a contradiction in terms.

How anyone can reconcile the weaponized use of the term disinformation with “Western Values” such as free speech, is a mystery. Yet the EU Commissars go one step further as they intend to decree new rule. making it impossible for anyone to speak his mind on social media. A kind of full spectrum domination of social media activity by citizens is being prepared.

At the same time, it is a tool for the elites to keep the public divided so as to be able to control it more effectively. This very usefulness may, however, have prevented the elites from analyzing the subject more profoundly.

What can we conclude from this?

In the first place, it seems to indicate that the EU Commissars are very much afraid and that they are finally realizing that growing numbers of Europeans are opposed to their policies. At the same time, they have concluded there is no turning back. It is almost as if they are so afraid of the wrath of the citizens that out of desperation they have decided to control the speech of 450 million Europeans. Therefore the latest decisions of the EU Commissars are a testimonium paupertatis, a proof of their utter intellectual and ethical poverty.

Any government that resorts to the kind of measures decreed by the Brussels Eurocrats is inherently weak, and implicitly realizes that its days are numbered.

November 27, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | European Union, Human rights | Leave a comment

Sex offender Epstein engaged in 2006 smear campaigns against US scholars: Report

Press TV – November 26, 2025

An investigative report has revealed that US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was involved in 2006 smear campaigns against two influential political scientists criticizing the Israeli regime’s interference in the American political system and foreign policies.

The report published by Drop Site news outlet on Tuesday said Epstein’s smear campaigns were launched after the Harvard Kennedy School released in March 2006 a working paper, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

The paper, which ran in the London Review of Books and became the basis for a book published the following year, was an analysis of the impact of pro-Israel advocacy and lobbying groups on the US political system, and the role of organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in shaping US foreign policy towards the West Asia region.

“Mearsheimer and Walt described a loose coalition of philanthropists, think tanks, advocacy groups, and Christian Zionist organizations that routinely pulled US policy toward the Middle East away from America’s national interest, as the US was being drawn into a military quagmire in Iraq,” Drop Site wrote.

The independent news outlet quoted the two scientists as saying in their paper, “Other special interest groups have managed to skew US foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially identical.”

According to Drop Site, even before the Kennedy School posted the paper online, the project had already spooked editors at The Atlantic, who originally commissioned the essay in the early 2000s.

In an interview with Tucker Carlson earlier this year, Mearsheimer revealed that the editor of The Atlantic offered them a “$10,000 kill fee” if the publication didn’t print the article. Mearsheimer said, “That’s the fastest $10,000 we ever made.”

The news outlet said a wave of news articles labelled the two authors as anti-Semites after the paper was released, while the Anti-Defamation League weighed in to denounce what they called an “anti-Jewish screed.” The pressure became so intense that the Kennedy School removed its logo from the paper and added a disclaimer distancing the institution from its arguments.

“Unknown at the time, Jeffrey Epstein gave feedback on talking points to discredit Mearsheimer and Walt, and used his extensive social network to circulate allegations of anti-semitism against the two scholars,” Drop Site wrote.

During the first week of April 2006, as the news outlet said, Epstein received multiple early drafts of an attack piece by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz titled “Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy.”

Dershowitz, who also served as Epstein’s defense attorney in his criminal matters, accused Mearsheimer and Walt of recycling “discredited trash” from neo-Nazi and Islamist websites.

At one point, Epstein received a message from Dershowitz’s email address, with an assistant asking Epstein to help circulate copies of the attack piece, writing, “Jeffrey, were you going to distribute this for Alan?? If I should forward this to someone in your office, pls let me know.” Epstein replied in the affirmative, “Yes I’ve started.”

The news outlet said the consequences of a coordinated smear campaign by elite members of media and academia were dire for Mearsheimer and Walt.

“The Chicago Council on Global Affairs canceled a scheduled talk by the pair in 2007, after pressure from pro-Israel supporters. Other institutions that previously welcomed them to speak now insisted that any appearance be “balanced” by an opposing speaker who was sympathetic to Israel,” Drop Site wrote.

“The backlash narrowed their platform in mainstream media, academia, and think tanks for years while making public appearances more difficult.”

Epstein played an unofficial yet influential role at Harvard University, leveraging over $9 million in donations to gain access and influence despite his 2008 conviction for sex offenses.

He helped establish the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics with a $6.5 million gift in 2003, had his own office and university card access, and visited Harvard more than 40 times after his conviction. His close ties to faculty allowed him to maintain a significant presence on campus until 2018. Harvard’s review criticized the institution’s handling of Epstein’s involvement and called for stricter policies on accepting donations from controversial figures.

Epstein had been arrested in July 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking minors. He reportedly hanged himself in his cell at the Manhattan Correctional Center in August of that year.

The circumstances surrounding his death have fueled years of speculation about his high-profile associates and possible efforts to conceal his crimes.

November 26, 2025 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

Ambassador Mike Huckabee Secretly Meets Top Israeli Spy Jonathan Pollard

Let’s remove both Huckabee and Israel from American foreign policy

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • November 25, 2025

Given the high visibility of the Israeli genocide being carried out in Gaza, for the first time many among the American general public are beginning to ask why a rich country like Israel should be getting billions of dollars from the United States taxpayer to pay for waging its war when many Americans are struggling. Inevitably, of course, the press coverage of the questions being asked about the cash flow and what is playing out in Gaza have failed to discuss the real magnitude of the “aid,” which goes far beyond the $3.8 billion a year that President Barack Obama committed to America’s “best friend and closest ally.” In fact, over the past two years, Washington has given Israel more than $21 billion in weapons and cash and just last week the 1,000^th US transport plane filled with weapons landed in Israel. On top of all that, there are trade concessions, co-production “defense partnership” projects and dicey charitable contributions from Zionist billionaires that our federal and many state governments shower on the Jewish state, easily exceeding $10 billion in a “normal” year without Israel claiming having “greater need” as it goes about violating ceasefires and killing Gazans, Lebanese and Iranians.

The fact that Joe Biden and Donald Trump have enabled Israel’s slaughter without so much as the slightest hesitation should in itself be damnable, but the average American is fed a steady diet of propaganda favoring Israel through the devastatingly effective Jewish media control that prevails nationwide. Interestingly, however, as the American public is beginning to tire of the Israeli lies, the Israel Lobby in the US is following the orders of Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu, who has declared that his country will be fighting eight wars – seven against all of its neighbors and one to control the United States’ increasingly negative opinion of what Israel represents. As a result, laws like the Antisemitism Awareness Act are being passed to silence “freedom of speech” critics of the Jewish state and criminalize what they are saying.

During his 2016 campaign Donald Trump swore that he would be the best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House, a pledge that some viewed skeptically as Trump was also committed to bringing the troops home from “useless wars” in Asia, most of whom were in the Middle East supporting Israeli interests. More recently Trump admitted that America was in the Middle East to “protect Israel” and he has indeed proven to be the great benefactor he promised to be in responding fully to Netanyahu’s wish list. In his first term in office, Trump increased tension dramatically with Iran, moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights, and basically gave Israel the green light to do whatever it wants on the Palestinian West Bank, including getting rid of the Palestinians.

And currently as all that has already played out the Israelis have attacked and killed thousands of civilians in Gaza, Syria and the West Bank with impunity, protected by the US veto in the UN Security Council against any consequences for their actions while a subservient Congress gives Netanyahu fifty-six standing ovations and bleats that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Trump has made the United States completely complicit in Israeli war crimes and has added a few unique touches of its own to include the widely condemned assassination of the senior Iranian official Qassem Soleimani while on a peace mission in Baghdad in January 2020.

Israel more-or-less openly admits that it controls the actions of the United States in its region, Netanyahu having boasted how the US federal government is “easily moved” when it comes up against the Israeli Lobby. Nor is there any real secret to how the Lobby uses money to buy access and then exploits that access to obtain real power, which is then used to employ all the resources of the US government in support of the Jewish state. The top donor to the Democratic Party, Israeli-American Haim Saban has stated that he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel. This single-minded focus to promote Israel’s interests at the expense of those of the United States makes the Israel Lobby the most formidable foreign policy lobby in Washington.

One of the tools used by Trump to facilitate the virtual slavery under the Israeli yoke is the appointment of passionately Zionist US Ambassadors to Israel, where they often behave as if they are there to represent Jewish interests rather that those of the United States. Trump’s first term appointment David Friedman was a personal lawyer with no diplomatic or international experience, so he inevitably endorsed with some enthusiasm every extreme proposal coming from Netanyahu, which he then went on to sell to Trump. Friedman, now retired, has a home in Jerusalem and has reportedly opted to spend much of his time in Israel.

Friedman was, however, somewhat of a gem compared to the current ambassador Mike Huckabee, an Israel-Firster Baptist preacher from Arkansas, who repeatedly expresses his love for the Jewish state and white-washes whatever it does. For what it’s worth, on October 13^th, 2025, Friedman and Huckabee performed a rendition of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s hit song Sweet Home Alabama in Jerusalem but with altered lyrics that promoted Zionism and the city of Jerusalem itself. Friedman played guitar while Huckabee played bass. Trump, of course, is similar in his overweening embrace of Israel, whether it be because he is being blackmailed, or honestly believes in what he is saying, or even because he has converted to Judaism in 2017, as some believe. In any event, the theatrical duet performance by the two Israel-loving ambassadors failed to provide any benefit to the United States of America.

The complete contempt that the Israelis and Israeli supporters in the US – to include the Ambassador Huckabee – have for other Americans and their interests has been on full display recently and it involves the most significant espionage operation that Israel has ever “run” inside the United States. Jonathan Pollard, the most damaging spy in American history, stole for Israel the keys to accessing US communications and information gathering systems, which gave the Jewish state access to all US intelligence as it was being collected. He was Jewish and a US citizen, his father a professor at Notre Dame University. As a student at Stanford, where he completed a degree in 1976, Pollard’s penchant for dissimulation was already noted by other students. He is remembered for having boasted that he was a dual citizen of the United States and Israel, claiming to have worked for Mossad, to having attained the rank of Colonel in the Israel Defense Forces (even sending himself a telegram addressed to “Colonel Pollard”), and to having killed an Arab while on guard duty at a kibbutz. All the claims were lies.

Physically Pollard was also unappealing, overweight and balding, seemingly an unlikely candidate to become a US Navy intelligence analyst which he accomplished after having failed a polygraph test when trying to join CIA. One review board determined that he had been hired in the first place under pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). According to an intelligence agency after-the fact-damage assessment “Pollard’s operation has few parallels among known US espionage cases… his first and possibly largest delivery occurred on 23 January [1984] and consisted of five suitcases-full of classified material.”

Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger wrote a forty-six page review of the Pollard case that remains largely classified and redacted to this day, detailing what incredible damage Pollard had done. Part of the document states: “In this case, the defendant has admitted passing to his Israeli contacts an incredibly large quantity of classified information. At the outset I must state that the defendant’s disclosures far exceed the limits of any official exchange of intelligence information with Israel. That being the case, the damage to national security was complete the moment the classified information was given over. Ideally, I would detail… all the information passed by the defendant to his Israeli contacts: unfortunately, the volume of data we know to have been passed is too great to permit that. Moreover, the defendant admits to having passed to his Israeli handlers a quantity of documents great enough to occupy a space six feet by ten feet… The defendant has substantially harmed the United States, and in my view, his crimes demand severe punishment… My foregoing comments will, I hope, dispel any presumption that disclosures to an ally are insignificant; to the contrary, substantial and irrevocable damage has been done to this nation. Punishment, of course, must be appropriate to the crime, and in my opinion, no crime is more deserving of severe punishment than conducting espionage activities against one’s own country.”

Pollard was detected and arrested in 1985, convicted in 1987, and imprisoned. The case sent shockwaves through both Washington and Tel Aviv at the time of the conviction. Pollard pled guilty, confessing to selling the thousands of pages of secret documents to the Israelis for cash, vacations to Europe, and promised future payments to be wired to a Swiss bank account. A federal judge correctly dismissed pleas for clemency.

In 2015 Pollard was released from prison under parole which required him to remain in the United States. But in January 2021 Pollard was released from the parole conditions and was allowed to fly “home,” meeting Netanyahu as he disembarked from a private plane that had departed from Newark New Jersey before being given a hero’s welcome. The Pollard trip to his “home” occurred because Donald Trump had obligingly lifted the travel restrictions on him the week before, one more favor to Israel. At the airport, Pollard and his wife knelt to kiss the Israeli soil before Netanyahu handed him an Israeli citizen ID and welcomed him. The 737 luxury-fitted executive jet Pollard and his wife flew on belonged to Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, then the chief donor to the Republicans and to Donald Trump. Adelson was married to an Israeli, Miriam Adelson, who now survives him and continues the donations to the Republicans. Sheldon famously once said that he regretted having worn a US Army uniform when he was drafted in World War 2, much preferring instead that he might have done military service in the Israel Defense Forces.

But the Pollard story does not end there. In July Jonathan Pollard was a guest at the US Embassy in Jerusalem, where he met with Ambassador Mike Huckabee. The meeting was his first with US officials since his release and immigration to Israel. It was a break with precedent and the move by Huckabee, even all these years after the crime, still alarmed American intelligence officials even though, as it was Israel, media coverage in the US was minimal. John Kiriakou, a former CIA counter-terrorism officer, has argued that Pollard should have been detained by the Marine guards at the American Embassy in Jerusalem and should not have been allowed to meet with the ambassador. “[Pollard] has called for Jewish Americans who have security clearances… to begin spying for Israel, just like he did… So for him to be welcomed into the American Embassy is a bridge too far. If anything, he should have been snatched when he entered the American embassy.”

The Trump administration was apparently not consulted regarding the planned get-together. “The White House was not aware of that meeting,” Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt claimed. It was reportedly left off the public schedule of the ambassador, suggesting at a minimum that it was a terrible decision by Huckabee acting on his own which he made some attempt to conceal. And yet, when the story broke the Trump administration still condoned the actions of the ambassador, who reportedly had a friendly chat with the spy who had done the most grave damage ever to the United States. “The president stands by our ambassador, Mike Huckabee,” Leavitt added, “and all that he’s doing for the United States and Israel.” She did not elaborate on what he has been doing for the United States.

After the story broke, Pollard accused “anti-Israel and isolationist elements within the US government of leaking that he met off-the-books with US Ambassador Huckabee in a bid to discredit and oust the pro-Israel envoy.” He claimed that “the New York Times story was part, or is part, of an effort to discredit the ambassador and have him removed. I think the people behind this are anti-Israel elements within the Trump administration, the neo-isolationists… and others, perhaps pro-Saudi, pro-Qatari elements within the administration that would like to see a person like Ambassador Huckabee sent home.” Pollard later gave an interview in which he named Steven Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner as likely culprits “representing Saudi and Qatari rather than US interests” in brokering the Gaza ceasefire, and he added that he “despises them” for daring to “carry on with terrorists.” Pollard added his view that the 20-point ceasefire plan, leaving the door open to the possibility for Palestinian statehood, threatens Israel’s security and “undermines our independence,” and the October 9^th truce-hostage deal that is based on that plan would have been worthwhile only had Israel “unleashed… hell on Hamas” following the October 13^th release of the last 20 living hostages from Gaza.

Pollard described his meeting with Huckabee as “personal” and “friendly” and confirmed that it was his first meeting with a US government official after his release by Trump from travel restrictions. He concluded that “A lot of people seem to think that I harbor an anger toward the United States, which I don’t. There were specific people that lied about me, that lied about Israel, that tried to use me as a weapon to undermine the US-Israel special relationship, and those are the people I have problems with but certainly people like Ambassador Huckabee, and others, I have absolutely no problem talking to. If I could guess, I would say it’s that community, particularly the CIA station in the embassy, that probably was the one that initiated this whole effort to discredit the ambassador.”

Pollard clearly is promoting a false narrative that makes himself look like some kind of honorable and valiant defender of Israel when in reality he did what he did for the most base of reasons, i.e. for money. Money is indeed how the Israeli boosters in the United States have been able to flat out corrupt America’s political process to attain the dominance that has enabled them to promote the Israeli agenda. They have bought or intimidated every politician that matters to include presidents, congressmen and even those in state and local governments. Anyone who criticizes Israel or Jewish collective behavior in support of the Israeli state is subject to character assassination and blacklisting a la Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tom Massie. Those who persist are denounced as anti-Semites, a label that is used liberally by Zionist groups. Now Pollard is portraying himself as some kind of Israeli hero. The end result is that when Israel kills civilians in violation of a ceasefire in Gaza and is allowing rampaging armed settlers to destroy Palestinian livelihoods the United States government chooses to look the other way and instead showers the rogue state with money so it can continue to do its dirty work. Providing that political cover for Israel is in part the real dark side of Huckabee’s job as he sees it, not to engage over real American interests.

And then there are the hot buttons a-la the lies about Israel being advanced by Pollard and his ilk which, if the US actually had a functional government that is responsive to the people, should have been pushed long ago. “Best friend” Israel is ranked by the FBI as the number one “friendly” country in terms of its spying against the United States. Pollard is an exception who was actually punished since his crime was so dramatic and damaging, but Israeli spies are routinely slapped on the wrist when caught and never face prosecution for that crime, as one might note in the current “investigation” of Jeffrey Epstein, which was undoubtedly a major MOSSAD intelligence operation.

And there are also the MOSSAD agents who were the “Dancing Shlomos,” celebrating while the twin towers went down on 9/11, who were allowed to go home and various assassinations including JFK and even Charlie Kirk that have an Israeli back story. And Israel has never truly paid any price for the horrific bombing and torpedoing of the USS Liberty fifty-eight years ago, which killed 34 Americans and injured over one hundred and seventy more. The completely unprovoked attack took place in international waters and was later covered-up by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Congress. May they burn in hell. The few remaining surviving crew members are still waiting for justice.

Good riddance to scum like Jonathan Pollard and the Israel-Firsters who enable him. It is reported in Israel that Pollard is now preparing to run for the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, which explains his demeanor and phony narrative. It also all means that it is past time to get rid of folks like Ambassador Mike Huckabee who prefer to advance Israeli interests rather than those of his own country because, he believes, God is telling him to do so. More generally speaking, it is well past time to get rid of the special relationship with Israel, sanctified in the halls of Congress and by a Jewish dominated media, which does nothing good for the United States and for the American people. Israel’s constant interference in the US political system and economy comes at a huge cost, both in dollars and in terms of actual American interests.

So, let’s all resolve for 2026 to do whatever we can to pull the plug on Israel. Let Israel, which is now seeking a 20 year commitment of even more cash annually from the US taxpayer, pay its own bills and take care of its own defense. American citizens who prefer the Jewish ethno-religious state to our constitutional republic should feel free to emigrate. In fact, they should be encouraged to leave. Lacking Washington’s backing, Israel will also be free to commit atrocities and war crimes against all of its neighbors but without the US United Nations veto it will have to begin facing the consequences for its actions. But most of all, as Americans, we will no longer have to continue to carry the burden of a country that manipulates and uses us and also has a certain contempt for us while doing so, witness how Trump’s kid-glove handling of Jonathan Pollard has played out. And maybe just maybe freeing the United States from Israel could lead to an end to all the wars in the Middle East that Washington has been waging in spite of the fact that we Americans are threatened by no one in the region and have no real interest whatsoever in prolonging the agony of staying engaged there.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

November 25, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | Israel, Middle East, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

The GRANITE ACT: Wyoming Bill Targets Foreign Censors With $10M Penalties

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 24, 2025

The first cannon shot in a new kind of free speech war came not from Washington or Silicon Valley, but from Cheyenne. Wyoming Representative Daniel Singh last week filed the Wyoming GRANITE Act.

The “Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion Act,” passed, would make Wyoming the first state to let American citizens sue foreign governments that try to police what they say online.

The bill traces back to a blog post by attorney Preston Byrne, the same lawyer representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms in their battles against censorship-driven British regulators.

Byrne’s idea was simple: if the UK’s Ofcom or Brazil’s Alexandre de Moraes wanted to fine or threaten Americans over online speech, the US should hit back hard.

Exactly one month after that idea appeared on his blog, it’s now inked into Wyoming legislative paperwork.

Byrne said:

“This bill has a long way to go until it becomes a law, it’s got to make it through legislative services, then to Committee, and then get introduced on the floor for a vote, but the important thing is, the journey of this concept, the idea of a foreign censorship shield law which also creates a civil cause of action against foreign censors, into law has begun.”

That “journey” may be the kind of slow procedural trudge that usually kills most ideas in committee, but the intent here is anything but mild, and, with the growing threat of censorship demands from the UK, Brazil, Europe, and Australia, there is a lot of momentum here to fight back.

“For the first time, state legislators are moving to implement rules that will allow U.S. citizens to strike back, hard, against foreign countries that want to interfere with Americans’ civil rights online,” Byrne continued.

The Act would let American citizens and companies sue foreign governments or their agents for trying to censor them, and, crucially, it strips away the usual escape hatch of sovereign immunity.

In its legal filing responding to the 4chan and KiwiFarms lawsuit, Ofcom insisted it has “sovereign immunity” and told the court there were “substantial grounds” for throwing out the case on that basis.

The regulator’s lawyers framed Ofcom as a protected arm of the British state, immune from civil claims even when its decisions target a platform based entirely inside the United States.

Ofcom treats the idea of “sovereign immunity” as something substantial but the First Amendment as something that does not exist at all.

The GRANITE Act is a defensive maneuver against a growing global trend. “Foreign governments and their agents increasingly seek to restrict, penalize or compel disclosure concerning speech occurring wholly within the United States,” the bill warns.

Such efforts, it argues, “conflict with the constitutions of the United States and of Wyoming and chill speech by Wyoming residents and entities.”

The act’s definition section is where its true reach becomes clear. It covers “any law, regulation, judgment, order, subpoena, administrative action or demand of a foreign state that would restrict, penalize or compel disclosure concerning expression or association” that would otherwise be protected under US law.

The text is well-researched and knows all the buzzwords of tyranny, naming the categories most likely to cause friction: “foreign online safety, hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, defamation, privacy, or ‘harmful content’ laws.” It’s a catalog of the modern speech-control toolkit, all of which Wyoming now places firmly outside its borders.

Wyoming’s approach also bars its own agencies from playing along. “No state agency, officer, political subdivision, or employee thereof shall provide assistance or cooperation in collecting, enforcing or giving effect to any measure” that qualifies as foreign censorship. The phrasing borrows from the constitutional doctrine of anti-commandeering, warning that local officials won’t be drafted into enforcing foreign censorship orders.

In Byrne’s view, that legal protection has let overseas bureaucrats act like international hall monitors, wagging fingers at Americans through threats of fines or content bans.

Byrne didn’t mince words about what he thinks this law could mean:

“If we get corresponding federal action, this law, and laws like it, could represent the single greatest victory for global free speech in thirty years.”

The teeth of the bill lie in its damages. The minimum penalty: ten million dollars. It matches the scale of fines already threatened by the UK and others, which have been dangling penalties of $25 million or 10 percent of global revenue for non-compliance.

The math, as he puts it, is simple. A country can censor an American, but that choice now comes with a very real price tag.

“Foreign countries can bully the shit out of American citizens and companies because they know that US law potentially protects them from consequences for doing so. We should take that immunity away from them.”

Byrne’s theory is that once the threat of US civil suits hangs over foreign regulators, the entire global “censorship-industrial apparatus” starts to wobble.

Byrne notes that the GRANITE Act would also relieve the White House from having to deal with diplomatic flare-ups over censorship complaints.

Trial lawyers would take over that job, freeing the president to “move on to other, more important matters.”

If the Act becomes law, the power to fight foreign censorship wouldn’t rest with federal agencies but with American citizens, state courts, and civil litigators. It would empower them to fight back against foreign censors.

In the global tug-of-war over speech, Wyoming could suddenly become a frontline jurisdiction.

November 24, 2025 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Germany, Human rights, UK, United States | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Featured Video

The American Retreat from Vietnam

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

Israel Would Have No Qualms About USS Liberty-Style FALSE FLAG If Iran Campaign Falters – Analysts

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 18.06.2025

Donald Trump is mulling whether or not to join Israel’s aggression against Iran as Tel Aviv faces problems sustaining its defenses against growing counterstrikes, and apparently lacks a realistic game plan for an end to hostilities after failing to achieve its goals. Analysts told Sputnik how the US could be ‘nudged’ into the conflict.

“The US is already assisting Israel with supplies, intel, refueling support, etc. One of the many US posts in the region could be attacked for a casus belli,” former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski explained.

“If Trump doesn’t comply with Israel’s demand” and join its aggression voluntarily, “a false flag may be needed” to drag the US in, Kwiatkowski, retired US Air Force Lt. Col.-turned Iraq War whistleblower, fears.

Netanyahu has a diverse array of options at his disposal, according to the observer, including:

a false flag against US assets abroad blamed on Iran or one of its Axis of Resistance allies, like the Houthis
a US domestic attack or assassination blamed on Iran
Iranian air defenses ‘accidentally’ hitting a civilian jetliner carrying Americans
use of a dirty bomb or nuclear contamination somewhere in the region blamed on Iran
even blackmailing by threatening to use nukes against Iran if the US doesn’t join the fight

Kwiatkowski estimates that Israel probably has “enough blackmail power” against President Trump and Congress to avoid the necessity of a false flag operation, but a “USS Liberty-style” attack, targeting the soon-to-be-retired USS Nimitz supercarrier that’s heading to the Middle East, for example, nevertheless cannot be ruled out entirely, she says. … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,446 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,423,570 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

March 2026

M T W T F S S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

« Feb
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
9/11 Afghanistan Africa al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

March 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Sally Rooney attends the 2019 Costa Book Awards held at Quaglino’s on January 29, 2019 in London, England [Tristan Fewings/Getty Images]

Featured Video

From the Archives

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 18.06.2025

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info