Showing posts sorted by relevance for query EDWARD SNOWDON. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query EDWARD SNOWDON. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

German court nixes law allowing foreign telecom monitoring
Stephan Harbarth, Chairman of the Senate at the Federal Constitutional Court and President of the Court, holds a document as he announces the ruling on the BND's powers of surveillance abroad at the court in Karlsruhe, Germany, Tuesday, May 19, 2020. Germany's highest court has ruled that regulations allowing Germany’s foreign intelligence service to monitor the communications of reporters working abroad and others violate the country’s constitution and must be changed. (Uli Deck/dpa via AP)

BERLIN (AP) — Regulations allowing Germany’s foreign intelligence service to monitor the communications of reporters working abroad and others violate the country’s constitution and must be changed, Germany’s highest court ruled Tuesday, deciding in favor of journalists’ rights group Reporters Without Borders and others.
The complaint against the foreign intelligence service, the BND, came after a law was changed allowing the agency, starting in 2017, to collect and evaluate communications from foreigners abroad without having to provide legal justification.
In the complaint, Reporters Without Borders, Germany’s GFF civil rights association, as well as several journalists and others argued that blanket telecommunications surveillance meant that German reporters, and others, working with colleagues in other countries could also be spied upon, in violation of the constitution.

The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe agreed, ruling that the law must be redrawn by the end of 2021 at the latest, saying it was a violation both of Germany’s telecommunication privacy regulations and its protections of the freedom of the press.
“The protection of fundamental rights against German state authority is not limited to German territory,” the court said in a press release after the ruling.
The regulations were initially passed after Germany’s involvement in surveillance abroad was revealed in leaks from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowdon.
But Christian Mihr, the director of Germany’s chapter of Reporters Without Borders, said “instead of setting clear barriers to international intelligence, the federal government simply wanted to legalize the general overseas surveillance.”
He called the court ruling a “great success.”
“The Federal Constitutional Court has, once again, underlined the importance of the freedom of the press,” he said in a statement.
Snowden, who remains in exile in Russia, called the German court’s ruling “an important step into the right direction.”
In a statement issued via the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, Snowden said he hoped the decision would set an example to other states and lead to the development of international standards banning systems of mass surveillance.

Thursday, March 23, 2023

NSA & FIVE-EYES ARE WATCHING YOU
Here are the countries that have bans on TikTok

By KELVIN CHAN

The TikTok logo is seen on a cellphone on Oct. 14, 2022, in Boston. China’s government said Thursday, March 23, 2023, it would oppose possible U.S. plans to force TikTok’s Chinese owner to sell the short-video service as a security risk and warned such a move would hurt investor confidence in the United States.
(AP Photo/Michael Dwyer, File)

LONDON (AP) — A growing number of countries in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific have banned the popular video-sharing app TikTok from government devices as privacy and cybersecurity concerns increase. A handful have prohibited the app altogether.

The company’s CEO faced a grilling Thursday from U.S. lawmakers. TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese technology company Bytedance, has long maintained that it does not share data with the Chinese government.

The company points to a project its carrying out to store U.S. user data in the U.S., which it says will put it out China’s reach. It also disputes accusations it collects more user data than other social media companies, and insists that it is run independently by its own management.

But many governments remain cautious about the platform and its ties to China. Here are the places that have implemented partial or total bans on TikTok:

AFGHANISTAN

Afghanistan’s Taliban leadership banned TikTok and the game PUBG in 2022 on the grounds of protecting young people from “being misled.”

BELGIUM

Belgium temporarily banned TikTok from devices owned or paid for by the federal government, citing worries about cybersecurity, privacy and misinformation. Prime Minister Alexander de Croo said the six-month ban was based on warnings from the state security service and its cybersecurity center.

CANADA

Canada announced government-issued devices must not use TikTok, saying that it presents an “unacceptable” risk to privacy and security. Employees will also be blocked from downloading the application in the future.

DENMARK

Denmark’s Defense Ministry banned its employees from having TikTok on their work phones, ordering staffers who have installed it to remove the app from devices as soon as possible. The ministry said the reasons for the ban included both “weighty security considerations” as well as “very limited work-related need to use the app.”

EUROPEAN UNION

The European Parliament, European Commission and the EU Council, the 27-member bloc’s three main institutions, have imposed bans on TikTok on staff devices. Under the European Parliament’s ban, which took effect Monday, lawmakers and staff were also advised to remove the TikTok app from their personal devices.

INDIA

India imposed a nationwide ban on TikTok and dozens of other Chinese apps, including the messaging app WeChat, in 2020 over privacy and security concerns. The ban came shortly after a clash between Indian and Chinese troops at a disputed Himalayan border killed 20 Indian soldiers and injured dozens.

The companies were given a chance to respond to questions on privacy and security requirements but the ban was made permanent in January 2021.

NEW ZEALAND

Lawmakers in New Zealand and staff at the nation’s Parliament will be prohibited from having the TikTok app on their work phones, following advice from government cybersecurity experts. Under the ban, which takes effect at the end of March, the app will be removed from all devices with access to the parliamentary network, although officials can make special arrangements for anybody who needs TikTok to perform their democratic duties.

NORWAY

The Norwegian parliament on Thursday banned Tiktok on work devices, after the country’s Justice Ministry warned the app shouldn’t be installed on phones issued to government employees. The Parliament’s speaker said TikTok shouldn’t be on devices that have access to the assembly’s systems and should be removed as quickly as possible. The country’s capital Oslo and second largest city Bergen also urged municipal employees to remove TikTok from their work phones.

PAKISTAN

Pakistani authorities have temporarily banned TikTok at least four times since October 2020, citing concerns that app promotes immoral content.

TAIWAN

In December 2022, Taiwan imposed a public sector ban on TikTok after the FBI warned that TikTok posed a national security risk. Government devices, including mobile phones, tablets and desktop computers, are not allowed to use Chinese-made software, which include apps like TikTok, its Chinese equivalent Douyin, or Xiaohongshu, a Chinese lifestyle content app.

UNITED KINGDOM

British authorities in mid-March banned TikTok from mobile phones used by government ministers and civil servants with immediate effect. Officials said the ban was a “precautionary move” on security grounds, and doesn’t apply to personal devices. The British Parliament followed that up Thursday by announcing a ban on TikTok from all official devices and the “wider parliamentary network.” The semi-autonomous Scottish government also said Thursday it was banning TikTok from official devices, effective immediately.

UNITED STATES

The U.S. at the start of March gave government agencies 30 days to delete TikTok from federal devices and systems over data security concerns. The ban applies only to government devices, though some U.S. lawmakers are advocating an outright ban. China lashed out at the U.S. for banning TikTok, describing the ban as an abuse of state power and suppressing firms from other countries. More than half of the 50 U.S. states also have banned the app from official devices, as have Congress and the U.S. armed forces.




Monday, June 07, 2021

Opinion: Spying among friends? Sadly, it's the norm

Denmark is believed to have helped the US National Security Agency spy on German politicians. Anyone who's surprised by this is being naive, writes Marcel Fürstenau



I spy with my little eye: Intelligence services remain largely uncontrolled by their respective governments


Denmark has now been added to the unofficial list of states who are believed to have treated supposedly friendly countries as if they were enemies. From 2012 to 2014, Germany's northern neighbor is said to have assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in spying on the electronic communications of prominent German politicians: Chancellor Angela Merkel, Frank-Walter Steinmeier — then foreign minister, now German president — and Peer Steinbrück, the Social Democrats' chancellor candidate in the 2013 election.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, it has been common knowledge for some time that the NSA had targeted Merkel and Steinmeier. His 2013 revelations sent shockwaves around the world. It was always obvious that secret service agencies, even those of democratic states, are not simply harmless associations. But the degree of ruthlessness and lack of scruple astonished even political heavyweights like Angela Merkel, a victim of the NSA's surveillance. Her comment at the time — "Spying among friends is unacceptable" — has become a familiar bon mot. Because, in reality, anything goes. Spying knows no limits, either moral or geographical.
Secret services must be subject to stricter control

DW's Marcel Fürstenau


We can and should continue to be outraged at the way the NSA, Germany's Federal Intelligence Service (BND), and others of their ilk effectively write their own rules. However, since the Snowden revelations at the very latest, this reaction — while all too understandable — seems downright naive. It would be much more important for the political leaders in Germany, Denmark and all other countries that practice the separation of powers to finally exercise better control over their intelligence services. Unfortunately, this looks as unlikely as ever.

In Germany, a parliamentary investigative committee spent years looking into the NSA/BND scandal, but the outcome was scandalous and shameful. The reform led to the legalization of the illegal wiretapping practice, which had only became common knowledge as a result of Snowden's information. Fortunately, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court proved it could be relied on: It quashed this shameless and false relabeling in 2020.
A scandal: Snowden in Russian exile

Anyone who wants to understand how the United States, Germany and democratic Europe tick with regard to intelligence services need only look at Snowdon's fate. Since making his unprecedented revelations, he has been living in exile in Russia. The fact that Vladimir Putin, the strongman in the Kremlin and a former Soviet secret service (KGB) officer, has to hold his protective hand over Snowden is and remains an indictment of the West.

And unfortunately, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate this might change. Because the 37-year-old American's opponents on both sides of the Atlantic are in agreement: In their eyes, he is a traitor. This was the opinion of former US President Barack Obama, who was in office when Snowden made his revelations; and the current president, Joe Biden, shares the same view.
A culture change is needed

There have been no reports of Merkel, Steinmeier, or other German victims of the NSA insulting the whistle-blower in the same way — but the controversial former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, Hans-Georg Maassen, has done so. It is people like him, and their ideal of the intelligence services remaining largely uncontrolled, that stand in the way of a radical culture change in this area. This will remain the case for as long as they still have enough support from legislators and governments — and it will have to change before Snowden can hope to leave his dubious exile in Russia.

This article was translated from German.

Saturday, June 17, 2023

BEFORE ASSANGE, MANNING, SNOWDON 

RIP
Vietnam-era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked Pentagon Papers, dies at 92

17 Jun 2023, 

Daniel Ellsberg, the famed whistleblower who leaked the Pentagon Papers exposing the US government's doubts and deceit about the Vietnam War, has died at the age of 92
Daniel Ellsberg dies: 'His cause of death was pancreatic cancer, which was diagnosed on February 17. He was not in pain, and was surrounded by loving family,' his wife and children said in a statement. (AFP)


NEW YORK: Daniel Ellsberg, the history-making whistleblower who by leaking the Pentagon Papers revealed longtime government doubts and deceit about the Vietnam War and inspired acts of retaliation by President Richard Nixon that helped lead to his resignation, has died. He was 92.

Ellsberg, whose actions led to a landmark First Amendment ruling by the Supreme Court, had disclosed in February that he was terminally ill with pancreatic cancer. His family announced his death Friday morning in a letter released by a spokeswoman, Julia Pacetti.

“He was not in pain, and was surrounded by loving family," the letter reads in part. “Thank you, everyone, for your outpouring of love, appreciation and well-wishes to Dan in the previous months. It all warmed his heart at the end of his life."


Until the early 1970s, when he disclosed that he was the source for the stunning media reports on the 47-volume, 7,000-page Defense Department study of the U.S. role in Indochina, Ellsberg was a well-placed member of the government-military elite. He was a Harvard graduate and self-defined “cold warrior" who served as a private and government consultant on Vietnam throughout the 1960s, risked his life on the battlefield, received the highest security clearances and came to be trusted by officials in Democratic and Republican administrations.

He was especially valued, he would later note, for his “talent for discretion."

But like millions of other Americans, in and out of government, he had turned against the yearslong war in Vietnam, the government’s claims that the battle was winnable and that a victory for the North Vietnamese over the U.S.-backed South would lead to the spread of communism throughout the region. Unlike so many other war opponents, he was in a special position to make a difference.


“An entire generation of Vietnam-era insiders had become just as disillusioned as I with a war they saw as hopeless and interminable," he wrote in his 2002 memoir, “Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers." “By 1968, if not earlier, they all wanted, as I did, to see us out of this war."

The Pentagon Papers had been commissioned in 1967 by then-Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara, a leading public advocate of the war who wanted to leave behind a comprehensive history of the U.S. and Vietnam and to help his successors avoid the kinds of mistakes he would only admit to long after. The papers covered more than 20 years, from France’s failed efforts at colonization in the 1940s and 1950s to the growing involvement of the U.S., including the bombing raids and deployment of hundreds of thousands of ground troops during Lyndon Johnson’s administration. Ellsberg was among those asked to work on the study, focusing on 1961, when the newly-elected President John F. Kennedy began adding advisers and support units.


As much as anyone, Ellsberg embodied the individual of conscience — who answered only to his sense of right and wrong, even if the price was his own freedom. David Halberstam, the late author and Vietnam War correspondent who had known Ellsberg since both were posted overseas, would describe him as no ordinary convert. He was highly intelligent, obsessively curious and profoundly sensitive, a born proselytizer who “saw political events in terms of moral absolutes" and demanded consequences for abuses of power.

As much as anyone, Ellsberg also embodied the fall of American idealism in foreign policy in the 1960s and 1970s and the upending of the post-World War II consensus that Communism, real or suspected, should be opposed worldwide.


The Pentagon Papers were first published in The New York Times in June 1971, with The Washington Post, The Associated Press and more than a dozen others following. They documented that the U.S. had defied a 1954 settlement barring a foreign military presence in Vietnam, questioned whether South Vietnam had a viable government, secretly expanded the war to neighboring countries and had plotted to send American soldiers even as Johnson vowed he wouldn’t.

The Johnson administration had dramatically and covertly escalated the war despite the “judgment of the Government’s intelligence community that the measures would not" weaken the North Vietnamese, wrote the Times’ Neil Sheehan, a former Vietnam correspondent who later wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning book on the war, “A Bright Shining Lie."


The leaker’s identity became a national guessing game and Ellsberg proved an obvious suspect, because of his access to the papers and his public condemnation of the war over the previous two years. With the FBI in pursuit, Ellsberg turned himself in to authorities in Boston, became a hero to the antiwar movement and a traitor to the war’s supporters, labeled the “most dangerous man in America" by National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, with whom Ellsberg had once been friendly.

The papers themselves were seen by many as an indictment not just of a given president or party, but of a generation of political leadership. The historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt would note that growing mistrust of the government during the Vietnam era, “the credibility gap," had “opened into an abyss."


“The quicksand of lying statements of all sorts, deceptions as well as self-deceptions, is apt to engulf any reader who wishes to probe this material, which, unhappily, he must recognize as the infrastructure of nearly a decade of United States foreign and domestic policy," she wrote.

The Nixon administration quickly tried to block further publication on the grounds that the papers would compromise national security, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the newspapers on June 30, 1971, a major First Amendment ruling rejecting prior restraint. Nixon himself, initially unconcerned because the papers predated his time in office, was determined to punish Ellsberg and formed a renegade team of White House “plumbers," endowed with a stash of White House “hush money" and the mission of preventing future leaks.


“You can’t drop it," Nixon fumed privately to his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman. “You can’t let the Jew steal that stuff and get away with it. You understand?"

Ellsberg faced trials in Boston and Los Angeles on federal charges for espionage and theft, with a possible sentence of more than 100 years. He had expected to go to jail, but was spared, in part, by Nixon’s rage and the excesses of those around him. The Boston case ended in a mistrial because the government wiretapped conversations between a defense witness and his attorney. Charges in the Los Angeles trial were dismissed after Judge Matthew Byrne learned that White House “plumbers" G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt had burglarized the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in Beverly Hills, California.


Byrne ruled that “the bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."

Meanwhile, the “plumbers" continued their crime wave, notably the June 1972 break-in of the Democratic Party’s national headquarters, at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. The Watergate scandal didn’t prevent Nixon from a landslide reelection in 1972, but would expand rapidly during his second term and culminate in his resignation in August 1974. U.S. combat troops had already left Vietnam and the North Vietnamese captured the Southern capital, Saigon, in April 1975.

“Without Nixon’s obsession with me, he would have stayed in office," Ellsberg told The Associated Press in 1999. “And had he not been removed from office, he would have continued the bombing (in Vietnam)."


Ellsberg’s story was depicted in the 2009 documentary “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers." The movie had its West Coast premiere only a few blocks from the Rand Corp. headquarters in Santa Monica, Ellsberg former workplace. He sent college students with fliers to urge old colleagues to attend the screening, but none attended.

Ellsberg was born in Chicago in 1931, to Jewish parents who converted to Christian Science. His father was an unemployed engineer in the early years of the Great Depression and the family later moved to suburban Detroit, where his father worked in a plant making B-24 bombers. Daniel held vivid memories of learning that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, and of reports of the Nazis bombing London and the U.S. bombing Germany and Japan.


In his teens, Ellsberg found himself in agreement with Harry Truman and other “Cold War liberals," believing in civil rights and economic justice at home, and containing the Soviet Union overseas. He was also shaped profoundly by personal tragedy. During a car trip in 1946, his father nodded off at the wheel and crashed into a sidewall, killing Ellsberg’s mother and younger sister. Ellsberg would look back with a sense of loss and mistrust — his father, the authority figure, had failed to keep his family safe.

With thoughts of becoming a labor organizer, Ellsberg won a scholarship to Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude. He served in the Marines as an act of defiance against his Ivy League background, but eventually returned to Harvard and earned a doctorate in economics. In 1959, he became a strategic analyst at the Rand Corp., a global policy think tank based in Santa Monica, California, and consulted for the Defense Department and the White House on nuclear weapons, nuclear war plans and crisis decision-making. Ellsberg spent two years in the mid-1960s with the State Department in Vietnam, where he learned first-hand how casually military and political officials lied and became convinced the conflict was unwinnable, in part through the firefights with the North Vietnamese that he survived.


Encouraged by a close friend from Rand, researcher Anthony J. Russo, Ellsberg had decided by the fall of 1969 that the Nixon administration would continue the policies of other presidents and that the McNamara study needed to be seen. His life would soon resemble an espionage thriller.

Ellsberg removed some of the bound, classified volumes from his safe in the Rand offices, placed them in his briefcase and walked past security guards and a sign reading “Loose Lips Sink Ships." With Russo’s girlfriend owning an advertising agency, Ellsberg spent months copying the documents on an office Xerox machine, sometimes helped by his teenage son Robert. On occasion, the office alarm would mistakenly ring, police would show up, and leave soon after. Ellsberg became so worried that he began slicing off the “Top Secret" markings from the papers, in case authorities wanted to inspect more closely.


Leaking to the Times was not his first choice. He had hoped that government officials, including Kissinger, would read the study and realize the war was hopeless. Legislators turning him down included Sen. William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, the longtime chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, who in 1972 would run for president as an antiwar candidate.

A final plot twist was unknown to Ellsberg until decades later. He had showed some of the report to Marcus Raskin and Ralph Stavins of the liberal think tank the Institute for Policy Studies before approaching Sheehan. Only in the early 2000s did he learn that Raskin and Stavins, who had recommended that he speak with Sheehan, had already given some of the papers to the Times reporter. Sheehan, who died in 2021, also defied Ellsberg’s request not to make duplicate copies and did not give him advance notice before the first Times report ran.

“It was just luck that he didn’t get the whistle blown on the whole damn thing," Sheehan later said of Ellsberg, whom he regarded as “out of control."

In his later years, a spry, silver-haired Ellsberg became a prominent free speech and anti-Iraq war activist, drawing parallels between U.S. involvement in Iraq and Vietnam, and called for impeachment of President George W. Bush. He expressed similar fears about Afghanistan during the Obama administration, saying it had the potential to become “Vietnamistan" if the U.S. increased troops there.

He was active in campaigns to prevent nuclear arms proliferation and drew upon his history in government for the 2017 book “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner," in which he included a once-top secret document showing that the U.S. had considered launching nuclear attacks on the Chinese in 1958. He also defended other leakers and whistleblowers, among them WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, the government contractor who disclosed details of secret U.S. surveillance programs and is now living in Russia.

“Many of the people whistle-blowers work with know the same things and actually regard the information in the same way — that it’s wrong — but they keep their mouths shut," Ellsberg told The New York Times in 2023.

On Friday, Snowden tweeted that he had spoken with Ellsberg last month and found him more concerned about the world's fate than about his own.

“He assessed the risk of a nuclear exchange to be escalating beyond 10%," Snowden wrote. “He had hoped to dedicate his final hours to reducing it, for all those he would leave behind. A hero to the end."

Ellsberg is survived by his second wife, the journalist Patricia Marx, and three children, two from his first marriage. He and Marx wedded in 1970, the year before the Pentagon Papers were made public. In a New York Times wedding announcement, he was identified as a “senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for International Studies, where he was writing a critical study of United States involvement in Vietnam."

Tuesday, September 13, 2022

It Is Time to Throw the Monarchies of the World Into the Dustbin of History

The royals are oligarchs. They are guardians of their class.



"Off With Her Head." (Carton: Mr. Fish)

CHRIS HEDGES
September 12, 2022 
by Scheerpost

The fawning adulation of Queen Elizabeth in the United States, which fought a revolution to get rid of the monarchy, and in Great Britain, is in direct proportion to the fear gripping a discredited, incompetent and corrupt global ruling elite.

The global oligarchs are not sure the next generation of royal sock puppets – mediocrities that include a pedophile prince and his brother, a cranky and eccentric king who accepted suitcases and bags stuffed with $3.2 million in cash from the former prime minister of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, and who has millions stashed in offshore accounts – are up to the job. Let’s hope they are right.

“Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories,” Patrick Freyne wrote last year in The Irish Times. “More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.”

Monarchy obscures the crimes of empire and wraps them in nostalgia. It exalts white supremacy and racial hierarchy. It justifies class rule. It buttresses an economic and social system that callously discards and often consigns to death those considered the lesser breeds, most of whom are people of color. The queen’s husband Prince Phillip, who died in 2021, was notorious for making racist and sexist remarks, politely explained away in the British press as “gaffes.” He described Beijing, for example, as “ghastly” during a 1986 visit and told British students: “If you stay here much longer you’ll all be slitty-eyed.

The cries of the millions of victims of empire; the thousands killed, tortured, raped and imprisoned during the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya; the 13 Irish civilians gunned down in “Bloody Sunday;” the more than 4,100 First Nations children who died or went missing in Canada’s residential schools, government-sponsored institutions established to “assimilate” indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture, and the hundreds of thousands killed during the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are drowned out by cheers for royal processions and the sacral aura an obsequious press weaves around the aristocracy. The coverage of the queen’s death is so mind-numbingly vapid — the BBC sent out a news alert on Saturday when Prince Harry and Prince William, accompanied by their wives, surveyed the floral tributes to their grandmother displayed outside Windsor Castle — that the press might as well turn over the coverage to the mythmakers and publicists employed by the royal family.

The royals are oligarchs. They are guardians of their class. The world’s largest landowners include King Mohammed VI of Morocco with 176 million acres, the Holy Roman Catholic Church with 177 million acres, the heirs of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia with 531 million acres and now, King Charles III with 6.6 billion acres of land. British monarchs are worth almost $28 billion. The British public will provide a $33 million subsidy to the Royal Family over the next two years, although the average household in the U.K. saw its income fall for the longest period since records began in 1955 and 227,000 households experience homelessness in Britain.

Royals, to the ruling class, are worth the expense. They are effective tools of subjugation. British postal and rail workers canceled planned strikes over pay and working conditions after the queen’s death. The Trade Union Congress (TUC) postponed its congress. Labour Party members poured out heartfelt tributes. Even Extinction Rebellion, which should know better, indefinitely canceled its planned “Festival of Resistance.” The BBC’s Clive Myrie dismissed Britain’s energy crisis — caused by the war in Ukraine — that has thrown millions of people into severe financial distress as “insignificant” compared with concerns over the queen’s health. The climate emergency, pandemic, the deadly folly of the U.S. and NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine, soaring inflation, the rise of neo-fascist movements and deepening social inequality will be ignored as the press spews florid encomiums to class rule. There will be 10 days of official mourning.

In 1953, Her Majesty’s Government sent three warships, along with 700 troops, to its colony British Guiana, suspended the constitution and overthrew the democratically elected government of Cheddi Jagan. Her Majesty’s Government helped to build and long supported the apartheid government in South Africa. Her Majesty’s Government savagely crushed the Mau Mau independence movement in Kenya from 1952 to 1960, herding 1.5 million Kenyans into concentration camps where many were tortured. British soldiers castrated suspected rebels and sympathizers, often with pliers, and raped girls and women. By the time India won independence in 1947 after two centuries of British colonialism, Her Majesty’s Government had looted $45 trillion from the country and violently crushed a series of uprisings, including the First War of Independence in 1857. Her Majesty’s Government carried out a dirty war to break the Greek Cypriot War of Independence from 1955 to 1959 and later in Yemen from 1962 to 1969. Torture, extrajudicial assassinations, public hangings and mass executions by the British were routine. Following a protracted lawsuit, the British government agreed to pay nearly £20 million in damages to over 5,000 victims of British abuse during war in Kenya, and in 2019 another payout was made to survivors of torture from the conflict in Cyprus. The British state attempts to obstruct lawsuits stemming from its colonial history. Its settlements are a tiny fraction of the compensation paid to British slave owners in 1835, once it — at least formally — abolished slavery.

During her 70-year reign, the queen never offered an apology or called for reparations.

The point of social hierarchy and aristocracy is to sustain a class system that makes the rest of us feel inferior. Those at the top of the social hierarchy hand out tokens for loyal service, including the Order of the British Empire (OBE). The monarchy is the bedrock of hereditary rule and inherited wealth. This caste system filters down from the Nazi-loving House of Windsor to the organs of state security and the military. It regiments society and keeps people, especially the poor and the working class, in their “proper” place.

The British ruling class clings to the mystique of royalty and fading cultural icons as James Bond, the Beatles and the BBC, along with television shows such as “Downton Abbey” — where in one episode the aristocrats and servants are convulsed in fevered anticipation when King George V and Queen Mary schedule a visit — to project a global presence. Winston Churchill’s bust remains on loan to the White House. These myth machines sustain Great Britain’s “special” relationship with the United States. Watch the satirical film In the Loop to get a sense of what this “special” relationship looks like on the inside.

It was not until the 1960s that “coloured immigrants or foreigners” were permitted to work in clerical roles in the royal household, although they had been hired as domestic servants. The royal household and its heads are legally exempt from laws that prevent race and sex discrimination, what Jonathan Cook calls “an apartheid system benefitting the Royal Family alone.” Meghan Markle, who is of mixed race and who contemplated suicide during her time as a working royal, said that an unnamed royal expressed concern about the skin color of her unborn son.

I got a taste of this suffocating snobbery in 2014 when I participated in an Oxford Union debate asking whether Edward Snowden was a hero or a traitor. I went a day early to be prepped for the debate by Julian Assange, then seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy and currently in His Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh. At a lugubrious black-tie dinner preceding the event, I sat next to a former MP who asked me two questions I had never been asked before in succession. “When did your family come to America?” he said, followed by “What schools did you attend?” My ancestors, on both sides of my family, arrived from England in the 1630s. My graduate degree is from Harvard. If I had failed to meet his litmus test, he would have acted as if I did not exist.

Those who took part in the debate – my side arguing that Snowdon was a hero narrowly won – signed a leather-bound guest book. Taking the pen, I scrawled in large letters that filled an entire page: “Never Forget that your greatest political philosopher, Thomas Paine, never went to Oxford or Cambridge.”

Paine, the author of the most widely read political essays of the 18th century, Rights of Man, The Age of Reason and Common Sense, blasted the monarchy as a con. “A French bastard landing with an armed banditti and establishing himself as King of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original…The plain truth is that the antiquity of the English monarchy will not bear looking into,” he wrote of William the Conqueror. He ridiculed hereditary rule. “Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.” He went on: “One of the strangest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings is that nature disproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ass for a lion.” He called the monarch “the royal brute of England.”

When the British ruling class tried to arrest Paine, he fled to France where he was one of two foreigners elected to serve as a delegate in the National Convention set up after the French Revolution. He denounced the calls to execute Louis XVI. “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression,” Paine said. “For if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” Unchecked legislatures, he warned, could be as despotic as unchecked monarchs. When he returned to America from France, he condemned slavery and the wealth and privilege accumulated by the new ruling class, including George Washington, who had become the richest man in the country. Even though Paine had done more than any single figure to rouse the country to overthrow the British monarchy, he was turned into a pariah, especially by the press, and forgotten. He had served his usefulness. Six mourners attended his funeral, two of whom were Black.

You can watch my talk with Cornel West and Richard Wolff on Thomas Paine here.


There is a pathetic yearning among many in the U.S. and Britain to be linked in some tangential way to royalty. White British friends often have stories about ancestors that tie them to some obscure aristocrat. Donald Trump, who fashioned his own heraldic coat of arms, was obsessed with obtaining a state visit with the queen. This desire to be part of the club, or validated by the club, is a potent force the ruling class has no intention of giving up, even if hapless King Charles III, who along with his family treated his first wife Diana with contempt, makes a mess of it.

Copyright Robert Scheer, 2020.




CHRIS HEDGES is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief for the paper. He is the host of the Emmy Award-nominated RT America show On Contact. His most recent book is "America: The Farewell Tour" (2019).