Snowdon Supporters demonstrate before Obama visit to Berlin.(Photo from instagram.com/rt)

 The American Empire stands naked, called out by one man among a hundred thousand who knew its dirty secrets and systematic betrayal of the world's trust.

While international politics in the West has been leaping over each other to suck up to The Empire's New Clothes following September 11, 2001, the United States wasted no time in reinforcing the order of Pax Americana - that the US would establish peace in the world through superior firepower.

The world was turned into a simple black-and-white "You're with us, or you're against us." In the decade that followed, many countries that were inconvenient to Pax Americana were invaded, none of which had anything to do with the events on September 11.

The rattling of sabers were reminiscent of a high school bully: "if you don't accept that we can do whatever we want, we might be mean to you, so behave." Or, as US Secretary of State John Kerry expressed that sentence in just slightly more diplomatic language recently: "Hand over Snowden, or there may be consequences."

Most people in the United States aren't aware that their country is acting like their hated high school bully to most of the rest of the world. The few who do tend to take it with humor: bumper stickers have been seen satirizing this as "Be nice to America, or we'll bring democracy to your country", playing on the media spin that every war of aggression to maintain Pax Americana is about "bringing democracy" somewhere.

So when one man, Edward Snowden, reveals to the world that the Empire stands naked and that it really has been behaving like a bully, wiretapping everybody wholesale, there are shockwaves. But that's where the similarities with the folklore tale ends. Where the naked emperor cringed and realized the game was up, the naked Empire instead chooses to keep rewarding sucking up, pretending that nothing has been revealed at all, and to punish the whistleblower at all costs as a warning to others.

Politicians in the United States have been quick to call Snowden this, that and the other thing. No wonder. The surveillance hawks who couldn't care less of the human rights of the world would much rather talk about Edward Snowden as an individual than about the fact that the world's trust in the United States has been systematically betrayed wholesale.

  Take Microsoft software as an important example. As part of the NSA unravelings, it was uncovered that Microsoft gives security holes to the National Security Agency for exploiting before it sends out security repair patches to its users and customers - essentially betraying the trust of every customer worldwide, and making sure that no government, corporation, or media outlet can ever trust Microsoft products again: for Microsoft gave the master key to every customers' operations to the NSA.

Without Snowden setting the ball rolling, we would not have known this, and we would continue to have been owned - in the hacker and literal sense of the word - by the United States. Now, we can at least see that any Microsoft-developed software, and probably any closed US-developed software, is a huge security risk that no nation outside the United States can afford to take.

Today, Snowden is said to be comfortable on the inside of Sheremetyevo Airport outside Moscow, pending new travel documents being issued by some friendly country. (You have to love the fact that he's enraging US bully hawks by planning his trip to China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela. The only thing missing would be a trip to Pyongyang with a stopover in Tehran - and we find ourselves rooting for the countries that shield him, those countries we have been told sternly are black-and-white evil.)

What's really interesting is how other people who have had their doubts about the United States have started to come forward. There are now rumors that those who have been doubting the Empire's ability to pay back its enormous debts are starting to raise their voices about it. No wonder: the United States has long been bankrupt, but people have been... pretending... otherwise to make sure that a crash to the world economy doesn't happen on their watch.

If the doubts in creditworthiness take hold, things can come crashing down quicker than you would expect. Compare with 1987, at what felt like the height of the Cold War - who would have guessed that the Soviet Union would be formally dissolved just four years later?

If history teaches us anything, it is that all empires come to an end. History books could theoretically point at Snowden's leak of conscience as the starting point of major, major changes to the geopolitical order. At least they ended a blind and naive trust in the United States' interest in doing good for anybody but itself.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

The F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).(Reuters / Tom Reynolds)

 The US will not try to intercept NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s flight, President Barack Obama said during his tour to Africa.

Obama announced that US will not be using military jets to go after Snowden, rejecting reports that America might force down a plane carrying the NSA leaker.

The president specified that the US will not engage in "wheeling, dealing and trading" to extradite Edward Snowden, adding that extradition will be carried out through legal channels.

"We've got a whole lot of business that we do with China and Russia, and I'm not going to have one case of a suspect who we're trying to extradite suddenly being elevated to the point where I've got to start doing wheeling and dealing and trading on a whole host of other issues," Obama said.

Obama said he has not spoken to Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping or Russia’s President Vladimir Putin about whistleblower Edward Snowden’s extradition, adding that he “shouldn’t have to,” Reuters reported.

The president added he is "still concerned about the other documents" Edward Snowden may have, saying "not all of them have been released."

Edward Snowden was charged with espionage by US federal prosecutors on Friday and currently remains in an airport limbo in Russia’s transit zone after he flew to Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport from Hong Kong.

Snowden hasn’t been seen on the latest flight from Moscow to Havana, reports RT’s Irina Galushko, who is among the many journalists hunting for the whistleblower at Moscow’s airport.

Earlier, there were reports that Snowden will be on an Aeroflot’s flight to Havana, Cuba, that will pass through American airspace and that the plane might be forced to land.

Snowden needs to reach Ecuador to get asylum – Interior Minister

 At the same time, Ecuador says it cannot grant asylum to Edward Snowden, since he has not reached “any of its diplomatic premises,” i.e. the country itself or the embassy, Interior Minister revealed in a press conference in the capital city, Quito.

However, entering Ecuadorian soil, including the embassy in Moscow is now impossible for Snowden. The US government revoked his passport, which means he neither has a Russian visa nor can he buy a new flight ticket to Ecuador or Havana, a second transit point, RT’s Lucy Kafanov reports from outside Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport.

Earlier, there were reports that Snowden would be on an Aeroflot’s flight to Havana, Cuba, that will pass through American airspace and that the plane might be forced to land.

The government of Ecuador has also renounced US trade benefits to prevent Washington from pressuring the country as it decides over asylum for NSA leaker, Edward Snowden.

"Ecuador will not accept pressures or threats from anyone, and it does not traffic in its values or allow them to be subjugated to mercantile interests," Fernando Alvarado, the Ecuadorian government’s spokesman, said.

Alvarado said that Ecuador has “unilaterally and irrevocably” given up the customs benefits, offering $23 million per year to finance human rights training in the US in return.

The funding would be destined to help "avoid violations of privacy, torture and other actions that are denigrating to humanity," Alvarado explained.

The statement comes after US senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, promised that he would seek to end benefits if Ecuador grants Snowden asylum. 

AFP Photo / Paul J. Richards

 Sir Tim Berners-Lee has lashed out at Western governments, calling them hypocritical for spying on the internet while reproaching other oppressive nations for doing the same; adding that the revelations may change the way people use computers.

The British computer scientist, who invented the Web in 1989, accused the West of "insidious" online spying after whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked details of the US National Security Agency’s (NSA) dragnet telephone and internet surveillance programs, implicating US and UK in a wave of international criticism.

"In the Middle East, people have been given access to the internet, but they have been snooped on and then they have been jailed," Berners-Lee told The Times newspaper in an interview.

"It can be easy for people in the West to say 'Oh, those nasty governments should not be allowed access to spy.' But it's clear that developed nations are seriously spying on the internet," he added.

Berners-Lee believes that the new revelations about Western government spying could change the way people, especially teenagers, use the internet and their computers.

"Teenagers who are unsure about their sexuality, who need to contact others, or people being abused trying to find helplines... There are things that happen on the net that are very intimate, which people are going to be loath to do if they feel there is somebody looking over their shoulder."

Another concern that Berners-Lee raises is around the safety of the already collected information.

British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee, who is credited with inventing the World Wide Web.(AFP Photo / Carl Court)

  The web’s inventor spoke out before accepting a US$1.5 million joint engineering prize awarded by Queen Elizabeth to five men, who are considered to be the fathers of the internet, including Robert Kahn, Vint Cerf, Louis Pouzin and Marc Andreessen.

Berners-Lee argues that internet freedom must be safeguarded against companies or governments trying to take over control.

"When you make something universal … it can be used for good things or nasty things … we just have to make sure it's not undercut by any large companies or governments trying to use it and get total control," he said at the award ceremony.

One of the award recipients, Google Vice-President Vint Cerf, suggested companies should come up with ways to go around the surveillance, such as developing encrypted web communication.

Snowden blew the whistle on an NSA program called PRISM that collects correspondence and video conversations of foreigners using internet services like Google, Skype, Yahoo and Facebook.

He also provided documents showing the intelligence agency collects data on phone calls handled by the major US telephone companies.

On top of that the whistleblower exposed British spy agency GCHQ’s access to the global network of communications, storing calls, Facebook posts and internet histories, and revealed that it shares this data with the NSA.

Snowden was charged with espionage by US federal prosecutors on Friday and currently remains in an airport limbo in Russia’s transit zone after he flew to Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport from Hong Kong.

Snowden’s stopover in the transit zone could be prolonged indefinitely, as his passport, which was annulled by the US on Saturday, leaves him without the necessary documentation with which to travel, a source reportedly connected with Snowden told Interfax.

Kimberly McCarthy

Despite pleas from thousands of protesters, prison officials administered a single dose of pentobarbital and pronounced McCarthy dead at 6:37 pm local time Wednesday. McCarthy, a 52-year-old African-American, had been convicted for the 1997 robbery, beating and fatal stabbing of Dorothy Booth, her 71-year-old white neighbor.

McCarthy, a former nursing home therapist who became addicted to crack cocaine, reportedly cut off Booth’s finger in an attempt to steal the retired college professor’s wedding ring. She blamed the crime on drug dealers but was also linked by DNA to the murders of two other senior citizens.

She was first woman to be put to death in the US since 2010 and only the fifth in Texas since 1854. Texas has carried out nearly 40 per cent of America's executions, with more than 1,300 since the Supreme Court resurrected the dormant law in 1976. Governor Rick Perry alone has overseen more than 250 executions during his time in office, according to human rights-focused journalist Rhania Khalek, the most of any governor in history.

“I just wanted to say thanks to all who have supported me over the years,” McCarthy wrote in her last statement. “Thank you everybody, this is not a loss, this is a win. You know where I am going.”

Her final meal was pepper steak, mashed potatoes with gravy along with mixed vegetables and cake.

She became the eighth person to be put to death in Texas in 2013 alone, although after Wednesday 282 more inmates will remain on Texas’ death row. Seven Texan men are scheduled to die in the coming months, according to the Associated Press. McCarthy, the Death Penalty Information Center noted, is the 17th person in America to be put to death in the first six months of 2013.

McCarthy was granted a retrial in 2002 after proving that the original prosecution intentionally excluded African-American jurors. She was again convicted and returned to death row. She was granted a stay of execution in January and then April of this year.

Other states have altogether stopped administering lethal injections. Oregon has not executed a single person since 1997, and California, despite having the nation’s largest death row population at 727, has not carried out an execution since 2006.

Sixty-one per cent of all Americans responded in the affirmative when asked in a 2013 Gallup poll if they support capital punishment. A 2012 Texas Tribune poll indicated that a mere 21 per cent of Texans were opposed to the death penalty, evidence of which came during Governor Perry’s 2011 run for the presidency, when he was roundly applauded for overseeing so many executions.

“I’ve never struggled [to sleep at night] at all,” he said. “In the state of Texas when you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you are involved in another crime that killed one of our citizens – you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas.”

The nationwide decline in executions is, at least in part, attributable to unearthed evidence that has exonerated wrongfully convicted Americans across the country. Earlier this year the National Registry of Exonerations revealed that Texas – and Dallas County, in particular, where McCarthy was convicted – is the national leader in exonerations.

A probe, ordered after that study and published April 2013, revealed that at least 117 people in Texas were imprisoned over the last 25 years for crimes they did not commit.

“Texas has been showcased as the number on state in the nation for wrongful convictions,” state Rep. Ruth McClendon told the Houston Chronicle. “Each conviction of an innocent person reveals a tragic failure of the justice system.”

Russia’s upper house, the Federation House, has approved a bill introducing fines for propaganda of non-traditional sex relations to minors, including in the media, on the internet and via viral adverts.

Some 137 senators voted for the draft law which introduces administrative liability and fines of up to a million roubles (over US$ 30,000) for promotion of homosexuality among children. One senator abstained from voting and no one voted against the legislation.

The controversial bill – which critics fear may spark a wave of homophobia in the country – was approved by the lower house, the State Duma, on June 11. The vast majority of the population – 88 % - is also in favor of the introduction of the ban, according to a poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM).

The draft law is not discriminative against LGBT people and is only aimed to protect minors, Federation Council speaker, Valentina Matvienko, emphasized on Wednesday, ahead of voting.

Unlike in the Soviet times, people with non-traditional sexual orientation are no longer prosecuted in Russia, she reminded.

“They are ordinary equal members of the society. As adults, they are entitled to decide how they want to live. But when it comes to minors [the ban on propaganda] is not someone’s whim, but a demand from the society,” Matvienko said.

Under the bill, individuals will be fined up to 5,000 roubles ($US 152) for such propaganda, officials will have to pay up to 50,000 roubles (about US$ 1,500) and companies – up to 500,000 roubles (about $US 15,000).

If law violators use the media or the internet for the promotion of non-traditional sex relations, they will face even harsher punishment. For instance, individuals will have shell out up to 100,000 roubles (about US$ 3,000), while organizations – a million roubles or face a 90-day suspension of activities.

Foreign citizens or stateless persons who violate the ban will face a fine or an arrest for up to 15 days followed by a deportation from Russia.

The law also defines what is considered the gay propaganda of non-traditional relations. It is the distribution of information aimed at forming non-traditional sexual concept in children, describing such ties as attractive, promoting the distorted understanding of social equality of traditional and non-traditional relations and also unwanted solicitation of information that could provoke interest in such relations.

The bill was slammed as “anti-gay” by gay rights activists both in Russia and abroad. The issue was raised again earlier in the week. The Russian president called on Western countries not to interfere with Russian internal affairs, speaking at a media conference during his trip to Finland.  He reiterated that the draft law is not about introducing any sort of sanctions on homosexuality and does not violate rights of sexual minorities.

“Some countries ... think that there is no need to protect children from this. We Do. We are not going to interfere,” he said. “But we are going to provide such protection the way that State Duma lawmakers have decided.”

To come into force, the bill has yet to be signed by the president.

A US hospital deported an unconscious stroke victim after noticing that the patient was an undocumented immigrant from Poland. Polish health officials are furious that the man was “dumped on their doorstep” before the transfer was approved.

“Imagine being carted around like a sack of potatoes,” Polish Consul General Ewa Junczyk-Ziomecka told New York Daily News, describing the incident in which 69-year old Wladyslaw Haniszewski was unconsciously deported to his homeland.

Haniszewski, who suffers from a blood disease, lived in Perth Amboy, N.J., for 30 years. He recently lost his job, apartment, and health insurance, and was forced to move into a homeless shelter, the Daily News reports.

After the man suffered a dangerous stroke, a friend named Jerzy Jedra took him to the New Jersey hospital for treatment. When officials at the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital noticed that the patient had no health insurance and lived in the US without documentation, they sent the comatose man to Poland. US hospitals are legally required to provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, but are allowed to deport stabilized undocumented immigrants.

But in order to deport someone, a US hospital must first get consent from either the patient, a family member, or a court guardian. Officials at the Polish consulate claim that no one was contacted, and that Haniszewski’s family was never informed that the man was deported.

Meanwhile, Haniszewski was left at the doorstep of a hospital in Boleslawiec, Poland. The facility is now being forced to take care of the man’s medical payments, which have cost “a few hundred dollars” a day, the hospital’s deputy director told TVN.

Junczyk-Ziomecka, who works at the Polish consulate in New York City, said she was trying to help the comatose man, only to realize last week that he was gone. Polish officials are furious about the deportation, especially since the 69-year-old patient was not in a healthy state to sign off on the transfer.

“Behind our backs they transported the unconscious man to Poland,” she told TVN, noting that she was most furious about the hospital’s decision to dump the man at the facility. “I cannot imagine such a situation that the decision about transporting an unconscious person could be made without agreement. Between the two institutions must be a contract, there must be documents. You cannot simply leave a patient at the door and drive away.”

At least 800 people have been deported from US hospitals without consent over the past six years in 15 states, the Associated Press reported in April. Medical repatriation has become increasingly common, but AP suggests that the actual number of such hospital deportations is much higher than figures show. Some health advocates are afraid that repatriations will occur more frequently after major components of Obamacare are implemented in 2014, since the US government will reduce its payments to hospitals that care for large numbers of uninsured patients.

Shena Erlington, director of the Health Justice Program, told the Daily News that although hospitals may face the burden of paying for uninsured patients, medical care providers should not have the ability to deport patients.

“It’s an incredibly disturbing case,” Lori Nessel, director of the Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall University School of Law, said about the Haniszewski repatriation. “This kind of action seems clearly illegal and also not ethical, but it’s hard to bring forth a legal action.”

The New Jersey hospital denies any wrongdoing and claims that the patient was informed of his discharge and care plan. The patient is awake, but unable to speak or communicate with doctors.

A television screens the image of former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden during a news bulletin at a cafe in Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport June 26, 2013. (Reuters)

Members of the Russian Presidential Council for Human rights said that it would be justified if the US whistleblower Edward Snowden received political asylum in a country of his choice, including Russia.

The head of Russia’s top official Human Rights Body, Mikhail Fedotov, told reporters on Wednesday that it would be just if some country grants Snowden political asylum. He added that the reports that the Venezuelan government was ready to look into such request were “raising good hope” and that it was his personal impression that the whistleblower “would get political asylum where he wants”.

“He must be granted protection regardless of national borders. And this does not apply only to Mr Snowden’s story – this applies to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and many other people, including journalists – Russian and foreign – who disclose secrets in order to warn the society against dangers,” the Interfax news agency quoted Fedotov as saying.

“Because of such people we become stronger and the special and diplomatic services must become smarter and understand what can be done in the modern transparent world and what cannot” Fedotov added.

Another member of the Human Rights Council, Kirill Kabanov, said Edward Snowden should not be handed over to the United States as this would violate his personal rights.

“It goes without saying that Snowden acted as a Human Rights advocate but right now the US authorities are very resolute in their intention to punish him. My opinion is that we should take a very precise position – no handover,” Kabanov told the ITAR-TASS news agency.

The initiative was supported by yet another member of the HR body, the head of the Moscow Bureau for Human Rights Aleksandr Brod. The activist said that the threat to Snowden’s life  really existed and thus, Russian authorities must openly state their position.

“The man was defending the principles on which the United States had been based  for a long time but which the current US authorities are ignoring. He is facing a life sentence or execution by a firing squad. We must help him in this very difficult situation,” stated Veronika Krasheninnikova, the head of the major Russian political think tank Institute of Foreign Policy Research and Initiatives.

These views are shared by the head of the Lower House committee for Foreign affairs Aleksey Pushkov who called Snowden, Assange and Bradley Manning “new dissidents” in his Wednesday Twitter post.

“Assange Manning and Snowden were not spies, they did not disclose classified information for money, but did so because of their beliefs. They are new dissidents, fighters against the system,” Pushkov wrote.

Also on Wednesday the Russian Upper House set up a commission that would look into Snowden’s reports and connected data to investigate possible violations of Russian citizens’ rights by US special services. Senator Ruslan Gattarov who presented the group noted in his speech that the Russian authorities had sent an official letter to the US demanding explanations, but it was simply ignored.

Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden caused a major international scandal after he disclosed his agency’s eavesdropping on thousands of ordinary unsuspecting citizens in the USA and in other countries. Snowden spent some time in Hong Kong, reportedly arrived to Moscow on Sunday and is still staying in an airport transit zone. It was expected that the whistleblower would fly to Ecuador that could grant him asylum but so far it apparently has not happened.

President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday confirmed that Snowden was in Moscow as a transit passenger and rejected the US demands of extradition.

“We can only extradite foreign citizens to such countries with which we have signed the appropriate international agreements on criminal extradition,” Putin said, adding that as Snowden had committed no crime on Russian soil, he is free to travel at will.

"Snowden is a free person. The sooner he chooses his final destination, the better it is for him and Russia," Putin said.

Edward Snowden, a former contractor at the National Security Agency (NSA), is seen during a news broadcast on television at a restaurant in Hong Kong June 26, 2013. (Reuters)

Hong Kong’s Justice Secretary said the US confused Snowden’s middle name, lacked his passport number in a request for his arrest and failed to provide evidence for charges, preventing HK officials from detaining the leaker before he left the territory.

The Hong Kong government did not assist Edward Snowden, the man who revealed the top-secret NSA surveillance program PRISM, in leaving the territory, but incomplete paperwork prevented officials from issuing a provisional arrest warrant, Hong Kong Justice secretary Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung said on Tuesday, according to the South China Morning Post.

The US referred to the former CIA employee and NSA contractor’s middle name as ‘James’, however the Hong Kong Immigration Department had the name ‘Joseph’, Yuen said. The application also lacked Snowden’s passport number, so there was ‘no legal basis’ to prevent him from leaving Hong Kong.

“Therefore, it was impossible and there was no legal basis under Hong Kong law for the Department of Justice to ask a Hong Kong judge to sign off on a provisional arrest warrant,” Yuen said adding  “[Thus] there then was no legal basis to restrict or ban Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.”

The US said Sunday it was “disappointed” by Hong Kong’s “troubling”  failure to detain the man responsible for the biggest leak of US intelligence in history, before he fled the territory on Saturday. The White House has insisted that the personal information in the paperwork of the leaker the US submitted to Hong Kong was correct.

The Hong Kong government on June 15 received the US request to detain Snowden, who also revealed US cyber spying on China. It named three charges including unauthorized disclosure of national defense information, unauthorized disclosure of intelligence and stealing state property.

In this file picture taken on June 13, 2013 protesters shout slogans in support of former US spy Edward Snowden as they march to the US consulate in Hong Kong. (AFP Photo)

 Yuen said that the US failed to clarify the first two charges and did not provide any evidence for the arrest, rejecting suggestions that Hong Kong had been deliberately stalling for time.

“We had not been deliberately delaying the process. All along, we have acted in full accordance with the law,” Yuen said.

According to the extradition treaty between the two countries, the HK officials had no authority to honor the USA’s extradition request due to lack of evidence under the first two charges.

The justice secretary noted that he had requested information from the US on Thursday and the US government has not responded to the request.

"Until the minute of Snowden's departure, the US government had not yet replied to our requests for clarification," he noted. "Any suggestion that we have been deliberately letting Mr Snowden go away or to do any other things to obstruct the normal operation is totally untrue."

Hong Kong had not yet received a reply from the US to this request, as of Tuesday, said the South China Morning Post.

Whistleblower Edward Snowden is reportedly in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow. 

The UK’s austerity policy is ideologically driven and is aimed at diverting finance from the poor to the rich under the pretext of the economic crisis, writer John Wight told RT.

Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is announcing billions more in the government spending cuts while austerity measures are already biting for many people across the UK.
Osborne claimed that British economy is “out of intensive care.” RT asked Wight if he thinks that is really the case.

John Wight: Only in a fine world of the Tory party would that be the case. The country’s seen 1.1 percent growth in the last three years – the worst level of growth in this country’s economy over the last 100 years. That can by no means be considered a success. 

RT: Who's going to be the most affected by these latest cuts?

JW: Clearly the poor are going to be hit harder as a continuation of the mass experiment in human despair, which this coalition government has cheated to describe as an economic policy. It is ideologically driven and we see economics of the madhouse. And it is done with the objective of affecting the transference of wealth from the poor to the rich under the pretext of an economic crisis – not reason, it’s a pre-text. The economic crisis which hit this country in 2007 was their economic 9/11.

RT: Official figures show the deficit has been growing last year, despite previous cuts. So is there any point to them?

JW: Well, that’s what I’ve just said: this is ideologically driven. If you are considering these policies on the basis of economics, then clearly it is completely irrational. The US economist Paul Krugman lately described it as “a medieval doctor draining a patient’s blood,” and when that doesn’t work, draining more blood from the patient. This is entirely appropriate to describe this economic policy, this austerity. Austerity historically has been discredited. It doesn’t work in times of recession. At a time of recession the government needs to spend more to reintroduce the man which is contracted as profits stumble. And you must place this along the fact that the Office of Financial Statistics, the government’s own body set up to monitor these things, came up with a figure in April which stated that in the final quarter of last year UK businesses, excluding banks, were sitting on 318 billion pounds of surplus. And that money is money we need in the economy. They are not investing, they spend all the inducements from the government by the way of tax subsidies and tax cuts for the rich that the government has given to the rich over the last three years. 

RT: What do you think is the best way that the government can fight the deficit?

JW: It has to start investing in the real economy. It has to start directing banks to lend rather than pleading with banks, especially banks in which we own a majority share, such as RBS. The government should take over RBS’s operations and start lending in the interest of the real economy. The economy needs it. We have a housing crisis in the country, it’s the worst in the world, it’s a scandal. And we need to start investing in affordable homes. Rather than punishing the poor for being poor we should start actually diverting money from the rich to the poor, as befitting a civilized society. 

RT: Osborne announced cuts to the police budget. Do you think that will affect the crime rate?

JW: Well, not really, because based on what we know now a lot of criminals are actually in the police. They are also sitting in the boardrooms and in the House of Lords. It may have an effect. But I think they’ve consolidated the police and taken away the regional power from the police. It is yet to be seen. But as I say the cuts in the police budget are minimal compared to the cuts for the poor in terms of benefit cuts and so on.

This time the name of the game is not “Syria”, but “Snowden”. Moreover, the Snowden story is already evolving into a global debate on what are the do’s and don’t of a decent partnership and the ABC of personal freedoms and genuine democracy.

The detective story of the 30-year old NSA leaker, who landed in Moscow after leaving Hong Kong, added to the growing frustration which has plagued US-Russian relations in recent months.

Unwrapping the riddle of Snowden’s whereabouts President Putin confirmed he is still at the transit area of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport. Denying any accusations against Russia as “nonsense and rubbish” as Snowden “has not crossed” the Russian border, Putin called on the US to turn down anti-Russian rhetoric and finally tried to draw a line under the whole story in his trademark colorful language: “In any case, I would like not to deal with such issues because it is like shearing a pig: there's lots of squealing and little fleece”.

However, as the Snowden saga is far from being over, the scandal has a potential to pave the way for a lengthy period of even more chilled relations between Moscow and Washington; its ups and downs at present can be described not as a “cold war”, but a “cold peace”.

While the Obama administration refrains from further rocking the boat, it is done by US congressmen, who are exercising fresh attacks on President Putin and making thinly-veiled warnings about US retaliation.

“The bottom line is very simple. Allies are supposed to treat each other decently, and Putin always seems almost eager to put a finger in the eye of the United States, whether it is Syria, Iran and now, of course, with Snowden. That’s not how allies should treat one another, and I think it will have serious consequences for the United States-Russia relationship”, -- explains Sen. Charles E.Schumer.

The dominant mood on the large part of the American political elite is seemingly this: the Edward Snowden case comes as another defining moment for US relations with the rest of the world, including Russia. So, by not lending the US a helping hand at this critical point, both Russia and China placed themselves on the other side of global barricades – in a camp of old US adversaries, like Cuba and Venezuela.

Neocons would stick to the point which long before the Snowden saga was articulated by some leading Republicans, including presidential hopeful Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential race. Mr.Romney repeatedly spoke of an informal global alliance of non-democratic regimes, which is trying to hinder the interests of the US and their Western allies world-wide, whenever the situation allows, at every possible point (the policy of “putting a finger in the eye”).

Following this way of understanding things, the Snowden scandal is seen by some as another lively episode of a grand battle “democracies” versus “autocracies”. The list of the countries which has adopted non-cooperative approach on the Snowden case is becoming highly symbolic: China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador (either regular autocracies, like China or Cuba, or troubled democracies sliding to autocratic rule, like Russia). So, it looks as if the whole story illustrates the slogan of the day once coined by Andrew Kuchins ” Autocracies of the world, unite!  

Truly, in the Snowden case democracy is a core divisive issue, but things are not that simple. Ironically, it is Edward Snowden who is waging the battle for democracy on his own, posing as another “warrior of truth” – but not a traitor. He explained that what made him become a whistleblower was the credibility gap between the state and civil society. So, on his part it was not an act of national betrayal, but a decent protest move to expose US crimes and human rights violations both at home and abroad.  In a way, he hinted he wanted to help President Obama who is more and more often described as “George Obama” (but not a reincarnation of President Kennedy).

The Snowden case pinpoints a certain tendency. After Bradley Manning, the 25-year old US soldier, accused of passing classified files to WikiLeaks, we have another story of a young American citizen, who is behind an important leak of classified information. While some in Washington tend to describe it as a global plot against the US, with Russia siding with US adversaries, the cases of both Manning and Snowden have a lot in common. Both cases spilt America into those, who consider whistleblowers traitors, putting US national security at risk and those who describe them as a brave citizens, who were not scared to expose the US government wrongdoing in the interests of Americans themselves.

No surprise, that the story of Snowden has already triggered a global debate on what is the delicate balancing act between democracy and security, which make uneasy bedfellows. In his recent interview to RT President Putin hinted that surveillance "is becoming a global phenomenon in the context of combating international terrorism", and that "such methods are generally practicable". However, "the question is how well those security agencies are controlled by the public."

"I can tell you that, at least in Russia, you cannot just go and tap into someone’s phone conversation without a warrant issued by a court. That’s more or less the way a civilized society should go about fighting terrorism with modern-day technology. As long as it is exercised within the boundaries of the law that regulates intelligence activities, it’s alright. But if it’s unlawful, then it’s bad”, said Putin.

So, it is probably high time for President Obama to answer a tough question about what went wrong in the US to produce the phenomena of Manning-Snowden. It is not President Putin who is “putting finger in the eye of the United States”, but a growing army of disenchanted Americans, who are not buying President Obama’s notion that “you can’t have 100 per cent security and 100 per cent privacy”.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

The Texas Senate was at odds over an abortion bill demanding all hospitals in the state performing the operation be shut down. Senator Wendy Davis spent most of her day staging a filibuster. Later, the governor stated the bill came too late to pass.

Davis, representing Fort Worth, staged a filibuster during the session, which denied the bill’s passage due to use of available time.

  She was wearing pink tennis shoes, prepared for an hours-long stand: the rules of a filibuster demand that the person remain standing, without leaning on a desk or taking any breaks, even for meals or to use the bathroom.

In her opening remarks, Davis said she was "rising on the floor today to humbly give voice to thousands of Texans" and called Republican efforts to pass the bill a "raw abuse of power."

Davis tried to stay comfortable by shifting her weight from hip to hip and walking around the desk. When a male bill supporter stood up in the gallery and shouted, “Abortion is genocide,” Davis carried on with her speech.

Her filibuster eventually lasted for almost 11 hours, and was dramatically ended minutes before midnight.

Republicans demanded that Davis stay on topic, a requirement they say she didn’t follow – plus, a colleague attempted to give her a back brace, which lawmakers protested.

Democrat senators chose Davis to protest against the bill as she had her first child as a teenager and graduated from Harvard Law School afterwards.

 Outside, all throughout the day, crowds of women stood in line, waiting for people in the gallery to give up their seats.

Hundreds of protesters clapped and shouted for the last 15 minutes of the special session in attempt to run out the clock, and they succeeded: according to the Texas State Senator Whitmire, "there was a vote, but it was an invalid vote because it happened after midnight.”

However, if the law is signed anytime soon, it would virtually mean the closing of every abortion clinic in Texas, the second largest state in terms of population (26 million people).

Only five out of 42 clinics will be able to remain in operation due to the law indicating that abortions should only be carried out at surgical centers. 

Thanks to the powerful voices of thousands of Texans, #SB5 is dead. An incredible victory for Texas women and those who love them.
— Wendy Davis (@WendyDavisTexas) June 26, 2013

Fox News analyst Ralph Peters called for subjecting Snowden and other treasonous figures to the death penalty, while prominent media figures have called for The Guardian's journalist Glenn Greenwald to be charged with “aiding and abetting” the fugitive Snowden. It’s not easy keeping a straight face when watching Dick Cheney being interviewed on television railing against the “crimes” of Edward Snowden, and its practically impossible to fight the urgent need to face palm when hearing US Secretary of State John Kerry play on scare tactics that the US would be “attacked because terrorists may now know how to protect themselves” from the sweeping NSA surveillance apparatus brought to light by the now infamous whistleblower on the lam. PRISM is about fighting terrorism, but little stands in the way of the White House putting ‘activists’ or dissidents’ into the same basket as ‘terrorists’; in other words, the purpose of this mass surveillance is primarily for gathering intelligence on individuals that are troublesome to the establishment. The US intelligence establishment, being as hyperactive as it is, wants a file on everybody – and with zero public accountability, nothing stops them from monitoring Occupiers, Libertarians, and other dissidents under the guise of thwarting terrorism. As the situation develops and the US postures itself as a freer nation than those which Snowden has made his stopovers in, the hypocrisy of that narrative has become all the more glaring.

When the US isn’t waging a war on drugs, or waging cyber war, or waging drone wars, or waging actual war, it’s recently taken to waging war on leakers and hard-hitting reporters. Let’s be clear – even during the early days of the Patriot Act, which drastically lowered the bar on the legal requirements for suspicious individuals to be spied on, nobody thought that the NSA and the authorities concerned could ever enact such a sweeping program like PRISM, which gives the government unprecedented and intimate access into private email exchanges, phone calls, video chats, and numerous other areas. Regardless of whether or not this program has been abused by authorities isn’t the question – the very existence of such a program represents the administration’s grave misinterpretation of its own mandate, and an enormous betrayal of public trust. Whether dealing with revelations of mass surveillance, the leaking of US diplomatic cables, or bringing video evidence of US war crimes to the forefront, there is a growing tendency in the US establishment to portray sources of controversial information as being treasonous and anti-patriotic in nature.

Political personalities and pundits often fan the flames of these reactionary opinions when journalists publish information that may blur the line between activism and journalism. Obama has charged more whistleblowers than any other previous presidential administration, invoking the WWI-era Espionage Act to criminalize figures like Snowden and others with aiding the enemy. If Snowden really intended to do harm to the United States, he could have compromised the safety of intelligence officials by revealing the identities of undercover CIA agents embedded in various parts of the world, and other things that could harm more than just Washington’s diplomatic standing in the world. Snowden claims to have released only the information that would benefit the public good, and if he comes forward to release more information that suggests that Washington has acted outside of national and international law in its cyber security programs or foreign adventures, many countries would sympathize with Snowden and view his actions as morally justifiable.

The China Equation

Behind the handshakes and smiles of Obama’s meet up with Chinese President Xi Jinping in California, the Snowden saga had broken and began making international headlines. Snowden’s revelations lent strong credibility to Chinese assertions that they are victims of hacking, not the main perpetrators of it, as Washington maintains. Recent leaks detail how the US government has been hacking Chinese mobile phone networks to intercept millions of text messages, hacking the operator of the region’s fibre optic cable network, as well as hacking the servers at Tsinghua University, one of country’s biggest research institutions. If the US was on the receiving end of such far-reaching hacks, it would certainly not be quiet – nor would it honor requests by the aggressor nation to ‘extradite the messenger,’ as it were. Beijing has no illusions, and commentary in China’s official news agencies suggest that.

China’s Xinhua news agency says that US government owes the world an explanation, and called Washington “the biggest villain” of cyber attacks, while claiming to be innocent. In the Globaltimes, a Chinese daily that reflects the views of the establishment in Beijing, an op-ed was published that suggested that the Chinese government attempt to extract useful information from Snowden, noting that “Snowden is a political offender against the US, but what he is doing benefits the world” and that “public opinion will turn against China's central government and the Hong Kong SAR government if they choose to send him back.” White House spokesman Jay Carney called Snowden’s escape from Hong Kong a “deliberate choice by the [Beijing] government to release a fugitive, despite a valid arrest warrant,” prior to claiming that the move would hurt US-China relations. The forecast here is pretty clear, expect a great deal of chill and enhanced mutual distrust. (And probably a lot more hacking.)

Let the Putin-bashing begin…

These days, when Kerry isn’t preoccupied trying to arm militants and non-state actors in Syria (a strong case can be made that these figures fit the definition of ‘terrorists’), he’s warning Americans of the dangers posed by terrorists, who now have the upper hand to attack America thanks to the criminality of pesky whistleblowers – or so the US mythology goes. At the time as this article was being written, President Putin confirmed that Snowden is staying in the transit area of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport, where he is presumably arranging his political asylum and onward travel to Quito with Ecuadorian diplomats, and that he is free to go. This move will undoubtedly result in increasingly sour relations with the US, which will be coming at the Kremlin with huge diplomatic pressure to hand Snowden over. The Russian administration’s choice not to honor the extradition request, as the US has done in numerous cases, will see the White House and their cheerleaders in the US media come down hard on the Putin administration.

The recent photograph of Obama and Putin awkwardly sitting side-by-side with hands folded and eyes to the ground perfectly captures the mood of US-Russian relations, and it looks as if that kind of chill is the new normal. It is also unwise of the White House to contentiously downplay Russia’s commitment to transparency, democracy, and freedom of the press while asking the Kremlin to hand Snowden over. There is little that the US can do if Russia or Ecuador continues to allow Snowden to pursue political asylum, though it may make it harder for citizens of those countries to get US visas, or it could even drag the diplomatic tussle into the economic sphere by delaying investment deals or making it difficult to import goods into US markets. Two things are certain at this point: the Snowden saga won’t end quietly, and 'BigBama’s' gonna keep watching you… for your own safety from evil terrorists, of course.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Barack Obama is a “war criminal” and a “hypocrite,” an Irish politician has said in a damning attack on the US president. The MP slammed the Irish treatment of Obama during his G8 visit as akin to ‘prostituting’ Ireland for a “pat on the head.”

Irish MP Clare Daly took no prisoners in her heated attack on the visit of the Obama family to Ireland during this year’s G8 summit, which was held in the five-star resort of Lough Erne, Northern Ireland.

During a session of the Irish parliament last Tuesday, Daly slammed media coverage of the visit as tantamount to "a nation of pimps, prostituting ourselves in return for a pat on the head."

“It’s hard to know which is worse, whether it’s the outpourings of the Obamas themselves, or the sycophantic fawning over them by sections of the media and the political establishment,” said Daly, saying that the Irish nation had been subjected to “unprecedented slobbering” over the presidential family.

 Rounding on the president, she condemned his speech to children in Northern Ireland about the peace process as the “biggest irony of all.” Citing Obama’s decision to supply the Syrian opposition with arms, she asked: “Is person going for the hypocrite of the century award?”

“By any serious examination this man is a war criminal,” said Daly, accusing the Obama administration of purposely stalling the Geneva talks by increasing their backing for the Syrian opposition and undermining secularism in the region as a whole.

She called on the Irish government to take steps to “ensure no weapons go through [Dublin’s] Shannon [Airport] to Syria in breach of the international laws”

Letting rip on the on Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny, she said there was speculation "whether the Taoiseach [PM] was going to deck the cabinet out in leprechaun hats decorated with a bit of stars and stripes to really mark abject humiliation."

US First Lady Michelle Obama (C) comforts her daughter Sasha (L) as Malia (R) looks on during a visit to Glendalough in the Wicklow Mountains National Park in Ireland, on June 18, 2013. (AFP Photo)

 Clare Daly’s comments were condemned as “disgraceful” by Kenny, who debated with the MP following her initial speech. He said her comment were a “do-down” to Irish people living throughout the world. Addressing, Daly’s words on Syria, Kenny said that she seemed to have a very “biased” view on the “wanton slaughter of the Syrian people” by the regime of President Bashar Assad.

Daly later questioned what was so “outrageous” about her comments in a column in the Irish examiner, stressing the “unquestionable adoration of the Obamas is ludicrous.”

“Of course the Obamas, like anyone else, have a right to visit our country and enjoy the benefits we have to offer. However, we cannot afford to let a sideshow develop whereby the situation becomes completely depoliticized,” Daly wrote.

Barack Obama, his wife and two daughters touched down in Belfast for the G8 summit on June 17. While the president attended high-level meetings as part of the summit, his family toured the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. 

 A divided US Supreme Court voided a central part of the Voting Rights Act, a law put in place during the Civil Rights movement to prevent historically racist states from creating obstacles to voting, Tuesday.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the Supreme Court’s opinion in Shelby County vs. Holder on Tuesday. The 5-4 decision, evidence of clear partisan lines in the nation’s highest court, was celebrated by Southern states and criticized by President Barack Obama for declaring federal oversight on state election changes unconstitutional. Roberts did not specify which, if any, part of the Constitution the rule violated.

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), invalidated by Tuesday’s decision, explained the formula used by Congress to identify regions of the US subject to extra scrutiny when local lawmakers try to change election rules. Section 4 was the precursor to Section 5, which gives the federal government the power to “preclear” any state or local changes in election rules that could potentially prevent minorities from voting.

Both the Justice Department and individual voters were able to file suit if they believed a state or local municipality was instituting a law that would put undue burden on a specific demographic, a protection that saw its end on Monday.

Under the formula, Congress singled out states based on their history of past abuses. Most of the states affected by the ruling are in the South, where politicians frequently signed laws meant to silence the black population by way of making their votes count less through redistricting and other tactics. The VRA of 1965 nullified the systemic discrimination allowed by the Jim Crow laws, adopted in the century following the abolition of slavery.

States that prevented African Americans from, in addition to other infractions, registering to vote, voting of running for office were singled out by Section 4.

The Supreme Court’s majority ruled that, because the VRA was enacted decades ago, Congress must use updated criteria to determine which states are subject to the federal oversight. In a seeming contradiction, the Court cited the VRA’s success in protecting an equal voting system as a reason to void Section 4. 

Mario Tama / Getty Images / AFP

  Roberts asserted that “things have changed dramatically” over time. Since 1965 voter registration, voter turnout and the number of African American political leaders have all vastly increased, Roberts claimed, “in large part because of the VRA.” Yet Roberts and four other justices called for new criteria not “based on decades-old data” and voter suppression methods, such as literacy tests, that have been rendered irrelevant by Section 4. Roberts' claims are wrong, though, some reporters pointed out on the day.

“The regions covered by the part of the Act that was struck down, Section 4, have, in recent years, been twice as likely as those not covered to have proven violations under other sections of the Act,” wrote The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson.

Without a new formula for Section 4, which most experts agree is unlikely after years of Congressional gridlock and polarization, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act cannot be implemented.

Roberts also wrote that Congress “cannot justify the considerable burdens created by Section 5,” despite overwhelming numbers in each chamber voting to reauthorize the VRA in 2006. In the seven years since that renewal, 31 discriminatory voting laws were blocked by Section 5, according to The Nation magazine, with six of the nine southern states covered by Section 4 enacting new voter suppression laws since 2010.

“Texas’ voter ID law, which was blocked under Section 5 by a federal court last year and could disenfranchise up to 800,000 registered voters without government-issued photo ID, will immediately go into effect,” wrote Ari Berman in The Nation. “The states of the Old Confederacy will return to the pre-1965 playbook, passing new voter suppression laws that can only be challenged, after years of lengthy litigation, in often-hostile Southern courts, with the burden of proof in those subject to discrimination, rather than those doing the discriminating.” 

Mario Tama / Getty Images / AFP

  Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, who serves in one of the states previously covered by Section 4, announced Tuesday that the “process for implementation of Constitutional Voter Identification begins today.”

Chief Justice Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. Each of the Justices in the majority was appointed by a Republican president, while the dissenters were appointed by Democrats. 

President Obama said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.

“Hubris is a fit word for today’s demolition of the VRA,” Ginsburg wrote in her dissent. “Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness. The same cannot be said of the Court’s opinion today. The Court makes no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled … One would expect more from an opinion striking at the heart of the Nation’s signal piece of civil-rights legislation.”

Ginsburg, appointed by former president Bill Clinton in 1993, noted that the “racial polarization in voting” means the issue is especially pressing today. While Ginsburg delivered her remarks, though, Alito visibly rolled his eyes in dismissal, leading to gasps from several audience members.   

“His treatment of the 80-year-old Ginsburg, 17 years his senior and with 13 years more seniority, was a curious display of judicial temperament, or, more accurately, judicial intemperance,” wrote Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. “Typically, justices state their differences in words – and Alito, as it happens, had just spoken several hundred of his own from the bench. But Alito frequently supplements words with middle-school gestures.”   

Congressional leaders pledged discussions on Section 4 over the summer, but admitted doubts over whether Republicans and Democrats would be able to agree on the issue.