Newsnight tonight, BBC2, live.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Allowed HTML - you can use:
Newsnight tonight, BBC2, live.
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Yo Craig, caught Newsnight. You got in a good point about fit-ups of you, Ritter etc but why
didn’t you Glesgie up yer accent and tell that ghastly lesbian man-hater to shut up?
For any reader having a discussion with a freedom-hater THESE are the salient
FACTS. In August 2010 the Assange case was tried informally by the Swedish prosecution
service and Miss Eva Pinne the chief prosecutor of Sweden declared ‘NO CRIME HAS
BEEN COMMITTED’. They gave back JA’s passport and told him he was free to go.
Case closed. Thus there is no charge outstanding against JA because you
CANNOT ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME WHICH DID NOT TAKE PLACE.
Sweden is the ONLY European country with a fast track extradition treaty
with the US, called ‘temporary assistance’. It means ‘you can have first dibs but send him
back when you’re done, in, like 80 years.’. Thus JA’s feet wouldn’t touch the ground before
loading into a US plane. There seems to be some token nutter and rape maniac called Alan
Campbell on here. Has to be one. Feed not. Craig be more SCOTTISH.
“they still deserve to have their rape claims heard”
apparently in one case, the issue was reduced to ‘minor rape’, whatever that is, and in the other there was no case of rape at all.
but, and I’m sorry, because I segued, this is a distraction. Assange has not been charged with anything, let alone rape. He has not been ‘on the run’; he is clearly somewhere where he can be questioned. He has agreed to be questioned. The question remains, why are the Swedish prosecutors not questioning him?
[Jon/Mod: deleted for persistent ad hominem. Stick to arguments please]
“ghastly lesbian man-hater”: yeah.
Feel guilty: we need to go back to the point of this. Why is a man who has not been charged with anything hiding in a small room in an equivocal sanctuary when the evidence against him is tainted, outdated and minimal? Naturally because he fears the fate of Bradley Manning. (please google, anyone unaware)
Craig Murray, I am a woman. I am NOT a misogynist. And I agree with you, I think Julian Assange is being set up.
I am astounded at the amount of people who can’t see this fact.
As an American, I thought the yanks were gullible, but the Brits are just as bad.
[Jon/Mod: deleted for persistent ad hominem. Stick to arguments please]
Alan Campbell says:
“Craig came across like a complete knob on TV. You have a face and a voice made for blogging.”
I won’t tell you how you come across, Alistair Campbell.
Craig:
Who exactly is this Charles Crawford idiot and why is he gunning for you? Is this part of an organised disinformation campaign?
Jon, other legal arguments I’ve seen state that a country cannot promise not to extradite someone pre-emptively; they need to see the charges, and decide upon the merits of the case. But the US hasn’t submitted any charges or an extradition notice, so Sweden doesn’t have an extradition request that it can refuse.
Technicolour, apparently the Swedish system works in a different way than we’re used to, and suspects can’t be charged until they’ve been taken into custody, which is what the (second) Swedish prosecutor wants Assange in Sweden for.
The thing is, once in custody Assange would have lost his chance to claim political asylum by reaching an embassy or a supportive country; his right to political asylum would have become purely theoretical. So he had to pre-empt being imprisoned.
Just a few examples of your new admirers, Craig:
watching Craig Murray on #newsnight is stomach churning, how was this bloke ever a diplomat? His poor wife and these women…
No wonder Julian Assange is terrified to return to Sweden if Craig Murray is the best person he can find to defend him on #newsnight?
That’s some going by Craig Murray. Pipping George Galloway in the prize-knobber of the day competition. #newsnight
Disappointing interview designed to obfuscate Assange’s legitimate fear of extradition to the US and no mention of the grand jury investigating wikileaks. Esler clearly knows the real score but focussed on the trivia thereby assuring the British public never gets the details from the BBC. (Anyone notice that Mark Thompson has been such a good soldier carrying America’s water that he is now going to be CEO of the NY Times?
I just saw the Newsnight interview with Craig. Esler was constantly censoring Craig, but worse than that, surely he and the BBC already know (but chose not to reveal) some rather crucial facts: 1) The “rape” case had already been heard and thrown out by a Swedish judge. 2) The case was mysteriously re-instated AFTER the USA expressed outrage at the leaks about its own conduct in the middle east. 3)Assange freely left Sweden on a scheduled flight and has NOT BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED with an offence, only requested to attend more questioning.
At the very least you would have expected the BBC to report truthfully that a large proportion of the UK population believes this to be a stitch-up.
Why did Newsnight not acknowledge these facts? Why did Esler object to Craig naming one of the accusing women? They are already known by everyone, except apparently the BBC. Reporting restrictions of this kind apply only within the UK, not another country.
Why did the BBC not show Craig’s speech outside the Embassy – probably one of the most important speeches of its kind in the UK for many years. The Beeb is an embarrassment. By any measure its failure to report this case properly is deeply worrying.
And my favourite.
“Craig Murray, who reached the giddy heights of Ambassador to Uzbekistan, making the case for tougher entrance exams for the FCO. #Newsnight ”
Take my advice, Craig. Stick to writing for your mates on this blog in future. Jeez, is it any wonder you got stuffed in your two attempts to become an MP.
“Technicolour, apparently the Swedish system works in a different way than we’re used to, and suspects can’t be charged until they’ve been taken into custody, which is what the (second) Swedish prosecutor wants Assange in Sweden for.”
My (admittedly limited) knowledge of this is that suspects can’t be charged until after questioning. If Assange were questioned here, and the Swedish prosecutor then decided there was a case enough to answer for him to be charged, then extradition would be attempted on that basis.
Strangely Esler referred to the English Supreme Court (formerly the Law Lords), I think this might be a recognition and realisation that its writ does not apply in Scotland, despite its having a token Scottish placeholder, and politicising it by calling it the United Kingdom Supreme Court has backfired and destroyed the last shred of the law’s credibility.
It didn’t seem to go well, you were out “holier than thou-d” Craig.
Words fail me, and to think we are subject to extortion to fund the BBC in such treachery.
I used to wail at those who said, ‘Don’t vote’, don’t give them that excuse of legitimacy, now I am not so sure if even minute turnouts would stop them, it’ll just seem like old times for the squirearchy. No way can this coalition last this month out without widespread disorder, with events over the past weekend in the unlikeliest of places a taster.
What does anyone make of the extraordinary post on the last thread about another political asylum seeker in the Ecuador Embassy, Andrea Davison; Chilcott etc. If she’s real surely she isn’t incommunicado and could have a stint on the balcony too. I suppose if the Embassy is abandoned it could be seized by the algae-sucking Tory Phibbs, acquired as part of London council’s public housing stock and sold off to one Harry’s true blue Tory right sort.
The US are deliberately holding back their charges and their extradition request for Assange. They knew that once their extradition notice was served, Assange could claim political asylum with some country or another, so they deliberately waited. A bit of stick, carrot and insider assistance got the closed sexual assault allegations re-opened, which was exactly what the US wanted, because Assange in detention wouldn’t be able to run for political asylum.
Jon/Mod:
Doing a great job. Please keep putting Alistair back in his coffin. He’ll buzz off soon enough.
@VivaEcuador – Charles Crawford is another ex-ambassador, with whom Craig has traded arguments (and a few insults) via their respective blogs. Charles posts from a very right-wing perspective imo, and doesn’t seem to be moved from that position despite the despicable and dishonest manner of Craig’s ejection from the FCO (newcomers here are encouraged to find out about that for themselves).
Some folks have suggested that Charles is a patsy/stooge for the Establishment – i.e. being fed views by a handler – but I disagree. I think he puts forward his own views, and they’re pretty unpleasant: here’s the circumstances in which the accusation of complicity in torture can be avoided.
Cryptonym, I don’t think I can find the page again, but following an article to a source suggested that Andrea Davison went to an embassy in Ecuador rather than the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
@VivaEcuador – thanks. For the avoidance of doubt, all views are welcome here, including criticism of Craig, Assange, even the Pope ‘imself. But persistent derailing or abuse is usually removed, since everyone else’s speech is a great deal freer that way.
We are all getting pulled into the kill zone of the neocons, with arguing the toss about the accusations of a couple of deranged characters at best, or SIS assets at worst.
Fact is Assange is getting the shaft because he thought he could ride the dragon by getting into the mainstream media game show, and keep his alternative style of busting the bastards balls with outing their secrets. Te same bunch of sharp operators who would like to keep everything a secret, and attain undue advantages on us mortals. Simply put Assange challenged the system that is designed to give us the people the mushroom treatment: keep us all in the dark and throw shit at us all.
We need to come up with a new tack, no more fighting the bastards on their preferred grounds, we need to set up our own references and stop falling into the neocon trap. The fact that a condom was torn is no longer a trade liability issue between the females and the Swedish Justice system and Durex company, this has somehow mutated into now smearing George Galloway and Craig as “rapist” sympathisers.
The shameful use of the “rape” as a cover for the Kafkaesque trial of Assange et al is the lowest these neocon bastards have stooped to.
,
Hi Jon,
Anyone know if there was a reason Aaronovitch pulled out?
My money would on the beeb chaps trying to unsettle Craig et al, by getting these to prepare for a scenario, that is then changed at the last minute throwing them off their balance. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book when it comes to the kind of translations we are witness to.
Craig Murray was done a grave injustice tonight; and interruptd by the odious Esler when telling us of worrying false accusation
There is more pseudo-liberal ‘outrage’ at Galloway and Craig Murray than against the blowing to pieces of kids by US drones.
Latest Twitter diversion is hate frenzy against Craig Murray. Meanwhile wars go on and governments laugh at us.
BREAKING: Fury as human rights activist Craig Murray names victim of alleged Assange rape as John Leslie.
Just watched Craig Murray being shouted down on Newsnight. Depressing to hear how usually liberal tweeters enjoyed the spectacle.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/assanges-extradition-may-turn-on-a-crayfish-party-20110204-1aguk.html?skin=text-only
.
“The case would become public almost immediately. One accuser, Anna Ardin, had been the organiser of a speaking engagement by Assange in Stockholm, and had offered Assange accommodation.”
===
Better shut down the “Sydney Morning Herald” eh? But Craig, best you hadn’t said the name – that’s the sort of thing I’m sure “they” wanted. Charles Crawford is having multiple orgasms on twitter.
And while some are gloating at tweets hating Craig, here is another interesting twitter search for them to look at https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/anna%20ardin
Honestly, it’s a joke!
“No one is to throw anything, even, even, if I do say Anna Ardin!”
I suppose we’ve all just got used to the Internet, where names are named and no one can stop it. Why do people even bother with the corporate news media? It is simply unfit for purpose.
Jon:
Thanks for the background and the links which I will follow up.
FYI, I made a lengthy post on Crawford’s blog about an hour ago which was held up for moderation (or so the message said). It was unusually polite (for me) and pointed out the inconsistencies in the case against JA. I have gone back and there is now no evidence of any posts. Now maybe Crawford has gone to bed and my comments will appear in the morning but I have my doubts.
The impression I have from Crawford is that he is trying to show off his legal “expertise” and completely avoid the substance of the case against JA (surprise, surprise). That’s their strategy – throw doubts into people’s minds about the sanctity of the Vienna Convention 1961 and ignore the strong possibility that JA is being extradited on false pretenses.
Here is the Newsnight interview just uploaded – Aaronovich backed out?
BBC likely to cut the i-Player
http://youtu.be/ifBeuZUiJsk
Why the interview is not on bbc iplayer. Darn it i missed some arse kicking.
The pretty terrible thing here, I think, is that sexual relationships, in the absence of love, can be terrible. Which is why, even amongst the most well-meaning on CiF. people spent so long obsessing about precisely the details which any disinformation campaign would want them to obsess about; what is rape, what is right, what is wrong.
In the absence of love, apparently anything you do in bed could be a crime. The women in this case are being criticised for having talked happily about Assange after sex. This is not a bad thing. The fact that their experience may have been used afterwards for political purposes is a bad thing.
Joan Smith suggested that it might ‘take some time’ for people to realise they have been raped (I paraphrase). To my knowledge, this is not the case. I would be happy to be contradicted, but otherwise I maintain that a violation (for a man or a woman) is recognisable as such.
Of course all this is being carried out against a backdrop of mass murder, torture and blackmail, and rapes. Facts which Assange, and his organisation, and other members of the British media, have bravely contributed to revealing. I think it would be a bad thing if Assange were extradited to the USA. I think there is no doubt that the USA are trying for it. and that, as many have attested, it would be easier if it were done through Sweden, where he has fewer high profile supporters (thank you, Craig et al) and where he would have no freedom of movement, and where his initial trial would be held in secret.
Essler is a pig. I love the way he and the witch sitting next to Craig got all uppity when Craig mentioned Anna Ardin’s name which is known to everyone. Craig, I admire your dignity but that was the time you should have lost your temper. You broke no laws and Essler’s behaviour was typical of the BBC mafia that think THEY are the story, not the interviewee.
Anyone with a brain who saw it will conclude that you won.