I learn the interesting news that David Aaronovitch tweeted to Joan Smith and Jenny Jones that I am:
“an angry and dangerous man who could as easily be on the far right as the far left”.
I had no idea I was on the far left, though I suppose it is a matter of perspective, and from where Mr Aaronovitch stands I, and a great many others, look awfully far away to the left. I don’t believe you should bomb people for their own good, I don’t believe the people of Palestine should be crushed, I don’t believe the profit motive should dominate the NHS, I think utilities and railways were better in public ownership, I think education should be free. I guess that makes me Joseph Stalin.
But actually I am very flattered. Apparently I am not just angry – since the invasion of Iraq and the banker bailouts everybody should be angry – but “dangerous”. If I can be a danger to the interests represented by a Rupert Murdoch employee like Aaronovitch, I must have done something right in my life. I fear he sadly overrates me; but it does make me feel a little bit warmer, and hold my head that little bit higher.
Craig
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi.
On Treviño: so it’s OK with the Guardian to applaud the murder of unarmed civilians and to advocate the incarceration of Arabs and Muslims in concentration camps. And none of that is in any way exaggerated.
The fact that the Guardian and Treviño have made a “joint statement” indicates that they have paid him off.
How much do we think he got?
“About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts”
“Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.”
“America’s Descent into Poverty ~ Paul Craig Roberts”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/08/24/americas-descent-poverty-paul-craig-roberts/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/24/who-is-julian-assange
“A willingness to manipulate the truth and a belief that what you’re doing is right is a potent and dangerous mix”
What about a professional devotion to manipulating the truth, coupled with complete amorality, such as characterises Aaronovitch, Treviño, Cifwatch, Rusbridger, Hague, etc.? Potent? Dangerous?
Rusbridger’s account in the above article is vintage amoral. Rusbridger rolled his eyes when Assange accused him of not having acted as a ‘gentleman’, i.e. of having been a dishonest creep. Rusbridger doubtless views himself as a man of the world – a businessman – a professional functionary serving interests whom only the naive, suffering from outdated “Dickensian” squeamishness (also known as ethics and decency), would expect to present themselves as they really are. What a vile man Rusbridger sounds. What vile values; what a vile self-image. He must think he’s done so well for himself.
Interestingly Bill Keller comes across similarly disgustingly, mocking the “supreme righteousness” of Assange’s “cause”.
At least Heather Brooke’s piece is funny. I neither know nor care whether it’s true!
According to Ian Katz: “for reasons too complicated to recount, Julian had taken against the Guardian and declared that he regarded it as a greater threat to him than the Pentagon.“
Chomsky on Assange:
http://chomsky.info/onchomsky/20120817.htm
Here is the OAS resolution. (Source: OAS.)
The best bit is this:
“4. To reject any attempt that might put at risk the inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions, to reiterate the obligation / of all states not to invoke provisions of their domestic law to justify noncompliance with their international obligations, and, in this context, to express its solidarity and support for the Government of the Republic of Ecuador..”
I suspect the ones from UNASUR and ALBA will be better still.
****************************
RESOLUTION OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING OF CONSULTATION OF MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Official version)
August 24, 2012
(Approved at the plenary meeting held on August 24, 2012 and
pending revision by the Style Committee)
THE MEETING OF CONSULTATION OF MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
BEARING IN MIND that in resolution CP/RES. 1005 (1863/12), of the Permanent Council of the Organization, dated August 17, 2012, a Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs was convened “to address the situation between Ecuador and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding the inviolability of the diplomatic premises of Ecuador in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in accordance with international law” and “to agree on appropriate measures to be adopted”;
CONSIDERING:
That the American states have reaffirmed in the Charter of the Organization of American States that “international law is the standard of conduct of States in their reciprocal relations” (Article 3.a);
That strict compliance is, therefore, essential on the part of all states with the standards that govern the protection of, respect for, and inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions and consular offices, which standards have been codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961, in particular, the provisions contained in Article 22 of that treaty; and in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963, particularly the provisions at Article 31 of that treaty;
That the Government of the Republic of Ecuador publicly announced that on August 15, 2012, it received from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland an aide-memoire which states, inter alia, “… that there are legal grounds in the United Kingdom–the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987–that would allow us to take steps to arrest Mr. Assange on the Embassy’s current premises”; and
That the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, on August 16, 2012, announced its decision to grant political asylum to Mr. Julian Assange, who requested it on June 19, 2012, at the Embassy of Ecuador in London,
RESOLVES:
1. To reiterate the full validity of the principles and standards that govern diplomatic relations among states, especially those that concern full respect for the inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions and consular offices, as recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
2. To reaffirm that those principles and standards constitute fundamental rules for ensuring the peaceful coexistence of all the countries that comprise the international community.
3. To reiterate the full validity of the principles enshrined in international law, such as respect for sovereignty, faithful compliance with international treaties, peaceful settlement of disputes, peaceful coexistence among states, and rejection of the threat or use of force to settle disputes.
4. To reject any attempt that might put at risk the inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions, to reiterate the obligation / of all states not to invoke provisions of their domestic law to justify noncompliance with their international obligations, and, in this context, to express its solidarity and support for the Government of the Republic of Ecuador.
5 To urge the Governments of Ecuador and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue to engage in dialogue in order to settle their current differences in accordance with international law, taking into account the statements made recently by authorities of both governments.
6. To entrust the Permanent Council with the due follow-up of this matter.
Reference: E-67
****************************
and also their press release
OAS Foreign Ministers Confirm Validity of the Inviolability of Diplomatic Missions in the Context of the Situation between Ecuador and the United Kingdom
August 24, 2012
http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-291/12
It still bothers me that the US and Canada are members of OAS.
Another disgraceful article in the Guardian, this time by Severin Carrell, the Scotland correspondent. Carrell says that Mandy Rhodes, editor of Holyrood,
“remarks that Assange was guilty of just ‘bad manners’ by failing to ask permission to have sex with a sleeping woman, had left her ‘frankly gobsmacked’.”
This statement assumes Assange is guilty of a crime. If this were an English case, that would be a clear contempt of court.
However, it is not what Rhodes said at all! What she actually said was completely reasonable:
“However, (Galloway’s) recent outpourings about definitions of rape have left me, frankly gobsmacked. There is no excuse, ever, for sex without consent and regardless of the details of the Assange case, Galloway’s comments and inappropriate language about rape per se are alarming.”
I should disclose that I think Galloway’s remarks were disgraceful. But that’s not the point.
The point is that Assange has not admitted having sex with any woman while she was asleep. Galloway did not assume that Assange did what he is accused of doing, and nor did Rhodes.
The Guardian should apologise, both to their readers and to Rhodes.
Since an article like this obviously gets lawyered-up before publication. I don’t think this happened by ‘accident’. On the contrary, the statement attributed to Rhodes (wrongly) is a deliberately spun distortion. “Failing to ask permission” clearly implies that Assange went ahead and did it, while the woman remained asleep. I don’t see how the Guardian can get out of this, because not asking for consent is not a crime in any jurisdiction, and not even ‘bad manners’, if someone does not actually go ahead and do what they should have asked for consent for.
Complaints should pour into the Guardian about this article.
I forgot to add – the Guardian should apologise to Galloway too. Galloway did not express the view that what Assange did was only bad manners; he said that doing what Assange is accused of doing would only be bad manners. There is a massive difference, and if this were an English case, the first of these would be an obvious contempt of court and very probably prejudicial.
mods – I don’t know why my 12:07 post is being moderated, but please can you let it through, because my 12.15 addendum makes little sense without it! 🙂
Clipboard leakage:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/24/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-police-arrest-plan?newsfeed=true
How many people knew about this!.
“While there are some grounds under Schedule 7 for persons to have their basic procedural rights respected, they are limited. In order for an individual to have a person informed of their situation and to consult a solicitor, the place in which they are detained must be designated as a police station by the Secretary of State.”
“If the Secretary of State has not made such a designation, then the right to silence, a phone call, and a solicitor do not apply. Refusing to answer questions; supply identity or any other requested documents; or comply with searches of person and property is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of up to three months, a fine of £2,500, or both. [6]”
http://www.fitwatch.org.uk/2012/08/24/police-use-anti-terror-powers-to-detain-anarchists-on-return-from-conference-in-switzerland/
Chomsky on the Assange case:
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/in-defense-of-assange/#.UDi1AKB1GSo
“How many people knew about this!”
.
under the data protection act the police are not allowed to inform you of any person being held at a police station
.
this can only be overruled if you are the person being detained requesting that the data protection should not apply.
.
in essence one can be “disappeared”.
“….@Bert
Another disgraceful article in the Guardian, this time by Severin Carrell, the Scotland correspondent. Carrell says that Mandy Rhodes, editor of Holyrood,
“remarks that Assange was guilty of just ‘bad manners’ by failing to ask permission to have sex with a sleeping woman, had left her ‘frankly gobsmacked’.”
This statement assumes Assange is guilty of a crime. If this were an English case, that would be a clear contempt of court.
However, it is not what Rhodes said at all! What she actually said was completely reasonable:
“However, (Galloway’s) recent outpourings about definitions of rape have left me, frankly gobsmacked. There is no excuse, ever, for sex without consent and regardless of the details of the Assange case, Galloway’s comments and inappropriate language about rape per se are alarming.”
I should disclose that I think Galloway’s remarks were disgraceful. But that’s not the point.
The point is that Assange has not admitted having sex with any woman while she was asleep. Galloway did not assume that Assange did what he is accused of doing, and nor did Rhodes.
The Guardian should apologise, both to their readers and to Rhodes.
Since an article like this obviously gets lawyered-up before publication. I don’t think this happened by ‘accident’. On the contrary, the statement attributed to Rhodes (wrongly) is a deliberately spun distortion. “Failing to ask permission” clearly implies that Assange went ahead and did it, while the woman remained asleep. I don’t see how the Guardian can get out of this, because not asking for consent is not a crime in any jurisdiction, and not even ‘bad manners’, if someone does not actually go ahead and do what they should have asked for consent for.
Complaints should pour into the Guardian about this article……”
Putting aside the obvious truth that all of this has got bugger all to do with sex offence allegations and has everything to do with politics, I have nevertheless been having a long think about the allegations in question:
Firstly, let us not dwell on hearsay, ideological bias or sexual politics. Let us, instead, dwell on what, as far as I have been able to establish, are known facts that are already on the record and are not disputed by the Swedish prosecutors;
1) Despite what the media have projected, Julian Assange did not flee Sweden to avoid Questioning. He was given permission to leave the country on the 15th September 2010, after remaining 5 weeks in Sweden for the purpose of answering the allegations made against him.
2) The case against Julian Assange was initially dropped, and deemed so weak it could not warrant investigation. After the intervention of a Swedish politician close to American diplomats, it was revived by a different prosecutor.
3) In all instances, the 3 plaintiffs consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop: they never expressed non-consent and afterwards declared to not have felt threatened by Julian Assange. Indeed, AA continued to see Julian Assaange, for four days after the alleged offence, including him continuing to stay at her flat and including engaging in further consensual sex with him.
4) After the date of the alleged sexual misconduct: a) Complainant AA created then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating that she was enjoying Julian Assange’s company: b) AA went as far as suggesting one of her friends (Witness C) should be intimate with Julian Assange as well.
5) During the initial visit to the police, the two complainants went to find out how to force Assange to get a HIV test. This was escalated by the officer at the behest of AA, during the visit, to allegations of sexual molestation. The other complainant (not AA) was so distraught by this escalation that she absolutely refused to sign the allegation and left the police station before complainant AA.
6) A condom submitted as evidence by complainant AA, who claimed it had been deliberately torn by Julian Assange during sexual intercourse, contains no absolutely no chromosomal DNA from either the complainant or Julian Assange.
7) Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends contradict the factual allegations in the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued for Julian Assange and cast doubt on the allegations.
8) The law firm hired in the Assange investigation is run by Claes Borgstrm (politician and legal representative for both plaintiffs) and by former minister Thomas Bodsrtm. Both are members of the Social Democrat Party in Sweden. Bodstrm is a friend of police interrogator Irmeli Krans, who interrogated complainant SW.
9) Police interrogator Irmeli Krans is, in turn, friends with the other plaintiff, complainant AA, with whom she has political ties (Social Democrat Party). Krans also breached protocol by commenting negatively about Julian Assange on social media.
10) Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, refused to provide Julian Assange or his lawyers with information on the allegations against him in writing. This violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18.) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5) and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights. Prosecution also refused all voluntary offers for cooperation that fit under the Mutual Legal Assistance Protocol, such as making use of alternative methods to interview Julian Assange.
11) Both the EAW and the Interpol red-notice were issued for Julian Assange by Sweden just before Wiki leaks began to publish Cablegate.
12) If extradited to Sweden; still without charge, Juylian Assange would be held incommunicado and placed under solitary confinement. Pre-trial detention could last for an indefinite period. The trial in Sweden could be held in secret.
13) The Swedish legal system features lay judges who are appointed because of their political affiliation. They have no formal legal training.
14) Sweden has the highest per capita rate of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 6.1 (right to a fair trial)
15) In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the CIA, which rendered them to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them.
16) The Swedish government has NEVER refused a request from America to render someone to them.
For what it’s worth, I am inclined to make an a-priori assumption that Assange is, at the very least, in relation to these two women, a rat. However, I’m resisting that inclination for three reasons: Firstly, the absolute barrage of vile and orchestrated bullshit and lies put out by our MSM over the last seven days will have polluted my impartiality no less than anybody else’s. Secondly, someone is innocent until proven guilty. Thirdly, irrespective of whether Assange is guilty or innocent of the allegations, we all know this is not why Sweden and the UK are so desperate to get him there.
Regarding the specific nature of the allegation of Assange having initiated sex without prior consent while AA was at least partially asleep:
The argument that prior consent should always, under all circumstances, irrespective of context, be obtained is an absolutist argument about something that is not absolutist. My wife and I have been married for over 25 years. During the very early days of our relationship when we were full of lust for each other and were forever inside each other’s trousers, I would regularly awake to find my wife sat on top of me with my penis in her vagina screaming “f*ck me big boy!”. Similarly, I would often wake up in the might with an enormous erection and my wife would wake up to find me insistently and urgently nudging my penis into her from behind. I’m sorry to be so blunt about this, but I felt it just needed to be said as it is.
So, by some people’s reckoning, we are both rapists? Right?
The answer to that question is obviously no. My wife’s and my behaviour in the sexual aspect of our relationship is just a part of normal human relationships. Not for everyone, not all of the time, not unless you are each extremely secure in your relationship. But it is, I repeat, a normal part of human relationships. Having a sexual relationship with someone is not a legal contract. It’s a sexual relationship. Such a relationship, if it is healthy, is based on trust, on shared expectations and on shared respect.
I will absolutely clarify here that it is not OK if there is not a mutual understanding, respect and expectation of such behaviour. As for whether or not such mutual understanding, respect or expectations were in place in the case of the short term sexual relationship between Assange and AA, none of us are in a position to know. However, I would refer people, again, the the very serious doubts that are cast on AA’s allegation that I mentioned earlier, In any event, whatever kind of relationship pertains between two adults, be it long or short term, “no” means “no” under any and all circumstances, be they sexual or otherwise. That, at least, can be viewed as an absolute.
These point of sexual politics, though, are not what this is about and have not been from the start. What this is about is the pillaging, killing, torture and rape of people, who were unfortunate to be born in oil rich parts of the world, by armed representatives of the most powerful empire on earth. It is about Wiki Leaks’ part in exposing those heinous crimes against humanity and about the attempts by the political representatives of that empire to suppress the dissemination of that information by any and all means. This includes the collusion of the MSM in this country and abroad in a character assassination of Assange so as to provide the necessary political cover in order to get Assange to the US and so make an example of him such that no citizen will ever dare stand up to that empire again.
Wow, Chomsky’s really lost the plot now. Disappointing to see him follow in the footsteps of so many others who have obviously invested so much time and messianic praise on JA, that they are performing ever increasing leaps of logic and faith to excuse the man from due process and justice. Snide Nazi digs and trashing of the entire Swedish Justice System to defend an alleged rapist’s right to skip bail? I thought you would be above such behavior Noam, it’s sad to see you stoop so low.
The British and Swedish governments did not go three rounds with the UK court system over whether Assange has charges to face in Sweden. The basis for his legal challenge was not on the basis of – and to my knowledge, never referenced, though I’m open to correction – any potential extradition to the US. The central claim of his legal team was that he had no charges to answer, and this claim has been rejected by the courts here.
The potential (since no request is extant) extradition issue became central to Assange’s arguments only after he exhausted his legal recourse in this country. It’s a late-comer to the debate and as such it’s not surprising that the detailed ins and outs of it are still being ironed out. It is anachronistic to claim that the Swedish government’s refusal to give assurances to Assange is the key factor preventing resolution of this case.
There are years of legal and media wrangling to be unpicked here; this story did not begin the day Assange stepped into the Ecuadorian embassy. If we are expected to take into account such vague context as “the US might ask for his extradition and then might try him for treason and then might execute him”, then more factual context, congruent with reality and already-observed events (like the fact that Assange’s central claim all along has been that he should not be tried for sexual assault & rape allegations) must be admitted as part of the context, surely.
Steve Cook @ 25 Aug, 2012 – 1:11 pm:
Perfect.
Just look at what passes for analysis at the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19373707
Hell, Anna Ardin might as well be their legal affairs correspondent!
The Guardian should shut the f*** up om Julian Assange. They are displaying the most gross prejudice.
Rusbridger’s parents were decent people. They lived locally. The father had been an educationalist abroad, somewhere in the EMpyre I believe it was. What went wrong with their son?
CE:
First they charge him, then they drop it, then they charge him again.
Then they come up with nonsense like they can’t interview him outside of Sweden.
Tons of police surrond the Embassy as if this man is the most dangerous threat in the world.
The British govt. refuses to have a dialogue with the Ecuadorian embassy.
I won’t even go through the other stuff, we’ve been through it so many times before. You’ve seen the all the links,
You even admitted that you’d be wary of leaving the embassy were you in JA’s shoes.
Why continue with the anti-JA bluster?
Mary:
I can’t help feeling that the Guardian wants some sort of revenge. The editorial attacks on JA are almost pathological.
Viva Ecuador Strange that Crowley should write that venom when he criticized the treatment of Bradley Manning. He got sacked for that. Glenn Greenwald wrote it up.
http://www.salon.com/2011/03/13/crowley_3/
PS When I see P J Crowley’s name it always reminds me of P J Proby the singer. Where is he now? Last time I heard he had committed some fraud. He used to belt out stuff in the 6os in a flamboyant style like Elvis, eg {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_Ox-E0SeM&feature=related} which made the girls scream.
Pro-Palestinian protesters are warned to stay away from performances of an Israeli dance company at the Edinburgh Festival. How outrageous of Mr Jonathan Mills, the director of the Festival. I am pleased to see that members of the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign intend to assemble.
Festival chief Jonathan Mills warns protesters ‘stay away from Israeli dancers’ http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/index.php/solidarity/boycott/cultural/theatre/batsheva/1485-festival-chief-jonathan-mills-warns-protesters-stay-away-from-israeli-dancers
Mary:
Thanks for that link.
I am not sure it is strange. Could be that Crowley is looking for some way back into the administration’s good books – this could be part of his “repentance”.
In the Soviet Union, those close to power who fell from favour often performed servile acts of ‘self-criticism’ to save their skins. Similiarly, maybe Crowley feels his career options are dwindling following his rash defense of Manning….
Or maybe that’s just what he actually thinks FFS.
Moderator:
My comment in response to CE has been held up for moderation for over a half an hour.
@Steve
“So, by some people’s reckoning, we are both rapists? Right?”
I’ve had the same experience of interpreting silence as consent, and even reasoning that ‘no’ really meant, ‘yes, and right now and very hard please’. But your experience was with your wife and mine was with a long-term partner whose sexual games I knew well. Although the sexual charges against Assange are politically concocted, he seems a bit of a slut and an easy target for the honey trap.
Something about George Galloway makes me uncomfortable, even though I agree with almost everything he says (it’s some dissonance of decent views in an apparently indecent person) but he’s correct on the ‘breach of etiquette’ thing – you shouldn’t make assumptions about people you don’t know very well – especially sexually. Assange might be the victim of a honey trap and was warned by Aussie intelligence that something of the sort was being planned, so I’ll repeat that little bit of etiquette: you shouldn’t make assumptions about people you don’t know very well.
I’m very embarrassed at Holyrood magazine dropping him. North of the border we’re supposed to be giving a moral lead in civic matters – that dog is starting to limp.
“Or maybe that’s just what he actually thinks FFS.”
Could be. It’s just very funny that his hideously biassed take on the JA controversy has been classified on the BBC website as “ANALYSIS”.
BBC – Your agenda is coming over loud and clear!
Spot on ToivoS although the ‘special relationship’ tethers Britain’s nuclear deterrent to the American deterrent and our status as a nuclear power.
.
Iran is not mentioned in this recent CSIS Asian Pacific document. Another CSIS document is relevent:
http://csis.org/files/publication/111026_US_IranStratCompLevant_Chapter.pdf
The two documents form the pillars of a Chatham house paper not in the public domain alluding to retaining power in the West.
(1)Military option against Iran in which Britain would play a supporting role.
(2)Political option involving the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative calculated to disarm Iran of its Arab, Palestinian credentials and create a new regional environment that would in turn render any Arab alliance with Iran unnecessary and would uncover Iranian regional expansion as an endeavour sought per se by Tehran.
(2) is favored by America and and required the Arab League’s suspension of Syria and regime change. Turkey would take a leadership role – the de facto power – another US-led conspiracy.
(1)Israel and a weaker Britain want war…