More Establishment Hypocrisy 214

 in Uncategorized by

Those suddenly concerned about the European Arrest Warrant in Westminster last night were notably silent when it was used against Julian Assange, with a case that had more holes in it than a condom torn by Anna Ardin, the noted CIA agent.

Not only was the evidence against Assange not tested, the Supreme Court accepted that a Swedish prosecutor with a screaming political agenda was a “judicial authority”, despite her being neither a judge nor a court. That extraordinary ruling was itself dependent on two even more extraordinary false premises, directly stated in Lord Phillip’s judgement.

1) That the French term “autorites judiciaires” has a “wider meaning” than the English term “judicial authorities”. That is simply untrue.

2) That the French language version of the treaty is “authentic and original” and to be preferred to the English version. That is absolutely untrue – the different language versions are explicitly equal. That is a fundamental rule of EU (and UN)treaties, both of which I have personal experience of negotiating.

The bottom line being, if the Establishment wants to get you, it will, irrespective of the letter of the law.

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>

214 thoughts on “More Establishment Hypocrisy”

1 … 6 7 8
  • nevermind

    Excellent cartoon, Ba’al, the eyes have it.

    and yes, she does look rather ruggish/sluggish/hoggish compared to her contemporary friends.

  • sandy harris

    to Craig Murray

    fr sandy harris, palo alto, ca

    re just found your Blog

    Thanks!

    re: Citizenfour
    Everyone looks hollywood fabulous in this film.
    On screen, Snowden looks like the producers searched the world for the perfect Snowden.
    They found him.
    Film reviewers are influenced by how people look (handsome, ugly, lean, fat).

    p.s. I apologize in advance for poor writing skills, spelling, phrasing, etc.

  • andreas w mytze

    sorry, could not read all the comments,
    but there is a lot on the internet on “this woman” (AA) with regard to the CIA…in the past for example: Israel Shamir / Paul Bennett, counterpunch 14 September 2010. – AA seems very “well connected”, anti-Castro, pro-Posada Carriles, amazing.

  • Arbed

    John Pilger has just written an excellent summary of the Assange extradition situation.

    The siege of Julian Assange is a farce – a special investigation:
    http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-is-a-farce-a-special-investigation

    The most interesting part, in terms of the Parliament’s debate about the EAW, is this:

    The Assange case finally reached the UK Supreme Court in May 2012. In a judgement that upheld the EAW – whose rigid demands had left the courts almost no room for manoeuvre – the judges found that European prosecutors could issue extradition warrants in the UK without any judicial oversight, even though Parliament intended otherwise. They made clear that Parliament had been “misled” by the Blair government. The court was split, 5-2, and consequently found against Assange.

    However, the Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, made one mistake. He applied the Vienna Convention on treaty interpretation, allowing for state practice to override the letter of the law. As Assange’s barrister, Dinah Rose QC, pointed out, this did not apply to the EAW.

    The Supreme Court only recognised this crucial error when it dealt with another appeal against the EAW in November last year. The Assange decision had been wrong, but it was too late to go back.

    and this:

    The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament will eventually vote on a reformed EAW. The draconian catch-all used against him could not happen now; charges would have to be brought and “questioning” would be insufficient grounds for extradition. “His case has been won lock, stock and barrel,” Gareth Peirce told me, “these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit. And the genuineness of Ecuador’s offer of sanctuary is not questioned by the UK or Sweden.”

1 … 6 7 8

Comments are closed.