In Sweden, prosecutors have applied to the Swedish courts to issue a warrant for Julian’s arrest. There is a tremendous back story to that simple statement.
The European Arrest Warrant must be issued from one country to another by a judicial authority. The original Swedish request for Assange’s extradition was not issued by any court, but simply by the prosecutor. This was particularly strange, as the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm had initially closed the case after deciding there was no case to answer, and then another, highly politically motivated, prosecutor had reopened the case and issued a European Arrest Warrant, without going to any judge for confirmation.
Assange’s initial appeal up to the UK Supreme Court was in large part based on the fact that the warrant did not come from a judge but from a prosecutor, and that was not a judicial authority. I have no doubt that, if any other person in the UK had been the accused, the British courts would not have accepted the warrant from a prosecutor. The incredible and open bias of the courts against Assange has been evident since day 1. My contention is borne out by the fact that, immediately after Assange lost his case against the warrant in the Supreme Court, the British government changed the law to specify that future warrants must be from a judge and not a prosecutor. That is just one of the incredible facts about the Assange case that the mainstream media has hidden from the general public.
The judgement against Assange in the UK Supreme Court on the point of whether the Swedish Prosecutor constituted a “judicial authority” hinged on a completely unprecedented and frankly incredible piece of reasoning. Lord Phillips concluded that in the English text of the EWA treaty “judicial authority” could not include the Swedish prosecutor, but that in the French version “autorite judiciaire” could include the Swedish prosecutor. The two texts having equal validity, Lord Phillips decided to prefer the French language text over the English language text, an absolutely stunning decision as the UK negotiators could be presumed to have been working from the English text, as could UK ministers and parliament when they ratified the decision.
I am not making this up – you will find Phillips amazing bit of linguistic gymnastics here on page 9 para 21 of his judgement. Again, it is impossible that this would have been done to anybody but Julian Assange; and had it been the outcry from the MSM against the preference given to French wording and thus French legal tradition would have been deafening. But given the state’s unhidden animus against Assange, it all was passed quietly with the law simply amended immediately thereafter to stop it happening to anybody else.
The law having been changed, this time the Swedes have to do it properly and actually go to a court to issue a warrant. That is what is now happening. As usual, the Guardian today cannot resist the temptation to tell an outright lie about what is happening.
The main headline is completely untrue. Sweden has not filed a request for arrest. Sweden is going through its judicial processes – which it skipped the first time – in order to decide whether or not to file a request for arrest. This gives Assange the opportunity to start the process of fighting the allegations, which he strenuously denies, in the Swedish courts. However at present his Swedish lawyer cannot access him in Belmarsh high security jail, which is typical of the abuses of process to which he is subject.
It is not political correctness which prevents the UK mainstream media from investigating the extraordinary nature of the allegations against Assange in Sweden. In the case of Nafissatou Diallo, for example, the entire UK mainstream media had no compunction whatsoever in publishing the name of the alleged victim from the very first moment of the allegations against DSK, and the likelihood or otherwise of the entire story was raked through in detail by every single national newspaper, and extensively by the BBC.
I have never heard anybody even attempt to explain why it was OK for the MSM to look in detail at Diallo’s accusations and use her name, but Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen must never be named and their story must never be doubted. The answer is not the position in Swedish law – the Swedish law states that neither the accuser nor the accused may be named, which law has been gleefully broken in Assange’s case every day for nine years. When it comes to Assange, he is simply to be reviled. He is provably treated differently by both state and MSM at all points. It does not matter to them that his arrest warrant was not from a judge, or that the media apply entirely different rules to investigating his case, enforced by a feminist mantra they do not believe or uphold in other cases. He is simply to be hated without question.
Why has there never been a documentary in the UK like the brilliant “Sex, Lies and Julian Assange” from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s flagship Four Corners programme? Please do watch if you have not done so already:
https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/sex-lies-and-julian-assange/4156420
Julian Assange revolutionised publishing by bringing the public direct access to massive amounts of raw material showing secrets the government wished to hide. By giving the public this direct access he cut out the filtering and mediating role of the journalistic and political classes. Contrast, for example, the Panama Papers which, contrary to promises, only ever saw less than 2% of the raw material published and where major western companies and individuals were completely protected from revelation because of the use of MSM intermediaries. Or compare Wikileaks to the Snowden files, the vast majority of which have now been buried and will never be revealed, after foolishly being entrusted to the Guardian and the Intercept. Assange cut out the intermediary role of the mediating journalist and, by allowing the people to see the truth about how they are governed, played a major role in undercutting public confidence in the political establishment that exploits them.
There is an interesting parallel with the reaction to the work of Reformation scholars in translating the Bible into vernacular languages and giving the populace direct access to its contents, without the mediating filters of the priestly class. Such developments will always provoke extraordinary venom from those whose position is threatened. I see a historical parallel between Julian Assange and William Tyndale in this respect. It is something worth bearing in mind in trying to understand the depth of the State’s hatred of Julian.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
DUMP THE GUARDIAN.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/20/julian-assange-sweden-files-request-arrest-rape-allegation
I note that the author of the piece is not Luke Harding, for a change. It is attributed to Reuters.
@ Sharp Ears May 20, 2019 at 11:23
And par for the course, no comments allowed on Guardian hit-piece.
The would take no notice anyway, Paul !
I get my retaliation in first by never reading The Grauniad.
Doesn’t matter, same SH**: Western MSM.
Western, Eastern, Northern and Southern.
But at least you can google and youtube in the West to access non-MSM, try that in China..
I am reading this in Hefei maternity hospital on my mobile, without a vpn. I can also read the slog, off guardian and the other usual suspects.
So all those stories about Chinese internet censorship are untrue…?
As I once asked a Russian on here (about Russia), are there any blogs like Craig’s in China? You know, blogs were you can slag off China, its leaders and movers and shakers, its allies and so on with complete impunity..?
@Charles Bostock
“So all those stories about Chinese internet censorship are untrue…?”
All what stories? I haven’t seen any credible ones. As the thread has been focussing on how incredible anything published by The Grauniad is, stories appearing there have zero credibility. The rest of the MSM is similar.
In any case, I feel that the Chinese government – like the Russian government – has far less reason to lie to its citizens, as things are going much better for those countries. (Not to mention that they have strong traditions of honesty and decency).
” (Not to mention that they have strong traditions of honesty and decency).”
Russia and China – are you serious? A lot of Russians and Chinese in the C20 would probably question that – if they were still around to do so.
The Missing Step
My French textbook at school contained an illustration of an ingenious fly trap.
using the ladder on the left the fly would ascend to a narrow platform which he/she would walk along till it came to another ladder to go down by. But O Alors! one step was missing on the second ladder, the fly would not see it and would fall and break its neck.
Maybe that’s why he chose the French version. I once did jury service under Judge Phillips in a Yeovil court.
What are you talking about? Craig was discussing this Supreme Court judgment from 2012, before Lord Phillips retired: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2011-0264.html
Calm down dear!
I realize that and have just been reading through the rot, now over seven years old.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2011-0264-judgment.pdf
I doubt that I will get to the end on p 117 of the pdf. How I hate pdfs. The NHS websites are stuffed full of them.
The UK judge was mistaken to rule that the expression “judicial authority” (which is the correct translation of “autorité judiciare”) did not include prosecutors. It does, both techno-linguistically and in the spirit in which the relevant EU legislation was conceived, negotiated and adopted.
So the judge was wrong and, with that, a large part of your argument falls.
The fact that UK law was changed subsequently to exclude prosecutors is neither here nor there. If anything, it adds force to the idea that, before the change, prosecutors were included.
You fail to take account of Craig’s remarks about Lord Phillips treating the two languages differently. Without that your comment is meaningless.
Sorry, can you flesh out that thought so that all readers can see what you’re getting at?
The Melvyn Bragg of this parish!
Maybe, but I’m looking forward to Laguerre doing some fleshing out as Melvyn’s guests usually manage to do. They’re mainly university bods as well, aren’t they.
Whatever happened to the real Melvin Barge?
“Whatever happened to the real Melvin Barge?”
Last seen being bundled into a van, shouting like a maniac about Icke being right all along. 🙂
Ah, “techno-linguistically”!
As you must know, that is bullshit jargon designed to baffle brains. It’s obvious to any child that “judicial authority” does NOT include prosecutors. Any fair justice system separates judges and juries from prosecution and defence. In France, for instance, judges may have a duty to investigate alleged crimes actively – but they must do so objectively and even-handedly, which does not make them equivalent to prosecutors, whose job is to get a conviction.
As for “the spirit in which the relevant EU legislation was conceived, negotiated and adopted”, that is the familiar Fascist spirit which always assumes the State is right and the individual must fall down and worship it.
Which is why some of us are in favour of Brexit.
” Assange cut out the intermediary role of the mediating journalist and, by allowing the people to see the truth about how they are governed, played a major role in undercutting public confidence in the political establishment that exploits them.”
So undercutting public confidence in the political establishment is to be praised and the practitioners of undercutting are to escape the legal consequences of their actions?
Oh, I’ve seen your Foreign Office weasely “that exploits them” which you’ve shoved in at the end in an attempt to avoid the charge that your in favour of undercutting all political establishments. Only the bad ones, eh? The bad ones according to you, of course….
Public distrust of politicians, local or national, has been earned by hard selfserving, ignorance of what matters to voters and thr explicit actions by political policing against the inyetests of the larger public and ot those of future generations.
That is why public distrust is championed over and above dithering, false news and diversions into more strife and economic mismanagement on a grand scale.
Add to that the inhumanity shown towards those who are weak, ill, or economically disadvantaged. Sadly some of these politicianss will never learn without facing the same evil disadvantaged people feel.
They should and will feel it, sooner rather than later.
So, according to your logic, governments can be allowed to get away with anything, so that their authority is not “undercut”. I doubt you’ll get much support for that one.
That’s not my logic at all, Laguerre, you have misunderstood. I think I’d get a lot of support for the idea that, in general, undercutting political establishments is not to be encouraged. In fact, I believe even you would support me on that – after all, have you not several times condemned the gilets jaunes for attempting (as you see it) to do exactly that?
What you say is fair enough, I suppose, but it’s the sort of thing I can read anytime in The Daily Mail or The Guardian.
As regards subverting public confidence in the political establishment, isn’t that a charge that could be made about those who advocate for Scottish independence? And doesn’t some aspects of what Salmond been subject to echo that of Assange’s treatment?
I realise that you could draw some distinctions between these issues but wouldn’t that be “weasely”?
It’s always the political establishment which subverts itself from within. generally in times of crisis for elites.
They’ve almost fully dropped the veil by now.
Executive, Legislature, Judiciary/Police, Media, Bankers/Corporates.
They did it to themselves. Became remarkably incompetent.
Assange is little more than witness to these events.
It’s a fight between your more patrician elites and warrior elites.
Patricians are more keen on veneer and respectability, warriors not so much.
Stonky, I admire your talent to vividly describe what you think. I’ve never seen an invitation to write more next time and to shut up both in one simultaneously.
Apropos ‘rape’, the ongoing efforts by the evangelicals in the US to ban abortion, including in the case of rape, one US republican lawmaker blithely claims that ‘most rapes are consensual’:
https://twitter.com/Terrence_STR/status/1129562802274865152/video/1
Mindboggling.
Well you Charles can carry on believing in and trusting, lying, devious, traitorous (as in madmayhem etc) warmongering scum in power. For the others, the decent people, we will continue to call out their crimes.
When you include those who don’t give a monkeys, there are more of me than of you, Ralph. So enough of the “we”, eh?
Re “we” see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/we
“I and the rest of a group that includes me: you and I: you and I and another or others: I and another or others not including you”
Chas, obviously you have not grasped the meaning of we to include others but not include you.
Otherwise I can’t see any problem with Craig’s view in this case. Your preference for one translation of a phrase rather than another, on the grounds that it’s the generally accepted understanding of the phrase in Europe is an astonishing claim and I wonder if there is any evidence for this, I look forward to seeing you cite the relevant authorities.
Like the adhesive , you were named after, Charles, ” who don’t give a monkey’s…”, doesn’t quite stick. Otherwise, why would you posting MANY comments on the matter?
In answer to your very pertinent question : just giving a different point of view on the matter, “Franc”, from that purveyed by the inhabitants of the echo chamber.
Stonky
Calm down, dear. Now you’ve got that off your chest, listen to the following : should my family be blown to pieces in front of my eyes, a second Julian Assange illegally publishing classified government documents years afterwards is not going to bring them back, is it? And I’m not at all sure that I’d want a lowlife like Mr Assange “championing my cause”.
But of course I pardon you : how could anyone not pardon someone as intelligent and nice as you sound?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MODS – since you have allowed a particularly nasty piece of posting, I trust you will allow me a right of reply.
Thanks to Wikkileaks everyone can judge for themselves which political establishments need to be undercut. There is nothing in piece to say that all political establishments should be undercut.
How hilarious. Snobstick is arguing that because the state is responsible for upholding the law it is therefore exempt from the law.
That explains everything one needs to know about our resident Zionist and it also explains the contorted Tory lie about Labour anti-Semitism.
We are bigger and higher than you and you therefore have no right to question anything we do. That puts the Tories , Political Islam and the sanhedrin of modern zionism all in the same side and the common sense of the rest of the world on the other side.
You have to admire the way this tiny minority of the world’s population punch their little fists against commonsense
Yeah, but the peeps never rise up themselves.
They just side with the other elite. Often just the other cheek on the same arse, as George Galloway put it.
Always happens.
“So undercutting public confidence in the political establishment is to be praised”
If they are corrupt Charles, definitely YES.
“So undercutting public confidence in the political establishment is to be praised…?”
Yes indeed, when the political establishment is corrupt, venal, dishonest, cynical, violent and treasonous. As it is in the UK , Sweden and EU today.
“…and the practitioners of undercutting are to escape the legal consequences of their actions?”
Nice bit of sophism there, smuggling in the unspoken assumption that “undercutting public confidence in the political establishment” has, or should have, legal consequences. Of course it shouldn’t, and doesn’t.
Are you sure you have the differences between China and Russia, as against the UK and EU, the right way round? It sounds to me as if your conception of the State is exactly like the USSR or Mao’s China – both of which have long ceased to exist.
It is also through Tyndale that the word ‘scapegoat’ first entered the English language. In the cases of both Tyndale and Assange the word is particularly appropriate. Both men threatened the ‘powers and principalities’ of their time and for their efforts they were both subjected to an ugly and illegitimate violence by the powers that be.
Thanks for that insight, Dave.
John Mann
The vicarious atonement of sins allows the sinner to forget their offence. Not their job to worry about who they hurt nor How to make amends. Stick on the slate or rather on the Mr Fixit of their imaginations Jesus.
In fact I don’t think 15/16 the century Chritianity taught that, but Victorian , post- Empire post- Darwin Chritianity evolved into that . I.e. dumping all the guilt on an imaginary scape-goat with an in fire capacity to evade personal responsibility
In turn that evolved into thatcherism viz the state devolves all state responsibility onto a fake god called the market
You win some. You lose some. But if we lose, you pay . Austerity is just an extension of the vicarious forgiveness idea.
Do the mainstream media self-censor or are they being subjected to DSMA Notices by the UK Government? We’ll probably never know because DSMA Notices are secret.
@ Colin Dawson May 20, 2019 at 11:58
Given the MSM’s coordinated attacks against Assange, it wouldn’t matter if DSMA Notices were issued or not.
The MSM, owned and/or controlled by the PTB, march in lock-step with the politicos (also ‘owned and/or controlled’ by the PTB).
My understanding was that adherence to DSMA notices is voluntary.
They all seem to comply however, so perhaps they are given some sort of incentive by the government to do so.
John2020
Gravy trains and a place for egos to be paraded. Like a palace of Versailles waiting for revolution to occur.
The msm support the anti-Assange campaign. Even their pretense to any real substantial difference between left and right organs has gone, lost to the greater cause of supporting elitism itself.
Did it under the guise of Feminism in the early days Hello!!
Bit tired that now.
Running out of narratives.
So now, the fangs.
So your evidence for the proposition that “judicial authority” under domestic law did not, in 2010, include prosecutors, is that Parliament subsequently changed the law to explicitly exclude prosecutors? So your claim is that the subsequent change in the law is redundant? That is, to put it mildly, odd…
I don’t follow you when you discuss Lord Phillips’ use of language versions either. As you say, under EU law (specifically art. 55 TEU) are equally authoritative, so it would be contrary to law for the UK Supreme Court to prefer to look at the English version simply because it is English. When there is a question about EU law (including the UK transposition of EU law), the proper method is to look at all/a number of language versions, particularly when there is an allegation that the language versions are different.
It is not odd at all. When Parliament passed the law it intended to exclude prosecutors, or more correctly to include only judges. Then after Lord Phillips’ appalling judgement depending on the French text, Parliament needed to reaffirm its original intention more explicitly.
Phillips did not review all the language versions. He only looked at the English and French and decided he preferred the latter. I challenge you to find any other example in history where a state party has, in case of conflict of meaning, preferred the foreign language version of a treaty over its own language text, the two having equal validity in law. $1,000 to the charity of your choice if you find an example.
I like your sudden trust in Parliament’s benevolence towards those accused of crimes.
As for language versions, I would encourage you not to think about the EU treaties as any other treaty with “state parties”. The EU is a sui generis legal order, as the ECJ never stops repeating.
But coincidentally the first hit on rechtspraak.nl was not about EU law. It’s a judgment of the Raad van State (basically the Dutch privy council) from 2007 about the correct interpretation of art. 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (The Dutch version basically says “first consideration”, while the English says “primary consideration”.) https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2007:AZ9524&showbutton=true&keyword=%22engelse+versie%22+verdrag
Just to add an EU law example: Here is one of the other Dutch supreme courts (don’t ask) interpreting art. 59 of the Additional Protocol to the EU-Turkey association agreement, where the Dutch version said “on the one hand”/”on the other hand”, while the English said “firstly”/”secondly”. See par. 4.8 of the judgment: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2011:BU3183&showbutton=true&keyword=%22engelse+versie%22+verdrag&keyword=EU
In case you think that’s cheating, because Dutch people speak foreign languages, here is the German Constitutional court, in par. 88, interpreting art. 4a the EAW framework decision (which, ironically, deals with in absentia trials), by updating the German text in light of the English and French versions:
Das in Art. 4a Abs. 1 Buchstabe d (i) RbEuHb verwendete Verb „kann“ dient vielmehr der Kennzeichnung der Befugnisse des Gerichts und bedeutet so viel wie „in der Lage ist“. Treffender ist in der englischen Fassung von einem „retrial, or an appeal, in which the person has the right to participate and which allows the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, to be re-examined“, die Rede oder in der französischen Fassung von einer „nouvelle procédure de jugement ou (…) une procédure d’appel, à laquelle l’intéressé a le droit de participer et qui permet de réexaminer l’affaire sur le fond, en tenant compte des nouveaux éléments de preuve“.
Oops, forgot the link: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2015/12/rs20151215_2bvr273514.html
Another playing with the words is using ‘rape’ instead of ‘unprotected sex’.
Though it is not relevant to the accusation itself, but Ms.Ardin is a radical feminist. And my thoughts are, well, it would be honest if she warned Mr. Assange of her special attitude towards relations between men and women, as she intended to have a piece of very close relationship.
I think Ms. Ardin herself would appreciate if a MGTOW man warned her of his views in similar imaginary position. It is question of sincerity and decency.
Just to make it clear, I appreciate achievements of feminism and that all, but sometimes they use bad methods to reach good goals.
“Though it is not relevant to the accusation itself, but Ms.Ardin is a radical feminist. ”
Not only her but also atleast one of the lawyers and atleast 1 prosecutor also claim that radical ideology.
Stuff like that certainly put a bias on things if you work within the judiciary.
Not to speak of the ridiculous Swedish law that what Assange did is considered rape!
Jack, it is wrong to write ‘what Assange did’, because the act was consentual, as long as I know. So, they both did it.
The claim was that Mr. Assange should go through medical test. Consider much time passed since, I’m not sure if this claim still has any sense.
Tatyana
I think that is the most crucial point – consensual sex – which is being deliberately left out of MSM articles because it doesn’t suit their agenda.
There was never any rape, it may have been a setup, it may well be revenge after the women found out about each other. Certainly the Swedish prosecutors have been guilty of fabricating a case, letting it fizzle out because of lack of evidence, only to reopen it when the canary is back in the cage.
If the story about lack of Julian Assange’s DNA is true (from the split condom), then this is simply more water to douse the flames.
What we are seeing more obviously than ever before, are so called democratic, Western countries – US, UK, Sweden, France – attacking journalism for publishing articles which rightly shine a light on the gross misdemeanors of the state.
There is no freedom of speech, there is no transparency in law and there is no accountability for the actrions of so called “first World” countries.
On a daily basis,almost,I read and hear things that really need redress and accountability.There is a lot of talk,even outrage,and nothing is done.We live in the establishment zone,ventilated by the msm,controlled by law that the establishment owns.The general population is industrially farmed by the elites and their establishment[s].Oh,and the politicians[and their select committees[ffs]],unqualified to run a race.
Knowledge and information is dangerous,proven by how much it’s omission is used to control the narrative.Once the con is spotted,the extent of it can be seen.Not pleasant but with the reassurance of the chance to be a real person-impossible on the straw of the establishment.
I know where “rape” comes from! 🙂
https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0418/79/1439623906807.gif
I have to confess that I am still rather confused about the whole thing, Tatyana.
What I have read is that one of the women went to the police as she wanted Julian to have a test, but that she did not want Julian to be accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour.
The police in Sweden went against her wish and tried to investigate Julian for assault.
Here on this discussion page Hatuey writes ” it would be better if he just came out of the embassy and faced the music ” I agree it would probably clear the case.
But also I understand that Mr. Assange knows better the consequences of leaving the Embassy and it is entirely up to him to deside what danger is more harmful. It is his life and his decisions.
As always, we suffer from the lack of reliably established facts and biased media add to the information clutter.
According to Mark Hosenball.
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) The two Swedish women who accuse WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sexual misconduct were at first not seeking to bring charges against him. They just wanted to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, according to several people in contact with his entourage at the time. “
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-charges/special-report-std-fears-sparked-case-against-wikileaks-boss-idUSTRE6B669H20101207
James Charles
I think these women could simply ask Julian for medical test, instead of bringing the whole case to the public. If they were concerned about sexually transmitted diseases more than of bringing charges.
I also think it is easy to arrange 1 medical nurse with a disposable medical kit visiting the Embassy to take samples for further tests outside the Embassy.
on the other hand, if I were Mr. Assange and if I knew the USA wants me, and if I heard rumors that Ms. Ardin is CIA agent….
no, I wouldn’t allow anybody with a syringe approach anywhere close to me 🙂
Very good point, Tatyana – which I had never before considered.
If Julian had agreed to an HIV test, what are the odds it would have been discovered that he was – surprise, surprise! – HIV positive? Along, perhaps, with a whole bevy of other vile and deadly diseases…
Tom,
Imagine that the puncture place was rubbed with a ‘disinfectant’, and shortly after Mr. Assange suddenly developed an ‘allergic shock’, and the Embassy has no conditions for medical care… in short, the sad consequences.
Not so very impossible, well, it seems Porton Down has a lot of interesting chemicals.
@ Tatyana May 20, 2019 at 12:01
The CIA’s pushing of Feminism is not widely known, but very real: ‘Gloria Steinem – How the CIA used Feminism to Destabilize Society’:
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/03/25433.html
As Craig has pointed out in a previous thread, Anna Arden was deported from Cuba for working for the CIA.
She is doubtless getting well compensated for her lies.
I hope you have a better source than that. Some of its more specific claims are plausible enough, and these are obviously the ones you are referring to. But the author goes on to claim that the CIA is the instrument of an “international cabal” whose aim is to “integrate [the USA] into a global state that it will direct through the United Nations”; and then, for good measure, that “Man loves woman. […] Women´s oppression is a lie. Sex roles were never as rigid as feminists would have us believe. My mother had a successful business in the 1950´s importing watch straps from Switzerland.” (Oh well, there you are then! Take that, feminists!) These claims undermine the article’s credibility. But one can always do with learning more of what the CIA has been up to all these years. Some things it has actually done (or so I gather) have been so outlandish that even wild claims should be evaluated carefully. But at the very least, the claim that the CIA has exploited feminism must be distinguished from the claim that feminism lacks all justification. If the former claim is true, then it should be possible to prove it without requiring belief in the latter claim.
@ Twirlip May 20, 2019 at 16:54
It should be possible to prove it? There is plenty of info out there, just look for it.
‘…But at the very least, the claim that the CIA has exploited feminism must be distinguished from the claim that feminism lacks all justification. If the former claim is true, then it should be possible to prove it without requiring belief in the latter claim….’
And who is claiming that? Certainly not me.
(Sigh.) I wrote, “Some of its more specific claims are plausible enough, and these are obviously the ones you are referring to.” That was the second sentence of my post: wasn’t it clear enough? If not, then I’m very happy to make it clear now that *of course* I didn’t imagine that you necessarily agreed with everything in the article you referred to! That is such a standard disclaimer that it can pretty much be taken as read.
But why aren’t you willing to point to any better sources? Of course, as you say, “there is plenty of info out there”, but presumably you have already done some work in sorting the reliable information from the mass of misinformation, so why not share some of the results of that work?
I’m surprised that you seem to have taken my criticism of this one reference quite personally, and are replying so dismissively.
This is quite illuminating
https://rebel.blackblogs.org/tag/anna-ardin/
@ michael norton May 20, 2019 at 18:51
Indeed, illuminating. Useful link.
Tatyana
using bad methods never achieves good goals.
All it does is leave people temporarily incapable of redressing the balance.
Tatyana. I think that Julian was very foolish to have “sexual relations” with these two women. It may have been consensual, but it was an unwise thing to do. I am single, but I do not “sleep around” with women.
With that said, we all make mistakes in our lives and I do not doubt that he now regrets his actions.
Well, I actually think that Mr. Assange is quite an adult and can decide for himself what kind of relationship is acceptable. I can imagine how much he hates talking about his personal life, so I try to choose my words when I write about it, and I don’t try to moralize. It’s the least I can do to show him my respect 🙂
John, I returned to specifically comment and to moralize a bit 🙂
What about those women? Don’t they “sleep around” with men? Why conserned about sexually transmitted deseases only after? What about an unplanned pregnancy? Don’t they know the golden rule “no condom, no sex”?
Tatyana, I don’t know if you will read this (I have been away from Craig’s blog for a few days) but I really meant that I thought that Julian was unwise to sleep with these women when he did not know them. It was his choice of course, I was not saying he should not have done so. I think it is always risky when you don’t really know people at all well. I’m rather tired, I hope that I am making sense.
I think Julian is a very great man for what he has helped to do and Chelsea Manning also. I do not have their courage or strength. 🙂
I’m a bit lost here on the timeline. If the Supreme Court dismissed Assange’s appeal, is the warrant not accepted and the changed law only applied to future cases. So why are the Swedes now going to court to issue the warrant if it’s already been accepted by the British?
Just by the way, I do accept your point about the linguistic gymnastics. I have been involved once in a case concerning linguistic equivalence at the EU Jurist/Linguist screening of EU legislation. Strictly speaking that legislation should go back to Brussels, should it not?
They withdrew the warrant in 2017. Now they need a new one.
Thanks Craig.
Pol
Anyone familiar with the Council’s Jurist-Linguists set-up must have been a regular on the Brussels circuit.
There is actually a report referring to Julian on the BBC website today but only because the content of this news item is pleasing to them and the gangsters-in-charge.
‘Ecuador has begun giving the US some of Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange’s possessions left behind following his stay in its London embassy. The country’s foreign minister José Valencia authorised the seizure of equipment earlier this month. The material includes manuscripts, legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment.’
Ecuador hands over Julian Assange’s belongings to US
56 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48335692
Shame on Moreno. Shame on all of the oppressors. Why did my father’s generations give up their lives fighting for freedom against the fascists?
Sharp Ears
“Shame on Moreno. Shame on all of the oppressors. Why did my father’s generations give up their lives fighting for freedom against the fascists?”
Yes one wonder what is what all for in the end?
The thing seems to that there is too little resistance today against this corruption. No journalists in the MSM care, no they support it.Likewise with leftist parties that are incredibly silent on topics like this. We have the case on Assange, Trump threats against Iran, China, Venezuela going on daily like its something normal. No one seems to care!?
@ Jack May 20, 2019 at 13:46
Exactly, that is many decent people’s lament.
What with ‘austerity’ making earning a living a pre-occupation above all else, and the bombardment of ‘infotainment’ instead of real news, and the sophistication of the wrap-around spying and rapidly expanding censorship, it is saddening and maddening but hardly surprising that the ‘Sheeple’ allow themselves to become apathetic (until they are provoked into a fury or blood-lust by MSM manipulation of some kind of ‘event’, real or more than likely faked).
“Why did my father’s generations give up their lives fighting for freedom against the fascists?”
Because they would have been shot, or at least spent many years in prison, if they had tried to refuse?
As far as I know, my father fought against Germany and Italy because they were threatening to conquer and subjugate Great Britain. Fascism had little or nothing to do with it.
@Bostock
“I think I’d get a lot of support for the idea that, in general, undercutting political establishments is not to be encouraged.”
Well, that depends on how legitimate is the behaviour of those political establishments.
It should be obvious to any intelligent observer that establishments, even in so-called democratic governments, are frequently corrupt and manipulate the masses.
Its all about money, in a word restitution…. “The lawyer for the woman who had asked for the investigation to be reopened welcomed the decision saying: “Today we got great news.” It signalled “that no-one stands above the law,” Elisabeth Massi Fritz, told a new conference.
“My client feels great gratitude and she is very hopeful about getting restitution and we both hope that justice will win”, she added”. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/13/sweden-reopens-case-against-julian-assange
Big difference between Nafissatou Diallo and Assange’s alleged victims is that Diallo consented to being named. To the best of my knowledge they have not.
She did when the case eventually came to court, when her name was already known everywhere. But months before that, when it first happened, she was named in all the media and I see no evidence she consented at that stage.
Whereas Anna Ardin actually gave a press conference in her own name and conferred with Sofie Wilen about selling their story to the tabloids.
If he had ties with Israel, and Israel has ties with the USA, and the USA wants to get Assange, then it would explain maybe. But see no evidence, and without it your comment perhaps will be treated as anti-semit.
*Perhaps, those lists of ‘Friends of Israel’ published on British Parliament website could reveal a clue.
@ Ralph May 20, 2019 at 14:14
Although I understand what you mean, that comment is definitely anti-Semitic, and should be removed.
@Bostock
“So undercutting public confidence in the political establishment is to be praised and the practitioners of undercutting are to escape the legal consequences of their actions?”
So it’s one law for the privileged and another law for the everyone else.
I would say that the establishment frequently undercuts the confidence the public has in them by their own illegal operations.
I put it to you – how often does the establishment accept responsibility for it’s own illegal actions?
Aren’r legal consequences foe undercutting public confidence in the political establishment the kind of thing they have in China and used to have in the USSR?
Exactly so, Johnny!
Phillips took early retirement in 2012, perhaps on the advice that he should go before he loses all his marbles.
I should think he no longer needed to work, as his future prospects became a great deal brighter about that time.
These are dangerous times and there is a misplaced calm, as if collectively we do not want to face up to the crisis in front of us. This is comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis, where a Soviet submarine could have launched a nuclear torpedo in response to a perceived attack by the US navy. A similar incident could happen in the South China Sea, the Kerch Strait, Iran, Syria – there are many flash-points. Yet there is no sense of alarm. The present crisis is worse because the Cold War was the peace: a post-world war environment; we are now in a pre-world war environment. The world has experienced periods of peace (or relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty Years Peace between the two Peloponnesian Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after the Congress of Vienna, to name a few. The Congress System finally collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One. That conflict was followed by the League of Nations. It did not stop World War Two. That was followed by the United Nations and other post-war institutions. But all the indications are they will not prevent a third world war, because history shows that civilizations eventually get the war they are trying to avoid.
There are always things that ‘jar with the mores of these time’ when analysing history. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. That’s what is leading us to world war three.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Very good post.
Incidentally, Firefox won’t let me connect to your blog. It says – but I don’t know what precisely this means – “The owner of http://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com has configured their web site improperly.”
“Misplaced calm … no sense of alarm.” Indeed, that goes for how I feel. The fear seems too deep and nightmarish to generate mere alarm; rather, it only deepens an existing paralysis. But I don’t know if this goes for others. (I’ve never been politically active, so perhaps it doesn’t.)
http://lyrics.doheth.co.uk/songs/radiohead/ok-computer/no-surprises.php
Re “Firefox won’t let me connect to your blog.”
It will let you connect if you proceed to override the warning, I just did. The site is basically an advert for Peter Mcloughlin’s book Ghosts of History, the gist of which he outlines in his post of 16.28.
In my opinion US policy of zero sales of Iranian oil to anybody is already a declaration of war, since it means the collapse of the Iranian economy resulting in famine and many deaths [Albright considered the deaths of 500,000 children due to sanctions against Iraq] as a price worth paying. The test now is whether Iran can evade these sanctions [with the help of other states]. Of course if the US physically stop those exports, a shooting war will occur. Iran has said in that event Israel and the GCC states will suffer with the closure of the Strait of Hormus and the laying to waste of GCC oil and transport infrastructure plus Hezbollah missile attacks on vital Israeli installations like their ports, Dimona and vulnerable gas rigs. Oh and the price of oil going through the roof causing a worldwide depression, These are the considerations the US must address unfortunately we have Trump, Bolton, Pompeo and various other Neo cons and warmongers pushing for regime change in Iran and backing the terrorist grouping Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), this will not end well.
Harry Law
Why did the US hand Iraq to the Shi’a?
A. To threaten Saudi Arabia.
Now the US is using Iran to threaten The Saudis through Yemen.
All the rest is bluff and red herrings.
Trump does bluff and red herrings rather well imho
Harry, if you carefully list all the nations against which the USA has committed acts of war, you will find that it is currently at war – legally – with a large proportion of UN members. As the existence of a state of war is never officially admitted, no attempt is ever made to negotiate a peace treaty.
At least in Korea it is openly admitted that the war continues. But the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and other nations, the extreme violence promoted in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and other nations, the bombing of Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria and other nations and, as you pointed out, the economic sanctions imposed on Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and other nations ALL amount to acts of war.
Another little-acknowledged consequence is that any of the nations mentioned above would be within their legal rights to commit ANY act of war against the USA or its allies. Including, for example, the detonation of one or more thermonuclear bombs.
I’ve only ever commented on the Assange case once on here. I said it would be better if he just came out of the embassy and faced the music. It didn’t go down too well.
I’m sure the music isn’t worth listening to, I don’t doubt for a second it’s politically motivated and he’s innocent, but either way I think it’s best that he faces it and moves on.
I suspect he’ll end up in the American courts and Atlanticists in Sweden are making sure they have a plan B in place should extradition from the UK to the US fail.
For what it’s worth, I have more confidence in the US judicial system than any European system. When it comes to freedom of speech and related issues, US law makes European law look backward and draconian.
Yes, please explain to us again how Assange will be totally protected from a miscarriage of justice before secret courts in a country who’s politician’s openly fantasise about extra-judicially assassinating him. We haven’t had this discussion before at all.
If I remember rightly there was some talk of the US department of justice pushing for charges which could leave the death penalty applicable so forgive me if I’m not sharing in your assessment. I’m thoroughly confused by people who’ve travelled far enough to be posting on this site, but their solution to establishment corruption is to put further faith in that same establishment.
Northern, I didn’t say he would be totally protected. The rest of that paragraph isn’t worth taking seriously.
At the moment he faces one charge in the US which could lead to a sentence of up to 5 years.
On your final point, I have zero faith in anything. But if I was to defend myself on some sort of freedom of speech or public interest grounds, I’d prefer to face charges like that in the US than anywhere else in the world.
It aggravates me when people try to take the moral high ground by inventing things. Read carefully what I said. You seem to have missed the only substantive argument I made.
There is zero chance Assange will receive a fair trial in the court that has prepared his charges, the Eastern District of Virginia, it is known as the “Espionage Court” for its jailing of whistleblowers and its chief justice Leonie Brinkema (a political appointee like every other US judge) has never aquitted a national security defendant. Experts like John Kiriaku (a cia whistleblower she jailed) say she will give Assange at least 50 years.
Again, at the moment he faces on single charge in the US; I understand that more charges may be added but I can only assume the one that stands is considered the most serious of them. The maximum sentence he can receive, based on that single charge, is 5 years.
Nobody here and certainly not me has argued that Assange deserves to be charged for anything. I think what he did was of huge historical significance and I agree with Craig Murray’s assessment that it was up there with the work of Reformation scholars.
That all said, is there anyone who really expected the US government to take this on the chin and let it go? You don’t get to confront dark concentrated power in this world without a backlash. That’s more or less true on all levels of human existence but in this case you are talking about one of the darkest, most powerful organisations in all history.
I hope that in a few years Assange will be free to make some sort of life for himself, without a sword hanging over him. If he is treated fairly as a criminal in the US justice system then that’s what we can expect. I’d say that involves medium-sized “if” rather than a big one at this stage, but being holed up in that Embassy offered nothing in terms of hope.
It’s odd that I feel compelled to point out here, on Craig Murray’s website of all places, that confronting powerful dark forces in this world entails risks and repercussions that may be harmful to your health, career prospects, and well-being. We should celebrate every day that people like Assange, Murray, and others are still prepared to do that.
But let’s not forget the huge rewards that history bestows upon these heroes. Without them there would be no progress and I can’t think of a greater compliment than that. I believe that’s what Craig meant when he talked about the rewarding nature of fighting for justice recently. And I think that’s the biggest reward of all.
I have grave misgivings regarding the extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden. Sweden is more politically aligned to the current right-leaning government of the United States of America than many might think and Sweden has quite a History of such political leaning and reasoning.
It’s appalling that seventy-two British MPs have advocated his extradition to Sweden who, taking no account of its like-minded affinity to the USA, are likely to simply pass Mr Assange into US jurisdiction when they are done with him. The US government wants Mr Assange purely as an act of revenge for publishing clearly filmed US war crimes in Iraq and has no interest in natural justice whatsoever.
I am further minded to think the British government has dug itself a hole in this affair, among others, and urgently wishes to be rid of Mr Assange and doesn’t care how it does it; much to his detriment if it is allowed to happen.
Contrary to popular belief Sweden is not the egalitarian country it has the reputation of holding and the ‘Swedishness’ or notion of a left-leaning culture is a myth. It would also be a mistake to think Sweden’s government is likely to be a victim of coercion by the US to hand over Mr Assange as it is in truth, like Britain’s current administration, very much a construct of like-minded political bed-fellows.
No left-leaning culture would, between 1928 and 1976, forcefully sterilise 63,000 of its own citizens (over 90% of them, women) because they were deemed unacceptable to the purity of their race and a national burden on the cost of social welfare. Sterilisation in Sweden in 1948 was to be a voluntary affair but actually it provided little option. Young women who had become pregnant outside marriage were allowed an abortion on the condition they undergo sterilisation afterwards. The alternative was a term of imprisonment in a ‘correction centre’ because of ‘unsocial’ behaviour (aka sexual activity).
Sweden has for more than one hundred years proclaimed a position of neutrality in times of armed conflict, yet Sweden traded with and supported Nazi Germany throughout WW2 and only stopped supplying their armaments factories with essential ball-bearings in October 1944 when it was becoming clear Germany was losing the war.
In May 1940 German troops at Narvik in Norway became isolated. The Swedish government permitted German troop trains to cross through Sweden and into Norway to support them thereby aiding the Nazi occupation of Norway. From July 1940 to November 1941 686,000 German soldiers travelled through Sweden by train to Norway. Hardly the behaviour consistent with a neutral country.
The founder of Ikea, Ingvar Kamprad was a card-carrying member of the Swedish Socialist Unity, the country’s far right party during the war, and there is no evidence he ever left the Swedish Nazi party. He had a lasting affinity with Per Engdahl who led Sweden’s anti-Semitic movement after the war.
Kamprad was long regarded as Engdahl’s benefactor who for the first two years after WW2 received refugees and hid them from their persecutors – Nazi refugees, that is. Stieg Larsson’s novel ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ is a good exposé of Swedish right-wing organised factions in modern day Sweden. Potentially, there isn’t a great deal to choose between the current governments of Sweden and America which is why I don’t believe he should be extradited to either place. The current American request for his extradition based upon espionage allegations are without foundation and are no more than a calculated ruse to seize him.
When Mr Assange has served his prison term for not answering his bail he should be free to leave and go wheresoever he chooses without encumbrance.
Thanks for that, Rod, I found it very interesting in parts, particularly the stuff about Swedish history.
Needless to say, I agree that in an ideal world Assange would be awarded a prize for exposing these war crimes. Sadly, we need to deal with the world as it is and not as we would want it to be.
Hatuey
It was merely a response to your special confidence in the US judicial system when it comes to freedom of speech cases. The maximum-5 charge was issued to get Assange extradited with minimal outrage. Those who know this court and its chief justice expect a superseding indictment, to include espionage charges, the sentence for which would guarantee he is never seen again.
It is certainly true though that whenever it suits the class interests of US judges they are very willing to make a virtue of freedom of speech, as in the SCOTUS’ McCutcheon and Citizens United rulings which guarantee untrammeled “freedom of speech” (or unrestricted bribery of politicians) for corporations and billionaires. Another means by which the US Constitution is used to ensure the country remains a democracy in name only, following the spirit of those who framed the Constitution.
I understand your concerns, joel, but there isn’t even a pretence of freedom of speech in any European country I can think of. The US in many ways is the heart of darkness, we all understand the hypocrisy there and the desire to close down critical voices etc., that stuff is just a given all over the world, and history is full of examples.
I have hope now though that at some point Assange will again be able to take part and make a life for himself. When he was hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy I had no such hope.
I guess there’s an acknowledgement in what I’m saying — they had effectively silenced him anyway when he was in the embassy, they had neutralised him. It isn’t certain now that he will be equally neutralised in say 5 years, is it?
He has some things in his favour too. Do they really want to draw too much attention to the war crimes that he exposed? He could also appeal to international law which I believe accommodates ‘public interest’ cases like this, flimsy as it may be. And it’s clear he has the moral high ground.
I’m not sure it’s in the interests of the US to draw too much attention to this stuff right now. Maybe they just want to charge him for hacking and move on.
Hatuey
As usual you take the most provocative line. No European would ever come to the conclusion that justice and commonsense is served better in the US than in Europe
Nuland’s comment on Europe says it all. It puzzles me why you come on here posing as shill for US justice in order to damage Assange’s case. His only hope of survival is to argue that he will not receive a fair trial in the US and he will face the death sentence as a foreign national or if not Guantanamo Bay or the like.
Do you get out of the bed on the wrong side and think ‘ Don’t worry, I’ll spend 20 minutes shilling for us neo-cons as a kind of tonic?
Nice work if you can get it. Not sure why it’s allowed on this blog.
Giyane, I’m a realist. I make no apologies for that. I hardly think my opinion on this, or my expectations, will make any difference to the outcome. I’d happily join in singing kumbaya if I thought it would make a difference. It won’t.
If there was any prospect of Assange avoiding extradition, he would not have spent the last few years in hiding. There isn’t.
Is there a D-notice on ‘temporary surrender’?
IMO, the answer is likely to be YES.
‘Temporary surrender’ is the mechanism that Assange feared would be used by US to have him transferred from Sweden. It’s what drove him to seek asylum in 2012. But there is no discussion of that anymore.
1) The UK should reject extradition of Assange to Sweden as the charges are politically motivated and are likely a ruse for getting Assange to USA with few conditions on his prosecution.
2) The UK should also reject extradition of Assange to USA because the US computer crime charges are also politically motivated and there are human rights issues that take precedence including: his confinement is likely to be torturous, press freedom must be upheld.
But the establishment does not want the (1) and (2) to happen. It seems clear that there is a determined push to extradite Assange to Sweden (where ‘temporary surrender’ may be used). Squashing discussion of the ‘temporary surrender’ mechanism the primary way that they are clearing the way for Assange’s extradition to Sweden. Because only public protest will stop a miscarriage of justice.
Alt-media should not be silent about ‘temporary surrender’ and how public opinion is being manipulated – especially if they are not themselves subject to a D-notice.
I apologize to all of you of giving an advice, which I was not asked to give. I do not feel like the right person to tell you what to do. Just my consideration.
In previous discussion we talked about mass protests and in general what can be done. It seems like a good idea to me if mass protests demanded Mr. Assange must be treated as a witness and should be getting witness protection.
Further it would be great to demand a law protecting whistleblowers. Because a state has all means and bodies to cover its crimes, and citizens have no mechanisms to safely expose those crimes. It is not democracy.
Perhaps Mr. Murray knows decent people who could bring a project of such a law to parliament debates?
Tatyana
With great respect, is there not a lot of work to be done in Russia to guarantee the right to protest peacefully? Perhaps you should focus on that rather than hypothesising about “mass protests” in the UK?
Also : is there a law protecting whistleblowers in Russia?
Good old Charles; as patronising as ever telling Tatyana what she should focus on. Why not just focus on your own tripe Charles.
Yep – so Charlie boy thinks it’s o.k. to criticise Russia (and tell lies about Russia) but Russians aren’t allowed to criticise the US and UK.
I don’t know how much protests are restricted in Russia but I suspect neither do you Charlie.
Bostock
With great respect, you are off topic. The issue here is the mother of all parliaments and the beacon of justice in the world, who should behave impeccably not a nascent democracy which is 29 years old.
🙂 I’m 41 today.
And I’m pretty sure I was busy with coffee at 10 a.m. when somebody tried to log into my Facebook account. Yet I’m pretty sure I was in my studio working on orders at 11 a.m. when somebody tried to log in my Odnoklassniki account.
I use only mobile internet while in the studio, and there are no FB or OK on my smartphone.
Now I’m sitting at home with my laptop and a glass of wine and speculating who could it be?
Happy Birthday Tatyana! с Днем рожденья! 🙂
(PS. lol, it was not me)
Thanks 🙂 I think it would be rather difficult for you, John, to try to hack my accounts with Android on HTC from Novosibirsk, Russia. Unless they sell HTC in your country and you are smart enough to use proxy 😉
Tatyana, happy birthday and best wishes from the USA!
I always enjoy your intelligent and thoughtful comments. And in that spirit, if you have any desire to visit the US, I beg you not to come here.
Although I do not share her enthusiasm for firearms, I think that the persecution and abuse of Maria Butina is horrendous and unconscionable. I couldn’t stand to see another respectable Russian maligned and used as a scapegoat.
I’m not sure of the time difference, so I either hope the rest of your birthday is pleasant, or that it was pleasant. 😉
Re Tatanya: “…if you have any desire to visit the US, I beg you not to come here.”
Surely Maria Butina’s only offence was not declaring she was an “foreign agent” on her arrival in the USA. Perhaps if like Gilbert Harding she had answered the question “Do you intend the undermine the Constitution of the United States of America” with his reply, “Sole purpose of visit” There would have been no problem. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilbert_Harding.
Maria featured in the news recently: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maria-butina-seeks-a-sentence-of-time-served-in-new-court-filing/ So she may be released and deported shortly.
The deal plea, which was forced on her under threat of a harsher sentence, is nothing compared to what may await Assange which is why we should be concerned with protecting Whistle-blowing that reveals information that undermines a dishonest narrative peddled by the MSM, particularly if it reveals war crimes.
Oh, and Happy Birthday Tatyana.
Charles: do you mean public protests like this?
https://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/03/Russian-internet-protest-800×450.jpg
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/thousands-protest-again-law-to-create-autonomous-russian-internet/
Or this?
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2019/03/28/thousands-protest-in-russia-in-defense-of-workers-rights/
I could add hundreds of similar examples.
Actually, Gillets Jeune support Assange, as one might expect any citizen Movement would.
I think the US-UK establishment has tried to stifle protest by smearing Assange and blocking discussion about the politicization of the Swedish investigation, including the fact that Assange sought asylum to avoid being sent to USA from Sweden via ‘temporary surrender’ – a special mechanism that makes releasing prisioners to USA fairly easy and quick.
Jackrabbit, I see that people demand to “free Julian Assange” – that is impossible, nobody nowhere never just have freed a person. Or demand “justice for Julian Assange” but in current position it means – “let the current authorized bodies make their decision in accordance with the current laws”.
Look what they are doing, they leaf through the current laws and try to pick up in which country and under which article Assange will receive the greatest punishment.
“Young Jackets”?
Just think what a very moment for bringing such a law project is now!
Mrs. May is about to leave the position of Prime Minister. If she has enough vanity (I suspect she has) she would like to leave a trace in the History as the Prime Minister Who was The First to Discuss The Wistleblower Protection Law. Makes some grandeur and it could really reserve a place in History for her.
Milord Phillips of Worth Matravers, speaking from the red benches, in September 2017. The subject of the debate was ‘Prisons: Overcrowding.
‘Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, we are dealing with a problem that successive Governments have failed to solve for over half a century. The cause of that problem is that we send far too many people to prison for far too long: far longer than is necessary for rehabilitation and far longer than is needed to provide an effective deterrent.’
Somewhat hypocritical when thinking of Julian in the Belmarsh hellhole.
So are you suggesting nobody should turn up to attend court when summoned? Well that would definitely reduce the numbers of prisoners in the system wouldn’t it?
“Julian Assange revolutionised publishing by bringing the public direct access to massive amounts of raw material showing secrets the government wished to hide. By giving the public this direct access he cut out the filtering and mediating role of the journalistic and political classes.”
Well this is the point isn’t it Craig? The MSM sem to fear Julian almost as much as the government – albeit for different reasons. The MSM fear he could cause a news media revolution that could bankrupt the news media magnates and their corporations. A David and Goliath scenario.
The Guardian, I suspect may be a special case as it’s (extreme) feminist writers seem to hate any male who is ever accused, however flimsy the evidence may be against them, as here.
And the paranoia of our own government towards Julian is a matter for national shame – IMHO.
We elect these people to serve our interests after all. What do they have to hide? I know that many of them are corrupt and self serving, but it would be good to consider than some of them may actually be interested in public service!
I agree that 4 Corners program is excellent and damning against Sweden, the UK and the US.
I am absolutely behind Julian, he is being judicially lynched in slow motion. That UK law was bent out of shape over the illegal european arrest warrant just for Julian is in and of itself a smoking gun. That his right to appeal to the ECJ is just extraordinary.
That the Ecuadorians handed his entire personal effects over to the FBI is astonishing and blatantly illegal under lots of laws. That they both felt able to do it and are doing it shows how much serious trouble Julian is in. I hope his legal team is hot on this.
Not that Julian would want any of his electronica back after the FBI etc have had their mits on it. Would you?
I expect it is all backed up to the nuclear bunker in Stockholm and in Iceland anyway, so he can get new kit and start all over easily enough.
Also the idea that Wikileaks will fold without Assange is ludicrous. Just like the idea that assassinating Hitler or Churchill would have dramatically changed WWII.
Fox News!! have this AP report by a Joshua Goodman today.
Published 25 mins ago
Battle breaks out for WikiLeaks founder Assange’s computers
https://www.foxnews.com/world/battle-breaks-out-for-wikileaks-founder-assanges-computers
Within we read that the Trump administration approve of the current action being taken. So theft of personal possessions is condoned.
All this puts us to shame. You can imagine how our press would respond if this was happening to a dissident in one of our official enemy counties, for example Russia…
No elegant legal interpretations from me, nor prose, put simply – What type of State tolerates the plight of an individual in refuge in an embassy within it’s country and yet does nothing to resolve the issue with the complainant country?And when said individual has no longer the protection of said embassy locks him up in a high security jail?
Gavin C Barrie
Same here but as you can see many Learned Friends of the right stripe are busying themselves with
making ‘ legal ‘ excuses when in actuality politics trumps all Laws.
Particularly depending on the political effect and not the legal one at all.
That’s for the schmucks who read the nonsense.
Legal jargon baffles them all the time.
It’s backside cover for a political subtext.
That and grovelling to the US of course.
Clerks of Courts are assisting with submissions.
The biggest red flag that points to Wikileaks being an intelligence operation is the fact that (American) material claiming to be classified was published in the Integrity Initiative controlled Guardian.
It’s completely ludicrous.
‘Guardian’s Carole Cadwalladr, Nick Cohen, James Ball and the BBC’s James Landale at FCO funded, military intelligence linked “Integrity Institute” skill sharing, networking event.
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/12/13/skillsharingdraft-nov12/
There’s also Luke Harding, Simon Tisdell and many more to be taken into account.
With solidarity and gratitude to Julian Assange
because it puts Light in the obscure public administration
Here is Julian Assange on the theme you explore in your final paragraph: https://youtu.be/_gmQX1c_4OM
This is your best article for weeks, if not years Craig. My question to you is, as ever, what do you propose to do about it?