Ecuadorean Embassy Speech

by craig on August 19, 2012 7:53 pm in Uncategorized

I spent today inside the Ecuadorian Embassy with Julian Assange, who I am happy to say is both physically and mentally on very good form. I was sitting in the room behind him in a very comfortable leather armchair whilst he made his balcony speech, and I must say I thought the text of it was excellent.

I spoke immediately before Julian, from outside the Embassy. This was my own effort, which I hope provided some valuable context to the persecution of Assange.

I could not help but be struck by the ridiculously excessive police presence – hundreds and hundreds of policemen everywhere. I don’t think that the concept of freedom of information can be killed off by the extreme intimidation of a single man, but by Heavens, Hague and Cameron are going to try.

Tweet this post

74 Comments

  1. Paul Cochrane

    19 Aug, 2012 - 8:07 pm

    A blow to TeamGB and TeamUSA today.

  2. Thanks Hatari and Mark Golding on the previous blog for posting two great videos of Craig supporting Julian Assange. We need more people like the two of them who have both suffered for genuine integrity.

    Meanwhile I’ve gone into movie production. ‘The ghost of Dr David Kelly’. A bit naiive, especially to think it will be big box-office, but well meant. It’s only two minutes long. Feel free to distribute.

    http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/13618845/the-ghost-of-dr-david-kelly

  3. UK – US EMPIRE POODLE – COCK-UP LATEST

    BIG FISH. LITTLE FISH

    ECUADOR

    In the blue corner, the OAS states supporting Ecuador – 500 million people and 32 members. Plus 63 million British people telling the UK US Empire poodles – Tories, Lib Dems and New Labor – to “Sod off mate”.

    In the fascist USUK Empire corner – a few dozen die-hard bought-and-paid-for UK US Empire poodles.

    REALITY SPOTLIGHT

    The Financial Times, the voice of the UK elite – those who own the UK – says that the UK has scored a diplomatic own-goal and that the diplomatic damage is not worth it.

    What damage? Perhaps this.

    Those with the money want no part of US puppet William Hague’s puerile posturing. Especially if it costs them money. And it could cost them a very great deal of money, if confidence in the City, or Sterling, is destroyed by people waking up to the fact that the game is fixed – run by criminals – proved by the LIBOR scandal – _and_ that the City is bankrupt, held aloft only by misplaced confidence and the USUK Elites’s money laundered funds (variously $31 T (T as in Trillion)).

    Just as UK people have woken up to reality and to their leaders’s status as puppets of the US Empire, via their servile acquiescence to US Empire illegality in the Assange extradition case.

    A RUN ON UK BANKS / THE CITY?

    If there is no rule of law in the UK whenever the US Empire says so, or whenever the UK’s US Empire Poodle leaders feel like it, perhaps the world does not want its funds in the UK’s jurisdiction?

    How do you say ‘A run on UK Banks / the City,” in Spanish ???

    No wonder the FT does not want the UK US Empire Poodles to risk the wealth of the UK’s owners by drawing an ever bigger spotlight to the very ugly truths underlying the US Empire and its foreign puppets, by bandying words with what is a large bloc of 500 m people.

    Too big a spotlight on reality, for too long, could seriously damage their wealth. Which is probably the only thing they care about. Because they certainly don’t care about illegal war, torture-to-death, murder or ‘disappearing’ 27,000 muslims, or the pre-eminent war crime, the crime of Aggression.

    The OAS – 910 m people, less the US Empire and its few remaining servile puppets – Canada, Colombia and, apparently, Trinidad and Tobago and the fascists who organized the US Empire’s coup in Paraguay. Or over 500 m people backing Ecuador in opposing the UK government’s threat to invade a sovereign country’s embassy.

    Because when push comes to shove, the US Empire won’t lift a finger for its bought and paid for Imperial poodles. The US Empire’s motto – ‘Take’. Not ‘give’.

    And it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of UK US Empire Poodles. Hard luck pal … let the door hit you on the way out! –

    - Big fish. Little fish. -

    - http://www.bioteams.com/images/big_fish_little_fish.gif

    Organization of American States – 910m people, 35 member countries. Minus the US Empire and its only two lapdogs in the western hemisphere, Canada governed by uber-Neo-Con Nazi Harper and death-squad ruled Colombia. Plus, apparently, Trinidad and Tobago – hang your heads in shame!

    OAS states supporting Ecuador – 500 million people and 32 members?

    ‘Americas bloc takes UK threats to Ecuador for international discussion’ – 18th August, 2012 – RT –

    - http://rt.com/news/oas-ecuador-uk-theats-asylum-984/

    PERFIDIOUS ALBION

    Were the UK Poodles today as duplicitous as during the last eight centuries they might themselves have ensured Julian Assange’s safe delivery to Ecuador … and then said “Oh, Sorry” to the US Empire and let the (Neo-Con Nazi wide-stance) US Empire Buggers lump it.

    Maybe they need a reminder of how its done. Perfidious Albion – enter Alan B’Stard MP! –

    OTHER B’STARDS

    The New Statesman – ‘A Good Start’ (*2) (ER, ‘Special’!) – Superb, but only in Spanish

    - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rywoDqqHfBI#t=00m44s

    Comic Relief Special – English –

    - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p_0cayp5s0#t=00m37s

    (*1) FT editorial under Reply.

    (*2) After What do you call a thousand US Empire Neo-Con Nazis at the bottom of the ocean? ; )

  4. FT EDITORIAL

    Even that bastion of UK liberal and progressive thought (Not!) – the (Reich-wing) Financial Times – suggests that he has badly cocked it up. No change there, then!

    But judge for yourself – see link below. ; ) (*1)

    USUK ELITE OPINION – ‘HAGUE COCKS IT UP’

    ‘An Inglorious Embassy Siege’ – FT editorial

    “In threatening to revoke the status of Ecuador’s embassy in order to arrest Julian Assange on the premises, Britain has scored a diplomatic own goal. For two months, the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up in the ground-floor flat in Knightsbridge, while police wait outside to enforce an order for his extradition to Sweden. Ecuador’s decision yesterday to grant him asylum has done nothing to change his state of limbo.

    “Mr Assange may not deserve such protection, given that he faces criminal allegations of sexual assault that would not usually qualify him for refugee status. Yet Ecuador’s populist president Rafael Correa, ever ready to rail at American imperialism, is able to argue that Mr Assange could later face an extradition request from the US and charges of spying.

    “In heavy-handedly threatening the embassy’s status, Britain risks fuelling perceptions that it is abetting a US-led conspiracy against Mr Assange. The Foreign Office yesterday denied any such link to the US but said it was determined to carry out its legal obligation to enforce a European arrest warrant. However, the 1987 legislation on which its earlier threat was based, passed not long after a gun fired from within the Libyan embassy killed the policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, was clearly designed to deal with more serious threats to public safety. Invoking it now would invite legal challenge.

    “More important, it would also set a precedent that could be used against UK embassies abroad. International law stipulates that diplomatic missions are inviolate, and to break this, on whatever legal grounds, invites retaliation.

    “Moreover, the attempt to put pressure on Quito has backfired badly on Britain’s image in Latin America. Mr Correa’s retort that “we are not a British colony” is already being echoed by protesters and will resonate in Argentina – as well as with Ecuador’s leftist allies, Venezuela and Cuba.

    “Britain’s inability to extradite Mr Assange is awkward, but it is not worth sustaining this degree of diplomatic damage. Both Quito and London have now backed themselves into a corner: Ecuador by offering asylum it cannot in practice provide, Britain by threatening legal action it might not be able to make stick. A far simpler strategy would be to sit it out. József Mindszenty, a Hungarian cardinal who opposed communism, lived in the US embassy in Budapest for 15 years. Mr Assange is by all accounts a prickly character. Surely he would try his hosts’ patience before then?

    - FT editorial, 16th August, 2012

    - http://www.ft.com

    (*1) Peter Cook – ‘Biased Judge’ – Youtube -

    - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U

  5. Interesting that there’s so much police presence at the Ecuador Embassy, and they seem very ready to arrest people for nothing much. Meanwhile the Russian Embassy has ben subject to violent attacks by stone-throwing mobs, while the police stood by and did nothing.
    .
    Evidently the Met has been politicised and now considers its role to be intimidation, direct or indirect, of the diplomats of whichever countries the British government feels inconvenienced by.
    .
    http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/834
    .
    replace 834 in the URL with 92 for pictures; 835 for another incident; 298 for the Russians complaining about it.

  6. Craig and everyone:

    I just tend to wonder, with everyone being so fearful about Sweden sending Assange straight to Washington DC: why do/did people think he was more protected in the UK? Have recent cases not shown that the UK is rather quick in extraditing people to the US and that the UK is not incredibly committed to compliance with the ECHR?

    Secondly, I feel that all those people who come very close to claiming that Sweden is not a respectable liberal democracy with a high regard for human rights and the rule of law should be a bit more careful for what they say. For example, attacking Sweden because it doesn’t have trial by peers is ridiculously Anglo-centric. Jury trial is NOT a human right and many Western European legal systems work without it – e.g. my own (Switzerland), and I think generally criminal trials can be considered fair here. Also, yes, as a foreigner Assange would be less likely to get bail in Sweden for fear of him absconding. But again, as long as there isn’t a unproportionate delay in the investigation and eventual trial, that is completely compliant with ECHR etc. and all those shouting now never criticised Sweden about this before.

    Seriously, sometimes people pretend that he is about to be extradited to an Algerian torture cell, that’s just plain wrong. If Sweden purports to extradite him to the US and there is a credible death penalty threat, he has good chances in Strasbourg. Where is the fundamental rights violation everyone speaks of? Why should Assange have a ‘get out of jail free’ card for any of his NON-POLITICAL crimes as well, no matter what he does? Everyone else accused of sex crimes would have been extradited ages ago.

  7. Well said and well done Craig. How I wish you had got into Parliament.

  8. Take no notice of the You Tube counter. I watched Craig’s video twice, once signed into You Tube (Google) and once signed out. In neither case did the counter change even after refreshing the page.

  9. Is it possible Hague deliberately cocked-up to make the USA look stupid in the eyes of the world and also as revenge for whatever blackmailing the Yanks were attempting? Just a thought..

    Btw..Well done Craig.Excellent speech.Thank you.

  10. Ana Tomazini

    19 Aug, 2012 - 8:41 pm

    I’m sure you and all the other people who spoke before Mr. Assange made a great contribution for his case … UK is so wrong and all over the World people are starting to realise what is behind so many things that happens in this World ! Thanks again ! Great speech ! And we will keeping watching !!! Ana from Brazil !

  11. Well done Craig! Thankyou for speaking truth to power – long may you do so!

  12. Re. Michael
    Exactly my point. Why didn’t the US present an extradition request directly to the UK?

  13. Dick the Prick

    19 Aug, 2012 - 8:49 pm

    How come we don’t give a toss about Rwandan mass murderers but Assange gets the full royal treatment? Billy Hague looks like an a nieve bellend with his reputation in tatters.

  14. @ Michael,

    Bradley Manning:

    Over 800 days incarceration.

    U.S.constitutional limit=120 days.

    Solitary confinement,constant surveillance.No bed sheets or clothes.No exercise except 1 hour per day outside cell.After what the world knows of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib it’s likely Manning will be revieving other ahem,”advanced interrogation techniques”.

    No trial or evidence presented against him,so far.

    And you think Assange doesn’t have valid reasons to be afraid and suspicious?

    Where is the law there Michael?

  15. Awesome. I bet Fetus was giving the silent scream when he heard that.

  16. Great speech Craig. Hope you have seen this page on the justice4assange site. http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html

    The rape laws in Sweden apparently mean that the accused is guilty until proved innocent.

    See also this page: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/

    Apparently Karl Rove (no less) is advising the Swedish Moderate government. And the lawyer for Assange’s accusers works as a partner in a high powered corporate law firm. The other partner, a former Swedish Minister of Justice, was the person who OKed the CIA extradition of asylum seekers…

  17. Jives,

    oh yes, I agree that Manning has been treated despicably, just as other prisoners as well
    I also have very little faith in the US justice system
    as a whole, given its history of dubious executions, not to speak
    of Guantanamo et al.

    I would never advocate or agree to Assange being extradited to the US from anywhere for what is clearly a political charge.

    However, my entire points about Sweden
    I do not believe that the US background should serve to allow Assange to escape an ordinary trial in Sweden for the offences he is accused of. Yes, the presumption of innocence applies, but that’s what we have trials for, right?

    If the US demands his extradition, he can fight that in Sweden just as in the UK and with no lesser chances of success.

  18. Chris and Michael, I do not know why the US doesn’t extradite Assange directly from the UK, but these are my speculations; anyone with better knowledge of the legal situation, please correct me.

    1) To extradite Assange, the US would need to charge him. Maybe the charge itself could be fought as unconstitutional, or maybe the US consensus is that it would just look bad.

    2) There is an extensive prosecution file that has already been built against Assange in the US, but from what I’ve read, they don’t intend to charge Assange until the Swedish legal action is complete. I don’t know why, but:

    3) Maybe it’s “news management”, in that a prosecution that contradicts the US Constitution won’t generate as much disapproval if the accused is “a convicted rapist”.

    Warning – paranoid conspiracy theories follow:

    4) According to Swedish law, Assange would be held incommunicado and the trial would not be public, and this could be abused.

    5) Maybe it has something to do with Wikileaks’ original servers being located in Sweden.

    Most of these seem like fairly weak theories to me; the “news management” aspect seems the most likely. However, it is abundantly clear that Assange is being set up such that the US can do something to him. There is the file against him (over 1000 pages), the very odd origins and progression of the allegations against him, the refusal by the Swedish authorities to question him in the UK, and Craig’s testimony on the previous thread that the US is pressuring the UK.

  19. Assange is alas a crushing embarrassment to the general cause of freedom of information, as even the Guardian seems to recognise. To see him burbling on in his self-indulgent way from the balcony of an Embassy representing a country with as puny a human and media rights record as Ecuador takes post-modern irony literally to new heights.

    If anyone is interested in some of the finer points of diplomatic immunity – and what rights HMG might or might not have to withdraw acceptance of an Embassy building’s diplomatic status in ways fully compatible with the Vienna Convention – here is an expert exchange between two other former British Ambassadors: http://charlescrawford.biz/blog/more-on-assange-and-diplomatic-immunity-1

  20. Just a quick point about Sweden which all Swedes know but which most people who aren’t Swedes don’t: Sweden is dominated by one family: the Wallenbergs Their power is sometimes referred to as the “Wallenberg grip”. They basically take a cut from everything, as ‘rent’ for owning the country. I’ve lived in Sweden, and in my experience this is something that almost all Swedes will readily acknowledge, even if they’re not usually the ones to mention it first.

  21. UK – RULED BY US EMPIRE PUPPETS – WHO KNEW?! – 1

    UK SUBSERVIENCE TO THE US EMPIRE

    Robin Ramsay of UK Lobster points out that as the UK is now utterly subservient to the US, it has become absolutely taboo to mention this reality. But there is _no_ independent British government, there are _no_ independent government ministers and there will be no independent British government, or independent government ministers.

    The UK is as absolutely and completely occupied by the US Empire – whether by the Neo-Con Nazis of Obama or by the Neo-Con Nazis of Cheney – as France was in WW2, with almost no troops required!

    “Tell them we’re ‘Allies’ and they, apparently, just roll over!”

    - On Craig Murray interfering with the US War of Terror in Uzbekistan by pointing out that relying on the confessions of muslims being boiled to death on Tony Blair’s say so might not provide sound intelligence. And/or be illegal under British law …

    - On Lockerbie and the release of Libyan patsy al-Megrahi, rather than confim English and Scottish judicial integrity to be the utter farce that it is under the US Neo-Con Nazi Empire. Which fact was about to shouted from the rooftops to the world via al-Megrahi’s appeal.

    See Lobster #58, ‘The meaning of subservience to America’ – Page 87, Issue #58 -

    - http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/issue58.php

    The elites of Europe sold out their own peoples at the end of World War 2. With the end of the US Empire they are starting to ignore the US Empire, says Johan Galtung. But many who owe their careers to the US Empire’s patronage continue to serve their imperial master. In the UK and in Sweden for two. Hence Bliar, Brown, Cameron and Clegg.

    - Robin Ramsay at UK Lobster provides chapter and verse that the UK has been in the US’s pocket since Suez. See ‘Who were they traveling with?’ by Tom Easton, from Lobster #31 –

    - http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l31whowh.htm

    Ramsay further reports that these Atlantic Bridge false-front foundations are US trolling bait for UK traitors. Oops, our bad, ‘Up and coming UK politicians.’ –

    - ‘Unperson – A life destroyed’ – Denis Lehane – page 209, issue 59 –

    “This is not Dennis Lehane the American crime writer of that name. This is Denis (one ‘n’) Lehane, the co-author with Martin Dillon of of the 1973 Penguin Special Political Murder in Northern Ireland. Lehane was a journalist and this book is his account of what befell him when he declined to be recruited by the CIA. Although mostly an account of how a life can turn to shit if the spooks start playing with it, this is of significance because of the names that Lehane names.

    “Lehane was awarded a Harkness Fellowship to go and study in the USA and discovered that the Harkness scheme is a front for an intelligence recruitment operation. Bright young things (though not so young in Lehane’s case) go the States where the CIA can give them a look over and recruit the best. When Lehane declined to be recruited he became a man – worse, a journalist – who knew something he shouldn’t and the Agency and its various allies in the US and here set about discrediting him. Lehane attempted for almost 20 years to get his version of reality taken seriously by a thick slice of the great and the good in UK public life, without success. When it comes to it most people put career and reputation ahead of something as relatively trifling as the truth.”

    “This is an important addition to the collection of stories of innocent individuals who are trashed by the state simply to save it from embarrassment. (CF Malcolm Kennedy’s story in this issue.)” – Robin Ramsay.

    - ‘Unperson – A life destroyed’ – Denis Lehane – page 209, issue 59 –

    - http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster59/lobster59.pdf

    Blair, Brown, Mandelson (cited in another issue) and others all took the freebie trips, but did they also take the US shilling? – Issue #60, page 90 -

    - http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/issue60.php

  22. UK – RULED BY US EMPIRE PUPPETS – WHO KNEW?! – 2

    THATCHER SOLD OUT BRITAIN

    “YOU SAY I’M A US EMPIRE NEO-CON NAZI @@#$HO LIKE IT’S A BAD THING !”

    Margaret Thatcher too was of that Anglo-American foundation gravy-train ilk, says UK Lobster.

    Tony Benn points out that he opposed allowing the US Empire to take ownership of Britain’s North Sea oil. He fought for a national oil company that would preserve that wealth for future British generations. But Thatcher ‘fixed’ it for her Anglo-American chums. Today Britain’s oil is nearly gone and the City is kaput since 2008, says investor Jim Rogers.

    Jim Rogers – UK Bankrupt! – December 10, 2010 – RT –

    - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fflOhutJXYY

    NORWAY’S OIL WEALTH

    Norway, on the other hand, kept its oil wealth for future generations. Now $450 B (B as in Billion). For which, and opposing Israel’s Jewish Nazis, it apparently received a taste of the US Empire’s ‘Strategy of Tension’ via USUK-Neo-Con-Nazi-Quisling ‘Bonkers’ Breivik.

    - Where then is sane? Europe – A progressive land of milk and honey, where the crazy right wing is ‘Norwegian conservative guy’ @ 1.20. Excepting, naturally, USUK-Neo-Con-Nazi-Quisling ‘Bonkers’ Breivik. –

    - Norway’s oIl wealth @ 1.50 –

    - From Michael Moore’s Sicko –

    - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svSUCbClg8E

    REAGAN AND THATCHER – ‘GONE WITH THE WIND’ – 80s AGITPROP POSTER

    Thatcher, Reagan and Reich-wing Fascists, using the methods of the Nazis. No change there, then! -

    - The ’80s agitprop ‘film poster’ of Margaret Thatcher in the arms of Ronnie Raygun, with a mushroom cloud in the background. (“She promised to follow him to the end of the earth. He promised to organise it!” “The most EXPLOSIVE love story ever.” “Directed by Hank Kissinger,” etc. etc. Back when Britain had a left wing. With teeth!) -

    - http://www.vinmag.com/online/media/gbu0/prodxl/AP1063-gone-with-the-wind-anti-nuclear-poster-1983.jpg

    Or – http://tinyurl.com/83hvctt

  23. UK – RULED BY US EMPIRE PUPPETS – WHO KNEW?! – 3

    ROBIN RAMSAY – UK LOBSTER

    THE CITY

    ‘WELL HOW DID WE GET HERE?”

    There is an important essay for economic neophytes (ER, ‘Us’?) on the UK’s economy and the City by Robin Ramsay in UK Lobster, Winter 2010.

    Pages 64 – 105. A lot of work? “If you think education is expensive (or hard work), try ignorance!” See the Neo-Con Nazis and the last eleven years for details! ; )

    So you should probably add reading as much else of Lobster’s _free_ information as you can to your To Do list. ; )

    William Blum, author of ‘Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War 2′ recommends UK Lobster. ‘The British journal, Lobster — which, despite its incongruous name, is a venerable international publication on intelligence matters’ – July 2012 Anti Empire Report.

    His monthly ‘Anti-Empire Reports’ are always useful.

    - http://killinghope.org/

    OIL – Page 83

    “Reducing inflation and deciding what to do with the coming oil money were two big items on the economic agendum in late 1970s Britain. Let’s take oil first. In the Labour Cabinet Tony Benn wanted to create an oil fund – what would now be called a sovereign wealth fund – to be used for industrial investment. (This is what Norway did with its oil money; their oil fund is now worth roughly $450 billion.) But after a debate in Cabinet, the fund idea was rejected. Benn noted in his diary:

    ‘So that is the end of the saga of oil revenues. They are now a part of general public expenditure…..we are going to give it away in tax cuts.’ 50

    - 50 Tony Benn, Conflicts of Interest: Diaries 1977-80 (London: Hutchinson, 1990) pp. 280/1.

    MANUFACTURING VS THE CITY – Pages 93, 94

    13% vs 7% OF UK GDP

    “It was the same old story: give the bankers freedom and they will lend too much (enriching themselves and their shareholders) and screw things up. The new factor this time was the enormous power of modern computers which enabled them to screw things up on a truly epic scale.”

    “As the British economic commentators surveyed the wreckage of the world economy in 2009, those who had formerly seen financial services as the future of the British economy discovered this was the delusion the likes of Dan Atkinson, Larry Elliott and Will Hutton always said it was. They also discovered that even after 30 years of economic policies hostile to it, manufacturing was still a bigger section of the British economy than the financial sector: roughly, manufacturing is 13% and financial services 7% of the UK’s GDP.”

    “Telegraph economics editor Edmund Conway:

    ‘One dangerous misconception perpetuated by financial lobbyists is that without the City, we are nothing. Financial engineering [sic], they argued, was something Britain was well placed to do, while mechanical engineering could be carried out far more cheaply by the Chinese, or with far greater quality by the Germans. While it is a compelling narrative, and fits nicely with the British propensity for defeatism, it is balderdash.’ 68″

    From “Well How Did We Get Here?” by Robin Ramsay, Winter 2010 – UK Lobster –

    - http://tinyurl.com/9zvaosh

    Pages 64 – 105 – pdf direct –

    - http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster60/lobster60.pdf

    OR search yourself –

    - http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/

  24. Bravo Craig. Passionate and knowledgeable.

    Thank god for someone with some profile who is prepared to talk out about the corruption of this and previous UK governments.

  25. “Assange is alas a crushing embarrassment to the general cause of freedom of information”

    Stories broken by wikileaks:
    http://www.opendemocracy.net/ryan-gallagher/what-has-wikileaks-ever-taught-us-read-on

    “as even the Guardian seems to recognise”.
    Common knowledge: how the Guardian fell out with Assange http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/from-allies-to-enemies-how-the-guardian-fell-out-with-assange-2179166.html

    “To see him burbling on in his self-indulgent way”
    Your point of view. Not relevant.

    “representing a country with as puny a human and media rights record as Ecuador”
    Seems to show a degree of desperation, I agree. Has Ecuador conducted any illegal wars lately? Facilitated ‘extraordinary rendition’? Abetted the use of torture? Bradley Manning – you are aware of what has happened to Bradley Manning?

    “takes post-modern irony literally to new heights.”
    How high would that be, literally? Five feet? Six?

    “If anyone is interested in some of the finer points of diplomatic immunity”
    I am interested in how you would have reacted if the Polish government had threatened to send forces into the British embassy.

  26. Sorry – I messed up the italicisation. Here goes again. Can a mod please delete the garbled version? Thanks!

    @Charles – you’re so full of snotty bile that I wouldn’t employ you as my diplomat, I can tell you! If you’d stayed on the other thread here after advertising your own blog, you would have learnt that diplomatic couriers can be appointed ad hoc and their persons are inviolable. Yes they have a duty to respect the laws of the receiving state, but that is “without prejudice” to their immunity. End of story. Some things just aren’t for Britain to enforce – not only in other countries’ embassies in London but also on the streets outside or on the road to the Channel Tunnel. To spell it out: Ecuador could appoint Julian Assange a diplomatic courier (no OK is needed from HMG), give him papers to prove his appointment, give him some diplomatic mail, walk him to the ambassador’s car, and then drive him out of the country.

    You may use the word “expert”, but you missed the very simple fact that Britain isn’t allowed to enforce its own legislation if by doing so it would be in breach of the Vienna Convention – unless it resiled from the Convention first, which would probably mean it had to close half its embassies. Several people have made this point. It’s about time you showed us how unpuny, un-self-indulgent, unburbly and “civilised” an expert connoisseur of “finer points” you are, and acknowledged it!

    I don’t think you are as “expert” as you think. On your blog, you say

    “Probably no row at all would ensue if eg the Ecuadorean Embasy or even J Assange starting shooting out of the window without provocation at passers-by and/or the police, gravely abusing the Convention. It would be absurd to say that in such a dramatic situation HMG could enter the Embassy only with the Ambassador’s permission to stop the mayhem: action to strip the Embassy’s diplomatic status would be right in principle, and overwhelmingly popular in this country and probably applauded by any country that takes diplomatic privilege seriously. Thereafter the lawyers could bicker expensively for years. Conclusion? The Vienna Convention sensibly does not make diplomatic immunity a blank cheque. The whole core idea is reciprocity, based upon respecting civilised behaviour.”

    No it isn’t. And it’s silly to argue this in terms of hypothetical shooting incidents and metaphors involving cheques. You really do write as if HMG has given Johnny Foreigner an indulgence by allowing him to have some embassies in London, and it’s up to “civilised” Britain to interpret what to do if Johnny Foreigner does something HMG doesn’t like. Well, it may well be up to Britain to decide what to do, but only within international law, I’m afraid.

    You even call Ecuador “the enemy”. And I thought you once had a job as a diplomat!!!

    My view is that HMG have completely underestimated Ecuador. And I doubt they can get away with blaming translators or the electronics boys who maintain the bugs. The HMG threat sounded as though it had been written by a bully boy from the local council. It was pathetic, written and sent by people who just didn’t get it. They probably think they’re so strong at diplo-chess, but did they even plan for possible consequences? There are supporters of HMG who have jumped at the chance to call those Ecuadoreans excitable (when they’re having a break from imagining Australians shouting “streeewth”), but I wonder whether HMG even considered the possibility that Ecuador might publish the threat that HMG sent them?

  27. Craig Murray, you are a STAR.

    Fantastic.

    A declaration of independence of the alternative.

  28. I don’t see one elsewhere, so if I may offer it, here’s a transcript of Craig’s speech, hope it helps. Greatly appreciate what you are doing, and standing with you from Southern California USA.

    http://youtu.be/dlt_IiQvjNo

    CRAIG MURRAY: We should not forget what this is about. This is about the persecution of an individual who has made life much more simple and more productive for whistleblowers in the Information Age and in an age when, as Western governments become increasingly authoritarian and civil liberties are diminished, we need whistleblowers more than ever to protect the rights of all of us.

    We have heard of areas where WikiLeaks has been active, not only the prosecution of illegal war in Iraq, but the revealing of individual war crimes carried out within that war, the targeting of people for assassination throughout the world and the collusion of governments of different stripes in that targeting for torture and rendition of individuals.

    Now consider this. I blew the whistle on torture and extraordinary rendition and the collusion of the CIA and MI6. I was in consequence immediately charged with extortion for sexual purposes and blackmailing people into sex in exchange for British visas. It took me one and a half years to clear my name of those charges because they routinely charge and try to defame and beat up whistleblowers, and that is what is happening to Julian Assange just as it happened to me.

    I shared a platform across the United States with a very brave lady, Brigadier Janis Karpinski, who was the senior woman in the United States Army. She blew the whistle on the fact that she had seen documents signed personally by Donald Rumsfeld authorizing the torture at Abu Ghraib. The very next day she was charged with shoplifting.

    I could name five or six examples straight away of individual whistleblowers who are always immediately charged with offenses which don’t relate to whistleblowing at all. Because in the United States and the United Kingdom and apparently Sweden today, just as it used to always happen in authoritarian and totalitarian countries, dissidents are not charged with political offenses, they are fitted up with criminal offenses. That is the state our society has come to.

    How likely is it, how likely is it that when I was engaged in a bitter struggle, an internal struggle with my own government who were trying to sack me over the use of torture and I was trying to prevent the use of torture, did I then think, “Oh, that’s a good idea. I’ll go and bed someone tomorrow while I am in the middle of this.” Was Julian Assange, while conducting the campaign of WikiLeaks, so distracted he decided to get into incidental and coincidental criminal activity? Did Donald Rumsfeld get outed as the man who authorized torture by Janis Karpinski just for her to think the very next day she would pop out and do a bit of shoplifting?

    NO. Only our disgustingly complacent and spoon-fed mainstream media would accept such a narrative for one single moment. It is obviously nonsense to anybody with half a brain.

    Now then, let me come to William Hague. William Hague told us that when he was a student he used to drink 14 pints of beer a day. I tell you something, he must have drunk 28 pints the day he decided to threaten to illegally invade the embassy of Ecuador and violate Ecuadorean national territory.

    The Vienna Convention is absolutely plain. The Vienna Convention of 1961 is the single most subscribed international treaty in existence, and it states in Article 22, Section 1, that the diplomatic premises of an embassy are inviolable. Full stop. Are inviolable. You cannot invade the embassy of another country. As Tariq rightly said, there were times when I sheltered Uzbek citizens from their government within the confines of the British embassy in Uzbekistan. Even during the height of the tensions of the Cold War, the opposing parties never entered each other’s embassies to abduct a dissident. The fact that William Hague now openly threatens the Ecuadoreans with the invasion of their sovereign premises is one further example of the total abandonment of the very concept of international law by the neoconservative juntas that are currently ruling the former Western democracies.

    I pointed the Vienna Convention to you. The law that applies within the embassy of Ecuador is the law of Ecuador. When I served for over 20 years as a British diplomat, if I’d ever murdered my ambassador in the embassy, and there were times I was tempted, that would have been prosecuted under UK law and it would have been these gentlemen from the Metropolitan Police who would have come out to the British embassy to investigate the crime that had taken place on British soil. And I tell you this, in international law and in Ecuadorean law, whatever British domestic legislation may say, if the Metropolitan Police enter the premises of the Ecuadorean embassy, they are subject to Ecuadorean law, and they are committing a crime under Ecuadorean law for which those individual policemen are quite likely liable to prosecution.

    And I can tell you something else for certain, the position I’ve just outlined for the invasion of a diplomatic premises is a crime in international law and a crime in the state whose premises are invaded. That is the position which is taken by virtually every country in the world, and it is a crime which is eminently extraditable. So any policeman who forcibly enters the premises of the embassy of Ecuador will find himself liable for extradition to Ecuador as soon as he leaves the United Kingdom.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you all for coming here to listen. I thank deeply from my heart those of you who have come to support Julian Assange and support his continuing struggle for freedom and to support the continuing cause of whistleblowing and revealing that which government does not want you to know. We are here today for freedom. Here we stand. We thank the Ecuadorean government for their support, and we stand with Julian Assange. Thank you very much.

  29. N – “I wonder whether HMG even considered the possibility that Ecuador might publish the threat that HMG sent them?” – was wondering that too. Grand post, thank you. Look forward to a response.

    Meanwhile, thought Brian Barder (dismissed by Charles Crawford as a ‘contrarian’ was germane:

    “The embassy’s premises are unequivocally immune from entry without the agreement of the ambassador, under international law as laid down in the Vienna Convention. Britain can’t lawfully withdraw the embassy’s immunity by gaily passing a law purporting to say it can (quite apart from the fact that the law explicitly rules out any action under it that would be contrary to international law, as your quotation from it makes clear — didn’t you notice that?). The aide memoire given to the Ecuadoreans explicitly threatens them with action that would be blatantly illegal, would prompt action against us in domestic and national courts, cause a storm of international obloquy, and would unquestionably encourage similar retaliation against our own embassies and diplomats (all right for the likes of us — we’re retired). Even the publication of the threat is already causing a storm, giving the im pression that if Britain is so obviously in the wrong, Ecuador and Assange must have right on their side (which they don’t).

    If we disapprove of what’s going on in the Ecuadorean embassy, such as harbouring Mr Assange (although we have given refuge in our own embassies and indeed in Britain to many dissidents and other fugitives from local ‘justice’ over the years), we have a range of remedies open to us: formal protests, recall our ambo for consultation, expel the Ecuador ambassador, break off diplomatic relations and make them close down the embassy. What we can’t do is flout international law by claiming the non-existent right to strip it of its immunity, enter it illegally, and arrest someone taking refuge there. How clever to threaten the Ecuadoreans with the one form of counter-action that is simply not open to us!”

  30. @Me In Us, many thanks for that.

    @N_, I suspect if you call Charles names, he won’t respond to you. May I request, in a personal capacity, that you keep it civil?

    @Ex Pat, your posts were so long they were caught in the spam filter. I’ve approved them, but they are not entirely on topic. Please put longer contributions – especially if not directly related – on your blog, and synopsise/link from here. Thanks.

  31. @Jon — What happened to the sound when Craig started talking about William Hague? I thought his mike was being cut offscreen. Also, anybody, please tell me what the blank was? Neoconservative whats? Thanks

  32. Good speech. Particularly liked the ‘neoliberal junta’ line. It’s hard to accept, and it’s contentious, but it’s valid.

    I love in Oz, and I see similarities. An Oz politician will similarly not risk their career by being deemed anti-american. I doubt that it’s subconscious careerism and rationalisation – I’m convinced that the politicians themselves are fully aware of what they are doing, and know fine well that challenging The Empire will result in the end of their career in front-line politics. This is, one reflection, quite startling. An elected representative can get away with all sorts of mischief, but one word in favour of Assange and they’re out. I’m currently reading Gorby’s memoirs, and the best analogy I can come up with is that it’s rather like the old Soviet Union, where corruption was ok, as long as you didn’t stray from the party line.

    And as to our media, it’s just all a little bit sad. They didn’t get into journalism to parrot the establishment line but, with rare exceptions, that’s what they all end up doing.

  33. More evidence that the US really does intend to extradite Assange:

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html

    “Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.”

    I still don’t see how Sweden fits into this, but the allegations against Assange seem to be fabricated, or at least to have been deliberately cultivated by people within the Swedish authorities. This makes it likely, and probably inevitable, that Assange would be convicted in Sweden.

    I think the detour via Sweden is probably an exercise in propaganda / news management, and such projects work in a cumulative, piecemeal manner. It also buys time for the US while keeping Assange pinned down. But there are other possibilities also. Wikileaks, the organisation, is probably not powerless; remember the encrypted “insurance” file. Without a doubt, the general public see only part of the picture. Behind the scenes, a complex game of chess is probably in progress. The political classes are in the weaker position, so they may just be keeping Assange “in check” for as long as possible.

  34. Charles Crawford: “To see him burbling on in his self-indulgent way from the balcony of an Embassy representing a country with as puny a human and media rights record as Ecuador takes post-modern irony literally to new heights.”
    .
    Guest: To read Charles Crawford burbling on in his self-indulgent way from a forum representing a country with as puny a human and media rights record as the UK takes post-modern irony literally to stratospheric heights.

  35. On the “why Sweden?” question, the answer is plain. It just happened to be where Assange was living. You needed to spring your honeytrap where he physically was, adapting it of course to local circumstances. That is all.

  36. @Brendan: Juntas! We say it “hoontas” here! No wonder! Thanks :-)

  37. @Me In Us, don’t know what happened to the sound – not sure of the source of the clip. Probably a mobile phone or camcorder was used, and I’d expect they go quiet if the wind changes the wrong way. I’ve made a couple of edits to the text; I presume Tariq Ali was speaking, so I’ve amended that.

  38. @Jon, thank you so much, I was wondering about that too. Glad you can fix.

  39. post-modern irony literally to new heights

    On one hand we have the barefoot lawyer (ie busybody/do gooder/Helpy Helpington/Attention whore/Dorothy Miller/…..) in China, who is helped/aided/abetted (the blind bastard is suppose to have jumped out of the window and made his way to US embassy in Beijing)to make his way to US embassy and a big song and and dance later he is in US.

    On the other we have Assange, who takes refuge in an embassy of a third world country,for immunity from persecution here in UK. ie no longer “the mother of parliaments” cock and bull are cutting the mustard, the developing world are playing the same game as the “democracies”, and are ready to help the dissidents who are running away from the clutches of their ruthless tormentors in the developed world.

    However, you seem to verily believe; there is a copyright and a trade mark on the slogans “democracy”, “political asylum”, “dissident”, “political and financial corruption” . Hence the asinine assertions on the legalities and pedantries.

    The main facts before us are, Ecuadoran embassy has called the bluff of the West. This in turn has helped to crumble away the Western claims of oh so supremacy of the “democratic accountability”, which suddenly are sounding as hollows as the sincerity of the “would like fires with that”. This in turn unleashing the force of the neo conservatism ie the congenital fucking liars, which are let loose on us all to debate the technicality of the attacks on the Ecuadoran embassy.

    As the guy in the bar said; Nevermind that shit Here Comes Mongo , the cat is out of the bag, West no longer can occupy the moral high ground lecturing the world on “democracy”, and “accountability” whilst doing what every other two bit dictator does, and persecutes anyone he sees as a dissident.

  40. Craig

    Sky coverage was curious. They really did show virtually the whole of your speech – even identified you as former Ambassador Craig Murray. Sadly the coverage was only for lip-readers as at no point did they turn the sound up and stop there pointless fill-time chat. I actually thought (shock!) they were about to when you were name checked but perhaps a quick loud word in the presenter’s ear cut it short before “let’s hear what he has to say.”

  41. Alan Campbell

    19 Aug, 2012 - 11:59 pm

    Lib Dems, Alex Salmond, Assange. You do like to have a man crush, don’t you, Craig. And on all the wrong men. Nice one.

  42. Good courageous stuff Craig; shedding some light (and sanity) midst the encircling gloom. Keep trucking.

    Some of those gentlemen from the Met shoving one another in the background looked a bit uncomfortable – perhaps it was your suggestion that they too are at risk of having their collars felt.

  43. > Jon 19 Aug, 2012 – 11:14 pm
    > Please put longer contributions – especially if not directly related – on your blog, and synopsise/link from here. Thanks.
    Afraid I don’t have such a thing.

    I thought to take advantage of the weekend’s ‘opportunity’, to help by filling the channel with ‘educational’ information, before the ‘mile wide and inch deep’ crowd – and/or shill avatars – filled it with rubbish, as they are, apparently, wont to do on Monday to Friday, 9 to 5. (Paid avatars? What a surprise! Shocked, Shocked! etc). ; )

    If you care to, you might make this the last. But obviously it’s your choice. With thanks. : )

    UK – RULED BY US EMPIRE PUPPETS – WHO KNEW?! – 4

    ROBIN RAMSAY – UK LOBSTER

    THE CITY

    ‘WELL HOW DID WE GET HERE?”

    OIL – Page 83

    “Reducing inflation and deciding what to do with the coming oil money were two big items on the economic agendum in late 1970s Britain. Let’s take oil first. In the Labour Cabinet Tony Benn wanted to create an oil fund – what would now be called a sovereign wealth fund – to be used for industrial investment. (This is what Norway did with its oil money; their oil fund is now worth roughly $450 billion.) But after a debate in Cabinet, the fund idea was rejected. Benn noted in his diary:

    ‘So that is the end of the saga of oil revenues. They are now a part of general public expenditure…..we are going to give it away in tax cuts.’ 50

    - 50 Tony Benn, Conflicts of Interest: Diaries 1977-80 (London: Hutchinson, 1990) pp. 280/1.

    ER, Not quite ‘the end of the saga of oil revenues’. – Page 86 -

    “Where had the oil riches gone? The Guardian’s Victor Keegan wrote in 1983:

    ‘Most of it, in the supreme irony of economic history, has gone to pay out unemployment to those who would not have lost their jobs if we had not discovered [oil] in the first place.’ (Emphasis added.)55

    “If British economic history since the 1920s shows one thing it is that these ‘ironies’ always benefit the financial and overseas sector and not domestic manufacturing.”

    The ‘overseas sector’, as in the US Empire, aided by the UK Elite, in this case. QED. UK Traitors – (Tory) B’stards all!? No change there, then. ; )

    UNCLE SAM’S NEW LABOUR – Page 88

    UK TRAITORS OR ‘REALISTS’! ?

    “The US government was also paying attention: in 1985 – only two years after Blair became an MP – an official in US embassy in London described him as ‘one of the brightest and most ambitious of recent Labor intake’;60 and the next year Blair took the first of his freebie trips to America.”

    “Brown and Blair were ‘modernisers’ and that had a specific meaning in this period: accept the power of the City and American global hegemony and give up all this nonsense about economic independence (let alone socialism).61 John Smith, another ‘moderniser’ in the Labour leadership, was on the steering committee of the Bilderberg group, one of the key elite forums promoting globalisation, from 1989 to 1992.62 In June 1991 Smith took his then understudy, Gordon Brown, to the Bilderberg meeting at Baden Baden. There Brown met the then obscure governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton. Blair attended the 1993 Bilderberg Conference in Athens.”

    Well I’ll go to the foot of our stairs! Shocked, Shocked to discover gambling going on! ; )

    CASABLANCA

    The Captain Renault Award for recognizing US Empire illegal war, murder, torture-to-death and 27,000 missing ‘disappeared’ Muslims (“Are they alive or are they in mass graves?” – Robert Fisk). -

    - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-obama-has-to-pay-for-eight-years-of-bushs-delusions-1001092.html

    Given to those Shocked, Shocked! at the obvious. – Original – Casablanca – ; ) -

    - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0

  44. Craig, what you say makes sense regarding the honey trap, but if the US want Assange for “espionage”, why bother with the honey trap rather than just taking him from the UK? Assange’s legal team say that extradition to Sweden is a step towards extradition to the US. I can see how conviction in Sweden would be a propaganda victory, but not how extradition to Sweden would be a legal stepping-stone.

    In all, the propaganda seems more important than the legalities, and Charles Crawford’s derogatory comments here would seem to confirm that.

    The US must be certain that Assange will be convicted if tried in Sweden, or they wouldn’t be pressuring the UK government to hand him to Sweden. Assange’s acquittal would be a propaganda disaster.

  45. The Cameron/BBC regime is under increasing pressure from the whistleblowing rebels according to unconfirmed sources.The attack on truth and justice by BBC and Westminster has sparked international condemnation, but Britain’s government has insisted this is a justified operation against rebels.
    .

    The government says its office of public information mounted a special operation after tip-offs from local people about large numbers of whistle blowing rebels operating from hideouts in various villages and cities , allthough these reports are as of yet not verified.
    .

    A statement from Westminster said the hideouts had been destroyed, with a large number of rebel whistleblowers – or ‘law abiding citizens’ as they are sometimes called – being instantly jailed, with dozens of others captured.
    .

    Some of the captured were paraded on state TV, with the images also appearing to show the rebels holding what seem to be large quantities of plackards, and handing around what unconfirmed sources have described as pamphlets

  46. Assange is just one of the first, they will be coming for all that try and stand in their way. If what is happening now does that make that clear to everyone then nothing will, until they get the knock on the door. Please wake up.

  47. Alan Campbell,

    As we’ve come to expect from you on this blog,typical ad hominem attack on Craig.That’s all you ever do on this blog.I guess you don’t have the smarts to engage in the argument or else are just following your line manager’s orders.

    Pathetic,really,Alan.

  48. Charles Crawford,

    You’re a moral coward hiding behind access and privilege.And,of course,if that isn’t enough you’ve got the Whips to steer/blackmail you.How easy,then,to just ollover and toe the idiot line.

    You’re an intellectual coward and unreliable witness Mr.Crawford.

    You’re most probably a Mason too-another gang of cowards trapped by their own corruption and cowardice.Freemasonry?A cheats charter.

    You’re a sham Mr.Crawford and i suspect you know this but are too cowardly to address reality.

  49. @Fedup — Can’t it be a case of “friends don’t let friends ____”? In this case, do injustice or go crazy or commit constitutioncide or patricide or lawicide or whatever you want to call it when a government goes insane and attacks its own country’s heritage? I think Ecuador is doing us and the world a great favor and giving us a fine lesson in manners too, muchas gracias.

    I just looked at Michael Moore’s website and he’s posting a piece by a guy who was at the embassy Friday and describes placards he saw there. This is my favorite: “If Wars Can Be Started by Lies, They Can Be Stopped By Truth.” Because that’s what we’re talking about, whether citizens in democracies can know the truth and hold their governments accountable. Because that’s supposed to be our job.

    http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/my-visit-london-embassy-under-threat

  50. Fedup,

    Sorry dude but i reached the conclusion many years ago that Michael Moore is a fake,a strawman erected to promote the absurd notion that America is a country with political choice/two parties.

    To paraphrase Gore Vidal “There are no two parties in America.They are both branches of the same tree:the Property Party.”

  51. Sorry Fedup,apologies i meant to address that last post to Me In Us.

  52. @Jives, do me a favor, look at Michael Moore’s front page right now, and tell me your problem with it. I think you’re pissing on friends.

    http://www.michaelmoore.com/

  53. Me In Us,

    Perish the thought i would ever piss on anyone let alone friends! :.)

    Sorry but something about Michael Moore just doesn,t add up for me.The wilderness of mirrors/rabbit hole runs very deep.

  54. @Jives, well this was the picture that ran for two days on his front page when the embassy thing started — I couldn’t pick a better one myself to see in a hall of mirrors:

    https://dwoq5s27enw2w.cloudfront.net/uploads/manual_img/12/08/assange.jpg

  55. Me In Us.

    It’s a good picture but it doesn’t,im afraid,change my nagging doubts about Michael Moore’s bona-fides.

  56. The assange rape allegations ring so familiar. Dominic Strauss Kahn battled similar circumstances recently. It was all about tarnishing a persons credibility. The US would much prefer to extradite a convicted rapist to their shores, by than hopefully to a supportive public. If only more government personel could follow Craig’s moralistic point of view and work humanitarily for the people’s who elected them into position. Keep the momentum, encourage constant discussion on the assange case. My hat goes off to Ecuador. A true democracy .

  57. Craig seems convinced that Assange was the victim of a classic ‘honey-trap’ operation, in order to compromise him, destroy his reputation, and through him smash Wikileaks.

    Whilst virtually all the ingredients of a carefully arranged ‘honey-trap’ appear to be present, I’m doubtful it was an attack orchestrated by a combination of the Swedish, UK, and US secret services, with who knows who else was involved.

    But, then, there are so many odd things about this affair, that I wouldn’t be surprised.

    What does seem clear is that as soon as the story emerged the secret services were involved in spinning it for all it was worth. How exactly did the story leak to the press in Sweden? Who leaked the interview transcripts? Was it from inside the police or the Swedish justice department? Leaking the documents is a crime in Sweden, how come the UK journalists aren’t interested in the Swedish lack of interest in finding out who was behind the leaks? One would imagine that ‘raping’ the two women in the media by revealing their identities and intimate details of their sex lives, would galvanize the liberal press into action, as women’s rights apparently mean so much to them. But, I suppose the idea that the media have ‘raped’ the women just to entertain the masses with a juicy sex-scandal isn’t what our hypocritical and self-righteous press are focused on.

    Behind these trumped-up accusations is Assange’s perceived anti-Americanism, which is he real crime. The rest is merely an excuse.

  58. Exactly right, Jives, re Bradley Manning. You tell the truth you go to prison. You lie and cheat for your Zionist/neo-con masters and get a big back-hander.

  59. And there’s another odd bit of text in the Guardian today. They state that Assange is wanted in Sweden for questioning in relation to allegations of “sexual misconduct.” What I’d like to know is, whatever happened to “attacks” “rape” “molestation”? What exactly is “sexual misconduct.” Is “sexual misconduct” even defined as a crime in Sweden? I don’t believe it is. I’m damn sure it isn’t in the UK. What a broad, elastic, and vague term “sexual misconduct” is, and a lot is left to the imagination, a lot is implied, which is the point in using it, which is a form of cowardly smear, and typical of the Guardian’s coverage of this affair.

    One wonders, whatever happened to liberal Britain? When did they become so reactionary? It’s one thing to criticize an individual for being anti-American, that’s political rhetoric. But to “rail-road” a person on trumped-up charges of sexual misconduct, in order to destroy their reputation, crush dissent, and ruin them, is something else. It’s a crime.

  60. Great Speech, It outshone Assange’s really, though I heard his remarks are constrained by Ecuadorian law vis-a-vis political asylum.

  61. Writerman

    The whole sequence of events is covered here. First posted by Yonatan.

    http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

  62. An excellent speech, Craig andjust at the right time. The relevance of it to the assembled Met officers was duly noted, not necessarily by them, they would argue, but in a court of law they could say that they did not know, have never heard of it. They did!
    Non of them could possibly get away with raiding an embassy, after having listened to you warning them of the consequences of such actions.

    Looks like we all have good reasons now to organise the ‘alternative’ as someone so aptly said.
    I shall meet with a prospective Independent PCC candidate this week. There are 41 of them nationally and a good show in November will be a boost for next years County council elections.

    Sorry Charles C., your grumpy cowardly remarks are that of a barrow boy, not a diplomat, whatever your thoughts of Assange this is not relevant.
    Who put you up for this Charles?

  63. @Jon – I will try to tone down my language as requested, but I am not expecting a response from Charles. I doubt he can do anything other than bilious when he’s talking about foreigners HMG doesn’t like. Or home-grown oppositionists for that matter.

    @expat – Norway did create an oil fund (which they now call a ‘pension’ fund), but they use hardly any of it for internal industrial development. Most of it’s invested abroad. Norwegian economists are trained to think that investing it internally would be ever so dangerous, inviting ‘Dutch disease’!

    One of the differences with the UK is that in the UK that kind of thing is widely accepted to be the elite’s business. Although some of us are old enough to remember the ceremony in which the queen started the oil flowing, we’re not supposed to figure out that the oil gets sold and therefore the money must go somewhere. So there’s no need for those of us outside the elite to be given a line we can parrot!

    It remains true that they run the UK as if it were the British Empire. Look at the school system for one thing.

    @Craig – great speech, mate. That it was from the heart came out for me especially when you covered MI6, the media, the need for more people to blow the whistle, and the fake allegations made against whistleblowers, of which you too were a victim.

    I think we’ve all got to keep our anger up. I’ve seen media articles sneering at David Shayler for cracking up mentally. Got to ask what kind of editor wants such articles and what kind of scribbler types them out. When the Sun sneered at Frank Bruno for having a breakdown, at least they were forced to apologise. But Shayler exposed HMG’s crimes in Libya and what they were ‘doing a Nelson’ to in London. There’ll be no apology for him. I hope he recovers.

    @ everyone – interesting about Karl Rove in Sweden, eh?

  64. @N_, cheers.

    @all, safe ground for the BBC, who doesn’t have to look far for a wide chorus of mocking and opposition for Assange from the MSM. The Indie and the Guardian, coincidentally, both make references to comedies (Are You Being Served and Monty Python respectively), with the BBC only too happy to echo them both. Very sad indeed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19316973

  65. What happened in Stockholm was by design, so it seems. But by who and for what purpose has yet to be seen. Sofia Wilen was the catalyst in the early stages, she came in from absolutely nowhere and just happened to have such strong desire to be close to her hero that she eagerly volunteered to help out and managed to end up skin to skin. Sofia has had a very low profile during the consequent time. There is very little information on her, too little.

    Then she contacted Anna Ardin and they together went to the police, not to charge him for anything but for asking about advice if they could demand Julian to be tested for VD. Then it all played out from there in the most twisted and wierd forms between the prosecutors and the police and Julian, basically they didn’t have anything on him and the prosecutors where just stalling and stalling and stalling. Nothing happened, they had plenty of time to interview Julian in Stockholm if they wanted, but that was not how it was supposed to play out.

    The only conclusion one could get out of this is that someone is pulling strings.

  66. @Jives – Hi, thanks for looking, and I’m sorry and mystified about your opinion of Michael Moore. I’ve been following him for years here and I have the greatest appreciation of him and what he does. It’s not just respect, it’s delight. He’s funny and sweet and smart and brave and gets in places others don’t. It doesn’t even have to be political. Right now he’s got a twitter thing going where he tweets when he’s going for a walk and people all over put on their shoes and go out and walk with him, wherever they are. They tweet in pictures of things they saw on their walk. He just makes friends and community everywhere. I feel like I’m a friend too so I’ll stand up for him here and disagree with you. Best wishes.

  67. @Me In Us: I agree. Part of the problem with some alternative explanation theories is that the lies are said to be so multi-layered, it becomes less about politics and more about philosophy, existentialism and choosing pills from The Matrix. If every challenge to state/corporate power (such as a film director, a whistleblower website or a leaker) is reported in the MSM, then by definition it/they must be a plant, and you should Trust No-one.

    I just don’t think this is sensible politics, mainly because it is in serious danger of eating itself. By its very rules, holders of such a worldview could easily be accused of being stooges paid to distract people with stuff about Olympic Occult Ceremonies and other nonsense. Occam’s Razor seems sensible to apply: greed is wrecking the world, and there are plenty of good people left to challenge it.

  68. The US Center for Constitutional Rights interviewed in this video states that it is generally agreed that in international law, asylum takes precedence over extradition requests.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=8709

  69. @Jon, thanks. I like questions. I like questioning authority. I like questioning questioners. I want to understand everybody and where they’re coming from. A local artist and film critic here, UCSD’s Manny Farber, said something I always remember: “I have a great love of the actual.” I loved that. I am so big on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and reasoning and jiving together. So I have sympathy with Jives’ doubts and questions, I just don’t know the rest of it.

    I watched a youtube last night, an interview of Chris Paine, the filmmaker who made Who Killed the Electric Car? (* below) and now Revenge of the Electric Car. I had seen it before and I was trying to remember what he said he took from Wikileaks:

    http://youtu.be/Xb5y-uSxkCc?t=12m13s

    Chris Paine: You know, the most telling thing in this, a lot of people don’t know, but if you read the WikiLeaks, there’s a lot in WikiLeaks, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. ambassador, about, “You know, we are overstating oil reserves by about 40%. So heads up.” And I think this is why the Pentagon is like, “Electric cars are like a good idea, because we need the oil for our supertankers and our airplanes, and let’s have a Plan B.”

    So now the military acknowledges oil depletion, okay, we can try electric cars again. It’s not just crimes that WikiLeaks revealed, it’s simple world facts we should all know. If you saw Who Killed the Electric Car?, you saw a new, viable alternative to oil get not just killed but disappeared. Every EV-1 got clawed back and shredded, and it wasn’t just GM, and the swell battery technology got sold to an oil company that locked it away in a closet. Electric cars came into existence here in part because of a California zero emissions mandate, and then the car and oil companies made the mandate disappear and the cars went with it. Gone, never happened, poof. It set the world back how many years, and we’re still doing atrocities everywhere there’s oil? How sucky is that? How stupid is that? Pretty sucky, pretty stupid, pretty sad. None of these wars are just or necessary if we could just see clearly and think together. And I think thinking together is fun.

    Paine at one point talks about where he’s coming from with his films:

    http://youtu.be/Xb5y-uSxkCc?t=19m3s

    CP: Listen. I majored in international relations, so I was going to be a diplomat or something. And somewhere along the line I learned that no matter how much you argue, you’re not going to convince someone of anything, because everyone’s already decided what their opinion is. So what can change people’s minds are emotions and experiences, and movies have a way of giving people emotions and experiences that don’t necessarily need to be argument. And I felt that was a better way to like be persuasive than just arguing all the time.

    So, credit to Paine, credit to Moore, credit to Craig, credit to Julian. And credit to Paine’s interviewer, whose words end the youtube:

    CP: So for a lot of people it’s just the experience can change them. Like, “Oh, yeah, I guess I’m behind this.” And the argument changes. So I – you know what I’m saying? Like, experience changes people.

    DP/30: Yeah. No, the more you know, the less likely you are to be an extreme radical on any side.

    CP: Yeah.

    So that’s my answer to Jives. Thanks all.

    (* This is the trailer for Who Killed the Electric Car? — here in Southern California I actually had the chance to lease one. I mean, I saw them myself, they weren’t just a theory or a fable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8 )

  70. @me in us – oh yes, I agree with your approach to questioning. And for the most part, I don’t think people should avoid any topics in order to avoid being branded a conspiracy theorist or whatever. I don’t know much about electric cars, but I can well imagine they might find it difficult to get to market as a result of corporate chicanery.

    But my basic point still stands – there is a brand of political analysis that really ignores the basic Left/Progressive analyses, and wants to see a hidden villain controlling the world, laughing maniacally. Such perspectives are self-fulfilling, since anyone who posits a more complex explanation (such as, how the media tends to follow established power, or how capitalism amplifies greed traits) will get dismissed as a stooge for the system.

    (* I’ll bookmark your video, will watch when I get a mo – thanks).

  71. Damian Hockney

    21 Aug, 2012 - 2:57 pm

    As a former member of the now-defunct Metropolitan Police Authority, which held the Met to account, I would have been able to have raised absurd use of resources publicly with those responsible and heard their responses. Now that the authorities have got rid of the MPA and any proper oversight, the forum is not there. Just a part-time committee tacked on to an impotent body, the London Assembly, giving you the opportunity to address questions…to another politician.

  72. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaUGB3sjbs

    Above is Link To the Australian Doc Film about Wikileaks
    Dated JULY 2012
    NOT MADE BY BBC
    NOT MADE BY FOX
    NOT MADE BY CNN
    NOT MADE BY CH4

    Click on.link
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaUGB3sjbs

  73. What impact, if any will Gallaway’s comments have? It’s pretty clear to me that this is a set up. I may not have all the facts but I can smell a rat – something’s not quite right. I even agree with Gallaway’s sentiments (that if you have consensual sex, then 3 hours later have sex “half asleep” then go on a couple of dates, it is unlikely that the “half-asleep sex” is rape) but I don’t think the way he put it helped Assange. The focus of the debate has moved more towards “was it rape” rather than “is this a set up”.

    People often say that Assange hasn’t been charged and that he has offered to be interviewed in the embassy. However, some say that the Swedish Court don’t just want to interview him but arrest him so that he can be charged (i.e. under Swedish law you have to be arrested to be charged). Others point to the fact that Sweden cannot guarantee that he won’t be extradited to the US as under Swedish law all extraditions must be looked at on their (individual) merits. I think I have a solution. Why can’t Assange reverse the situation (on the promise of no extradition)? He should offer to be tried in absentia from the embassy via web-link with the promise that if he is found guilty he will return to Sweden to serve his sentence (if he really has no charges to answer this should work in his favour). Alternatively, if found guilty, instead of returning to Sweden he could serve the sentence in Britain or even in Ecuador (surely Britain wouldn’t deny him safe passage to an Ecuadorian prison cell?).

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted by Expathos