Full marks Craig Murray – well spoken.
It appears surreal that the UK government would seriously contemplate invading the Ecuadorian Embassy. Hague and Cameron are sounding like tin pot dictators. Not surprisingly:-
“We warn the government of the United Kingdom that it will face grave consequences around the world if it directly breaches the territorial integrity of the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London,” said a statement issued at the end of the ALBA meeting.”
So, because UK supplicants are making stupid threats about violating another country’s sovereignty in service and subservience to the US – bone heads are going to kick off an international crisis.
One small fact leads me to a conclusion of contrivance and collusion, when one weighs the allegations made by the two Swedish women against Assange versus the Swedish authorities response. Would it not be logical to accept Assange’s offer to the Swedish authorities to be interviewed at the Ecuadorian Embassy as a first rational step in a criminal prosecution?
When one considers that it was from the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights 1688 that one sees a development of jurisprudence over centuries and precedents and practice in support of journalistic freedoms and the broad right to freedom of expression evolving – the events surrounding Assange signifies an attempt to turn the clock back on freedom of expression. The US relied on the UK 1688 Bill of Rights and its principles to frame within the US Constitution – the First Amendment. Now it wants to act contrary to all the First Amendment principles it had sensibly enshrined centuries ago.
So, as I said, it appears surreal that a democratic government, at its highest level, would actually express and weigh its chances of violating a sovereign nation’s embassy. Dumbfounded that the US has been attacking freedom of speech ( “expression” in the broader context of its own First Amendment). I am absolutely dumbfounded and in a state of shock and disbelief.

UK GUARDIAN – NOW SHOOTING ITSELF IN BOTH FEET, DAILY !!!

NO, REALLY!

Craig, your speech was tremendous. Because of your conviction and your justified outrage. Your best yet, against some truly wonderful previous talks. Link below. (*1).

> The Guardian’s shrill and vitriolic campaign against Assange is extraordinary in its ferocity, persistence and pointless repetition.. The sad truth is that its origins lie in the frustration of the Guardian’s hopes to make a great deal of cash from involvement in Assange’s putative memoirs.

Jung tells us that there is no evil so great that good cannot come out of it. And no good so great that evil cannot come out of it. Gee – there’s a hard idea to grasp! ; )

In that light, for benighted USans who might have been bamboozled by the Guardian’s liberal reputation, this Guardian lie is actually an excellent development.

Previously, the Guardian shot themselves in the foot with views that utterly belie any liberal or progressive reputation that they ever had. – Their ridiculous and perfidious misrepresentation of their interview with Chomsky, for one.

Now, they continue to shoot themselves in the foot every day with more lies – Rusbridger’s continuing lies on the Wikileaks story for a couple of hundred!

Today they are using an RPG on both feet daily. – Hiring a Neo-Con Nazi columnist for only of many, many examples.

This is a great development! Even for those who are largely misinformed, reality is much easier to grasp!

No, really! ; )

We really _do_ live in an Operation Mockingbird Mk XXII world. And the Guardian proves it each and every day. Thank you God! (*2)

Thank you for previous and ongoing tremendous efforts.

OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD Mk XXII

The point about the original Operation Mockingbird was not that _hundreds_ of mainstream writers were recruited. They were.

It was that ALL channels of communication were controlled.

Think that ‘Biggus Dickus’ Richard Cheney is likely to have been _less_ diligent than the original in the 1950s / 60s?

No chance!

Asia Times – Bent

Democracy Now – Bent

“Thank you for ga____ing” – Amy Goodman and / or staff on DN.

Counterpunch – Bent – ‘On the CIA dole’ – Jeffrey St. Clair. Personally, I’ll take him at his word. Particularly give ten years of milque-toast Cockburn posting, compared to his white-hot demolition jobs before that. Anything after 2001 was barely luke-warm.

The Propaganda Department known as ‘Mike Whitney’ – nothing but Bent

Christopher Hitchens – Very Bent indeed. – “I know why he writes what he writes.” – Gore Vidal. Who unfortunately did not deign to share that knowledge with us.

Truthdig – Don’t make us laugh! Which makes one wonder about Ramparts in the 1960s. And all its alumni.

And of course the Grauniad, Independent, Telegraph and all the others!

OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD

Operation Mockingbird – Spartacus Schoolnet –

- http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

Operation Mockingbird –

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

(*1) Afghanistan in one sentence, from Craig Murray – UK ambassador to Uzbekistan – “There are so many lies about Afghanistan; it’s about money; it’s about oil; it’s about drugs; it’s about the abuse of human rights; it’s about degradation; it’s about all of us paying through our taxes for wars that benefit a tiny clique.” – Craig Murray – UK/USA made use of Uzbek torture Pt2 –

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MQoG5wfx5g#t=09m56s

NUREMBERG MK II

“The Neocons, ER, Heydrich, were careerists who instituted the industrial killing of millions in an effort to please Cheney (Hitler) and win promotion.” “You cannot just order the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. No normal person would do such a thing.” Paraphrased. The following is the neutered replacement version that completely alters the damning commentary of the first ‘Memory Holed’ version! -

- Now gone entirely! -

- US Bathwater / Neocon Nazis – just like this lovely fellow? – WW2 – Heydrich –

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF1NXE55LBE#t=01m20s

Poor US Neo-Cons / Our Tony — Terrified of their date with destiny — A long drop on a short rope. – Nuremberg Mk II. –

Mk I for comparison – Nuremberg Executions of N_zi Leaders for ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ and ‘Crimes Against the Laws of War.’ – Original –

- http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=95d_1206462963

(*2) More “Thank you, God!” – Rhys Ifans’s prayers are answered! – Notting Hill –

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMB3mUytpM#t=00m50s

The Western democracies are putting rights in reverse – and a full and forceful legal stand in the Assange affair, becomes important if the stealthy theft of rights is to change gear.
It is unacceptable that this Guantanamo gulag arrangement continues. Habeas corpus and due process must extend to all accused persons. How can a country profess to uphold the protection of human rights and values in accordance with the principles of a democratic society while simultaneously permitting indefinite detention and torture.
In the US there is the National Authorization Defense Act. President Obama signed it into law on the 13th December, 2011 and this piece of legislation goes a step further in compromising rights and bringing the US domestic legal situation into disrepute by denying US citizens rights in ways analogous to detainees in Guantanamo.
Just use the word “terrorist” and rights can be ignored and persons can be placed indefinitely in military detention camps. Courts are being erased and Executive actions are to be substituted for the rule of law adjudicated before Judges in a public trial. In the Assange affair Cameron and Hague want to tear up the Vienna Convention. Sad and disturbing.

Its odd that the British Govt would go ballistic and paranoid to the point just to get Assange over for just questioning.

Its also odd, that he’s been accused by not one woman from the same country as the other within a relatively short time frame….doesn’t add up as far as I’m concerned. The CH4 Documentary Dispatches from 1997 ‘Murder in St James’ summed it up for me, ie The death of PC Yvonne Fletcher has some of the hallmarks over the Ecuador Embassy, ie to frame Libya (The two part documentary interviewed 3 experts including one ballistics expert and one forensic scientist who claim the bullet trajectory came from a neighboring building which housed some murky organisation. Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, the parallel obfuscations are all too apparent.

The confidence the govt had to execute a war in Libya over oil due to public amnesia and not being held to account by the lame media and clever spinning lies was present in the Guardian. I wander who pull their strings.

It seems to me, in far-off British Columbia, that the UK politicos and perhaps other UK folks are following or are being influenced by the #USA .. too damn much. On the other hand, I suppose your petroleum & financial guys -who are close to the dark side- also have UK political heft. I think Assange isn’t the most personable guy around, yet I would give him a medal for Wikileaks. A hero, really.

The Guardian has moved so far to the right they may as well sell themselves to Murdoch.

The Assange story is being vigorously spun all over the MSM. See Melanie Phillips’s opinion (ring-)piece in the DM: “This monstrous narcissist is playing Britain’s governing class for suckers”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2190724/This-monstrous-narcissist-playing-Britain-s-governing-class-suckers.html

I’m no fan of Assagne. Most of the diplomatic cables released on Wikileaks were not in any way incriminating. They were simply stolen data. It’s kind of a contradiction that he’s so vocal in attacking government intrusion and misuse of power when he himself intrudes into people’s private data and publishes it on the internet. What about all those private and confidential opinions in the cables? And not just the US diplomats, I’m thinking more of the people the diplomats were quoting and talking about. Probably more than a few people hurt there. Assagne talks about his freedom of expression but what about everybody else’s freedom to express themselves in private? He’s a one-man police state in his non-respect for freedom and privacy. And teaming up with the government of Ecuador in this crusade? Well they are a well-known defender of journalistic freedom, right?

Assange should have published only the data that was incriminating – the Guantanamo Bay and air strikes stuff. Then he would have more of a claim to whistleblower status.

That said, the UK response is completely ridiculous. Threatening to tear up the Vienna Convention? Being a party to these so obviously trumped-up sex charges? Absolute shame on them. If there’s no current law they can use against Assange for handling stolen data like he did then they should work on making that law. And to make that law they will probably need international cooperation. Which they are not likely to get when they go around threatening other countries’ embassies. In fact, forget international cooperation. Just get him with a drone attack. Where is the Ecuadorian embassy, anyway? Take out a couple of blocks of London. Anybody in close proximity to a target must be an enemy combatant, right? There you go…

Excellent speech at the embassy, Craig – fantastic timing that you were home in time. So important for you to weigh in on this. The two speeches (yours and Julian’s) taken together are really inspiring.

The Guardian (though much improved in this respect recently with coverage of the court martial) was also appalling in its coverage of Bradley Manning, most notably in the production of a terrible video around April 2011 which it actually entitled ‘The MADNESS of Bradley Manning’ (my capitals).

It attempted to slightly mitigate this AWFUL slur by adding a question mark (ie The Madness of Bradley Manning?) as if this made it acceptable. The same stuff then appeared in a double spread in the print edition (with an introductory paragraph on the front page) which was one of the shoddiest piece of shit I have ever read. Suffice it to say that it told us at least THREE times that he ‘wet himself’, and repeated the phrase ‘mess of a child’ (one ex soldier’s assessment) several times. It quoted from a neighbour who said (in support of the insinuation that Brad’s ma had issues with alcohol) that he never saw her drunk but the lights were sometimes on at two in the morning…

And this pathetic, hideous article remains the most extensive coverage ever in our mainstream press to my knowledge. Which makes me weep to think of the lost opportunity and the ‘nail in the coffin’ it became on the real narrative, for it did untold damage, as has the Guardian’s petty and nasty attitude to Julian.

Not to mention the New York Times – it was, I believe, Bill Keller who let us in on the fascinating item of news that Julian ‘didn’t change his socks often enough…’ – and the NYT who, on Thurs, in the middle of this whole enormous Ecuadorean news item, apprised us of the absolutely riveting information that Julian ‘once came to stay without being invited, abused the cat, and didn’t FLUSH THE TOILET’ OMG – now that really IS news. (By the following day these bits of the ‘story’ had been edited out….showing at least some sense of propriety, albeit belatedly; I suppose one must be thankful for that small sign of shame).

What was it you said?

“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,” he added.”

(quoted by Kevin Gosztola http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/08/19/former-british-ambassador-craig-murray-we-need-whistleblowers-now-more-than-ever/)

Thank you again, Craig, for bearing witness.

Although I’ve known about your actions w/r/t Uzbekistan for years and been reading this website for about 2 years, yesterday (via a live stream) was the first time I’ve seen you speak.

Good job, sir, and I agreed with every word. Keep up the good work!

Alas– The Guardian has devolved into a right-wing Labour Party rag.

15 Aug: Guardian: The Guardian adds Josh Trevino to growing US team
“We are pleased to have Josh join the Guardian,” said Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of the Guardian US. “He brings an important perspective our readers look for on issues concerning US politics,” added Gibson.
Trevino’s background spans from speechwriting for the Bush administration to conceiving and co-founding RedState. Treviño is also a writer-at-large for the magazine Texas Monthly…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gnm-press-office/9

Trevino Tweet June 2011:

Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla — well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.
http://twitter.com/jstrevino/status/84685322142760960

Let’s face it, the Anglo-Saxon world is stomping around because they can’t do Everything they like anymore. They don’t have all the money anymore.

People just seem to be thinking about Assange as a whistleblowing hero a la Watergate. And the UK actions are playing into that. But that’s simplistic and misses the more radical ideas on freedom that Assange seems to stand for. He thinks he can publish anything he likes on people without the responsibility to fact check or establish a public interest defense in the case of private or protected information. Why should he be less responsible for what he puts on his website than a newspaper would be for what goes on its pages? Would people who defend him mind at all if he published all their phone records / emails / bank statements / tax returns etc etc? He seems to be working on the principle that if people have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t mind being exposed but that’s exactly the same argument used by a police state and one I wouldn’t expect most of the writers on this forum to agree with. Maybe the best defense against a police state in the internet age is total transparency. So all data, private or government, is open to access by all. Is that what the internet age has brought us to? It’s a radical argument. Call me old fashioned, but no – I like to think that my business is my own and not to be be poked into by Assange or the state without a very good reason.

It may seem puerile to quote this, but I can’t help recalling a line from Game of Thrones. “When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.” It may not be actual kingdoms up for grabs, but there may as well be fields of lances and horsed men lining up to battle. And the prize, should the US be victor, is the ability to rule with continued impunity. And we, the masses have not progressed much further than the serfs in the field. We just think we have because we’re driving Honda’s and slaving away at computers instead of pulling carts and farming onions. Strength to you all and prayers that we can this time, find middle ground.

@DavidH
.
Thank you for your ‘contributions’.
.
“It’s kind of a contradiction that he’s so vocal in attacking government intrusion and misuse of power when he himself intrudes into people’s private data and publishes it on the internet.”
.
You are grasping for a contradiction that does not exist. The point is that publishing classified government data demonstrates the yawning gap between what Western governments proclaim themselves to be advancing: democracy, freedom, etc, and what they actually engage in: grubby realpolitik.
.
Secondly, the banal nature of much of the classified material, which you point to, actually bolsters the argument for releasing it, to show that governments are indulging in secrecy not for national security reasons, but simply as part of a burgeoning culture of secrecy and/or to avoid political embarrassment.
.
Your ‘argument’ regarding Assange’s intrusion into people’s privacy by dint of publishing the Wikileaks cables being at odds with his arguments against government intrusion. Well, that argument founders upon two things (at least). 1/ Julian Assange is not a government 2/ Julian Assange does not seek to create advantage by keeping information secret, and 3/ The original intrusion was undertaken by the US and its allies, shifting it into the public domain may constitute another form of intrusion, but it is motivated by idealistic aims. Besides, those included in the documents are/were given a full picture of what was being said about them and when, a useful Public service.
.
“He thinks he can publish anything he likes on people without the responsibility to fact check or establish a public interest defense in the case of private or protected information. Why should he be less responsible for what he puts on his website than a newspaper would be for what goes on its pages? Would people who defend him mind at all if he published all their phone records / emails / bank statements / tax returns etc etc? He seems to be working on the principle that if people have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t mind being exposed but that’s exactly the same argument used by a police state and one I wouldn’t expect most of the writers on this forum to agree with. Maybe the best defense against a police state in the internet age is total transparency. So all data, private or government, is open to access by all. Is that what the internet age has brought us to? It’s a radical argument. Call me old fashioned, but no – I like to think that my business is my own and not to be be poked into by Assange or the state without a very good reason.”
.
This poorly phrased paragraph basically seeks to characterize Assange as having some radical view on privacy, and firstly extends that to cover private actors such as businesses and individuals. These latter have only become ‘collateral damage’ for Wikileaks where they have intersected with Government. It is government that Assange would deny privacy, too, not completely, but that governments should err on the side of transparency, making them more accountable to their populations, i.e. more democratic. It is hardly a radical idea at all.
.
You then engage in a final personalization and turn an issue, that is, finally, about government secrecy and international law, into somehow being about you, DavidH. If your private business is anything like as chaotic and nonsensical as your public discourse, we’d all be better off if it remained hidden from the public gaze.

The honest world population are supportive of you Craig. Inspiring speech at the embassy of Ecuador. The momentum is continuing, let the citizens of UK , USA, Australia and across the globe come forward and voice their belief in a true democracy, and not bow to the greedy knees of the corrupt and undignified.

While the UK news channels carried Assange’s speech in full live. For subsequent repeatsand for news bulletins it had been editted into an out of context rant against the USA. Neither Craig’s nor any other speech in support of Assange that offered any real context of what was going on were aired. Pretty much all mainstream news media removed any references in Assange;s speech critical of the UK.

On the subject of UK invasion of the Ecuadorian embassy. I believe without doubt that the authorities had every intention of sending in a snatch squad the night before the asylum announcement. Why else would they of had a police Custody wagon parked up in the side rd by the fire escape. If it were not for citizen Journalists and the subsequent call for assistance via twitter and the resultant livestreams put pay to their antics.

Hague’s back peddling on the intention to get Assange out of the embassy by force if necessary is unbelievable considering the threatis there in black and white in the Letter to Ecuador but what seems to have been missed is their stated knowledge of Ecuador’s intention to grant asylum which in itself points to GCHQ intercepting diplomatic communications.

DavidH – welcome to the information age. Like it or not, there’s a lot more information recorded about everything anyone does than ever before. Surely you’ve heard of couples breaking up because one found some “private” information on a shared computer. At first it seems a bit alarming, but if you don’t lie or cheat, what’s really to hide?

What is most amazing is the unprofessionalness of it all. There is no evidence of the most basic fact-checking, for which the Guardian so prides itself, in contrast to journalistic amateurs like Wikileaks.

Moreover, with a few commands in a word-processor this editorial could have been rewritten to take the line “Assange did not mention the rape allegations”, instead of “Assange and his supporters did not mention the rape allegations”. The editorial would then still be expressing more or less the same, obnoxious opinion, but it would, at least, have contained no obvious outright lies.

Craig, can you enlighten me on one thing? we are all agreed that UK is the US’s poodle ally, so why does not the US simply ask the UK to extradite Julian Assange directly? Why bring Sweden into it? Surely it was not necessary to trump up charges that Assange did something wrong in Sweden? Far simpler just to extradite him directly from the UK, surely?

The case in Sweden is an obvious fit up. Multiple people offered Assange alternative accomodation after he supposedly assaulted Ardin. In every instance Ardin herself refused the offers. Ardin also organised a party and tweeted about how cool Assange was. The two Swedish women went to the police only to ask if they could legally compel Assange to take an STD test, Wilen got upset and refused to cooperate when the police started talking about charging Assange with a crime.

Assange was arrested in his absence, the police did not contact him. Before Assange was even notified, the story was leaked to the press. Within 24 hours a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations. Assange voluntarily went to the police and made a statement. The interview was leaked.

On Sep 15th the charges were dropped and Assange was told he could leave Sweden. While in the UK Assange offered to return to Sweden in October, that wasn’t considered good enough and another arrest warrant was issued.

All the info can be found here: abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm

People wonder why Assange is worried about being extradited from Sweden to the US? How about this:

“In December 2001 Swedish police detained Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden. The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P. They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured”
wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden

With Sweden’s history and the US claiming the right to imprison anyone indefinitely or execute them without charges, I wonder if all the Assange naysayers would bet their own life on the integrity of Sweden and the US in this case?

@ James Chater

Because he can simply be rendited from Sweden (who have happly complied with thier masters wishes in the past) , no need to worry about messy extradition proceedings in the UK (in a political case to boot).

Britians hands will then appear to be clean, emphasis on appear- they are not for a million reasons.

To turn question on it’s head, if this is simply about ‘questioning’ him over the allegations why will the Swedish government not give assusrances that he will not be ‘forwarded’ to the USA?

In fact strictly speaking the issue here it to extradite him for questioning (how is it so many manage to ignore this fact), where he has repeatedly offered to answer questions on neutral ground, and infact already has in Sweden.

The point is to get him to Sweden where due process is to law as twinkies are to nurtition, hence they will not meet with him to ask thier question- because there are no questions.

To be fair as we are soon to be a denationalised entity.
The one world government will be seen, the enemy will still be the whisper and the lie.
Well spoken craig as ever.

Does anyone else besides me see the UK’s double standards in this appart from the UK’s efforts to prove itself the USA’s most loyal poodle in its eagerness to remove Assange from Ecuador’s embassy and its reluctance to hand pinochet over to Spain on crimes far more serious than Assange’s aledged sex offences

Just tried the Guerrdian and still no comments available. This is a deliberate attempt to stifle debate; no doubt the massed ranks of right wing trolls will be ready to fill the post up with neocon, Zionist bullshit and the moderators will be ready to obliterate anything that suggests the arrogant, rude Rusbridger is a liar.

Making due allowances for its editorial policy (holding your nose), the Telegraph is now a far better journal of record. The reasons for the Guardian’s steep decline in recent years have to do, I believe, with its own financial traincrash, and its need not to offend its part-owners, Apax.
I am not sure what has happened to the BBC’s domestic service, whose coverage is oddly similar to the Guardian’s. R4′s coverage of Assange over the weekend was pure prolefeed; particularly prominent was the shill Aaronovitch – quoting at some length his own piece in the Times damning Assange. Aaronovitch has evidently studied at the knee of Lord Haw-Haw, the notorious WW2 German propaganda broadcaster, and I hope he meets a similar fate.
The Any Questions panel contained no member prepared to support Assange’s stand, and the R4 News contained no acknowledgement of Assange’s position. There was no mention that I heard of Craig’s or Tariq Ali’s contributions, nor of the overwhelming police presence.
.
Still, there’s always the Internet. For now.

A corker of a speech! Eloquent and powerful. To hell with the Guardian, shameful once more on its bended knee.

An excellent title Craig. The Guardian cannot sink any lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fredrik_Reinfeldt_2_2012.jpg
The ‘moderate right’ Swedish Prime Minister.

In the Sixties and Seventies, we all saw Sweden as a truly free and enlightened social democracy with high living standards. We admired their interior design, their lifestyle, their welfare state, their films (esp Bergman and Widerberg), their literature and so on. Oh and Abba!
.
What happened? This.

‘Since becoming leader in 2003 he has transformed the Moderates. Dubbed the “Swedish David Cameron”, he has taken the party from the right wing to a more popular centre-right position.

And in an echo of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s New Labour, he has broadened its appeal and renamed the party New Moderates. He has also forged an alliance with the three other conservative parties in parliament.’

This is an extract from a BBC report on the arrival on to the scene by Reinfeldt in 2006. They obviously welcomed him.

Analysis: Sweden changes direction {http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5356402.stm}

Komodo, I have been watching the BBC international coverage and it has been appalling. In a Dateline segment there were 2 journalists from papers that had published the WL files, and even they were falling over themselves to mock and belittle WL and Assange. The host and other to panel members were equally sneering towards Assange and WL.

Directly after the Assange speech the various BBC presenters all did their best to belittle Assange and the Ecuadorians. Time and again they interviewed the same ‘former government lawyer’ who did his best to trash Assange and repeat the government line. Finally Geoffrey Robertson is on to give a ‘pro Assange’ perspective. After Robertson completely demolished the first question that was put to him and while he was in the process of demolishing the second question, the presenter cuts him off and says ‘we have to leave it there’. What do they cut to? A random weather report. After the weather, the same ‘former government lawyer’ is back spinning the same shit.

Oh dear.

I mean: ‘The host and other two panel members were equally sneering towards Assange and WL.’

CheebaCow I saw those items too. As I said before, the BBC reporter was well named. Andrew PLANT. He’s been moved up. Presumably does what is required.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pointswest/content/articles/2009/08/04/andrew_plant_feature.shtml

The female presenter who cut Geoffrey Robinson was a stand in for the usual parrots. They had her on all day. It must be like a torture sitting there reading out the crap and listening to a director’s orders in your ear. Ms Boaden has it all under control.

Thanks for speaking out, Craig Murray. Also in italy and Holland it’s spoon-fed journalism all over, sadly.

Back to basics:
There are four allegations: that on 14 August 2010 he committed “unlawful coercion” when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he “sexually molested” complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he “deliberately molested” complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.
.
Here’s what the complainants said: their allegations having immediately been leaked to the Swedish media -
{http://assangemolestation.tumblr.com/}
.
And here’s the timeline, supported by other web sources -
http://politicalcrumbs.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/some-sources-for-understanding-the-assange-criminal-charges/
.
Guardian journalists please copy. And tell us if any of this looks remotely as if it would stand up in a British court.

No doubt the Grauniad will have lined up a veritable army of keyboard warriors,deleters and recommend-button-modifiers in time for the comments being opened…

Bastards.

But i still intend to comment and link.

Aren’t the coppers in the background twitchy?

Mary,

Twitchy coppers on camera behind the speaker?

Standard Operating Procedure.

You spoke extremely well yesterday Craig.

I could sense the anger in you,particularly when you spoke about your horrific experiences at the hands of Straw/FCO after you blew the whistle.Even through the anger you remained composed and most articulate and i know that can’t have been easy at all for you.

Well done and thank you.

Also, if anyone wants the full text of Craig’s speech, it is available as a comment in the previous thread. Search for “Me In Us” at [19 Aug, 2012 - 11:07 pm].

CRAIG AND THE PESTILENTIAL SCUM

FCO, press, other!

MURDER IN SAMARKAND – RADIO PLAY

Craig turn ears off.

Having just listened to the radio play of Craig’s book Murder in Samarkand – starring David Tennant: always worth a listen – I have only now understood what he endured. The extraordinary duplicity, corruption and illegality by the UK Foreign Office. The quite incredible resilience he has shown. It’s actually stunning that anyone could survive it, and for every one who does there are probably hundreds that we never hear of, because they don’t. On listening to that play, there is not a scintilla of doubt that Craig Murray deserves every iota of the success that he now enjoys. He was up against pestilential scum. And they did not win. Which benefits all of us today a great deal, by his present efforts.

Craig turn ears on again.

- http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/books/murder-in-samarkand/radio-play/

Backup –

- http://photopol.com/craig/murder_in_samarkand.mp3

The list of changes requested by the Foreign Office and denied – and documented – by Craig are _very_ informative. ; ) –

- http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/09/illegal-stroll-down-memory-lane/

See link to documents at ‘References’ – 1 –

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_Samarkand

This video probably has all the speakers yesterday. It was posted by GreenLeft a weekly supported by John Pilger.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51949

Craig’s speech starts at 23 minutes on the GreenLeft video.

‘Alas– The Guardian has devolved into a right-wing Labour Party rag.’ < What he said.

As it happens, Sweden cannot extradite Assange to the US without the UK’s permission.
The Principle of Speciality applies here, i.e. the person surrendered to Sweden may not be tried for any crimes other than those stated in the arrest warrant and may not be surrendered to another state, unless the original surrendering country grants its permission. In addition, the conditions imposed by the surrendering country also apply.
.
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/About-us/International-prosecution-operations/Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/
.
So all Hague has to do is withhold permission for Sweden to let the US have Assange, and all is well. Assange has repeatedly claimed that he is prepared to go to Sweden to face questioning IF he is assured that he will not be rendered elsewhere.
.
Question is, who would believe a word Hague said?
.
And the question of why the enemies of Assange would want him in Sweden rather than the UK is admittedly a vexed one. I’d guess that as Assange is not a British national (and the Australians are extremely relaxed about his possible fate), and as he has committed no crime in this country, it is far more convenient for us to wash our hands of him, send him to a Category 1 country (pain-free, legally) where he HAS (allegedly) committed a crime, and let the septics sort it out with the Swedes.
.
Or, contrary to the Stratfor emails, to insider reports of a sealed indictment having been compiled, and to the concentrated venom of the US pols from Sarah bloody Palin upwards, the US is uninterested in Assange, and I don’t believe that any more than I believe Hague. On any topic.

‘Unspeakable Evil’ – is all encompassing regarding – 911, Afghanistan & Iraq – Julian Assange, Pfc Bradley Manning and everything Craig has acted upon – send this link to everyone you know. The people of the world need to speak with one voice on these matters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hDHjYuRS7k

Well said, Craig!
I am one of many waiting for the comments section to open on the disgraceful Guardian editorial. In fact, before reading your piece, I had penned an opening remark: “Hey, Mr. Editor? Whatever happend to “facts are sacred?!”

Particularly offensive, given the wide audience the Graun has, is the false allegation that Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorean >Embassy “to void questioning”, “to avoid allegations of rape”. A man who went of his own volition to see the police, spent five weeks in Sweden at the disposal of the police and prosecutors before being given the ok to leave, has repeatedly invited the Swedes to question him in London at the Swedish Embassy or by video link or by proxy through the UK police … as is quite normal in dozens of inter-country cases.

Craig, these is more to Rusbridge’s rightward lurch than the desire to make money off an Assange biography. The Graun is losing money, despite its strong online brand. It has become a serious problem after an unwise divestment by the Guardian Trust and they have made a decision to expand into the US market. This carries its own considerable risks for the Guardian brand image. You cannot readily move the most benighted population of the industrial world, under daily barrage from a shameless corptocratic media destined to keep them in ignorance, to your point of view, so if you want advertising $$, you must move rightward to theirs.

Note their recent recruitment of Josh Trevino, a deeply unpleasant neo-con and pro-Israeli racist, on record as issuing death threats to fellow American and other activists on the peace flotillas to Gaza. It is a sign of where the Guardian is headed in their search for US acceptance and although Rusbridge and team have come under withering criticism for this unfortunate appointment, they are not backing down. I fear loyal CIFers are in for a shock ovr the next year or so.

Incidentally, a Swedish national cannot be extradited to a state outside the EU: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435
.
Which I am sorry to say may account for Assange’s (failed) application for Swedish citizenship….

Perhaps, it’s better to move on and not waste precious time and energy trying to change those that will never change. You can never change the dots on the leopard’s coat. Change comes about when a new generation with different values replaces the older stagnant one. New ideas, new independant media outlets, and education will do it in the long run, hopefully, but it’s not easy as
those in power will defend their ways… no matter what. Foremost, change starts with oneself. Each one of us can then do something to bring about a meaningful change. Many lilupitian actions of this sort can neutralize harmful traditions like the ones defended by the Guardian.

I do feel Rusbridger’s pain regarding those book royalties though, after all it must be hellish for him trying to live on only £40,000 a month.

Keep plugging away, Craig!

Melanie Phillips – aaargh! Apparently Ecuador is “puffing out its braided and bemedalled chest and whipping up wider Latin American hysteria against both Britain and America (…) a tyrannical banana republic, whose sole previous claim to fame was the export of the Panama hat”

Something annoying you, Melanie?

And “All this merry mayhem is, of course, being orchestrated by Assange”.

Yes, “of course” it is – Assange hands out orders to Chavez, Correa and Morales, who all jump to attention.

She doesn’t half go for alliteration! Braided and bemedalled, prance and posture, a manipulative, melodramatic, malodorous circus. Her prose is written by a computer, and I claim my 5 pounds.

To think there are some people who read the Daily Mail every day!

@Komodo – Assange didn’t apply for Swedish citizenship – he applied for a residence and work permit.

Nothing surprises me. My M.P. Steve McCabe has tweeted that he thinks Assange should be extradited. These people have no balls or conscience.

Don’t worry Craig…The Guardian will disappear completely itself soon.

Keep on keepin’ on…

The Guardian’s ex-Berlin, ex-Moscow hack Luke Harding was accorded by the Russians the honour of expulsion, more often associated with suspected spookery. He then quickly made sure he was on hand to co-write the paper’s disenchanted volume seeking to discredit Assange. He co-wrote yesterday’s report on the embassy siege. Harding may also, I suggest, be the hidden hand behind the leader of which you so rightly complain.

O/T No cutbacks in the ‘Royal’ Household. I noticed that the old lizard left the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary in a spanking new and shiny black Range Rover this morning. £70 grand to you Guv.

http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/lr/shop/shopping-tools/

£70 grand to you Guv

Mary, I could not afford the fuel, insurance, and road taxes even if they gave it to me for free.

However sure as hell it is good to be the king.

I wouldn’t say Harding was expelled; the Russian authorities just denied him re-entry when he flew back. Then they relented and allowed him in on short-term visa. He went back for a while, but after that, he didn’t reapply. I would only use the word “expelled” for something that can happen to people who have succesfully gone through immigration.

He then put out a book in which he described himself as a “reporter” who was the “enemy” of “the new brutal Russia”, and sold the line that Putin, head of a “mafia state”, was responsible for the assassination of Litvinenko. One chap who wasn’t the focus of the book was billionaire Boris Berezovsky, who is wanted on criminal charges in Russia, but whom Britain gave political asylum (and possibly citizenship), and whom they refuse to extradite.

I am happy to say that Luke Harding has not experienced the same fate as Paul Klebnikov, the Forbes Moscow correspondent, who was shot dead after writing a book on the same subject – mafia-run Russia – but in which he focused on different leading figures.

I posted a response to the Guardian editorial piece. My original post went up on page 1 at roughly 9:15am. It was up for about 2 hours and gained about 100 recommends. Suddenly it has been “disappeared”.

It said this:

“It might have been a rather more honest piece of reporting if you had taken the trouble to examine the case against Julian Assange rather more carefully. You might recall that Julian Assange did, in fact, make himself available to the Swedish prosecution from the beginning. He stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks waiting to be interrogated, and left Sweden after gaining permission to do so from the Swedish Prosecutor, Marianne Ny. If I recall correctly, he also offered to make himself available to the Swedish Prosecutors in this country (an offer that was not taken up) but refused to return to Sweden because of serious concerns that he might end up extradited to the US. Remember, there were groups in the US that were calling for his murder at this time.

As far as the case against Assange is concerned, the preliminary investigation into ’third degree rape’ was opened, dropped and then re-opened in quick succession over a space of ten days and there are serious worries about the way the case against Assange has been managed (or possibly stage-managed), including proof that one of the complainants destroyed evidence. The website justice4assange.com has more detail for those who are interested.”

The fact that this was censored by the Guardian absolutely astonished me. They have just lost a contributor.

Craig, I suspect you have gained a lot of new readers from the number of CIF responders who are linking you. Well done that man!

I stand corrected, N_. If so, my suggestion was void.
Strangely, when I licked your link, I got a malware warning, but the “Local” article looks clean.

Mary,
The D of E is an iguana. Just to clear up any confusion.

Wasp Box – I cannot imagine the criteria the Guardian applies when accepting “free” comment any more. The stench of buried bodies is becoming offensive there.

You have to admit, as well as obviously being a danger, there’s something quite comical about the current state of the western mainstream news media in general. Most of the articles and reports written or aired are so blatantly deceitful and propogandised that it has all become rather Monty Pythonesque.

The ‘special reports’ from war torn countries are hackneyd pieces of well practised nonsense – the reporters sounding like the indcotrinated drones that they have been trained to be.I’m always expecting to see Terry Jones and Eric Idle dressed as middle eastern women, doing those voices as they walk past reporters doing another profound piece to camera in another blown up town.

State news is a mixture of The Day Today and the Pink Panther, with copious amounts of 1984 thrown in. It carries on peddling its lies and agenda of fear but most people have stopped listening and go elsewhere for their news and information. In other words it has become a joke. In becoming a joke it has actually become an entertaining form of comedy farce for a lot of people, with double speak and propoganda becoming a form of entertainment akin to the ‘Where’s Wally’ books

To courtenay barnett: Would it not be logical to accept Assange’s offer to the Swedish authorities to be interviewed at the Ecuadorian Embassy as a first rational step in a criminal prosecution?

Would it be logical if every suspect makes offer to authority skips bail and seeks asylum from countries like ecuador, would it be logical if every authority tells victims “we are still waiting for the suspect to offer us offer,without suspect’s offer there will be no pursuit,” would it be logical if sweden’s legal system relies on the suspects to recgonize&grant their jurisdiction? “sir rapist, with all respect, do you have the generosity to grant a jurisdiction over this territory for us the poor sweden’ legal system?” “fuck off,get your ass to ecuador” would all those scenes be logical？

to courtenay barnett 1688 that one sees a development of jurisprudence over centuries and precedents and practice in support of journalistic freedoms and the broad right to freedom of expression evolving – the events surrounding Assange signifies an attempt to turn the clock back on freedom of expression. The US relied on the UK 1688 Bill of Rights and its principles to frame within the US Constitution – the First Amendment.

i thinks what you trying to say if people should have access to classified information,well according to the freedom of information which is endorsed by series of legislations, people do have the access to classified even secret informations, but there is a expiry date,you have emphasized multiple time that bad to set the clock backward,but i have to remind you, unfortunately setting the clock forward maybe also a bad option, because ,we set expiration time for classified informations for reasons such as safty, strategic advantage,preventing chaos,etc, lets us set a little moot, if mir,assange is surely good source of information of govermants, can i just steal mir assange for myself? can anyone steal mir assange for himself ? treat youself as a law abiding honest citizen not some selfserving high&mighty whistleblower.

to ex pat Today they are using an RPG on both feet daily. – Hiring a Neo-Con Nazi columnist for only of many, many examples.

talking about nazi please anwser those following questions, has mir assange done anyting wrong? what will you do if mir assange’s action caused harm to innocent people? do you think mir assange is pursuing the greater good that makes what ever sacrifies justified? do you think mir assange is higher above the law?

to Courtenay Barnett National Authorization Defense Act. President Obama signed it into law on the 13th December, 2011 and this piece of legislation goes a step further in compromising rights and bringing the US domestic legal situation into disrepute

1 guantanamo bay is not a gulag, prisoners there dont do any labor
2 does the terrorists respect other people’s human rights? is there any common points between terrorism and humanright ?
3 do you think the most effective way to protect the human rights of mass population is by guaranteeing terrorists with maxmium freedom
4 if there two curves ,one represent the freedom&humanright situation of terrorist the other represent the freedom&humanrights situation of the mass population, how do you think the correlation between those two curves ? do you think those two curves are going in the same direction ?
5 do you have any alternative opinions about how to handle the terrorist, please enlighten us with your analogously sagacious illusion, im looking forward to hear from you .

to bollinger bob ie to frame Libya (The two part documentary interviewed 3 experts including one ballistics expert and one forensic scientist who claim the bullet trajectory came from a neighboring building which housed some murky organisation. Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, the parallel obfuscations are all too apparent.

please provide your evidences to validate your points, something something apparent ,something something frame something something consparacy ,this just not working for me, how can i trust you better than those three experts with abundant of evidence logic backup and experience, why anyone choose to trust a dictator like kadafi over a democratic govt? once again evidence please .

to kingelisx The point is that publishing classified government data demonstrates the yawning gap between what Western governments proclaim themselves to be advancing: democracy, freedom, etc, and what they actually engage in: grubby realpolitik.

the publishment of classified information is not a sacred manner it has to follow a shollow and pedantic procedure it‘s due to the expiration time, that means we have to wait for the fruit to be fully developed ,as far as i concerned, the western countries never renounce the right to classify information , please anwser this question who told you that allow people to steal classifed information and breaching the idea of freedom of information by stomping on the expiry date

is the high way to ADVANCING DEMOCRACY ?who ? who? who? i personally take the realpolitik as a complement

1/ Julian Assange is not a government 2/ Julian Assange does not seek to create advantage by keeping information secret, and 3/ The original intrusion was undertaken by the US and its allies, shifting it into the public domain may constitute another form of intrusion, but it is motivated by idealistic aims.

1 julian and government should both obey the law ,just because julian is not govt so julian can do what he want ? no he cann’t julian has to obey the law, 2 julian certainly created no advantage from possessing those classified informations , the ecuador russian and venezuela are just more advancing democracies ,they just randomly lend hand to those people in hard time , 3 the us and its allies intrusions are abiding to the law ,what is more idealistic than the rule of the law ? please do take a idealistic measure toward tha law , i never know venezuela russia and ecuador are so in this idealistic thing ,maybe they are running out of polonium

This poorly phrased paragraph basically seeks to characterize Assange as having some radical view on privacy, but that governments should err on the side of transparency,

if assange has any points on privacy and freedom of information ,please picking on the country which has adoped the lowest standard of freedom of information and pricacy ,the sickest people are most craving for treatment, there is transparancy we can all count on , it follows the procedure it has a expiry date , please dont eer on this

we all part of society ,if your personal matters are not reflecting the human society , you better come to me ,i can grant you asylum

[Jon/Mod: reparagraphed and tidied a bit]

Hi Craig,

You mention Janis Karpinski and yourself as examples of whistleblowers who have been fitted up. Can you name some others? Thanks

Komodo,

Quite right about the BBC twix Guardian coverage – Bravo, a powerful post. My own contribution to Guardian comment attracted 8 recommends in 3 minutes, so we get a hint of public frustration and annoyance with main stream bias. I wrote:

A imperceptive and myopic editorial by the Guardian newspaper that attempts to persecute whistle-blowers in the same way as the charges brought against Julian Assange. By it’s own hand the Guardian has relegated it’s own standing as a creditable news provider to that of government doormat biased towards the establishment’s lies and deceit. The British press needs a neutral front-runner tabloid tuned to the 21st century and the wishes of an enlightened British public fed up with government lies and repeated attempts to obfuscate truth.

I agree we have the WWW for now.

Someone up there revelling in the new “space without

ENTER>fullstop>ENTER”

facility, I think.

Thanks, team!

September 23, 2004
.
“DECEPTIVE APPEARANCES”
.
“An Exchange With The Guardian”
.
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=352:deceptive-appearances&catid=18:alerts-2004&Itemid=41

@Bert: Thank you for your concern for accuracy. My memory is not, alas, perfect. Confronted with embarrassing correction by a helpful chap—so apparently & uncommonly acquainted with intimate details—I was beginning to fear just a little a letter from Messrs Sue, Grabbit & Run. What to do? Then I come across this: http://bit.ly/ezHXXg

The implication of Russia in Litivenko’s horrible death was on the basis of the use of Polonium, cast as somehow a uniquely or typically Russian method to an unthinking audience. It is now suspected that Arafat’s death was believed to have resulted from this same radioactive substance. There are similarities in the ring of police and ‘security’ surrounding the Ecuadorian embassy (which must surely be interfering with the normal operation of that and any neigbouring embassies) and the encirclement of Arafat’s home, but that is where the similarity ends, the Israeli protection of the ‘bought off’ Arafat was to protect him from Palestinian anger at his ultimate betrayal.

I abandoned CiF when they had a dire head-to-head with an earnest elderly Iranian gentleman and the neo-con Thatcherite drone turned arms dealer and mercenary recruiter Malcom Rifkind -Rifkind was on the backfoot and the comment and ridicule destroyed him, before the over-zealous Zionist shills clocked-on and retrospective moderation altered everything.

The Guardian’s leftist zenith was in the long-ago aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre and motivated probably by personal fear of the nearby angry mobs than principle. Things that were ‘once great’ often turn out to have been rotten through from the outset. I bet Simon Jenkins is STILL trying to rehabilitate Tony Blair’s reputation.

Alan Rusbridger’s editorial has his nuts crushed, with many comments more educated, factual and clued up than the editorial.

certain comments stand out with support for them in the hundreds. Can’t understand why they removed wasp box comments, at least two other opinions pointed to exactly the same facts and time line.

The Swedish prosecutor’s bending and fickle moves, her refusal to interview Julian when he was available in Sweden, the refusal to interview him at the embassy, all this does not forebode well for Ms. Ardin, the only woman who made a statement. Her case is clearly been undermined by her own prosecutor, if it is at all true.

Its gotta be a batch of honour being banned from the Guardian comments section, a sign that Rusbridgers Guardian is now operating as a sideshow to the ministry of truth.
Newspapers who employ apologists to murder like Josh Trevino and Melanie Phillips are to be shunned and condemned for it.

No wonder they are loosing money when Rusbridgers nuts are crushed by its new ME owners.

Yes, The Snarkian is best left to its hypocrite muesli mouth-mealing NW middling media munchers. Always the celebrity gossip rants (disguised as “ironic”, naturally) in the top reads. Or, occasionally, some autopoietic navel-gazing news item about news. It will, as said above, eventually eat – and gag on – itself. Snarkian takes revenge on JA for him implying that it, the proud outpost of liberalism, may, shock horror, in fact be as gagged as the rest of Old Media. Same goes for Swedish main liberal newspaper Dagens Nyheter. Bunch of smug self-described radicals without a shred of tech savvy (but a solid mortgage), whose main editor decided against publishing the Danish Muhammad caricatures back in the day, citing not-news-value per se. Obsolete as are national states, so are national newspapers. They know this, ergo the hatred of the new definers cum executives of their own original mission.

Trevino’s position at the ‘Guardian’ should have been left unchanged. Then everyone could have seen for themselves that someone they were employing someone who should have been locked up for inciting murder.

.
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/guardians-trevino-only-way-mavi-marmara-killings-could-be-better-if-idf-drew

More on Trevino. I disagree with the last sentence. The Guardian is not liberal.

http://jelperman.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/guardian-hires-racist-creep-hilarity-ensues/

I posted the following comment on the editorial and it got deleted. I wonder why.

“The Guardian takes it as self-evident that the two women involved are keen to see Assange in court in Sweden. Is this Guardian editorial hot air or do they have a proper reason to believe that? In the case of Miss W, I think that it is far from clear. From available public evidence, the only reason she went to the police was to pressure Assange into taking an AIDS test. She was emotionally shaken when she heard Assange was facing rape allegations on her account and did not sign off on her interview statement. She could be jumping for joy to learn that her erstwhile hero has found a possible way to escape a prison cell next to Bradley Manning. If he were to end up in a US jail because of her statement, she might never be able to live with her conscience.”

Didn’t anyone remember this from the BBC on Dec 7 2010:

Mike Mukasey, George Bush’s last attorney general, appeared on the BBC tonight to join the chorus threatening action against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The Guardian’s Owen Bowcott reports:

The former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey last night said that US lawyers should try and extradite Assange to the United States for betraying government secrets. “If I was still in charge there would have been an investigation,” he told BBC Newsnight, “it would have been done promptly.

“This is a crime of a very high order. Julian Assange has been leaking this information. He came into possession of it knowing that it was harmful.”

Mukasey also implied that the Swedish sex accusations may only be holding charge. “When one is accused of a very serious crime it’s common to hold him in respect of a lesser crime … while you assemble evidence of a second crime.”

Once again, Mukasey doesn’t say exactly what US law either WikiLeaks or Assange has broken. But if he’s right then we will find out soon enough.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

Thank you for showing up the Guardian for the reactionary, fawning rag it has become. Twenty minutes on CIF shows how desperate the Guardian is to emulate the mainstream propaganda media of the USA. No once is surprised that the Independent went that way. Any newspaper that would employ someone like the uber-Blairite Rentoul, is bound to be reactionary. What is sad is that the last mainstream UK paper on the soft-left, the Glasgow Herald, has joined the smear chorus against Assange and swallowed the White House lies and deceptions that surround this case (the “we can invade” instructions Hague dutifully read out, are bound to be instructions from the US…just that day, a few hours earlier, a “Washington DC law professor” was saying on BBC world service, exactly what Hague repeated later).

I find this shift significant. When Obama illegally bombed Libya, the usual reactionary liberals fell over themselves to praise his acts, quoting extensively from Susan Rice’s propaganda script (impending Benghazi massacre, Gaddafi handing out viagra to soldiers to encourage them to rape etc). But there were some voices in the mainstream UK press that were not as convinced, and while none of the “liberal papers” actually condemned Obama (that would be too much to expect), there were some traces of independent comment.

Now there is a phalanx of condemnation for Assange and Ecuador. It doesnt matter whether you read the Daily Mail or the Guardian, the comments across what used to be a political spectrum are uniform in both substance and tenor. So is this the year when the left died in Britain ?

Well said Craig. I will follow this blog now and link the stuff you do with other places if and when. I’m sure Democracy Now would be interested in your work. You got much better coverage there today.

Excellent speech from Craig yesterday. Misreported by the Graun today, just as they misreport JA, who is mischevously accused of dodging ‘rape allegations’ when in fact he has offered to meet the Swedish prosecutors on neutral ground on several occasions.

‘It doesnt matter whether you read the Daily Mail or the Guardian, the comments across what used to be a political spectrum are uniform in both substance and tenor.’

Of course both organs are ostensibly miles apart in their political leanings, but if anything the Mail these days is more suspicious of Official Truths than the Guardian. The main difference is in who they perceive as the ‘victims’ of rapacious glabal capitalism. For the Mail it is the taxpayers of middle England, for the Guardian it is the designated victim groups of identity politics. Thus, a ‘rape allegation’ by definition transforms Assange from a defiant whistleblower into the perfect villain.

OldMark: In its own way, the Daily Mail is a non-disingenuous, highly reactionary paper that never seeks to disguise its intentions and positions. The Guardian is, in my estimation far more insidious, because it wears liberal colours but is so petrified of being thought sectarian, it ends up supporting the reactionary position, especially where the USA is involved. Tomasky is the perfect shill. In that sense it runs parallel with Labour, where the adoration of the US and its desire to please and conform, knows no bounds. There is still some skepticism left among the Tories. The only mainstream British paper that still does investigative journalism is the Telegraph. Of course it usually ends up parading its right-wing beliefs, but it is now a more measured and credible source of news than either the Guardian or the Independent. However they all stink and they are all becoming echo chambers for Establishment propaganda. In most things, Britain is becoming more and more like America by the day, more and more depraved.

It was such a relief to find this blog. I was beginning to think that rationality, common sense and honesty had left the building.

I too was appalled by the Guardian today, not that it is alone, with most of the other press following the same cheap hyperbole and fake concern for the alleged victims.

I have bookmarked and will follow with interest.

Guardian newspaper is no good, which newspaper can be trusted?

An excellent speech Craig…I have not seen you that mad for years…hope everything works out for Julian…the charges are a complete bloody fabrication as usual…by the way..nice tie mate !

The Guardian is so yucky. Utter crap. Rusbridger is the classic “useful idiot”. He has carved a totally inoffensive role for the Guardian while pretending to be critical of the United States. And the comments section is a disgrace. Just try any criticism of Israel and you are shown the red card. I can’t stand the DT’s ideology but at least they allow real debate in their comments although you have to wade through some of the most nauseating racist and Zionist outburts imaginable.

Actually, the Comments section of the Guardian did the people proud. Far more recommends for the reality than for the fiction. No wonder they closed it early.

Technicolour:

I am glad to hear that.

@DavidH: “…Assange should have published only the data that was incriminating – the Guantanamo Bay and air strikes stuff. Then he would have more of a claim to whistleblower status…”

Government of Tunisia was embarrassed by the revelation of the depths of corruption and US Government complicity in looking the other way. This element of the leaks of diplomatic cables was a major factor in the people of Tunisia rising up against their government. Better to have kept it a secret?

I’ve said it before Craig and it bears repeating:

Thank you so much for your principles,integrity and sheer bravery in these vital matters.It’s so important for our future.Your intelligence,compassion,dogged determination and seemingly inexhaustible energy,against so many draining odds,is a true inspiration.

For Neocon substitute Ziocon in the headline.

“HAS THE GUARDIAN GONE MAD?”
.
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/has-the-guardian-gone-mad/

I sent this official complaint to the BBC tonight using their complaint on line system – what are the chances it will be answered: “Re last night’s BBC 2 Newsnight programme item on Rape and Julian Assange . Having just watched it tonight 21 Aug, on iplayer, I want to make an OFFICIAL COMPLAINT of bias in how the interview was conducted by Gavin Esslar.

The dignified ex British Ambassador, Craig Murray, had great trouble trying to explain his rational reason for supporting Assange But the supposed supporter of women’s issues ( I am left wing and feminist too but I would not want to depend on her black and white, prejudiced view to look after my interests) was allowed to speak over him. Why was Craig Murray’s highly relevant point about the usual practice of accusing whistleblowers of sex and similar crimes not given the space to be aired properly, especially as he had a string of recent high profile examples, including his own to tell of? (I read he was accused of exchanging sex for visas).

The Independent Paper’s Joan Smith sounded unreasoned. One would have expected her to have had a more measured response and some sympathy for this ex Ambassador who lost his job and had to fight to clear his name for taking a brave stand against the the UK government over its secret part in rendition and torture. It is a wonder she didn’t end with an “all men are rapists so Assange must have done it” as this is the underlying message the BBC are peddling against JA and his plight, – on all London Radio 94.9 progs too. The real story for News Night (and The Guardian) is the Ambassador’s story so please cover the sex accusations that he raised as viewers might not be familiar with these highly relevant details as others are..His story gives important context to this whole affair.

Went to comment on the Guardian editorial when i first read your blog post here Craig. It said comments would be opened the next morning – by the next evening when i went to comment on it again, they’d closed comments on it – and they seem to be closing comments on every comment article referring to the Assange case within hours to a day instead of the usual several days.

Their latest editorial – on Galloway and Akin’s comments doesn’t even allow comments on it. They’ve also repeatedly misrepresented Galloway’s comments. While he expressed it in a slightly strange way i’m pretty sure what he meant was that if two people are in a sexual relationship, they don’t always formally ask “do you want to have sex?” followed by a reply – they just have sex. That is not condoning rape.

Because he used “sleeping with each other” to mean sex (and its commonly used to mean that) some commenters on some CiF threads were even ridiculously claiming he’d said it was ok to have sex with someone while they were sleeping.

oh wait – they do at least have comments still open on Seumas Milne’s comment article arguing the US wanting to get hold of Assange and close down wikileaks is the reason for the whole thing

and is this BBC account of Galloway’s podcast accurate? If so maybe the CiF commenters were right (unfortunately)

‘In a podcast on Monday, Mr Galloway, MP for Bradford West, created a storm by suggesting that one of the women concerned had consensual sex with Mr Assange and then “woke up to him having sex with her again” – arguing that this did not constitute rape.

He added: “It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, ‘do you mind if I do it again?’ It might be…bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning.”‘

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19334598

I don’t think he’s entirely wrong here, but i’m starting to wish i hadn’t commented on any of this at all

The Guardian is still much better than most newspapers and allows a far wider range of comment pieces than most.

The editorial with it’s facts wrong is probably down to laziness (i suspect the editor didn’t even bother to watch a video of Craig’s speech). I suspect it’s laziness – but it’s ridiculous that the Press Complaints Commission never enforces its own rule that if the PCC finds a claim in a newspaper was false then a correction “as prominent as the original” has to be published. Instead papers get off with tiny little side columns hiding away corrections, even of completely false claims that were in front page headlines. That’s because of self-regulation, which doesn’t work.

That said i’d still take it up with the PCC, Craig, in order to encourage them to check their facts before reporting on what you’ve said.

We need a better system of regulation – but we have to be careful we don’t end up letting the government set up a system that allows them to label any fact or argument that embarasses them and big donors to party funds false and have it suppressed. That would be even worse than the shambles we have at the moment.

Shocking! I’m glad that I don’t read the Guardian.

A splendid speech Craig, keep up the good work. I suspect that William Hague will regret speaking under the influence of 28 pints (or whatever) about invading Ecuadorean sovereign territory.