The Russians call it Kompromat – the use by the state of sexual accusations to destroy a public figure. When I was attacked in this way by the government I worked for, Uzbek dissidents smiled at me, shook their heads and said “Kompromat“. They were used to it from the Soviet and Uzbek governments. They found it rather amusing to find that Western governments did it too.
Well, Julian Assange has been getting the bog standard Kompromat. I had imagined he would get something rather more spectacular, like being framed for murder and found hanging with an orange in his mouth. He deserves a better class of kompromat. If I am a whistleblower, then Julian is a veritable mighty pipe organ. Yet we just have the normal sex stuff, and very weak.
Bizarrely the offence for which Julian is wanted for questioning in Sweden was dropped from rape to sexual harassment, and then from sexual harassment to just harassment. The precise law in Swedish, as translated for me and other Sam Adams alumni by our colleague Major Frank Grevil, reads:
“He who lays hands on or by means of shooting from a firearm, throwing of stones, noise or in any other way harasses another person will be sentenced for harassment to fines or imprisonment for up to one year.”
So from rape to non-sexual something. Actually I rather like that law – if we had it here, I could have had Jack Straw locked up for a year.
Julian tells us that the first woman accuser and prime mover had worked in the Swedish Embassy in Washington DC and had been expelled from Cuba for anti-Cuban government activity, as well as the rather different persona of being a feminist lesbian who owns lesbian night clubs.
Scott Ritter and I are well known whistleblowers subsequently accused of sexual offences. A less well known whistleblower is James Cameron, another FCO employee. Almost simultaneous with my case, a number of the sexual allegations the FCO made against Cameron were identical even in wording to those the FCO initially threw at me.
Another fascinating point about kompromat is that being cleared of the allegations – as happens in virtually every case – doesn’t help, as the blackening of reputation has taken effect. In my own case I was formerly cleared of all allegations of both misconduct and gross misconduct, except for the Kafkaesque charge of having told defence witnesses of the existence of the allegations. The allegations were officially a state secret, even though it was the government who leaked them to the tabloids.
Yet, even to this day, the FCO has refused to acknowledge in public that I was in fact cleared of all charges. This is even true of the new government. A letter I wrote for my MP to pass to William Hague, complaining that the FCO was obscuring the fact that I was cleared on all charges, received a reply from a junior Conservative minister stating that the allegations were serious and had needed to be properly investigated – but still failing to acknowledge the result of the process. Nor has there been any official revelation of who originated these “serious allegations”.
Governments operate in the blackest of ways, especially when it comes to big war money and big oil money. I can see what they are doing to Julian Assange, I know what they did to me and others (another recent example – Brigadier Janis Karpinski was framed for shoplifting). In a very real sense, it makes little difference if they murdered David Kelly or terrified him into doing it himself. Telling the truth is hazardous in today’s Western political system.
You don’t have to look far, though this latest study of cancer rates in Fallujah remained largely unreported:
“In a study of 711 houses and 4,843 individuals carried out in January and February 2010, authors Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan, Entesar Ariabi and a team of researchers found that the cancer rate had increased fourfold since before the US attack five years ago, and that the forms of cancer in Fallujah are similar to those found among the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors, who were exposed to intense fallout radiation.
In Fallujah the rate of leukemia is 38 times higher, the childhood cancer rate is 12 times higher, and breast cancer is 10 times more common than in populations in Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait. Heightened levels of adult lymphoma and brain tumors were also reported. At 80 deaths out of every 1,000 births, the infant mortality rate in Fallujah is more than five times higher than in Egypt and Jordan, and eight times higher than in Kuwait.”
I don’t see quite what this has to do with the brutality and oppression carried out by the Iranian regime. Of course people here don’t want to bomb Iran – they didn’t want to attack Iraq either.
“It seems that what people say means whatever angrysoba wishes it to mean. Larry Silverstein spoke of ‘pulling’ WTC7, but of course that wasn’t what he meant.”
No Vronsky, it doesn’t matter what I wish Larry Silverstein to mean. Perhaps you can show me the FULL quote of his and you can give your analysis of it.
“I can put up with wild accusations and attempts to discredit me which make you look stupid.efore you hiss about brutality and oppression do some ‘investigoogling’ yourself on the massacre and maiming of children in Iraq who never had the chance to become recalcitrant, their lives terminated or hideously mutated by the West’s toxic weapons in an illegal war instigated on lies.”
It’s not either/or Mark. What wild accusations have I made and how does what I say about Iranhave any bearing on children in Iraq?
angrysoba: in a sense it does because there’s the general impression that the demonisation of the Hussein regime (they kicked the inspectors out! they can attack us in 45 mins! people are fed through shredders!) contributed to the attack on it in some way.
Which of course is nonsense, since Iraq would have been attacked regardless. But if one takes Blair on Iran at all seriously one would fight against the same process happening again to that country. Understandably, and quite rightly.
One to keep an eye on, methtinks.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100928/tuk-bbc-pulls-programme-on-ashcroft-6323e80.html
I don’t know whether Ahmadinejad really did make that remark about Israel, but I am damn certain I heard Tony Blair recently urge the West to attack Iran.
And not long ago I heard a presidential candidate in the US actually singing a ‘joke’ song about bombing Iran.
I guess it’s OK when our guys do it.
Good point, KingofWelshNoir. I seem to recall also that in 1979, there was a vesrion of The Knack’s hit song, ‘My Sharona’ with changed words, which entailed “doing something nuclear” about Iran; this was during the hostage crisis.
You know, the one in which allegedly, Ronald Reagan’s campaign team did a deal (the first of many) with the Iranian regime (specifically with the Ayatollahs, not with President Bani-Sadr, the liberal democratic elected president who was very much aghast at the occuation of the US Embassy in Teheran and against such actions) in order to ensure that the hostages were not released until just after the Reagan election victory.
This, plus the Chinnok crash, ended the Carter Presidency and ushed-in the Era of Reagan-Bush and the funny-farm-world-as-we-know-it-today-hee-hee-hey-hey!
Meanwhile, some time later, President Bani-Sadr, a highly intelligent and astute man, had to escape disgused as a woman, riding, it is said, on the back of a donkey.
It’s deeply ironic that he had to escape an increasingly theocratic regime disguised as a woman wearing a chadur.
But what is it about Middle Eastern donkeys? Every important historical personage seems to end-up riding one: Mary, Nasirudin Hodja, Bani-Sadr, Graham Chapman…
You’d think that the average guard in the averagely-repressive regime would recognise this mode of transport as being deeply subversive and suspicious:
“Watch out, Boss, it’s the Mother of God/Mister President. Stop that donkey!”
Dr David Halpin has released an article about the illegal war upon Iraq, in reply to Blair’s book:
http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=2
This really looks like the result of a nuclear weapon:
http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/images/stories/blairs-journey/Blair%27sJourney4-09-10_html_m268e4109.jpg
It certainly isn’t “the result of jihadist bombings”.
I suppose Larry would like me to support the right of the USA to incinerate Iranian homosexuals just as much as it incinerated Iraqi homosexuals.
“Perhaps you can show me the FULL quote of his and you can give your analysis of it.”
You’re rather making my point: I tell you what he said (as if you didn’t know) and you’ll tell me what he *really* meant. You sound like the man surprised by his wife, naked in bed with a mistress. ‘This isn’t what it looks like, darling….’
“This really looks like the result of a nuclear weapon”
Concern about the possible use of nuclear weapons should not diminish our awareness of the horrible destructive power of modern conventional weapons – the daisy-cutters, bunker-busters and fuel-air explosives. To anyone caught in the vicinity of one of these devices the distinction between what happens and a nuclear detonation is not very readily discernible.
Studies some time ago showed that where the police had some extreme sanction available (like a gun) they became more willing to use lesser, but still violent tools – reasoning that ‘well, at least I didn’t shoot him’. We must beware of these dangerous relativisms.
Vronsky, that’ an excellent point, wrt relativisims.
Wrt the menage a trois scenario, you also have a pleasantly vivid imagination – Pinteresque, one might say. But is it the husband or the wife who is naked in bed with their mistress?
“You’re rather making my point: I tell you what he said (as if you didn’t know) and you’ll tell me what he *really* meant. You sound like the man surprised by his wife, naked in bed with a mistress. ‘This isn’t what it looks like, darling….'”
Wrong, Vronsky.
The meaning of Ahmadinejad’s words can be very reasonably interpreted given the fact that that is exactly the import of the words given by the official Iranian propaganda stations and it’s been historically shown to mean that when paraded on missiles. It’s also perfectly in line with his views towards the “Zionist Entity” (i.e “Death to Israel!”) You have to be willfully thick not to see the point being made.
On the other hand, you are extrapolating a perverse meaning from Larry Silverstein’s words that you imagine to be there(“pull” is NOT, despite what Truthers claim, controlled demolition lingo for “detonate a building with explosives”) despite him having no known record of wanting to commit mass murder against his compatriots (you assume, presumably that there is no difference between Ahmadinejad wishing death on his enemies and Larry Silverstein wishing death on his neighbours).
“Wrt the menage a trois scenario, you also have a pleasantly vivid imagination – Pinteresque, one might say. But is it the husband or the wife who is naked in bed with their mistress?”
Bit like the start of one of Ronnie Corbett’s stories, “Man in bed with wife. Suddenly, wife’s husband comes home… ”
Richard Robinson,
thanks for your post of September 27, 2010 1:25 PM. Following links from there got me to this cnet interview of John Young of Cryptome, and his criticisms of WikiLeaks:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html
Yes, I tried percussive persuasion against that lousy plastic panel, but it was flexible enough to repeatedly spring back out of position. Still, the fridge-freezer is now working.
Vronsky,
very good point of yours at 2:13 PM; several non-nuclear modern weapons could be hot enough to cause such horrific burns.
“But is it the husband or the wife who is naked in bed with their mistress? ”
Angrysoba will be pleased to interpret for you. Perhaps neither!
Many (very many) years ago, a friend confessed to me that his girlfriend had visited his flat to find him in bed with someone else. He explained that she (the someone else) had complained of a headache so he had put her to bed, then later lay down beside her to comfort her. His girlfriend had accepted this. I must have looked incredulous. Women believe what they want to believe, he explained, plainly surprised at my innocence.
Out of interest:
Farsi: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”
English: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”
angrysoba says “You should also release that the attempt to pretend it is the supposedly more anodyne “vanish from the pages of time” won’t wash given that the verb in Farsi is, apparently, transitive”
http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/steele-on-ahmadinejad-of-arenas-of.html says “The New York Times was told by supposed Persian language experts in Iran, and appears to believe, that mahv shodan is a transitive verb construct. It makes me a little worried about the state of grammar in Iran, and in the Persian speaking staff of the NYT, and also about its newsgathering prowess. If they cannot find out that shodan is intransitive, something well known in Persian grammar for thousands of years, you wonder what other assertions they are swallowing. I told them this, by the way, before the article came out.”
The wikipedia article angrysoba cites has more to say on the subject than he quotes, is my point, and not all of it points to the conclusion he seems to be urging.
MJ – yes, but where does that translation come from ?
I have, incidentally, seen maps from which what used to be called the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” have vanished. One could wonder if there is an element of projection in all this.
Clark,
Halpin – an excellent link – thank-you
Trauma surgeon David Halpin is one of those rare people willing to make a personal sacrifice for what he believes in.
“yes, but where does that translation come from?”
That’s a literal, word-for-word translation. The problem is the phrase “vanish from the page of time”, a saying in Farsi for which there is no immediate English equivalent. “Wither and die” might be a better – if less literal – translation.
In my opinion the quote is not a threatening one but is nonetheless insulting and dismissive, oozing with Persian superciliousness.
Where is Craig when you need him? Each time I have looked at the New NuLabour conference, eulogies to Straw are being made. My blood boils.
Master Ed Miliband would like to draw a line under Iraq. How nice.How convenient.
Alan Haynes on medialens –
Iraq also gets a mention….
Also from ‘Red Ed’s’ speech this afternoon;
‘Iraq was an issue that divided our party and our country. Many sincerely believed that the world faced a real threat. I criticise nobody faced with making the toughest of decisions and I honour our troops who fought and died there.
But I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that.
Wrong because that war was not a last resort, because we did not build sufficient alliances and because we undermined the United Nations. America has drawn a line under Iraq and so must we.’
Amazing really, 1 million innocent dead Iraqi’s (and climbing) and we just draw a line under it. Those guilty of the most shocking war crime of the modern age are left in no doubt that nothing will happen to them and that this country will remain a war criminal state.
What we really need is a modern-day Nuremburg Trials in the U.K; an act of true repentance and justice, the administration of an enema to the establishment to show the world how genuinely sorry we are and that what we did will never happen again ?” No Justice = No Peace.
Unfortunately, we’ll get nothing of the sort.
a~
(me) “yes, but where does that translation come from?”
(MJ) “That’s a literal, word-for-word translation.”
Yes, but who says so ? Do you mean you speak the language yourself, it’s your own knowledge ?
All this arguing over the precise translation of a phrase is a bit silly (Angrysoba, this includes you!). Yes, the Iranian leadership make some unpleasant noises, and they treat their populace badly. But in practical terms, they are not going to attack Israel.
How is it best to improve the Iranian leadership? Warmongers suggest that war is the only answer – no surprise there! They even suggest that war will bring an improvement in the lives of the populace – well, we’ve seen that theory in action in Iraq, and war definitely makes things much worse.
Perhaps we should denounce them more strongly over how they treat homosexuals. What do you reckon? Will this make a theological leadership reassess its moral position, or merely denounce us as “perverted”, hindering any dialogue?
Yes, let’s bash on about gays. When Iran criticizes us as supporting “perversion”, we can claim the moral high ground, giving us the excuse we want to start bombing, which of course will have absolutely nothing to do with oil reserves…
Somebody,
if Labour truly wish to “draw a line under Iraq”, they must adopt policies to ensure that such a thing can never happen again. The decision making process must be opened to public scrutiny. Obtaining public consent for any future attacks must be made mandatory. War criminals must be prosecuted. Anything less of a “line” would be merely a rhetorical device.
But we all know that rhetoric is all this is. We need to campaign for a change in the structure of our inadequate “democracy”.
Blair was informed about torture at Guantanamo Bay in 2002:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11431359
What does everyone think about Mark Golding promoting his phony charity, lining his pockets with the aid of dead child porn?
Vronsky, did the somebody’s headache get better? It must’ve been one hell of a migraine.
angrysoba, do you know where Ronnie Corbett’s chair went, by any chance? Or Val Doonican’s stool? Or Dave Allen’s smoking-chair? There must be a place where these wondrous artefacts end-up, a kind of retirement home for gloriously iconic furniture.
And now for something (almost) completely different. Widen the terms, huh ?
http://rushthatspeaks.livejournal.com/349819.html#cutid1 is a review of a book called “Buddhist Warfare”.
“And they define all their terms! And argue with their own definitions! They discuss violence that isn’t warfare, and how nationalisms, political considerations, attitudes towards suicide, abortion, and euthanasia affect warfare and war’s discussion. The principal tension of the book is between the incontrovertible, textually evident ideal of pacifism, and the question of why, if the self does not exist, if the body does not exist, if the world is illusion, it should matter whether you kill anybody. There are detours into the question of whether it’s all right for bodhisattvas to kill anybody, either, given that they are enlightened and whatever they do therefore is supposed to have merit. This is quite a short book, but there’s really a lot packed into it.”
[blinks a few times] Sounds like an understatement.
“Yes, but who says so?”
Babel fish? Google translate?