Not only have the BBC hierarchy ruled Anna Ardin’s name must not be mentioned. Also Irmeli Krans’ name is banned from the airwaves. And no, she’s not an alleged “victim” in the Assange case.
I put in an official request to the BBC for an explanation as to why it was OK for the BBC to use Nafissatou Diallo’s name but not Anna Ardin’s, in identical circumstances. I have not got an answer yet, but my request did result in a mole within the BBC telling me reporters had been banned from mentioning Irmeli Krans.
Anybody might think they were hiding something.
Hi – Mark Golding – Children Of Iraq Association
Credit where credit is due please… Jives 0 : Seekingjusticeuk 1
I posted this weblink yesterday afternoon.
(http://open.salon.com/blog/anonymous_operation_want/2011/01/13/swedens_big_trade_deal_for_assange_who_profits_most)
seekingjusticeuk
Comment today from NEVERMIND
22 Aug, 2012 – 1:02 pm
This post from yesterday, now forwarded to max keiser for perusal, adds a sinister twist to this story which will make it impossible to find justice in Sweden.
seekingjusticeuk
21 Aug, 2012 – 3:51 pm
WHY IS SWEDEN REALLY AFTER JULIAN ASSANGE?
WHAT SWEDISH – U.S. TIES ARE REALLY AT WORK?
http://open.salon.com/blog/anonymous_operation_want/2011/01/13/swedens_big_trade_deal_for_assange_who_profits_most
And there are more here on Mr Rove here>
Posted on 2010 – Tuesday, December 14
Is Karl Rove Driving the Effort to Prosecute Julian Assange?
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/is-karl-rove-driving-effort-to.html
Posted one week later December 21, 2010
Is Karl Rove helping persecute Julian Assange?
Or is that merely a leftist conspiracy theory that’s too fantastical to be true?
http://theweek.com/article/index/210569/is-karl-rove-helping-persecute-julian-assange
Oops missed yr post Seekingjusticeuk – good guy – great asset here.
come on guys give it up, some two year old gossip proves Karl Rove is a Dr Evil mastermind ‘running’ AA for the CIA?
Total claptrap.
JA’s involvement in wikileaks, does not, and should not, make him above the law.
@CE:
Again, for the nth time, what do you make of the grand jury sitting in the US to consider charges against Assange?
I’m not on the Grand Jury, so I’ll have to hazard at guess at what they have been discussing, but if they have been convened, I can only imagine they will discuss Bradley Manning’s (who’s treatment by both the US and wikileaks has been abhorrent) relationship with wikileaks and its representatives and what crimes, if any, have been committed.
Any extradition application is still imaginary at the moment.
“They said they only knew it came from the top – not why”
The top, what is that I wonder, The director, the government, USA inc?
I haven’t watched it in years. i’d remark how sinister it all seems but it’s a bit expected really, and a bit of a joke.
The way option swings lol. epic fail.
Tom Copley(Labour LAM and fomerly of Searchlight)on the irony of ‘Viva Ecuador’.
One of the defining characteristics of those on the extreme right and left of politics is the inability to appreciate irony – and the reaction to Julian Assange’s proposed extradition presents a classic example.
Defending a man who espouses freedom of speech (but is content to claim asylum from a country that has passed sweeping laws to restrict the press) is an irony indeed – but one that’s seemingly lost on the Occupy movement.
As usual the twin slogans of “imperialism” and “colonialism” are being thrown around like political confetti; and, as usual, Occupy’s rhetoric is divorced from reality. The UK is obliged under international law to extradite Assange to Sweden, where he faces allegations of rape. The spectacle of those leaping to the defence of someone evading trial for one of the most serious crimes should be offensive to anyone who believes in truth, justice and the rule of law.
When it comes to the United States there are some on the left who adopt the very same “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” attitude that the US government itself held as a central tenet of its foreign policy during the Cold War; a policy that caused untold misery and bloodshed in Latin America. There’s another irony in there somewhere.
Ecuador has been slammed by Human Rights Watch and Index on Censorship for clamping down on press freedom and freedom of speech. Journalists have been prosecuted under sweeping defamation laws which make it effectively illegal to criticise the president and other public officials. These laws allow for prison sentences of up to three months for those who “offend” public officials and two years for those who “offend” the president. Critical radio and TV stations have been closed down in what critics call “politically motivated” actions, and frightened journalists have fled to (guess where) the US to protect themselves from prison sentences condemned by human rights groups.
But the real icing on the irony cake here – and believe me, comrades, it’s thick, if not delicious – is that the Ecuadorian police regularly misuse anti-terror legislation to clamp down on social protests. Haven’t we heard this very complaint made a little closer to home, by the very same people currently encircling the Ecuadorian embassy?
Let’s be clear; Ecuador’s government is no friend of freedom, democracy or human rights. For anyone on the left to defend it because it dresses itself up as left-wing and anti-American is fundamentally wrong. As for Assange, those who so readily jump to defend the right of a suspected rapist to evade the legal process need to take a long, hard look at themselves.
I’m at risk of becoming the music track to Craig’s conversations but anyway, as a cheery reminder that British proscriptions have often failed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNNv8NACJtg
@CE:
I draw your attention to this from Rolling Stone magazine:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228
“On January 26, 2011, Fred Burton, the vice president of Stratfor, a leading private intelligence firm which bills itself as a kind of shadow CIA, sent an excited email to his colleagues. “Text Not for Pub,” he wrote. “We” – meaning the U.S. government – “have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect.””
Still think it’s so imaginary? What do you think is going through JA’s mind when he sees this sort of thing?
@CE
Tom Copley(Labour LAM and fomerly of Searchlight)on the irony of ‘Viva Ecuador’.
He had me in mind? I am flattered!
Now tell me, where did you see me once use the words “imperialism” or “colonialism” in my posts?
Nice distraction, CE, now please explain away the Stratfor emails.
No, not you personally, more the type of individual who cries ‘Viva Ecuador’, and is delighted in Ecuador’s role in helping an alledged rapist escape due process and justice.
Although your nom de plume could lead people to believe you supported a country with a disturbing record on Human Rights and Media Freedom.
“Although your nom de plume could lead people to believe you supported a country with a disturbing record on Human Rights and Media Freedom.”
You mean like the United States?
Come on CE, what is your take on the Stratfor emails?
I think Stratfor is a disturbing organisation attempting to profit from immoral behaviour, but that Fred Burton and Wikileaks both overstate its power and importance.
@CE:
Fine. But you can understand perhaps now why JA would be reluctant to step outside the embassy given the existence of these various revelations (Stratfor, grand jury, the opinion of his US attorney Michael Ratner, the track record of the US towards whistle-blowing, the FCO insider telling Craig that Obama wants to see Assange in Sweden etc.) and why it would be wise for him to obtain certain assurances before doing so, no?
“You mean like the United States”
Textbook whatabouttery and knee-jerk anti-Americanism in one short sentence. I don’t notice anyone with a ‘Go USA’ nom de plume, but if I had I’d find that strange too.
Just because some leaders make valid criticisms of the US, that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to repression in their countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
Ecuador = 104th
Arna Ardin’s name has been reported on the BBC in the past. As Israel Shamir reports:
@CE:
You were the one who raised the issue of Human Rights and Press Freedom. Did you not like what you saw in the mirror?
If you don’t like the situation in Ecuador, then you are free to form an Ecuador Liberation Movement, join an anti-Correa lobby, stage counter-protests in front of the Ecuador embassy etc. But none of this has anything to do with the rape allegations and the efforts of the US to crush Wikileaks once and for all.
Clear now? Again, look at all the revelations I listed above and put yourself in Assange’s shoes. Understand why he’s nervous about having a stroll down to Harrods?
@Lysias:
One thing clear is that Anna Ardin has some very intriguing political connexions both inside and outside Sweden.
I can see why he would be wary, yes.
Can I see why he has to skip bail and hide in an Ecuadorian Embassy? No. I think he is demanding assurances that he knows cannot be given. The two cases should both be viewed in isolation.
Regardless of his work with Wikileaks, a complaint has been made by two women on a completely separate and serious issue. Due process and the rule of law should be followed no matter who you are.
Thank you Lysias
and for Craig, here’s the BBC website printing her name 😉
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mundo/cartas_desde_cuba/2011/02/no_es_para_menos.html
Thank you CE.
“No. I think he is demanding assurances that he knows cannot be given.”
I disagree. If the Swedes are really keen to resolve this impasse, then they will provide the necessary assurances. In fact, it would be the honourable thing to do and go a long way to restore the damaged credibility of the Swedish justice system.
@CE:
Now that’s plainly untrue. Correa has explicitly said, in the last couple of days I think, that Assange should answer the allegations put forward. The Ecuadorean president has said he would allow the Embassy to be used for that purpose:
Incidentally, on Ecuador’s human rights and media freedom record – I should think most liberals/Leftists would agree with you there. But when Ecuador does something that might mildly improve that record, you seem to object. In any case, it sounds like you are confusing two issues again, which not so long ago you were yourself criticising.
Thank you, Scouse Billy.
And note how the commenters on that page are quick to connect Ardin with the Cuban exile community in Miami.
Ali Abunimah, the editor at Electronic Intifada, has just written three articles on the Guardian appointment of Josh Trevino. I thought that this was a good and apposite comment.
Guardian offers bizarre new defense for hiring Islamophobic murder-inciter Joshua Treviño
Submitted by Ali Abunimah on Tue, 08/21/2012
http://electronicintifada.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=70effeb5f63e84ab0c0730984&id=5bfe684100&e=624b346a9b
Guardians
Kubis on Wed, 08/22/2012 – 10:58
This is good work by Ali Abunimah on Josh Trevino. He has exposed the frauds at Guardian who masquerade as Liberals and who peddle nothing but disinformation on so many matters.
But I won’t be writing to Guardian editors to protest Trevino’s hiring, as Abunimah advocates. If anything, I have no problem with this hiring. I want my enemies to sink lower and lower and lose all credibility in the process.
I prefer Guradian without any credibility among leftists to Guardian with lots of credibility among leftists as is now the case.
Guardian has unjustifiable credibility among international lefties as a progressive, liberal minded media outlet. But their fame is undeserved. They open their pages and website to some mild (or sometimes not so mild ) leftist voice on some matter and then carpet bomb their audience with elite propaganda.
They have supported Blair, even after his war crimes in Iraq, They have undermined the importance of climate change by publishing corporate advertisements by Fossil fuel companies and not contradicting them. They have smeared people like Edward Herman as genocide denier. They have played a despicable role in destroying Assange and Wikileaks. They also played a dishonorable role in Yugoslav wars.
I recommend to read Media advocacy group Medialens’ writings who keep tab on Guardian. Instead of answering their objections, Guardian columnist Monbiot attacked them as apologists of genocidaires and ethnic cleansers.
Indeed. Lysias – funny how history repeats itself I just re-read American Tabloid by James Elroy 😉
Scouse Billy:
Thanks for that link from the BBC. This paragraph attracted my attention:
Las actividades de la sueca en Cuba tenían poco que ver con las de un turista normal. Asegura el líder opositor que los “asesoraba sobre cómo formar un partido político, intercambiábamos bibliografía y nos daban una mínima cooperación económica”.
Translated: The activities of the Swede in Cuba had little to do with those of a simple tourist. The opposition leader assures us that “she advised us on how to form a political party, exchanging booklists with us while providing minimum economic support”
Cada vez mas raro, diria yo!!
@Mary:
Totally agree. I can’t stand the phony Guardian. Their political raison d’etre has become to legitimise nearly every excess of American and British foreign policy.
And I just finished rereading Phillip F. Nelson’s LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination, which also of course blames the CIA and Cuban exiles.
Mary, you are right about the Guardian.
Ali might wish to reconsider his decision, I think it was last year, to co-sign a letter, to The Guardian, calling upon a publishing house (was it Verso?)to withdraw Gilad Atzmon’s book The Wandering Who.
This was despicable behaviour, opportunistic and self defeating.
Surely the treatment that The Guardian meted out to Noam Chomsky, followed by the hatchet job on Herman and Peterson, alerted even the thickest readers to the sort of attitude they would take to Assange?
The Guardian always was a Blairite, CIA oriented rag, look at its appalling “reports” from Caracas.