Aiding and Abetting 135

I continue to do all I can to help Julian Assange in his struggle against the mire of false allegations with which governments are attempting to bring down Wikileaks and get him eventually to perpetual solitary confinement in the USA. I was with Julian again in the Embassy last week, and shall be visiting him there again shortly.

Which begs this question. If, as the government falsely claims, this is purely a case of genuine criminal investigation, with no political overtones, and if Julian Assange really is nothing more than an alleged criminal who has jumped bail, then why am I, and others helping him, not under arrest for aiding and abetting or conspiracy? Plainly the government need to get their narrative straight.

For MI5 and the police, if it makes it any easier, I shall be going on Thursday afternoon, (though I have no doubt you already knew that). You can arrest me then.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

135 thoughts on “Aiding and Abetting

1 2 3 5
  • Mary

    Well done Craig for standing with Julian.

    Glenn Greenwald tells us some truths here.

    Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group
    A separate justice system for American Muslims, the US embrace of terrorism, and other key political facts are highlighted

    Lesson One: There is a separate justice system in the US for Muslim Americans.
    Lesson Two: The US government is not opposed to terrorism; it favors it.
    Lesson Three: “Terrorism” remains the most meaningless, and thus the most manipulated, term in political discourse.
    Lesson Four: Legalized influence-peddling within both parties is what drives DC.
    Lesson Five: there is aggression between the US and Iran, but it’s generally not from Iran.

  • Wasp_Box

    How’s he coping? It must be pretty restrictive and scary being confined to, what appears to be, a flat with no idea when you’re going to walk free. Better than being banged up, incommunicado in a Swedish or USA gaol though.

  • larry Levin

    Does he have to be proven legally to have committed the crime, and then u will be guilty of aiding and abbeting

  • craig Post author


    not aiding and abetting a sex offender (which as you note he has not been convicted of – or indeed charged with) but aiding and abetting somebody who has skipped bail.

  • nevermind

    Good article by Greenwald again, I read it yesterday Mary and the implications are that paying the opposition to cause strife and unrest in Iran was an expensive undertaking for Obama and his predecessors, not just plain hypocrisy.

    What an utterly repulsive Gardener this morning on R4. He ranted about Abu Hamza’s ability to evade justice and offered us some real news. Shocks, the Queen was aghast that there was no law to deport this man, and she said so…drum role… fanfare.

    So what of this disheartening, shocking and repulsive piece you mooted at, is it still to come?

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Wrt your comment, Craig, about the SS et al: When Pakistani poet and left-wing feminist, Kishwar Naheed’s house was being constantly surevilled by the ISI Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence) during the 1980s, she would take out trays of tea and biscuits every day to the two men assigned to watch her (supposedly clandestinely) in 110F heat, for which they were very grateful. It was also an act of resistance on her part. She was saying, “I’m watching you, watching me and I control the tea”. Tea is political. Tea is power. Perhaps, as an act of Situationism, you might leave two cups of tea on your doorstep, not for stray kittens, but for the foxes of the SS (and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all). ‘Tea with Assange’ – a potential new stage play title.

  • John Goss

    Dear Craig Murray, thank you for taking time off from your studies to visit Julian Assange. I am sure he appreciated it. He must be lonely, but he’s better off where he is sitting it out than sitting it out in a US penal colony.

    Kellie Tranter, a human rights’ lawyer, made a speech last night encouraging everybody to rally round and give their support for Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. There has got to be more grass roots support for real democracy as opposed to what our governments call democracy.

  • Arbed

    All power to your ‘aiding and abetting’ of Assange’s fight for justice, Craig – yours is a very important voice in that fight, and a highly credible one, not least because you’ve ‘been there, done that’.

    I hope you’ve found some highly useful material in what’s been added by commenters to your “Why I’m Convinced” post. I recommend particularly pages 3 and 4 of the comments. People from Sweden – I suspect from the Flashback forum – have been piling in to correct errors and misdirections introduced by one particular contributor, who seems to have been doing their utmost to knock your regular readers off-track. I’m sure you know who that is. Hopefully, you’ll see the wheat in the chaff and be able to make something of the factual clarifications added.

  • craig Post author

    Hi Arbed,

    Yes, Mr Rudling’s motivation is rather hard to fathom. I haven’t had the time or energy to do the editing job you suggest, mind you – it is a lot to wade through.

  • Arbed

    Hi Craig – perhaps Clark can help you there? He’s been following the whole debate very closely and I’m sure he can point you to the most salient new facts which have emerged.

  • CE

    Do tread lightly Craig, some of us fear Mr. Assange is playing his supporters like a cheap trombone and using them to spread information he knows to be false.

    In a similar vein, the penchant some of you round here have for hanging on the every bitter word of Glenn Greewald is misguided at best.

    GG – “I’m able to obtain from the Brazilian government a permanent visa because my Brazilian partner’s government recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly ‘free,’ liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition.”

    So as a result, Greenwald takes up the cause of every enemy of the US you can find, meaning as it happens, almost invariably countries where gay people are persecuted, imprisoned and liable to be tortured or murdered by the government, and where the lives of gay people are far, far harder and more dangerous than Greenwald appears to understand – or care.

    He’s an egotistical fool on the level of Judith Butler. And whereas Butler’s mostly just vain and stupid, Greenwald is truly a very nasty piece of work.

    I am discontented enough with the British state and its unequal treatment of its citizens, but I’m not stupid enough to imagine that taking sides with any of its enemies is either wise or the right thing to do, because those countries are in general at least as much against me as against my country.

    Greenwald’s intellect is stunted. He doesn’t seem to be able to handle three conceptual categories at a time, for instance ‘ideal’ ‘bad’ and ‘worse’. He seems to think that ‘worse’ is what you turn to to make ‘bad’ better.

    Or perhaps he just thinks he’d get special protected status from the foreign homophobes and antisemites he shills for, just as that fool Arrigoni did.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    So, CE, a very simple question. Let us assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that everything you say about Greenwald et al is true.

    Would you feel, for example, that a military invasion and occupation of Iran would be justified because of the undoubtedly despicable homophobic policies of the Iranian regime? And would you also support a military invasion of Saudi Arabia on the basis of the also undoubtedly despicable homophobic (and even more misogynist) policies of the regime? And of Pakistan because of the undoubtedly despicable nature of the blasphemy laws and consequent persecution of religious minorities (and majorities)?

  • CE

    No SS, I would support criticism of, and argument against these regimes, not military action. Criticisms that GG cannot bring himself to make of any country that will join him in cheap US baiting.

  • john

    “then why am I, and others helping him, not under arrest for aiding and abetting or conspiracy?”

    Craig, have you considered turning yourself in to the local police station for your “crime”? It would be very interesting how they react.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    “Craig, have you considered turning yourself in to the local police station for your “crime”? It would be very interesting how they react.” John, at 1:29pm on 25th Sept 2012.

    Intriguing thought. But don’t do it. Just give them cups of tea. Gallons and gallons (litres and litres) of it. Float beatifically on an ocean of chai.

  • Cryptonym

    @CE: Perhaps it’s your mis-dentification of who its or our enemies are, and lacking any, having to construct them in your mind first then make them your enemy in the real world by like-minded psychos turning the screw on them, slicing their bodies up. It might be better to talk of enemy governments, than enemy nations, religions, people or whatever unnatural hates you harbour. It’s fortunate for you that your enemies are conveniently also those of powerful states apparently. I suppose in your case that’s coincidence as you have lots to go around.

  • Frazer

    You could always insist that your brother bangs you up for a few hours at his local nick, don’t forget to tip off the press first though…LOL..

  • nevermind

    Let us hope, that those who have problems with grasping the meaning of Assange’s releases and those who support his case with sane arguments, government communications the taxpayers paid for and two million others were privy to, can bring it upon themselves to argue their differences with the man himself.

    I mean, who needs to bare their mundane mind games here, the third most popular political blog of all? attacking Mr. Greenwald here will not grate his ire much, not disguised as two letters or under one’s real name?

    turdly, oh master of cheap trickery, how would you like to take your shit list somewhere else and have your row with Judith Butler and Glen in the privacy of your own four rubber walls?

    Damn those who defend the attack on innocent civilians, journalists and children with modern 50 cal. weaponry, no hypocritical, corporate loving, tail wagging Government has the right to lie to their citizens all the time and I hope that these releases carry on until we can paint the walls with warmongers and arms dealers.

  • Cryptonym

    I’m disappointed with the succinctness of CE’s answer to Suhayl, aware though of the unreasonableness of expecting something meaty to chew on. Why Iran and not Saudi Arabia on the exact same grounds, if its a matter of limited supplies of cannon-fodder on your own side CE, then assume limitless blood sacrifice of others, would you ‘do’ them too then.

    On getting minorites onside on emotive issues, these are issues not just for the gay community worldwide and believers that war is the wrong answer -always. No-one should be pulled both ways, as these persecutions are an attack on individuality, they are no more of specific concern to any special interest than to all our interests. There is no conflict though, peaceful co-existence is the prevailing natural state, the warmongers have to work really hard, lie and pull all the strings, torture truth to show cause.

  • Michael Culver

    Re: G.G. Just type out a list of countries the U.S. has bombed since 1945 and ask how many of them had in any way attacked the U.S. Says it all really. Another small fact the U.K. ambassador to Afghanistan, “I forget his name” recently stated that said country was one of the poorest on earth yet the C.I.A.has listed its worth as 2-3 trillion dollars in minerals,rare earth metals oil & gas etc.So multiply that a bit and we have a VERY good reason for being there.

  • Dom

    CE, thanks for your words of wisdom “Mr. Assange is playing his supporters like a cheap trombone and using them to spread information he knows to be false.”

    I suppose I must be one of those trombones then. What a naive fool I must be for not recognising the clear signs that Mr Assange doctored all those cockpit videos and diplomatic cables!

    Maybe you can supply the link to the original cockpit videos. You know, the ones that show people falling to the ground after being showered with party invitations.

  • CE


    25 Sep, 2012 – 1:50 pm

    @CE: Perhaps it’s your mis-dentification(sic) of who its or our enemies are, and lacking any, having to construct them in your mind first then make them your enemy in the real world by like-minded psychos(sic) turning the screw on them, slicing their bodies up. It might be better to talk of enemy governments, than enemy nations, religions, people or whatever unnatural hates you harbour. It’s fortunate for you that your enemies are conveniently also those of powerful states apparently. I suppose in your case that’s coincidence as you have lots to go around.


    Any chance of a translating most of that into English? I’m not very fluent in gobbledygook.

    Speaking of Judith Butler, you could give her a run for her money.

  • CE


    I wasn’t referring to information released by wikileaks, but rather false information that Craig and other supporters of JA have released regarding his alleged crimes in Sweden.

    I will give this to JA, his successful blurring of the lines between himself the flawed individual, and wikileaks the movement, has been a masterstroke in deflecting unwelcome criticism.

  • Dom


    Thanks for making clear that you do not doubt the information released by Wikileaks.

    You continue ” simply to provide evidence to support your assertions.

    You go on to refer to…..” false information that Craig and other supporters of JA have released regarding his alleged crimes in Sweden.”

    Let me then ask you to educate me with a few examples of such false information.

  • N_

    @Craig – visiting JA in the embassy isn’t aiding and abetting him skip bail.

    @Suhayl – you’re feeding the troll! 🙂

  • Dom


    Sorry, line two of my last post escaped the delete button. Please ignore that and give some examples of the “false information”.

  • CE


    Goran Rudling outlined 15 false claims alone in Craig’s last two posts concerning JA;

    Mr Murray’s 14 false claim.
    There is just a short comment to each one.

    1 “Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement”
    Not true. Evidence: Interrogators’ note Sofia Wilén’s statement

    2 “Sofia Wilén have not signed her statement to this day”
    Not true. On 2 September Sofia Wilén was re-interviewed. Extremely unlikely that the interview was approved during this interview.

    3 “The prosecutor told the British High Court that Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans were witnesses to Sofia’s interview.”
    Not true. There is not one shred of evidence suggesting this is true. Mr. Murray have been asked repeatedly to show evidence. Have flatly refused.

    4 “Anna Ardin did not take Sofia to the nearest and best police station.”
    Not true. Klara Närpolisstation was the nearest and best police station to go to.

    5 “Rather than see another officer, the two women waited two hours until Krans came on duty.”
    Not true. Evidence: Memo Linda Wassgren

    6 “Anna Ardin was present throughout Krans’ interview of Wilen”
    Not true. There is not one single piece of evidence that indicates this. All evidence shows just the opposite.

    7 “Anna Ardin did not report Julian until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.”
    Not true. Evidence: Anna Ardin’s police complaint

    8 “The Klara Närpolisstation does have video-taping facilities.”
    Not true. Evidence: Interview Chief of Klara Närpolisstation

    9 “Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret.”
    Not true. No trials in Sweden are in secret

    10 “Sofia Wilén’s statement alleging rape was drawn up by Irmeli Krans in Anna Ardin’s presence.”
    Not true. There is no evidence that suggests that Anna Ardin was present at Klara Närpolisstation between 18:40 and 19:28 when statement was finished

    11 “Anna Ardin discussed with Julian Assange his desire for sex with Sofia Wilén”
    Not true. There is no evidence that suggests that this is true

    12 “Anna Ardin took Sofia Wilén to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Sofia Wilén’s story into a sexual assault”
    Not true. The choice of the police station was the best and nearest. There is nothing in the police interview that is “twisted” in order to make it into a sexual assault. If there is anything, it is just information pointing in the other direction

    13 “Sweden has astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws.”
    Not true. Sweden’s laws are 120 years behind Canada’s and many years behind England’s, Australia’s etc.

    14 “Some days later than 22 August (25): Anna Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence;”
    Not true. Evidence: Evidence report. Condom was picked up by Sara Wennerblom on 18:12 August 21

    15 “If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?”
    A silly insinuation that an accused like Julian did not know who his accusers are.

  • craig Post author


    This is very dull – almost all the above points are wrong, but I really can’t be bothered going through them one by one. Mr Rudling is, unlike you I believe, an ill-motivated individual and I am sorry to see you parroting him.

    OK, just two straight off the top of my head. Sofia Wilen’s witness statement itself states that she did not sign it – the text is on this website. And Ardin tweeted that Julian had been talking all week about sex with Wilen “cashmere girl”. I posted the text of that too.

  • Jon

    @CE – the problem with you cutting and pasting Goran’s remarks is that you’re not taking into account objections that have been raised since then. I’m sad to say I’ve made objections in the past to various statements of yours, and you continue to raise your points regardless, even having conceded some of them. This is frustrating.

    In relation to item 15, I responded to that on the appropriate thread. It is a misunderstanding by Goran, either due to language, or perhaps his biases – I don’t know. I think it was very clear from the context in which Craig was speaking that “If you are not allowed to know” meant “If the general public is not allowed to know” – it was not a reference to Assange. And read that way it makes perfect sense – a DA notice on the names of AA and IK would make it harder to Google for information about state machinations in this case.

    You say that “Greenwald is truly a very nasty piece of work” – I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree permanently, then. Greenwald is doing more than any high-profile Western journalist at the moment to challenge and expose the war crimes of Western superpowers.

1 2 3 5

Comments are closed.