The Assange case

by craig on September 2, 2012 11:32 am in Interviews

Many thanks indeed to “Me in Us” for this transcript.

00:12 ONN: Hello. We’re here today at the home of Craig Murray, the whistleblower and former ambassador to Uzbekistan. Craig, thank you for being here with us on ON today. On Sunday you spoke out publicly defending Julian Assange in giving a speech in front of the Ecuadorean assembly. What made you want to stand up and be counted as among his supporters?

CRAIG MURRAY: Well, the main reason is that I’ve been a whistleblower myself and active with other whistleblowers, and I’ve seen so many whistleblowers fitted up with false charges, and as soon as anybody blows the whistle, particularly on any aspects of, if you like, neoconservative foreign policy and war, you’re going to get fitted up and you’re going to get defamed with false charges, and if you’re male I think in every case those charges are going to involve sexual allegations. So I could just see, if you like, a miscarriage of justice in the process of being done, and I wanted to do anything I can to help stop it.

01:16 ONN: You said that individual whistleblowers are not charged with political offenses, they are fit up with criminal ones. Would you care to elaborate on that?

CRAIG MURRAY: Yes, certainly, and I’ll give a few examples. James Yee, who was a chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, he blew the whistle on torture and mistreatment of inmates at Guantanamo Bay. He was first of all charged with espionage and acts of espionage benefiting a foreign country. Then those charges were dropped and he was charged with adultery, which apparently under US military law is an offense, and he was charged with having pornography on his government computer at work, and he was convicted of both of those, and then later the conviction was overturned.

Brigadier Janis Karpinski was the lady in charge of all Iraqi prisoners of war in Iraq, not just at Abu Ghraib. She was in charge of all military installations. She wasn’t actually at Abu Ghraib, and actually she’d only ever been to Abu Ghraib once. When the story broke about all the torture at Abu Ghraib, she came forward and she said that she had personally seen a document signed by Donald Rumsfeld detailing forms of torture to be used at Abu Ghraib, including stress positions, including threatening naked prisoners with dogs. She said those techniques were detailed in the document which was signed by Donald Rumsfeld. She was recalled to the United States, and the day after she returned to the United States she was allegedly caught shoplifting and charged with shoplifting.

Scott Ritter was an Iraqi weapons inspector on the same UN team as David Kelly. He was a captain in the US Marines. He stated that there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. On his return to the United States he was entrapped in a computer sex honey trap by an FBI agent, and this was admitted in court, that it was an FBI agent who entrapped him.

03:51 ONN: For those who don’t know, what does this term “honey trap” refer to?

CRAIG MURRAY: Honey trap is where you put, if you like, sexual bait in order to catch someone, to entice someone into a sexual act which they otherwise might not have committed had you not put the temptation right in their way. It’s a term frequently used in espionage and diplomatic circles because it’s a well-known technique of the security services. And Scott Ritter fell for this honey trap and he was actually convicted of pedophilia, because although the agent in concern was an adult female, she was using an Internet persona of an underage person. But — and Scott Ritter’s case is the only one where I think there may be any truth at all in the allegations, and in his case it wouldn’t have happened, the whole thing wouldn’t have happened had the FBI not set up the situation and gone out to get him.

And I should say these are all people I knew personally. Two of them are people I knew before they were accused. And it happens to everyone. And the same thing happened to me. I blew the whistle on British complicity in torture, MI6′s complicity with torture in Uzbekistan and on extraordinary rendition. I was immediately charged with sexual allegations, in effect with extorting sex from visa applicants. It took me, you know, 18 months of real hell, to be honest, to clear my name. Because, you know, I know once people throw those kind of allegations at you, it tarnishes your name forever. It’s very easy to destroy someone’s reputation by sexual allegations.

So, for me, the absolutely extraordinary thing is that, you know, after this has happened to James Yee, happened to me, happened to Scott Ritter, happened to Janis Karpinski, they pulled the same trick again and again, and now it’s pulling it with Julian Assange, and anybody taking seriously these accusations astonishes me, because the idea that people just can’t see what is happening in the world and the way that whistleblowers are being persecuted, to me it’s astonishing. And the fact that none of what I’ve just said to you will you find reported in the mainstream media, you know, ought to really, really alarm people about the kind of world we live in.

06:30 ONN: Yes, there does seem to be a rather consistent failure by the mainstream media to address these issues. I mean, in your opinion, are journalists doing their job right?

CRAIG MURRAY: No. I mean, it seems to me there is very little actual journalism in the what you might call the paid media. And part of that, of course, is that, you know, the media is owned by a very small number of people, and really people have to write what their bosses want them to write. It’s very, very difficult to get the truth into the media on any subject at all. On top of which also, of course, newspapers actually employ far less journalists than they used to. There used to be a time when individual newspapers in Fleet Street had 30 or 40 foreign correspondents per newspaper. There aren’t actually now 30 or 40 foreign correspondents between the whole of the British newspaper industry. So just the number of them has gone down, and mostly they spend their time, you know, cutting and pasting government press releases and putting out the story, the story which the people who own the papers want them to hear.

The same goes for broadcast media, which again has precisely the same restricted private ownership, unless it’s owned by the government. Though the government of course is owned by the same people who own the newspapers — it really doesn’t make a great deal of difference.

08:10 ONN: So what do you think about the actual allegations, the actual substance of the allegations made against Julian Assange? I mean, is there any evidence at all that you can see of – ?

CRAIG MURRAY: I mean, to some extent it almost doesn’t matter because, as I say, having been through it myself and having seen all the whistleblowers I know go through it, it was only a matter of time before they did it to Julian Assange. So the question of what they charged him with or what evidence they managed to fake is almost irrelevant.

I would say, I think, you know, choosing rape and sexual allegations is very clever. The CIA do know what they are doing. Firstly, because nothing tarnishes your name in that way. People might forgive you for being a bank robber, they might even eventually forgive you for being a murderer, if you said you did it in the heat of the moment, but nobody will ever forgive you for being a rapist or a pedophile. So the choice of allegation is very clever.

Also, it splits the left. If the Birmingham Six had been charged with rape, they would still be in jail today, because nobody would ever have been allowed in public campaigning to query the evidence against them, because unfortunately, because of the genuine problems with rape, genuine rape, going unpunished in society, the reaction to that has been that many perfectly decent people think the only way to correct that imbalance is by removing essentially all protection to people accused of rape. And that view is deeply held by genuine and decent people who are concerned about the position of women in society. But once you have a social acceptance that you ought not to be allowed in public discourse to challenge people making accusations of rape, that makes it the perfect tool for a security service to use, because everyone has agreed in advance that it’s the one crime that no one’s going in campaigning against miscarriage of justice to challenge the evidence or challenge the accusers.

And, as I say, you have so many people on the left whose primary political concern is feminism, who are being used as useful idiots by the CIA, who have been sidetracked into vitriolic attacks on Julian Assange, who are calling people like me rape apologists, just because the CIA has been very, very careful to choose the one accusation which they will always uphold, be it true or not. That’s the main problem with the allegations.

But, no, I mean, it is well worth studying the detail both of the allegations themselves and of the people making the allegations and of the procedures which have been adopted. Because even if you didn’t know all the background I’ve given you about how whistleblowers are always fitted up with these allegations, even if you didn’t know that, just from a careful close examination of the evidence in this case, which is widely available on the Internet, anybody would conclude this was a fit-up. I don’t see how anyone can seriously study the facts of the case and not think it’s a fit-up.

11:46 ONN: You mentioned the other day, you were giving an interview, and you mentioned one of Assange’s accusers by name, Anna Ardin, and this caused a big uproar. I’ve been doing some digging and I found out that she is in fact a Social Democrat politician. Do you feel that these are facts that need to be made widely available to public? Do you stand by the fact that you named Anna Ardin as one of his accusers?

CRAIG MURRAY: Absolutely. The most important single point in this is that Anna Ardin named herself. She has given a number of interviews to the media under her own name accusing Julian Assange, the first one of which I can find was in August of 2010. But I found at least 30 media interviews that she has given where she is reported as Anna Ardin making these accusations. Now the idea — and saying that she does not work for the CIA. It was interesting that she feels the need to say that. Most of us don’t go around denying we work for the CIA. And also saying that, you know, Assange is a misogynist and a rapist and goodness knows what else.

The idea that you should be able to make such accusations to the media – I don’t mean privately in court – that you should be able under your own name to make such media accusations and nobody should be allowed to reply to you and nobody should be allowed to use your name, even though you put it yourself in the newspapers, is sort of Kafkaesque. I actually cannot understand for the life of me why I ought not be allowed to use it when she openly puts it in the public domain herself.

And there are, you know, over 200,000 Google hits on her name, and she has been named in the mainstream media of every single major country I can find except for the UK She’s been named in the New York Times. She’s been named in the Times of India. She’s been named in Paris Match. She’s been named in La Republica. She’s been named in Der Spiegel. The UK is actually the only country where she has never been named by the mainstream media, which again is very strange.

But, no, she herself is a character with a very, very interesting history and very, very interesting ties, political ties, which don’t relate only to the Social Democrat Party in Sweden but that network of people in the police, the prosecution and Anna Ardin who are all connected, who are all working on this case together, who all have party links, is something which would itself make the case inadmissible in any decent jurisdiction. But she also has a history that relates to work with CIA-funded agencies in Miami and Cuba and Buenos Aries. So the more people study Anna Ardin, the better.

15:04 ONN: You’ll be referring, of course, to the Ladies in White, a feminist organization in Cuba based in Miami as well. Is that –

CRAIG MURRAY: That’s right. Look, she has an interesting and varied history of working in causes which, let’s say where there’s a mutual area of interest in South America with the CIA.

15:33 ONN: It’s also interesting now that it is Ecuador that has come out, that originally granted protection to Assange within the embassy and has now granted him full asylum. So if extradited to Sweden, what do you think would be the fate that would await Julian Assange there?

CRAIG MURRAY: Well, his fear is that he would very quickly be extradited on from Sweden to the United States, either extradited or rendered. And the Swedes actually now have a sort of legal rendition law for speedy temporary rendition to the United States, as it’s called. That’s what is worrying Julian Assange. Though I should say, I mean, my experience of the way they treat whistleblowers and my experience of what we have seen of the process in Sweden, I would say there must be just as big a fear that he will be unjustly convicted of rape, which I’m quite sure he hasn’t done. But if he arrives in Sweden, he will immediately be jailed. There’s no provision for bail. And the thing which most people don’t understand is that rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret, so nobody would ever see any of the evidence. The next thing we will hear is the verdict. My own view is the most likely scenario is that it’s been cooked up well in advance and that verdict will be guilty. And it’s very possible to do that because not only is the trial held in secret but there is no jury.

Now I’m not one of those people who believes that only the British system of law is okay. Many countries have different systems and often those systems work very well. But what you do have with the jury system is a situation where ordinary men and women do have that chance to stand up to the authorities and to say what they believe to be true. It may not be a chance that they take very often, but that possibility is there. Where you don’t have a jury, as in Sweden, the chances of the government if it wishes to seriously influencing the result are pretty firm.

18:15 I would look at the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest, for example, in the United Kingdom. In that case, the judge, who’s appointed by the government – and remember that it’s basically a government decision not just which judges get appointed but allocating judges to particular cases. In that case the judge, and sadly his name’s escaped me because he was a complete bloody disgrace, he gave a summing up which was totally tendentious and in which he said that the jury would not be allowed to return a verdict of unlawful killing, and he would only give them the choice of two verdicts, one of which was an open verdict, and the other one was that the killing had been lawful, but he wouldn’t let allow them to bring a verdict of unlawful killing, he would rule that verdict out of order, which again is a complete disgrace. He made absolutely plain that the verdict he wanted was that it was lawful. But it didn’t happen. The jury came back and said no, we’re going to bring back an open verdict. And they did, much to the annoyance of the judge.

19:37 The Clive Ponting case, when he leaked the fact that the Belgrano was actually sailing away from the Falkland Islands at the time it was destroyed with hundreds of people killed, he was charged with that under the Official Secrets Act. There was no doubt he was guilty. He was undoubtedly technically guilty. The judge said so, pretty well, in his summing up of that case. And the jury basically told the judge to get knotted and found him not guilty. So there’s always that possibility with a jury system.

Assange wouldn’t have a jury. He would be judged by a professional judge and two lay assessors. And the lay assessors are actually party political appointments, quite literally. One will be appointed by the Swedish Conservative Party and one by the Swedish Social Democratic party. The Swedish Conservative Party is very strongly aligned to George Bush and the neocons and the Social Democratic Party are precisely the people that Anna Ardin and the prosecutor and the police investigator and Anna Ardin’s lawyer all come from. So, there is every chance that this secret process would result in a complete stitch-up.

And I think although people have focused on the fear of him being extradited from Sweden to the United States, and I think that’s true and I think it’s legitimate, my personal view is an even bigger danger is of a secret trial where nobody ever gets to know what the evidence was and they announce to a complacent media that he’s been found guilty of rape at the end of it.

21:17 ONN: And then it’s a done deal and there can be no preventing it.

CRAIG MURRAY: Exactly. Then it’s a done deal and they shove him in jail for 10 years. Then when at the end of that period he comes out, he’s sent over to the United States and tried on terrorism charges, whatever, and by that stage, of course, he’s a convicted rapist as far as the media is concerned, and anyway 10 years have passed and nobody cares anymore.

21:40 ONN: That would be a terrible outcome. What would you think, do you think would be the result if William Hague carried out his threat to storm the Ecuadorean embassy at this point?

CRAIG MURRAY: Well, it’s an absolutely astonishing threat. I should say that I know for certain from colleagues, ex-colleagues within the Foreign Office, that in issuing that threat, William Hague was very closely pushed by the Americans. He was under a lot of pressure from the United States of America to get Assange to Sweden. Which again, you know, rather contradicts those who say he would be under no fear of extradition if he went to Sweden. Why are the Americans so keen to get him there? Why are they interested?

But it was an astonishing threat, because everyone in the world, except perhaps the heads of government in the United Kingdom and the United States, would view that as a grossly illegal act. It would be an absolute diplomatic outrage and it would be a, you know, a crime of aggression against Ecuador. The diplomatic repercussions would be astonishing for the United Kingdom. First of all, no British embassy would be safe around the world, because everyone would say, “Well, we can do the same as you, we can de-designate your embassy and move in and take it over.” And secondly, our relations with not just Latin America but most of the developing world at least would be very, very seriously set back.

And you must remember that we have enough problems in Latin America already. First of all we’ve got the crazy jingoistic, on both sides, dispute over the Falkland Islands. Then you’ve got the fact we would not extradite Pinochet when we’re so keen on extraditing Assange for offenses which even if they were true wouldn’t add up to a hundred thousandth of what Pinochet did. And then you have, of course, as I said earlier, the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. The idea that the Metropolitan Police, having killed Jean Charles de Menezes, we would let them launch a physical attack on a Latin American embassy, is just astonishing.

So you know the repercussions would be enormous. And I think Hague has absolutely made a fool of himself because he’s made a threat which it would be totally disastrous were he to carry it out.

24:24 ONN: And what about the legality of such a thing? Using the 1987 Diplomatic Consular Premises Act is what Hague said, the legislation he said he’d use?

CRAIG MURRAY: Well, this is just utter nonsense because it can’t trump international law. You can’t have domestic legislation which is in conflict with international law, particularly an international treaty to which we are a party. We were actually I think the second signatory on the 1961 Vienna Convention, and it’s the single most subscribed to international treaty in the world. And interestingly enough, even the 1987 act in itself says that its provisions must be in accordance with international law, and it actually says that even in the 1987 act. Well it would be completely against international law for Hague to do what he’s planned to do. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention, Part 1, states absolutely baldly, without any qualification at all, that diplomatic premises are inviolable. Full stop. And they are. You know, you’re not allowed to enter anybody else’s diplomatic premises.

Even in the chaos of Afghanistan, Britain abandoned its embassy in Afghanistan, withdrew all its diplomats. I’m not sure of that. I don’t think we were chucked out. I think we left voluntarily. But at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Britain withdrew, and our embassy sat there empty for decades, through the Soviet occupation, through the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, and the embassy building was only opened up again – although eventually we moved to new premises, it’s not the building we’re in now – but the original embassy building was only opened up again after the invasion in 2001, 2002. But it had been, for 20 years, it had sat there empty, under the Soviets and under the Taliban, and neither the Soviets nor the Taliban had entered the British embassy. Even though there was nobody there except a resident Afghan caretaker, they accepted the inviolability of embassy premises and they didn’t enter it, not the Soviets nor the Taliban. Now William Hague is proposing we should act much, much worse than either the Soviets or the Taliban, and this to me is absolutely astonishing. It beggars belief.

27:18 ONN: Okay, just one more question before we wrap up here, which was, what do you think the actual chances of Julian Assange running the gauntlet, so to speak, and making it to Ecuador safely? Do you see a way that he can manage to leave Britain now and get there to South America in safety?

CRAIG MURRAY: Physically it’s going to be very difficult. The chances of getting to Ecuador from the embassy in the middle of London without the agreement of the British authorities are limited. You can, you know, we can all think of sort of physical escape scenarios, but they’re not easy. There’s going to have to be a diplomatic solution. My guess would be that it will take a long while in coming, I think six months from now. There’s not going to be much public awareness that anything has changed, although talks will have been going on behind the scenes.

The obvious solution is for the Swedes to agree that they won’t extradite him to the United States, but the Swedes absolutely refuse to do that, and the United States refuses to say that it won’t apply for extradition, because frankly there’s no doubt whatsoever that the United States has convened a grand jury to look at prosecuting Assange and Wikileaks and has every intention of extraditing him to the United States. So all of that is very, very difficult.

You can see a kind of Lockerbie solution. The alleged Lockerbie bomber, Mr. Megrahi, was tried in the Hague under Scottish law by Scottish judges because they didn’t want to send him to Scotland and they agreed to hold the trial on mutual premises, and the Dutch agreed that a court in the Hague could actually be in effect under Scottish law for the period of the trial. It’s not the happiest precedent, because I think the trial was itself a stitch-up and a miscarriage of justice, but it does set a precedent for somebody being tried by another state on somebody else’s territory, so there is a precedent in international law if people were looking for that.

Now, as I’ve said myself, my own view is that a condition of any trial should be that it should be public. I think this case is so high-profile that people are entitled to know what evidence has been given, are entitled to know what the defense is, and frankly the defense is so strong that it would make it very, very difficult to do a stitch-up conviction. So something along those lines.

I really do not know at this stage what the end game is. The hope of the British government is that the Ecuadorean government will change. There’s an election coming up in Ecuador in the not so distant future. The British and American governments are relying on President Correa’s opponents — and his opponents are of course backed by the CIA anyway – will manage to win that election and then cancel his diplomatic asylum and hand him over, and that’s the end game as far as the British and Americans are concerned. So my guess is that they will wait for the outcome of the Ecuadorean election. I don’t think they will make any compromise at all until after the Ecuadorean election, in the hope that the government of Ecuador changes and that they will get a, basically a US puppet administration in Ecuador which will just hand him over.

31:49 ONN: Well, thank you very much for speaking with us today, Mr. Murray. It’s been fascinating and very informative. And thank you to our viewers. Thank you for watching this ONN interview. I hope you’ve enjoyed it. Okay.

CRAIG MURRAY: Thank you.

* I have added in italics phrases on one particular point where I thought my meaning was obvious in context, but evidently from comments on another thread it was not.

Tweet this post


  1. elizabeth carson

    2 Sep, 2012 - 11:53 am

    see armen victorian and his book mind controllers …..he had a lot of problems…also, when he worked for kew gardens and false charges on him that were overturned.

  2. The Guardian and the BBC are guilty of mind controlling, with the troll in controlling being the active part.

    Since the start of Breivig’s court case, from day one, despite the objections of many, the BBC, just as that rag of left leaning right wing thinkers, have perpetuated the arch symbols of fascists, their fisted salute. hey could have chosen to not transmit5 it, but were obliged by the MI 6 handlers, most likely, to persist in this form of slow manipulation of already challenged minds.

    If Britain has a problems with a rabid EDL and BNP and national front, its down to these MSM institutions, and others, especially the BBC, promoting their messages on as much bandwidth, as they can get away with..
    Not even at the sentencing was this policy changed, a full blown salute and kiss kiss of thanks for the BBC, who will now have no moral legs to stand on to argue their continued existence in this form. The BBC needs to be broken up!

  3. “on mutual premises”
    I think that ought to read “neutral”

  4. Thanks from me too – very hard to get this to stream and the download button doesn’t work from here.

    I too think open jury trials are the only fair trial. What they have in Sweden is completely unfair to the defendent.

    Years ago, I was a juror in a case where a young man was accused of assaulting (ABH) his common law wife. We listened to about 4 days of evidence and it boiled down to ‘he said – she said’. We acquitted after about an hour ‘deliberating.’

    Were Assange’s case to be brought before a UK jury I think a conviction would be impossible, regardless of the definition of rape. The Police/prosecution would know this and not waste time on it. Only if you have a non-jury system can cases like this be brought and argued against ‘common sense’.

    I wish it were possible to protect women from sexual assaults like is alleged here, or from ‘sex after pleading’ but I don’t think it is logically possible without punishing a lot of innocent men on the evidence of vindictive women.

    I don’t think there are many cases of ‘false accusations’ of rape but it is an argument any defence must be allowed to present.

    The UK media embargo on the names of the two women is a cynical attempt to hide the controversies from casual observers. Anybody who does even a cursory internet search on the case will come across the two names and rapidly come to the conclusion that the investigation was at least bungled or more probably somehow fabricated.

    I watched the newsnight clip on youtube and was amazed Craig Murray was able to keep his temper when dealing with the woman interviewee in particular but also the interviewer. Well done. Of course getting angry would be counterproductive but I am at times in awe of the restraint practiced in the face of such flagrantly obtuse behaviour.

  5. Patrick Haseldine

    2 Sep, 2012 - 1:21 pm


    You can see a kind of Lockerbie solution. The alleged Lockerbie bomber, Mr. Megrahi, was tried in the Hague under Scottish law by Scottish judges because they didn’t want to send him to Scotland and they agreed to hold the trial on mutual premises, and the Dutch agreed that a court in the Hague could actually be in effect under Scottish law for the period of the trial. It’s not the happiest precedent, because I think the trial was itself a stitch-up and a miscarriage of justice, but it does set a precedent for somebody being tried by another state on somebody else’s territory, so there is a precedent in international law if people were looking for that.

    The Lockerbie solution is not a precedent at all, Craig, because Mr Megrahi was not tried in the Hague. In fact, the Lockerbie trial was conducted from May 2000 to January 2001 at Camp Zeist, a former US Air Force base in the Netherlands which, for the duration of the trial, became British territory.

    As you can verify from this extract from Facebook article entitled BLACKOUT OF MANDELA BLUEPRINT FOR LOCKERBIE JUSTICE by Patrick Haseldine, Emeritus Professor of Lockerbie Studies


    In 1992, Nelson Mandela declared that the Lockerbie trial ought to be conducted in a neutral country by independent judges:

    “In the present climate of suspicion and fear it is important that the trial should not be intended to humiliate a head of state [Muammar Gaddafi]. It should not only be fair and just, but must be seen to be fair and just. This must be in the context of respect for the sovereignty of all countries.”

    In 1997, President Mandela proceeded to chide Britain, France and the United States:

    “No one nation should be complainant, prosecutor and judge” in the criminal trials of the two Libyans accused of sabotaging Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 and of the six Libyans accused of French airline UTA Flight 772 bombing in West Africa on 19 September 1989.

    Nelson Mandela’s strictures and judicial advice went completely and deliberately unheeded in both cases.


    Robert Black, Emeritus Professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, was recruited by South African intelligence and financed by tycoon Tiny Rowland to frustrate all of Nelson Mandela’s plans for Lockerbie justice:

    a. Black ensured that the Lockerbie trial was not held in a neutral country. Instead, he arranged for the trial to be conducted from May 2000 to January 2001 at Camp Zeist, a former US Air Force base in the Netherlands which, for the duration of the trial, became British territory;

    b. Black decreed that Scotland’s Crown Office would be the ‘complainant’ at the trial;

    c. Black arranged for Scotland’s Lord Advocate (Colin Boyd) to be the ‘prosecutor’ at the trial; and,

    d. Black insisted that – instead of ‘independent judges’ at the trial – all four Judges (Lords Sutherland, Coulsfield, MacLean and Abernethy) had to be from Scotland.

    Although one of the two accused Libyans was found not guilty of the Lockerbie bombing, it was thanks to Professor Black that the other Libyan, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was found guilty.

    The Facebook article can be read in full here:

  6. I actually blagged my way into the UK Embassy in Kabul and sat at the desk of the Ambassador…in 2000….just thought I would throw that in here…

  7. Britain has a problems with a rabid EDL and BNP and national front,

    My dear German chap, British politics would not work without the above unsavoury elements. If these did not exist , the British government would have had to invent these and man them with their own personnel.

    Now that you are getting involved in due time you will find the “barbarians at the gate” stories have helped many of incompetent carpetbaggers into seats of gravy and Sunday lunches.

    The simplicity of it all is unbelievable, Try and read up on “operation Gladio” if you have not already.

    Norwegians were getting punished for their misdemeanour’s Breivik was not suppose to end up living and sitting in the court, the equations were all about he gets killed and the mystery of the carnage then could be played for any number of ends.

    A curious oversight, in this land and everywhere else, every poxy college has software that sniffs out plagiarism, we all know Breivik did not write his own manifesto, but he lifted the text from various “sources” when it was the turn of the ” al Qaidy” the book of “al Qaidy” was outlawed and anyone associated with it, were picked up and heir homes taken down brick by brick to look for “evidence”.

    No one has even tried to point fingers at certain bogs, and certain characters on the Internet who were the mentors of this terrorist guy, who is now no longer a terrorist!

  8. You could have taken over Frazer. I see there was no representation in that year. They don’t stay long do they?

    1987–1989: Ian Mackley (chargé d’affaires)
    1989–2000: No representation
    2001–2002: Stephen Evans (chargé d’affaires)[13]
    2002–2003: Ronald Nash[14]
    2003–2006: Rosalind Marsden
    2006–2007: Stephen Evans
    2007–2009: Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles
    2009–2010: Mark Sedwill
    2010–2012: Sir William Patey
    2012–present: Sir Richard Stagg[15]

  9. @nevermind

    Breviks actions were calculated madness.

    he is a sick imdividual and a product
    of society.


  10. Far too much imaginative and elaborate conspiracy theory stuff in there for me I’m afraid. CIA? Check. Honey trap? Check. Neo-cons and Karl Rove? Check. Secret show trials? Check.

    Why should JA even have to face these ridiculous charges from this corrupt backwater of Europe? Never mind the alleged victims; Craig has obviously decided the entire case is a set up between the corrupt Swedish justice system and the CIA. :roll:

    These women should have their day in court without being denigrated left, right and centre as CIA agents or worse. Do you have any proof of a CIA funded honey trap Craig, or is this just a ‘nudge-nudge, wink-wink’ attempt to smear the alleged victims of sex crimes?

  11. Shameless attempt to hijack the thread again there CE.
    Double time on a Sunday is it?

  12. Triple! ;-)

  13. @Craig, I’m sure your statement that “the government of course is owned by the same people who own the newspapers” will have been noted both in MI5 and in Aaronowitch land.

    You are of course 100% right. The state authorities in the UK serve big business no less than they do in the US, Dubai, or wherever.

    You’ve told the truth; you’re a very naughty boy! :-)

    For any radical critic, realising that big business owns the state is the big breakthrough.

    All ‘professional’ opinions, whether of ministerial civil servants, newspaper editors, chief scientists, university vice-chancellors etc., operate only within this environment. And when things are functioning as per normal, they can only strengthen it. That’s their job. That’s what they do. They’re all hypocrites, moral cowards, and creeps – the whole damned lot of them. At least until they walk out and tell things how they are, as you did.

    Sadly for all too many would-be radical critics, the breakthrough never occurs. It makes a nonsense of the usual kind of political activity, whether focused on parliamentary democracy or geared towards taking part in ‘national conversations’ defined by talking heads in the media – even when participation is active, well-meaning, and creative. A pox on that!

    As for Armen Victorian, the orchid smuggling charge he faced was bizarre! I seem to recall he also found a bug of a non-entomological type.

  14. @CE I shouldn’t reply to trolls, but…you say “ These women should have their day in court So you’re not expecting the public authorities to prosecute Assange for rape, then?

    @Craig and @Patrick – the Lockerbie trial was a complete travesty. There’s a limit in Scots law (or was then) whereby defendants are only allowed to be remanded in custody for a maximum of 110 days after committal. If the trial doesn’t start on time, they must be freed and can’t ever be tried on those charges.

    But the Scottish judiciary does’t lag behind its English counterpart in the corruption stakes! What struck me in the Lockerbie case was how the British authorities ranted for years that the men should stand trial in a Scottish court, and then when they eventually got hold of them, they had to adjourn the trial for ages because they didn’t have enough evidence to proceed!

    That was an in-your-face abuse of the judicial process. How the hell can you know you want to prosecute someone unless you’ve got sufficient material to bring as evidence against them? Actually got it in your hands, not the promise of it. What is that you’ve got instead? Whatever the CIA tell you you’ve got?

    Still, British weapons exports to Libya picked up. Ker-ching! All right for some, eh?

  15. O/T but important! Today there is an Observer article with Desmond Tutu claiming Bush and Blair should be tried for war crimes. A comment, the 6th one down using oldest first sort parameters, said that Blair should also be tried for not allowing an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. This comment was recommended by 2045 people in a very short period of time. Naturally it got removed by a moderator.

    The Huff Post has gone with it on Bush.


  16. Armen Victorian aka Henry Azadehdel, is quite a dude, but ‘The orchid world is dirty.’

    At least he’s got an orchid species named after him, though Paphiopedilum_henryanum

  17. @N_ Nice post. No doubt it will get ignored by the like of CE. You Conspiracy Theorist you.
    I think the owners have been the same owners since before 1066.
    You might find this interesting ..

  18. @John Goss
    I saw it too. There were several replies with the text quoted later on in the thread too.
    I suppose they have been tidied up as well by now.
    Loads of great comments with thousands of ticks. I hope Blair is looking over his shoulder.

  19. @Zoologist, if you remember when Craig Murray was trying to get a story published which showed that there were significantly more meetings between, Fox, Werrity, Gould and cronies, comments at The Guardian were being removed faster than we could get them up. Same with Atlantic Bridge. The reason, according to one moderator I managed to contact, was fear of legal action. The article was eventually published by the Independent. No legal action ensued. They only take legal action if it is not true. But newspapers have an editorial policy, and you’re right, all the other comments have gone too.

  20. Nevermind,

    Mind control indeed, although not this mind which prompted the following complaint:

    Dear Lord Patten,

    I am again disappointed with the BBC program guidelines that fails to prevent hypocrisy such as the naming of an alleged rape victim.

    Gavin Esler castigated Craig Murray for such naming on the BBC Newsnight program when in fact the BBC had already named her on BBC Cuban News:

    It would appear program managers are not complying to the standards of a public broadcaster and this incident together with the deception by the BBC in transmitting a disturbing image of a massacre in Syria that was later revealed as an image from the Iraq war concludes to me that these managers are biased and influenced by the establishment’s protocols and obligations thus prohibiting the truth from reaching a wide UK license paying public.

    To address this situation and inform the public of these and other severe deficits I will publish a web-site together with social networking pages to expose the independence or not of BBC news, current affairs and polemic interviews.

    Your sincerely,

  21. @John Goss
    Yes, I remember. Same with Locherbie a few years ago.
    I think the legality issue is an excuse too. My theory is it’s to hide the fact that such “conspiracy theories” have huge widespread support now. It’s not just the batshit lunatic fringe asking questions any more – 3000 odd Guardian readers think so too in a few hours.

  22. Any – and all – of the commenters should be under no misunderstanding whatsoever.

    Please DO NOT question Craig’s integrity in this matter.

    This is – 150% – and without a shadow of a doubt – a set-up against Julian & Wikileaks. People should be under no illusions. Julian is in grave danger from these Zionist Neocons. They are extremely ruthless people – and will stop at nothing to get what they want.

    To confirm how evil they are – view #unspeakableevil@TheGlobalFund – in 4 parts – view in HD. Keypoint – Osama had nothing whatsoever to do with 911. Find out who did.

    The world needs to speak with one voice on these matters.

  23. Jonangus Mackay

    2 Sep, 2012 - 5:46 pm

    The Assange ‘lynch mob’ that roams the Empire of Lies:

  24. John You might have missed my posts on an earlier thread when I said then that there were nearly 800 comments. I also noticed that comment about Dr. Kelly.

    2 Sep, 2012 – 8:14 am
    You remember that Archbishop Tutu pulled out of a seminar in Johannesburg at which Blair was collecting yet more shekels.

    He has now written this in the Observer today.

    Why I had no choice but to spurn Tony Blair
    I couldn’t sit with someone who justified the invasion of Iraq with a lie

    ‘On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.’

    Tutu names Bush and Blair. He gets the number of dead in Iraq wrong. He quotes the Iraq Body Count study. The Lancet study produced a much higher number
    2 Sep, 2012 – 11:34 am
    Helm of the Observer finds Archbishop Tutu’s call for Bush and Blair to go The Hague ‘startling’.

    ‘But it is Tutu’s call for Blair and Bush to face justice in The Hague that is most startling. Claiming that different standards appear to be set for prosecuting African leaders and western ones, he says the death toll during and after the Iraq conflict is sufficient on its own for Blair and Bush to be tried at the ICC.’

    Not at all startling to us, the 99%, Mr Helm.

    800 comments there already. It was posted just after midnight.

  25. It’s too far back to find now but when the news of the oil refinery explosion and fire in Venezuela came through, I asked if anyone else here connected it to some CIA style dirty tricks. Someone said they had done so. Now James Petras writes:

    Venezuela’s Oil Refinery Blaze: Seven Good Reasons to Suspect Sabotage
    by James Petras / September 1st, 2012

  26. Mary, nothing surprises me with the CIA.

    Here is an important poll as to whether Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes. I won’t tell you how to vote.

  27. I see that Desmond Tutu has denounced Bliar and Bush as “war criminals”. The media hacks are gobsmacked. What? Come again?

    Bless him.

  28. Craig: I completely believe all you are saying, but there is one question that is niggling me…what has Sweden to gain from this?

  29. its not what they stand to gain its what they stand to lose

    thats a nice (insert nice thing here)it would be a shame if it burned down

    is much more the gangsta style

    rather than

    do you want some puppies for your (insert nice thing here)

    first post, recent find for me , great site

    keep up the good work Craig

  30. Tris, it is not a matter of what Sweden will get from it, it is a matter of what it will lose if it does not comply with US demands. The deal is probably already done. When Jordan failed to endorse US exemption for war crimes from the ICC (which could otherwise in theory try George W. Bush) the US threatened it with the withdrawal of 1/5th of its national budget. Jordan complied pretty quickly.

  31. Yes, I can see that argument, but then Sweden isn’t exactly in the same financial situation as Jordan… and the US doesn’t provide Sweden’s budget, or indeed, I would have thought, any part of it.

    I’m totally with Craig, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I’m sure it’s a ploy to get him to America. But surely there is no great US asslicker than the UK. One call from Mrs Clinton and Cameron would comply immediately…so why waste time with Sweden?

    Mrs Clinton simply has to phone Cameron. Job done.

  32. Francis Maude. What a drip! To think he has all that say in the Cabinet Office.

  33. “I actually blagged my way into the UK Embassy in Kabul and sat at the desk of the Ambassador…in 2000….just thought I would throw that in here…” Frazer.

    My image of Frazer, blagging his way into the abandoned British Embassy in some far-flung outpost East of Suez:

    “Itsh my Embashy. Get me the key. The namesh Bond. Fraysher Bond.”


  34. Sabotage indeed Mary, and more disturbing information from I judge a reliable and genuine military source; President Obama is under pressure from Netanyahu to allow Israel to attack Iran with logistical and intelligence assistance from the United States of America.

    Netanyahu is believed to be applying pressure to President Obama by referring to the ‘attack’ on the World Trade Center as the agreed assured path towards the destruction of Iran.

    I believe the source would be assassinated if revealed.

  35. Tris, you will be surprised at what pressures the US can apply on European countries. The almighty dollar runs the world (for the time being) and that’s why even China cannot exempt itself from US pressure.

  36. @CE – Craig is clearly not suggesting that Assange should avoid answering the Swedish case, as you suggest. Craig’s view above is very clear – the case should be public (to avoid foul play in a secret court) and should come with a guarantee that there would be no onward extradition (to demonstrate that the sexual allegations are not a pretext).

    Doesn’t sound like anyone is recommending anything other than “these women should have their day in court” – upon that statement itself, you and Craig appear to agree. I do also, as it happens.

  37. So can we add respect and fraternity with European Social Democrats (as well as women’s rights) as another thing some of the British Left have thrown under the bus of knee jerk anti-americanism. Depressing doesn’t do it justice.

    Is JA actually a whistleblower? Surely he just facilitated (irresponsibly at that) Bradley Manning’s whistleblowing.

  38. We are all ‘seasoned’ here, accomplished and adept at searching out facts, truthful facts that demonstrate a viable and workable sequence of events. Most contributors here are truly blessed with insight, awareness and penetration.

    We will become leaders in a different world.

    ‘The [US &Britain] “shadow government” is none other than the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR membership is composed of Wall Street investors, international bankers, foundation executives, members of Think Tanks and Tax-exempt Foundations, ambassadors, past and present presidents, secretaries of state, lobbyist lawyers, media owners, university presidents and professors, federal and Supreme Court judges, and members of military leaders from NATO and the pentagon.

    My thanks to those who even turn over in their minds the thesis I present here. You are indeed good people.

  39. @ CE

    truth is truth

    facts are facts

    the facilitator merely facilitates

    like it or not

    oopsie i fed the troll

    do not shoot the messenger

  40. Jon, I appreciate you have always said that the alleged victims should have their day in court, but if you follow Craig’s logic the charges against JA are so corrupt and absurd that there’s no point in him even dignifying the process?

    Surely it’s possible to be against JA being extradited to the US without indulging in CIA honey trap smears against his alleged victims?

  41. Though I never use the term ziofuckwit – and that doesn’t mean I don’t reserve the right to use it at some future time(s) – it does amuse me and is apt when we are talking about the extreme-right and their hangers-on in the US, UK and elsewhere, that is the Israeli extreme right, whose fuckwitted ‘transfer’ policies have played out over the passage of years to horrified disbelief. Fuckwit is a rich word, I think I must first have encountered it in the pages of Viz comic back the 1980s in the reign of Hilda Ogden. Characters were billed as fuckwits, more to be pitied than feared or ridiculed. But fuckwits were only equipped to unerringly make a bad situation worse for themselves or all by their inertia or rash deed, were never believed to manifest traits worse than stupidity and helplessness -which pretty much describes most of us as the fonts of power condescend to view us. The oppressed and put upon fuckwits fare well in comparision to the so-called ziofuckwits who besmirch the name of harmless, useless fuckwits everywhere. There is indeed a great mass of fuckwits, within that subset of humanity is found the zionists, but not all fuckwits are zionists, though they might have potential in that area, with so little endeavour.

    It is a mistake to generalise from the behaviour of the ziofuckwits and apportion blame and hisses, never mind a hasty end on a rope, to fuckwits everywhere who are like angels really.

  42. @CE at 9.54pm:
    “Is JA actually a whistleblower? Surely he just facilitated(irresponsibly at that) Bradley Manning’s whistleblowing.”

    What’s with the ‘just’??

    he ‘just’ facilitated??

    You mean like the invention of TV ‘just’ facilitates programmes? The invention of the computer ‘just’ facilitates the world wide web? The invention of the camera ‘just’ facilitates photos?

    Indeed, he certainly has ‘just’ facilitated whistleblowing, and not only the whistleblowing that Bradley Manning is accused of, but on-going whistleblowing from many sources. Because the existence of WikiLeaks means that if things need exposing the ideal mechanism is now in place for that exposure.

    The idea for, and the bringing into existence of, WikiLeaks, is radical, far reaching, and enabling. It is one of those brilliant inventions that has the potential to involve ordinary people everywhere in a much needed transformation of the lying, thieving power base that runs our world.

    Lies are now the accepted common currency of those who profess to govern us. Dishonesty and duplicity are prerequisites for governments everywhere. And injustice; vile, horrific injustice, is prevailing all around us.

    It’s long past time for TRUTH. WikiLeaks (in the Occupy lingo) is ‘an idea whose time has come’.

    Julian Assange is the originator of this idea.

    Is he a ‘whistleblower’ himself? Moot point, really – he’s the enabler of whistleblowing per se.

    He has brought us a radical means of non violent direct action by which to take up arms against the obscene, cruel, crushing, wicked, prevailing injustices of our time.

    So, yeh, I reckon that’s ‘just’ a pretty big deal, actually….

  43. Lindi,

    Fair comment, my ‘just’ is probably inaccurate and inappropriate. But to claim wikileaks as an ‘ideal mechanism’ is just as inappropriate. I’m sure the dissidents whose identities were compromised when wikileaks released swathes of unredacted documents would disagree with that assertion.

  44. “@tris

    Craig: I completely believe all you are saying, but there is one question that is niggling me…what has Sweden to gain from this?”

    Staying on the right side of the most powerful empire on earth

  45. In any event, it’s not necessarily about “Sweden” staying on the right side. It only takes the right people in the right positions of power and influence in the political elite of Sweden to want/need to stay on the right side of the USA.

  46. Well done, Craig. Very well put and articulate. The trouble is, such sustained arguments are just too long for the main stream media who are afraid their audience will switch off and their paymasters will be displeased. You’re not allowed to say anything if it doesn’t fit into a sound bite that resonates with the accepted messaging.

  47. My comment about Francis Maude above did not include the link. It is to a Question Time broadcast in 2007 when Maude used that lie about Admadinejad wanting to wipe Israel off the map. Galloway corrected him. Also on were Falconer, Frazer Nelson and a historian Maria Misra. From the Oxford Union. Watch out for the right wing idiot who would ‘fight for his country’ at 4’26” Wonder what he is doing and thinking now. Maude and Galloway 7 mins in.

    In this opening segment the panel discusses whether the sanctions against Iran are a further step towards inevitable Military Conflict or if they can help resolve the situation peacefully.

  48. That oft used word ‘rape’ again. This time at Heathrow by a S015 officer.

    ‘During the detention, the police constantly accused the anarchists of lying about involvement in criminal activity and alleged that they would be conducting follow-up police action against one of the detained anarchists. In addition to this, SO15 officers asked a number of inflammatory, irrelevant and offensive questions, including ‘what would you do if someone raped your mother?’ evidently in an attempt to cause emotional upset and illicit angry or violent responses. One member (28) who did not want to be named for fear of reprisals from the police, said “We were treated like criminals. I told them I went to the congress as I am an amateur journalist and I write articles about activism. They saw my note book, camera and Dictaphone but they said I was lying.” One officer said ‘You said you are an anarchist, I’ve seen anarchists on the news, they are violent, throw molotov cocktails and disrupt people’s lives not write articles”.’

  49. LOL

    No it was not a suicide attempt.

    P Andrew has abseiled from floor 87 to floor 20 of the Shard. The rope did not break under the strain.

  50. He is not aiding the Bahrainis this time, but the Qataris and the charities.

    From the above

    ‘Prince Andrew opened Europe’s tallest building in July with Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassem al Thani, whose country funded the £450m skyscraper.

    Owners of the tower, LBQ Limited, said: “We are delighted to welcome The Duke of York back to the Shard following his key role in the building’s inauguration.

    “We are extremely pleased that the Shard is the centrepiece of this huge fund-raising exercise for these incredibly worthy causes.”‘

  51. Seven years after his shooting by police (six bullets in his head and chest), the mother of Azelle Rodney will not have a coroner and a jury to decide how and why he was killed. Instead she has an ‘inquiry’ conducted by a retired judge, reminiscent of other high profile cases. RIPA comes into play.

    ‘It is expected that the public inquiry will be able to examine the broad
    issues raised by pre-planned operations, which have been the subject of
    longstanding controversy since the shootings of three members of the IRA
    by the SAS in Gibraltar in 1988. The key question that was asked then,
    and has been asked subsequently but never satisfactorily answered in
    relation to these kinds of pre planned and surveillance-based operations
    that have led to fatal shootings, is why there was no attempt to make an
    arrest earlier. Other fatal shootings by police officers have raised similar
    issues, not least the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell
    Tube Station in July 2005.15 Many of the cases raise questions about
    possible operational and intelligence failings. There has also been
    widespread concern by families and lawyers about the investigation of
    these cases. In particular the practice of police officers `pooling their
    recollections’ and writing their notes up together has been a longstanding
    issue of contention.’


  52. Good interview. Many salient points covered, some good counters to the accusation of conspiracy theory, and a reasoned take on the Swedish position, which I hope the public (or some of it) will take on board. The possibility that a case as flawed as the Swedish one could be tried effectively in camera, on the basis of “evidence” not made available to the (nonexistent) jury, is of course a real one, to which I had not attached sufficient weight. And the bizarre legal system which permits this fully accounts for the Americans’ interest in having Assange in Sweden.
    It would be good if this found its way into the MSM, but I see very little hope of that.

  53. Well done, Craig. Very well put and articulate. The trouble is, such sustained arguments are just too long for the main stream media who are afraid their audience will switch off and their paymasters will be displeased. You’re not allowed to say anything if it doesn’t fit into a sound bite that resonates with the accepted messaging. (David H)

    Just so. Let’s focus on:
    “Assange won’t get a jury trial” as a headline. Or: “Swedes to try Assange in secret”
    “What have they got to hide?”

  54. Assange case: A record of US influenced media deceit

    at the Wikileaks forum,14292.0.html

  55. That item at the Wikileaks forum is a translated article from Stefania Maurizi, L’Espresso, Italy

  56. You thought the Guardian was bad?

    Media rats.

  57. “Australian “liberal” press joins persecution of Assange”

  58. That’s a “snap”

  59. Komodo

    You beat me to it!. A case of great minds think alike, lol.

  60. :)

  61. @CE:

    I’m sure the dissidents whose identities were compromised when wikileaks released swathes of unredacted documents would disagree with that assertion.

    I thought that assertion had been well debunked by now – see my contribution on an earlier thread. Put simply, the cables were released in one go because of a monumental, unforgivable error by a journalist who was writing a book on Wikileaks. (A technical mistake relating to encryption passwords by Assange also contributed to this situation).

  62. @CE, your earlier questions:

    but if you follow Craig’s logic the charges against JA are so corrupt and absurd that there’s no point in him even dignifying the process?

    Yes, Craig thinks the charges are absurd, I agree. But I didn’t get the inference that JA should not attend court as a result. My view, which I think is also Craig’s, is that it is okay to believe that the allegations are a set-up whilst also insisting that a case should go ahead, in case the allegations are genuine. (In other words – it doesn’t matter if it is a set-up, since allegations always need to be answered).

    Surely it’s possible to be against JA being extradited to the US without indulging in CIA honey trap smears against his alleged victims?

    It is possible, sure. But the real question here is “shouldn’t the case go ahead without substantial media commentary regarding the motives/guilt of the various parties”, which goes right to your concern about smearing the alleged victims. I would agree with this if it wasn’t for the substantial and repetitive smearing of Assange by 90% of the media – now that a lot of people have fallen into line against Assange, I think the genie is out of the bottle, and Assange/supporters have a right to defend their side.

    That Ardin has named herself in various media outlets, and put forward her side of the story very publicly, only strengthens my view – we are now entitled to speculate pretty much on everything. I do agree with your theoretical position about making a trial as fair as possible, but the case now is so substantially prejudiced – criticisms of both Assange and the two women involved have now rendered any trial impossible. On the basis that there may be a case to answer, I think the Swedish authorities have shown very little regard for the due process that normally safeguards the rights of alleged assault victims.

  63. Is this the reason Assange has to go to the US via Sweden rather than directly?

    BBC website: Saturday, 5 April 2003 16:21

    Mr Blunkett said there was no danger that American authorities could add extra charges which did carry the death penalty after extradition had happened.

    “They give guarantees and we believe their guarantees.”

    If the US reneged on this agreement , it would put an end to future extraditions and therefore Assange has to be shipped to another country that has no such restrictions in place.

    CE: The two alleged victims can indeed have their day in court, all that is required is for the Swedish Government to guarantee that Assange will not be extradited to the US. Bearing in mind Sweden’s compliance in the rendition of 2 CIA victims , this guarantee wouldn’t be enough for me if were in his shoes.

  64. “If the US reneged on this agreement , it would put an end to future extraditions and therefore Assange has to be shipped to another country that has no such restrictions in place.”

    Also, IF – especially in the absence of a jury – Assange WAS found guilty in Sweden, he’d be arriving in the US as a convicted rapist, and any and all sympathy or support would have been stripped from him, and you could forget about him.

  65. Stephen Colbert takes the piss out of Aaron Barr and HBGary, and then interviews Glenn Greenwald (2011)

  66. Craig’s posts are always very informative and to the point. This makes them worth forwarding and/or tweeting.

    Many of the comments also fall into this category but are impossible to forward or tweet individually and easily under the present format.

    The source code for this site/post shows the comment number for each comment. A tweak of the template could allow for the displayed timestamp to serve as a permalink to the comment. The permalinklink would consist of the url for the post with the addition of “#comment-[number of comment]”.

    This would make it easier to back-refer to comments in the thread or across threads or to forward them externally. Blogger uses this system and it is a great facility.

    The only disadvantage I can see is if commenters use multiple comment-links in their comments. That might give rise to a delay in the appearance of the comment under the current “moderation” parameters.

    Great blog and always worth a visit.

  67. @Póló, thanks. Comment permalinks are on my to-do list.

  68. We are not talking about a fair trial by UK standards, are we? The outcome could well be Assange in jail for some years, incommunicado and officially smeared as a rapist. Result. Extradition to the US is irrelevant, unless the weakness of the charges forces even a feminist Swedish Social Democrat prosecutor to drop them (what have I said? Sorry). The US has given NO guarantees. It cannot extradite from Sweden for an alleged crime carrying the death penalty – that’s all. We can, but will not, insist that extradition does not take place from Sweden. The US has a one-sided extradition treaty with the UK: it can extradite without providing evidence. The UK would probably be penalised for breaking this treaty; a big arms deal could go sour, or intelligence co-operation would be reduced, for instance.

    So, Assange will go to jail in Sweden AND/OR
    he will be extradited from Sweden on assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed (big deal) OR
    he will be extradited from here (after a slap on the wrist for jumping bail)

    Seems to me he goes down whatever happens.

  69. Nuid, thats a very lame write up, with Dimona not even mentioned. Israel’s nuclear stockpile is real and dangerous, because its controlled by a pathologically confused Netanyahu who thinks he’s Winston Churchill.
    Thanks for the great links Mark G and Mary.

    Komodo I hope that Ms. Dagdalen can do something for Assange, but she is one of six Linke in the Bundestag. Her radical credences are laudable, she has spoken out in parliament against Ms. Merkels policy in the ME and Syria especially.

    This by Chris Roubis.

  70. Just got the crystal ball back from its 20,000 year service. It’s suggesting that after some to-ing and fro-ing, the Swedish charges are dropped, and the issue simplifies. It’s between the UK and Ecuador now. The UK has every right to pull Assange in on the little matter of jumping a £250,000 bail bond (or was it £400K?) and probably has enough on Correa, thanks to our intelligence partners in Langley and the US Army, to extract Julian in a dignified manner.
    The rest will be history.

  71. Nevermind – Nuid, thats a very lame write up…

    But virtually unprecedented for the WaPo to mention the matter at all.

    Like you, I hope Dağdalen hanım has some influence!

  72. “@Jimmy giro

    CE fears men’s innocence:

    Although I do not go as far in my views as your article does Jimmy, I nevertheless, found it to be thouht provoking

  73. It is significant that Women Against Rape do not want to see Julian Assange extradited on a charge of rape. They have to deal with genuine rape cases and this does not help their cause one iota. In fact, were Julian Assange extradited they would lose a lot of support from sympathisers, hard-won support. You can show your approval of this article (or disapprove) by clicking the link.

  74. @Komodo

    “Just got the crystal ball back from its 20,000 year service. It’s suggesting that after some to-ing and fro-ing, the Swedish charges are dropped, and the issue simplifies. It’s between the UK and Ecuador now. The UK has every right to pull Assange in on the little matter of jumping a £250,000 bail bond (or was it £400K?) and probably has enough on Correa, thanks to our intelligence partners in Langley and the US Army, to extract Julian in a dignified manner.
    The rest will be history.”

    I think we need to remember, though, why all of this farce is happening. It’s about the US wanting to get their hands on Assange. Given that they have been prepared to go as far as they already have in twisting the laws of various countries in order to achieve that end, they will surely not give up now. So, any outcome will involve, one way or another, them getting hold of him. I can’t see them giving up unless the consequences of not doing so are enormous.

  75. Nevermind

    “Nuid, thats a very lame write up”

    Of course it is. What Komodo said.

  76. Steve Cook – that’s what I had hoped I had implied by “the rest will be history”.

  77. Has this refusal by Ecuador to extradite to Belarus been posted?

    Ecuador Refuses to Extradite Belarus Dissident
    22:55 29/08/2012 MOSCOW,

    Ecuador’s top court has rejected an extradition request for a former Belarusian investigative police officer, the Belarusian news portal Platforma reported on Wednesday.

    Alexander Barankov, 30, wanted by Minsk on fraud charges, fled to Ecuador in 2009, saying the charges were trumped up after he uncovered widespread corruption linked to senior government officials and people close to Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.

    Ecuador’s National Court of Justice said Barankov could not be extradited due to his political refugee status.

    Barankov said he could be killed if sent back to his former homeland.

    Ecuador granted Barankov asylum in 2010 but he was arrested in June shortly before an official visit by Lukashenko who sought to strengthen ties between the two countries.

    Barankov’s case resurfaced when Ecuador granted asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose extradition from Britain was demanded by Sweden. Ecuador was concerned that Assange could face the death penalty if further extradited to the United States

  78. Cambodia complies with Swedish request to arrest the Pirate Bay founder.

    “His arrest was made at the request of the Swedish government for a crime related to information technology,” Kirth Chantharith told AFP.

    “We don’t have an extradition treaty with Sweden but we’ll look into our laws and see how we can handle this case,” he said, adding that Cambodia was awaiting more information and documents from the Swedish authorities.

    The Swedish embassy in Phnom Penh was not immediately available for comment.

  79. Way off topic! Rebekah appears in court looking rather glum. Gone is that confident air. Do the authorities think she is going to skip off?

    ‘Mrs Brooks, from Churchill, Oxfordshire, spoke to confirm her address and date of birth.

    She was released on bail on the condition that she lives at her given address, does not contact her fellow accused and gives the police seven days’ notice should she wish to travel abroad.

    There was a large media presence outside court. However, she did not speak to journalists.

    News International’s former legal adviser, Tom Crone, 60, was arrested last week by police investigating phone hacking.

    He has been bailed until October.’


  80. She looks about as pissed off as it is possible to get. Hugely enjoyable….

  81. hehe

    She does look mightily pised off!

    A sideshow of course, to give us all a warm feeling and so rest assured that everything is as it should be and the “bad guys” always get caught. Indeed, it could well be used against us in that there will likely be a clamp down across the board on all forms of reporting, including the shit we need to know.

    It does give me a warm feeling, nontheless…..

  82. re: Rebecca Brooks. What are they going to do to make sure she does not contact co-defendants? Tap her phone. Tee hee!

  83. @Rebekah – LOL

  84. VivaEcuador

    3 Sep, 2012 - 2:09 pm

    Today’s lesson in fake diplomacy: How To Pretend To Be Looking for a Solution

    This is what the Secretary of State – London Branch is now saying about JA’s extradition –

    “Our consent may only be given in accordance with the international conventions by which the UK is bound, including the European convention on human rights, and also our domestic law. In practice, this means that the United Kingdom could only consent to Mr Assange’s onward extradition from Sweden to a third country if satisfied that extradition would be compatible with his human rights, and that there was no prospect of a death sentence being imposed or carried out.”

    Hmm….this is about as reassuring as a hand grenade in a toy chest.

  85. O/T. I got this idea from Rebekah Brooks (who I have to say looks nearly as old as Rupert himself). To try and improve hits on my blog I’m going for increasingly provocative headlines. After ‘The rape of Julian Assange’ it is ‘”Get the hence, Satan” says Desmond Tutu’.

  86. Or even ‘get thee hence’.

  87. “…that extradition would be compatible with his human rights…” Sec of State, via Viva Ecuador.
    I agree, it’s not at all reassuring, esp. given that the European Court of Human Rights decided that solitary confinement for 23 hours a day in a small cell for up to three years pre-trial in a Federal ADX in the USA whose own retired warden described as “a clean version of Hell” is not infringing the human rights of Talha Ahsan and Babar Ahmed.

    Julian Assange can expect the same sort of ‘human rights’ if ever he is kidnapped (legally or otherwise) and taken to the USA. It’s no wonder he jumped bail. When the law has become a malevolent, deranged ass, it is incumbent upon those with conscience to break it.

  88. I got the hence, John. Doctor says it’ll clear up by itself…

  89. VivaEcuador

    3 Sep, 2012 - 2:40 pm


    This is the govt’s new tactic. Hague is pretending this is all about the death penalty. “Hey Julian – don’t worry about those lethal injections. We’ll do our best to make sure you get a life sentence.”

  90. O/T, but worthwhile. A petition against the selling off of school playing fields:

  91. Is it catching Komodo?

  92. Komodo, sorry about the slight with the forked-tongue stuff! I forgot about yours.

    “You never know with Blair whether the lie is going to slip off the end of the right fork or the left fork of his duplicitous tongue! But you know it will slip out one way or the other.”

  93. Seems to me the Yanks could cook up a much better case against Assange than the Swedes have proved to do. One much less likely to crash on procedural and pre-publicity grounds. And if that is the case (18 U.S.C. § 2315 – receiving stolen goods – looks like a contender) and as the stolen goods are US property, dual criminality applies; he can be extradited without actually making the law look an ass. Could still get him some years in the slammer on its own, and deprive him of the claim that he is seeking political asylum.
    Just saying.

  94. Never noticed, John! Blair is a snake, so that’s different. And quite forgivable.

  95. The court artist has made her look like a serial killer on the game…

  96. Nuid,

    This by Pexton makes little sense to me:

    ‘I don’t think many people fault Israel for having nuclear weapons. If I were a child of the Holocaust, I, too, would want such a deterrent to annihilation.’

    A child of whatever holocaust would find any weapons of mass destruction that debase existence offensive.

    Israel conducted a nuclear bomb test with South Africa in 1979 according to secret cables, satellite observation and Albright’s research.

    Today we know Israel is equipping German built submarines with nuclear tipped cruise missiles according to Der Spiegel, a dangerous proliferation that threatens an already fragile world peace and in the absence of any kind of international supervision (much like the Palestinian land grab).

    “..I’ve broken my silence

    because I’m sick of the West’s hypocrisy.. Gunter Grass

  97. I signed that petition to Gove this morning Jon. There were over 98,000 signatures then. Now there are over 125,000 which shows that the people do care about these matters.

    Do you think that these petitions to the ConDems are given any consideration by them or are they a pretence that we are allowed to express ourselves? I think that their plan to flog off our forests and woodlands was foiled because of the level of protest.

    btw has pagination here been cancelled?

    John Goss and Komodo LOL ref Ms Brooks.

  98. @Mary: I don’t think any one of the main parties in the UK are swayed by petitions more or less than the others, but to all of them a popular petition can make an incremental difference. Even within the limitations of our democratic representation, these – and the “hand-in” stunt for the cameras – can chip away at a party’s valuable poll ratings.

    Pagination still works – I set it at 200 comments/page, so a good number of recent contributions can be found using the browser Find feature. I figured if I set it at 20, we might have 50+ pages to wade through on large discussions – which is a pain if you want to find a specific comment. (I could bring it down to, say, 150 if people still find pages slow to load.)

  99. Possibly not Rebekah, but good for a laugh –

    And see @loubermensch – another one.

  100. I think 200 is good Jon,thanks.

  101. So if both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to have JA extradited from Sweden, wouldn’t this imaginary extradition have more chance of success when JA is in the UK?

    Also, why did he even bother to admit himself to the British legal process, if as soon as had exhausted(and lost) all options, he was planning on skipping bail and making a mockery of political asylum?

  102. Agree with Jives. Thanks Jon for your unseen (but not unappreciated) backroom work.

    LOL Komodo. Is this really true about La Mensch’s top up income?

    Dave Cameroon ‏@DaveCamm
    So @loubermensch u earned £75,656.51 from media work on top of your MP’s salary last year meaning u earned as much as me. Go Dutch next date.
    The troughers are back in Pugin’s Palace. Cleggover holding forth on that most pressing matter, above all others, namely House of Lords reform which was linked to a boundary review. Both abandoned as the deal has fallen through. £11.9m has been wasted on the boundary review.

  103. This is the discussion on the Medialens message board about this post of Craig’s.

  104. CE,

    1. Its more politically vexatious to do it direct from UK. Check the lengthy process of the Gary McKinnon case. Sweden would more likely to be seen as less partisan to the US than UK – although wrongly so I would argue.

    2. Assange has good reason to feel persecuted and being stitched up without a fair and open trial.This is precisely why diplomatic immunity laws exist. It was Hague, not JA, who made a mockery of the process by, quite staggeringly, threatening the inviolability of diplomatic privilege and protocol.

  105. Jives,

    I agree with you 100% regarding Hague’s ridiculous and offensive threat to storm the embassy, but JA is not a diplomat claiming diplomatic immunity. He is an alleged sex offender claiming and manipulating the political asylum system.

    The idea of Sweden not providing someone a fair trial is laughable. However, I will agree that due to AA’s media interviews she has probably forgone the right to a private hearing she is afforded under Swedish law.

    Pure conjecture, but I think the US has no intention of extraditing JA now. Why bother making a martyr out of him, when this (along with the compromising of dissidents and informants) has done a better job of ruining his reputation than they ever could. But will they commit to not extraditing him in order to make his life easier? I doubt it, they’re probably enjoying watching him squirm.

  106. VivaEcuador

    3 Sep, 2012 - 5:55 pm


    You seem to think that repeating yourself somehow makes your argument more valid.

    In fact, it’s about as effective as your attempt to have comments here censored.

  107. I just read Hague being quoted in the Guardian as having said that Britain and Sweden have the highest standards of human rights.

    This is laughable, and downright dishonest. Talk to any father who has had the misfortune of defending his kids against institutional child abuse in the family courts here. They’ll tell you a lot about human rights in the UK. It took me 18 months to clear myself of false allegations, and restore the shared parenting relationship that my kid enjoyed prior to separation.

    I have no sympathy for those in power who sing the praises of social justice when they know that such things are contaminated through and through by a deeply pathological form of politics.

    Those who deny social injustice are merely those who have an interest in perpetuating it.

  108. CE – what is it that you stand to gain by trying to cloak these matters in a bag of lies? Really!

  109. CE,

    I think political asylum comes under the aegis and protocols of diplomatic immunity, certainly in terms of sovereignty.

    Why would it be laughable to fear a fair trial in Sweden? Looking at the highly suspicious and connected actions of Ardin and her cronies in the political,judicial and law enforcement establishment I, for one, sense something deeply sinister going on. Not least her deletion of tweets, and all legal protocols breached when she had her police pal conduct a wholly improper interview, which Ardin should not have attended. The list of strange practice at the Swedish end runs long and I wont go into them here as I’m sure you are aware of them.

    Also, if the US have no plans to extradite or pursue AA but simply want to “see him squirm” as you put it.. well, under any international human rights legislation you like that is most definitely persecution and quite possibly arguable as psychological torture.

    It stinks CE, it stinks very badly indeed.

  110. “This by Pexton makes little sense to me”

    No, Mark, it doesn’t make sense. But he can now say he’s written about the subject (while genuflecting to the line that “Israel has a right to defend itself”, blah blah.)

    He also neglected to say that by not acknowledging possession of nuclear weapons, Israel avoids a US prohibition on funding countries which proliferate weapons of mass destruction, and that an admission would prevent Israel from receiving over $3 billion each year in military and other aid from Washington.

    And he does say that “Mordechai Vanunu was kidnapped by Israeli agents in Italy, taken home to trial, convicted and served 18 years in jail, much of it in solitary confinement”, but he doesn’t bother to mention that he’s still not free.

    All in all, it’s a tiny little toe-dip into the subject. But I was surprised it was there at all.

    By the way, Nevermind, the article does mention Dimona but in an obscure way. If you click on the name Mordechai Vanunu in the column it brings up this:

  111. Steve Cook @3 Sep, 2012 – 12:18 pm

    Thanks for the feedback. I’m often reminded by this quote from Ayn Rand, in Atlas Shrugged:

    “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against. We’re after power and we mean it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.

  112. Dave, it sounds like Hague’s been hitting the beer again!

  113. Is Foreign Secretary William Hague taking the piss?

    He is quoted as follows in the Guardian today:

    The suggestion that Mr Assange’s human rights would be put at risk by the possibility of onward extradition from Sweden to a third country is also without foundation. Not only would Sweden – as a signatory to the European convention on human rights – be required to refuse extradition in circumstances which would breach his human rights, but the authorities in Sweden would also be legally obliged to seek the United Kingdom’s consent before any extradition to a non-EU member state could proceed.”

    “Our consent may only be given in accordance with the international conventions by which the UK is bound, including the European convention on human rights, and also our domestic law. In practice, this means that the United Kingdom could only consent to Mr Assange’s onward extradition from Sweden to a third country if satisfied that extradition would be compatible with his human rights, and that there was no prospect of a death sentence being imposed or carried out.

    There’s a simple answer to that: what about the unlawful actions that the UK and Sweden have already committed, when they have helped the CIA kidnap and transport people to be tortured?

    Have they apologised? Have they paid compensation? Have they promised not to do it again? Have they offered themselves for prosecution?

    Given the UK and Swedish governments’ clear guilt in this area, no assurance that they will respect their international obligations regarding human rights (such as their obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture) is worth anything whatsoever.

    Their guilt is not hypothetical.

    Nor is the use of torture by the US authorities, who have tortured Bradley Manning in relation to the wonderful work he has done revealing to Wikileaks numerous crimes committed by the US authorities around the world. He remains unlawfully jailed. He remains facing the possibility of a death sentence for his heroic actions.

    The word ‘hero’ is overused, but if it does not apply to people like Bradley Manning and Mordechai Vanunu, who does it apply to?

    In 2008, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said

    As part of our close co-operation [with the US], there has long been a regular exchange with the US authorities, in which we have set out: that we expect them to seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and airspace, including Overseas Territories; that we will grant that permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations; and how we understand our obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture.

    Does this seem familiar? It’s exactly the same worthless assurance currently being spouted by William Hague.

    Can we have a response from Ecuador please.

  114. Hague seems most determined to make himsel look a bigger and continuing fool than he was before.

    Thats quite some achievement.

  115. Further bilge from Green in the New Statesman. A charmer.

    The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange
    Why the “zombie facts” of Assange supporters are wrong.

  116. Ha – Green’s article! What a cutting-pasting special pleader for the Foreign Office!

    First, Assange’s supporters often refer to the dreadful 2001 case of Agiza and Al-Zery. Here, in an extra-judicial move, two men were renditioned by Sweden to Egypt at the request of the CIA.”

    “Is this case analogous to the Assange extradition? The first answer is that there is a distinction between judicial and extra-judicial activities – and Assange is wanted for a judicial process.”


    “Extra-judicial” is a funny way to spell “unlawful”. How naughty we are for supporting Julian Assange! When we say he’s right to fear extradition to the US, we should say rendition rather than extradition, is that right? Or some other “-ition” that crops up in a few months time?

    The point is that the UK and Sweden unlawfully help the US in its unlawful war effort, including in detaining and torturing people who reveal truths about it that they don’t want revealed. But according to Green no-one must say that in court?

    His stupid arguments just come down to the idea that the UK and Sweden must abide by international law. Well they haven’t been doing very well at that, have they?

  117. Jane Glover

    3 Sep, 2012 - 9:26 pm

    If it’s so well known that whistle blowers are fitted up with non whistleblowing allegations against them, why was Assange having sex with these women in the first place? Seems a remarkably naive move and he only has himself to blame for the fallout.

  118. @ Jane Glover

    You’ll be telling us next that women who dress provocatively deserve everything they get.

  119. Osborne was booed tonight when it was announced that he was presenting the medals at the Paralympics. He laughed. Didn’t get it. |Either thick or thick-skinned.

  120. Nuid – good points

    Jane Clover – seduction is usual. Enticement into a home for an innocent reason has happened to me.

  121. Rime Allaf – the ‘thinking bitch’ whose advice empowers the corrupt secret services ’16’ members to use and pay al-Qaeda ‘death squads’ and SAS trained guerrillas to fight a proxy war for regime change in Syria.

    The massacre of Syrian children and civilians by these terrorists as reported to me and seen recently from principled and honest reporting is what will go down in history as one of the most horrific against a population braving live fire with bare chests and daring slogans.

    You are a subverted disgrace Mrs Allaf and I will say that to your face when a time for atonement appears.

  122. Thought for the day…

    “Right now, the corporate-capitalists are on top & in charge – they have been firmly re-entrenched in political & economic power since Thatcher and they have done BAD things on our planet and TO our planet – they have proven to be liars, thieves, murderers, untrustworthy, selfish, greedy – basically, they are single-minded psychopaths following their prescribed objectives.

    The old ‘elitist’ circles that grant public favour & add lustre to corporate power moguls (most of whom sit neatly in the global-bankers back-pockets), are founded on bigoted notions of racial, sexual & genetic superiority interpreted as the ‘right’ to use lands, resources & people like a permanently well-stocked larder.

    We need to get VIGILANT in spotting & defining psychological-imbalance and we need to understand that the imbalanced are UNFIT to rule; psychopath = fascist.”

  123. @John Goss: I just took the HuffPost poll, and the results are about 70% for trying Bush and Blair for war crimes, to 30% not. (I’m winning!)

  124. Just voted in the Huff poll 71.29% for

  125. I have a question — probably to Craig — about what Tutu is truly asking. Everyone seems to conclude that he’s calling for a trial at the ICC in the Hague, but the Newsy video embedded in the HuffPo story quotes the Christian Science Monitor:

    While the International Criminal Court can handle cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, it does not currently have the jurisdiction to prosecute crimes of aggression. Any potential prosecution over the Iraq war would likely come under the aggression category.

    The U.S. is among nations which do not recognize the International Criminal Court.

    Where is the proper place to try crimes of aggression?

    What Tutu actually said:

    …in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.

    But even greater costs have been exacted beyond the killing fields, in the hardened hearts and minds of members of the human family across the world.

    Has the potential for terrorist attacks decreased? To what extent have we succeeded in bringing the so-called Muslim and Judeo-Christian worlds closer together, in sowing the seeds of understanding and hope?

    Leadership and morality are indivisible. Good leaders are the custodians of morality. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not have allowed themselves to stoop to his immoral level.

    If it is acceptable for leaders to take drastic action on the basis of a lie, without an acknowledgement or an apology when they are found out, what should we teach our children?

    My appeal to Mr Blair is not to talk about leadership, but to demonstrate it. You are a member of our family, God’s family. You are made for goodness, for honesty, for morality, for love; so are our brothers and sisters in Iraq, in the US, in Syria, in Israel and Iran.

    He’s asking Blair to demonstrate leadership — fess up and apologize? If Blair did that, would Tutu still want a war crimes trial? Maybe this is a truth or justice question.

    I notice that Tutu’s leaving Bush out at this point, and I’m remembering back to an audience question to Bush during a debate when a lady asked him to name a decision he regretted, and he couldn’t think of a thing. This after everything was a complete mess. If it would get him off of a war crimes trial, would he change his answer now I wonder?

  126. From the transcript of the October 8, 2004 Bush-Kerry debate in St. Louis. Question from audience member Linda Grabel:

    GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.

    BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.

    And in a war, there’s a lot of — there’s a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn’t have done that. He shouldn’t have made that decision. And I’ll take responsibility for them. I’m human.

    But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I’ll stand by those decisions, because I think they’re right.

    That’s really what you’re — when they ask about the mistakes, that’s what they’re talking about. They’re trying to say, “Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?” And the answer is, “Absolutely not.” It was the right decision.

    The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

    We knew he hated us. We knew he’d been — invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.

    On the tax cut, it’s a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.

    Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I’m not going to name them. I don’t want to hurt their feelings on national TV.


    BUSH: But history will look back, and I’m fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.

    Kerry comes back at him but Bush has no regrets and nothing he’d do differently.

  127. Jane Glover,

    “If it’s so well known that whistle blowers are fitted up with non whistleblowing allegations against them, why was Assange having sex with these women in the first place? Seems a remarkably naive move and he only has himself to blame for the fallout.”

    I wish there was an emoticon where i could put my palm to my forehead is despair.

    That’s one of the most pathetic posts i’ve ever read on here Jane-and God knows there’s been a few.

  128. Burtons Mint Viscounts

    4 Sep, 2012 - 2:25 am

    “Breviks actions were calculated madness. he is a sick imdividual and a product of society.”

    No one has successfully explained how this ‘individual’ managed to plant a 4 tonne fertilizer bomb in the sewers of Oslo and why not one single frame of CCTV has emerged, even though the bomb went of in a very secure area.

    If it was not fertilizer (as reported) then he must have used military grade H.E., but again major questions of logistics remain. The massacre has allowed the Oslo bombing to go totally un-investigated by the ‘human tragedy’ obsessed media.

  129. In this column, Craig Murray attempts to defend Assange by comparing him to Scott Ritter as another purported victim of a “honey pot” conspiracy by a U.S. agency. In fact, Ritter was convicted for masturbating on a webcam for a local police officer who had identified himself to Ritter twice as a 15 year old. If Murray thinks he helps Assange with this comparison, it’s a mystery why. It does make clear that Murray is willing to minimize not only alleged rape, but also a proven attempt at child abuse. That says much more about the depths to which Murray is willing to sink than it does about the conspiracies he imagines to be true.

  130. One more fact about Scott Ritter, he had previously been arrested for attempting similar acts with minors. That arrest occurred prior to his conversion from Iraq WMD hawk to peacenik. Unless the conspiracy against him involved clairvoyance, that fact pretty well debunks all the honey pot hogwash.

  131. @Adam Holland – having read the article do you not find it odd that he only seems to ‘attempt child abuse’ with undercover cops?
    Of course it isn’t child abuse if there is no child involved, nor is it a crime if the police set out to entrap you.

  132. Newsnight won’t leave it or Julian Assange alone.

    In a segment broadcast last night, the now white haired Paxman interviewed Naomi Wolff, the author of a new book ‘Vagina – A New Biography’ asking the question ‘What is rape’. Julian Assange was shown at the beginning in a murky and blurred video clip at the Ecuadorean embassy, probably deliberately.

    By the end, nobody is left any the wiser.

  133. The direction from which our new contributor is coming.

    adamhollandblog Craig Murray calls Scott Ritter a honeypot victim like Assange. Ritter arrested multiple times, convicted once for, indecent acts w/ minor. 2 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite

    adamhollandblog @Mondoweiss, like Counterpunch, published this disgraceful column equating Rachel Corrie with Anne Frank.… 3 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite

    adamhollandblog Assange is compared to a black man lynched for allegedly raping a white woman in the Jim Crow era.… 3 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite

    David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
    This is the forensic debunking @NewStatesman post for which I was swiftly blocked by @wikileaks. You will see why.

    Retweeted by Adam Holland

    His blog has links to:
    Worth reading…
    Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East
    Crooks and Liars
    Editor and Publisher
    Feathered Bastard
    Harry’s Place
    History News Network
    Hungarian Spetrum
    Inside Higher Ed
    Jeffrey Goldberg
    Jerusalem Post
    Jerusalem Report
    Jewish Currents magazine
    etc etc

  134. @mark

    They global faacists wont go away.

    If only they used their power in the interests.

    If you were at the top of pyramid what policy would you install
    a reduction in materialism and greed and better education.

    Imagine what could be children.
    Not there arre 6 genders children.

  135. @Adam Holland: Thanks for the link to the NY Times article on Scott Ritter. Much to read there, including Ritter speaking for himself. The letters are good too. Here’s one from Ritter’s wife:

    * Marina Ritter

    1. Venneman [the undercover entrapper] entered the adults-only chat room by certifying (via a wrap-around, legally-binding contract) that he was an adult. There was no minor involved in the chat, only two consenting adults. End of story.
    2. This is not a referendum on adult chat rooms – they are legal in America. Nor is it a referendum on masturbation. Masturbating is neither sexually deviant, nor illegal, behavior. We can safely state that every person leaving a comment here or the judge, the prosecutor, the lawyers, the jury et al., (indeed any human being) have masturbated at one time or another in their lives. Hipocrisy on this subject is abhorrent.

    And though the article was published in February, it’s extremely pertinent now in light of Bishop Tutu’s op-ed calling for war crimes trials for Bush and Blair. Had the entrapment not happened, we might be hearing from Ritter now as the expert on the no-WMD-in-Iraq opinions he gave then. An excerpt from the article:

    “Everybody who lied about the war got rewarded,” Ritter said. “Because they played the game. Tell the truth about the war, you don’t get rewarded.” He paused. “And then, you know, let’s be frank — you compound it with me shooting myself in the foot on personal, behavioral issues.” An awkward moment passed between us. “I’ll just ask the fundamental question,” Ritter said, looking at me squarely across the table. “My personal missteps — how many Americans have died as a result of that? None. Other than my family, how many victims were there? None. And yet, in refusing to engage in a responsible debate about Iraq, how many Americans died? Thousands. And America seems to have no problem with that.”

    I disagree with him there, because I think Americans DO have a problem with that, it’s just not polled or reported well in the mainstream press. But it’s here. Craig’s interview shows how trumped up charges — national security fantasies — pass for what we’re supposed to accept as truth while the voices of reality like Ritter and Assange get smeared and quashed.

    Bob from Seattle’s letter has a point:

    Where will the NYTimes go for help? You certainly need it. You beat the drums for war against Iraq and failed to identify the hysteria and lies behind that decision. You ignore the resulting war crimes. You whitewash the careers of people who have lied to the nation and are demonstrably war criminals — at least they are careful not to travel outside the US where people might care about war crimes. Now you are rehabilitating Perle and beating the drums for war again.

    In my opinion, your article reveals that you also have a serious problem. Can we hope for any change in your behavior?

  136. Greenwald demolishes a lie in the New Statesman piece:

    Nice one.

  137. Today I will sleep in late, watch porn, violent films, violent games, violent music video games.

    Smoke drink laze around, and be generally uncouth.
    All on the tax payer.

    Education and lack of integrity brough about by imdoctrination and manipulatiom.

    Clever fuckers you are we are stupid and no know better.

  138. Anna Ardins name was first time mentioned in Swedish media 20100823. It was,surprisingly, her boss Peter Weiderud who confirmed that it was Ardin.

    “Politiska sekretaren i socialdemokratiska Broderskapsrörelsen, Anna Ardin, bjöd för drygt en vecka sedan in Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange till ett seminarium. I helgen anmäldes Assange för sexuellt ofredande. Bakom anmälan står Anna Ardin.

    – Hon är sjukskriven, säger den kristna Broderskapsrörelsens ordförande Peter Weiderud till Newzglobe.

    Peter Weiderud, ordförande i broderskapsrörelsen, är sparsam med kommentarer.

    Han förklarar att Assange var inbjuden för att diskutera mediernas roll i konflikter – ett seminarium som ägde rum i LO-borgen i Stockholm i lördags.

    Bakom inbjudan stod Anna Ardin, som efteråt kontaktade polisen och anmälde Wikileaks grundare för sexuellt ofredande.

    – Alltihop är en polissak och det här har hänt på hennes fritid. Jag har ansvar för att hon mår väl, understryker Peter Weiderud och tillägger att Anna Ardin – som även är pressansvarig hos Broderskaparna – är sjukskriven efter det inträffade.”

  139. “@JimmyGiro

    Thanks for the feedback. I’m often reminded by this quote from Ayn Rand, in Atlas Shrugged:…”

    I was with you till the Ayn Rand bit Jimmy…;)

    A more miserable, woman-hating (and therefore self-hating), dried-up excuse for a human it is difficult to find.

    Additionally, her stance on zero-government and ultra-self-reliance did not, it appears extend to her own good self. She made full use of medicare and welfare in her old age.

  140. @Adam Holland, here’s the Post that I recently posted on the previous thread;

    “I have known Scott for 24 years and have worked with him in both US and international settings. I spoke as a character witness at the trial, also spoke at his sentencing, and know what information was presented to the jury. It’s important to note that a lot of important background information was NOT permitted to be introduced at trial, as a result of pre-trial decisions by the judge. That missing info (in my opinion, anyway) was and is critical for context, and had it been presented to them, the jurors may have interpreted the events of both 2001 and 2009 in a different light. It will be interesting to see how the appellate judge rules on some of these issues.

    Scott is a flawed human being, as are we all, and he has some serious psychological demons for which (until he was imprisoned, anyway) he was receiving treatment. His issues have a high “ick” factor that hits the moral and psychological hot buttons of a high percentage of the US population.

    But what bothers me about many of the comments I’ve seen on this article, as well as the one in NYT Magazine, is that so many people seem to be projecting their anger onto Scott for things for which they THINK Scott was accused and/or convicted, versus those for which he was ACTUALLY accused and convicted. They are two very different things.
    Unless there is information to the contrary that is not publicly available:

    – No one (not in the 2001 case; not in the 2009 case) has even ACCUSED Scott (much less convicted him) of ever having had contact, or even of having ATTEMPTED to have contact, with an actual underage person. All persons with whom contact or attempted contact was alleged were over 18.

    – Scott’s explanation regarding the 2001 events is that he had been interacting with and meeting adult women so that they could watch him masturbate. He says he knew he had a problem and decided to force action to be taken by interacting with persons he knew to be undercover police officers and agreeing to meet with them. He claims he never had contact with, or attempted to have contact with, any underage persons. You can believe or disbelieve Scott’s explanation, but remember that at the time these events occurred, in 2001, his explanations were convincing enough to police officials, prosecutors, and a local NY judge that no charges were filed and the records were sealed.

    – Scott’s explanation of the 2009 event is that he was in an adult chat room specifically dedicated to sexual role playing, that as a condition of entry to the chat room all persons in it have to be adults/have to certify they are adults, and that he therefore believed the person with whom he was interact was “herself” (himself) an adult engaged in “her” own fantasy. Again, you can believe or disbelieve Scott’s explanation (and on the basis of the evidence they were permitted to see, the PA jury clearly did not believe him), but IF in fact the other individual had simply been another adult pretending to be a 15-year old girl as part of fantasy/role playing, no “crime” would have occurred. It was only a crime because the person on the other end of the internet connection was a middle-aged male police officer who pretended to be an adult woman to be able to log into the adult chat room, and subsequently then pretended to be a 15-year old during the interaction with Scott.

    – Scott’s “multiple felony convictions” were all as a result of this single act of masturbation on camera over the internet in 2009. The prosecutor was able to charge him under several counts for this single act; all his convictions (on these multiple counts) were for this single act — nothing else.

    – That Scott is a “sexually violent predator” is the subjective judgment of a State of PA evaluator who had never met him. No one has ever even alleged that Scott has ever displayed any violence or that he shows a propensity to violence. However, the wording of PA’s “Megan’s Law” enables the judge to subjectively choose to so designate Scott, despite the fact that another psychologist with much better professional credentials who has worked personally in a clinical setting with Scott has made the opposite finding.

    – A key piece of evidence that was not permitted to be shared with the jury was the fact that a forensic examination of every computer in Scott’s home produced records of hundreds of sexually-related chats over a period of many years, but that NOT ONE of them was with a person who claimed to be underage. Nor did the forensic examination show any evidence (images, etc.) of child pornography. These facts and the associated conclusions of the forensic examiner were considered so damaging to the prosecutor’s case that the prosecutor fought long and hard (and, ultimately, successfully) to keep the forensic examination’s results from being entered into evidence or otherwise shown to the jury.
    So with the above in mind… you might reasonably conclude that Scott is a slimeball whom you’d not want to be around your kids, regardless of the fact that he has not been accused or convicted of ever having even attempted to make contact with a minor. Or you might think (as I do) that he is a genuine American hero who convincingly spoke the truth on Iraq, but whose personal demons have unfortunately undermined his credibility as a messenger, and have done terrible damage to himself and his family.

    But does he really deserve to be serving a 5 1/2 year prison term and be designated as a sexually violent predator for life, for having incredibly poor judgment regarding what he films himself doing to himself over the internet?

    Not in my opinion. You are all, of course, entitled to your own opinions, and they will undoubtedly differ in many cases from mine. But they should be based on what really happened — not on inferences of what might have happened, or what might have been going on in his head, when no prosecutor has ever even alleged these things to have occurred.

    Comment by John Sartorius — February 26th, 2012 @ 11:30 am”

    Regarding those pre-Iraq events, that resulted is no charges & with the records being officially sealed, they were later inexplicably leaked just at the time of him speaking out against the attack on Iraq; in this respect, the only difference in the Assange case, is that it was from the very beginning, that details of the case, along with his name, were also inexplicably leaked from Police records, and only because of course, Wikileaks was already up & running, and “speaking out” very effectively.

  141. Without getting into the other rights and wrongs re. Ritter, the piece linked by ‘Adam Holland’ does point out that his earlier arrest was dealt with quietly (before his ‘conversion’ on WMD’s) – only after he decided to go public with his correct view that WMD’s did not exist was the offence publicised….and a repeat sting, with maximum publicity, ensured that the smear stuck.

    The fact remains that on both occasions, he was entrapped and had no record of actual sexual acts with or in the presence of minors.

  142. Much entertained to find my old mate ‘Kreplach’…an astoundingly rabid Israeli superfascist with a high web profile (selfpublicised) is one of ‘Adam Holland’s followers on Twitter. If not AH himself.

  143. So…why are Israeli nationalists so interested in smearing Assange? Credible answers, please.

  144. @Komodo, on Ritter, we’ve appear to have made the same point at the same time; on the wider issue on the rights & wrongs of the tactic of entrapment, it seems that a debate is most surely needed, as it is obviously open so easily to being used for nefarious reasons.

    “So…why are Israeli nationalists so interested in smearing Assange? ”

    Probably because Wikileaks’ very existence potentially threatens to lift the lid on all sorts of US/Israeli dirty secrets, with very damaging consequences for both, and their relationship.

  145. Yes, sorry, Macky. Posts crossed I think. I’d add that one contributory factor may be that Assange hired Israel Shamir to handle Russian Wikileaks. The ultranationalists have been after Shamir for a while: he is frequently described as a holocaust denier (invariably without citation), and it is alleged that he is not who he says he is (a converted Russian Jew). He is definitely a hate figure for the Zionists (including ‘Holland’), but there is very little hard evidence either for his story or theirs.

  146. This morning I ‘phoned the Independent newsdesk to try an find out why there had been no mention of the Expressen newspaper article in the British media and why the slant was always against Assange. The person I spoke to was not familiar with Expressen so I sent him the following link with an email message which read:

    “Further to our telephone conversation a few minutes ago I am embedding a
    link to available information that shows there is another side to the
    Julian Assange ‘rape’ case to that reported in the media. I should like
    to see this addressed rather than listen to Joan Smith and Gavin Esler
    shouting down Craig Murray on Newsnight for mentioning the name of Anna

    A man’s life is being toyed with in this dreadful vilification by all
    and sundry without anyone giving helpful support. It is like ganging up
    on Gandhi. The press should be ashamed.

    John Goss”

    I copied in the Press Complaints Commission.

  147. We have corrupt politicians, corrupt police, corrupt judiciary and corrupt media.

    Julian Assange provides the perfect distraction for all the above to obsess about and thereby deny media space to other, infinitely more important, issues. Such as LIBOR rate fixing. The criminal incompetence of George Osborne and the coalition in general (David Laws return to the cabinet is a prime example). And the BBC doling out millions in public money to sock-puppets newsreaders who display an incredible lack of curiosity (Paxman, Esler, et. al.).

    These people love talking endlessly about Assange and then have the temerity to ask (as Paxman did on Newsnight last week) why are *WE* so obsessed with the case.

    I am not interested in Assange one bit. He is a tool.

  148. Maybe he has a few cables left in his secret emergency stash of incredibly important messages, Komodo, the only thing the establishment seems to fear these days, who knows, it could highly personal information of Israel’s cabinet members, dare I mention sexual proclivities here without starting anyone off..:).

    @Burton mint Viscount, indeed well said, just as with the clandestine trucks serving the twin towers in the early morning, this would have to be done under the disguise of nightly work or ‘maintenance’.

    Norways public should strongly ask itself why his brethren free masons had nothing proofed no help at all to the prosecution, knew nothing. Why was Ms Phillips not asked to appear, or Pam Geller, at least one of them had an email exchange with him. So many dead ends which were never pursued,
    The BBC’s Goebbels should explain themselves for repeatedly spreading Nazi propaganda salutes, why they gave Nick Griffin a half hour time on Radio fascist FM Radio 5 live, during elections, and much more, their public broadcasting brief is sooo shot to fuck its not true and still we hear apologist come up with excuses.

    The BBC needs breaking up, yesterday.

  149. Mary,

    Thanks for the link to Green’s excellent piece. Could you point me in the direction of this ‘bilge’ you refer to? Seems like a sober, rational assessment of the facts to me.

    A lot of talk(smearing) of AA on here, but what about SW? Is she a Karl Rove run CIA plant as well?

  150. Komodo, Israel has yet to answer for its dreadful mistreatment of Mordechai Vanunu (who is still a virtual prisoner in Jerusalem) the man who broke the news that Israel had nuclear weapons. Now Israel is preparing to go to war on Iran for allegedly trying to develop the same weapons. Like Macky says they don’t want the stuff we don’t know about in the public domain.

  151. Oh, and on interesting thing about Shamir. There is some tangible support for the assertion that he is, or has been, a Swedish citizen…coincidence?

  152. Don’t change the subject, CE.

  153. Shamir in his own write:

    For a one-state solution (see home page). Fatal, mate. Obviously a holocaust denying self-hating Jew [can’t have him Jewish – ed], Nordic fascist beast.

    Incidentally, is the Pollard to which Shamir refers the editor of the Jewish Chronicle and BICOM stooge, Stephen Pollard? I think so.

  154. @Komodo, no need to apologise, a good point is worth making more than once; besides you were more concise & elegant than me !

    @John Goss, if Wikileaks had been around at the time, it could have saved Mordechai Vanunu serving 18+ years in prison (11 of which were in solitary confinement, vindictive & using the sheer terror of this form of torture as a deterrent to others).

  155. technicolour

    4 Sep, 2012 - 10:43 am

    And in the Guardian Hague provides reassurance that Assange will not be extradited to face the death penalty – no comments allowed so one can’t point out that this is already a part of EU law, not a special concession, as it’s being presented.

  156. I thought the subject was ‘The Assange Case’?

  157. “Probably because Wikileaks’ very existence potentially threatens to lift the lid on all sorts of US/Israeli dirty secrets, with very damaging consequences for both, and their relationship.”

    Further to my own quote, as just one example of this; I recently read somewhere if there were a leak of Israeli files that confirmed their WMDs, the US would been in a tricky situation as it is prohibited from giving any sort of aid to countries in possession of prohibited nuclear weapons, which is also why Israel never officially confirms it has them, but always “refuses to confirm or deny”.

  158. Hmmm…peripherally, what do you say to a state which builds uranium concentration facilities which could be used to produce a bomb? Naturally, you get assurances that this is for peaceful purposes and that it will permit inspections.

    Which is what JFK did.

    From Israel.

  159. John Goss – “It is like ganging up on Ghandi.” :lol:

    I know it’s only noon, but surely a winner already for the most ridiculous statement of the day.

    I don’t remember Ghandi getting into bed with people like Putin or Chavez, or being accused of crimes like this; “in the home of the injured party Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep was in a helpless state.

    It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used(according to an ex, she had a pathological fear of unprotected sex), still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.”

    As DAG writes, in view of the significant protections he would have against onward extradition to the United States from Sweden, it would appear that the only rational (as opposed to subjective) explanation for his refusal is not that he is seeking to avoid any onwards extradition; it is that he simply wants to avoid interrogation and any prosecution for allegations of sexual assault and rape in Sweden.

    My Hero.

  160. So what is the objection to either Hague (who can) or the Swedes (who can) giving Assange a clear and binding assurance that he will not be extradited, and calling Assange’s (as you would put it) bluff? Are they interested in trying him or smearing him or passing him on to the Yanks?
    Both Assange and Ecuador have expressed their willingness to have Assange questioned here.
    Doesn’t wash, CE, even assuming you’re serious.

  161. “… in view of the significant protections he would have against onward extradition to the United States from Sweden”

    I think that identifies the unresolvable difference I have with your position. I think onward extradition is a risk, and you don’t, even though we both have looked at the copious evidence.

    “My Hero”

    CE, I am perplexed why you alternate between reasonable and mean-minded sarcasm – it makes me wonder (again) whether you are here in good faith. I agree that some Assange-worship exists, but not much on this board that I’ve seen. I think he is a flawed character, but that doesn’t make him any less worthy of due legal process.

  162. He’s a bail skipper evading questioning on extremely serious allegations. He has no right to dictate the terms and conditions of his arrest /questioning. You or I would not have that luxury, why should Assange?

    BTW, DAG has rebuffed GG’s assertion that the Swedes could provide the assurances you mention.

  163. “[Assange] has no right to dictate the terms and conditions of his arrest/questioning”

    No, but there’s a strong public interest case for it. The public interest has every right to affect such terms, and there’s precedent for it too. Hasn’t this particular point been resolved on previous threads here?

  164. Jon, I am a certainly here in good faith. I am genuinely interested in and appreciate those (like yourself) who have an opposing view to mine and have helped moderate my own views somewhat on some aspects of the case.

    I attempt to be reasonable, and I’m open to changing my mind, it’s just some of the hero worship sticks in the craw a bit. I mean ganging up on Ghandi? Come on.

    Considering some of the abuse I have to take, surely a little bit of mean spirited sarcasm is allowed? If not I shall refrain.

    Again, I’ll ask the question, since AA has been ‘outed’ as neo-con, CIA, honey trap, is the same true of SW?

  165. @CE, thanks. I didn’t mean that sarcasm would be moderated out (we’d have to delete the whole board ;) ) – just that some modes of interaction don’t add much to the debate. FWIW, I’m not in favour of people being abusive towards you, or any other people they disagree with.

  166. CE

    You are very welcome here. Almost all views are welcome, though there are red lines (racism, most importantly).

    My own reading is that SW is an innocent party, who has indeed been exploited by Anna Ardin. It is worth noting that Sofia Wilen refused to sign and to this day has not signed the police evidence statement containing the only “rape” allegation against Assange. Wilen says the statement is not a fair summary of what she said. The interview – contrary to all Swedish police protocol – was not video taped or audio taped. Anna Ardin – again contrary to protocol – was also present throughout Wilen’s interview. Wilen’s unsigned statement would not be admissible as evidence in the UK but according to Marianne Ny, Swedish prosecutor, it is eligible in Sweden as there were two witnesses to Wilen saying it – one of whom is Ardina and the second a pre-existing friend of Ardin, the campaigning lesbian feminist policewoman to whom Ardin specifically took Wilen.

    I have answered your question. I should be interested if you could tell me if there is any of what I just wrote you did not already know.

  167. @CE If you are here in good faith why don’t you read the links here and understand that this is so much bigger than the Swedish allegations, whatever their merit.

    Read this and understand the geostrategic importance of what has happened and what is happening. It’s nothing to do with Assange per se. I think he is a POW at best.

    I think this is really relevant and really important. I’m genuinely interested to know if you think I am wrong but first you have to read it.

    If you do, then tell us honestly, did you know all of the facts?

  168. CE
    “He’s a bail skipper evading questioning on extremely serious allegations.”

    You cannot be serious! The more serious allegations have to do with the way the whole ‘case’ investigation by the Swedes has gone so far. Including all the redeeming evidence, not limited to, SW refusing to sign a statement, AA being photographed smiling at a working lunch offering Assange herself as his press secretary and so on and so forth.

    For these reasons, Assange has stated that it is quite possible that the case will be dropped. More pressure needs to be brought to bear for an internal investigation in Sweden on the case investigation process so far. Alongside more pressure needs to be brought to complete the first step in this apparent international stalemate, for the Swedes to now question Assange all they want in London. Even Superman puts his trousers on one leg at a time and Sweden would do itself a favour by cooperating and not appearing to be the US’s poodle. Don’t forget, Assange was hanging around Sweden for most of Sept, yet his lawyer received no request for questioning till Sept 22. Are the Swedish police that incompetent that they couldn’t track him down earlier or even intercept his departure at an airport on Sept 27, given how important this ‘case’ seems to be?

  169. This needs no further comment ..

    It’s not so easy for Brits to be extradited to the US after all.

  170. Craig,

    First of all, many thanks for allowing my somewhat against the grain views to be aired and shared. I know many, if not most, blogs across the political spectrum where I would be summarily dismissed as a stooge and banned (although I’m sure this would please some of your more partisan contributors who think I’m being paid). You also seem to have chosen your mods superbly, despite my many disagreements with them, I can’t praise their courtesy and good manners enough.

    With regards to SW, I was aware her statement may not be admissible under UK protocol, but I was unaware that the statement I quoted from was in fact unsigned by SW. I would think that both of these women have been placed in a terrible situation. They undoubtedly support wikileaks, and I would like to think the Social Democratic movement, and do not want to be seen as ‘betraying the cause’.

    Zoologist, thanks for the link, I’m a bit pushed for time at the moment, but will read it later.

  171. CE

    I didn’t choose my mods. They chose me! :-)

  172. CE, I hope you are here in good faith, and that you come to accept that a little hyperbole adds colour to the language. Assange may not be Gandhi, but he is being persecuted. If I choose to defend him against a media that has done nothing but persecute him despite him having given that media some newsworthy stories, rather than the insipid lies, then I have that right. Welcome to a great blog!

  173. CE – much appreciated. I try to be fair to everyone, and hope I get it right more often than not.

    Craig – yep!

  174. Hi John Goss,

    I would argue a little (or a lot in your case) of hyperbole, does a lot more than ‘add colour to language’, it encourages people to take you less seriously and promotes division rather than compromise. Hyperbole over factual accuracy? Isn’t that what we castigate the MSM for?

    It’s also incorrect to say the media have ‘done nothing’ but persecute JA. Seamus Milne and GG write almost daily columns for the Guardian defending him.

  175. CE: “Seamus Milne and GG write *almost daily* columns for the Guardian defending him.”

    I may be wrong, but isn’t that one statement hyperbole in itself. Anyone have the facts to nail that one?

  176. Read: “Assange aside, Sweden’s rape suspects are often left untouched”

    Read more:
    (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News ::

  177. VivaEcuador

    4 Sep, 2012 - 3:26 pm


    Did you support Wikileaks disclosures about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Were you for the war in both countries?

  178. Imagine Jay…

    I’ll leave this thread with a little fable.

    Some time in the late fifties scientists exploded a nuclear bomb on a pacific atoll. Some years later they wondered about if contamination remained and whether the island would still support human life. The scientists put 10,000 monkeys on the atoll. The monkeys ate coconuts and the scientist found the husks were radioactive so they taught a few monkeys to wash the husks in clean water from a mountain stream. Soon 10 monkeys were washing husks, the 20, then 47. Then an extraordinary thing happened. When the hundredth monkey started washing husks, all ten thousand monkeys suddenly started washing their husks.

    I have spent my whole life searching for that one hundredth person.

    With thanks to Mike.

  179. There is a very full analysis of the witness statements here, which supports the view that Wilen is much less suspect that Ardin in the matter of evidence.

    (scroll down beyond interviews)
    Despite the title, it is a pretty measured piece.

  180. Mark, humanity’s is a very ‘messy consciousness’ (gleaned that from a J Krishnamurti video of a dialogue with as it happens a nuclear physicist, David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and an America psychiatrist). It is riddled with aggression, violence, insecurity, injustice, conflict, disorder and pretty devoid of awareness and love.

    The sooner we can see that it is with this messy consciousness that we live and act, the sooner a hundred human beings can see through this as an actuality, then we might just find ‘pacem in terris’ (peace on earth).

    Thank you for the fable.

  181. Villager, that article from the Lebanon Daily News is particularly important because it is written by a woman, who is trying to get justice for genuine rape victims. And her arguments are sound. Thanks for posting it. The blog has moved on with a posting by Craig of Anna Ardin’s statement: and not before time.

  182. Contrary to others’ messages welcoming CE’s views above, I don’t think that a willful distortion of facts in the service of what is verging on hate crime and persecution of an individual should be permitted on any blog.

    CE has ignored just about everything that has been said on this blog, and still wants to push views that are untenable.

    S/he is certainly not here in ‘good faith,’ but is motivated purely in a political capacity – whether that is right-wing extremism or the most vulgar and blinkered feminism imaginable (which of course has nothing to do with genuine feminism).

    Views that promote ignorance and hatred should not be allowed on any blog.

  183. VivaEcuador

    4 Sep, 2012 - 4:09 pm


    I think the moderators are correct to allow CE to post. His/her arguments are so weak and repetitive that he strengthens support for JA.

  184. McVities Chocolate Hobnobs

    4 Sep, 2012 - 5:37 pm

    “First of all, many thanks for allowing my somewhat against the grain views to be aired and shared. I know many, if not most, blogs across the political spectrum where I would be summarily dismissed as a stooge and banned ”

    Also, be grateful that you are not required to ‘sign in’ with your Facebook or Twitter account. Fucking spies in your house.

  185. McVities Chocolate Hobnobs

    4 Sep, 2012 - 5:46 pm

    “Also, why did he even bother to admit himself to the British legal process, if as soon as had exhausted (and lost) all options, he was planning on skipping bail and making a mockery of political asylum?”

    The answer their lies in British Justice being the best that money can buy. Who paid Julian’s bail? What legal firm represented him? Who’s address did he give on his bail form?

  186. It’s worth remembering that the most sarcastic, smug and overtly provocative comments here are very likely paid agents. They’re cheap enough. I’ve read opposing view points that clearly represent genuinely different opinions but then there is the hired troll who has a certain tone and style that betrays his true motives, and his aliases. Indeed, he even betrays his training in American political psychology.

    Two large camps form on these sites – the pro-Assange/Wikileaks camp and the predictable anti. But the anti is not really as large as it seems. It doesn’t take too much work to create the illusion of an opposing army. Take minimum wage and add a barely high school educated person with a right-wing personality and voila! Instant propaganda army. These trolls post comments from suburban Virginia like drone pilots firing missiles. They might even be the same people.

    Click, click, click he goes, typing out the usual bait under a pseudonym to entrap and embroil the true believer in a pointless exchange that wastes his victim’s energies on dead-end exchanges that also wears out the patience of the casual, impartial visitor – the most important person in this war against Wikileaks. You see, the undecided visitor is much like the undecided voter. If he cares and thinks, he votes. But if his head hurts from reading too much crap, he goes away, uncommitted and disinterested.

    The war against Wikileaks is a slow public relations war against Assange. Without Assange, Wikileaks will dry up and disappear. The Americans know this, their collaborators know this and you know this. 

    But if everyone who cares about the combined fates of Assange and Wikileaks stays on message, ignoring the paid trolls, and reminding casual visitors of the important issues in this war, we can grow in our numbers to be a force that simply cannot be ignored.

    Stay on message, don’t feed the trolls.

  187. Jemand – I’ve always had my suspicions about hired trolls. They seem to exist on other human rights and social injustice blogs. No matter how much evidence is shown to prove them wrong, they still write the same nonsense over and over.

    I thought it was just urban myth though.

  188. @Jemand, @Dave – that paid agents do exist is beyond doubt. But sadly I don’t think it is possible to tell from a set of contributions whether a specific poster is paid, and I think it can be harmful to speculate. In the cases where such an allegation is wrong, it might further alienate that individual from the position you are trying to persuade them of.

  189. @Jemand

    “It’s worth remembering that the most sarcastic, smug and overtly provocative comments here are very likely paid agents. They’re cheap enough. I’ve read opposing view points that clearly represent genuinely different opinions but then there is the hired troll who has a certain tone and style that betrays his true motives, and his aliases. Indeed, he even betrays his training in American political psychology.

    Two large camps form on these sites – the pro-Assange/Wikileaks camp and the predictable anti. But the anti is not really as large as it seems. It doesn’t take too much work to create the illusion of an opposing army. Take minimum wage and add a barely high school educated person with a right-wing personality and voila! Instant propaganda army. These trolls post comments from suburban Virginia like drone pilots firing missiles. They might even be the same people.

    Click, click, click he goes, typing out the usual bait under a pseudonym to entrap and embroil the true believer in a pointless exchange that wastes his victim’s energies on dead-end exchanges that also wears out the patience of the casual, impartial visitor – the most important person in this war against Wikileaks. You see, the undecided visitor is much like the undecided voter. If he cares and thinks, he votes. But if his head hurts from reading too much crap, he goes away, uncommitted and disinterested.

    The war against Wikileaks is a slow public relations war against Assange. Without Assange, Wikileaks will dry up and disappear. The Americans know this, their collaborators know this and you know this.

    But if everyone who cares about the combined fates of Assange and Wikileaks stays on message, ignoring the paid trolls, and reminding casual visitors of the important issues in this war, we can grow in our numbers to be a force that simply cannot be ignored.

    Stay on message, don’t feed the trolls…”

    Bang on advice Jemand

  190. VivaEcuador

    5 Sep, 2012 - 2:33 am

    Sorry, off-topic but here is a website that is begging for some uncomfortable questions:

  191. @Jon – if you tell them more than once and they still don’t ‘get it’, then paid or not, they’re a FUD** troll. Like Dave said, they will ignore evidence and repeat the same message over and over because *that* is their mission.

    I’ve read and commented on lots of forums on lots of different topics. Behavioural patterns emerge.

    Two primary camps form in opposition to each other, the remainder contribute humourous one-liners or arcane missives. One camp demonstrates an expenditure of energy in doing research, analysing and producing logical conclusions based on the known facts of the matter. They are usually friendly.

    The other camp expends much less effort in repeating blunt assertions, asking sarcastic rhetorical questions, making irrational analogies and producing a guilty verdict based on rumour and primitive emotional reactions. These guys sneer and ridicule and scare away timid visitors who wish to learn more.

    Spreading FUD and frustrating genuine public discussion is their primary objective. Wherever there is divided public opinion, and a lot of power and money at stake, you will find the hired FUD troll at work.,_uncertainty_and_doubt

  192. The transcript is carried by

  193. Just to add a little to the review of trolldom above – one technique is to assert something without any supporting evidence or context. For instance, CE asserts above –

    BTW, DAG has rebuffed GG’s assertion that the Swedes could provide the assurances you mention.

    DAG is presumably Green of the New Statesman article. GG is presumably George Galloway. Rebuffed does not mean refuted, as a little research indicates. Galloway may indeed have asserted something: for those of us who do not regard Galloway as a moral beacon and hang on his every utterance, it would have been helpful to link or quote this.

    Now let’s find something better than a bald assertion by a troll who reads what Green says, who reads what George Galloway says, apparently, but who does not read beyond her trigger phrases in the comments on this blog, ever.

  194. “GG is presumably George Galloway.”

    No, it’s Glenn Greenwald, now of the Guardian.

  195. Jane Glover:

    If it’s so well known that whistle blowers are fitted up with non whistleblowing allegations against them, why was Assange having sex with these women in the first place? Seems a remarkably naive move

    I agree, it was naive. But it happens – I view Vince Cable’s boasting of declaring war on Murdoch to undercover journalists as the same kind of naivety. And one would definitely not expect a politician to get stung in that way!

    and he only has himself to blame for the fallout

    That’s where I disagree. Just because someone has been naive, it does not excuse the manipulation of witnesses or a malicious prosecution, which appears to be happening here *.

    * I temper this with my earlier points – the allegations need to be answered, in case there is some truth in them. But the evidence that a setup is happening is very strong indeed, and Assange cannot be held responsible for that.

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud