Amelia Hill is a Dirty Liar 1172

The Guardian hit a new low in Amelia Hill’s report on Julian Assange’s appearance at the Oxford Union. Hill moved beyond propaganda to downright lies.

This is easy to show. Read through Hill’s “report”. Then zip to 20 minutes and 55 seconds of the recording of Assange speaking at the event Hill misreports, and simply listen to the applause from the Oxford Union after Assange stops speaking.

Just that hearty applause is sufficient to show that the entire thrust and argument of Amelia Hill’s article moves beyong distortion or misreprentation – in themselves dreadful sins in a journalist – and into the field of outright lies. Her entire piece is intended to give the impression that the event was a failure and the audience were hostile to Assange. That is completely untrue.

Much of what Hill wrote is not journalism at all. What does this actually mean?

“His critics were reasoned, those who queued for over an hour in the snow to hear him speak were thoughtful. It was Julian Assange – the man at the centre of controversy – who refused to be gracious.”

Hill manages to quote five full sentences of the organiser of the anti-Assange demonstration (which I counted at 37 people) while giving us not one single sentence of Assange’s twenty minute address. Nor a single sentence of Tom Fingar, the senior US security official who was receiving the Sam Adams award. Even more remarkably, all three students Hill could find to interview were hostile to Assange. In a hall of 450 students who applauded Assange enthusiastically and many of whom crowded round to shake my hand after the event, Hill was apparently unable to find a single person who did not share the Rusbridger line on Julian Assange.

Hill is not a journalist – she is a pathetic grovelling lickspittle who should be deeply, deeply ashamed.

Here is the answer to the question about cyber-terrorism of which Amelia Hill writes:

“A question about cyber-terrorism was greeted with verbose warmth”

As you can see, Assange’s answer is serious, detailed, thoughtful and not patronising to the student. Hill’s characterisation – again without giving a word of Assange’s actual answer – is not one that could genuinely be maintained. Can anybody – and I mean this as a real question – can anybody look at that answer and believe that “Verbose warmth” is a fair and reasonable way to communicate what had been said to an audience who had not seen it? Or is it just an appalling piece of hostile propaganda by Hill?

The night before Assange’s contribution at the union, John Bolton had been there as guest speaker. John Bolton is a war criminal whose actions deliberately and directly contributed to the launching of an illegal war which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Yet there had not been one single Oxford student picketing the hosting of John Bolton, and Amelia Hill did not turn up to vilify him. My main contribution to the Sam Adams event was to point to this as an example of the way people are manipulated by the mainstream media into adopting seriously warped moral values.

Amelia Hill is one of the warpers, the distorters of reality. The Guardian calls her a “Special Investigative Correspondent.” She is actually a degraded purveyor of lies on behalf of the establishment. Sickening.

1,172 thoughts on “Amelia Hill is a Dirty Liar

1 37 38 39 40
  • CE

    Good morning.

    More standard obfuscation and myopia from Mr Pilger. It does seem his personal involvement with JA has resulted in him throwing away all pretensions of neutrality and balance out of the window.

    Much like most of JA’s followers, he seems to deliberately confuse some of wikileaks excellent work with some of JA’s abhorrent personal behaviour.

    Following in the footsteps of the liars at J4A, he also seems to have no idea what the term ‘consent’ means.

    Happy Valentine. X

  • Arbed

    Isn’t it strange how the ‘personal involvement’ of Assange’s detractors seem to bestow them with a clear-headed and objective view of the man, and yet the same level of ‘personal involvement’ from anyone who supports him leads to problems with vision impairment and a tendency towards wooly thinking and obfuscation?

    As for the ‘liars’ at Justice4Assange, are there any links available to where they’ve been shown to have lied? Anywhere? Can anyone help with those links, please?

  • CE

    Hi Arbed,

    You claim to do not wish to engage with me, so I would prefer if you could attempt not to selectively quote me, or refer to my posts, as I have no right of reply.

    I feel this would be for the best,


  • Clark

    CE, St Valentines Day, 10:56 am:

    To take your last point first, could you please specify “JA’s abhorrent personal behaviour” to which you refer.

    Then, could you please specify the “standard obfuscation and myopia from Mr Pilger” to which you refer; I don’t seem to find it in the article linked.

  • Clark

    CE, if you’re going to post allegations like the ones above, it would seem fairer and more honest if you backed them up with some evidence, sources, or quotes. Without such corroboration, they could fairly be described as “smears”.

    It would also reduce the number of comments necessary for sensible debate and thus speed things up considerably. I take it, given your expressed wish that all concerned be better served by legal proceedings (see link below), that you’d prefer the same for own communications, also. Delaying matters would seem to serve no one but those with a pro-secrecy agenda, such as the US. You don’t want that, do you?

    “What cannot be in doubt is that neither JA nor the alleged victims have been well served by this matter.”

  • LastBlueBell

    @Kempe 12:46am

    Since David Allen Green lacks relevant expertise and can (as far as i know) not read swedish, he is at best, a passive secondary source, that can only repeat information and opinions that others have disclosed to him.

    Which in turn gives him the same innate weight and authority, as basicly every well educated person in the world with access to the internet.

    So the relevant question to ask is,

    Who supplies DAG with information, and, how can you, or any other person judge those individuals accuracy and creadibilty?

    And if you can not answer those questions, statement like CEs above, concluding that DAG, ‘has dispelled many of the myths promoted by JA and his followers…’, are incredibly gullible at best, and dangerously ignorant at its very worst.

  • CE

    Hello Clark, hope you are well.

    Sorry that should have been ‘JA’s alleged abhorrent behaviour'(re the witness statement). I’m sure you don’t need me to provide testimony of JA’s, shall we say, difficult personality and abrasive nature.

    I’m fairly busy at work at the moment, and I have plans for tonight, but I will attempt a more detailed rebuttal of the Pilger piece at some point. I find the whole thing riddled with mistakes and deception (such as repeating J4A’s lies about SW’s consent for unprotected sex).

    I do find it amazing that someone such as yourself who seems to have a keen radar for biased agenda and is highly suspicious of any ‘corporate’ information that they absorb, so easily accepts flawed arguments and falsehoods from some of JA’s followers. I admire your attempt to root out any bias on information you receive, but I can’t see it being applied across the board or with the same level of rigour as it is applied to sources critical of JA.

  • Kempe

    “Who supplies DAG with information, and, how can you, or any other person judge those individuals accuracy and creadibilty?”

    Who supplies J4A with information, and, how can you, or any other person judge those individuals accuracy and creadibilty (sic)?

    Green is at least a trained lawyer giving an explanation and interpretation of the law. If only people who speak Swedish are qualified to speak on the matter of Assange’s extradition shouldn’t we shut up as well?

  • Arbed

    This morning Birgitta Jonsdottir claimed on Twitter that the FBI visit to Iceland to quiz a Wikileaks volunteer (known as Q or ‘siggi’) was to do with the Anonymous hacker group, Lulzsec.

    “#fbi operations in #iceland based on fbi covert operations within #lulzsec. There was never any threat of attack on gov computers.”

    I previously posted a Twitter alert sent by Wikileaks to Birgitta, but ensuring ALL their 1.7 million followers saw it by adding a dot in front of her username:

    [email protected] have you checked with WikiLeaks and Manning lawyers to see that such a trip to the US would be helpful and not harmful to them?

    … and Birgitta’s breezily insouciant reply (not direct to Wikileaks, but to a supporter asking whether she was afraid of being subpoenaed as a Grand Jury witness in the US investigation of Wikileaks):

    “@treisiroon i dont worry. if it happens – then it will happen, i will deal with it then:)”

    Now read these two Icelandic news account, in order:

    13.02.2013 | 12:30
    WikiLeaks and Icelandic Authorities Discuss FBI-Affair

    14.02.2013 | 15:30
    Iceland Minister: FBI Used Hacker to Bait WikiLeaks

    Here is Wikileaks’ official statement on the issue:

    Thursday February 7th 2013, 10:30 GMT
    Eight FBI agents conduct interrogation in Iceland in relation to ongoing U.S. investigation of WikiLeaks

    Notice how in the Icelandic Parliamentary committee investigating the FBI’s unauthorised behaviour in August 2011 the only person who is bringing Lulzsec into the whole affair is Birgitta herself. Well, that doesn’t mean all that much by itself – Birgitta was involved in Occupy and Anonymous too, so maybe she has inside info no one else has – but, but, but… look at the very last sentence of the second article:

    “The Icelandic police opened the possibility for the FBI to come to Iceland under false pretense, Birgitta claimed.”

    She’s covering the FBI’s ass here, and blaming the Icelandic police for drawing the poor wee innocent lambs into conducting a bogus investigation. WTF is she up to?

  • Clark

    CE, 3:07 pm; thank you for correcting your initial error. You wrote:

    “repeating J4A’s lies about SW’s consent for unprotected sex”

    You must have meant this:

    “…both women had consensual sex with Assange and neither claimed otherwise;”

    Do you maintain that this is a lie? If not, maybe you should have worded your comment more carefully. You also wrote this:

    “I’m sure you don’t need me to provide testimony of JA’s, shall we say, difficult personality and abrasive nature.”

    Most of us are “difficult and abrasive” when we have been wronged, and Assange has been wronged many times, including destruction of Wikileaks’ files, the publication of a crucial password, the allegation that he didn’t care about informants, the many smear articles in the corporate media etc. etc.. I’m really not surprised that he got angry at times. Others have described Assange as composed and charming, so probably he’s just normal, with a range of emotional behaviours the same as us all. You seem to be demanding sainthood of him; why?

    You then cast criticism at myself, with:

    “someone such as yourself who […] so easily accepts flawed arguments and falsehoods from some of JA’s followers.”

    Sorry, could you please point out where I have accepted falsehoods? I again ask you to back up such allegations, lest they seem unfounded, and therefore smears. Beware, CE, that you don’t unwittingly add to what Pilger describes as

    “the lies, spite, jealousy, opportunism and pathetic animus of a few who claim the right to guard the limits of informed public debate.”

  • Villager

    CE lay off Arbed and go back and review the 11 Feb thread yourself and your own abhorrent behaviour. I predicted at that time:

    “His apology is worth nought. Because these people are essentially intellectually dishonest their pattern of behaviour will repeat itself. It was only to hang in here whatever his agenda.”

    Arbed is free to address anyone here–she is a serious and highly respected researcher.

    Whereas you should be a little contrite, you are actually shameless.

    For the benefit of other readers here i repeat my earlier comment here to which you haven’t replied:

    13 Feb, 2013 – 11:14 pm

    “Villager this is OT guff, but you say Hilary 2016 is a heartless bitch!

    Quelle surprise. Apologies but I will not continue this line of conversation. Thanks.”

    Oh no, it belongs to this thread, and it belongs to your claim about something being vile and disgusting. It also belongs to who you are and people’s understanding here of the prism through which you make judgments. As for your accusation that i say “Hilary 2016 is a heartless bitch.”, please show me the link to your assertion. Again it reflects on your credibility and how you follow and distill what is being said and by whom.

    MY KEY POINT IS CAN WE HAVE YOUR REACTION TO HILLARY’S COMMENT ON THAT YOUTUBE: “WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED….HAHAHA”? I am confident that others here are also keenly interested. So don’t shrug it off as ‘guff’ that easily….

    If you’re unwilling to respond, one shall assume that it is the exact same stubbornness which prevents you from looking at the Assange case with fundamental biases and then coming up here with shit like accusing people of belonging to a ‘cult and the snide ‘St Julian’ digs. So far, so pathetic.

    Any observations on Hillary’s abhorrent remarks? Or aren’t you man enough to bring yourself to condemn them?

  • Clark

    Arbed, I wish I’d spoken to Birgitta Jónsdóttir when I had the chance, at the Bitcoin conference last year. From her blog, and her activism etc., she seems very genuine. If I’d spoken to her I’d know her style when using English; I notice that there are a few slightly awkward phrases in the Icelandic Review articles that could possibly be misinterpreted. And I’m not sure what to make of this: “fbi covert operations within #lulzsec” – within?

    You say:

    … and Birgitta’s breezily insouciant reply (not direct to Wikileaks, but to a supporter asking whether she was afraid of being subpoenaed as a Grand Jury witness in the US investigation of Wikileaks):

    “@treisiroon i dont worry. if it happens – then it will happen, i will deal with it then:)”

    Why do you regard this as a reply to Wikileaks? I’ve said before, I don’t really understand how to interpret the order of comments on Twitter. Twitter as a medium requires highly compressed language; add slightly idiosyncratic English, and misinterpretation may be possible. Is Twitter a confusing medium to any extent?

    This, the last paragraph from the second Icelandic Review article:

    “Opposition MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who has worked for WikiLeaks, harshly criticized Icelandic police authorities for the actions in the affair, accusing them of having blindly believed the stories of two hackers, Siggi, and another one called Sabu. The Icelandic police opened the possibility for the FBI to come to Iceland under false pretense, Birgitta claimed. “

    seems highly protective of Wikileaks, possibly over-suspicious of the Icelandic police, even. You wrote:

    “She’s covering the FBI’s ass here, and blaming the Icelandic police for drawing the poor wee innocent lambs into conducting a bogus investigation. WTF is she up to?”

    It’s only a short quote, and it’s by a journalist; there could be errors. Or maybe other interpretations are possible, such as that the Icelandic police colluded with the FBI (not so surprising among police forces), or possibly were tricked into false cooperation.

    Maybe you should write to her and ask her some direct questions; I saw her e-mail address on her blog. Maybe clarification is all that is needed. If things are as tense in Iceland as I’ve been feeling here, maybe people are over-reacting. We all need to keep cool heads, which is so difficult in the atmosphere of general suspicion induced by widespread threat.

  • Clark

    Arbed, you earlier posted this link:

    “@Jemima_Khan thank you – for the courage <3"

    (see here:

    I know that it was “at” (@) Jemima Khan, but how do I see what this was in direct reply to? Or does Twitter not permit such clarity? Or could it even been in reply to a private message? Do Twitterers do that? It all works on SMS texts, doesn’t it? And SMS has been broken; we must beware of subterfuge, as trust is more easily destroyed than built.

  • Clark

    Sorry, I mean that GSM has been broken, but I think that implies that SMS can be subverted; I think that SMS is a subset of GSM.

  • Clark

    Arbed, on her blog, Birgitta Jónsdóttir’s English is pretty good, but looking on Twitter, some is rather clunky.

    Sorry, I can’t view Adobe Flash videos at present, so I can’t view the documentaries you mentioned, unless someone can point to a version in a less compromised format.

  • Arbed

    Hi Clark, 9.21pm

    Birgitta’s tweet may not be a reply to anything. The @ means it’s a message sent directly to that username and it may be entirely unsolicited. Birgitta could simply have decided to tweet AT Jemima after having read her article. The way to check is to click on Birgitta’s tweet above, then click Go to Full Profile, and scroll down the twitterfeed. If you click on the @Jemima username within Birgitta’s tweet you can open Jemima’s twitterfeed too and scroll down that too. Perhaps you’ll feed some direct Twitter conversation between them. Unlikely in this instance though – anything Birgitta was replying to (in a kind of Reply To way as with emails) would be seen above Birgitta’s message. Yes, it could be an ‘open’ reply to a private DM, but that would be a little rude, wouldn’t you say?

    Gosh, I suspect that’s all as clear as mud now. Sorry 🙁

    From your 8.53pm post:

    “Why do you regard this as a reply to Wikileaks?”

    I did say it wasn’t a direct reply, but it was a reply to a direct question about the legal danger of being subpoenaed as a witness to the Wikileaks Grand Jury. This would also be what would agitate Wikileaks and Bradley Manning’s lawyers most, hence Wikileaks’ question about whether she had CHECKED with either before planning to swan off to the US in April to hold her photo exhibition of Collateral Murder stills to “raise awareness and support for Bradley Manning”. As her own government has told her in no uncertain terms it is not safe for her to travel to the US, and her US lawyers, the ACLU, concur (they having discovered court order dockets with her name on them covering ‘secret’ something-or-others still under seal). It is, I’m afraid, the most monumentally stupid thing to do. And Birgitta is not stupid. So, why?

    You are being waaaaayyy too kind to Birgitta. Have you have a chance to look at those five or six smear documentaries against Wikileaks and Julian she took part in yet?

  • Arbed

    Clark, to truly appreciate how monumentally reckless towards Wikileaks’ staff and supporters Birgitta’s decision to travel to the US is – and particularly how hugely reckless it is towards Assange’s safety – read this Congressional Research Service report dated 31 January 2013:

    Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information

    It is a survey of all the Espionage and other statutes available to the US to prosecute Assange and Wikileaks, and yes, it is specifically about Wikileaks’ prosecution. This, for instance, is from page 15 of the document:

    In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.[92] There is some authority, however, for interpreting 18 U.S.C. Section 793, which prohibits the communication, transmission, or delivery of protected information to anyone not entitled to possess it, to exclude the “publication” of material by the media.[93] Publication is not expressly
    proscribed in 18 U.S.C. Section 794(a), either, although it is possible that publishing covered information in the media could be construed as an “indirect” transmission of such information to a foreign party, as long as the intent that the information reach said party can be demonstrated.[94] The death penalty is available under that subsection if the offense results in the identification and subsequent death of “an individual acting as an agent of the United States,”[95] or the disclosure of
    information relating to certain other broadly defined defense matters. The word “publishes” does appear in 18 U.S.C. Section 794(b), which applies to wartime disclosures of information related to the “public defense” that “might be useful to the enemy”…

    And here’s footnote 95:

    “95 The data released by WikiLeaks contains some names of Afghans who assisted Coalition Forces, leading to some concern that the Taliban might use the information to seek out those individuals for retaliation. See Eric Schmitt and David E. Sanger, Gates Cites Peril in Leak of Afghan War Logs, N.Y. TIMES, August 2, 2010, at 4. The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel published excerpts of the database, but did not publish the names of individual Afghans. Id. No deaths have yet been tied to the leaks.

    Fred Burton, Vice-President of Stratfor and ex-Deputy Chief of the DSS Counter-terrorism Unit, shared this advice internally with his fellow spooks:

    He says he “would pursue conspiracy and political terrorism charges and declassify the death of a source someone which [he] could link to Wiki”

    In fact, see just how many of Burton’s predictions have panned out so far, including his boast that he could access material taken from the Abbottabad compound after the killing of Osama bin Laden – the prosecutors in Bradley Manning’s hearing recently confirmed the US govt intends to use that material in its “aiding the enemy” charges against Bradley (and Julian Assange):

    So, you see now why I considered Birgitta tweet to show breezy insouciance about the very real dangers – not for her, necessarily (if she’s cut a deal) – but for Wikileaks’ staff and for Assange?

  • Arbed

    Clark, just to clarify a bit more on the above, I’m well aware that bilateral treaties between the US and Sweden (and indeed the US and the UK) prohibit extradition for any offences potentially incurring the death penalty but the US is likely to offer every guarantee that the death penalty is off the table – the classic “diplomatic assurances” we know get abused left and right – so what I’m pointing to, if you read that pdf very carefully, is the timing of the declassification of an informant’s death that Fred Burton of Stratfor suggests. There’s no bar in any of the statutes quoted that declassification couldn’t happen halfway through a trial if need be.

  • Clark

    Arbed, I haven’t yet watched those videos, and if they need Adobe Flash, I can’t at present.

    Regarding Birgitta Jónsdóttir; I’m just trying to be hopeful. I like her art and she seems very open about herself on her website.

  • LastBlueBell

    @Kempe 4:46

    “Green is at least a trained lawyer giving an explanation and interpretation of the law…”

    But it is the wrong country, wrong language, wrong culture, completly different type of judical system, England has the Common law system, Sweden the Civil law system, and, even the wrong sub field of the law.

    DAG can not even check or verify any opinions or most of the information he gets hold of, without relying on other people, translating or relying information.

    These are fundamental facts.

    You would never go ask a Gynaecologist for advice on a brain tumor, because most humans, have a very personal insight into the enormous difference.

    That you dont seem to grasp these differences, (even when explicitly detailed), I think is very revealing and telling, either for lack of insight into the judical system, the relevance and its importance, or how knowledge and ignorance are created or disseminated in a society.

    “Who supplies J4A with information, and, how can you, or any other person judge those individuals accuracy and creadibilty (sic)?”

    Exactly, there is no difference!

    DAG statements are in themselves no better, has no greater authority, then any others. All propositions has to be scrutinized in exactly the same way!

    And blindly relying on DAG statement as ultimate truth, just because he is famous, or a trained lawyer, is as naive (or blindingly stupid), as believing trust anything supporters to Assange claim, without understanding the underlying evidence.

    So I put the question to you again,

    “Who supplies DAG with information, and, how can you, or any other person judge those individuals accuracy and creadibilty?”

  • Herbie

    Simon Wood provides a detailed dissection of The Guardian’s latest Assange smear effort by Marina Hyde.

    They really must be forced to write this contrived garbage. It’s certainly not going to look good when the era of the neocon is no more. I suspect they’ll be relying on the poor little deceived me drivel that Paxman and others have trotted out. Indeed, amongst her contrivance and invention Marina seems to have allowed for this possibility when she claims not to bother much with the details since they’re obviously so boring.

    So why bother writing it at all, dear. Is it part of your contract to smear Assange or does it just come naturally. It’s certainly not based on evidence, as you admit. Did you just wake up one morning and think I’ll smear Assange or were you asked to do it.

  • Kempe

    “Who supplies DAG with information, and, how can you, or any other person judge those individuals accuracy and creadibilty?”

    Not sure I fully understand the question. Why would Green need anyone to supply him with information? An in depth understanding of the Swedish legal system is not needed to interpret international extradition law nor is it needed to establish that the events described by the complainants would constitute rape under British law; an opinion supported by the British High Court.

    No I would not consult a gynaecologist if I thought I had a brain tumour; neither would I take advice from some bloke down the pub.

  • Clark

    Kempe, your comment is either vague, misleading or both:

    “the events described by the complainants would constitute rape under British law; an opinion supported by the British High Court.”

    (1) Who do you mean by “the complainants”? In at least the case of the woman SW, it was a Swedish prosecutor who made the complaint, not SW herself.
    (2) The British High Court didn’t consider the women’s statements, but only the wording on the European Arrest Warrant, which doesn’t match the wording in the Swedish police report. There’s a detailed examination of this here:

  • CE

    Hi clark,

    Sorry for the lack of detailed response, had bust weekend between work and real life! 🙂

    This is part of the reason for my lack of cut and pasting, and links, I have a not-so-smartphone that I struggle to navigate t’interweb with.

    A quick comment on your post to Kempe above;

    1)SW went to a police station and made an official statement, that is in effect making a complaint, if the police\prosecutors judge that statement to be evidence of a crime.

    2) To put it mildly the J4A interpretation of SW’s statement is extremely misleading, biased, and not based in reality. For a group who like to criticise those sceptical of JA for their dishonesty this is extremely hypocritical.

  • Jemand

    Be careful what you read and what you recommend reading, it might make you and others starting thinking for yourselves.

    – – –
    NY Knicks star Amar’e Stoudemire touts Christopher Dorner’s crazed manifesto as ‘must-read’ on Twitter

    “Interesting. This is a must read!!” Stoudemire tweeted and linked to the manifesto Dorner addressed “to America.” 

    Stoudemire did not elaborate on his tweet. But many of the hoopster’s nearly 806,000 Twitter followers were taken aback by his reading recommendation. 

    “Really?! A murderer’s hateful manifesto is worth reading?” wrote one follower.
    – – –

1 37 38 39 40

Comments are closed.