Chelsea and Julian are in Jail. History Trembles. 1010

Tonight both Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange are in jail, both over offences related to the publication of materials specifying US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and both charged with nothing else at all. No matter what bullshit political and MSM liars try to feed you, that is the simple truth. Manning and Assange are true heroes of our time, and are suffering for it.

If a Russian opposition politician were dragged out by armed police, and within three hours had been convicted on a political charge by a patently biased judge with no jury, with a lengthy jail sentence to follow, can you imagine the Western media reaction to that kind of kangaroo court? Yet that is exactly what just happened in London.

District Judge Michael Snow is a disgrace to the bench who deserves to be infamous well beyond his death. He displayed the most plain and open prejudice against Assange in the 15 minutes it took for him to hear the case and declare Assange guilty, in a fashion which makes the dictators’ courts I had witnessed, in Babangida’s Nigeria or Karimov’s Uzbekistan, look fair and reasonable, in comparison to the gross charade of justice conducted by Michael Snow.

One key fact gave away Snow’s enormous prejudice. Julian Assange said nothing during the whole brief proceedings, other than to say “Not guilty” twice, and to ask a one sentence question about why the charges were changed midway through this sham “trial”. Yet Judge Michael Snow condemned Assange as “narcissistic”. There was nothing that happened in Snow’s brief court hearing that could conceivably have given rise to that opinion. It was plainly something he brought with him into the courtroom, and had read or heard in the mainstream media or picked up in his club. It was in short the very definition of prejudice, and “Judge” Michael Snow and his summary judgement is a total disgrace.

We wrapped up the final Wikileaks and legal team meeting at 21.45 tonight and thereafter Kristian Hrafnsson and I had dinner together. The whole team, including Julian, is energised rather than downhearted. At last there is no more hiding for the pretend liberals behind ludicrous Swedish allegations or bail jumping allegations, and the true motive – revenge for the Chelsea Manning revelations – is now completely in the open.

To support the persecution of Assange in these circumstances is to support absolute state censorship of the internet. It is to support the claim that any journalist who receives and publishes official material which indicates US government wrongdoing, can be punished for its publication. Furthermore this US claim involves an astonishing boost to universal jurisdiction. Assange was nowhere near the USA when he published the documents, but nonetheless US courts are willing to claim jurisdiction. This is a threat to press and internet freedom everywhere.

These are scary times. But those may also be the most inspiring of times.


We are reassembling Wikileaks/Julian legal and media team from 10am Friday in Doughty Street Chambers. I and others will be available for further media interviews from then. I can be reached on 07979 691085.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


1,010 thoughts on “Chelsea and Julian are in Jail. History Trembles.

1 2 3 4 5 11
  • Isa

    Admittedly I’m not at ease with common law systems but this would have been the procedure in a civil law system :

    Judges would have to decide proved matter on the case :

    the EAW issued without charges : proved
    The CPS destroyed documents : proved
    The CPS pressured the Swedish prosecutor not to drop case : proved
    The CPS mislead the Swedish prosecutor it was ilegal to interview assange in U.K. : proved
    The Swedish prosecutor delayed case : proved
    The allegations by two alleged victims are a crime : unproved
    The women denied they wanted to press charges for rape : proved
    Did assange travel to U.K. with Swedish knowledge and permission : proved
    Did assange serve “x” days in solitary confinement : proved
    Did Assange serve 581 days of house arrest : proved
    Solitary confinement for allegations is against the law and disproportionate : proved
    Assange sought asylum for fear of extradition to USA : proved
    the U.K. was aware of those intentions : proved

    On the principles of retroactivity of law :

    The law is deemed possible to act retroactively if it favours the defendant .

    Verdict : due to all proved matter the defendant is free

    Deriving from this case obligatory :

    A criminal action would be brought against the CPS
    A civil law suit for damages would follow and Assange would be compensated .

    On extradition : the USA has no jurisdiction and the indictment is not s crime in the jurisdiction competent as press freedom on public interest cases is a principle of the ECHR and also in the convention . Such law , article 8 of convection , if memory does not fail me supersedes national laws . It can only be disputed when there’s s conflict between two equally strong rights ( ie freedom of speech vs right to a good name ).

    The U.K. must abide by the ECHR and convention . Any decision to extradite will directly contravene the convention .

    Then again the U.K. ignores the ICC why do I still believe in unicorns when all there are is minotaurs everywhere .

    • Martinned

      I have many questions about your comment, but let’s focus on this one:

      “Did assange serve “x” days in solitary confinement : proved”

      When was Assange ever in solitary confinement? Even if you accept that his time at the embassy was detention, which is plainly nonsense, he wasn’t in there alone.

      • Isa

        I’m not talking about the arbitrary detention in the embassy . I’m talking about factual jail and house arrest .
        He was in solitary confinement in a maximum security jail for 10 days and then under house arrest for 550 days . That’s roughly 1.6 years time that under civil law system would legally have to be deducted from any related future sentencing as per a criminal processual code .

        • Martinned

          When was this?

          And I’m not sure if you’d have to deduct it. That depends on whether it was related to the same charge. I don’t think civil law systems and common law systems have materially different rules about deducting pre-trial detention. IIRC from my (civil law) studies, you wouldn’t deduct the time spent in pre-trial detention for a rape charge from the sentence imposed for the absconding charge, because those are different matters. So if the house arrest was in relation to the rape charge, that wouldn’t be deducted from anything until a possible future Swedish trial.

          • Isa

            This was in December 2010 when he presented to the police station because of EAW.

            Since the case is the same ( skipping bail on a case that no longer has charges ) the sentencing has to be deducted or revoked all together in which case there would be a simultaneous civil suit to compensate for the time served unduly .

            Sentencing may be cumulative and generally is but for different offences . In this case these are completely interlinked and impossible to separate . A bail breach in a dropped case and following the proved and not proved facts that must be established and made public before proceeding to the next trial phase of the final decision . After that sentencing is applied according to the processual criminal or civil code depending on nature of offence .

          • giyane


            Compensation and its rules are different from days served and its rules and both issues are completely irrelevant.

            The issue with Assange is not his conviction or not conviction but rather the British governmen’s breaking the law by getting Swedish authorities to make false charges against Assange in order to illegally extradite him to the US

            If you had any working experience of the Law you would know that in today’s universal spying intelligence decisions about who when and what charge are always taken on the basis of intelligence.

            That means if your criminal stole a car but was already wanted for a shooting they would be cleared of stealing the car even if guilty so That they could be convicted of the more serious crime. There are no medieval rules of the sort you are not picking about. Or if there are, they are ignored in practice.

            In this case, The Swedish authorities have been told to reopen their case purely as an excuse to hold Assange in custody until public opinion has been manipulated against him aka Saddam or Gaddaffi in order to illegally extradite him to the US

            In May’s evil eyes he has brought the spotlight of publicity onto the crimes of the international gangsterate USUKIS EU KSA Turkey and Islamist surrogate Daesh.

            These fascists detest publicity about their criminality. So why are you assisting them with trivia about Assange’s non existent non-crimes?

  • Just a Guy

    Meanwhile, the Daily Mail informs us that Diane Abbot has ‘sparked fury’ because she dared to point out that the campaign of persecution of which Assange is victim, has nothing to do with ‘rape’ and everything to do with his exposing illegal activities of the US and UK governments.

    Their headline should have been ‘uppity black MP refuses to tow the line’.

    I think that one of the greatest indications of the imminent collapse of what we fondly term ‘our civilization’ is that most people in this country probably support Assange’s arrest, trial and conviction. Yet no one with any clout has stood up and said, ‘Hang on a second… we broke the law’.

    The only response has been to trot out the party line that Wikileaks ‘endangered agents’ lives’. Agents. Spies, in other words. Here’s a radical idea: how about we stop spying on each other? And I don’t give a s**t if ‘everyone does it’.

  • Martinned

    Unrelated: Bad news from The Hague:

    The pre-trial chamber of the ICC has declined to authorise an investigation of the situation in Afghanistan on “interest of justice” grounds, due to the substantial lapse of time, the limited scope for cooperation from relevant authorities (i.e. Trump), and the resource requirements of a proper investigation. So far, my international criminal law tweeps seem less than convinced.

  • Sharp Ears

    It’s getting darker.

    ‘U.S. immigration has banned Omar Barghouti from entering the U.S.
    Omar arrived at Ben Gurion Airport yesterday for his flight. And despite holding a valid U.S. visa, and having obtained the temporary lifting of Israel’s ongoing de facto travel ban upon him, he was told he wouldn’t even be allowed to board the plane.
    This is outrageous. Omar Barghouti is being punished for being an effective advocate for Palestinian rights and we need to speak up loudly about this NOW!’

    This is a petition to sign, for what it’s worth.

    • Charles Bostock

      Every country has the right to decide who shall be allowed to enter and who shan’t, Sharp Ears.

      • giyane

        And who shall be allowed to leave and who shan’t. Except of course travellers on US made Boeing’s who shall be re-directed by U.S. law out from this planet

      • Sharp Ears

        Suggest the commenter @ 15.26 reads the pertinent sentence and takes note.

        ‘And despite holding a valid U.S. visa, and having obtained the temporary lifting of Israel’s ongoing de facto travel ban upon him, he was told he wouldn’t even be allowed to board the plane.’

    • Geoffrey

      Yes I have heard him speak. He is very effective and a thoroughly decent and reasonable man, so it is quite obvious why the Americans don’t want him to enter.

  • johnf

    Perhaps this MSM pile on is not working.

    The “Mail” had this delightful article: “A soaring ego, vile personal habits, and after years in his squalid den, hardly a friend left.”

    The readers responses in the Comments are not what one might expect:

    “Best Rated Comments (top 7 comments)
    Seven years in what was basically solitary confinement would take a toll on anyone. 926 in favour, 55 against

    I thank this man for opening our eyes to the disgusting, malicious and greedy world our politician live in. 884 in favour, 282 against

    This man is a modern day hero, he’s sacrificed his life so we are able to learn the truth. Shame on anyone who doesn’t stand by him. This is truly disgraceful. 725 in favour, 452 against

    He looks unwell and a lot older than his 47 years. 563 in favour, 25 against

    All this man did was report what the whisteblowers told him. They csme (came [sic]) to him not the other way round. Obviously the US is embarrassed by the revelations and now want to punish him. 552 in favour, 132 against

    Yes, he has charges to answer – but I am disturbed by the way his arrest is presented in a “guilty perp display”, together with somewhat hysterical coverage in this paper . . . . vile personal habits? Hmmm. Skateboarding in the corridors? Dreadful. All seems a bit over the top. I am warming to this man. 425 in favour, 174 against

    He published true information about atrocities. We need to protect those who are brave enough to blow the whistle . . . 400 in favour, 84 against

    Worst Rated Comments (Bottom 5 comments)
    I don’t believe he has principles and he deserves to face American justice. 528 in favour, 610 against

    They’ll have to do the same with Trump, eventually. 167 in favour, 280 against

    He’s an anarchist. Plain and simple. You don’t get to choose which laws to break. And what he did reveal was very little substance anyway. 182 in favour, 274 against

    He should spend the rest of his life in jail. 95 in favour, 205 against”

    Those are copied from a poster on Moon of Alabama. Since then those in favour of the first comment have risen from 926 to over 5,000. Those against it are still only 300 – suggesting some vigorous botting was done initially and then forgotten about.

    • John2o2o

      Unfortunately perhaps the majority just read their “newspaper” and broadly accept what they are told without question. And have no desire to comment.

  • Assangeophile

    Extradition law states no further charges may be added onto the one on which extradition is being sought (to prevent misuse of extradition law later changing to more sinister charges). It can easily be proven that the US consistently breaks this provision, and US bias is clear killary is known to have advocated Assange be missiled, but then the torys will appoint a judge with a known predilection for visits to South African orphanages, huttons similar 70 year burial of the Kelly case comes to mind.

    Apart from the Guardian all the presstitutes at the beeb and elsewhere, with large monthly mortgages, are all giving full free anal(ysis) to the deep state spin on events. Labour knows this a GE vote winner with 70% of voters backing assange and we can expect an over 10m defence fund from the public. Perhaps CM will provide a genuine link in his next post.

    • John2o2o

      The Guardian can’t be trusted either. They have not withdawn their false story about Julian and Paul Manafort. There are better sources of information.

  • Herbie

    What’s the expectation of a fair trial in the US.

    Their media and politicians are throwing about all manner of loose allegations.

    There are even threats to his life aired in media.

    They’re a country who believe in torture and the death penalty.

    And this is clearly a highly politicised case.

    Surely the UK can’t extradite in such circumstances.

        • Laguerre

          That’s the problem of ranting uncontrollably on Twitter – it’s all recorded and available for recovery later.

      • John2o2o

        Trump is not the de facto president of the United States in my opinion.

        Arch hawk John Bolton is. Pompeo is vice. Trump will do as they tell him.

        • Herbie

          Yeah he’s just the front guy. He’s clueless about world affairs. How could he make a decision about anything.

          He’s good only for for bullshitting the public, saying one thing today and the opposite the next, without ever being pinned down in anything he’s said.

          He’s so loose in language and performance that he just slips through your fingers.

          Hillary, with her lawyer’s training couldn’t get away with that so easily. She’s used to much more precision, and caught more easily.

          I’m sure that’s why Trump was chosen for the role.

  • Doug Scorgie

    John Humphrys told Diane Abbot (yesterday I think) that Sweedish law prohibits the charging of suspects in their absence. Can anyone confirm this?

    • giyane

      BBC news has just said that Assange is also facing extradition charges to the US, which is the same phrasing as Mrs May’s statement.

      She has a unique talent for regurgitating British establishment blocking garbage that is intended to non-communicate. Which is why nobody has and nobody ever will accept her withdrawal agreement.

      The use of opaque legalees to discuss important matters of interest to the public puts the law in bad repute. Humphreys has the same talent.

      I would imagine what humbug meant was that Sweden can’t charge someone who has not been given a chance to put their side of the story before being charged in their absence.
      They could have travelled to the UK if they wanted to have that evidence but they refused to do so because they knew Assange would say he had received consent and the lady in question would have agreed.

      Instead they chose to leave Assange in limbo knowing full well that they could spin that against Assange, as liar May did.
      Apparently Scandinavian law and English law are very different so I can’t comment.

      • Lisa

        “They could have travelled to the UK if they wanted to have that evidence but they refused to do so because they knew Assange would say he had received consent and the lady in question would have agreed.”

        What? Has everybody forgotten that Assange WAS interviewed by the Ecuadorian and Swedish prosecutors at the embassy in December 2016 for two days, after the Swedes had delayed this interview for years. The Swedes never published the interview conclusions, after they dragged their feet until April 2017, referring to the time it took to translate the Spanish language protocol. They informed of dropping the case only after the Ecuadorian presidential election was finished, and the candidate, who then seemed to be more favourable to Assange had been elected.
        This incident is omitted in the “timeline” of Assange case, published in MSM.

        The two Swedish “victims”, as far as I remember, never accused Assange of rape, but asked for police assistance in making Assange to take a HIV test. They told afterwards that the police had insisted in writing in the protocol about the “rape charges”.

        A reminder: Assange had delayed his departure from Sweden in order to be interviewed by the prosecutor, who concluded that there is no basis for charging him with anything, and allowed him to leave the country. The case was re-opened by another prosecutor and Assange was requested to return to Sweden for additional interview, which he ignored.

        • giyane


          Thanks for that reminder. Did you hear the interview with Glenn Greenwald on radio 4 just before your 1800 post?

          • giyane


            I heard a bit of it on Radio 4 at about 17.50. You can register on the BBC algorhythmic profiling database. But I assumed the interview had been organised by the Wilkileaks team to counter msn prejudice. They may have a recording

    • John2o2o

      I think it worth saying that under UK law there exists a “presumption of innocence”. That is to say, a person is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

      So Julian is guilty only of skipping bail.

      It is worth also saying that this case highlights the grave dangers of the current popular attitude that anyone making an allegation of sexual misconduct “must be believed”.

      I have never thought this a reasonable attitude and as a matter of principle I never believe allegations of sexual misconduct that cannot be evidenced other than by an accusation.

    • Martinned

      AFAIK he’s been nominated each year for the last nine years. It’s not that hard to nominate someone. President Trump has been nominated too.

      • Republicofscotland

        I know that Martinned, however unlike Kissinger and Obama, Assange really does deserve it, for putting his life on the line publishing the nefarious machinations of governments around the globe.

        You on the otherhand oppose such bravery, and by your very comments against Assange, oppose free speech and the sharing of knowledge.

        • Borncynical

          …and @Martinned, and others supporting Assange’s extradition, are clearly more than content to live the life of a mushroom, if you get my drift.

          The rest of us prefer to demonstrate that we wish to live in a moral society where corrupt, immoral, sociopathic and psychopathic individuals are identified as such and brought to book for their crimes.

    • Doug Scorgie

      Being a legal eagle, can you answer the question I asked earlier: Is it true that Sweedish law prohibits the charging of suspects in their absence ?

      • Martinned

        I am not Swedish, so I can’t read Swedish law in the original, but I can have a look at some translations of Swedish law:

        Here is the Swedish government’s official translation of the Code of Judicial Procedure:

        In Chapter 19, section 2, it says that “The suspect is bound to attend in person the main hearing in the district court and the court of appeal.” But that’s not quite the question.

        In Chapter 46, section 2, it says that “The main hearing shall be cancelled and scheduled for a new date (…) if the defendant has failed to appear”.

        In Chapter 46, section 15, it says that “If the defendant fails to appear at a main hearing (…), the court either shall direct him to appear in person under penalty of a new default fine or shall order that he be brought before the court into custody
        immediately or on a later date.
        If the matter can be satisfactorily investigated, the case may be adjudicated notwithstanding the fact that the defendant has
        appeared only by counsel on has failed to appear if:
        1. there is no grounds to impose a criminal sanction other than fine, imprisonment for a maximum of three months, conditional sentence, or probation, or such sanctions jointly,
        2. after service of the summons upon the defendant, he has fled or remains in hiding in such a manner that he cannot be brought to the main hearing, or (…)
        In the situations stated in the second paragraph, the defendant may be sentenced to imprisonment only if he previously has failed to appear at a main hearing in the case or then appeared only by counsel. (…)
        In the situations stated in paragraph 2, clause 2, the case may be adjudicated even if the defendant has not been served the notice of the hearing.

      • John2o2o

        It is irrelevant. The accusation is in my opinion a crude and malicious smear designed to prejudice public opinion against Julian.

        I think it worth saying that under UK law there exists a “presumption of innocence”. That is to say, a person is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

        So Julian is guilty only of skipping bail.

        It is worth also saying that this case highlights the grave dangers of the current popular attitude that anyone making an allegation of sexual misconduct “must be believed”.

        I have never thought this a reasonable attitude and as a matter of principle I never believe allegations of sexual misconduct that cannot be evidenced other than by an accusation. That then includes for me ALL allegations of “historical” sexual abuse. ALL of them.

  • lysias

    The man Trump says is in charge of handling the Assange matter, Attorney General William Barr, held the same position under G.H.W. Bush. During that earlier administration, Barr was at an interdepartmental meeting of the federal government that discussed what to do with someone who had broken U.S. law and who was living in a country from which he could not be extradited. Barr supported kidnapping the man, which would have been a violation of both the law of the foreign country and of international law and said, “F### international law!” This from the top lawyer in the U.S. government and the man who is now in charge of deciding what to do with Assange.

    I was told about the meeting by someone who was present at it.

    • Antonym

      Good 😀
      Barr is an avid bagpiper. He began playing the bagpipes at age 8 and has played competitively in Scotland with a major American pipe band. At one time, Barr was a member of the City of Washington Pipe Band.

      Barr and Robert Mueller have known each other since the 1980s and are said to be good friends. Mueller attended the weddings of two of Barr’s daughters, and their wives attend Bible study together.
      Bad 🙁

    • Jo1

      ‘Barr supported kidnapping the man, which would have been a violation of both the law of the foreign country and of international law and said, “F### international law!”’

      Pretty much the norm for the US, surely? And its little poodle across here.

      • lysias

        They used to avoid saying such things out in the open, and only said them behind closed doors, so as to preserve the illusions of the public. But increasingly they’re more and more open about it.

        • Jo1

          Sorry Lysias, no offence intended. I was thinking more of Blair and Bush and their collective, “F*** the Security Council!” before the invasion of Iraq.

    • Charles Bostock

      At best this is hearsay and not proof, and anyway, how do we know you’re not spinning a line to discredit Barr and US justice?

      • Iain Stewart

        Frankly, the merest suspicion of playing bagpipes should be enough. This Barr fellow is clearly a bounder.

    • lysias

      Barr’s father was an OSS officer during WWII. Barr himself, after leaving university, was a CIA officer as his first job before he went to law school. He may well have inherited a contempt for law, especially international law.

  • Bryan Hemming

    Judge Michael Snow condemned Assange as “narcissistic”. What could be more narcissistic than a judge – in full knowledge the eyes and ears of the entire world’s media are upon him – exploiting a fifteen minute pre-trial hearing to remand someone in custody? Obviously Snow seized the only opportunity he will ever have to go down in history. As Andy Warhol’s predicted back in 1968, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes”.

  • Tom

    Great work, Craig. Meanwhile in the mainstream media, the BBC are in full fake-news mode, the Guardian comments in lockdown and the arrow fairies in overdrive at the Mail. I think someting might be ‘up’.

    • Charles Bostock

      One man’s troll is another man’s commenter, Jack. Always dangerous to call for censorship, wouldn’t you agree?

  • Gary Weglarz

    Just when I thought I’d seen the most extreme examples of the complete corruption and amorality of Western institutions – we get this. An openly contrived assault on free speech aimed at preventing we the public from knowing the depth of amoral psychopathic criminality that inhabits our military and political structures. No doubt the Western MSM, pundits, and politicians will all be yapping and howling their approval like the despicable jackals of oligarchic power they quite clearly are!

  • Arioch

    Many voices over the internets, riding on the luxury of after-knowledge, now repeat how smart was Snowden, who by chance ended in Russia, and how naïve and non-savvy was Assange with his embassy.
    But it is all afterthought. Imagine that Putin would NOT decide suddenly to save Snowden and would let him rot in airport until him dehydrated and hungry and unconscious would be loaded on board of some US plane. And then we would have made serious faces and discuss at length how street-smart was Assange to secure himself a shelter in the embassy, and how inept and naïve was Snowden.
    Almost 10 years ago they made different bets and for a while it seems their bets are equally good. While Snowden, in theory, had some flexibility in choosing himself “lord-protector” in practice that was a flexibility of hungry stray cats running after strangers in the street hoping some one would take it home. Assange instead had a certain accommodation that just worked, even if totally lacked flexibility and emergency exits.
    But practically speaking both approaches worked well, until recent.

    What changed then?
    Maybe one thing is that WikiLeaks became needing a “sacred victim”, a “martyr”, just like EuroMaidan, etc.
    Well, I hope you would not tell me, that a man confined into a cage in the embassy for 7 years still was ruling WikiLeaks with iron grip? Just remember Timoshenko in her “jail” – and how her party behaved in her absence. And she was in the same state, almost in the same city, she was quite adept in all the intrigues – still nominally “her” party was very content with Lady Yu becoming an impotent hyped symbol rather than queen.
    Then, Snowden. I remember Snowden tried to leak something about Russia. “Grim non-smiling men” quickly came to him and took his whistle away. He was clearly told that Russia does not care about his crusade for abstract good and fairness, that he would keep silent about any Russian transgression he learns of. If that makes him feel accomplice – he better come to terms with his conscience, or else.
    Snowden got the message and learnt to be humble.
    WikiLeaks did not pushed brakes. WikiLeaks rushed to expose things about Moreno, while Assange was dependent on Moreno’s benevolence.
    Dementia and bravery?
    Or a plan?
    What would WikiLeaks loose with demise of Assange? Nothing, but maybe someone’s hurt feelings.
    Could WikiLeaks bargain with Moreno and cease blowing their whistles on him? Sure.
    Did they know breaking pots with Moreno endangers Assange? They should had know.
    And they did it.
    Now they have a holy martyr, they reinforced the image of organization true to the core principles even when it endangers them, plus like in USSR after Lenin demise now WikiLeaks bosses would be free to delve into “Assange’s best student” competition.
    Qui prodest?

  • Agent Green

    Agree with everything you say on this matter, Craig. Keep up the good work. You are one of the few people getting the truth out there these days.

  • N_

    Managers of the British state brand must think they are so clever, putting up stories about a speedboat killer jailed for jumping bail and a man guilty of raping a sleeping woman at this time. And now in our next item, folks, something you may have seen in the Sun associated with poo…

    • N_

      And a third story too: someone’s been done for Silk Road 2.0, the notorious dark web network that replaced one shut down by the valiant FBI.

      (Was it all that long ago that the world’s financial media encouraged investors to buy Bitcoin, or “BTC” as they called it, as if it were on a par with “GBP”, “USD, “EUR”, and “CHF”?)

      • Charles Bostock

        Well, commenter Glenn_nl did buy Bitcoins and has told us he’s done very well indeed out of it.

  • Mary Pau!

    I am no legal eagle but Julian Assange has not been charged with publishing US state Secret information as a journalist. He has been charged as a hacker and receiver of classified information. I imagine US journalists have better protection under US freedom of speech times than in most other countries including the UK. As a result he is not being charged as a journalist but as a hacker so I think it will be difficult for him to advance what you might call the journalist’s defence of protecting his or her sources.

    • Jack

      So much of what has been reported about Julian Assange’s indictment has been false.

      “The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different username so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.

      In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity. ”
      Follow link @

      • Mary Pau!

        The indictment refers to cracking a password to help someone gain access to password protected state databases/files and to accessing files he was not authorised to view. Is cracking government passwords really a legitimate defence for a journalist? They usually claim to have been passed classified files by a third party whose name they cannot reveal to protect their sources. I think cracking government passwords would equally be an offence in the UK.

        I am not saying the information should not have been made public only that in obtaining it by illegal access to US government databases is bound to cause trouble for those directly involved in obtaining it. I do not think they can necessarily advance the claim that by making it public they were acting as journalists. I have not heard Anonymous for example, claim to be journalists.

        • Jack

          No. “Journalists” itself are not a protected group, the means they use are, and again, Assange did not hack.

          If you read the article I found for you , you would understand that US tried to indict Assange under Obama but they found no evidence to do that, judging his actions in principle as that of a journalist.. What have happend since is purely political.

  • Karen

    We are turning into a fascist country with a corrupt justice system. This is frightening.

    • Charles Bostock

      These shouts of “fascist” to describe the UK are typical of those who (1) hardly know what the word means, and (2) have obviously never themselves lived under an oppressive régime. But personally I don’t mind because it is clear that the indiscriminate use of silly insults like that merely devalues whatever message the shouters are trying to get across.

      • Goose

        It’s not fascist, but there are certainly people in authority with fascist tendencies.

        People who can’t stand dissent and hide behind unjustifiable walls of secrecy and operate by the doctrine of utilitarianism – no moral right or wrong only whether the effects are for the ‘greater good’. This is dangerous path that leads to seriously warped deluded thinking and actions.

        People aren’t being disappeared or anything, like say in China. But if it came to that would the compliant press even bother reporting it ?

        • Harry Law

          “People aren’t being disappeared or anything”…… When did you last see the Skripals?

      • Garth Carthy

        Well, Charles, the US and UK may not be fascist states in the absolute sense but I don’t know why you’re nit picking.
        The fact is that State secrecy, lying propaganda, manipulation and ignoring of international laws have all the hallmarks of fascism.
        You can call that something else if you must but these issues can only worsen as instability in the major nations increase.
        We are not ruled by rational or benevolent political leaders. I hope you don’t even begin to have such silly fantasies.
        There are a fair number of political leaders or political movers and shakers who are psychopathic or at least have psychopathic tendencies and even a relatively small but influential elite of such people can wreak havoc across the world – and indeed, they are wreaking havoc.

      • Republicofscotland

        “have obviously never themselves lived under an oppressive régime. ”

        You mean like the one of Yehudit and Netanyahu? The former one with links to the old Kach party and the infamous Kahane.

    • Jack


      In this case it is very fascist-like:

      1 Hardly any politician or western leader have condemned the assault
      2 Media=Corrupt – that support the arrest and spread their disinformation and propaganda
      3 Judiciary=Corrupt, Snow’s comments but in general by even thinking of putting a whistle blower on trial!
      4 Police=Corrupt by being part of arresting a whistle blower
      5 International law ignored and along that, the lies of state authorities in US, UK; Sweden that Assange had nothing to fear.

      Orwell was right on the cue.

  • Harry Law

    Backbenchers, including Diana Johnson, Stephen Kinnock, Stephanie Peacock, Siobhain McDonagh and Stella Creasy, have distanced themselves from the leadership by urging Sweden to reopen its investigation into allegations of sexual assault against Assange. What have allegations in Sweden got to do with addressing the US request for extradition? Absolutely nothing since no request has been made by Sweden, virtue signalling from jobsworths.
    Stephen Kinnock
    ✔ @SKinnock

    Julian Assange stands accused of rape, in Sweden. It is critically important that we all remember this, before all else. It would be deeply troubling if the possibility that Mr Assange may be guilty of sexual violence were to be air-brushed out of the conversation.

  • Sarge

    Good man, Craig. People like yourself, Pilger, Loach and Co are stalwart moral voices on issues such as these, in stark contrast to the self styled woke generation of left journalists. It’s annoying to see the omnipotent owen jones, ash sarkar etc always giving ‘left’ credence to right wing smears of Assange, Corbyn and other dissenters in order to advance their careers in MSM. Such voices do more harm than good IMO in terms of framing issues like this one. Your robust, unequivocal statements of truth are like a breath of fresh air in a weasel permeated media environment. More power to you.

  • Martinned

    This post by Spinning Hugo, another tweep whose opinion I greatly value, adds a lot of detail that I wasn’t aware of:

    For example, it turns out the Secretary of State has very little discretion in extradition matters anymore. Also, I note that Hugo doesn’t think the “political opinions” bar would be very plausible, nor does he think art. 10 ECHR would prevent extradition. I’m not sure that I agree with either of those, but it’s worth considering.

    • N_

      I’m not sure that I agree with either of those, but it’s worth considering.

      You’re practically quoting from How to Troll Blogs 101.

    • Hmmm

      Who gives a fuck what the legal opinion is? It has no bearing on this case. The law is only followed when useful for the state. Assange WILL be imprisoned in the USA. Fait accompli.

  • N_

    The whole discourse about “I’m a journalist” is a red herring. Journalists aren’t a feudal caste or a separate “estate”, and the legal systems in neither Britain nor the United States are supposed to be based on feudalism anyway. The word “journalist” doesn’t mean shit. All it means is someone who writes or handles pieces about matters of current interest that get published so that other people can read them just like we’re doing here. What kind of idiot would view that activity as their main role in human society? There are enough clerics who think they are ritually ordained intermediaries with God, and medics, and social workers and conveyancing solicitors and what have you, who consider that people outside their own job occupations are “laypersons”. It’s totally irrelevant that one person who writes blurbs has it as their “profession” and another doesn’t, regardless of how many idiotic US films have the Holy Role of Journalism as one of their themes. And if a “journalist” receives crucial information about, say, a murderer who is on the run, personally I don’t see why he shouldn’t have to hand it over to the police, why he should be exempt just because his employer pays him to write stuff. The issue here is not “journalism”. Screw “journalism”. The point in this affair is that the people who Julian Assange was helping to expose ARE the mass murderers. (Ask anybody in the Middle East for confirmation. Do you think anybody in that region of the world buys into the “Sacred Protected Role of NUJ Members” crap?

1 2 3 4 5 11

Comments are closed.