So Where is the Swedish Warrant? 334

If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?

Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.

So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?

Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.

What is the point of demanding Assange be extradited to Sweden when there is no extradition request from Sweden? What is the point in demanding he face justice in Sweden when there are no charges? Where are the charges from Sweden?

The answer to that is silence.

Sweden was always a fit-up designed to get Assange to the USA. And now they don’t need it, so Sweden has quietly gone away. All the false left who were taken in by the security services playing upon a feminist mantra should take a very hard look at themselves. They should also consider this.

If you seriously put forward that in allegations of sexual assault, the accuser must always be believed and the accused must automatically be presumed guilty, you are handing an awesome power to the state to lock people up without proper defence. The state will abuse that awesome power and fit people up. The Assange case shows us just that. And it is not the only case, currently, as everyone in Scotland should realise.

But there is more. If you believe that any sexual accusation against a person should be believed and automatically and immediately end their societal respectability, you are giving power to state and society to exclude dissidents and critics from political discourse by a simple act of accusation. That power will be used and abused by the security services.

In the case of the allegation in Sweden that did fall through the statute of limitation, the accusation was that during the act of consensual sex Julian Assange deliberately split the condom with his fingers, without consent. I quite agree that if true, it would amount to sexual assault. But the split condom given to Swedish police as evidence had none of Assange’s DNA on it – a physical impossibility if he had worn it during sex. And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA. So tell me again – we must always believe the accuser?

For once, I agree with the Blairites that should a warrant arrive from Sweden that Swedish request should be prioritised for extradition over the US request, not least because rape is much the more serious crime. As the only reason Julian Assange ever claimed asylum was that he saw the Swedish allegations as a ruse to get him into custody for extradition to the US, I would also say that should a warrant from Sweden arrive he should now voluntarily go without further legal resistance, the US extradition point being overtaken.

But do not hold your breath. No warrant is going to come. The states that coordinated so carefully his arrest and detention, timed with the Muellergate release and the demented Ecuadorean government lies about faeces on walls, don’t need the Swedish angle now.

I ask again. Where is the warrant from Sweden? Are there still people who cannot see the Swedish allegations for the CIA ruse that they always were?


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


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

334 thoughts on “So Where is the Swedish Warrant?

1 2 3 4
  • Jones

    What will happen if both Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning refuse to testify against each other ?

    Chelsea Manning has refused to testiy against Julian Assange, when Assange is extradited to US (as sadly i expect he will be) he may refuse to answer any questions about Chelsea Manning too, in this case the authorities may play them against each other offering each a lower prison sentence for co-operation, with the threat of long prison sentences the temptation to turn on each other will be great but i don’t believe they will, Manning has already proved she won’t as she could be walking free now if she agreed to testify and i don’t think Assange will either even though it ‘s probably his only way to receive a lower sentence. What enormous courage these two exceptional people have, betrayed by folks who have profited from them and will lose nothing more than their job if they show support but stay silent in their cowardice.

    • Tom Welsh

      A fascinating opportunity to see how the classic game theory “Prisoners’ Dilemma” plays out between two real people – both outstanding human beings, clever, educated and thoroughly moral.

      God give them strength and help them to do right.

    • craig Post author

      It’s not actually a vigil. It’s a four hour online discussion programme, every week. I have in fact taken part a few times but don’t do so every week because there is no shortage of participants.

  • N_

    If you seriously put forward that in allegations of sexual assault, the accuser must always be believed and the accused must automatically be presumed guilty, you are handing an awesome power to the state to lock people up without proper defence. The state will abuse that awesome power and fit people up. The Assange case shows us just that. And it is not the only case, currently, as everyone in Scotland should realise.

    Alex Salmond has been granted bail and if he believes that he is being denied, or that he will be denied, the right to prepare or present a defence case he should say so. The jury that tries him will be instructed to presume his innocence. He will not be locked up if the jurors decide on the basis of the evidence that he is not guilty or that the case against him is not proven. That prosecutors say they believe there is a reasonable chance of convicting him is insufficient reason to suggest that they believe, or that they are acting as if they believe, that the unknown number of women who have accused him of sexual assault are a coven of wicked liars paid by sinister Unionist forces and probably by Hillary Clinton should “automatically” be believed simply because they are accusing a person of committing that type of crime.against them.

    It looks as though it’s going to be quite a trial.

    • Stonky

      It looks as though it’s going to be quite a trial…

      I hope Alex Salmond has more luck than Ched Evans, who spent two and a half years in jail for a rape that never was, convicted on the basis of a ragbag of worthless evidence by a jury who clearly had it in for him from the start. Probably because he was white, working-class, a footballer, and relatively wealthy – everything your average Guardianista most despises.

      • Stonky

        Unfortunately for Alex, one of the other groups that fake-leftists like you also heartily despise is middle-aged white men who support Scottish independence.

        • Stonky

          Not to forget whistle-blowers who try to alert the world to the callous slaughter being carried out in secret by Western governments, ostensibly on behalf of their electorates. It’s nip and tuck up there, but I think fake progressives despise them even more than white working-class footballers who are relatively wealthy, and middle-aged white men who support Scottish independence.

      • Jones

        the problem is the the justice system is adversarial, effectively a battle between lawyers, sadly verdicts are not always reached by exposing the truth but by whichever legal team is clever enough to convince a jury, and juries being made up of people can be swayed by their prejudices, many people believe what they prefer to be true as opposed to what is true.

        • Michael McNulty

          The American comedian George Carlin who died of cancer a few years ago said, “If you want to get out of jury service it’s easy. When you turn up at court and you’re asked if there’s any reason why you shouldn’t serve on a jury you say, ‘No! You should have asked me before! I can tell who’s guilty, just by looking at ’em.’ In an hour you’ll be back at home with your feet up.”

      • John2o2o

        The same also applies in my opinion to some high profile cases involving ageing celebrities, though it is not the jury who “have it in” for people. That is the CPS.

        Juries can be directed by the courts to find people guilty and prosecutors can be convincing.

        Juries are ordinary, often white, working class people too Stonky.

        Here is a detailed explanation of the situation involving one of these celebrities. My giving this link is not evidence of my opinion in this particular case:

        • Tom Welsh

          A jury can refuse to obey direction. It’s essentially the same as the soldier who pleads that he was only following orders.

          • John2o2o

            Nevertheless, it is not juries who prosecute! The original point was that the jury “had it in” for someone.

            If juries – made up of ordinary members of the public – are biased then they can and should be dismissed! A jury is supposed to be neutral at the outset.

            I certainly agree with the thrust of Stonky’s point, but blaming a jury is not the answer! The fault lies with the CPS! (Crown Prosecution Service).

  • Gary

    Whilst agreeing entirely with you that the allegations against Assange were spurious and simply a device to ensure extradition I CANNOT condone what you say: “If you seriously put forward that in allegations of sexual assault, the accuser must always be believed and the accused must automatically be presumed guilty, you are handing an awesome power to the state to lock people up without proper defence.”

    My reason is this. We have had an unending stream of adult survivors of child abuse coming forward. Some in their 60s and 70s who were victimised in children’s homes, borstals, by churchmen and even by celebrities. Many of the victims HAD complained and were NOT believed, their evidence simply set aside as being ‘unbelievable’ due to the alleged perpetrator’s respectability and standing in the community. We MUST believe people when they come forward and treat them with respect and decency.

    It is false to treat this as a binary choice between believing the victim and believing the alleged perpetrator. It is NOT a simple choice. Victims coming forward, as children or adults, SHOULD be believed. Evidence should be gathered and then the police investigating should follow that evidence. That sounds like it should be ‘standard operating procedure’ right? Wrong. Only AFTER these scandals had emerged after thirty, forty or fifty years was it decided that this was the way forward for the police. However, forces seem to be quietly dropping this now and reverting to type and turning away victims who’s stories seem ‘too hard to believe’ We are storing up further problems for our children’s futures by doing this (or they are, at least) because child abuse doesn’t go away, it’s NOT a thing of the past. It is ever present and children must be protected.

    But back to Assange. Yes, you can believe the victim, treat with respect and follow the evidence. On some occasions it WILL turn out that the victim is not being truthful, the allegations spurious and the alleged perpetrator is actually the victim. This must not deter us from treating victims reporting crime with respect.

    So, NOT a binary choice. Handled properly the evidence will lead to the truth. In Assange’s case the evidence (and lack, thereof) points to an illegal act on behalf of one or more governments, and it’s agents, conspiring to pervert the course of justice to exact a vengeful prosecution on Assange whilst damaging his reputation. Those illegal acts should in no way affect how we deal with the other 99.9% of sexual offence victims.

    • SA

      I agree with what you wrote about victims of sexual abuse especially children but I think that that was not the context of Craig’s OST. He specifically stated “…to lock up people without proper defence”. The context is clear, the Swedish authorities did not bring up charges and the fact that they were investigating for the second time round, allegations which have already been dismissed and clearly in the context of adults practising consensual sex is a far cry from what you write about. In other words you are mixing apples with pears.

    • craig Post author

      No. I am grateful for the intercession of SA to try to heal the gap between myself and Gary’s assertion of the accepted politically correct mantra, but I do in fact fundamentally differ.

      “Believe the victim” lacks a vital word. Alleged. And once you insert that word, believed becomes the wrong verb.

      I do not agree with “believe the victim”. It is fundamentally wrong. What is correct is

      “Take the alleged victim extremely seriously. Give credence to their testimony as in itself prima facie evidence unless and until contradicted by other evidence or provable facts. Show them all due respect and consideration during the investigation process. Treat accused and accuser with equal respect whatever their circumstances or personal identities”.

      That is correct. “Believe the victim” gives the most dangerous power imaginable to the state.

      • Andrew Paul Booth

        … And doubt the authenticity, surely, as you point out, Craig, thankyou, of claims asserted by an alleged victim who provides clearly false evidence such as a DNA-free split condom? And concerning whom there might be evidence that she might be working for a highly-interested party, in this context, such as the CIA?

      • Jasper

        The presumption of innocence over the presumption of guilt. A foundation of a sane society.

      • Hmmm

        I see no difference between believe and take seriously etc… both offer the police a “working diagnosis”. Historically rape, being hard to prove, was treated as a “he said, she said” crime.
        If you get burgled you expect the police to believe you, or take you seriously…
        Sadly, these claims against Assange have set back the right of women to be believed decades. Millions of men will be saying “but for the grace of god…”

    • John2o2o

      You do not “condone”? You mean you do not agree. Having an opinion is not a crime.

      People who make these claims have all sorts of motivations for making them. They are not always genuine!

      They may be genuine sometimes.
      They may be vindictive and seeking revenge on the accused for other reasons.
      They may be mentally ill and delusional: actually believing something that did not happen.
      They may be struggling financially and see the possibility of winning compensation.
      They may be greedy and see the possibility of winning compensation.
      They may be motivated by the possibility of financial or other personal gain in political cases.

      We are in the UK a very gullible people. We tend to believe “sob” stories – but are tears evidence? People – especially people suffering from certain types of mental illness – will cry in order to manipulate those around them.

      TV documentaries are not evidence. The makers of these programmes are making entertainment for the masses. They are not public servants – they are there to make a profit. These programmes are – like dodgy dossiers – often “sexed up” in order to grab headlines and get viewers.

      Revenge is not therapy. If you suffered abuse as a child (and not all abuse is sexual, but can be just as damaging) and you cannot get on with your life, the best you can do is seek professional help. The police are not therapists. If the person who committed the abuse is still alive and still in charge of minors then it may also be a police matter. But other than that I would say that therapy is your choice.

      You cannot convict people of these sorts of crimes without evidence, and that will not exist for things that allegedly happened in the 1970s. I’m sorry do not believe these people as a matter of principle. If they are genuine they should seek therapy.

      Craig may not agree with my analysis here, but his point regarding allegations of sexual assault are correct in my opinion.

    • David Macilwain

      The points you make Gary are quite valid, but they are precisely the problem that we have in persuading “people like you” – including many of my “liberal-left” friends – that what Julian Assange did is NOT IMPORTANT. Quite unlike the cases of genuine sexual abuse, against an innocent and unwilling victim, whatever he did was a simple matter of bedroom etiquette and sex. Besides that though, it has absolutely nothing to do with his job as a journalist and whistleblower – it is a complete furphy.
      It’s all a supremely effective and calculated psy-op, targeting all the people who would stand up for Assange, and against the war States and their juggernaut that has not the slightest regard for the rights of women or the abuse of children.

  • Julia Larden

    “But the split condom given to Swedish police as evidence had none of Assange’s DNA on it – a physical impossibility if he had worn it during sex. And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA.”

    I fully accept that the dramatic arrest was about Assange’s work with Wikileaks, and that there is no way the British Government would have taken this much interest in someone without a current foreign warrant against them, without the Wikileaks exposes I have also accepted that the reasons why the Swedish warrant lapsed was to do with Swedish law, and that the warrant could be renewed – and that Assange should then face those charges. I have never thought that either the UK or Sweden should jump to the bidding of the US.

    The two claims which I have quoted above are very interesting I think – especially the first. But how is these things known? Are there any test results available which show that Assange’s DNA was not present on the condom? Or are there any reliable witness statements available? (eg from lawyers or Swedish officials)? In regard to the second claim, I think considerable caution is still needed: it is not impossible that a former CIA employee could be sexually abused, I don’t think we should start discrediting witnesses purely for their employment history, especially in rape or sexual misconduct cases I think we need to be very careful here. However, it would certainly be striking if both claims were true. What is the source for this claim, about the background of the woman?

    • Stonky

      Julia there is a thing called “Google”. It gives you access to a vast amount of information across the worldwide internet. I’m not going to do your job for you, but DNA-free condom has been widely reported in both English and Swedish language media in Sweden. As has the suggestion that it appeared to have been cut mechanically rather than torn with a fingernail. Also widely available is information about JA’s accuser, and the Masters thesis she wrote in Cuba, and who she was associating with there.

      it is not impossible that a former CIA employee could be sexually abused…

      It is indeed possible. Don’t you find it remotely suspicious that of all the women in the world that CIA target JA could have raped, it just so happened that he chose one with CIA links (not a former employee) who happened to invite him to stay in her one-bed home, and who had sex with him, and who continued to lodge him in her one-bed home even after he had ‘raped’ her, in spite of the fact that at least two of her friends had offered to accommodate him elsewhere…

      • Julia Larden

        Thanks Stonky but (1) I was after more than ‘wide reports’ That something has been ‘widely reported’ does not make it correct. (2) In this context I am interested in the lab report given by Arbed below, which suggests that the condoms were not torn with a finger nail, which is odd, and I am willing to agree that is suspicious. However, also I read ‘Vaginal swabs from complainant 1 [Wilén] had DNA from complainant 1 [Wilén] and a man.’ So it seems not quite so clear cut. (3) of course I also find it ‘suspicious’ that ‘[…] of all the women in the world […]’ However, I was trying to get to facts, rather than merely settle for what I find ‘suspicious.’ I well aware that otherwise I am going to be up against: ‘But this is just assertions you have read somewhere. How do you know this to be true?’

        I would like to be able to defend Assange, but, and particularly as a woman, I do not want to find myself in the uncomfortable position of being accused of defending possible rapists. That (apart from the way I was educated) is why I was pressing for facts.

    • Arbed

      Yes, there are test results on the torn condoms – note, plural – that were submitted by the two women, from Sweden’s National Police Forensic Laboratory, no less. The forensic report is translated into English here:

      Ardin’s torn condom (she was the one who made the allegation Assange had deliberately torn this DNA-free condom during sex) we can say was given directly to police by AA herself. That is properly evidenced. However, the torn condom from Sofia Wilen (who made no mention of torn condoms whatsoever in her police statements, nor is it mentioned in her friends’ witness statements) has no proper chain of custody. It was sent to the lab under AA’s case number as Wilen’s case had already been closed down by Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, who read SW’s statement and stated “the evidence discloses no crime at all”.

      Note, too, that the forensic technicians found that both condoms – AA’s DNA-free one and the fragment from SW with JA’s DNA on it – were torn in the same way, and manually.

      • Arbed

        It’s important to remember that two women went to the police together and were initially interviewed together, and then TWO torn condoms were sent to the police forensics lab. Something in that initial, unrecorded interview made the police react by immediately issuing a warrant for ‘double rape’ (cancelled within 24 hours) and yet the following day the Chief Prosecutor, having read SW’s formal statement to another officer, alone, (THIS is the one who was Ardin’s friend Irmeli Krans – the officer who conducted the initial unrecorded interview of AA & SW together was Linda Wassgren) could not find any crime at all in what SW described. A Swedish journalist who gave a witness statement on his discussions with AA after the women’s visit to police said she justified the police calling it rape “because two women had the same story about the same man”. But the two *official* women’s testimonies are nothing like each other. It looks, at least to me, as if SW changed her story to avoid being charged herself for making false rape allegations.

        • Stonky

          It’s important to remember that two women went to the police together and were initially interviewed together, and then TWO torn condoms were sent to the police forensics lab…

          You seem better informed than me. Can you confirm this? I thought I had read pretty much all the papers on the case, and I don’t recollect any accusation by Wilen that JA had torn a condom – deliberately or otherwise. I thought the complaint in her case involved only unprotected sex. Did ‘torn condoms’ become an issue at a later date?

          • Arbed

            That’s precisely my point, Stonky. There is NO record of Wilen ever making a claim that JA had torn a condom – and yet, there it is, in the police forensics laboratory report – a fragment of condom somehow sourced from Wilen with JA’s DNA on it that the technicians say was torn in exactly the same way as Anna Ardin’s clearly fake one – but no chain of custody for it. It is sent under Ardin’s case number, not Wilen’s, and there is no documentation as to how police obtained it. As you say, Wilen’s recorded claim was that she was “half-asleep” when JA initiated their last consensual sex session without a condom. She says she “couldn’t be bothered” to tell him to stop, although she clarified with him he was no longer wearing one. He says she definitely was awake and clearly consenting. In her statement, she says she did notice during the previous session that it was only half-on. So, perhaps there’s an inference it could have fallen off. Certainly not deliberately torn manually, as the forensics lab later found both Ardin’s and Wilen’s evidence to be. Which is why I suspect that the women cooked up a scheme together and go to the police with false allegations. Wilen may have handed her ‘torn condom’ over during the initial police interview that was not audio or video recorded or written down other than a very brief summary, in which Ardin sat and backed up Wilen’s claims. It was only after Ardin left the police station (before Wilen’s formal statement to police officer Krans happened) that police decided on the “double rape” approach and a formal statement was taken from Ardin (by telephone) the following morning and a police officer sent to her apartment to collect the “torn condom” from her, which was later shown to be entirely DNA-free.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Julia Larden April 28, 2019 at 07:03
      ‘…I have never thought that either the UK or Sweden should jump to the bidding of the US…’
      Indeed, nor should any right-thinking person, but the point is they do, the pair of them just ask ‘how high?’.

  • Stonky

    I would also say that should a warrant from Sweden arrive he should now voluntarily go without further legal resistance…

    I completely disagree with you on this. If JA were my son I would no more want him to go to the feminazi lunatocracy of Sweden to face rape charges, than I would want my daughter to go to the Islamofascist lunatocracy of Saudi Arabia to be tried for adultery. I reckon the chances of a fair trial would be about equal in the two cases.

    • John Goss

      I agree. Any young man wishing to go on holiday should go anywhere but Sweden is my advice. The Assange case has shown it is not a safe place for young men to visit because consensual sex can so easily be labelled rape. Women, of course, should be protected from rapists (men too) but because of Swedish culture it is clear that a visit there can easily turn any healthy man into a complete wreck. His life can be destroyed.

      However I can understand why it might be safer for Assange to go to Sweden than remain here in a country that has already bent the law to ensure that Assange should be extradited to Sweden. The UK Supreme Court which, but for the Ecuador Embassy offering asylum, would have got Assange extradited ostensibly on consensual “rape” charges but really as a stage on his journey to the US. The grounds for his extradition were invoked in a subsequent case, and overturned, but this could not be applied retrospectively to Assange because the Supreme Court is the highest in the land and its judgements cannot be overruled.

      As Craig’s blog-piece further says:

      “But do not hold your breath. No warrant is going to come.”

      They have Julian Assange where they want him. What has happened is a nasty attack on sanctuary worldwide, that agents of our police and security services can breach safe-havens of political asylum, has created a precedent that will enable rogue-states anywhere to do the same, thanks to a change of government in the host country. We have become a rogue-state ourselves.

      • John2o2o

        Sounds like a scary place. Just to reinforce your point, you may have read of current US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo filmed bragging to an audience at Texas A&M university about CIA corruption on 15th April 2019:

        “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

  • David

    no news of any swedish developments, I could only find a handful of .se MSM articles concurrent with the actual day of ‘the illegal storming of the sanctuary’, very little analysis after that

    This Spanish news gives the most up-to-date & full details of which company was recording Julian, and mention of his “torture”, inhuman deprivation of rights. A brief summary makes the DailyMail and here via AFP
    but surprisingly little take-up by other media outlets, or perhaps the scanning tools are downranking him in search results?

    I did check Svenska media again, not much on offer by search, got mostly hits from Norway who recorded that a UN official had been to Belmarsh to see Julian, if my norwegian was accurate; OK, I found confirmation from alternative media that Joe Cannataci, United Nations special rapporteur on the right to privacy, was permitted a meeting with ‘the privacy martyr’ Julian Assange on April 25th. I don’t recall the BBC informing me of this?…..

    searching inside gets (me) this result

    Sorry, there are no results for Joe Cannataci
    Make sure that all words are spelled correctly.
    Try different keywords.
    Try more general keywords.

    Explore the BBC
    CBBC… etc

    • Sharp Ears

      A search on the BBC News website for Assange used to show only historic links about him back to 2012. There must have been complaints as they are now linking to recent reports, all of their own making of course, apart from one to the American made Poitras film Risk. That comes up first.

    • John A

      You write ‘svenska media’ so I presume you can read Swedish, although it would be ‘svenska medier’ in Swedish. If you can, this piece, headed ‘ Don’t forget Sweden’s guilt in Assange’ situation’ provides plenty of useful information.
      As a general rule, the mainstream Swedish media are no different from other western media in regurgatating US propaganda and running smear stories about Russia etc.

      • David

        I’m not very good at Swedish, mostly use google automatic translate from Chrome, but can scan using my bad German, bad Nederlands and some Yorkshire and guess!

        When I worked closely with the Swedish military they were all confirmed atlanticists, but frankly more interested in hunting things at the weekend than actually joining nato overtly.

        OK SE, I did eventually track down a BBC story on the UN special rapporteur for privacy issues, they called him Joseph not Joe, but of course BBC state GAP PROPAGANDA requires them not to notice the amazing fact that he got into Belmarsh to see Julian Assange three days ago – they only refer to the United Nations visitor checking the astonishing FAR (biometric false acceptance rate) on uk intelligence spy cameras in Cardiff last year, 2018. Everyone was guilty!, doesn’t that just about sum-up the current UK regime?

  • Sharp Ears

    Fidel Narvaez speaks up again.

    ‘He respected us’: Ex-consul debunks MSM claims Assange had issues with Ecuador’s embassy staff
    27 April 2019

    ‘Claims that Ecuadorian embassy staff had trouble living side-by-side with Julian Assange were a mere “smear campaign,” the country’s former consul told RT. Both the hosts and the guest showed true respect to each other, he said.
    But Narvaez, who was Ecuador’s consul during Assange’s presence, said that stories about “his alleged breach of asylum conditions” and altercations with diplomatic staff were a “smokescreen” created by Moreno’s government. “A couple of isolated incidents with security guards” can’t be described as improper conduct, he opined.

    ‘I was in the Embassy for six years, and Assange spent there nearly 2,500 days. I witnessed myself how respectful was [the attitude] of all diplomats, of all administrative staff towards him and [vice versa], of him towards us.’

    But that attitude changed when Moreno took office in 2017. Last year, the Ecuadorean government severed internet access for Assange, citing a breach of a rule on non-intervention into the politics of other countries. The embassy also limited Assange’s visitors, making the only exception for his lawyers.

  • michael norton

    Is it legal in the United Kingdom, to arrest and lock up a person on a charge, if the underlying reason you have arrested and locked that person up
    has nothing whatsoever to do with the originating “suspicion”?

    I would guess Habeas corpus comes into this case.
    Our government should not be above the law.

  • fwl

    Mishal Husain is a star on the Andrew Marr show. Sharp enough to find the pressure points and very calm.

    • Sharp Ears

      Same old, same old as far as I can see. All so safe.

      ‘Mishal Husain is joined by chairman of the Conservative Party Brandon Lewis MP, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats Jo Swinson MP, shadow communities secretary Andrew Gwynne MP and Catholic priest Father Martin Magill. Reviewing the papers are Aditya Chakrabortty from the Guardian and the director of the Open Europe think tank Henry Newman.’

  • Tom Welsh

    “If you believe that any sexual accusation against a person should be believed and automatically and immediately end their societal respectability, you are giving power to state and society to exclude dissidents and critics from political discourse by a simple act of accusation”.

    Quite true, Craig; and what’s more, it’s a tactic as old as the hills. Recently I have been reading Michael Hudson’s essential book “…and forgive them their debts”. It is a stunning eye-opener. Hudson analyzes historical records back to 4,500 years ago to show that there has always been a life-and-death struggle between creditors and debtors. Ancient Mesopotamian rulers knew that, unless personal debts were periodically forgiven, eventually almost everyone would be impoverished and enslaved for debt. That would destroy the state, which would collapse and be conquered. Hence almost every accession of a new king was followed by a “Jubilee”, meaning that the ruler ordered all personal (not commercial) debts to be forgiven.

    The history of ancient Greece and Rome was radically different, as the creditors got full control. That is why both civilisations were ruined and conquered. Hudson points out that kings were always on the side of the debtors – the common people – because if they were immiserated or enslaved the ruler would lose his tax base, his army, and his power to command corvee labour to build public works.

    This puts classical history in a very different light, as most of those who were labelled “tyrants” were actually trying to keep the common people free. That angered the rich creditor class, who mostly chose what historians would write.

    What has all this to do with Assange’s fitting up? Charges of sexual misconduct. As a boy I learned about the horrible tyrants of Greece and Rome who were quite rightly overthrown by “the people” – notably the Tarquins of Rome and Hipparchus of Athens, who was murdered by the aristocrats Harmodius and Aristogeiton. In each case a sensational and unacceptable rape was alleged – but not, as far as I know, proved.

    It’s an interesting exercise to look back through world history for such allegations of rape, and reassess them in terms of “cui bono?”

    • Blissex

      «Ancient Mesopotamian rulers knew that, unless personal debts were periodically forgiven, eventually almost everyone would be impoverished and enslaved for debt. That would destroy the state, which would collapse and be conquered. Hence almost every accession of a new king was followed by a “Jubilee”, meaning that the ruler ordered all personal (not commercial) debts to be forgiven. [ … ] most of those who were labelled “tyrants” were actually trying to keep the common people free. That angered the rich creditor class»

      That’s not quite how it worked, and M Hudson has written about it actually worked, and I think that some of his recent works are misleading.
      What usually happened is that the rulers assessed tax on their subjects, recorded to tax to be paid on clay tablets as titles of debt from their subjects, and then sold the clay tablets to “tax collectors” for precious metal at a discount, making sure that the “tax collectors” were easily identifiable, e.g. by being obviously foreign (e.g. as to beard, hair color, eye shape, nose shape, different accent or style of dress, different religion, …). Then the tax collectors would take the tablets to the subjects and take whatever what written on them; then the tablet was broken to show payment had been made.
      In this way the rulers got the precious metals needed to pay soldiers, and gave their subjects the appearance that it was the nasty “tax collectors” who were responsible for taking tax from them. Eventually most subjects would fall into tax arrears and then the ruler would instigate a massacre of the “tax collectors”, easily identifiable, e.g. by being obviously foreign, and during the massacre the subjects would break all tax tablets they could find in the homes of the “tax collectors”.
      So the “jubilee” was as a rule about tax arrears, rather than generic personal debts, the ruler had already been paid so did not miss the tax arrears, and the “tax collectors” who did not manage to flee or hide were massacred. Obviously the discount between what was represented on the tablet and the precious metal reflected this risk.

    • John2o2o

      You should read the Bible Tom (perhaps I should too) :

      “And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.” Luke 3:12-13

      “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:13-14

      “Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him. Matthew 21:31-32

      I just picked these up randomly, so I don’t know which version they are from.

      • Tom Welsh

        Thanks John. Actually I have read the Bible end-to-end, as well as absorbing a lot of it in a childhood imbued with Scots Presbyterian culture.

        I am well aware of Dr Hudson’s strong emphasis on the ancient Jewish custom of Jubilee, which he thinks was derived from the Babylonion/Assyrian “andurarum”/”deror”. He even claims that Jesus tried to persuade the Jews to return to the Mosaic Law which insisted on forgiveness of actual debts – NOT “trespasses”. Hence the name of his book.

        The reason I didn’t mention any of that was that I was in danger of writing a book of my own, which is inappropriate for a blog comment. Anyone interested should of course read Dr Hudson’s book, or some of the fairly detailed explanations on his Web site

  • Jones

    from original CM post —- ”If you seriously put forward that in allegations of sexual assault, the accuser must always be believed and the accused must automatically be presumed guilty, you are handing an awesome power to the state to lock people up without proper defence. The state will abuse that awesome power and fit people up.”

    There is a very simple test applicable to all perhaps conveniently overlooked by many, if the accused person was ”you” how would ”you” expect to be treated. If ”you” are not prepared to be presumed guilty you should not expect others to be either.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    With all that is going on in the world today, I cannot understand posters going on endlessly about where, when and for what Assange may be extradited, and if he innocent of rape, being pressured into confessing.

    Shit happens to almost anyone who is complaining these days, I have had serious assassination attempts on me in three countries over the last generation. and the police have done nothing despite my claims..

    You can pontificate all you want, but look at what happened in Sri Lanka, New Zealand, San Diego. Pittsburg, Norway et al., and almost nothing being said about it.

    • Courtenay Barnett


      I guess, in reply to your comment:-

      ” Sri Lanka, New Zealand, San Diego. Pittsburg, Norway et al., and almost nothing being said about it.”

      that the topic is presently ‘Julian Assange’ – so posters are posting on topic.

      No doubt at a later stage – there will be something said by Craig Murray on another and more important issues.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      Dmitri Orlov is a long time CIA agent who first tried to pin Olof Palme’s assassination on the USSS vis Gaddafi’s Libya, and is wrong on how Assange got in trouble with America’s Deep State.

      • Paul Damascene

        I don’t carry any particular brief for Dmitri Orlov, but if the criticism of what he says relies primarily on an ad hominem critique:
        a) this reliance would be a weakness of the critique.
        b) the claims about him would lose all value in this context if evidence of them cannot be adduced.

        As noted in this thread, the CIA connection of one of Assange’s accusers doesn’t make the accusation false, but if that connection itself has no evidence for it, then this would bring its value to something much closer to zero.

  • Ingwe

    Good article, Mr Murray. However, you also fall into the trap of comparing two ‘crimes’ and ranking them in seriousness. The sexual accusation is certainly a serious matter and, if true, a crime. But Mr Assange’s publishing of leaks showing the USA’s criminal conduct is not a crime. So saying that the Swedish allegation is more serious than the leak, implies that publishing the leaks is also a crime.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      Read the indictment of Julian Paul Assange for many crimes by the US government awhile back on

    • Courtenay Barnett


      You said:-

      “So saying that the Swedish allegation is more serious than the leak, implies that publishing the leaks is also a crime”

      But, it all depends how you look at it and who is defining.

      The US legislatively defines the publication of certain state secrets a ‘crime’ ( e.g. imprisonment of Chelsea Manning); the law also makes an exemption for the public’s right to know ( e.g. Pentagon Papers and the case of New York Times v. United States).

      Thus there is an actual crime so defined in statute ( such as Craig Murray’s problems over Uzbekistan and the contravention of the Official Secrets Act in the UK; since so legislatively defined) – as distinct from carte blanche stating that there is no crime.

      • Ingwe

        Courtnay Barnett-But Mr Assange published information that was embarrassing and inconvenient to the USA (and the UK) but were not state secrets. So your premise is wrong.

        • Charles Bostock

          Not at all, Ingwe. The material published was classified material and therefore state secrets. Any lawyer would know that.

          • Paul Damascene

            While the lawyering is not irrelevant here, there is the risk that accepting this to be primarily about the Law, as formulated by various states, will lead us to considering the question in ways more congenial to these states than we otherwise might.

            I recall Jim Kavanagh’s formulation, from his fine essay in the Polemicist:

            “On a 1-10 scale of what issues are worth assessing, Sweden’s imagined interrogation of Assange for sexual allegations gets a 10, the US’s actual drive to imprison Assange for revealing war crimes is set at a firm 0. It’s a discourse in which the concerns about US extradition disappear.”

            Or in the context of our present discussion, it becomes a discourse in which laws become conflated with and may thereby displace questions of justice.

            In terms of ends, most of us are less vexed about the legalities than about the principles; the legalities are chiefly of interest as significantly shaping how these principles can be supported.

          • Ingwe

            Actually Mr Bostock the covering up of what amount to war crimes are not legitimised or legalised merely by calling them a state secrets and thereby covered by some security law. As any lawyer worth his salt will know that illegality provides a defence.

          • Charles Bostock


            99,9% of the Wikileaks material had nothing to do with war crimes (alleged or actual).

            So that line of arguments won’t wash.

          • John2o2o

            The “Collateral Murder” video was in the public interest of all – Americans included.

            Have you seen it Charles? Do you condone the conduct and language of the US servicemen involved?

            As Julian rightly said (I think on Al Jazeera) (I am not quoting) the men were too far removed from the scene and seemed to treat it as though they were playing a video game.

          • Charles Bostock


            As I said, 99,9% of the Wikipedia material leaked and published had nothing to do witrh war crimes, alleged or actual.

        • lysias

          The Executive Order that is the legal basis of the whole system of security classification in the U.S. specifically provides that crimes cannot be classified.

          • lysias

            Ealier versions of the executive order also said this, but the prohibition of classifying crimes can be read in sec. 1.7(1) of Exec. Order 13526 of Dec. 29, 2009.

          • pretzelattack

            show us the laws giving the u.s. jurisdiction over all the citizens of all countries in the world, charles.

          • David

            great difficulties in posting this …

            @CB, your quick quip deserves an equally quick and short riposte, I’ll leave it to you to read the bibliography and establish the correct balanced approach to achieve your particular favored “classified handling”

            Your “security secrecy” is a privilege that only exists in a working oversight regime where the necessary checks and balances are in a fully effective functionality(1). internal accountability having demonstrably failed, (see Snowden, Manning et al), requires therefore informed external accountability processes to ensure that the press plays their important role in holding government officials accountable in our democratic society(1),(2). BUT

            As the dead but good senior journalist and others confirmed(3), now that public diplomacy has admittedly ‘bought’ all the journalists in the traditional press, the rules are changed and are apparently not chiaroscuro – by buying the press, whilst simultaneously increasing the size of your intelligence community, you have destroyed your own secret bedrock, from within.

            So this outbreak of public scrutiny & informed accountability, shining lights where they need to be shone (in the view of the public) is simple to explain; You are suffering from an self-made insider threat and are suffering autonomous ‘check and balance’ reactions as the pendulum is swinging back to a bit more towards privacy. I suggest you interrogate everyone inside the IC more, trust none of your friends, they might be keeping secrets from you.

            Never forget that the reason why Snowden, Assange, Manning’s public scrutiny of your (our) “secrets” resonates particularly in many countries is that they have living experience of being under an autocratic regime, whether Stalinist, National-Sozialist, Stazi/staatssicherheit or potentially some believe atlanticist (remember further that in the UK, Ian Leigh has pointed out that until Snowden even the UK’s Intelligence and Security Committee was not giving accurate informed oversight)

            (1) (review by CIA)
            (1) When Should State Secrets Stay Secret?: Accountability, Democratic Governance, and Intelligence
            Author: Lester, Genevieve; Publisher: Cambridge University Press
            ISBN: 9781107042476


            (3) Church & Pike committee hearings, US House & US Congress records
            (3) Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News
            Author: Ulfkotte, Udo
            ISBN: 1944505458, 9781944505455

            and a suggested reading list

            Intelligence Oversight in the Twenty-First Century : Accountability in a Changing World
            Author: Leigh, Ian; Wegge, Njord; Publisher: Routledge, Publication Year: 2018
            ISBN: 9780815393344, 9781351188784

            Liberal Wars : Anglo-American Strategy, Ideology and Practice
            Author: Cromartie, Alan; Publisher: Routledge, Publication Year: 2015
            ISBN: 9781138840119, 9781317556589

            Propaganda Blitz : How the Corporate Media Distort Reality
            Author: Edwards, David; Cromwell, David;
            Publisher: Pluto Press, Publication Year: 2018
            ISBN: , 9781786803306

            Secrecy, Law and Society
            Author: Martin, Greg; Scott Bray, Rebecca; and more
            Publisher: Routledge, Publication Year: 2015
            ISBN: 9781138826854, 9781317575153

            Strategic Narratives, Public Opinion and War : Winning Domestic Support …
            Author: De Graaf, Beatrice; Dimitriu, George; and more
            Publisher: Routledge, Publication Year: 2015
            ISBN: 9781138780422, 9781317673286

            The Art of Revolt : Snowden, Assange, Manning
            Author: De Lagasnerie, Geoffroy; Butler, Erik;
            Publisher: Stanford University Press, Publication Year: 2017
            ISBN: , 9781503603240

            We Know All about You : The Story of Surveillance in Britain and America
            Author: Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri;
            Publisher: Oxford University Press, Publication Year: 2017
            ISBN: 9780198749660, 9780191066542

            the full document available on application, you know my home phone number

          • Piotr Berman

            By that logic, CIA is criminal organization because it collects information classified by other countries. Presumably, there exists American law that makes it legal in USA, to wit, American law protects only American acts of classification. It is legal to be a traitor in America if it is against some other state.

            It reminds me the story of Johan Reingold Patkul, “the last Livonian patriot”. As a subject of Sweden (Livonia being Swedish dependency) he strongly protested new taxes invented by Swedish king that happen to be three time (or so) larger in Livonia than in Sweden, Swedish king was displeased with that critique so Patkul fled and became a traitor, i.e. working with monarchs of Russia and Saxony, advising them how to fight Sweden. At some point the king of Sweden got the upper hand and offered “generous condition to Saxony” but with Patkul given to him, so His Majesty could spend a pleasant day watching all bones of Patkul being broken one by one while the latter was still alive. Few years later Livonia became Russian.

            The relentless pursuit of Snowden and Assange is something that king Charles XII of Sweden would understand well.

  • Cesca

    Glory! You’ve been knocking yourself out producing what look like some serious quality articles, from the 22nd Craig. Is it bees in your bonnet or ants in your pants mate? =)

    Got some catching up to do, serious kudos to you. So happy Tom has managed to survive this latest crisis at ICH, it’s neverending for him and his team tho, ditto MediaLens and Mint News too.I dunno but what do you think about forming a cooperative with sites like that, where 4 sites can be supported for 20 £/$ a month? Getting plenty of bums on seats donating is surely more important than hoping for a few big donations, think most ppl would find that an affordable figure. For ppl who can afford more, it cld be optional to support more sites for an addition 5£/$.

    Also, think it’s essential to get away from this independent/alternative news shit, sites like yours and Tom’s are real news/truth.

  • FobosDeimos

    Yes I know. That is why I used the expression ironically. I was fortunate enough to visit Palme’# grave in 2010 during my only trip to Sweden. The dismantling of the social democratic program by the current leadership and their subservient positions towards the USA are a tragedy. The same thing happened with the rest of the SD parties all over the world. Palme was my hero at a time when most of the people my age worshipped Che Guevara, a messianic guy who did not build any significant and tangible political project, too prone to play with guns and embark in suicidal missions.

  • Andrew FRom Australia



    The reason Assange fought and fled eventually (into political asylum) from the Swedish extradition was because Sweden has a special arrangement with the US which is unusual in normal extradition proceedings.

    Sweden has an arrangement with the US for “Temporary Surrender”, which means that anyone in Swedish custody who the US wants will be immediately handed over without any real Court process – on the condition that after the US has finished with them they must be sent back to Sweden. This process has been used before and would certainly be used against Assange.

    Assange offered to go voluntarily to Sweden IF he was given a guarantee that he would not be surrendered to the US. Sweden refused.

    How on earth could you possibly suggest (aligning with 70 Blairites for F*** sake!) that he should agree to that?

    The real reason they want him to go to Sweden is so that the UK can avoid being tarnished with the reputationaly poison label of having handed over Assange to the US.

    The fact that he is very much still a political “hot potato” should give us all energy to continue this fight.

    They are terrified of us.

    • Robyn

      Even if Assange had a written guarantee that Sweden wouldn’t pack him off to the US, no sane person would trust an agreement between those two parties. Or Australia if any Australian politician got off her/his backside to do anything in the matter.

  • Tuyzentfloot

    Considering the original fear of Assange turning out to be true, that the whole Swedish affair was a ploy to get him into the US ,there is an argument William Arkin made in his article that Vault7 prompted the CIA to take action and bring Assange to the US to put him away:

    Up until the Vault 7 leaks, which were published by WikiLeaks in March 2017, the national security lawyers within the U.S. government had been hesitant to take on a journalistic entity, even one like WikiLeaks that looked so very different than The New York Times or NBC News. But then with WikiLeaks seeming cooperation (or at least servitude) to the Russian government in 2016, that very American mainstream media became more hostile to its now separated brethren, and the general view shifted within the intelligence community and the Justice Department that the organization was more vulnerable.

    This makes the valid point that just because Assange’s fear was right in 2019 it does not mean it was also right in 2012.
    There is some room for interpretation though. ‘hesitant’ is the key word here. One interpretation is the US backed off from the idea to transfer Assange and he got the wrong idea. Another possibility is that they wanted to do everything they could to damage Assange but would stop short of getting him to the US. Another one is they wanted to get him to the US, were undecided how to go about it, but in the meantime went ahead with the rest of the program.

  • giyane

    A discussion on Radio 4 I heard yesterday, had two women psychologists talking about psychological damage done to children by divorced parents who portray their ex in a negative light, even to the extent of making false allegations of rape. I have heard of cases where solicitors have advised one party to make such allegations against another in order to keep custody of the children.

    In Assange’s case governments of Left and Right, former and current, have a vested interest in shutting up Assange for as long as possible. In the case of Lord Falconer because of Iraq and Afghanistan which features in Wikileaks, but also in the period of Tory rule since 2010 which has seen both the Arab Spring , and UK assaults on Libya and Syria, both instigated by Cameron.

    The truth is that both Blair and Cameron should be facing trial for war crimes and the British establishment will do anything in its power to destroy his reputation so that they can continue to live under the illusion that they are fighting for our imperial destiny and that the US and Israel are our allies to this end.
    To me it’s far from clear that they are. Trump reversed Obama’s policy of supporting Islamic State and Israel has used ‘ our ‘ proxies entirely for its own purposes, e.g. the Golan.

    As I see it, both the tories and the Blairites are headless chickens, blinded rabbits or trouts being tickled by the EU into believing that they support our narrative against Russia viz the Skripals. In fact I see the UK as being backed into a corner and stumbling embarrassingly . The neo-cons are on the run, and definitely not going to stop to rescue Britain from the overwhelming evidence of its involvement in war crimes.

  • Noit a Lever

    “Are there still people who cannot see the Swedish allegations for the CIA ruse that they always were?”

    Are there still people who cannot see the whole thing for the CIA ruse it always was?

    Thank goodness for the Burning Blogger of Bedlam!

  • Garth Carthy

    The ‘Mail Online’ interview featuring Julian Assange’s father seemed pretty balanced, overall.
    However, I would question the ‘Mail’s’ assertion that “a video of a US helicopter gunship mistakenly shooting dead 11 civilians”.
    Were they actually ‘mistakenly’ killed? Is there really evidence that it was a mistake?

    • Borncynical


      The linked witness account from Ethan McCord who was on the ground and recovered the two children from the destroyed minibus is revealing about the mind set of the military personnel deployed in Iraq. He states that similar incidents were occurring every day. Among other things the two Apaches involved in the ‘Collateral murder’ incident went on immediately afterwards to shoot through windows of local apartments knowing that there would be women and children there. He also says towards the end of his account that they (US personnel) would deliberately go out to cause or look for confrontation.

      • BrianFujisan


        That dose sound Like what I have read.. Disease of the MICOMPLEX

        I shall look at that.. Thank You.

    • Tom Welsh

      Well, since 1941 the US government has certainly killed at least 20 million foreign civilians.

      I am absolutely sure all those murders were completely accidental.

    • Piotr Berman

      I think that US military issued a statement that the soldiers operated within “rules of engagement”. Note that recently there is more talk about “rule based international order” while “law based” is quietly — or vociferously, in the case of Bolton — deprecated. “Rules” are ad hoc decisions at various levels of US government.

      To answer you question, rules allow to commit mistakes because “split second decision” must be based on snap judgements. Some legal types could view such “rules” to be illegal orders, hence vituperations of Bolton against ICC.

  • BrianFujisan

    Wisdom If ever there Was fromYanis Varoufakis
    on Julian Assange, Militarization, European Politics & Social Movements

    ” We are Living in a False state of Safety ” –

    Yanis Varoufakis on Julian Assange, Militarization, European Politics & Social Movements

    • Borncynical


      Thank you for this. I hadn’t seen this interview which was filmed two years after the account which I linked to above. As McCord himself says, he still struggles with the personal impact of what happened in Iraq generally (ie. not just the one incident) and this is evident from his appearance and demeanour. There are those who will argue that ‘the incident’ may have been a genuine mistake. Whether or not people choose to take that view, the release of the Manning/WikiLeaks video has enabled an awareness of the much wider issues of the psychopathic and sociopathic mentality of those in command of the US military, the sheer numbers of innocent civilians being regularly slaughtered indiscriminately, and the effect on military veterans who are being let down and abandoned by their employers. Without evidence of what was happening in Iraq – and still to this day in other parts of the world – these issues would have remained hidden from the world. There is still much to be done to overcome such ongoing travesties but we have Manning and WikiLeaks to thank for starting the process in the eyes of the public.

      With regard to how the US PTB treat their serving staff and veterans you might also be interested to see the RT documentary on ‘Burn Pits in Iraq’. I shall post this message first and hopefully give you a link in a following post. (My Broadband is likely to disappear and lose this message if I don’t post it without delay!)

      • Borncynical

        “…the effect on military veterans…”

        Sorry, that should read “…the effect on serving military personnel and veterans…”

    • Borncynical

      I have tried to find an appropriate link to the documentary about the scandal of US ‘burn pits’ in Iraq (and Afghanistan) but, because of copyright, the RT link is no longer available – the documentary was issued as a commercial film in 2017/18. It was entitled “Delay, deny, hope you die” and clips and information can be found from various sources if you put that title in your search engine. Or just search for ‘US burn pits in Iraq/Afghanistan’ and other information sources will be listed. Yet another example of the US and its military commanders riding roughshod over local communities, the environment and their own serving personnel.

  • Kerchée Kerch'ee Coup

    In view of the persuasive legal argument that Ursula Haverbeck,,still imprisoned in Germany for thought-crime,will be released to take part in the newly-elected EU/European Parliament if duly elected as the leading AfD candidate,could Julian Assange similarly be nominated or written as a candidate for the upcoming EP elections.
    This would greatly strengthen the case for his release,provide a greater degree of legitimacy to that institution (now choking on Macron’s tear-gas in Strasbourg,)and give those such as myself a reason to vote for whatever party backs him.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.