Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be closed on December 7, 2019.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

128 thoughts on “Swedish Allegations Fit-up No Longer Needed by Intelligence Services

1 2
  • John A

    I can assure international readers, that all right-minded Swedes are equally disgusted and outraged at the craven US vassal like behaviour of the Swedish authorities.
    Just as new US presidents are supposedly show footage by the CIA of the JFK assassination, Swedish prime ministers are assuredly shown scenes following the assassination of Palme, most probably also ordered by the CIA.

    • Leon Nesbeth

      To echo your point on the CIA. I find it fascinating how the media have been good and portraying our murderous leaders and security service as heroes, how the media then normalise the West’s friendship with Saudi Arabia and Israel again, countries and the havoc they wreak are rarely discussed.

      Yet that same media have been good at getting us to hate each other along the lines of colour, religion, sex and sexual preference and those who dare to tell us the truth about the murky side of what our leaders do. When will people wake up and realise, I am not your enemy, you are not mine. A Muslim because they are Muslim is not, nor is someone who identifies as being gay, lesbian, black or white.

      Those who seek to destroy our planet, through war and the rape and pillage of resource rich countries, those who engineer the collapse of economies, those who bring in austerity measures making the poor and weak suffer, so they can pay the very people who cause our economies to collapse, are the enemy, they are the ones who present a real threat, they are few, we are many and it is time we done something.

    • Tom Welsh

      “I can assure international readers, that all right-minded Swedes are equally disgusted and outraged at the craven US vassal like behaviour of the Swedish authorities”.

      Thank you, John A. Just as all right-minded British people are disgusted and outraged.

      Unfortunately, in both countries right-minded people form a tiny minority.

      • Bramble

        They may not form a “tiny” minority, or even a minority, but they have been denied the right to voice their views by the take-over of the supposed “left” by “centrists” who now dominate the media and other forums of debate.

      • John A

        Tom W,
        I don’t think it is a tiny minority in either country. There is a huge groundswell of support for e.g Palestinians, against wars etc., etc. But the politicians blatently ignore this in the expectation of being given very generous directorships, book deals etc., on leaving office.

        • Robyn

          I can tell you that in Australia there is indeed a very tiny minority of politicians who have spoken up for Julian. You can count them on the fingers of one hand.

          • Madeleine Love

            Two hands now, and one foot. There are 11 on a parliamentary committee. They are trying to get access to Julian in prison but the UK are not granting it.

      • Mighty Drunken

        You can’t be right thinking, without knowing the facts. The apparent capture of media and state by the same interests is ruinous.

    • Martinned

      Well yes, that’s obviously the most straightforward explanation for all of this: that Assange was about to publish information proving once and for all that the CIA killed Kennedy. It has to be either that or aliens in Area 51…

      [/sarcasm]

  • Mr Shigemitsu

    It would be Diane Abbott as Home Secretary who would be rejecting the extradition, as May did for Gary McKinnon, in the (frankly, unlikely) event of a Corbyn-led government.

    And taking any flack accordingly – although considering the extraordinary amount of abuse she already suffers at the hands of right-wing media and public, she may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

    One can but hope…

    • Mr Shigemitsu

      That’s strange…the post I was replying to seems to have disappeared! If my comment seems out of any context, that’s the reason.

  • Rhys Jaggar

    Mr Murray, the best thing you could do for your friend would be to reread Nelson Mandela’s famous opening defence speech at his 1964 trial, not to mention the opening statement to his 1962 trial:

    https://omalley.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv01538/04lv01600/05lv01624/06lv01625.htm

    https://www.historyplace.com/speeches/mandela.htm

    Most importantly the part saying ‘I want to apply for Your Worship’s Recusal from this case…’

    If ever there were a magistrate unfit to conduct a fair trial under a legal system worth upholding, it is the female who disgraced 1000 years of legal history in the UK by her last execrable performance….

    Perhaps you could apply your formidable forensic skills allied to knowledge of international law, diplomacy and human rights abuses to craft a speech of sufficiently devastating forensic knife-like sharpness that your abused friend could happily use to open his defence at the show trial of an extradition proceedings that Boris Johnson has traded along with many other things to apparently secure a US Trade Deal?

    It may not affect the outcome of the proceedings, but a viral distribution might help to hasten the collapse of the western Anglo-Zionist Empire…..

  • CasualObserver

    Presumably JA has served his full sentence for jumping bail due to what now are shown to have been credible fears ? If that’s the case then one has to wonder why on earth he’s being held on remand in solitary within the UK’s very own SupeMax prison ?

    The wearing of a tag would likely be prescribed should any of the readers here be awaiting trial on similar charges. But of course HMG is fully aware of the potential for JA to disappear, only to reappear in the company of Snowden.

    So even allowing for HMG’s fears, JA’s treatment is extraordinarily shabby. 🙁

    • Tom Welsh

      Everything to do with the case shrieks aloud that the Powers That Be want to portray Mr Assange as a dangerous terrorist.

      That is why he is being kept in Belmarsh, and moved around with the full show of “Security Theatre”.

      That is why he is awaiting inevitable extradition to the USA, to face the same ghastly fate as the scores of others innocents falsely accused as “terrorists”, incarcerated and tortured in places like Guantanamo Bay. The frame-up he is facing is exactly what is expressly forbidden by the Ninth Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”.

      Not that the denizens of Washington and London could care in the slightest about anything that Jesus Christ said. Michael Foley’s words in “The Age of Absurdity” describe our political “leaders” perfectly:

      “In the Irish Catholic culture I knew as a boy, the faithful – both clerical and lay – violated the principles of the New Testament so comprehensively and precisely that it almost seemed as though they had read it”.

      https://youtu.be/qfrhATD4nM0

      Mr Assange is, at present, at the leading edge of Western governments’ concerted attempts to cast anyone who dares to disagree with them in the minutest particular as a deadly “terrorist”.

      They can – apparently – so why wouldn’t they?

      Ethics? To them, it’s a county next door to Thuffolk.

    • Martinned

      Nope, he was sentenced to 50 weeks, on 1 May. Deducting pre-trial time, he should be due for release somewhere early next year.

      (Although at that point he can still be held under the Extradition Act. Ordinarily someone with a credible case against extradition would/should be bailed, but for obvious reasons the courts might not do that in Assange’s case.)

      • craig Post author

        Martin,

        He finished his jail sentence on 22 September when he became eligible for parole. He is now a remand prisoner, which makes the solitary confinement and maximum security still more indefensible.

        • Martinned

          Well, that depends. If he’s held on remand he’s still serving his original sentence, presumably because the parole board didn’t think the conditions for release on licence were met. In that case, there’s no reason to change the conditions of detention. The story might be different if he were held under s. 8 of the Extradition Act (as I suspect he may be after his 50 weeks are up). The moment when he goes from serving a sentence to being on remand pending his extradition hearing seems like an obvious moment to revisit the conditions of detention.

          • Martinned

            This, for example, would be an example of a comment that is wrong, and that I would like to be able to edit…

          • jmg

            > On 22 September 2019, Julian Assange’s sentence for a bail violation conviction ended, but he was not released from HMP Belmarsh. Beginning today, 23 September, the United Kingdom is detaining Julian solely on behalf of the United States, which requests his extradition and has charged him with 18 counts carrying 175 years in prison for publishing information in the public interest. . . .

            > Judge Baraitser told Assange, who appeared by video-link,

            > “You have been produced today because your sentence of imprisonment is about to come to an end. When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.”

            Bail sentence ends: UK now holding Assange solely on US’ behalf — Defend WikiLeaks — 23 September 2019
            https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/09/23/bail-sentence-ends-uk-now-holding-assange-solely-on-us-behalf/

          • Laguerre

            ” If he’s held on remand he’s still serving his original sentence, presumably because the parole board didn’t think the conditions for release on licence were met.”

            I’m not a lawyer, nor know the intricacies of the law, but I find it rather surprising that someone who has served the full period of the sentence judged, without early release, can be described as released, or not, “under license”. “License” is for early release. If you’ve served the full judgement, you’re free, and anything new is different. If not, prison authorities will be free to extend sentences just as much as they like, because they happen not to like the prisoner.

  • Republicofscotland

    Good points made their Craig, you came across as very credible.

    The British state now holding a publisher without charge or trumped up charges in terrbile conditions, for them to be extradited to America is utterly disgraceful.

    The state media rails everyday about injustices via Hong Kong, yet Assange was snatched from a consulate on false charges and the British courts saw nothing wrong with that.

    Thankfully this union is almost over.

    • michael norton

      Yes Craig, you made the points perfectly.
      And YES they are bigging up the troubles in Hong Kong, with Raab on Radio 4 this morning.

      Assange has been held for more than twelve months
      apparently because he took sanctuary in an embassy because he was innocent of any Swedish charges and felt it was a ruse to get him rendered to the U.S.A. on more trumped up charges.
      He has not been found guilty of any charges in Sweden, the Swedes have now thrown the towel in.
      Yet still Julian languishes.
      How is it not possible for his legal team to get him out of jail?
      He must be under death threats, if he goes outside the walls, that is one of the possibilities.

  • Tom Welsh

    The Swedish government and people have not been “played”; they were openly bribed. They have knowingly and deliberately committed a range of vile crimes, for thirty pieces of silver.

    And I cordially hope that it gets them what it got Judas Iscariot.

  • Robyn

    As will be obvious, I have no legal training and perhaps I read too much true crime, but I can’t help wondering whether more couldn’t be done for Julian. For example, can there be no legal challenge to the conditions under which Julian is being held? Is there no avenue for getting rid of Lady Arbuthnot on the grounds of conflict of interest? Can there not be an application for all legal matters to be dropped on the grounds that Julian cannot have a fair trial because the prosecution has spied on him and is privy to all his discussions with his legal team? Ditto the confiscation of his documents related to the case. And is he getting adequate medical treatment? He was deprived of sunlight for all the time he was in the Embassy so it can’t be right that he is now in a prison cell 23 hours/day. As I said, I can’t help wondering …

  • Sean Lamb

    Jen Robinson’s to instruct Assange’s Swedish lawyer to block his extradition to Sweden is looking more and more terrible by the day.

    Ask yourself, where would you rather be if you were Assange today? In Stockholm or in London?

    https://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/26/world/sweden-releases-ex-cia-operative.html

    Time for Ms Robinson to do another round of media interviews claiming “of course Assange was trying to hack into a Pengaton computer system – so what?”

    As Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull said of Assange: Anyone can go to prison – if they have the right lawyer

    • Martinned

      That’s what I’ve been asking Craig and the commenters here for years. If I was Assange, I’d 100% prefer to be in a Swedish prison right now. (Not just because of the Swedish prison itself, but also because the EAW framework decision would allow him to challenge any extradition in both UK and Swedish court.)

      • Sean Lamb

        I agree with your assessment, but from Assange’s point of view he couldn’t accept extradition to Sweden before the US filed their espionage charges. It was fairly predictable that the rape charges would collapse fairly quickly and the US would just wait for that to happen and then file their charges.

        The Swedish gambit only works if the US extradition request is on the table…..and the British don’t drug you to prevent you giving new instructions to your Swedish solicitor and you UK solicitor isn’t secretly working for British intelligence

        Assange managed the first, but not the second and third.

        • Martinned

          Why do you think anything turns on whether the US extradition request was already “on the table”?

          Here is art. 28(4) of the EAW framework decision:
          4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law.

          I would think that that applies regardless of how the timing works out.

          (Art. 28(1) applies to “an offence committed prior to his or her surrender”, which again does not create any relevance for the timing of the EAW and the US extradition request.)

          • Sean Lamb

            “Why do you think anything turns on whether the US extradition request was already “on the table”?”

            Errrr….because you can’t block a non-existent extradition request? And you can’t claim asylum unless you can show evidence of a threat.

            Once the rape charge had been dropped then his rights to stay in Sweden – as a non-EU citizen – are quite limited, 90 days I think. So the US simply waits until he moves to a friendly jurisdiction before filing charges

    • John A

      Sweden has allowed the rendition of ‘terrorist’ suspects to the US/Guantanamo without any kind of legal process. Assange would probably have barely touched down at Arlanda Airport before being stuffed on a private CIA flight across the Atlantic.

        • Muscleguy

          He would not enter Sweden is John A’s point It would all be done airside. Don’t be dense or obtuse. You seem too intelligent for the former.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    The collapse of Swedish frame-ups i\s comman like the Soviet intrusion into its waters during Operation Notorp in October 1982, onlly to discover that it was American subs, including the USS Puffer and USS Baitfish which the US Navy is still looking for, or the unsolved assassination of Olof Palme which was made to look like Moscow did it when the Britits did it for Washington.

    At least Assange is still alive.

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        Don’t read conspiracy theory blogs as the are usually quite wrong, apparently deliberately.

        Just keep reading stories in the news, like CNO John Richardson looking for the USS Scorpion and Thresher which were long ago found but not the Puffer and Baitfish.

        And Captain Simon Hayward aka Captain James Rennie is still the leading suspect in the Palme assassination.

  • John Pillager

    “WikiLeaks has raised concern after Arjen Kamphuis, an associate of founder Julian Assange, went missing in Norway..”
    What happened here.
    Any leads or links please..?

  • MrK

    The minimum is that Julian Assange must be relocated to a low security prison. There is no reason for him to await a hearing for extradition for the political crime of espionage, which is not extraditable because it is a political offense (i.e. a crime against the state). There is no reason why he should be awaiting that hearing in a maximum security prison, in solitary confinement, where he there is denial of counsel on a continuous basis.

    • Martinned

      The Swedish investigation had no bearing on the conditions of Assange’s confinement. The only reason, as far as I’m aware, why they’re detaining him in the manner that they are is that the British authorities are understandably nervous about Assange absconding again. You can’t flee from justice and then complain about how you’re treated when you’re ultimately caught.

      • MrK

        “they are is that the British authorities are understandably nervous about Assange absconding again.”

        Julian assange never ‘absconded’ in his life. He was given political asylum by the government of Equador, which is his legal right. That is not ‘absconding’, that is exercising his right to asylum.

        So is the British legal system afraid that Julian Assange might get asylum in another country?

        Julian Assange has spent 8 years in the Equadorian embassy – not exactly a high security facility, with government ministers assuring the world that he could walk out of there at any time. No one from Wikileaks broke him out of that embassy.

        But now when he’s supposed to prepare for an extradition hearing, that can only be done in a maximum security prison, while in solitary confinement.

        It sounds to me that someone isn’t very secure about winning their case without cheating.

        • Martinned

          “If a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings fails without reasonable cause to surrender to custody he shall be guilty of [absconding.]”

          That’s literally, unquestionably, what Assange did. The whole asylum point is a red herring. (Never mind that diplomatic asylum is not a thing, at least not outside of South America.)

          • lysias

            The U.S. provided diplomatic asylum to Cardinal Mindszenty and to at lesst one Chinese dissident.

            Tbe Yugoslav embassy in Budapest provided diplomatic asylum to Imre Nagy and other leaders of the Hungarian Revolution until they were lured out with false promises.

          • pretzelattack

            only a red herring to those who like to pretend that this legal process had a patina of legitimacy. the reasonable cause is he didn’t want to be extradited to a kangaroo court in the states, as you very well know.

      • bevin

        ” The only reason, as far as I’m aware, why they’re detaining him in the manner that they are is that the British authorities are understandably nervous about Assange absconding again. ”
        The authentic voice of the collaborator, echoing down the ages.
        One can almost hear you justifying Concentration Camps on the grounds that dangerous Communists have no respect for the state and the public needs to be protected from them.
        And the rack as an aid to discovering truth, without shedding blood.
        No rational person could possibly believe that Julian Assange is likely to abscond.
        As to his fear of Sweden it might be possibly be connected to the fact that the Swedish government is known to have collaborated in illegal ‘renditions’ to the United States and Guantanamo.
        From the beginning it has been obvious that there are no legal grounds for arresting him, let alone detaining him. And that he has nothing to fear from a fair trial. What he knows, and his work at wikileaks has made crystal clear, is that the governments with whom he is dealing long ago gave up anything more than the most minimal attempts to pretend to be acting within the law. And the nature of the Swedish persecutions confirmed this in the minds of rational people.
        Unfortunately so corrupt has society become that substantial sections of those who shape public opinion have shown that the matter of individual justice is of no interest to them when there is an opportunity to take part in the symbolic punishment of a man accused of treating women badly, by sacrificing a victim from among those available.
        As the bread runs short the circuses become bloodier.

        • Martinned

          No rational person could possibly believe that Julian Assange is likely to abscond.

          You mean other than because he already did it once before?

          • Dungroanin

            He sought sanctuary.

            In the middle of London.

            Everbody knew where he was.

            He didn’t run away to some far away place like Snowden did to Moscow.

            He wouldn’t have been able to abscond from the embassy without being caught.

            What a lot of toss some of you come out with. Boris like.

      • Borncynical

        Martinned

        So let me get this straight. Someone is held behind lock and key in a high security prison having been placed there for a minor offence. Being “nervous about Assange absconding again” they decide that they have no alternative but to hold him in solitary confinement, limit his access to family, friends and legal advisers, limit his contact with the outside world, refuse to release him on parole and, now, fail to provide access to a computer to assist the preparation of his extradition case; and no doubt other forms of physical and psychological torture have also been occurring, including leading, derisory remarks about him by presiding officials during his court appearances and refusal to provide him with appropriate medical and psychological care. According to Nils Melzer he has also been subject to insinuations of physical threat. No doubt the prison guards have also informed other prisoners that he is a ‘rapist’ and generally ‘unsavoury character’. Does this really sound like a justified and proportionate punishment for any offence, never mind such a minor offence which had no impact on society, in a supposedly civilised country? Really? I pity you if you think it does.

        • Mosaic

          Martinned sure is sounding like an apologist for torture.
          In connection with Assange’s being held unnecessarily harshly at Belmarsh (when, actually, the charges against him are bogus to begin with), reminds me of something I read recently at Strategec Culture.org and that I highly recommend in the context of Assange’s detention in Belmarsh:

          “MK Ultra and the Deconstruction of Robeson

          Much has been written on the topic of Robeson’s victimization under MK Ultra. The most pioneering work having been done by his son Paul Robeson Jr. who spent over 30 years investigating the matter. In short, Robeson had found himself at a surprise party in a Moscow hotel hosted by CIA-funded Soviet dissidents. According to reports, Robeson fell into a paranoid hysteria, hallucinating and locking himself in a room where he tried to commit suicide.

          He was quickly sent to London’s Priori hospital where he was put through 54 electro shock therapy sessions and huge doses of psycho-active drugs. Robeson’s son proved that three doctors performing these “treatments” were CIA contractors while MI5 operatives oversaw the entire process. Robeson Jr. wrote that his father was “subjected to mind de-patterning under MK Ultra”.

          It took two years for Robeson’s family and friends to get him out of Priori and into a German clinic before returning him home in August 1963 where doctors were shocked to discover the scale of drugs and electro shock he suffered in London.

          Although he recorded a handful of messages in support of the Civil Rights movement after 1963, which had thankfully found competent leadership under Martin Luther King Jr., Robeson never recovered, living as a recluse and passing away at 77 years of age in 1976.”

          https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/11/16/paul-robeson-and-the-battle-for-the-soul-of-america/

          I think we all understand that this is the likely playbook also for Assange.

          Martinned’s sunny views of Assange’s detention look cuckoo to me–or worse than cuckoo. Trollish.

          Even aside from the questionable legality of holding Assange “for” the USA, where he is not a citizen and where no crime was committed;
          –and looking aside from the fact that the publisher Assange has not committed any crime anyhow;
          —quite aside from that, even a convicted killer has a human right to decent treatment while confined. Instead, Assange is being denied medical treatment he needs and is very likely having his brain scrambled by pscyho-active drugs and isolation. It is horrifying. It has been classified as torture.

          Mr. Martinned you are a cuckoo, a traditional symbol of disloyalty, lying, and theft.
          Whom are you fronting for here? You seem to be in the wrong nest.

          .

          • Borncynical

            Thanks for this very interesting parallel case study, Mosaic. I am very familiar with Paul Robeson in his professional musical capacity, but I confess to ignorance about his political activities and the consequences he suffered. I shall certainly educate myself on this. I am having trouble opening the link to the article you mention, both via your link and by googling the title…but I suspect that is an issue with my computer system. I shall persevere.

          • Mosaic

            Borncynical:
            The piece is by Matthew Ehret, at Strategic Culture.org on November 16.
            So if you can get to the website
            https://www.strategic-culture.org

            Look for the article. Alternatively try doing a search for “Matthew Ehret Paul Robeson” that gets me a hit for the article.

            You can also read about Robeson here, but there is no info on the MK Ultra episode:
            https://spartacus-educational.com/USArobeson.htm

            You will also find quite a few sources is you do a search for “Paul Robeson MK Ultra.”
            E.g., https://www.democracynow.org/1999/7/1/did_the_cia_drug_paul_robeson

            Cheers, Mosaic

          • Borncynical

            Thanks, Mosaic, for the various links. And thanks to Lysias for confirming my suspicion that the problem is at my end! I’m still having trouble with the Strategic Culture links (I can see the article but the page freezes and won’t finish downloading, with the explanation of “long-running script”). The other links are fine so I shall have a proper read of them tomorrow, when maybe the reluctant link will be more forthcoming. 🙂

            Kind regards

      • George McI

        “You can’t flee from justice and then complain about how you’re treated when you’re ultimately caught.”

        Unless the whole reason you were fleeing is that you knew you were going to be treated unfairly when caught.

      • Twirlip

        Please clarify what you mean by saying that Assange has been fleeing from justice. What alleged crime are you talking about? Which judicial system? Whatever the alleged crime, and whichever the judicial system, are you claiming that he was likely to receive a fair trial, that his prosecution was not politically motivated, and that he therefore had no good reason to seek (and be granted) political asylum?

        I’m not asking you to go over the whole complex matter in this comment section. That would be unrealistic. Anyway, you have already posted an incredible sixteen times in this first page of comments alone!

        Please provide a reference to what you consider to be a fair presentation of the case against Assange, which you so evidently consider everyone here but yourself to be ignoring. If you think you are the one quiet voice of reason here, and we’re all mad, then you might want to stop wasting your (and our) time; but at least try to act reasonably, by making your point once, clearly.

        And please don’t waste more time and energy by referring to a source of mere propaganda: give a reference to an article that rationally takes account of the many, many points that have been made over and over again (here and elsewhere) in Assange’s defence, and refutes them. (That’s how debate works – you know that, don’t you?)

  • Martinned

    Yes, it is definitely the Swedish who should be ashamed, rather than the guy who hid in a closet rather than face a lawful investigation!

    [/sarcasm]

    • craig Post author

      Why are you here Martinned? You made a whole series of comments based on a false assumption he is still on jail for bail-jumping when he was released from that on 22 September and has been a remand prisoner ever since.
      You have also not commented at all on the substance, that Persson was wrong to make a statement denying the presumption of innocence and strongly implying Assange is guilty, at the same time as dropping the case as not having a chance of conviction. The points I make in the video on commenting on the strength of prosecution evidence and not on the strength of defence evidence being particularly germane there.

      • Martinned

        You’re right that some of the things I wrote were based on an incorrect understanding of the facts. That’s the risk of inserting actual facts into the conversation, that you might get them wrong. I’d happily delete or edit my comments, but the system won’t let me.

        As for (your version of) substance, I have no interest in watching Russia Today videos. I’m exposed to enough propaganda as it is, without deliberately seeking it out. In general terms, I don’t mind very much when prosecutors say or imply that a person did certain things that they’re prevented by the statute of limitations from proving. If Assange doesn’t like it, he’s welcome to bring a defamation case. The presumption of innocence is certainly not implicated in such a thing, unless the prosecutor is seeking to attach legal consequences to their statements. (Which they’re not, as far as I understand.)

        • craig Post author

          Martinned

          I can’t believe you do not know that is a lie. The statute of limitations has not run out on the major potential charges. The prosecutor claimed rather that after ten years people’s memories had faded so conviction not possible, which is a very different thing.
          Ten years is in the real world nothing in the world of historic allegation trials. Concentration camp guards have been convicted (rightly) on sixty year old eye witness evidence. In the UK, and all round the world, there have been numerous historic sexual abuse convictions going back twenty or thirty years. That is a nothing excuse.
          The truth is the evidence never did stand up. Full stop.
          “Russia Today” says nothing of any interest in the video. The person talking is me. If you do not think what I say is worth your consideration, why precisely do you come here and public a stream of incorrect facts on a question you confess you have not even heard?

        • Republicofscotland

          Martinned.

          I expected better from you, your disingenuous comments do you no favours. You’ve only embarrassed yourself.

    • Quex

      Like the prince who hid in a palace rather than face a lawful investigation? Or the US spook who hid under fake diplomatic immunity rather than face a lawful investigation? Does your sarcasm extend to them too?

    • jmg

      Martinned wrote:
      “the guy who hid in a closet rather than face a lawful investigation!”

      Well… your faith in governments, their intelligence agencies, and “justice always prevails” is probably a sincere belief, maybe even well-meaning, as happens with many corporate media consumers.

      You should first verify the real facts. For example, how years ago, after cooperating with the authorities for a long time, Julian realized it was a trap by Sweden, UK, and US to neutralize WikiLeaks’ disclosures.

      It’s a long story. However, let for example Caitlin Johnstone — one of the best informed independent journalists — summarize the reality in a few words:

      > A common claim among Assange smearers is that he was “hiding from rape charges” at the Ecuadorian embassy. This was always idiotic. Governments don’t protect people from rape charges. Ecuador was always open about why it gave Assange political asylum:
      http://ecuador.org/blog/?p=2120

      https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1196887540499791872

      > Assange was given asylum by Ecuador because it was known that there was an international conspiracy to extradite him to the US. This was not a conspiracy theory, it was a conspiracy fact. As evidenced by the fact that Assange is now locked in Belmarsh fighting US extradition.

      https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1196888360846950401

  • jmg

    November 19, 2019:

    “Sweden drops 9-year-old ‘preliminary investigation’ into Julian Assange for a third, and final time.”
    — Hanna Jonasson, Assange’s legal team

    “Sweden has dropped its preliminary investigation into Mr Assange for the third time, after reopening it without any new evidence or information. Let us now focus on the threat Mr Assange has been warning about for years: the belligerent prosecution of the United States and the threat it poses to the First Amendment.”
    — Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks

    “Today’s collapse of Sweden’s #Assange investigation was inevitable. Given its gross arbitrariness, there must now be a full investigation, and accountability & compensation for the harm inflicted on #JulianAssange”
    — Nils Melzer, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture

    “There is now no fig leaf of an excuse to continue to detain #JulianAssange. In any functioning democracy that subscribes to the rule of law, the Home Secretary would order his immediate release.”
    — Chris Williamson, Member of the UK Parliament

    “I don’t suppose an apology is pending from those who, for years, referred to Julian as ‘rapist’ and denied that the whole affair was about shoving him in a supermax US black hole for the crime of having exposed crimes against humanity committed in our name”
    — Yanis Varoufakis, Greek MP, co-founder of DiEM25

    “Swedish prosecutors have dropped the Assange investigation. Anyone who believed unproven allegations of sexual assault against a known target of western intelligence agencies was a fool. Anyone who parroted those unproven allegations as fact was a tool. . . .
    “Assange was given asylum by Ecuador because it was known that there was an international conspiracy to extradite him to the US. This was not a conspiracy theory, it was a conspiracy fact. As evidenced by the fact that Assange is now locked in Belmarsh fighting US extradition.”
    — Caitlin Johnstone, writer, journalist

    “Sweden today drops Assange investigation into sexual allegations. Never was a scintilla of evidence for the most phoney and obvious state fit-up in history.
    “I wait for the personal apologies from virtually the entire fucking mainstream media.
    “Julian jailed for publishing truth.”
    — Craig Murray, former British Ambassador

    Truth – Julian Assange
    https://i.imgflip.com/3fokd7.jpg

    • Tony_0pmoc

      jmg, Especially great link. Just one thing that is slightly bothering me, especially now, that he is in such dire straights, and he quite obviously knows, or did before the current torture by The British Government, which takes us all back to the dark ages.

      You can see him struggling here to give an eloquent answer, yet can still read between the words, that he knows far more than he can say. But why? They have already almost completely destroyed him. I think he is an incredibly brave man, and I sincerely hope he is released and finds some real peace and happiness.

      I have never been so ashamed of The UK justice system, The British Government, The Media and all UK Politicians.

      Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was treated far better in a Gulag in The Soviet Union.

      https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6xe03f

      What have we become?

      Tony

  • Goose

    What about his rights under the ECHR and seeking redress that way?

    It seems he’d be treated better in literally any other western European democracy than the UK, even Sweden. This despite their legal shenanigans and any political interference with the course of justice there.

    If this regression back to arbitrary justice stands, with politicians acting more like absolute monarchs we are in a bad place. If it can happen to one person, it can happen to anyone. All journalists should be concerned, even those that don’t particularly like Assange’s previously showy style.

    • Mosaic

      Thanks for the link.
      This is a very thorough report on what is going on with Assange and it comes down VERY hard on the UK authorities and “justice” system.

      I certainly hope some Austrians will feel moved to take action on Julian’s behalf with their own representatives in both Austria and London.

      Kudos and thanks again to Craig Murray for standing by Julian Assange and keeping his case before the eyes ot those who choose to see.

  • Gary

    Dropped and re-raised again as required by the US and the UK. It sickening to see justice abused in this way. Compare and contrast with the treatment of Prince Andrew, a man who slept with at least one teenager who was trafficked for sex (other allegations are available) and has the court papers containing his name initially sealed, then, after being unsealed, his name was mysteriously removed from the papers.

    One is a publisher who let the world know about war crimes and provided a platform for the evidence, he DIDN’T commit a crime but has had false rape allegations held over him and now the US want to jail him, perhaps for the rest of his natural life, for telling the truth about how the US committed crimes. The other is a man who (allegedly – I don’t want sued lol) has slept with women and children who were trafficked. Does this constitute rape of the adults if they were unable to consent and he knew? As children cannot give consent then I imagine the other accusation is of child rapist. This man is sheltered from justice by those at every level in the US and UK, we, the taxpayer, are now giving him money to do nothing (as he has announced he is “stepping back from public life for the foreseeable future”) and a LOT of it too. Free mansion, free money and a life of comfort for HIM.

    That these two men are facing problems at the same time REALLY shows how little our government cares for justice. Make yourself unpopular, by telling the uncomfortable truth, and you risk being jailed for the rest of your life. If you have position and privilege you can act with impunity.

    Again I come back to how I used to feel about the USSR in the 1980s. A country of propaganda, unfair treatment and harsh and arbitrary treatment to those who spoke out against the government. The elite could have anything they wanted and the rest had little. This sounds like UK in 2019…

    • Twirlip

      Already in the 1980s it felt to me as if grandiose statues of Margaret Thatcher had been erected everywhere, as if of some totalitarian dictator in Eastern Europe. Never before in this country, or so I thought, had political propaganda so infiltrated every cranny of daily life. And it has only seemed to get worse ever since then (mainly because of Blair). Perhaps all that has happened is a slow awakening as to the ubiquity of political propaganda? But surely something has been lost, some connection with reality? (Please excuse the baffled and depressed rant.)

  • Macky

    The intense isolation that he is being subjected, which includes clearing all other prisoners out of the way, even from seeing him, when he is being taken out & returned to Belmarsh, could suggest they are fearful that he may pass onto somebody some tidbit of info ? Just a thought, and here’s a more morbid one, maybe the only reason he has not yet managed to do an Epstein (“kill himself), or yet to suffer a fatal “accident” or “heart attack”, is that he has still not given-up whatever it is that they may want from him

    • Fwl

      OK yesterday – I have found a NT Times story. I wouldn’t have known at all unless I had had a look in here. I’m out of touch with stuff.

      So the charges which have been dropped are the charges which he was facing extradition for when he jumped bail all those years ago.

      Jumping bail is serious, but its also of obvious significance if the charges for which you were on bailed are dropped. Surely the whole thing should now unwind and the bail jumping should either be of no consequence now (because the rock on which they were built has crumbled) or if its deemed naughty anyway to jump bail (even if it was all founded on sand) then surely he has more than paid that price.

      Will there be an immediate application to release now, or (I have lost touch with the story) is he now being held for some other reason?

      • Mosaic

        I hope Assange’s legal team take all possible aggressive actions on multiple fronts to end this nightmare.
        They sound a bit tepid to me.
        It just seems to me that there must be at least three or four legal arguments and actions that can be launched here to end this. Obviously they are killing Assange. Are the legal team pushing this? Regardless of what he has done they do not have the right to kill him.
        I hate to say this, but I can’t help wondering whether the lady lawyers are aggressive enough in their pursuit of Assange’s enemies. Maybe Assange needs a crack bloodthirsty male lawyer or two to rip into Arbuthno and Co—all of the British establishment who are behind this. .

        Or, is it the establishment? Are there any legal eagles *within* the British establishment who care about this? I cannot get this picture.

      • Ken Kenn

        I’m puzzled.

        Perhaps Martinned and his Wikipedia wisdom can un – puzzle me?

        I am assuming that you are innocent until proven guilty in the Uk at least.

        So without Julian Assange being proven guilty as he’s not been tried yet how come he is in the nick?

        Because he might jump bail again?

        What if he did jump bail again is that not an unproven person’s preogative?

        To break the law or not break the law?

        If not then what has happened is that a so far innocent man is in prison because of what the Courts think he might do instead of being in prison for what he has done?

        For what he has done ( not answering to the original bail call) he has served his time.

        That is the law come what may for a past crime but can the law really keep him in prison for what he might do but hasn’t done yet?

        I will add that Johnson was allowed to break/not break the law by the Supreme Court and didn’t in the end but he was allowed to do so if he wished knowing the consequences.

        What’s the difference between him and Assange?

        Technically we have a law breaker ( in the first instance ) Johnson who got a second chance to exercise his lawbreaking right to break or not to break the law in future.

        Surely everyone in the UK reserves that right to obey or disobey the law?

        Why the difference between the two people?

        • Robyn

          Puzzle no more, Ken Kenn, this has nothing to do with law or justice. It’s the Powers-That-Be versus anyone who threatens to expose their evil or weaken their power. Another contrast would be between Assange and noted UK and US war criminals who continue to stride the world stage and rake in millions. As I said, nothing to do with law or justice.

          • Ken Kenn

            Robyn

            I just hope Martinned doesn’t go into B&Q to buy a carving knife for the kitchen.

            If he does he’ll be arrested for carrying a knife for no good reason.

            It was for the Sunday Roast – he’ll say.

            The police will say – you would say that wouldn’t you, but you might rob a store armed with that knife.

            If that was your intention?

            It wasn’t my intention said Martinned.

            We think it was.

            That’s good enough for us and until YOU prove otherwise your in our custody.

  • Brianfujisan

    A book Launch on Saturday 23rd November –

    Book Launch for book ‘In defense of Julian Assange’ with contributions from Naom Chomsky, Viviene Westwood, Slavoj Zizek, Ai Weiwei

    Tariq Ali who is co-editor of this book will be speaking. Famous film maker and journalist John Pilger will also be speaking. More speakers to be confirmed.

    Very impressive list of Contributors to the book

    https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/book-launch-in-defense-of-julian-assange-tickets-77279945397

  • Hatuey

    Not since the days of Caligula have the upper echelons of any society looked so debauched and grotesque as Britain’s does today. It’s almost as if they want us to stop them. Where do you start?

    Assange? Andrew? Boris? Brexit? Grenfell? How far back are we prepared to go? Iraq? Savile? The expenses scandal? The last 10 to 15 years in the UK have been nothing short of disturbing.

    We used to get the occasional scandal. It wasn’t that long ago. We had the constant lapping on the shores, affairs, resignations, corruption, and every now and then something bigger, big enough to spoil a few sand castles and ruin a picnic or two.

    Today it’s like one tsunami after the other. We’re drowning in it, gasping for air, scrambling for something to hold on to, and then another one comes along.

    We are supposed to believe Scottish independence is a threat to all this. You fucking wish.

    When we go, England will still be stuck with these monsters and if the English people don’t sort this out, I’ll be arguing that we should intervene militarily, on solid humanitarian grounds. Send in the Tartan Army…

    Imagine voting for freaks like Farage, Reese-Mogg, or Boris. What planet are they on?

    • Doghouse

      This massive overt – yes disturbing seeming decline in standards appeared for me to roughly coincide with the time they stopped talking of govt expenditure in terms of tens even hundreds of millions (in extremes) and suddenly overnight it was billions and tens of billions, and within not too many years it is hundreds of billions and trillions!! How can this be beside massive troughing, bunging and wasting?

      To put in perspective if £1000 (prob twice the average weekly wage) were one inch, then one million pounds would be just over a cricket pitch, 20 mill a running track, a billion almost 16 miles and a trillion two thirds the equatorial circumference of the earth! How can this be, overnight from running tracks to trans national distances whilst average wages remain comparatively static?? Tis beyond my ken.

      As for Scottish independence, I believe everyone should have the right to self determination but the inescapable fact is that history tells us any optimism born of such release will be short lived with the same political mindset institutional across the globe installing itself within short years, in fact to the non partisan observer, it is plainly already in waiting. Any benefits from national resources will be equally short lived to the more common person before they are once again, squandered to more deserving big business interests. So sad. I don’t have an answer and I’m not saying don’t go for it, I just scratch my head in bemusement. Prob, the golf course is indeed the answer…..

      • Hatuey

        Doghouse, it isn’t the case for all countries that “any optimism born of such release will be short lived with the same political mindset institutional across the globe installing itself within short years…”

        I get it though, it’s a risk. But if you look at an obvious comparison with say Noway, a country with the same sort of resources and population, we can see a markedly different sort of society, with trillions in the bank and every social and medical need of the population catered for.

        There are other examples too. And we can’t find one example of a country anywhere in all history that wanted to give its independence back.

        Maybe it will go wrong. Maybe ordinary people will be no better off, perhaps even worse off. At least that’ll be our problem to solve. Right now half the country is demotivated and demoralised. Independence, I expect, will have a massive positive and harmonising impact on us.

        • Iain Stewart

          Noway, Hosé 🙂 but the krøne is doing badly these days, making the euro look pretty good (and solid enough to let Macron manage the gilets jaunes for a whole year now, without having to suffer the catastrophic devaluation of the franc like Chirac did in similar circumstances).
          I can’t think of anywhere wanting to give their independence away either, but a few rare colonies who didn’t want to cut the umbilical cord.

  • Fwl

    There must be a substantive difference between jumping bail for a UK offence which is later dropped anyway and jumping bail for a foreign offence which the foreign government later drops.

    In the former we might think so what if he did jump if the government (ours) doesn’t prosecute then is it any surprise he jumped, but still we might accept some degree of punishment to stop us jumping bail for UK charges.

    In the latter case. If we lock up just because a foreign government asks but they later change their mind anyway what is the problem if the individual jumped bail. In fact should we not negotiate a remedy whereby foreign government compensate UK government and the individual prisoner concerned for wasting our time and money and harming the individual concerned?

1 2