AUDIO TRANSCRIPT - 'John Pilger on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange & Jeremy Corbyn' - Radio NZ National

AUDIO TRANSCRIPT  [For quotation purposes, confirm audio] Title:  John Pilger on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange & Jeremy Corbyn "John Pilger is an Australian born journalist and film-maker who has twice won Britain's Journalist of the Year award." Originally aired on Sunday Morning, Sunday 23 August 2015 PROGRAM LINK | http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201767629/john-pilger-on-wikileaks,-julian-assange-and-jeremy-corbyn DIRECT LINK AUDIO | http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201767629 ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National For 3 years, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, has sought asylum within the Ecuadorian embassy, London, at a cost of millions of pounds. He has been facing sexual assault allegations, which actually expired this past week, although he can still face charges on a rape allegation for a further 5 years. John Pilger is an Australian-born journalist & film-maker. He's twice won Britain's Journalist of the Year Award. And he says it's been an unrelenting campaign by Sweden and the US to deny Julian Assange justice and, of course, his freedom. John Pilger is in no doubt about the impact that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks has on society. John Pilger Investigative Journalist I think it's had a huge impact on both society and on journalism. I mean, the best of journalism, in my experience, always relied on what we called 'whistleblowers.' People from inside who can tell us the things that vested interests and governments don't want us to know; and I think they've done that with such a dimension that we now have quite a different standard of investigative journalism, now, to reach. And as far as society is concerned, I think they've told people what so many people — millions of people — suspected anyway: that their governments weren't telling them the truth; and that vested interests weren't telling them the truth; that they were being deceived; that democracy wasn't working properly; that there wasn't the kind of accountability that they suspected. WikiLeaks' contribution to that, I think, has been quite extraordinary. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National It's been compared, hasn't it, to Daniel Ellsberg's revelation of the Pentagon Papers (US war related secrets of 1971). Do you think that's a fair or valid comparison? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Yes, it is. Absolutely. I know Dan Ellsberg and I've talked to him about it and he makes that comparison. That he's very much a supporter of WikiLeaks now. And Ellsberg — what Ellsberg released (and this was a whistleblower from within the system), he — the Pentagon Papers actually told the truth about the Vietnam war. It told the truth — the kind of official truth that people didn't know. They were official documents, and they really had an extraordinary impact then on public opinion. They supported that all-truth that information is power. People then had information. Now, what people do with information is up to them. But to be able to get it — as they got it through Ellsberg, and they got it through WikiLeaks, and they got it through Chelsea Manning, and they got it through numerous other very courageous whistleblowers. That's very important, and it's a lesson for us journalists. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National The nature of the whilsteblower. Let me ask you this, then, John. Daniel Ellsberg over 40 years ago, Julian Assange now — to some, you know, to many he's a hereo (people like Yoko Ono & Ken Loach have visited him at the Ecuadorian embassy) — but what was the - what did people think of Daniel Ellsberg at the time, because there's been quite a level of vitriol to Julian Assange. How was Daniel Ellsberg treated by the public and by the establishment. John Pilger Investigative Journalist I think Ellsberg was also, really, was subjected to a certain level of vitriol. Usually, whistleblowers are. I remember Ellsberg actually being called a traitor. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National [Interjects] Really? John Pilger Investigative Journalist — and, indeed, he won his court actions, which were really based on that broad allegation that he'd committed some form of treason. So, you know, his character was called into question and so on, in a different way from the attacks on Julian Assange. Another great whistleblower — long forgotten — who's now the subject of a movie called, interestingly, 'Shoot the Messenger,' whose name is Gary Webb:   Gary Webb disclosed, in the United States, that — how the CIA was involved in drug trafficking into the United States. Now, Gary Webb's greatest enemies were the rest of media, who hadn't got the story and attacked him. Something similar has happened with Julian Assange. It's certainly muddied by the fact that he was caught in a situation in Sweden, which those who were his enemies, anyway, were able to exploit. And — but, my understanding (and I've known Assange for quite some time and I followed this case very quickly) is, that the amount of vitriol comes down to the degree of truth-telling: truth-telling about great power. There is — and I've found this in my career — there is a real ruthlessness in great power:   be it in governments, big corporations, vested interests — particularly in very, very powerful governments.  There is a ruthlessness in their response, if you expose what they are doing, and if it's something they don't want the public to know about. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National And you've experienced it yourself? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Yes, I have, most certainly, in a lot of the work I've done right throughout south-east Asia and in investigative work in the UK. For example, I had a lot to do with revealing the thalidomide — the extent that thalidomide, the drug, was was damaging children. I found myself subjected to all kinds of abuse and smear. Smear. Smear is probably an investigative journalist's greatest enemy. There was a very interesting document that WikiLeaks got hold of in 2008 which foretold everything — [laughs] almost everything - that has happened to Julian Assange. It said that (and I paraphrase it) - that if - that, because WikiLeaks was revealing so many of these truths, the only way to deal with it was to discredit it, and to discredit Assange. To smear, in other words. I mean, it really spells it out, in very plain English, that there's going to be a campaign of discrediting against anyone like Assange who dares to tell the public the kinds of secrets that it needs to know, that it's prevented from knowing. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National Well, in fact, you say on Julian Assange — you write that in Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury spent 5 years attempting to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. Can you explain a little bit for us, what do you mean by that? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Well, yes. I mean, that's, that's — they've admitted that now. There is, in Virginia, which — the grand jury in the United States— The grand juries draw from the area in which they sit. Now this area [laughs] has in it the US Defence Department, the Pentagon, the CIA, and all the great institutions of American power, so that determines, really, the character of the grand jury. And the grand jury can then issue indictments. Now, this grand jury has been sitting in secret, now, for several years, and the problem it faces in trying to bring a charge against Assange and WikiLeaks is that the constitution (the US constitution), says very clearly that whistleblowers — truth-tellers — are protected it (by the Constitution) and, ironically, it was President Obama (a professor of constitutional law) who said, very early in his presidency, that whilstleblowers had the protection of the constitution. Now, I say 'ironically,' because more whistleblowers have been prosecuted under Obama than during all the presidents of the past. So, this grand jury has an uphill task, and the one charge it seems that it might be able to come up with is a First World War espionage charge, which was really directed at conscientious objectors during the First World War, all those years ago: a century ago. That's all it can find. The problem there is that Julian Assange isn't an American. That never seams to bother American courts that people — there are some people in the world who are not Americans. So, it's a difficult thing. But there's no question that what the documents show — the FBI has something like a 50,000 page file on him — what all these documents that have come out have shown, and what they've virtually admitted: that the moment Assange sets out the door of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, in some way — in some way — the United States (with help from its so-called allies) will get its hands on Julian Assange. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National And is that why the 24 hour around the clock police cordon? There are police appearing — John Pilger Investigative Journalist Well, no because [laughs] — they don't prevent people going in, but Assange isn't going anywhere. All that is, this 24-hour cordon, it's theatrical. It's a show of force by the state. It's the British government saying — and the Metropolitan Police in London — saying: Well, we're not having this. How dare this man go and seek political refuge and be granted it by another government. It's pointless — Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National [Interjects] John — John Pilger Investigative Journalist — one policeman outside the door is more than enough because, as everybody knows, Assange isn't going anywhere. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National I'm speaking with Julian As— John Pilger. And there are those who listen to this, too, who will say that there — these, you know, these charges — these allegations — they— John Pilger Investigative Journalist [Interjects] You've got to be careful with that. That's a very common slip. And I understand you make it.  There— Assange has been — The disgrace about all of this is this man has not been charged with anything.  What's more, that the original prosecutor in this case in Sweden, threw it out — threw allegations out — and the second prosecutor, who has perused him, allowed him to leave Sweden, and said that's fine. The second prosecutor has been offered every facility to question Julian Assange over 5 years. The British government has pleaded with her, virtually, to come to London. It's a normal procedure. At the same time, Sweden has (in London) interviewed something like 44 other people connected with allegations in Sweden, but not Assange. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National So what's going on here — why? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Why? Well, I think it's a combination of reasons, here. There's no evidence — that's number one. I've seen the evidence; there's no evidence. Both these women have said they were not raped. They've both said it's consensual — it was consensual sex. Their SMS messages — one says the police have tried to railroad them into this. The pressures on these two women have been extraordinary. One can only have — one can only have sympathy for them. It's a combination of whys. There's an obsession about this prosecutor, and my sense is that the Swedish authorities haven't quite known what to do about it. The Swedish High Court has reprimanded her for not getting on with the case. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National Is this Marianne Ny? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Yes, Marianne Ny. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National What's the relationship, John, between Swe— Washington and Stockholm?  Is, because Sweden is, you know, meant to be something of a liberal bastion, isn't it? So what is— John Pilger Investigative Journalist [Interjects] Well— Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National —what sort of relationship do they have? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Well, Sweden is not a liberal bastion. Sweden has basked in its—   It is in some areas, yes.  It has enlightened social policies towards the vulnerable and the elderly, and so on, although these have been much broken down over the years. But, in a cultural sense, that image of Sweden going back to the 1960s, as a great libertarian country, no longer exists. Sweden has rather a dark side. It's not a member of NATO, but it's almost a much more committed associate of the United States in that part of the world, and the last government in Sweden had very close links with the extreme right in the Republican party, and it has various associations in the arms business, and so on. So Sweden has a— Swe— Swe— I suppose Sweden plays the same games that countries within a certain sphere of do these days. It is no different from that. But what it does have, as I mentioned, is a very close relationship with the US, and The Independent newspaper, here, revealed that there had been discussions between the Swedish authorities and the US on Assange. I don't think that anyone really has any serious doubts that should Assange go to Sweden (where there is no bail —therefore he goes— would go straight into prison regardless of having not been charged with anything) — that once confined — that something similar would happen to him, as has happened to other people who have been subjected to rendition to the United States from Sweden. This is all guess work, of course, but the assumption has a great deal of credibility. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National John Pilger, how do you think, then, this will all play out? He's been, what, 3 years inside the Ecuadorian embassy. As I understand it — you might have gone and visited him — but, as I understand it, no sunlight, small room. Ken Loach, the film director, he gave him a walker, I think, one of those exerciser machines, didn't he? John Pilger Investigative Journalist Yes. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National So, what's going to happen, is my question? John Pilger Investigative Journalist I see Julian Assange regularly, and I've been to the embassy many times.  And, it's really — inside, it's like your living room and my living room.  Yes, sunlight comes in through the windows, but with the police pretty well outside, you have to keep the curtains closed, otherwise you have a member of the constabulary looking in on you and, so, it's a very confined space. And it's the kind of thing that no human being should have to go through. It's the sort of detention that, really, is against all the post war covenants of human rights and so on. But it is a place of refuge, and that's why he's there. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National Finally, John Pilger, I just — before you go, I just wonder if you've got a couple of thoughts on the Labour leadership in the UK — Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader contender - he continues to do well in the polls. In fact, the press has dubbed it 'Corbyn Mania.' His views are very much to the left of the Labour mainstream: he wants to, you know, withdraw from NATO; abolish the UK's nuclear arsenal. So, where, can I ask you, where is he drawing his support, and why do you think it's happening? John Pilger Investigative Journalist It says something about the mainstream [laughs] when you describe it that way. Jeremy Corbyn is actually the mainstream. And who these people are - it's such fun to watch them so hysterical over somebody who might be democratically elected by ordinary people. What a terrible thing to happen. They used to call this democracy. But because they've stitched up the system for such a long time; especially, since the rise of Tony Blair and his evangelical followers, who dominate the Labour party, still; because this man who has rather moderate views and old fashioned views (the kind of old fashioned views that most people subscribe to), and because people are so frustrated all over the world — I'm sure it's true in New Zealand, as well (it certainly is in Australia) — are frustrated that there isn't a functioning democracy; that the views of people - the frustrations of people — are not reflected by their politicians. Suddenly, out comes a man who, first of all, he's completely incorruptible; he's decent; he doesn't abuse people; he doesn't play all their games; he doesn't want to go to war with countries; he doesn't want to bomb countries; he doesn't want to see people impoverished; and he doesn't want to see extremely rich interests make off with billions of pounds. So having these outrageous views — thoroughly 'outrageous,' 'extremist' views - Jeremy Corbyn has attracted an enormous support from people. I was in Edinburgh recently and I gave a talk, and I would have thought that, probably, most of the people in the audience had voted for the SNP — voted for Independent — gee, were they interested in Corbyn, even up there. So, don't know. I think it's very likely the elected leader of the Labour party whether he can get through and keep that rather corrupted organisation in a shape that it might win the election, I have no idea. But he's certainly given people — he's cheered people up. He's given them a sense that maybe some things are possible. Wallace Chapman Presenter, Radio NZ National Journalist and film-maker, John Pilger, thank you very much for your time. John Pilger Investigative Journalist You're very welcome. Bye, Bye. ——— end audio ——— Please Support journalist Julian Assange Under Siege Ecuador embassy London (3 Years) Detained 5 Years No Charge FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ ꕤ

"How Sweden Collaborated With CIA on Renditions & Framing of Assange" | Saley, Osewe & Goss

How Sweden Collaborated With CIA on Renditions and Framing of Assange By Feature Article    NEWS JUNKIE POST Dec 19, 2012 at 5:54 pm By Rafik Saley, Okoth Osewe, and John Goss By his own admission, Sweden’s Ambassador to Australia Mr. Sven-Olof Petersson had advance knowledge of the CIA rendition flight that took place on December 18, 2001 from Stockholm to Egypt. This flight ended in Egyptian nationals Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery being illegally rendered and tortured. Mr. Petersson’s admission comes from a statement to the Swedish Parliament’s Constitutional Committee, confirming that he attended a briefing on December 17, 2001 at which the rendition process was finalized. Moreover, the Constitutional Committee’s report shows that he knew about the renditions at the end of November and probably even in mid-November. In fact, it was he who kept Minister of Foreign Affairs Anna Lindh updated on the progress of deportation arrangements with the CIA in November 2001.[i] Petersson was then Sweden’s Director General for Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[ii] Illegal and unconstitutional decisions of this sort, made behind closed doors, show contempt for the Swedish legal system, which has been further denigrated by attempts to get Wikileaks founder Julian Assange flown to Sweden on flimsy allegations of a sexual nature, from where, concerned parties believe the CIA would pick him up and put him on trial in the United States. Ironically, it was through Wikileaks that the world learned about the diplomatic tiff between the US and Sweden that brought an end to Swedish rendition in 2006.[iii] As the Director General for Political Affairs, Mr. Petersson was in regular contact with the US Embassy in Stockholm and was aware of the US request that two Egyptian nationals be illegally rendered.[iv] The rendition went ahead without protest or representation on behalf of the victims, and no one in the Swedish government has been made accountable for this flagrant breach of the law. An admission of Sweden’s culpability can be found in the SEK 3 million (about $458,000) compensation paid to each of the two men after their eventual release.[v] This “hush money” appears to have paid for the non-disclosure of the identities of the Swedish representatives who sought assurances from Cairo prior to the men’s rendition.[vi] Not only Petersson, but also Minister of Justice Thomas Bodström and then Foreign Minister Anna Lindh knew about the renditions.[vii] Thomas Bodström spent a year in the US between 2010 – 2011, purportedly for rehabilitation in connection with alcohol and substance abuse, while he was a partner in the legal firm Borgström & Bodström. It would be lax not to point out to readers that Claes Borgström is the lawyer who was called upon to prosecute Julian Assange over allegations that had previously been dismissed. Further, Borgström is known to be friendly with Irmeli Krans, the police interrogator who took SW’s original statement against Assange. Irmeli Krans, in turn, is friendly with the other complainant, AA, who, it is said, illegally sat in on Irmeli Krans’ interview of SW. [viii] The rendered Egyptians, both of whom were asylum seekers, were returned to Egypt despite Sweden’s Aliens Act (1989) that forbids repatriation to a country where nationals are likely to be tortured. It was well known even then that Egypt uses torture against political prisoners.[ix] The torture of both men on the flight to Egypt, included them being hooded, handcuffed and strapped down. The brutality of the torture in Egypt was captured in a comment by Mr. Agiza who noted that the interrogators routinely beat him, strapped him to a wet mattress and subjected him to electric shock through electrodes attached to his ear lobes, nipples, and genitals.[x] Mr. Petersson´s statements to the Australian media on the impartiality of the Swedish legal system ring hollow when judged against his prior personal involvement in renditions. Even more disturbing is the fact that they have been echoed by Australian Foreign minister Bob Carr. The adoption of the statements shows a lack of judgment on Carr’s part and brings the Australian government’s foreign policy under scrutiny. Carr has urged Assange to travel to Sweden and claimed that it was unlikely that he would be extradited.[xi] Recent statements by EU Home Affairs Minister Cecilia Malmström, urging Mr. Assange to “just go to Sweden” have the same hollow ring.[xii] Malmström has worked closely with US interests in Sweden and elsewhere in adopting harsh measures to stifle free speech in Europe. She purports to know nothing about the Assange case. On the other hand, her partiality and close affinity to the United States are demonstrated by her recent joint briefing with US attorney general Eric Holder.[xiii] She has also co-authored an article with him.[xiv] The question on every reasonable person’s lips is: why can’t the Swedish government “just give Mr. Assange the diplomatic guarantees that he has asked for?” In light of Sweden´s complicity in illegal rendition right up to 2006, a diplomatic guarantee to Assange that he won’t be extradited to the US is of integral importance. After all, the Swedish government has the final say in the matter and, if its past history in illegal renditions is anything to go by, Assange’s fears about extradition or rendition to the United States are justifiable. The Swedish Ambassador accuses Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly of having no knowledge of Sweden.[xv] It is imperative that the columnist learns about Sweden and its foreign policy of the past 20 years, so she might pass on the sinister dealings to her readership. Until recent years, Sweden had a peace policy of which to be proud. For 150 years, the country abstained from war and, in 1966, to celebrate this highly-enviable record, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) was established. After Sweden started cooperating with NATO, the situation began to change.[xvi] Not long afterwards, the Swedish military became involved in world conflicts, and more recently it has looked poised for greater involvement.[xvii] This is not the old Sweden but a new country that demonstrates an unparalleled hypocrisy in its international relations. This trend continues in the refusal by authorities to grant Assange the reasonable assurances that he seeks. Prominent international supporters of Mr. Assange, like Baltasar Garzon, John Pilger, Michael Moore, and Jemima Khan are ridiculed in Sweden today. In addition to the recent changes in foreign and domestic policy, the third largest political party in the country, called Sweden Democrats (SD), has made massive gains during the last elections, despite openly calling for the repatriation of immigrants from Sweden. The SD party enjoyed a 10%  parliamentary share of the vote, which translated into 20 Parliamentary seats. The Swedish government seems to be following the direction of the SD party, especially in its foreign policy positions, which are increasingly pro-American and anti-democratic. Because of Sweden’s pro-American stance on key political issues, a legal system has developed with multiple loopholes that could easily be exploited to Assange’s disadvantage. This legal framework is constitutionally racist against foreigners, especially when they contest ethnic Swedish nationals of the cherished blond-haired, blue-eyed Nordic model. Most worrying of all, Sweden’s history of hypocrisy, lopsidedness and double-speak in dealings with the international community highlights the risk that Julian Assange would be in physical danger if extradited to Sweden from the UK. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable for him to seek unequivocal diplomatic assurances that he would not be extradited to the US if he agrees to go to Sweden for questioning. Despite the pressures from the United States and other pro-western governments, the Republic of Ecuador has granted political asylum to Mr. Assange. On the other hand, the United Kingdom has hindered the free movement of Mr. Assange even though the same government blocked the extradition to Spain of the late Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet. Mr. Pinochet was wanted for the murder of 94 Spanish citizens and many other charges of torture and rape against his own people. Although Julian Assange is an Australian citizen, the Australian government has refused to protect him and has instead accommodated Swedish Ambassador Sven-Olof Petersson, who supports rendition and torture. This is unacceptable in a free, democratic and transparent society. Editor’s Notes: Rafik Saley is general secretary of the African Committee for Development in Stockholm, Sweden; Okoth Osewe writes for Kenya Stockholm Blog; John Goss is a writer and researcher, United Kingdom. SOURCE (WITH CITATIONS & LINKS) http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/12/19/how-sweden-collaborated-with-cia-on-renditions-and-framing-of-assange/#sthash.VTKJNK95.dpuf  ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  COMMENT  This article totally blows me away.  ꕤ

British Government Observes International Law Regarding Netanyahu Immunity | Violates International Law On Political Asylum Granted to Assange

Petition  Benjamin Netanyahu to be arrested for war crimes when he arrives in London Benjamin Netanyahu is to hold talks in London this September. Under international law he should be arrested for war crimes upon arrival in the U.K for the massacre of over 2000 civilians in 2014 Sign this petition 76,065 signatures SOURCE | here SOURCE http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/british-government-benjamin-netanyahu-immune-from-arrest/ British Government: Benjamin Netanyahu immune from arrest Aug 22, 2015 RINF Alternative News As the petition for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu reaches in excess of 75,000 signatures, the British Government has issued an official statement which clears the war criminal of any wrong doing, despite tens of thousands of UK citizens calling for his arrest for the massacre of more than 2000 civilians in 2014. Today the British Government issued this statement: Under UK and international law, visiting heads of foreign governments, such as Prime Minister Netanyahu, have immunity from legal process, and cannot be arrested or detained. The British Government has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as head of the Israeli Government, to visit the UK in September. Under UK and international law, certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, including Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs are entitled to immunity, which includes inviolability and complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction. We recognise that the conflict in Gaza last year took a terrible toll. As the Prime Minister said, we were all deeply saddened by the violence and the UK has been at the forefront of international reconstruction efforts. However the Prime Minister was clear on the UK’s recognition of Israel’s right to take proportionate action to defend itself, within the boundaries of international humanitarian law. We condemn the terrorist tactics of Hamas who fired rockets on Israel, built extensive tunnels to kidnap and murder, and repeatedly refused to accept ceasefires. Israel, like any state, has the right to ensure its own security, as its citizens also have the right to live without fear of attack. The UK consistently urged Israel to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, to exercise restraint, and to help find ways to bring the situation to an end. The UK continues to urge the parties to give priority to reaching a durable solution for Gaza which addresses the underlying drivers of conflict, and to take the necessary practical steps to ensure Gaza’s reconstruction and economic recovery. We welcome the fact that Israel is conducting internal investigations into specific incidents during Operation Protective Edge. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing those responsible must be held accountable whatever their position in society. Both parties must also demonstrate robust and credible internal investigations which are in line with international standards. We have also encouraged the Israeli authorities, as we do all countries, to cooperate with the independent Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding the preliminary examination into the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 13 June, 2014, whilst noting that Israel is not a State Party to the ICC. The UK is a close friend of Israel and we enjoy an excellent bilateral relationship, built on decades of cooperation between our two countries across a range of fields. Our priority for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the achievement of a two-state solution, based on 1967 borders. We continue to believe that negotiations will be necessary in order to achieve this, and that both parties need to focus on steps that are conducive to peace. The UK Government will reinforce this message to Mr Netanyahu during his visit. SOURCE http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/british-government-benjamin-netanyahu-immune-from-arrest/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Britain’s David Cameron and his government are selective when it comes to observing international law. Israel may commit large-scale civilian slaughter with impunity, and David Cameron's Britain is in full support.  But, of course.  That's to be expected. Cameron relies on 'international law' in this instance, to justify Britain’s refusal to act against Israel. On the other hand, Britain doesn't have the same regard for international law when it comes to the political asylum granted by Ecuador to Julian Assange. 1. The Right of a State to Grant Asylum. The right of a state to grant asylum is well established in international law. It follows from the principle that every sovereign state is deemed to, have  exclusive control over its territory and hence over persons present in its territory. One of the implications of this generally recognized rule is that every sovereign state has the right to grant or deny asylum to persons located within its boundaries.' Traditionally, thus, in international law, the right of asylum has been viewed as the right of a state, rather than the right of an individual.  There is little dispute as to this general principle of international law. It is confirmed in international and regional instruments as well as in state practice. First, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides in Article 14(1) inter alia the right of each individual to "enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution".  The late Professor Hersch Lauterpacht noted that this wording was introduced by the British delegation, interpreting it as meaning "the right of every state to offer refuge and to resist all demands for extradition.".. Professor Lauterpacht commented that such a right is one, "which every state.., possesses under international law. Second, the Declaration on Territorial Asylum adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1967 provides in Article 1(1) that, "[a]sylum granted by a State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, to persons entitled to invoke Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,... shall be respected by all other States."  Further, the Article 1(3) of this Declaration vests the state of asylum with authority "to evaluate the grounds for the grant of asylum."   [...] Under international law, states have a right to grant asylum and a duty not to prevent those who wish to emigrate or seek asylum elsewhere from doing so. SOURCE |  PDF - Duke University | here Ecuador relies on Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights (1948), among an extensive number of other instruments  | here British hypocrites own words regarding asylum here: "the right of every state to offer refuge and to resist all demands for extradition." Check out what else the sneaky, hypocritical, British government is getting up to: Tories plan to withdraw UK from European convention on human rights [Chris] Grayling said a Tory government would withdraw from the convention if parliament failed to secure the right to veto judgments from the European court of human rights (ECHR). Tories would reverse more than half a century’s tradition of human rights authority residing in Europe by giving parliament the right to veto judgments. The authority of the court in Strasbourg would be severely curtailed, with parliament given the final say in deciding whether or not to adopt ECHR decisions. SOURCE |  here Move also clears the way for military abuses: "The impact would be wide-ranging. UK armed forces would cease to be subject to human rights legislation overseas"  [ibid] ꕤ

Cecilia Malmström | European Commissioner for Home Affairs | Interferes Judicial Process 2012 | Prejudicial Statement

⟴   Malmström Worked closely with US interests | 2012 joint briefing with US attorney-general Eric Holder |  Malmström has co-authored an article with Holder  | here CHECK THIS OUT PEOPLE PREJUDICIAL PRESS STATEMENT BY SWEDISH MINISTER Top EU official tells Julian Assange: 'Just go to Sweden and answer the questions' Martin Bentham 3 December 2012 09:24 London 2012-12-03 09:24:50 Monday 3 December 2012 09:24 GMT One of Europe’s leading officials has waded into the row over the Julian Assange case by telling the WikiLeaks founder that he should “just go” to Sweden to face the sex crime allegations against him. Cecilia Malmström, the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, said Mr Assange, 41, who is sheltering in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, should “answer the questions” about his alleged attacks on two women. She also dismissed his claim that he would be extradited to the US, saying that she did not “believe for a minute” that it would happen and that it was only a “purely theoretical” risk. “I’m not engaged in this, I know there are talks. But he’s accused of rape, of sexual harassment and if he’s innocent, which he might be — I don’t know — why doesn’t he just go and answer the questions? I don’t believe for a minute that’s why he would go to the US,” Ms Malmström said. Her comments, made after a briefing with journalists in Brussels, will be welcomed by ministers as they try to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden on a European arrest warrant. The WikiLeaks boss fled to the Ecuadorean embassy, where he is now reported to be suffering from a chronic lung condition, in June to claim asylum after judges ruled that he should be sent to Sweden to face prosecutors. He claims the Swedish extradition bid is a ploy to secure his transfer to the US and denies the allegations against him, which include having sex with a sleeping woman and having unprotected intercourse without consent. But Ms Malmström, who comes from Sweden, dismissed his claims about the threat from American prosecutors. “He is asked to come to Sweden because he’s accused of some crimes. He stays in the embassy. For the moment there is no solution. Whether Sweden would extradite him to the US or not, that is up to the Swedish authorities to decide. I don’t think that would happen. That’s purely theoretical.” Ecuador’s ambassador to London, Ana Alban, has called for Mr Assange to be granted safe passage so that he can receive hospital treatment. Ministers have said that they will not prevent Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, from receiving medical treatment, but have warned that he will be arrested if he leaves the embassy. SOURCE http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/top-eu-official-tells-julian-assange-just-go-to-sweden-and-answer-the-questions-8375231.html COMMENT   “I’m not engaged in this, I know there are talks. But he’s accused of rape, of sexual harassment ... Cecilia Malmström ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- (1) disregarding for a moment that these are flimsy and highly suspect Sweden police allegations, publicly contradicted by the alleged 'victims' [here]; (2) Setting aside the remarks from a woman minister, calculated to stir up a frenzy of outraged, public response by invoking alleged accusations of 'rape' and 'sexual harassment,' as an obligatory AND 'beyond-question' rationale, slyly imposed upon the target of political persecution, to leverage demand for submitting to what amounts to risk of life imprisonment or death sentence, attached to WHAT IS UNREASONABLE DEMAND for TRANSFER to SWEDISH SOIL for an 'INTERVIEW' ... that could be conducted in United Kingdom ...  regarding mere *investigation* of highly suspect Sweden police allegations (allegations which were previously dismissed by a competent Swedish prosecutor); ... read on:   Malmstrom is a Swedish minister who has either taken it upon herself, or has been instructed, to stage a press propaganda smear of Assange, while innocently batting her eyelids, stating to the gathered press: I don’t know — why doesn’t he just go and answer the questions? Cecilia Malmström * not responsible for this matter * So, this is not her area of responsibility and she is not in a position to make credible assessments or statements (leaving aside the problem of political figures making such prejudicial public statements concerning matters before the courts). Oh, puleez!  As if Swedish minister, Malmstrom, and her fellow politicians don't know exactly what the score is. As for the progress of the Swedish inquiry, it is incumbent on the Swedish prosecution to take the first - and ALL necessary steps - towards furthering any legal matter, including this Swedish 'inquiry'. Of course, the shift of focus is from the more pertinent question:  Why had Sweden *not* made appropriate interview arrangements, as at Malmstrom's Dec 2012 statement:  2 years into the fake 'inquiry' - despite ample opportunity and legal precedent? July 2012 Ecuador Embassy notification of willingness to facilitate interview for which Assange is available August 2015 Reality Sweden Refused to Interview Assange in Britain Where Sweden Interviewed 44 Others Between 2010 & 2015 POLITICAL PERSECUTION The Target of the prejudicial propaganda and media smear was not interviewed by Sweden, although interview was sought by Assange throughout, and ample opportunity was given for such an interview in Britain. THREE (3) YEARS after Malmstrom's performance for the world media, Sweden has shown itself unwilling and uninterested in furthering their bogus 'inquiry' into flimsy, Sweden police allegations. Sweden has interviewed 44 persons in Britain between 2010 and 2015, but has not interviewed Julian Assange in London, because:  THIS is political persecution and Sweden is both committed and determined to force Julian Assange onto Swedish soil, so that he can be extradited to the United States. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT  ⟴   Malmström Worked closely with US interests | 2012 joint briefing with US attorney-general Eric Holder |  Malmström has co-authored an article with Holder  | here ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------   Please Support Journalist Julian Assange Justice4Assange https://justice4assange.com/ ꕤ

FREE ASSANGE | 10 Reasons Assange Held 5 Years No Charge, London

TEN REASONS ASSANGE DETAINED 5 YEARS, NO CHARGE LONDON HERE Assange has been granted political asylum and is under siege in the Ecuador embassy because WikiLeaks have exposed US and allied war crimes.  The authorities who have deprived Assange of liberty for almost 5 years without charge on flimsy Sweden police allegations of 'sexual misconduct,' are themselves stained by blood of war crimes which were exposed by WikiLeaks. As evidenced by: a litany of atrocities and illegal abuses (exposed by WikiLeaks and others); and the subsequent, politically motivated, persecution of journalist, Julian Assange; the West is controlled by a coterie of corrupt, lying, increasingly totalitarian, corporate-serving, politician and intelligence representatives of unseen, modern-day 'kings' of what has become a single, corporate imperialist,  supranational state. Unseen and unelected, these usurping 'kings' of surrendered Western national democracies and their politician servants, have consistently shown contempt for democracy, democratic freedoms, civil liberties, transparency, accountability, justice, and both international and domestic law. Lip service is paid to 'freedom,' 'democracy' and 'values' by the politician puppets of the powerful, even while these same puppets sanction violation of principles upon which they claim to rely. These are the same principles that are routinely misused and violated in order to commission, and to conceal, crimes and attrocities committed all over the world. Detaining Assange for almost 5 years, based on flimsy Sweden police allegations has been engineered in order to extradite Julian Assange to the US, by authorities whose position of corrupt power was exposed and therefore challenged. War crimes, state criminality, CIA torture, mass surveillance, and many more violations have been exposed. As a ground-breaking whilstleblower publisher and journalist, Assange is facing US extradition and a life sentence, or the death penalty:  in a nominally democratic usurped American republic whose plutocrat-controlled and campaign-bought politicians rightfully have no mandate to silence journalism - nor jurisdiction over foreign journalism.    To that end, the US is making moves to redefine journalism as 'espionage' and 'terrorism.' Assange is under siege because his gaolers and the war criminals that WikiLeaks exposed are one and the same. Each day for almost 5 years, these guilty, colluding, partnered supranational coalition of powers have committed the injustice of detaining Julian Assange on politically and otherwise expedient, flimsy Sweden police allegations, while deceiving the public by claiming to uphold 'justice.' In reality, these authorities have no regard whatsoever for justice (see release of Pinochet (crimes against humanity) by Britain; Britian & other(s) sidestepping Tzipli Livni arrest warrant (see alleged war crimes, Israel), & more). Meanwhile, the corporate serving press that's supposed to be the pillar of this exalted 'democracy,' disseminates a diet of propaganda and smear to the uninformed public. M O C K E R Y Mouthpieces of a nation lulled into commission of: ⟴ War Crimes ⟴ ⟴ CIA Torture ⟴ ⟴ Massacres ⟴ DECLARE Julian Assange 'Terrorist' for revealing TRUTH And Call for Assassination of Assange MILLIONS OF POUNDS BRITAIN SPENDS to POLITICALLY PERSECUTE JOURNALIST JULIAN ASSANGE |   https://govwaste.co.uk/   |  Joe Strummer & The Mescaleros https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zty2WxVnklI [ FREE ASSANGE - AUG 2015 - 'MANIFESTO' ] ꕤ

Sweden Prosecutor - Misleading Statements

[Assange Lawyer Statement] SOURCE http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn9rus 20th Aug 2015 - Melinda Taylor on 13 August statement by prosecutor Marianne Ny. "The Swedish prosecutor's statement today is acutely misleading. She falsely states that 'Julian Assange, on his own accord, has evaded prosecution by seeking refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador'. Assange sought and was granted political asylum from persecution under a US 'espionage' investigation, not from any Swedish prosecutor as Ecuador's asylum declaration makes clear. He has not 'evaded prosecution' in Sweden. There is at present no prosecution. The prosecutor admitted in a submission to a Swedish district court on the 16th of July 2014 that she has not even decided whether to charge Julian Assange. He has not been charged. She claims she sought to interview Assange in the embassy and implies that he refused. In fact, Assange has been demanding that the prosecutor take his statement for five years. It was Assange who initiated the request to hold an interview, and he placed no reservations on the desired interview, because it was his wish that it would happen as soon as possible. This is made clear by this diplomatic cable between Ecuador and Sweden: http://is.gd/tYSgEU She also claims that she asked Ecuador for permission to interview Assange but that she has not been given permission. In fact, Ecuador has been asking the prosecutor to interview Assange for three years, and for three years she has refused. For months, she has refused to enter into a dialogue with Ecuador on the mutual assistance parameters of the interview, a dialogue that is necessary before an interview can take place. In her statement, the prosecutor says that she hopes to conduct a further hearing, since 'there is an ongoing dialogue on the issue between Sweden and Ecuador'. She neglects to mention that Sweden only agreed to Ecuador's repeated requests to enter dialogue two days ago, after refusing Ecuador's invitations for the last three years. Both the Swedish Court of Appeals and the Swedish Supreme Court have rebuked the prosecutor for failing to advance her preliminary investigation. Responsibility for today's outcome fully belongs to the Swedish prosecutor." - Melinda Taylor SOURCE http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn9rus COMMENT / SUMMARY Sweden prosecution: falsely states that Assange has evaded prosecution by seeking refuge. Political Asylum | Espionage Investigation. has no prosecution at present. has not even decided whether to charge Assange. Assange has not been charged. has refused to interview Assange / but implies Assange refused. Assange demanded prosecution take his statement for 5 years. agrees at the last moment to Ecuador repeated requests to enter into dialogue. That would be on bang on deadline - for statute of limitations.  has been rebuked by the Swedish Court of Appeals & Swedish Supreme court for long-term inaction on the 'preliminary investigation'. About 4.5 years inaction ... and then some. ꕤ