Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
Former Chilean president Augusto Pinochet was detained in London on 16 October 1998 ... [ ... ] Amnesty International had done a lot of work denouncing the atrocities carried out by Pinochet's regime, which was responsible for the disappearance of more than 3,000 people and the torture of thousands more in a 17-year reign. [ ... ] Garcés thought it may be possible to indict Pinochet using the principles of universal jurisdiction which, in theory, allowed any state to investigate and prosecute individuals for crimes committed in other countries. [ ... ] “The Spanish National Court had admitted in 1996 a lawsuit filed by victims of torture and enforced disappearances in Argentina after Parliament had ruled in 1985 that universal jurisdiction could be applied in cases of crimes against humanity, terrorism and genocide”. [ ... ] ... Pinochet was placed under arrest. He was held in custody at The Clinic, an expensive private hospital where he had just had an operation. It was the first time a former head of state had been arrested based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. [...] "... worked with Amnesty International to support the extradition request." UK magistrates ruled in 1999 that Pinochet should be extradited to Spain, but it never happened. The then UK Home Secretary Jack Straw ordered his release on health grounds in 2000, after a controversial medical test stated Pinochet was not fit to appear before a court and he returned to Chile a free man that same year. Garcés and Shoppeé believe that politics came into play. ... “English magistrates took the process seriously and, finally, the prevalent position was the one we thought was in line with the international law. But at the end of the day the British government did not allow it to happen because of political pressure from the Chilean and Spanish governments and economic, diplomatic and other dark interests." “We should not forget that Pinochet died as a fugitive from justice. He was clear that international society saw him as a criminal." On the day of Pinochet's return to Chile, dozens of judicial requests against him began ...
Pinochet assumed power in Chile following a United States-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973 that overthrew the elected socialist Unidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward.[Wikipedia]
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
TREATMENT of
Pinochetvs Assange
Dictator, Torturer, Murder
vs
Detained Journalist Who Exposed
War Crimes
One Law for Dictators & Another Law for Targets of Political Persecution
CORRUPTION &
POLITICAL PERSECUTION
Images herein are *not* owned by this blog.
Images used pursuant to 'fair use' purposes under s.107 of the Copyright Act 1976.
COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
ꕤ
Pinochet died 2006, at the ripe old age of 91.
Looks like Pinochet lived another 6 years after the UK government intervention to sidestep the court decision, in order to release the US-puppet dictator.
Six years doesn't sound like much, but when you're an 85 year old that's managed to kick on for another 6 years, that's ages.
British authorities claimed he was too 'sick' to face trial for crimes against humanity, and relied on a dodgy medical (of course, lol).
So much for the the 'values' that these crooked politicians keep using for leverage in their public propaganda broadcasts.
And look where he spent his time detained. At some luxury clinic-retreat of the wealthy.
As I see it, this is corruption in action, at the highest level:
"British government did not allow it to happen because of political pressure from the Chilean and Spanish governments and economic, diplomatic and other dark interests."
As demonstrated by this example, the law means nothing to the British government. But the British aren't alone in that regard.
It's a joke that these Western governments vilify countries such as Russia, when they're so thoroughly corrupt and contemptuous of the law themselves.
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
Members of the Swedish government have undoubtedly played an active role in the legal assault on Julian Assange. They're as crooked as the Americans and the British (see CIA rendition), and they're all in it together. There's strong diplomatic, military, and trade cooperation between the parties. Sweden is so tight with the US that the Swedish embassy in North Korea acts as the US agent:
So, a journalist that is responsible for disclosing US and allied war crimes is politically persecuted and detained for almost 5 years without charge.
But a US-puppet dictator who was responsible for the death and torture of thousands (with US blessing), is released by the British.
This is the ugly truth:
Assange is the victim of political persecution at the highest levels.
The UK authorities have detained Julian Assange for almost 5 yearswithout charge; and they've spent almost 12 million pounds (LINKED) holding him under siege at the Ecuador embassy (where he has been granted political asylum - clearly, for good reason).
British authorities are determined in their violation of international law, blocking Assange's passage at any cost, because they're set on extraditing Julian Assange to the US for yet another round of trumped up charges of 'espionage' and a life sentence (if not worse).
That same British government won't release freedom of information documents on communications regarding extradition of Assange to the US, because it "would affect diplomatic relations".
The Sweden police allegations and 'charges' claims are a crock of sh*t, and politicians in the UK are as bent as those in Sweden.
All those journalists, lawyers, politicians, political pundits, and other sundry lowlife detractors, who slag off Assange are targeting a journalist who's 'crime' is being stitched up by Sweden on behalf of US and its UK ally, for exposing their war crimes.
Posted 3 Aug 2015, 11:30pm Mon 3 Aug 2015, 11:30pm
Author and journalist Andrew Fowler takes a look at a media industry in flux, and tells The Drum what factors are contributing to a decline in quality journalism.
Journalist and author Andrew Fowler says a lack of trust and failed business models are contributing to a decline in journalism.
Mr Fowler has outlined the problem in his new book, The War on Journalism - Media Moguls, Whistleblowers and The Price of Freedom.
Speaking to The Drum, he said the declining confidence in the media was contributing to a disconnect between the mainstream media and their sources.
"People with information very often don't trust the existing news media, they tend to go to people outside," he said.
"For example, (Edward) Snowden went to Glenn Greenwald who was a freelancer who then got the story published in The Guardian, but there's a lot of pressure from Greenwald to get that story up before the story finally appeared."
The Guardian published a series of Greenwald's articles revealing America's National Security Agency was collecting the phone records of millions of customers of one of the USA's largest telecommunications providers.
The leaked documents also showed the NSA was permitted to use and retain information from US communications, including emails and internet usage.
"Bradley, or Chelsea Manning as she is now, actually didn't go to the newspapers, she didn't go to The New York Times, she went to this outfit who nobody knew at the time, called Wikileaks," Mr Fowler said.
"Wikileaks were the people that actually then did the deal with The Guardian."
Mainstream media disconnect
Mr Fowler said the way the NSA files were leaked shows the changing relationship in how the media gets its information.
"It's an interesting area to look at to understand why those things occurred," he said.
"What it shows you is that one of the reasons why the mainstream media is in such a crisis is that people have really lost confidence in it, not only because the money itself has dried up so they really can't fund the kind of investigations that they did in the past, but also because they think that they tend to go downmarket to compete with the internet.
"You get clickbait stories ... which really are just trash, and flop."
Losing money, losing power
Mr Fowler said the drop in profits, particularly for print media, had made it difficult for journalists to fund good reporting.
"I think governments and corporate interests have become more and more powerful and more and more controlling of journalists," he said.
"As journalists we've become weaker as the rivers of gold, as (Rupert) Murdoch famously called them, have dried up.
"Then the governments and the large corporations have really made a great play of that and have fed news organisations pretty easy to digest news that they can run."
He said the public was aware of the changing power dynamic.
"It's a very difficult situation because there's no money ... so the problem is how do you get out of that issue?"
Failing business models
Mr Fowler said he wanted to see a new business model to keep funding quality journalism.
"Unless you do, the fourth estate which is the fourth pillar that stands against the other three pillars of the realm will fall. And for democracy - and it sounds awfully large call to make - but fordemocracy it's a really dangerous time," he said. [Fascism followed by revolution? lol]
"As far as I can see there has been no major investigation of how this failure occurred because most newspapers were in denial until they finally got clobbered with the reality."
Echo chambers
Mr Fowler blamed pay walls for making it easier for people to seek out the stories that only match their views or interests.
"What you want is a mix in the newspaper where you get people reading good, strong stuff like investigations done by The Herald Sun or done by The Age, mixed in with light stories that people will want to read," he said.
"The (Financial Review) behind a pay wall is all very well, but I want the Fin Review read by other people than just those people who have blue chip stock.
"I don't want thisnarrow casting because narrow casting means that people live in an echo chamber and that breeds all sorts of problems: extremism, people with prejudice only reading what they want to read, never being exposed to a big idea."
But haven't people always read particular newspapers because it aligns with their views?
Mr Fowler denied it and said there was value in a diversity of news and opinion.
New business model? Lipstick on a pig, more like it.
Goodbye fascism lite & hello full-on corporate fascism controlled media and society?
Meh, what's the difference? LOL
Seriously, mainstream journalism is deception & has always been deception.
The main reason I support journalism is because I want everyone *else* to have a voice (ie public and alternative press), and I don't think you can have that without having a free press. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech is more important to me, but it's not like you can have those personal and political freedoms without also having a free press. As for mainstream journalism, that's largely the corporate & government agenda and propaganda voice.
No major investigation needed. See enough mainstream media propaganda in action and read about CIA bribes, journalists obtaining government agency approval before printing, CIA controlled media of the Cold War era, willing newspaper editors obliging the government and so on, and mainstream media cancels itself out.
And who seriously wants to know what Rupert Murdoch's or Gina Rinehardt's paper wants to proclaim ... you just read that stuff for bare details and the occasional laugh.
Big idea? Big idea, or big lie?
Think the press is just lamenting that it's harder to pull the wool over everyone's eyes these days.
Not sure how they propose to expose everybody to 'diversity' and 'opinion' when all mainstream output is from the position of the establishment (or a certain brand of smug, sanctimonious, preachy left), which is said to represent the limits of debate. I'm guessing more and more people aren't interested in what they have to say because the internet gives people options they've never had.
Fascists will probably shut down the internet and we'll be stuck with watching the evening news and reading one of a couple of daily newspapers.
Don't know how money is made out of news. News is like tissues. It's throw-away: as soon as you have the key facts and the buzz of the newness of it, it's dead news.
PS
I've figured out what I don't like about mainstream media. Don't like the whole presenter thing and being presented with whatever is deemed 'suitable', being presented with somebody else's agenda, the propriety of it all, the political correctness, the seriousness, the 'we are authorities' play-acting, the entire canned for public consumption fakery of TV news ... as well the fact that you KNOW they and the printed press will never present news that goes against US-allied foreign policy (well, you eventually learn if you bother to look). But you instinctively know because the story is always the same, the state 'enemies' are always the same etc. It's all about upholding the establishment position, whatever that position may be.
The biggest threat to journalism is government, which is afraid of whistleblowers and of the internet. The government is cracking down on the media and on civil liberties, to prevent exposure from perhaps a media that now needs to work harder than it has ever done, as it is in competing with a whistleblower publisher (or maybe more), and needs to maybe start looking a little more real?
And this talk of 'democracy' is nonsense. It is, and always has been, a plutocracy. I'm starting to think that any threat to journalism (other than government) is probably hyped up nonsense. The bulk of the population will always be mainstream media dependent, and I think very few people will ever stick their necks on the block as whistleblowers. I'm still having serious trouble believing the Defence Dept 4Chan leak story. It's probably a fake, like those false flag ops, to provide a pretext for ever growing controls on the media and the public. Ummm ... can you have fake court cases? If you can have faked 'attacks' one must defend with military response, faked weapons of mass destruction, and faked allegations etc, etc, why not also have yourself some fake court cases? lol
[I've not slept much and I've just bashed this rant out. So if it doesn't make a lot of sense, that'd be why. lol]
Benefits, burdens of Saudi oil and gas
First Posted: 3:15 am - August 9th, 2015 - 666 Views
By Wolf D. Fuhrig
Since 1938, the 30 million inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula have richly benefited from their second-largest underground petroleum deposits and their fourth-largest gas reserves in the world.
At present, these holdings rank second only to the United States, which also is the most important buyer of Saudi oil. After six years of exploration, the Saudis began to produce and export their oil in 1944. When Saudi Aramco grew into the biggest private petroleum producer, the government promptly nationalized the company.
By the year 2000, 12.3 percent of all oil produced worldwide came from Saudi Arabia, according to official data. At present, the country’s oil reserves are estimated to amount to 262.7 billion barrels. Available data give the Saudis eighth place worldwide in refining capacity. That enables them to produce heating oil, gasoline, kerosene and diesel, mostly for countries without refineries.
The Saudis have been a reliable supplier of oil for the Western world, except during the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt in 1973 and the Islamic revolution in Iran. During the Second Gulf War in 1991, they exported all of their production to fill Iraq’s and Kuwait’s capacity and thus stabilize the market. [Iran Revolution: 1979]
Until 2006, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia produced 9 million barrels daily when worldwide the annual total was 3,942 billion tons. By 2007, however, the Soviet Union bypassed the Saudis’ daily output. Some experts theorize that they intentionally curtailed their production to increase the price of oil. Recently, dealers in the United States asked the Saudis to raise their production quotas.
At a conference in 2008, Saudi King Abdullah urged oil producers and consumers to cooperate more in order to avoid what he called “damaging speculation.” His country remains the industry’s leader with 16 per cent of the world’s petroleum output and 49 known oil and 16 gas fields.
Since 2002, over 90 percent of the Saudis’ production has come from only seven giant fields, of which six have pumped over 300,000 barrels daily. Recently it appeared that the productivity of those seven fields has been declining. In 2006 Aramco announced that all of the Saudis’ oil fields have reached a “phase of stagnation” and that the rate of production was going to decline by 8 percent annually. This estimate has since been confirmed by the American investment banker and oil expert Matthew Simmons.
At present, oil and gold are going through a selling panic due to the strong dollar and China’s economic slowdown. The pending nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran may soon bring millions of more gallons of oil into world markets. In the meantime, new technologies, especially horizontal drilling, have created an oil glut in the United States. If President Obama succeeds with his proposal for severe restrictions on carbon emissions, that also could lower American coal and oil production.
Saudi petroleum minister Ali al-Naimi explained his veto of increases in OPEC’s output last year that it was “crooked logic” for low cost producers to sacrifice market share in support of crude oil prices. Saudi commentators looking for motives beyond maintaining market share have given three strategic reasons: King Salman’s accession to the Saudi throne on Jan. 23; the growing geopolitical unrest surrounding Saudi Arabia; and the accelerating progress of North American shale operators.
The Saudis claim that they can produce as much as 12 million barrels a day.
The CIA lists the kingdom as the second largest source of proven crude oil reserves after Venezuela. Ironically, Saudi Arabia is currently a net importer of gasoline and diesel. It also continues to burn a large amount of crude oil to produce electricity.
At present, Saudi Arabia still remains the largest exporter of petroleum based on its possession of 18 percent of the world’s proven reserves. Its oil and gas sector comprises about 50 percent of its gross domestic product and about 85 percent of its exports.
Wolf D. Fuhrig of Jacksonville holds a doctorate in public law and government from Columbia University in New York City.
AIDAN KILLIAN: HOLY TRINITY OF WHISTLEBLOWERS 2015 DUBLIN VIDEO [2:40]
IS JULIAN ASSANGE A RAPIST?
------------------------------------------
Chris Anderson from Ted Talks said WikiLeaks in just a few years have released more classified information than all the media in the world.And even once it was released, the other media didn't report these documented facts.
But, yet, as soon as there was dubious, unfounded allegations of a sexual nature about Julian Assange - Pfffffffft - all over the internet: Raping Julian Assange; Is Julian Assange a rapist?
So since these guys failed, refused and neglected to report the truth before, obviously, you can't take their view without looking into it. So, I looked into it.
He had sex with two women and the condom brokein both case.[FALSE - x1 broken condom]
[ P A U S E ]
Woman-A contacted Woman-B and said:
Hey, the condom broke and I'm worried I might have an STD, and I can't contact Julian Assange. Will you come to the police station with me?
Woman-A brings Woman-B across Stockholm, passes many police stations on the way, meets her friend (who is personal policeman), and the policeman breaks protocol by not recording the conversation.
[POLICEWOMAN friend & associate of said woman]
I'd love to have seen how it went:
Hey, when I was making sweet, consensual love to Julain Assange, the condom broke and I can't contact him. Maybe he's just being a male prick, or maybe he's busy saving the world. But maybe you can help me contact him?
What I'm hearing here is:
"The founder of WikiLeaks, enemy of the most powerful people of governments in the world raped you?"
"That's not what I said. I specifically did not say that."
She refused to sign the statement.
She text her friends, saying the policeman made up the charges, and even put on twitter:
"I was not raped by Julian Assange." "It's like you're not listening to me."
"What, there's a black man. Where? I'll shoot him in the back!"
[LAUGHTER]
The prosecutor dropped the case in 24 hours, saying there is no case. They brought in the condom to check for DNA. There was no DNA in it.
But, hey, Sweden, what the f*ck would science know?
[LAUGHTER]
So, anyway, if there's any crime broken here - if there's any crime committed here - it's the crime of having a pointy penis. [LAUGHTER]
I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to have a sharp shaft or [we'd be ?] rounding up the needle-knobs.
Hey, what are you in for?
"Errr ... 7 years armed robbery.
How about yourself?" "Errr ... I've got a case of the pyramid pecker."
Anyway, of course the condom broke, it's Julian Assange; he's the best in the world at breaking through all forms of protection.
[LAUGHTER] [APPLAUSE]
[2:40]
------- end -------
SOURCE
AIDAN KILLIAN: HOLY TRINITY OF WHISTLEBLOWERS 2015 DUBLIN VIDEO [2:40]: IS JULIAN ASSANGE A RAPIST?
"This clip is taken from Aidan Killian's "Holy Trinity of Whistleblowers," A comedy show about whisteblowers. This clip shares the facts about the dubious allegations of a sexual nature against Julian Assange.
To this day there are no charges and yet Sweden and the UK have conspired to break human rights and have Assange surrounded by armed guards in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Julian continues to show his unwavering journalistic integrity while under house arrest."
------------------------------------------
COMMENT
Noticed attention-grabbing title of this video: Is Julian Assange A Rapist?
Surprised to find humour in the material, as I was prepared to be outraged by yet another smear Assange offering.
Did notice some inaccuracies:
1. "... the other media didn't report these documented facts."
My understanding is that the WikiLeaks pre Sweden police allegation releases were a widely reported media sensation. However, I guess it is likely that the orchestrated global media circus surrounding the take-down of Julian Assange, WikiLeaks publisher, may have eclipsed the attention given to whilstleblower releases.
Key 2010 WikiLeaks releases:
the Collateral Murder video on 5th April 2010 (depicting US war crimes); and
the Afghan War Logs: 2004-2010 (comprising 91,000 US reports), on 25 July 2010);
---- above, prior Sweden police allegations ----
the Iraq War Logs (comprising 391,832 US reports) that same year: October, 2010.
Flimsy police allegations in Sweden were dismissed by Prosecutor Eva Finne.
September 1
Prosecutor Marianne Ny, the 3rd prosecutor to lead the case over the course of 10 days, resurrects the investigation into ’lesser rape’ after politician Claes Borgstrom, who was running under a Social Democrat ticket for Justice Minister position becomes the legal representative for the two women.
October 22
Iraq War Logs published.
November 20
Sweden issues Red Notice which Interpol posts on its front page.
December 6
UK authorities acknowledge European Arrest Warrant from Sweden.
December 7
Assange goes to police station, is put in prison until 16 December 2010. Then released on bail. He is placed under house arrest.
2010-2015
Prosecutor refuses to take Assange statement.
The investigation has been frozen since 2010.
2015, March
(the statute of limitations on some of the alleged crimes will become effective in August 2015 - source)
Prosecutor now, at the last moment, agrees to interview Assange in London.
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
T H E A T R E
OF
OFFICIAL NEUTRALISATION
Theatre props & star performers:
Sweden police allegations of 'sexual misconduct' against, publisher, Assange,USproclaimed 'enemy combatant', 'cyber terrorist' - who not only released the 'Collateral Murder' video and Afghanistan War Logs, but had also just freshly released the Iraq War Logs, exposing further US war crimes ... leading to US foaming at the mouth and calls for his assassination;
a European Arrest Warrant (EAW), rubber-stamped;
an Interpol Red Notice, rubber-stamped;
Sweden authorities leaking to the press, what at this stage is merely an investigation (an intended breach);
Sweden Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt (and Australia's PM, Julia Gillard) making highly prejudicial press statements;
were the props, actors and effective agents of an performance and exercise in intentional and prejudicial smear, isolation and discredit. Much like the .
Stage
provided by eagerly waiting world media.
Cast
politicians and their spokespersons, from several countries.
Show
'Assange Arrested for Rape.'
Review
a media orgy.
Audience
gullible, passive, accepting, and 'wowed' ... accepting the state narrative and absorbing the state deployed propaganda.
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
UK EXAMPLE OF GOVT
SABOTAGE
For anyone that thinks that government is above such campaigns, check this out. It's the GCHQ online sabotage ops manual - which was passed around counterparts at USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
If this is the online sabotage manifesto, imagine what they have in their arsenal for dealing with those they consider 'dangerous':
The 4 D's
1) DENY
2) DISRUPT
3) DEGRADE
4) DECEIVE
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
GCHQ - online sabotage:
'The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations'
One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.
Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”
[ ... ]
... key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.
American politicians and political pundits made media calls for the kidnap and illegal transfer of Julian Assange for trial in the US, as an 'enemy combatant' - and called for his assassination.
Imagine the potential US pressure that could be brought to bear on the governments of Sweden, Australia and Britain, leading up to (and following) the December 7, 2010 arrest of Julian Assange.
Not that the politicians in these colluding states would require a great deal of arm twisting in order to oblige their US counterparts.
Were it possible to even imagine any resistance to US demands for Assange, it's even easier to imagine that any such notion would be met with brutal opposition and illegality from the US.
Take a look at what happened to the Bolivian president's plane during the Snowden US manhunt. It was grounded because European authorities obliged their US masters. And take a look at FBI flying into Iceland WITHOUT PERMISSION.
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
Assange on the Untold Story of the Grounding of Evo Morales’ Plane During Edward Snowden Manhunt
EXTRACT ONLY
AMYGOODMAN: Were you shocked when the U.S. forced down President Evo Morales’s plane?
JULIANASSANGE: Yes and no. I didn’t—we didn’t expect that they would do that. But we had seen from what they—Snowden was shocked—that we had seen in our battles over the past few years that similarly illegal conduct occurred. For example, they flew a private jet with six FBI agents and two prosecutors illegally into Iceland to interrogate people and commission them to try and steal information from us. So, we had seen this type of illegality before.
AMYGOODMAN: On that point, very quickly, on Iceland, the FBI flew into Iceland without asking the government’s permission?
JULIANASSANGE: The U.S. flew a private jet with six FBI officers and two prosecutors—one from New York and the other one, we believe, from Alexandria, Virginia, where the ongoing WikiLeaks grand jury is taking place—into Iceland under false pretenses, pretending that they were investigating a hacking threat to the Icelandic government. Once there, they then started interrogating an informant. Now, this informant had approached the U.S. Embassy with information. Now, it’s interesting to speculate exactly why the approach was made, whether it was because of a fear of threatened prosecution or a desire for financial reward, but then started interrogating them, taking them around hotel rooms in Iceland.
The public statements made by Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, proved untrue
.
Gillard red-faced after calling WikiLeaks 'illegal'
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been left floundering after she labelled the actions of the WikiLeaks 'illegal', but couldn't say how.
7 Dec 2010 - 2:05 PM UPDATED 24 Feb 2015 - 5:02 PM
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been slammed for labelling the actions of the WikiLeaks website and its founder Julian Assange 'illegal', as the slow but steady publication of classified documents continues.
Ms Gillard has described the website as "illegal" but when directly asked what Australian laws it was breaking, she was unable to identify any.
"The foundation stone of it is an illegal act," Ms Gillard told reporters on Tuesday.
The "foundation stone" was the leaking of the documents to the website, not the publishing of the cables.
"It would not happen, information would not be on WikiLeaks, if there had not been an illegal act undertaken," Ms Gillard said.
It has been widely reported the man behind previous leaks of classified documents, Private Bradley Manning, is likely responsible for this latest leak of more than 250,000 classified documents from the United States State Department.
Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis chastised Ms Gillard for her "clumsy" language on the issue.
"As far as I can see he (Mr Assange) hasn't broken any Australian law," he told Sky News.
"Nor does it appear he has broken any American laws."
We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. “We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.
Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).
In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing.
Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.
As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.
We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.
We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.
Julian Assange has committed no crime in Australia: AFP
Date
A statement released by the federal police just before 1pm said: "The AFP has completed its evaluation of the material available and has not established the existence of any criminal offences where Australia would have jurisdiction.
Elsewhere, a writer referred to the treatment of Julian Assange as theatre.
Considered the:
dramatic Sweden government leak to press, the European Arrest Warrant, Interpol Red Notice, dramatic British arrest earlier calls for assassination (Nov 2010); and
prejudicial statements of heads of government;
and see for yourself that this was, indeed, a perverse form of theatre.
Considering that this was played out on the world stage, on the basis of nothing more than some flimsy and dubious Sweden police 'allegations' (not also irregularities concerning the Sweden 'investigation').
Not also that this drama was played out, regarding previously legally dismissed and subsequently publicly denied and contradicted 'allegations', coming from Sweden authorities.
Sweden allegations against Julian Assange and the media circus are pure theatre.
Theatre such as this - a theatre where global powers are players on the stage - does evolve by accident.
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
This is the spectacle of a high-powered coterie of allied states, participating in a staged, deliberate, determined, concerted, and single-minded assault with the sole aim of: neutralising Julian Assange (and WikiLeaks), 'enemy combatants', 'cyber terrorists'.
Assange just happens to be publisher of WikiLeaks, who published whistleblower material, revealing evidence of US war crimes.
In a sense, US war crimes are also allied war crimes.
The coterie of Western allied states are all responsible for supporting US foreign policy, invasions, and military aggression around the world. Remember, these are closely allied, predator states. Ruling Western Mafia states. A gang of aligned, imperialist, Mafia states, who have acted (and continue to act) cooperatively and globally, on behalf of the interests of their ruling corporate masters (rather than in public interest) - and have historically done so, without a conscience.
These states long history of exploiting countries, governments and people abroad, for resources and regional strategic aims. These are the powers who have a long history of bringing down democratically elected governments, that often involve orchestrated smear campaigns and have involved both MI6 and CIA arranged, cooperative coups
British imperialism in Iran - Challenged Result: MI6-CIA Coup & installation of a puppet government
Overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh
Britain (MI6, under the name "Operation Boot") USA
(CIA, under the name TPAJAX Project)
Mossadegh had sought to:
audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).
AIOC is was British corporation (it's now known as BP).
alter the terms of AIOC's access to Iranian petroleum reserves.
ie - exploited Iran wanted a better deal for its nation.
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co refused to co-operate.
Iran govt voted to:
NATIONALISE the assets of AIOC.
expel company representatives from Iran.
Britain's MI6- and the CIA simply arranged a coup - on behalf of AIOC (now BP) & and installed a puppet government that would act in the interests of the imperialists.
This is not 'conspiracy theory' - this is admitted history.
CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup Declassified documents describe in detail how US – with British help – engineered coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq
Anyone, who cannot connect the dots and see the machinations at work, of bringing down a whistleblower publisher with bogus allegations of 'sexual misconduct,' with intense media smear, with the misuse of European law, with the denial of political asylum (and violation of international law conventions) by way of Ecuador Embassy siege, to neutralise such a 'troublesome' publisher, is either an idiot or a liar.
Above are the very same global powers that aim to take down Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
This is incorrect. There is only ONE broken condom.
So there's no serial, sharp, condom-breaking 'needle' or 'pyramid' prick (to borrow some of the comedian's terminology) ... lol.
3. "... personal policeman."
The police contact - was both friend and political party associate of Assange's hostess (press secretary for the Sweden Social Democratic Party adjunct, Brotherhood Movement. In that sense, I guess one could say the police contact could, indeed, be construed as 'personal policeman'. But the police officer in question is actually female. [more info: FAQ]
One final point regarding the comedy video. I'm really uncomfortable with the title, even in a comedy video. Assange is not a rapist; he's a politically persecuted journalist/publisher, who was granted political asylum by Ecuador in 2012.
Assange is the target of a Sweden, US and UK campaign to decommission him and WikiLeaks, by locking him up for the rest of his life, after extraditing him to the US. If they're not going for the death penalty ... which is unknown because the US won't say. The US investigation remains classified.
Sex accusers boasted about their 'conquest' of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
TNN | Dec 9, 2010, 12.56 AM IST
EXTRACT ONLY
On August 14, the day following the night of "crime", Assange delivered a 90-minute speech about how the first casualty of war is truth.
[AA] was in attendance (as was [SW]) but showed no signs of the previous night's "trauma".
The two women can be seen in a video of the conference.
At 2 o'clock that night, while hosting a party in Assange's honour at her flat, [AA] tweeted: "Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing.
Thought this was a fairly comprehensive article for such an early piece. As in, really early: only 2 days after the arrest of Julian Assange.
Well done, whoever wrote that detail rich story in Times of India.
As this post is getting massively long, will most likely comment on the Times of India article elsewhere.
It's an article worth noting, I think, as there are some important details in the article. And as far as I can see from a quick skim, it looks accurate.
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
PINOCHET
Julian Assange and America's vendetta against WikiLeaks
EXTRACT
As the contrast with the extradition case of Augusto Pinochet shows, it's one law for whistleblowers, another for war criminals
Assange has not been charged with any crime, yet he has been under house arrest in England for close to two years, ever since a European arrest warrant was issued by Sweden (importantly, by a prosecutor, not by a judge). Assange and his supporters allege that the warrant is part of an attempt by the US government to imprison him, or even execute him, and to shut down WikiLeaks. In April 2010, WikiLeaks released a US military video under the title Collateral Murder, with graphic images showing an Apache helicopter unit killing at least 12 Iraqi civilians, including a Reuters cameraman and his driver. In July 2010, WikiLeaks released the Afghan war diary, tens of thousands of secret US military communications that laid out the official record of the violent occupation of Afghanistan, the scale of civilian deaths and likely war crimes. The Swedish arrest warrant followed just weeks later.Chilean dictator Pinochet for torture committed under his rule from 1973 to 1990. Based on Garzon's indictment, Pinochet was arrested in 1998 while travelling in London. After 16 months of hearings, the British courts finally decided that Pinochet could be extradited to Spain. The British government intervened, overruling the court, and allowed him to return to Chile.
British government intervening on behalf of dictator, torturer and murderer Pinochet, while its police footsoldiers have stood guard inside and outside the Ecuador embassy these last 3 years, holding Assange hostage, pending intended extradition of Assange to the US, to face a life sentence or death penalty, is an absolute outrage and it is perverse beyond belief: Assange exposed war crimes, while Pinochet committed them with US blessing.
Re: Comedy video remark about media coverage - here.
Politics wasn't a focus for me back in 2010, so I really have no recollection of what was in the media during the WikiLeaks releases, or the media frenzy that ensued following the editor's arrest.
Nothing. It's a complete blank to me. Blank doesn’t make much sense. Why blank? Surely there was something I would have seen somewhere. Nope. I don't watch TV. I don't listen to the radio. Generally. I prefer not to. I don't like the offerings. I prefer to look at what I want on the internet. So that probably explains why all of this passed me by at the time.
What's odd is that I knew that there was a leaks site, but I don't know how I knew, what it was really about, or where it was.
Although I was sort of curious because it was some vaguely taboo site (or that's how it seemed to straight-ass me), I wasn't really keen on looking at anything I imagined would maybe get me in 'trouble.'
Again, I don't know where I got the notion that I might have authorities come down on me if I look at a site that the authorities oppose. For a long time (even after I got game enough to check out the WikiLeaks site), I half expected the 'Stasi' to come and knock down my door. lol
Back in 2010, I must have heard something. But I guess I wasn't keen enough to know what goes unpublished in the press. Whatever this thing was, it sounded like it might be too deep, too technical, and way too boring for my tastes of the time.
Mostly interested topic-specific information. It could be anything: American Indians, psychology, history etc. And, ummm ... lots of Freddie Mercury during one stint. Made a video in honour of Freddie, lol. But once I was over it, I was over it, and never went back to edit. Wonder if I still have it somewhere, or if it's got lost during my new OS installation.
Aside from tangents of absorption in whatever subject took my fancy, I was largely drawn to sensational garbage in the media, glossy celebrity photos (preferably really embarrassing ones), and sites that mercilessly slagged off celebrities.
Just how deeply and honestly the Western mainstream media may have actually delved into subject matter of WikiLeaks releases, upon release, is unknown to me from first-hand experience.
But the bet is that, yes, once the allegations against Julian Assange hit the headlines, the media attention may well have surpassed the kind of attention that may have been given to United States whistleblowing shock releases.
Everyday public figure dramas are the renewable fountain of distraction. Distraction from our own dull affairs. Large sections of the media cater to this and often exploit this. So, predicaments such as Assange's are sensationalised like crazy across most media. By default, and because there's an excellent window of opportunity to stage a campaign of dissemination of smear and propaganda to the public. Well, most of the public. lol
Again, I have no recollection of the media sensation surrounding the allegations against Julian Assange. I must have seen something somewhere. I think I vaguely remember some sort of media big deal with lots of microphones and a close up head shot, but it just wouldn't have registered at the time. It was just some person there was a lot of interest in. Some drama. Something I knew nothing about. Some seconds of footage, I may have barely registered as I walked past the TV.
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
