In an article first published on the Emperor’s New Clothes in 2004, Jared Israel looks at one notorious episode of media deception from the 1990s. Despite a successful libel suit in 2000 the fact remains that British news outlet ITN produced images that grossly distorted reality and were widely used in a highly misleading way […]
As we have said many moons ago, there is now a very close coordination between the Eurasia, BRICS, and ASEAN intelligence communities against global terrorism. The phrase “global terrorism”, of course, refers to the rouge CIA, which consists of the Nazi remnants in collusion with the 13 ruthless bloodlines, one of which is running the […]
image edited by Fernando Kaskais Meet Our New Overlords by Capitalist Exploits By Chris at http://www.CapitalistExploits.at Intelligence is easily the most profound qualifier for why we humans rule planet earth. It’s also only the smallest percentage that makes all the difference. Consider that we share about 90% of our DNA with blimmin’ mice for goodness sake. And […]
There’s been a lot of buzz about this new paper from Nerem et al (see link in references below) where they claim to find global sea level rise acceleration over the past 25 years. I provide this article from NASA Earth Observatory for context for some posts that are coming later. Adjustments to data figure […]
Documents released under Freedom of Information requests to Italian magazine La Repubblica confirm the very close relationship between the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Sweden in the Julian Assange case. The files contain hundreds of mostly redacted emails sent over a five-year period. But according to one authoritative source, the number of CPS documents relating to the case may be much greater than has so far been disclosed.
In May 2017, the Swedish authorities announced they had ceased all remaining investigations into alleged sexual assault by WikiLeaks founder Assange. But the Metropolitan Police arrest warrant for skipping bail would remain in force. Subsequently, Assange’s legal team sought a ruling that the Met warrant should be rescinded, but the court ruled otherwise.
Chief Magistrate hearing the Assange case: Baroness Emma Arbuthot, married to Baron Arbuthot, former British Conservative Party MP & Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. Yes of course the judiciary is completely independent in the UK. https://twitter.com/LisaMillar/status/963419813380022275 …
The emails between the Swedish Prosecuting Authority (SPA) and the CPS show that the latter was closely involved in the Assange case at every stage.
In one such email, dated 25 January 2011, a CPS lawyer advised the SPA not to send someone to the UK:
My earlier advice remains, that in my view it would not be prudent for the Swedish authorities to try to interview the defendant [Assange] in the UK.
In August 2012, in response to an article saying Sweden could withdraw the warrant against Assange, a CPS staffer (name redacted) warned [pdf, p1] Sweden’s Director of Public Prosecutions Marianne Ny:
Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!
But a year later, in October 2013, Ny wrote [pdf, p332]:
we have found us to be obliged to consider to lift the detention order… and to withdraw the European arrest warrant. If so this should be done in a couple of weeks. This would affect not only us but you too in a significant way.
However, it took three and a half more years for that to happen.
In an unredacted set of emails seen by The Canary, a CPS lawyer emphasised to Ny just how important the Assange case was:
It is simply amazing how much work this case is generating. It sometimes seems like an industry. Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.
Another email from the CPS lawyer to Ny provides an indication of the sort of working relationship they had:
I am sure you can guess what I would love to send you as a Christmas present [i.e. Julian Assange].
And the extensive correspondence [pdf] between the CPS and the SPA from December 2010 onwards may prove crucial in throwing further light on that working relationship.
This is summarised as follows [pdf, p68]:
US targeting Assange
In Alexandria, Virginia, a Grand Jury has been empanelled for the past three years to explore ways to prosecute WikiLeaks for its publishing work. It has identified seven civilians, including the “founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks”. The Grand Jury’s case number is 10GJ3793.
And the late Michael Ratner, Assange’s US lawyer, was certain about the most likely charge:
Indeed, US Attorney-General Jeff Sessions has called Assange’s arrest a “priority”. CIA director Mike Pompeo, meanwhile, said the agency was working to “take down” WikiLeaks. And former FBI director James Comey told Congress that the only reason Assange had not been apprehended was because he is still in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
In a July 2012 email to Ny and others (names redacted), the sender describes [pdf, p3] how the Assange files (“A-related” emails) are organised:
Marianne and I file all A-related emails in special folders, not available to or traceable for anybody but ourselves.
all the data associated with Paul Close’s account was deleted when he retired and cannot be recovered.
The CPS says this is standard procedure.
More to come?
Barrister Jennifer Robinson, who has represented Assange, commented:
The CPS has disclosed some material which is very limited. We know there is more.
The CPS declined to comment to The Canary on whether the emails suggest its relationship with the SPA was inappropriately close. When asked whether there were additional emails, and whether unredacted versions would be released, the CPS told The Canary:
You would have to make an FOI request. Some text is usually redacted to ensure any releases under the FOI Act does not breach legislation including around data protection and security.
The full CPS file on Assange is estimated to contain between 7,200 and 9,600 pages. Meanwhile, Gareth Peirce, Assange’s solicitor, is considering an appeal against the latest ruling. Should that go ahead, no doubt she and the rest of Assange’s legal team will want to see those documents, as well as unredacted versions of the CPS/SPA emails already available, including the heavily-redacted 2014-15 correspondence [pdf].
Anything less would only raise further questions.
There are three stories about the Justice Department’s Internet Research Agency indictment headlining at the Guardian right now, and, at the point of writing, none of them are open for comments. So here is our latest “Comment Set Free”. Please let us have your thoughts on the following (or any related articles that appear): 1) […]
At the first hearing, I was stunned by reports of completely inappropriate comments by Lady Arbuthnot, including responding to representations about Assange’s health by the comment that medical care is available in Wandsworth prison. As the official charade is that Assange is wanted for nothing but jumping bail, for which a custodial sentence is rare, that callous attempt at gallows humour was redolent of Arbuthnot’s Tory mindset. She also remarked – and repeats it in yesterday’s judgement – that Assange has access to fresh air through the Embassy’s balcony. That is simply untrue. The “balcony” floor is 3 feet by 20 inches and gives no opportunity to exercise. Julian does not have access to it. He is confined to a small area within the Embassy, which still has to function. The balcony is off the Ambassador’s office. He has been given access to it on average about twice a year. But “Lady” Arbuthnot showed a very selective attitude to getting at the truth.
The truth is that just last week the evidence was published which inarguably proves that the questioning for sexual allegations was only ever a charade to secure Assange in custody for deportation to the US, to face charges for publishing the USA’s dirty secrets. In 2013 Sweden wished to drop the investigation and the arrest warrant, and was subject to strong persuasion from the Crown Prosecution Service to maintain the warrant. This included emails from the CPS telling the Swedes “Don’t you dare” drop the case, and most tellingly of all “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.” That last exposes the entire pretence in just one sentence.
It is worth noting it was not the servile UK corporate media, but the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi and the Italian newspaper Le Repubblica which obtained these emails through dogged freedom of information requests and High Court proceedings. These revealed the quite stunning truth that the CPS had systematically destroyed most of the highly incriminating correspondence, with only accidental copies of a few emails surviving to be produced in response to the FOI request.
The CPS emails devastate the official charade, which is precisely that this is just a normal extradition case. Furthermore it is admitted at para 43 of “Lady” Arbuthnot’s judgement that the Crown Prosecution Service actively referred the Swedish authorities to Wikileaks activities in the United States as a reason not to drop the arrest warrant, a fact which the UK mainstream media has still never reported and which obviates “Lady” Arbuthnot’s trite observation that there is no evidence that Sweden would have extradited Assange to the USA.
Perhaps most stunning of all “Lady” Arbuthnot opines at para 44 that “I cannot determine from the extracts of correspondence whether the lawyer in the extradition unit acted inappropriately” in preventng the Swedes from dropping the case and referring them to Wikileaks activities vis a vis the USA. Whereas in fact:
a) It provides irrefutable proof that this was never about the frankly unbelievable Swedish sexual allegations, which were always just a pretext for getting Assange into custody over Wikileaks’ publications
b) The reason she only has “extracts” of the correspondence is that the Crown Prosecution Service, as openly admitted in the High Court, tried to destroy all this correspondence, itself an illegal act. Arbuthnot gives them the benefit of their illegality, against all legal principle.
“Lady” Arbuthnot takes it upon herself to contradict the judgement of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, every one of whose members is a much more eminent lawyer than “Lady” Arbuthnot. The UK had of course every opportunity to raise the points made by Lady Arbuthnot in its appeal to the UN, which appeal also failed. “Lady” Arbuthnot’s attempt to undermine a judgement by going back and disputing the actual facts of the case, with no opportunity to answer, is, to say the least, a creative piece of judicial process. But as with her failure to pursue the CPS’ destruction of evidence, it is just an example of her most obvious bias.
“Lady” Arbuthnot set out with one clear and evident purpose, to assist the Crown.
“Lady” Arbuthnot has perhaps performed an unwitting public service by the brazen nature of her partiality, which exposes beyond refutation the charade of legal process behind the effort to arrest Assange, in reality over the publication of USA secrets. The second half of Para 57 of the judgement sets out how, following his arrest for “jumping bail”, the American extradition request on espionage charges will be handled.
I should like to conclude that “Lady” Arbuthnot is a disgrace to the English justice system, but I fear she is rather typical of it. This intellectually corrupt, openly biased, callous Tory shill is rather a disgrace to humanity itself.
The corporate media has published no information about “Lady” Arbuthnot’s background and sinister links at all, despite the fact it is uniformly carrying her jibes at Assange as a major story. There can be no clearer example of the fact that it is the corporate media which, deliberately and systematically, spreads fake news, while bloggers get out the actual facts via social media.
Directors of SC Strategy Ltd from Companies House Register
To anyone to whom British corruption is not axiomatic, it appears pretty rum that the judge in the Assange case is married to a government parliamentarian and close to the security services.
“Lady” Arbuthnot’s Husband
There is some interesting background in the Mirror here. The taxpayer paid £1,200 in restaurant bills for “Lady” Arbuthnot and her husband in one long weekend jaunt to Turkey alone.
If anybody thinks the Assange case had anything to do with justice, they are very mistaken. Please read my analysis of “Lady” Arbuthnot’s judgement here.
By Tim Hayward | January 12, 2018 The Guardian recently published an article claiming that critical discussion of the White Helmets in Syria has been ‘propagated online by a network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the Russian government’. Many readers were dismayed at this crude defence of a – […]
Seraphim Hanisch — The Duran Sept 11, 2018
Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated on or about February 2nd, 2018 that the United States has “no evidence” that the Syrian government used the banned nerve agent Sarin against its own people in attacks in 2013 and 2017. The most recent one provoked a massive Tomahawk strike ordered by President Trump that was quite provocative in the eyes of the Russian Federation and of course the Syrian government.
Secretary Mattis’ assertion is in direct contradiction to the White House Memorandum which was rapidly written and declassified to justify the Americans’ strike. However, the Secretary offered no specifics to his statement. He did discuss the fact that there were aid groups and other people, including NGOs and other fighters operating in the area that had provided evidence and reports of what happened with the Sarin strike. Their information stopped short of naming President Assad as the culprit.
“I don’t have the evidence,” Mattis said. “What I am saying is that other groups on the ground – NGOs, fighters on the ground – have said that sarin has been used, so we are looking for evidence.”
The reporting on this is highly suspect, though. Newsweek, Reuters and the Washington Post are three American publications that all have run pieces pointing out this contradictory matter. At this time, FoxNews has nothing on its site about this matter, but ZeroHedge does.
Gen. Mattis, known affectionately as “Mad Dog” Mattis, is known for an uncompromising approach to dealing with America’s enemies:
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
He was an outspoken critic of President Obama’s Middle East policy, naming Iran as the single most serious threat to stability in the region.
By all accounts, then, the General is faithful to the idea that projecting American power abroad is a good thing. Seen with this context, the general’s statement seems unusual, and the media outlets that have a less than favorable view of Donald Trump as the American President have been quick to jump on board the train to point out that the General disagrees with his CO, the President.
Sadly, if this issue is able to gain traction, it is only going to do so as long as it serves the media’s narrative that President Trump is crazy or stupid, and should not be trusted with the leadership of the nation. No doubt this will be spun as 25th amendment material, since the President “could in a moment of passion, decide to nuke someone.”
It is important also to consider that the statement that Gen. Mattis gave is not that he says he disagrees with the Trump decision to launch the Tomahawk strike. He is only saying there is no evidence in his possession that confirms that the Syrian government was behind these attacks.
Furthering this point, it is difficult at times to get hard evidence of such things in an active war zone. Contextually, there are three possible agencies that could have done this attack: (1) the Syrian government, (2) the fighters of whichever group, like Al-Nusra or ISIS who elected to use this to frame the Syrian government, and (3) the US, in an attempt to frame the Assad regime.
The Americans were not invited to help Assad, so their presence in Syria is an inconvenient truth – Syria cannot expel them, but they were never wanted, and even by the American people, involvement in yet another Middle Eastern nation is not high on the “things I want my country to do” list for most Americans.
The loser in this situation is the United States, because of the mishandling of this conflict. While most of the conflict and the American action in it took place during the Obama era, it is probably the case that if the USA simply gathered all its troops and equipment and retreated to Israel or the Mediterranean Sea, or just plain left, the result might be a great deal worse for the Russian and Syrian national forces already there.
The problem here is that there may well be a serious intelligence breach or failure that created or allowed the decision to launch that Tomahawk strike. Russia Today also ran the Mattis piece, because to do so suits the Russian narrative that there is no way Bashar Assad would use gas on his own people. Indeed, it does not make rational sense to a Westerner how a dictator retains power when his country is already a war zone and watched by world powers. To do a mass killing of one’s own citizens under such a watchful eye seems a highly absurd course for any leader to take.
The further problem is the reality of conditions on the ground. As this report points out, the Americans may be in a situation where foolish decisions by previous administrations and maybe even this one, have created a situation where they cannot leave.