The Pursuit of Julian Assange Is an Assault on Freedom and a Mockery of Journalism
The British government’s threat to invade the Ecuadorean embassy in London and seize Julian Assange is of historic significance. David Cameron, the former PR man to a television industry huckster and arms salesman to sheikdoms, is well placed to dishonor international conventions that have protected Britons in places of upheaval. Just as Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq led directly to the acts of terrorism in London on July 7, 2005, so Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague have compromised the safety of British representatives across the world.
Threatening to abuse a law designed to expel murderers from foreign embassies, while defaming an innocent man as an “alleged criminal,” Hague has made a laughing stock of Britain across the world, though this view is mostly suppressed in Britain. The same brave newspapers and broadcasters that have supported Britain’s part in epic bloody crimes, from the genocide in Indonesia to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, now attack the “human rights record” of Ecuador, whose real crime is to stand up to the bullies in London and Washington.
It is as if the Olympics happy-clappery has been subverted overnight by a revealing display of colonial thuggery. Witness the British army officer-cum-BBC reporter Mark Urban “interviewing” a braying Sir Christopher Meyer, Blair’s former apologist in Washington, outside the Ecuadorean embassy, the pair of them erupting with Blimpish indignation that the unclubbable Assange and the uncowed Rafael Correa should expose the western system of rapacious power. Similar affront is vivid in the pages of the Guardian, which has counseled Hague to be “patient” and that storming the embassy would be “more trouble than it is worth.” Assange was not a political refugee, the Guardian declared, because “neither Sweden nor the U.K. would in any case deport someone who might face torture or the death penalty.”
The irresponsibility of this statement matches the Guardian’s perfidious role in the whole Assange affair. The paper knows full well that documents released by WikiLeaks indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters of civil rights. In December 2001, the Swedish government abruptly revoked the political refugee status of two Egyptians, Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed el-Zari, who were handed to a CIA kidnap squad at Stockholm airport and “rendered” to Egypt, where they were tortured. An investigation by the Swedish ombudsman for justice found that the government had “seriously violated” the two men’s human rights. In a 2009 U.S. embassy cable obtained by WikiLeaks, entitled “WikiLeaks puts neutrality in the Dustbin of History,” the Swedish elite’s vaunted reputation for neutrality is exposed as a sham. Another U.S. cable reveals that “the extent of [Sweden's military and intelligence] cooperation [with NATO] is not widely known” and unless kept secret “would open the government to domestic criticism.”
The Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, played a notorious leading role in George W. Bush’s Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and retains close ties to the Republican Party’s extreme right. According to the former Swedish director of public prosecutions Sven-Erik Alhem, Sweden’s decision to seek the extradition of Assange on allegations of sexual misconduct is “unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate.” Having offered himself for questioning, Assange was given permission to leave Sweden for London where, again, he offered to be questioned. In May, in a final appeal judgment on the extradition, Britain’s Supreme Court introduced more farce by referring to nonexistent “charges.”
Accompanying this has been a vituperative personal campaign against Assange. Much of it has emanated from the Guardian, which, like a spurned lover,has turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book has led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal.The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, gratuitously abuse Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous.” They also reveal the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy cables. On Aug. 20, Harding was outside the Ecuadorean embassy, gloating on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh.” It is ironic, if entirely appropriate, that a Guardian editorial putting the paper’s latest boot into Assange bears an uncanny likeness to the Murdoch press’s predictable augmented bigotry on the same subject. How the glory of Leveson, Hackgate, and honorable, independent journalism doth fade.
His tormentors make the point of Assange’s persecution. Charged with no crime, he is not a fugitive from justice. Swedish case documents, including the text messages of the women involved, demonstrate to any fair-minded person the absurdity of the sex allegations — allegations almost entirely promptly dismissed by the senior prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finne, before the intervention of a politician, Claes Borgstr?At the pre-trial of Bradley Manning, a U.S. army investigator confirmed that the FBI was secretly targeting the “founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks” for espionage.
Four years ago, a barely noticed Pentagon document, leaked by WikiLeaks, described how WikiLeaks and Assange would be destroyed with a smear campaign leading to “criminal prosecution.” On Aug. 18, the Sydney Morning Herald disclosed, in a Freedom of Information release of official files, that the Australian government had repeatedly received confirmation that the U.S. was conducting an “unprecedented” pursuit of Assange and had raised no objections. Among Ecuador’s reasons for granting asylum is Assange’s abandonment “by the state of which he is a citizen.” In 2010, an investigation by the Australian Federal Police found that Assange and WikiLeaks had committed no crime. His persecution is an assault on us all and on freedom.
Read more by John Pilger
- The New Propaganda Is Liberal – March 14th, 2013
- WikiLeaks is a rare truth-teller. Smearing Julian Assange is shameful – February 17th, 2013
- The Real Invasion of Africa Is Not News, and a License To Lie Is Hollywood’s Gift – January 31st, 2013
- As Sanctions Hit Iran’s Most Vulnerable, the Man Who Dared to Feed Sanction-Starved Iraq Remains in Prison – November 9th, 2012
- The Life and Death of an Australian Hero, Whose Skin Was the Wrong Colour – October 4th, 2012





@sciamachy
August 24th, 2012 at 3:14 am
Um, he *is* an alleged criminal. He's wanted in Sweden for rape & sexual assault. Given that such charges have a ludicrously low conviction rate, if they wanted to hoik him off to Sweden so as to be able to extradite him, two things stand out – why not trump up some sort of charge that has a high conviction rate, and why not extradite him from Britain not Sweden. Sure Sweden did allow some "terrorist suspects" to be rendered to the US before, but it was ruled illegal, those involved got punished, Sweden paid compensation to the man they rendered & gave him an official apology, and it nearly ended the career of at least 1 Swedish politician. It was a huge scandal. Sweden is therefore very unlikely to repeat the action. Assange is looking at up to 4 years in a Swedish prison. Have you seen Swedish prisons? They're better than some UK hotels. Sweden has some of the most progressive & enlightened policies on imprisonment going. He would have TV, access to the internet, materials for learning should he decide to pursue a course of study, and courses in what constitutes consent & correct sexual conduct. He's charged with no crime because they've *yet to arrest him for it*. Normal legal procedure is arrest, charge, arraignment, trial, then freedom or sentence. Saying he's innocent because he's not been charged is crap. He's innocent in the sense that he's yet to be proven guilty, and only in that sense. He cannot be proven guilty until he's been extradited to Sweden, arrested & charged. He's innocent in the same way Roman Polanski was "innocent".
Abi
August 24th, 2012 at 3:47 am
I've been searching for the document you mention in the last paragraph but I can't find it. Seems weird something as damning as that wouldn't be prominently featured on the Wikileaks homepage :S
The Pursuit of Julian Assange Is an Assault on Freedom and a Mockery of … – Antiwar.com | PAULitics.US – Wake Up America
August 24th, 2012 at 11:55 am
[...] The Pursuit of Julian Assange Is an Assault on Freedom and a Mockery of … – Antiwar.com Posted in Wikileaks – Assange | Tags: arms-salesman, british, cameron, david-cameron, ecuadorean, freedom, julian, london, mockery, pursuit, the-former, well-placed /* [...]
jeff_davis
August 24th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
The title of this piece should, rightly, be "The Rape of Julian Assange."
Kratoklastes
August 24th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
So let's say I accuse you of being a paedophile. By your logic, you're 'innocent' of being a paedophile "only in the sense that you're yet to be proven guilty". If that reflects your view of the world, you're even dumber than your comment indicates.
If you were more abreast of the facts of the case, you might have been able to craft something that is less ludicrous – less cartoonish. Less vulnerable to scorn and derision the moment anybody thinks about what you wrote for more than thirty seconds. Less like something that is part of a concerted campaign that is being waged to repeat the (false) claim that Assange is accused of rape (when he's not). All long-winded, and all with a relatively similar writing 'fist' for those who care to check.
As I wrote when this charade was first put in play: it is a relatively unsophisticated ploy to attempt to 'split off' left-of-centre young women from supporting Wikileaks (they were its fastest growing demographic, to the extent that these things can be adequately measured). It also plays to the juvenile salacious interest of Americans – and thisck idiots more generally – in the sexual doings of public individuals.
Lastly (but by no means leastly): your parrotting of the "common-fist" tropes indicates that you're either ignorant of the facts of the case, or you're indifferent to the facts and are specifically seeking to advance to a specific agenda (i.e., you're "bullsh!tting", in the Franfurter sense).
When will you permit yourself to stand trial for these serious accusations of paedophilia, of which you are only 'innocent' in some abstruse technical sense? Children's safety must trump ridiculous notions of due process and all that Magna Carta-ish rubbish, surely? In fact, there is no need for any tribunal, court or hearing – surely you should simply throw yourself onto your sword.
Kratoklastes
August 24th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Couldn't embed the link to "Let Me Google That For You", sadly.
See, there's this thing called Google. It helps search the interwebs' various pipes and tubes for things with words in them. You put in "search terms" and it gives you back things to look at.
I doubt that it will catch on, but apparently it's pretty popular among the web-savvy youngsters.
Go to Google.com , and type in "Sydney Morning Herald" "Freedom of Information" "August 18".