Wednesday, January 05, 2011

royal hunt of julian assange


Video - highlights from the lincolnshire show..,

IsraelShamir | The "Swedish media" to which Brown refers is the notorious Expressen, the Swedish version of British Sun, and it just happens to be the newspaper that triggered the Assange witch-hunt. Normally you'd look for a more legitimate news source, but when the game is afoot perhaps passion overrides prudence. Thus begins The Guardian's Royal Hunt of Julian Assange.

I have never seen simple facts more twisted and distorted than in the article published by The Guardian on December 18th - and I've seen some beauties. This is trial by media in the best tradition of Pravda 1937. The article's author Nick Davies wrote years ago in his Flat Earth News that the practice of journalism in the UK is "bent"; now he has proven it beyond a doubt by his own writing.

His bias is as subtle as a blow to the head. There is no room for doubt: Assange never committed rape. The day after the alleged rape, the alleged victim boasted to her friends in a twitter that she had a wonderful time with the alleged rapist. The complete story has all been published and is available with a simple Internet search. Nick Davies clearly performed a cruel hatchet job. But was publishing the article a simple case of bad judgement by The Guardian, or the beginning of a smear campaign?

Two days later, we noted The Guardian's second attack. So, Mr Assange, why won't you go back to Sweden now? The answer is not so very hard to find. As Ms. Bennett surmises, Julian has nothing to fear from Sweden. Here is a question for Ms. Bennett. If Swedish authorities were primarily concerned about prosecuting Julian for rape, why have they attached a special condition to their demands of extradition, specifically reserving the right to pass him on to US authorities? You see Ms. Bennett, the US has invented a special treat called Extraordinary Rendition, and this is not something I would wish upon even Andrew Brown.

I'll count the Brown attempt to smear Julian by association with me as a third attack. "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action", as James Bond in Goldfinger put it neatly.

Has American patriotism infected the trenches of The Guardian, or are these reporters simply following orders? The answer can found be on amazon.co.uk. It seems that The Guardian has decided to destroy Wikileaks once it is has been squeezed dry. The Moor has done his work, the Moor may go. Understanding full well that the Wikileaks crew cannot be tamed or subverted, The Guardian is accepting pre-orders for a book called The Rise and Fall of Wikileaks. It's not quite released yet; they have still to arrange for the fall.

Suddenly the smear campaign acquires a rude economic logic. But it doesn't end there.

The Guardian has accepted the US State Department cables. They have agreed to analyze and publish them. Yet they have turned their Wikileaks-based reports into a source of misinformation. The headlines often declare that Wikileaks is the source of the rumour! For instance, one of the headlines, published on December 18, 2010 said: