Julian needs to be allowed to leave England of his own free will. But the UK government does the bidding of the US government.
It now emerges that the last four years of Julian Assange’s
effective imprisonment in the Ecuadorean embassy in London have been
entirely unnecessary. In fact, they depended on a legal charade.
Behind the scenes, Sweden wanted to drop the extradition case against Assange back in 2013. Why was this not made public? Because Britain persuaded Sweden to pretend that they still wished to pursue the case.
In other words, for more than four years Assange has been holed up in a tiny room, policed at great cost to British taxpayers, not because of any allegations in Sweden but because the British authorities wanted him to remain there. On what possible grounds could that be, one has to wonder? Might it have something to do with his work as the head of Wikileaks, publishing information from whistleblowers that has severely embarrassed the United States and the UK?
In fact, Assange should have walked free years ago if this was really about an investigation – a sham one at that – into an alleged sexual assault in Sweden. Instead, as Assange has long warned, there is a very different agenda at work: efforts to extradite him onwards to the US, where he could be locked away for good. That was why UN experts argued two years ago that he was being “arbitrarily detained” – for political crimes – not unlike the situation of dissidents we support in other parts of the world.
According to a new release of emails between officials, the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service on 18 October 2013, warning that Swedish law would not allow the case to be continued. This was, remember, after Sweden had repeatedly failed to take up an offer from Assange to interview him at the embassy in London, as had happened in 44 other cases between Sweden and Britain.
Ny wrote to the CPS: “We have found us to be obliged 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.”
Three days later, suggesting that legal concerns were far from anyone’s mind, she emailed the CPS again: “I am sorry this came as a [bad] surprise… I hope I didn’t ruin your weekend.”
In a similar vein, proving that this was about politics, not the law, the chief CPS lawyer handling the case in the UK, had earlier written to the Swedish prosecutors: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”
In December 2013, the unnamed CPS lawyer wrote to Ny: “I do not consider costs are a relevant factor in this matter.” This was at a time when it had been revealed that the policing of Assange’s detention in the embassy had cost Britain at that point £3.8 million. In another email from the CPS, it was noted: “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”
These are only fragments of the email correspondence, after most of it was destroyed by the CPS against its own protocols. The deletions appear to have been carried out to avoid releasing the electronic files to a tribunal hearing a freedom of information request.
Other surviving emails, according to a Guardian report last year, have shown that the CPS “advised the Swedes in 2010 or 2011 not to visit London to interview Assange. An interview at that time could have prevented the long-running embassy standoff.”
Assange is still holed up in the embassy, at great risk to his physical and mental health, even though last year Sweden formally dropped an investigation that in reality it had not actually been pursuing for more than four years.
Now the UK (read US) authorities have a new, even less credible pretext for continuing to hold Assange: because he “skipped bail”. Apparently the price he should pay for this relatively minor infraction is more than five years of confinement.
Behind the scenes, Sweden wanted to drop the extradition case against Assange back in 2013. Why was this not made public? Because Britain persuaded Sweden to pretend that they still wished to pursue the case.
In other words, for more than four years Assange has been holed up in a tiny room, policed at great cost to British taxpayers, not because of any allegations in Sweden but because the British authorities wanted him to remain there. On what possible grounds could that be, one has to wonder? Might it have something to do with his work as the head of Wikileaks, publishing information from whistleblowers that has severely embarrassed the United States and the UK?
In fact, Assange should have walked free years ago if this was really about an investigation – a sham one at that – into an alleged sexual assault in Sweden. Instead, as Assange has long warned, there is a very different agenda at work: efforts to extradite him onwards to the US, where he could be locked away for good. That was why UN experts argued two years ago that he was being “arbitrarily detained” – for political crimes – not unlike the situation of dissidents we support in other parts of the world.
According to a new release of emails between officials, the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service on 18 October 2013, warning that Swedish law would not allow the case to be continued. This was, remember, after Sweden had repeatedly failed to take up an offer from Assange to interview him at the embassy in London, as had happened in 44 other cases between Sweden and Britain.
Ny wrote to the CPS: “We have found us to be obliged 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.”
Three days later, suggesting that legal concerns were far from anyone’s mind, she emailed the CPS again: “I am sorry this came as a [bad] surprise… I hope I didn’t ruin your weekend.”
In a similar vein, proving that this was about politics, not the law, the chief CPS lawyer handling the case in the UK, had earlier written to the Swedish prosecutors: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”
In December 2013, the unnamed CPS lawyer wrote to Ny: “I do not consider costs are a relevant factor in this matter.” This was at a time when it had been revealed that the policing of Assange’s detention in the embassy had cost Britain at that point £3.8 million. In another email from the CPS, it was noted: “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”
These are only fragments of the email correspondence, after most of it was destroyed by the CPS against its own protocols. The deletions appear to have been carried out to avoid releasing the electronic files to a tribunal hearing a freedom of information request.
Other surviving emails, according to a Guardian report last year, have shown that the CPS “advised the Swedes in 2010 or 2011 not to visit London to interview Assange. An interview at that time could have prevented the long-running embassy standoff.”
Assange is still holed up in the embassy, at great risk to his physical and mental health, even though last year Sweden formally dropped an investigation that in reality it had not actually been pursuing for more than four years.
Now the UK (read US) authorities have a new, even less credible pretext for continuing to hold Assange: because he “skipped bail”. Apparently the price he should pay for this relatively minor infraction is more than five years of confinement.
Let him go.
He is but the latest victim of the US empire.
Some day peace will come. Let's hope we're around to see what Melanie sings of.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, February 16, 2018. 'Progress' fifteen years later.
May 12th, Iraq is supposed to hold elections. Dr. Manuel Almeida (ARAB NEWS) notes:
Among the leading contenders is Al-Maliki himself, heading his State of Law Coalition, while several PMU leaders — some loyal to Tehran — have joined new Shiite coalitions. There have also been rumors that Masoud Barzani, the head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and former KRG president, has been testing the possibility of an alliance with Al-Maliki. This alliance would constitute a major challenge to the current prime minister’s re-election. Last month, Abadi announced his re-election bid at the head of a cross-sectarian bloc, the “Victory Alliance,” which collapsed after less than 48 hours.
The return of Al-Maliki to the premiership is a dreadful and not far-fetched prospect that would put many foreign investors on the back foot. The current vice-president remains a widely influential figure and leads the largest bloc in parliament.
But the key challenges facing the future Iraqi government and its hopes of building a much-needed investor-friendly environment do not end with the people’s leadership choice in a few months’ time. Corruption will remain a cause of major concern, and the related matters of transparency, accountability and even the existence or otherwise of qualified local staff to deliver the various projects will define success or failure.
Nouri al-Maliki's return? The possibility that the man whose actions caused the rise of ISIS in Iraq could still return as prime minister says a lot about how little has been accomplished in the last four years in Iraq.
The fact that Hayder and Nouri promise so little and differ so little also says a great deal about how bad things remain in Iraq.
Both men remain members of the Dawa political party and Hayder is a member of Nouri's political slate State of Law:
Kirk Sowell (CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE) observes:
Histyar Qader (NIQASH) reports:
Right now, it looks like the current prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, has a good chance of keeping the job. However his rival, Nouri al-Maliki, is also jockeying to take back the position he once held. Both men are Shiite Muslim politicians from the same party and are also bitter rivals, whose competition represents a wider split between Iraq’s Shiite Muslim-dominated political establishment. Both politicians and their supporters are working, in public and behind closed doors, to persuade the Kurds their cause will get better support.
The Kurdish politicians spent eight years under al-Maliki and the last four years, they have been dealing with a government headed by al-Abadi. Although the Kurds supported the Shiite parties after every election since 2005, both prime ministers have left them with bad memories.
One of the most powerful parties in the semi-autonomous northern region, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, or KDP, plans to wait until after the elections to decide who it might ally itself with, says Rasul Razgaey, a KDP spokesperson. Neither possibility looks particularly appetizing right now, Razgaey agreed.
“Al-Maliki stopped paying the salaries of Kurdish staff and al-Abadi attacked the region,” Razgaey told NIQASH; he is referring to budget quarrels between Iraqi Kurdish politicians during al-Maliki’s administration and more recently, the fact that, last October the Iraqi military, under instructions from al-Abadi, reclaimed territory that the Kurdish had previously controlled. “You should expect anything and everything in politics,” Razgaey continued. “There is no permanent friend or enemy. And anyway, we do not know if another party altogether might win the majority.”
The scrapping over who is a better friend to Iraq’s Kurds is highlighted by recent events. During an interview with the Iraqi Kurdish media house, Rudaw, al-Maliki said he believed it was wrong not to pay the salaries of Iraqi Kurdish civil servants – that is despite the fact that it was his government that originally made the decision. After the interview al-Abadi made new promises to finally send the money north and he also agreed to meet further Kurdish delegations to discuss the matter.
Seems like we're not the only ones who dismissed the lie that Nouri wasn't interested in being prime minister again.
There are no new developments in Iraqi politics, just more of the same.
Which explains a great deal of the ongoing frustration.
May 12th, Iraq is supposed to hold elections. Dr. Manuel Almeida (ARAB NEWS) notes:
Among the leading contenders is Al-Maliki himself, heading his State of Law Coalition, while several PMU leaders — some loyal to Tehran — have joined new Shiite coalitions. There have also been rumors that Masoud Barzani, the head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and former KRG president, has been testing the possibility of an alliance with Al-Maliki. This alliance would constitute a major challenge to the current prime minister’s re-election. Last month, Abadi announced his re-election bid at the head of a cross-sectarian bloc, the “Victory Alliance,” which collapsed after less than 48 hours.
The return of Al-Maliki to the premiership is a dreadful and not far-fetched prospect that would put many foreign investors on the back foot. The current vice-president remains a widely influential figure and leads the largest bloc in parliament.
But the key challenges facing the future Iraqi government and its hopes of building a much-needed investor-friendly environment do not end with the people’s leadership choice in a few months’ time. Corruption will remain a cause of major concern, and the related matters of transparency, accountability and even the existence or otherwise of qualified local staff to deliver the various projects will define success or failure.
Nouri al-Maliki's return? The possibility that the man whose actions caused the rise of ISIS in Iraq could still return as prime minister says a lot about how little has been accomplished in the last four years in Iraq.
The fact that Hayder and Nouri promise so little and differ so little also says a great deal about how bad things remain in Iraq.
Both men remain members of the Dawa political party and Hayder is a member of Nouri's political slate State of Law:
Kirk Sowell (CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE) observes:
Division within the SLC, and its
lead faction, the Dawa Party, to which Maliki and Abadi both belong,
left it unclear how Abadi would run. While Abadi kept his own counsel on
his plans throughout 2017, Iraqi and pan-Arab news
reports indicated he would run on a separate electoral list as a
representative of the Dawa Party. Maliki would again head the SLC, with
Dawa part of the alliance. It never seems to have occurred to
Abadi to clarify with Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission
(IHEC) if the party was permitted to run on two separate electoral
alliances. The issue was clarified on January 8 when IHEC ruled that parties could not do so according to article 29 of the 2015 Political Parties Law.
This led to a deadlock within the
Dawa Party because Maliki, who has remained its secretary-general, had
the party registered in his name as a way of blocking Abadi. When a
majority of the party’s leadership supported Abadi, on January 13 the
party decided to
not run at all, allowing candidates to join any coalition as
independents. Since registration of new coalitions closed on January 11,
the electoral map is now clear, though parties can join or leave
coalitions until February 10, when candidate lists are due. Among major
Shia leaders, Abadi registered the Nasr (“Victory”) Coalition, which quickly grew to
include 29 parties. Maliki again registered the SLC, Badr Organization
leader Hadi al-Ameri leads the Fatah (“Conquest”) Alliance, while
Muqtada al-Sadr founded a new party called Istiqama (“Integrity”), which will be part of a new coalition called
Sairun (“March Onward”). Ammar al-Hakim also registered the Hikma
Current, which he had formed in July 2017 after splitting from the
Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).
In an effort to ensure a win, Abadi pivoted from his conflict with Maliki to an attempted alliance with
Ameri’s Fatah. Abadi, who spent the past three years advocating
non-sectarian politics, in recent months even promising a
cross-sectarian coalition, endured enormous criticism for the cold
pragmatism that drove him to an alliance with Fatah, which is made up of
the political wings of Iran-backed militia groups. While Abadi’s
current list does have Sunni candidates, his bloc is dominated by Shia
Islamists—and because the Sunni candidates are not as prominent, it is
possible none of them will win in their provinces and Abadi could end up
with an all-Shia bloc in parliament. However, criticism remained even
after the Abadi–Ameri “Nasr al-Iraq” alliance, announced the
evening of January 14, collapsed less than 24 hours later when Fatah
withdrew. Its leadership seemed in disagreement over the benefits of
allying with Abadi; however, Ameri emphasized that
he was ready to join coalition after the elections. Other factions have
left since left Abadi’s Nasr coalition, including Hikma.
The election will also be a
referendum on Sadr, who has spent the past two years rebranding himself
as a unifying populist pushing for reforms and clean government, in part
by allying his Islamist followers with secular protesters. Yet the
protest movement that Sadr has led jointly with the secularists has been
controversial given the Sadrists’ own political ambitions. The Civil
Democratic Alliance (CDA), Sadr’s protest partners and Iraq’s main
secularist party, which won five seats in 2014, has split into four
parts, weakening their own chances of obtaining any seats. Furthermore,
efforts by Sadr’s appointed leader for Istiqama, Hassan al-Aquli, to obscure the fact that it is just another Sadrist party in secularist clothing could undermine its credibility.
Another challenge for Abadi is the boycott effort promoted
by activists on social media, mostly in response to the expectation
that the election will simply reproduce the current political elite. Yet
this could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It has long been clear
anecdotally that many Iraqis are dissatisfied with Islamist and
sectarian parties, and a 2017 survey from
the Baghdad-based Bayan Center confirmed this. Still, the superior
organizational resources of Shia Islamist-dominated lists, division
among secular factions, and the impact of the boycott mean that the
election is likely to produce another Shia Islamist-dominated
parliament.
Histyar Qader (NIQASH) reports:
Right now, it looks like the current prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, has a good chance of keeping the job. However his rival, Nouri al-Maliki, is also jockeying to take back the position he once held. Both men are Shiite Muslim politicians from the same party and are also bitter rivals, whose competition represents a wider split between Iraq’s Shiite Muslim-dominated political establishment. Both politicians and their supporters are working, in public and behind closed doors, to persuade the Kurds their cause will get better support.
The Kurdish politicians spent eight years under al-Maliki and the last four years, they have been dealing with a government headed by al-Abadi. Although the Kurds supported the Shiite parties after every election since 2005, both prime ministers have left them with bad memories.
One of the most powerful parties in the semi-autonomous northern region, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, or KDP, plans to wait until after the elections to decide who it might ally itself with, says Rasul Razgaey, a KDP spokesperson. Neither possibility looks particularly appetizing right now, Razgaey agreed.
“Al-Maliki stopped paying the salaries of Kurdish staff and al-Abadi attacked the region,” Razgaey told NIQASH; he is referring to budget quarrels between Iraqi Kurdish politicians during al-Maliki’s administration and more recently, the fact that, last October the Iraqi military, under instructions from al-Abadi, reclaimed territory that the Kurdish had previously controlled. “You should expect anything and everything in politics,” Razgaey continued. “There is no permanent friend or enemy. And anyway, we do not know if another party altogether might win the majority.”
The scrapping over who is a better friend to Iraq’s Kurds is highlighted by recent events. During an interview with the Iraqi Kurdish media house, Rudaw, al-Maliki said he believed it was wrong not to pay the salaries of Iraqi Kurdish civil servants – that is despite the fact that it was his government that originally made the decision. After the interview al-Abadi made new promises to finally send the money north and he also agreed to meet further Kurdish delegations to discuss the matter.
Seems like we're not the only ones who dismissed the lie that Nouri wasn't interested in being prime minister again.
There are no new developments in Iraqi politics, just more of the same.
Which explains a great deal of the ongoing frustration.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, @masoud_barzani said Kurds have dealt with successive central governments since the creation of #Iraq in the 1920s which have continuously disregarded the minority’s concerns, rights, and future.
#TwitterKurds
It's amazing considering the damage that Nouri has done to the Kurds and the damage that Hayder has done to the Kurds that now both men try to court the Kurds and hope that the historical memory as well as memories of recent times will be forgotten.
Memories across Iraq could lead to many not voting. The Sunni rich province of Anbar could be such an area. Kamal al-Ayash (NIQASH) reports:
There are over a million potential voters in Anbar and
there are 71 polling centres throughout the province, as well as offices
to oversee the polling centres. However, some of the latter are still
closed as they are based in areas that were, until relatively recently,
controlled by the extremist group known as the Islamic State.
According to Iraq’s Independent high Electoral Commission,
or IHEC, only 31 percent of potential voters in Anbar have updated their
entries on the electoral roll, a significant sign of political lethargy
and voter apathy.
Even local tribal leaders are expressing these kinds of
feelings. Previously community and tribal leaders would often persuade
their family members and distant relations who to vote for. Politicians
would spend time and money on sweetening up the tribal leaders to
exactly that end.
Nearly 15 years after the start of the Iraq War, the above passes for 'progress.'
Paul Blumenthal (HUFFINGTON POST) observes:
Fifteen years ago, on Feb. 15, 2003, somewhere between 6 million to 11 million people turned out in at least 650 cities around the world to protest the United States’ push to invade Iraq. It was the largest anti-war protest and remains the largest one-day global protest the world has ever seen.
Today, there are still 5,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and continued war on terror operations in close to a dozen other Middle Eastern, Central Asian and African nations. The war is ongoing. The anti-war movement, practically speaking, is not. What happened?
One explanation is that the anti-war push of 2003-2007 was successful — not in ending the war, but in knocking out the political party that started it.
The anti-war movement was not purely an anti-war movement, as Indiana University professor Fabio Rojas pointed out. He described the anti-war protest movement as “two groups coming together”: the core peace movement and the larger group of people who were registered Democrats and opposed to the Iraq war and then-Republican President George W. Bush, in general.
“Once the Democrats win the White House,” he said, “the two groups start moving apart.”
Me amongst millions more. 15 years ago today me and my mate Sally got the coach at the crack of dawn from outside the Leeds University steps and went down to London to call on Tony Blair's Government not to support Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Fifteen years on from Iraq, peace in the Middle East is further away than ever, says @EmilyThornberry.
Labour will end the bomb first, talk later approach that has made our country and the world less safe.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Fifteen years ago today millions of people marched against the Iraq War in more than 600 cities across the world. The biggest protest in history.
Fifteen years ago today, two million people marched against the disastrous and illegal Iraq war. We warned that the war would create catastrophe in the region and make us less safe at home but the establishment didn't listen. This must never happen again.
February 15, 2003
Fifteen years ago today millions of people marched against the Iraq War in more than 600 cities across the world. The biggest protest in history.
The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley and PACIFICA EVENING NEWS -- updated:
Smashing Pumpkins
39 minutes ago
Leave Susan alone
5 hours ago
Win at any cost Hillary
6 hours ago
If only they had listened
6 hours ago
