The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
The Guardian’s Deceit-riddled New Statement Betrays Both Julian Assange and Journalism
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In my recent post on the current hearings at the Old Bailey over Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States, where he would almost certainly be locked away for the rest of his life for the crime of doing journalism, I made two main criticisms of the Guardian.

A decade ago, remember, the newspaper worked closely in collaboration with Assange and Wikileaks to publish the Iraq and Afghan war diaries, which are now the grounds on which the US is basing its case to lock Assange behind bars in a super-max jail.

My first criticism was that the paper had barely bothered to cover the hearing, even though it is the most concerted attack on press freedom in living memory. That position is unconscionably irresponsible, given its own role in publishing the war diaries. But sadly it is not inexplicable. In fact, it is all too easily explained by my second criticism.

That criticism was chiefly levelled at two leading journalists at the Guardian, former investigations editor David Leigh and reporter Luke Harding, who together wrote a book in 2011 that was the earliest example of what would rapidly become a genre among a section of the liberal media elite, most especially at the Guardian, of vilifying Assange.

In my earlier post I set out Leigh and Harding’s well-known animosity towards Assange – the reason why one senior investigative journalist, Nicky Hager, told the Old Bailey courtroom the pair’s 2011 book was “not a reliable source”. That was, in part, because Assange had refused to let them write his official biography, a likely big moneymaker. The hostility had intensified and grown mutual when Assange discovered that behind his back they were writing an unauthorised biography while working alongside him.

But the bad blood extended more generally to the Guardian, which, like Leigh and Harding, repeatedly betrayed confidences and manoeuvred against Wikileaks rather the cooperating with it. Assange was particularly incensed to discover that the paper had broken the terms of its written contract with Wikileaks by secretly sharing confidential documents with outsiders, including the New York Times.

Leigh and Harding’s book now lies at the heart of the US case for Assange’s extradition to the US on so-called “espionage” charges. The charges are based on Wikileaks’ publication of leaks provided by Chelsea Manning, then an army private, that revealed systematic war crimes committed by the US military.

Inversion of truth

Lawyers for the US have mined from the Guardian book claims by Leigh that Assange was recklessly indifferent to the safety of US informants named in leaked files published by Wikileaks.

Assange’s defence team have produced a raft of renowned journalists, and others who worked with Wikileaks, to counter Leigh’s claim and argue that this is actually an inversion of the truth. Assange was meticulous about redacting names in the documents. It was they – the journalists, including Leigh – who were pressuring Assange to publish without taking full precautions.

Of course, none of these corporate journalists – only Assange – is being put on trial, revealing clearly that this is a political trial to silence Assange and disable Wikileaks.

But to bolster its feeble claim against Assange – that he was reckless about redactions – the US has hoped to demonstrate that in September 2011, long after publication of the Iraq and Afghan diaries, Wikileaks did indeed release a trove of documents – official US cables – that Assange failed to redact.

This is true. But it only harms Assange’s defence if the US can successfully play a game of misdirection – and the Guardian has been crucial to that strategy’s success. Until now the US has locked the paper into collaborating in its war on Assange and journalism – if only through its silence – by effectively blackmailing the Guardian with a dark, profoundly embarrassing secret the paper would prefer was not exposed.

In fact, the story behind the September 2011 release by Wikileaks of those unredacted documents is entirely different from the story the court and public is being told. The Guardian has conspired in keeping quiet about the real version of events for one simple reason – because it, the Guardian, was the cause of that release.

Betrayal of Assange and journalism

Things have got substantially harder for the paper during the extradition proceedings, however, as its role has come under increasing scrutiny – both inside and outside the courtroom. Now the Guardian has been flushed out, goaded into publishing a statement in response to the criticisms.

It has finally broken its silence but has done so not to clarify what happened nine years ago. Rather it has deepened the deception and steeped the paper even further in betrayal both of Assange and of press freedom.

The February 2011 Guardian book the US keeps citing contained something in addition to the highly contentious and disputed claim from Leigh that Assange had a reckless attitude to redacting names. The book also disclosed a password – one Assange had given to Leigh on strict conditions it be kept secret – to the file containing the 250,000 encrypted cables. The Guardian book let the cat out of the bag. Once it gave away Assange’s password, the Old Bailey hearings have heard, there was no going back.

Any security service in the world could now unlock the file containing the cables. And as they homed in on where the file was hidden at the end of the summer, Assange was forced into a desperate damage limitation operation. In September 2011 he published the unredacted cables so that anyone named in them would have advance warning and could go into hiding – before any hostile security services came looking for them.

Yes, Assange published the cables unredacted but he did so – was forced to do so – by the unforgivable actions of Leigh and the Guardian.

But before we examine the paper’s deceitful statement of denial, we need to interject two further points.


First, it is important to remember that claims of the damage this all caused were intentionally and grossly inflated by the US to create a pretext to vilify Assange and later to justify his extradition and jailing. In fact, there is no evidence that any informant was ever harmed as a result of Wikileaks’ publications – something that was even admitted by a US official at Manning’s trial. If someone had been hurt or killed, you can be sure that the US would be clamouring about it at the Old Bailey hearings and offering details to the media.

Second, the editor of a US website, Cryptome, pointed out this week at the hearings that he had published the unredacted cables a day before Wikileaks did. He noted that US law enforcement agencies had shown zero interest in his publication of the file and had never asked him to take it down. The lack of concern makes explicit what was always implicit: the issue was never really about the files, redacted or not; it was always about finding a way to silence Assange and disable Wikileaks.

The Guardian’s deceptions

Every time the US cites Leigh and Harding’s book, it effectively recruits the Guardian against Assange and against freedom of the press. Hanging over the paper is effectively a threat that – should it not play ball with the US campaign to lock Assange away for life – the US could either embarrass it by publicly divulging its role or target the paper for treatment similar to that suffered by Assange.

And quite astoundingly, given the stakes for Assange and for journalism, the Guardian has been playing ball – by keeping quiet. Until this week, at least.

Under pressure, the Guardian finally published on Friday a short, sketchy and highly simplistic account of the past week’s hearings, and then used it as an opportunity to respond to the growing criticism of its role in publishing the password in the Leigh and Harding book.

The Guardian’s statement in its report of the extradition hearings is not only duplicitous in the extreme but sells Assange down the river by evading responsibility for publishing the password. It thereby leaves him even more vulnerable to the US campaign to lock him up.

Here is its statement:

Let’s highlight the deceptions:

1. The claim that the password was “temporary” is just that – a self-exculpatory claim by David Leigh. There is no evidence to back it up beyond Leigh’s statement that Assange said it. And the idea that Assange would say it defies all reason. Leigh himself states in the book that he had to bully Assange into letting him have the password precisely because Assange was worried that a tech neophyte like Leigh might do something foolish or reckless. Assange needed a great deal of persuading before he agreed. The idea that he was so concerned about the security of a password that was to have a life-span shorter than a mayfly is simply not credible.

2. Not only was the password not temporary, but it was based very obviously on a complex formula Assange used for all Wikileaks’ passwords to make them impossible for others to crack but easier for him to remember. By divulging the password, Leigh gave away Assange’s formula and offered every security service in the world the key to unlocking other encrypted files. The claim that Assange had suggested to Leigh that keeping the password secret was not of the most vital importance is again simply not credible.

3. But whether or not Leigh thought the password was temporary is beside the point. Leigh, as an experienced investigative journalist and one who had little understanding of the tech world, had a responsibility to check with Assange that it was okay to publish the password. Doing anything else was beyond reckless. This was a world Leigh knew absolutely nothing about, after all.

But there was a reason Leigh did not check with Assange: he and Harding wrote the book behind Assange’s back. Leigh had intentionally cut Assange out of the writing and publication process so that he and the Guardian could cash in on the Wikileak founder’s early fame. Not checking with Assange was the whole point of the exercise.

4. It is wrong to lay all the blame on Leigh, however. This was a Guardian project. I worked at the paper for years. Before any article is published, it is scrutinised by backbench editors, sub-editors, revise editors, page editors and, if necessary, lawyers and one of the chief editors. A Guardian book on the most contentious, incendiary publication of a secret cache of documents since the Pentagon Papers should have gone through at least the same level of scrutiny, if not more.

So how did no one in this chain of supervision pause to wonder whether it made sense to publish a password to a Wikileaks file of encrypted documents? The answer is that the Guardian was in a publishing race to get its account of the ground-shattering release of the Iraq and Afghan diaries out before any of its rivals, including the New York Times and Der Spiegel. It wanted to take as much glory as possible for itself in the hope of winning a Pulitzer. And it wanted to settle scores with Assange before his version of events was given an airing in either the New York Times or Der Spiegel books. Vanity and greed drove the Guardian’s decision to cut corners, even if it meant endangering lives.

5. Nauseatingly, however, the Guardian not only seeks to blame Assange for its own mistake but tells a glaring lie about the circumstances. Its statement says: “No concerns were expressed by Assange or WikiLeaks about security being compromised when the book was published in February 2011. WikiLeaks published the unredacted files in September 2011.”

It is simply not true that Assange and Wikileaks expressed no concern. They expressed a great deal of concern in private. But they did not do so publicly – and for very good reason.

Any public upbraiding of the Guardian for its horrendous error would have drawn attention to the fact that the password could be easily located in Leigh’s book. By this stage, there was no way to change the password or delete the file, as has been explained to the Old Bailey hearing by a computer professor, Christian Grothoff, of Bern University. He has called Leigh a “bad faith actor”.


So Assange was forced to limit the damage quietly, behind the scenes, before word of the password’s publication got out and the file was located. Ultimately, six months later, when the clues became too numerous to go unnoticed, and Cryptome had published the unredacted file on its website, Assange had no choice but to follow suit.

This is the real story, the one the Guardian dare not tell. Despite the best efforts of the US lawyers and the judge at the Old Bailey hearings, the truth is finally starting to emerge. Now it is up to us to make sure the Guardian is not allowed to continue colluding in this crime against Assange and the press freedoms he represents.

(Republished from Jonathan Cook by permission of author or representative)
Hide 25 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Personally, it’s not credible that the password’s publishing was an oversight, no matter how rushed the book was. The password is a totally irrelevant detail, story-wise; there’s no reason to include it. And if it were rushed, we’d expect more mistakes in the text. Are there spelling mistakes, or other errors of fact, that would indicate the usual internal scrutiny was bypassed?

    I can maybe buy the Guardian’s assertion that Leigh believed the password was temporary, and chalk it up to a misunderstanding on his part. Perhaps he thought it made the story ever-so-slightly more dramatic, and that sharing the password was so inconsequential, security-wise, that it didn’t occur to him, or anybody else at the Guardian, not to do it. But it’s a huge stretch.

    Far more likely is that there was at least someone at the Guardian who understood how grotesquely irresponsible revealing the password was, and someone else who understood it was unnecessary to include it to tell the story, and therefore that the leaking of the password was no accident.

    • Replies: @lysias
    , @Antiwar7
  2. Tusk says:

    Isn’t Harding behind the claims that Assange met with Russians, a claim that turned out to be complete fabrication. I don’t see how anyone would trust a serial liar.

    • Agree: gaston julia
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  3. I can maybe buy the Guardian’s assertion that Leigh believed the password was temporary

    Nope: mostly because it can’t possibly be true.

    Leigh was told that the key would decrypt a file that was already in wide distribution, and that re-encrypting the contents and re-serving the file wasn’t a possible solution.

    It was made clear that the key would decrypt any of the thousands of existing copies, and that making those copies go away was impossible (mostly because there were dozens of copies in distributed storage – on freenet, for example).

    So Leigh is just bullshitting, which is not remotely out of character.

    When they were originally given a key for a subset of the cables, they immediately tested it against the ‘big’ file and started whining that it didn’t work.

    That – by itself – shows that these ‘media partners’ could not be trusted then, and that they are lying now.

    Leigh and Harding’s careers are pretty much over (which is why Harding had to resort to outright confabulation about Manafort). Wait until it becomes clear that they’re balls-deep in the protection of Epstein’s ilk.


    That said…

    JA was a fool to trust any major media outlet with access. He was told that at the time.

    For a start, if they had the key, JA himself was no longer relevant to their interests. I think that might have been a thing that worked to their advantage: Assange never wanted to be the public face of Wikileaks, and was only ever a reluctant ‘spokesman’.

    It was a situation in which any betrayal of trust was irreparable; as such “Who to trust with the key?” becomes the critical question.

    Nobody on our side of things should ever consider “The editor of a major newspaper” as a potentially sensible answer – but particularly so when they display that kind of behaviour when given a key to a limited version.

  4. @Kratoklastes

    Well, I don’t know all the ins and outs. But like I said: it would be a huge stretch if true; far more likely, it was deliberate.

    I can only speculate as to why, but “to undermine and discredit Wikileaks” would be at the top of my list of possible motives.

    Further baseless speculation: I find it curious that the release of such a large cache of secret documents would lead to, as I recall, exactly zero embarrassment or scandal or negative consequence of any kind. Even the supposed leaker – an agent of US military intelligence – got a presidential pardon. Meanwhile, the Guardian journalists who collaborated with Assange deliberately leaked the unredacted versions of the cables, which was used to discredit and prosecute him. Also, the cables were given to Assange the same year he was hit with bogus rape charges.

    Was the whole thing a set-up? There’s no proof of that, and so the answer is definitely yes

  5. Sean says:

    He had fun, but according to the US government, Assange is going to get a term in prison of between four and six years. People tend to think of secret agents as a breed apart but I doubt anyone would do five years in prison just to keep their cover story intact. On British TV in 2012, Murray revealed the name of the alleged rape victim whose complaint about Assange led to him being arrested. Murray is currently facing a contempt of court charge for revealing the identity of the complainants against the obese former Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond for attempted rape of civil servants while he was roaring drunk.

    It’s perhaps understandable he took up Salmond’s cause. To my eyes Muray looks like a man who is no stranger to heavy drinking, he is of course supposed to have frequented houses of ill repute in Uzbekistan and dumped his wife and family for a belly dancer, who had to perform stark naked in London because Murray’s wife had took everything from him in the divorce. Like Murray, Assange indulged every appetite in a foreign country, tried to make a fool of the law, and is going to suffer the predictable consequences, which will be far less severe than what happened to the hapless Manning. Assange’s tight-fisted treatment of his dupe was disgraceful.

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
    , @lysias
  6. @Sean

    I wouldn’t have expected any other post from you, full of hatred. Murray has written about Salmond and about the persecution that is dircted against him. It’s better to read what he writes about such themes than the outpourings of “Sean”.

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
  7. As the article has to do with a judgement, I think that it would be relevant to read the article by David Kinder, “The Rise of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Cult”. (I’m still reading it). On the one hand it tells about justice in the US and the role played by Ginsburg in it. On the other hand it tells about a very modern phaenomenon, the mythical cult of personalities, telling stories about them that has very little to do with the reality. It happened with McCain who was treated as a national hero. It happened with Shimon Peres who was considered a peace engel (and before him Rabin), and with Amos Oz. Now the same cult is rising, this time about RB Ginsburg. On the other hand nothing came about Stephen Cohen. Nobody says that the accomplishment of those people (which I mentioned before Cohen) is near zero or bellow zero. Here the article by David Kinder (I found it reading comments about a very fine article by Jonathan Ofir about her):

  8. @UncommonGround

    This commentary was not really needed. Someone could have said something similar in a more elegant way…..

    • Replies: @anonymous
  9. lysias says:
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    The intel community wanted an excuse to go after Assange. Leigh, Harding, and others were in on a plot to provide them with that excuse. It was no mistake.

    • Agree: Antiwar7
  10. lysias says:

    Careful. You’re revealing that your Zionist masters support the persecutions of Assange, Salmond, and Murray.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @James Charles
  11. Antiwar7 says:
    @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    Personally, it’s not credible that the password’s publishing was an oversight, no matter how rushed the book was. The password is a totally irrelevant detail, story-wise; there’s no reason to include it.

    Plus, making up a password would have fit the story better.

    If that actually was a mistake, and that many people looked over it, that would prove how incompetent they all were. In particular, lawyers being OK with publishing a password? That’s a corporate no-no, for all sorts of liability reasons. Hard to believe it was a mistake.

  12. Sean says:

    I am indeed the puppet of forces intent of driving Assange, Salmond, and Murray to destruction. That is because I, like Assange, Salmond, and Murray, am a machines created by genes for the purpose of projecting their existence into the future whatever that costs the vehicle for those genes. Assange, Salmond, and Murray were driven to acquire status and then copulate with any nubile women that status attracts (or in Samond case anyone handy when he got inebriated). These superannuated Don Juan’s were all on Russia Toady, sorry Today and now two of them are going to prison, the genes will continue on.

    But in the West these biological urges are restrained, so women have the protection of the law against such lechers and sexual predators and those ‘journalists’ who shameful expose to publicity traumatised victims of sexual assault. Dumping your wife for an impoverished foreign bimbo, ejaculating semen into an unwitting female, or violating state employees because you are a government minister is not frowned upon in your neck of the woods?

    • Replies: @Donald A Thomson
  13. @Tusk

    Isn’t Harding also a cheerleader for Syria “intervention” and a senior anti-Russia propagandist?

  14. “Murray married his first wife, Fiona Ann Kennedy, in 1984.[1] They had two children before separating in 2004.[15][62] Murray married Nadira Alieva, an Uzbek woman, on 6 May 2009. They have a son.[63]”

  15. @Sean

    You seem unaware of women who enjoy sex with men. [email protected]

    • Replies: @Sean
  16. In a major turn of events in the Assange courtroom, the judge’s decision has been delayed until after the new year and after the USA election, which probably won’t be decided until after new year either.

    This came about after both Assange defence and prosecution lawyers, were shamed with a démarche about frauds upon the court involving both sides of lawyers, and the egregious conflict of interest in the two judges, the Chief Judge’s son having spent the last decade selling ‘anti-Assange cyber security’ and using Assange’s name for marketing, with millions of revenues for his company Darktrace

    The court delay request and the judge’s sudden indulgence on delaying a decision, was noted in the weekend report by Aussie Binoy Kampmark

    The démarche presented to the lawyers, and the whole fake and fraudulent nature not only of the Assange trial but of Assange himself – a CIA-Israeli asset in fact – were nicely summarised in a post on 4chan the other day, with reference links:

    Assange Trial Shit Show Is Corrupt & Weird

    Judge’s son selling millions of ‘anti-Assange cyber-security’ at Darktrace

    Defence lawyers seem to get USA funds to sabotage everything

    Defence lawyer thrown under train, everyone mum about it

    Julian Assange himself seems CIA-Mossad, Netanyahu said so

    Assange maybe never ‘lived’ in London embassy, maybe not in prison now

    People who trust Assange turn up dead, Wikileaks ‘we know nothing’


    Everything is wrong about the judges & lawyers & Julian

    Chief Judge Lady Emma Arbuthnot had run case personally, now oversees, her junior Vanessa Baraitser took over

    Judge Arbuthnot’s son Alex selling millions of ‘anti-Assange’ & cyber security for 10 years almost since Assange launched, big company Darktrace, Alex uses Assange name for marketing, trial is advert for judge’s son’s business

    Pro-Israel, anti-9-11 truth Assange named as CIA-Mossad 10 years ago by Israel’s Netanyahu, & Zbig Brzezinski on PBS News Hour 29 Nov 2010

    Assange ‘leaked’ to help Rothschilds ruin rival bank, had Rothschild Trust lawyer, Rothschild relative posted bail

    People who trusted Julian dead, Peter W Smith after giving Wikileaks files, Assange denies it; Seth Rich; Doughty Chambers Assange lawyer John Jones thrown under train, Assange & Doughty mum

    Assange not de-platformed from raising shekels, so USA gov can launder funds to bribe Assange ‘defence’ lawyers … Defence team hiding USA Virginia federal judge corruption file at DOJ which all know would block Assange extradition

    Seems Assange did NOT ‘live’ in London Ecuador embassy for 7 years, police & MI5 moving him in&out for meetings etc; might not be in prison now, ‘suicidal’ Assange maybe more fakery

    ‘Arrest of Julian Assange is Theatre, Assange a Rothschild-Israeli Operative’
    ‘Assange & Snowden are CIA ‘Rat Traps’

  17. Sean says:
    @Donald A Thomson

    I am well aware that Wikileaks colleagues of Assange have spoken of women being willing to have sex with him after spending 10 minutes with him and how he took those opportunities. He went to an anti-war seminar in Sweden. The leftie humanitarian females he met seemed to have thought that he was the opposite of a callous warmonger. but men want to go to war to get sex basically, and Assange was just cutting out the dangerous part and getting straight to the fun part, at which he was MORE brutal that your average paratrooper, given that he would not take no for an answer and and ejaculated into his sexual partners by coercion and substifuge, all to the end of procreation. The conspiracy against Assange was by his own DNA, which drove him to acquire status and parlay that into mating opportunities and doubling down of the impregnation aspect; as when inveigling his way into a women’s homes then pouncing and using sleight of hand to burst the condom. A trick he doubtless got away with many times before encountering sturdy Scandinavian feminists of lesbian tendencies.

    He is not the first man to be dazzled by Swedish women, after a rapid succession of encounters in his ten days total in the country, Assange applied for a residence permit to live and work in Sweden. He did not leave the UK when the allegations of consensual sex turning into an assault emerged. If he wanted to avoid prison, he ought to have left for Ecuador or back to Australia, which is his country. But he didn’t get the same opportunities with multiple women in his own land. He decided to delay the inevitable and wasn’t lonely in his Embassy bolt hole either. Now he is moving into his 50s and reduced physical condition of later middle age so would not be enjoying as much play anyway. He’ll get a five year sentence, write a book, and come out to find that the world has moved on and he will have to subsist on those Bitcoins being donated by weak minded fools.

    When all is said and done Assange is not a British subject like Gary McKinnon (who the British government point blank refused to hand over to America) and he did not hack into the American government’s most secret computers looking for information about UFOs like the hapless McKinnon. No, Assange conspired with a willing dupe with access to secret databases to steal information and publish it. Now he suddenly wants Britain–amid a confluence of crises–to assert its national sovereignty against the world’s most powerful country so he does not have to do a couple of dozen months at Club Fed.

  18. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Read “Sean’s” subsequent contributions to this thread — you might see fit to retract your retraction.

    • Replies: @Sean
  19. Sean says:

    “Glenn” Greenwald was a journalist working at The Guardian when he became the first person contacted by Edward Snowden. While Snowden is maybe misguided, his bona fides are beyond question, and Snowden was critical of Assange’s mass release of information. By 2016 the glory days of Collateral Murder were long gone and Assange having jumped bail on a sexual assault extradition charge was pretty clearly trying to influence the US election if not for Trump, then against Clinton. the releases were coming just when she started to gain momentum. Assange (not much of a hacker himself) almost certainly was using information that came from the Russian GRU intelligence services, whose hacker skills are on a par with their poisoning skills.

    Assange turned against the The Guardian for reasons that are nothing to do with US diplomatic traffic being published along with the location of their tactical nuclear weapons and vulnerable pipeline and communication cables. After his arrest, the Guardian newspaper printed the actual detailed allegations against him by two Swedish women. Assange was furious and cut off all contact with the Guardian. He then got bail because a number of British people, by no means all of them wealthy, put up the money so he could be free and provided him with somewhere to live. He was treated fairly by Britain and its journalism (“credit-stealing, credit-whoring, back-stabbing industry’ ” according to Julian)

    He is in prison because he absconded from bail and left those who stood surety for him–many of modest means–ruined or at least in financial distress. He is a convicted criminal in the UK because lied to those well meaning folk who believed in him and let them down; I am supposed to assume good faith journalism on his part because he says actual professional journalists like David Leigh w are making up these stories about various remarks of Assange in private conversation? Assange also says Ian Hislop the satirical magazine editor lied about what Assange said on the phone. Assange repeatedly claimed to be claimed to be suing the The Guardian over the Leigh book about him and Wikileaks, but the legal action never materialised.

    According to former Ambassador Craig Murray, he was accused by his British Diplomatic service employers of trading passports for sex and being always drunk, which is all lies he says. Despite the fact that he could have no direct or indirect knowledge of the truth of the allegations by the Swedish women against Assange, Murray revealed the names of Assange’s Swedish accusers eight years ago. Now he is in trouble for identifying the women who made complaints of rape against Alex Salmond, which Murray also seems to think is some kind of conspiracy.

  20. @lysias

    In Sean’s ‘neck of the woods’ it is OK to invade Iraq, bomb Libya and occupy Syria bringing about millions of deaths and refugees.

    The deaths and refugees are ignored.

    S/he is outraged about one man’s divorce, someone who was found not guilty in court and someone who engaged in consensual sex.

    S/he is a shill for the plutocrats and the M.I.C..

    • Replies: @Sean
  21. Bottom line is the U.S. military aided by its government, broke legalities by killing many Iraqi civilians. Probably Geneva Convention guidelines for who not to target and kill. The U.S. Government is fully culpable for all deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s right, their soldiers, their contracted mercenaries, support staff that provided meals and all people of Iraq and Afghanistan who were murdered. Because of all my government’s coups against other countries’ governments which fomented murder and destabilization before 9-11, has surely come back to bite us in the ass. And our government continues to murder, pillage and overthrow other countries.

    Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Norton should be hailed as heroes instead of traitors by the U.S. Government.

    • Agree: Antiwar7
  22. Sean says:
    @James Charles

    Link to the bit where narcissistic Assange reduces leftie lawyer Helena Kennedy to appalled eye rolling.

    Some women like the arrogance on display above, but some don’t, which is why Assange finds himself in his current humiliated position, with only misogynists, Muslims and his willing sex slaves for company.

    • Replies: @James Charles
  23. @Sean

    In Sean’s ‘neck of the woods’ it is OK to invade Iraq, bomb Libya and occupy Syria bringing about millions of deaths and refugees.

    The deaths and refugees are ignored.

    S/he is outraged about . . . someone who engaged in consensual sex.

    S/he is a shill for the plutocrats and the M.I.C..

  24. Sean says:

    Assange was not an anti War activist turned hacker, he is a long time self aggrandizer and sensitive information thief who was treated very leniently for it and left alone because he was living in an advanced Western democracy. He showed one video of some innocent people being killed but who would suppose that the death of innocent people did not go without saying in any war. The internal population and countries of the Middle East were at each other’s throats, with conflict held down by brutal family dictatorships and these internecine conflicts are caused by their backward beliefs and non-nation state allegiances. It is also why that region is so weak and unable to defend itself. Assange- Wikileaks revealing American diplomatic reports of Gaddafi living in corrupt splendour and losing his grip was the begining of the end for his regime.

    You are giving Assange too much credit for being an effective anti war campaigner and too little for causing conflicts by revealing sensitive information about Libya (and Assad’s Syria) damaging the modus vivendi system of international diplomacy and enraging subject populations. Complaining about about plutocrats in a democratic country sounds great, until one sees you are sympathetic to foreign family dictatorships where Assange would not have lasted 15 minutes.

  25. Ronnie says:

    Including at the Guardian, the Jews and their tools at the MSM find a way to do what the Goverment (CIA etc) want done or said and in return the government supports the Jews and Israel. It is no more complicated than this.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.