84

“No One is Above the Law:” You Have to be Kidding

James O’Neill

Theresa May declaring “no one is above the law” in Parliament, and somehow maintaining a straight face.

Reacting to the arrest and detention in British custody of Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy, UK Prime Minister Theresa May said that the arrest confirms “that no one is above the law.” This was a phrase repeated multiple times by members of her government.

It is, or ought to be, a fundamental principle of a society based upon the rule of law, that this is indeed the case. If an individual, or group of individuals, transgress upon the law then they ought to be held accountable. That ought to apply regardless of that person’s status. We know of course that this is an ideal not always applied. There is ample sociological evidence to that effect.

A related principle is that a person is presumed innocent until they either plead guilty or are found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction applying the law to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether or not Mr Assange will ever receive a fair trial is a moot point. There has been a veritable torrent of prejudicial pre-trial publicity. Even the Judge who dealt with Mr Assange’s charge of breaching his bail conditions (in respect of non-existent Swedish charges of alleged sexual assault) felt the need to describe Mr Assange as a “narcissist,” the relevance of which to a charge of breaching bail escapes me.

The judge then declined sentencing jurisdiction and transferred Mr Assange to a higher court, which had the capacity to impose a 12-month sentence instead of the six months available to a lowly magistrate. Mr Assange had spent six and a half years holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, a detention that a United Nations panel found to be arbitrary and contrary to his human rights. Again, the legal justification for transferring Mr Assange to a higher court for admittedly breaching his bail on non-existent charges escapes me.

Returning to Mrs May’s triumphalist claim that no-one is above the law, her rhetoric immediately raises the question: if that is indeed true why is she and members of the government and those of governments before her not standing trial for the many and egregious breaches of international law perpetrated by successive British governments?

Let us look briefly that just four examples from recent history where, if indeed the standard of “no one is above the law” truly applied, it would rapidly deplete the ranks of United Kingdom politicians, past and present.

Afghanistan. In December 2001 the United States and its allies, including the United Kingdom, invaded Afghanistan, ostensibly because the Taliban Government refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington DC. The Taliban Government, far from refusing the United States request, asked for evidence of bin Laden’s alleged involvement in the attacks. That is after all, the basic requirement of the “rules based legal order”. That evidence was never provided.

We now know that the decision to invade Afghanistan was made in July 2001, two months before the 9/11 attacks. The real reasons for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan had more to do with the refusal of the Afghan government to give the contract for a gas pipeline from the Caspian basin to an American company, and instead of giving the contract to the Argentinian Bridas Corporation.

17 ½ years later the United States and the United Kingdom are you still there. Millions of Afghans were forced into seeking refuge across the border, principally into Iran and Pakistan. The heroin trade, much reduced under the Taliban, now flourishes under US protection. Military bases are used as black sites for torture as well is providing springboards for hybrid warfare against the former Soviet republics on Afghanistan’s border and in China’s Xinjiang province. The latter is a key element in China’s BRI that the United States is determined to oppose and undermine at every opportunity.

In 2017 when an International Criminal Court prosecutor announced an intention to investigate war crimes allegedly committed by United States and Allied forces in Afghanistan, the United States reaction was to issue threats and a refusal to grant visas to ICC investigators. The May government was completely silent about this blatant attempt to obstruct justice, in itself a serious criminal offence.

Iraq. In 2003 the United Kingdom was a strong supporter of the Bush regime plan to invade Iraq, which just happened to be a major oil producer. There was the usual flimflam about Iraq’s alleged violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions dating back to the 1990 Gulf war. That had as much credence as the tales of Iraq’s fabled weapons of mass destruction.

Any doubt that this was anything other then a blatant regime change operation, with other goals including destroying one of Israel’s designated enemies; getting the United States a stronger foothold in the middle east; and turning over Iraq’s oil production to the major US and other western corporations; was demolished by, inter alia, Britain’s own Chilcott report.

And the number of prosecutions for this illegal war of aggression that devastated a society, gave birth to the ISIS plague, killed more than 1 million civilians and made millions more refugees? Absolutely zero.

Libya. After a massive propaganda campaign, nearly all of it entirely false, against Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1973. This resolution authorised the imposition of a no fly zone over Libyan territory and the right to use “all necessary measures” to prevent attacks on civilians. It did not authorise what NATO allies the United Kingdom and France did next, which was to apply massive military force to Libya.

This resulted in the destruction of a country, which up until that point had enjoyed Africa’s highest living standard; the brutal murder of its leader without even the pretence of minimum legal standards; a massive exodus of refugees; and an ongoing Civil War in which the United Kingdom is backing longtime CIA asset General Haftar.

How many United Kingdom politicians have been held accountable for these multiple breaches of international law? Again, absolutely zero.

Chagos Islands. This was a uniquely British piece of international banditry, albeit on behalf of the United States who wanted a military base in the Indian Ocean. The Labour government of Harold Wilson was only too happy to oblige. The short version of the chronicle of sustained and systematic abuse of the Chagos Islanders is that Mauritius was forced to agree to the Chagos Islanders being severed from their control. The Islanders were in turn forcibly evicted from their homes under appalling circumstances. The island was then handed over to the Americans for military purposes. There is strong evidence that the island of Diego Garcia, the principal island in the Chagos Group, is also used as a ‘black site’ for illegal renditions and torture.

The entire horror story is documented in the opinion of the International Court of Justice (www.icj-cij.org 25 February 2019) and an excellent summary by Craig Murray on his website (www.craigmurray.org.uk 26 March 2019). The majority opinion of the court (13:1) was that the United Kingdom was in breach of multiple legal obligations. The court rejected all of the arguments put forward by the United Kingdom to justify what it had done. The reaction of the UK government to the decision was to announce that it was going to ignore it.

The reaction to the ICJ decision provides the clearest possible illustration of the gap between the rhetoric of May about no-one being above the law, and the reality daily confronted by the victims of great power machinations.

Although it is probably of little comfort to Mr Assange, his experiences have helped to shed light on the brutality and ruthless disregard for the legal and moral principles reportedly held by those espousing sanctimonious claptrap in the House of Commons and elsewhere.

Mr Assange is not the first victim of imperial lawlessness. He will definitely not be the last.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
84 Comments
newest
oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
harry stotle
harry stotle
Apr 19, 2019 3:33 PM

MPs cheer the news Julian is a step closer to being delivered to the US security apparatus.

Yet not a shred of outrage from the ‘liberal media’ – one can only conclude they are part and parcel of the cryptofascism that has enveloped so much of our political and economic thinking.

Dark days for all of us, but especially for Julian Assange.

Oslo - Norway
Oslo - Norway
Apr 21, 2019 8:25 AM
Reply to  harry stotle

Hello friends, welcome to our latest Honest Government Ad. I was mid-way through writing an Aussie election episode when news broke of the US Government unsealing an indictment against Julian Assange. I wasn’t planning to make a video about this, but after seeing the sheer avalanche of bullshit that followed in the media, I just had to.

Thx to ‘thejuicemedia’ – (video only 2 min.) https://youtu.be/1efOs0BsE0g

auntiebuna
auntiebuna
Apr 21, 2019 8:39 AM
Reply to  Oslo - Norway

Oslo- thanks so much for introducing me to thejuicemedia. I am still chuckling over this superb and effective video while sending it out to anyone I can think of.

Headlice
Headlice
Apr 19, 2019 1:17 PM

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-18/half-england-owned-1-population

How can there be any justice when half your lands are controlled by the 1%.?

Headlice
Headlice
Apr 19, 2019 12:14 PM

http://johnhelmer.net/virtue-signalling-wont-save-julian-assange-british-law-might/#more-20742

We have a turd presently for a PM in Australia. Scott Morrison is his name.

The next turd in line for the job is Bill Shorten. His mother in law is the immediate ex Governor General of my fair land. We font have democracy in Australia. We have treasoness dogs to pick from for leaders. The purest of scum always floats to the top.

binra
binra
Apr 19, 2019 1:45 PM
Reply to  Headlice

I read of an FBI whistleblower – cant recall who – but he checked prospective candidates for promotion in the Judiciary and over the years saw that those with ‘dirt’ were those who were promoted.

The underlying issue is of top down control – through vectors of leverage.

You throw a lot of shit around – but none ever sticks to you?
If that was your predilection and I was wanting to make an asset of you, I might recruit you without you being aware of what you were being brought into – because you always wanted to deal the shit. Once in – you are deep in shit. At least that is the nature of being ‘owned’.

If enough personal haters can post here, the whole site can be invalidated by its documentable tolerance and support. It may be that your research is summarised in your succinct prose – but that is for you to show us after having enjoyed your dump.

No I am not in any sense defending corruption, but nor do I join in support of retardation as an ‘answer’.

harry stotle
harry stotle
Apr 19, 2019 10:55 AM

With regard to the legal dimensions this short animation by Infobytes gives an excellent precis while highlighting the fact the authorities case againt Julian has got more holes in it than a supersized chunk of Emmental cheese.

As I see it we all have a responsibilty to try and undo the disinformation and lies promoted by US intelligence agencies via their usual Quislings in the media.

Headlice
Headlice
Apr 19, 2019 10:02 AM
auntiebuna
auntiebuna
Apr 19, 2019 10:29 AM
Reply to  Headlice

Now that the Netherlands has also become a colony of the USA, (by jumping on the “let’s get Maduro” bandwagon), you should see the disgusting way the corporate “news” is handling the arrest of Julian Assange over here. It’s all about titillating the peasants with hints about his alleged sexual escapades in Sweden.

tedcarruthers2618
tedcarruthers2618
Apr 19, 2019 4:40 AM

Prince Phillip appears to be above the law….anyone else would have been prosecuted for causing that accident….hardly surprising is it…Britain is THE country which closely resembles Orwells vision of the future…an all seeing secret police known by the innocuous sounding MI5…..CCTV cameras everywhere and the leader making patently contradictory comments…..an absolutely perfidious ruling elite making buckets of money merely by owning land….Britain is in dire need of revolution….as suggested by Thomas Jefferson….cleaning out the muck like you would a stable.
As long as there is enough food to go around there ain’t going to be any revolution….The British prefer to be down the pub….even as their accumulated myths begin to bring down the walls.

Shardlake
Shardlake
Apr 19, 2019 2:24 PM

I see a report of yesterday (April 18th) that one of the two ladies injured in the road traffic accident earlier this year involving Prince Philip is to be prosecuted for two alleged motoring offences dug up from October last year in which she could potentially lose her driving licence, while the Duke has been observed recently driving his new Range Rover on crown estate property without wearing his seat belt.

Jerry Alatalo
Jerry Alatalo
Apr 19, 2019 3:17 AM

Theresa May – author of “How I Lost the Skripals: My Shocking Story of the Greatest Mystery of Our Time” – brags that “Nobody is above the law”! What a sick and vomit-inducing joke is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Badger Down
Badger Down
Apr 19, 2019 1:00 AM

This is great news. May is going to go after war-criminal Tony Blair. She just might win my vote for her party.

British Justice
British Justice
Apr 18, 2019 10:48 PM

This is a recipe/guidance/trick for governance used extensively by the Israelis:

The elites decide [what the law should be] while the commoners, often left in the dark, live in deception.

Israel pushes hard this recipe far and wide [political interference] to produce Zionist friendly policies across the world.

Narrative
Narrative
Apr 18, 2019 10:35 PM

“Theresa May .. maintaining a straight face”

Botulinum toxin (Botox) face?

peasant43
peasant43
Apr 18, 2019 8:46 PM

If typing were doing, you’d all be ruling.

Antipropo
Antipropo
Apr 18, 2019 11:25 PM
Reply to  peasant43

Is there a point to your comment or were you just bored? By the way, you typed it.

peasant43
peasant43
Apr 18, 2019 11:59 PM
Reply to  Antipropo

Your contempt is my point.

witters
witters
Apr 19, 2019 2:17 AM
Reply to  peasant43

Add my contempt to your “point.”

Betrayed planet
Betrayed planet
Apr 19, 2019 2:56 PM
Reply to  peasant43

Another twat devoid of critical thinking skills. Oh lord for patience, mine is wearing thin.

Gwyn
Gwyn
Apr 18, 2019 8:23 PM

Would that be the Theresa May whose husband works for a company (Capital Group) which is the major shareholder in Lockheed Martin (one of the world’s biggest arms manufacturers) and therefore benefits from our and the United States’ little imperial adventures?

Hmm, yeah – she’s just the person to be delivering sanctimonious lectures to other people.

Shardlake
Shardlake
Apr 19, 2019 10:26 AM
Reply to  Gwyn

By God, Gwyn, I think you’re right ! … and I always thought, judging by his photographs, she was married to Arthur Askey.

Gwyn
Gwyn
Apr 19, 2019 2:08 PM
Reply to  Shardlake

There’s definitely a comedy connection, Shardlake – have you heard those zingers she throws around at PMQ?

Poor old Mr Askey could only DREAM of coming up with that kind of comedy gold!

Headlice
Headlice
Apr 19, 2019 12:06 PM
Reply to  Gwyn

A shocking pig of a thing is May.

Makes one want to chunder just looking at her.

A female creep.

binra
binra
Apr 19, 2019 1:33 PM
Reply to  Headlice

OK – you have made of her person what you will for your own gratification and approval – but what about addressing the issues?

Yarkob
Yarkob
Apr 18, 2019 4:46 PM

Seeing as how “The Law” is written and made statute by the very same state who regularly flouts it, anyone whom the State decides is above the law, is above the law. For the people who operate their law it’s quite a fluid, amorphous thing. For the rubes, not so much.

Bankers, despots, bent spooks, criminal corporatists etc etc the list goes on…It’s quite tedious to be told no-one is above the law when we see daily evidence of all sorts of people being just that. It’s actually funny, but not.

Mucho
Mucho
Apr 18, 2019 3:57 PM

Evidence that the chosen ones may be behind Notre Dame, from the excellent Know More News. Apparently a church has been torched every week this year in France. Essential info:
Notre Dame Cathedral Fire ‘Conspiracy Theories’

BigB
BigB
Apr 18, 2019 8:11 PM
Reply to  Mucho

No, not ‘evidence’ – rabid speculation, conspiracy innuendo, and total supposition ‘theory’ masquerading as barely concealed open racism. Its just sad that you think this this somehow adds anything at all to the support of Julian. Way off. Way, way off.

tresmegistus
tresmegistus
Apr 19, 2019 9:24 AM
Reply to  BigB

bigb – perhaps you think the muslim’s were behind destruction of 9/11. think again (suggestion how does a third building collapse on its foot print – a miracle?) and look at the evidence and the ultimate objective which led to the Iraq war. a reminder one cannot have a conspiracy theory as it is an oxymoron.

BigB
BigB
Apr 19, 2019 10:52 AM
Reply to  tresmegistus

Tresmegistus

If you think that; perhaps you don’t know anything about me and want to simplify me into a level of comprehension you are comfortable with? Perhaps I do not fit in your, or anyone else’s comfort zone? Simplistic, reductive binary constructions rarely produce any insight – and become the author’s own cognitively biased narrative trap.

crank
crank
Apr 19, 2019 11:45 AM
Reply to  BigB

BigB,
Do you think the outbreak of fire at the Al-Aqsa at the very same time as the fire in Notre Dame is pure co-incidence?
If not, then what do you think is going on?
I’ve looked at plenty of Adam Green’s work, and I don’t think he is motivated by racism. He puts forward a theory that a group of religious fanatics have gained access to/ control of the heights of power in Tel Aviv and Washington, and produces an abundance of evidence to make his case.
Whether you think his evidence adequately supports that theory or not, it doesn’t make him a racist.

BigB
BigB
Apr 19, 2019 6:31 PM
Reply to  crank

Crank

A bunch of barely correlated facts drawn from 1245 to present (“Oh, that one about burning the Talmud is not relevant – but I’ll show it anyway” – please!) – do not a coherent causative theory make. If there was a causal link between a very small fire, easily dealt with in Jerusalem, and a culturally tragic conflagration in Paris – it certainly wasn’t due to a Jewish Underground, Jewish Chabad or Cabbalistic egregore. Dragging through every barely related news story for 47 minutes of my life I will never get back does not make any relevant inculpatory accusative case. It does make a richly loaded suggestive case full of correlative conjunctions – could/would/should – that say and link nothing to nothing …especially if you employ critical faculties. Or it can say and link everything to everything if you do not – to those who are pre-disposed to believe in the supernatural connectionism of Cabbalistic Jewishness.

None of this would appeal to those who are not already inclined to believe that the superhuman ethnocentric exceptionalist Jews are behind everything – controlling reality. Which is vaguely silly really: except that grown people with brains actually believe such barely connected innuendo. That suggestive pre-disposition is proto-antisemitic. Otherwise it would be filtered out as nonsensical suggestionism.

There is enough tinderbox sectarian angst in this world without fanning the flames of conflagration with every new event. 800 year old oak-framed roofs – in advanced states of disrepair are notorious firetraps. York Minster, Windsor Castle and my local pub burnt down from a spark, was that the Cabbalistic Jews in a clash of civilisations?

I’m actually surprised you are defending this. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion about Notre Dame …but what tangential reference does it have to the open persecution of Julian Assange? None. It is a distraction, to say the least. That is the kind version: as I do not want to be drawn into the deflationary dialectic of labelling everyone a troll for having an opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion about Notre Dame, somewhere relevant to having a conspiracy theorist crypto-racist opinion about Notre Dame. The fire and Julian Assange are not related. End of.

When someone feels obliged to post “Evidence that the chosen ones may be behind Notre Dame” on an Assange forum: you do have to wonder why, though.

crank
crank
Apr 19, 2019 8:35 PM
Reply to  BigB

Thanks for sharing your opinion BigB.

auntiebuna
auntiebuna
Apr 19, 2019 7:08 AM
Reply to  Mucho

As soon as I saw this on the news I thought Macron would find a way to blame the Yellow Vests.

Mucho
Mucho
Apr 18, 2019 3:54 PM

Another brilliant podcast from Last American Vagabond
Saudi Arabia, Israel & US All Deeply Involved In Sudan’s Illegal Regime Change

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Apr 18, 2019 3:28 PM

The government’s “Online Harms” white paper contains provisions to make it impossible to publish disinformation. Of course, these will not apply to their disinformation, but will obviously apply to any challenges to their disinformation.

summitflyer
summitflyer
Apr 18, 2019 3:02 PM

“Nobody is above the law”
It is indeed insulting that they take all of us for fools to believe their drivel and lies .
Would it not be grand if we had elected leadership that a shred of respect for the public that elected them….

Matt Morley
Matt Morley
Apr 18, 2019 2:30 PM

I have been reading “Julian Assange in Sweden: What Really Happened” by Guy J. Sims (available on Kindle at Amazon for the price of a cappuccino!), a detailed account of absolutely everything and everyone involved, including police statements, the judicial process followed, ancillary events and background information, Julian Assange’s own testimony, as well as who knew who and what hidden agendas were served. What I can safely say at this point is that there are a whole bunch of people involved right up to the present moment who are seemingly “above the law”, and who have indeed conspired to promulgate, invent and maintain a complete fabrication with the obvious intention of destroying Assange and the Wikileaks organization. We must not let them succeed!

JudyJ
JudyJ
Apr 18, 2019 7:00 PM
Reply to  Matt Morley

Matt,

In the vain hope that there might be a copy of this book going on Ebay, I put the title in and at the top of the list of nearest titles was Guy Martin’s book “Worms to Catch”. Quite apposite I thought!

auntiebuna
auntiebuna
Apr 19, 2019 7:03 AM
Reply to  Matt Morley

Brother Matt Morely: I am attempting to find the book (on Kindle) by Guy J. Sims, “Julian Assange in Sweden: What Really Happened?” and I keep getting the message “There are no results”. I don’t want to sound like one of those annoying (but correct) “conspiracy theorists” but I am guessing Amazon is complicit in preventing us from getting the whole story.

Sorry I haven’t checked all the links you provided yet. Maybe there’s an answer there. Just thought it would be a good idea to squawk early about this.

In fairness to Amazon: Gore Vidal’s book “History of the National Security State” is still available for two bucks.

JudyJ
JudyJ
Apr 19, 2019 10:26 AM
Reply to  auntiebuna

auntiebuna,

If it’s of any help I put the title into Google and came up with a number of online companies offering the eBook. There was one US website I looked at called Smashwords.com offering the eBook for $2.95. Unfortunately I don’t use eBooks, otherwise I would try to order it myself.

auntiebuna
auntiebuna
Apr 19, 2019 10:34 AM
Reply to  JudyJ

Thanks, Judy! I’m on it!

binra
binra
Apr 19, 2019 1:27 PM
Reply to  JudyJ

The free ‘Calibre’ allows reading or conversion/printing of ebooks on computers. So not having a dedicated e-reader device is not an obstacle to accessing information via ebooks.
There may be issues with Amazon or other DRM – with a cat and mouse game defences and work-arounds. But Calibre reads ePubs and any computer reads pdf.

JudyJ
JudyJ
Apr 19, 2019 6:52 PM
Reply to  binra

Thanks, Binra. Very helpful info. I’m not very computer savvy – I’m sure it’s in my DNA! – but I am more than willing to give it a go in conjunction with Matt’s suggestion below.

Cheers
J

Matt Morley
Matt Morley
Apr 19, 2019 3:30 PM
Reply to  auntiebuna

Hi Judy and AuntieBuna! You’re right, it appears to be unavailable on amazon.co.uk, though how it’s possible to run out of e-books will just have to be added to the mystery ;-P Try amazon.fr where I bought it, it’s in English and downloaded fine for me over here (Paris), and I’ve never had problems with cross-Channel purchases so far. Here’s the link, let me know if it works:

https://www.amazon.fr/Julian-Assange-Sweden-English-Sims-ebook/dp/B00957HDBI/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?__mk_fr_FR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=julian+assange+in+sweden&qid=1555680952&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull

JudyJ
JudyJ
Apr 19, 2019 6:56 PM
Reply to  Matt Morley

Thanks, Matt. I shall give it a go…the link certainly works ok.

Cheers.
J

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Apr 18, 2019 1:13 PM

LMFAO, this is just about my favourite topic of all time, excepting Magnetism: i’m 57 years old, studied law and thankfully (greetings Pete Murphy, if yer’ alive) got a salutary lesson, during my first Summer break from studying, at just 18 years of age, spending 2 months with a QC so good, that he’d bring an honest ‘copper’ to sweat & mumblings, as barrister in court, if the price was right and hell, if the guy was rich, I watched ole’ Pete get ’em off, on technicalities so absurd, even when they were 100% guilty … back in the days of confidentiality 🙂

Point & for eternal computerised record: Theresa May, take it from me, you just made the most moronic statement , that confirms your completely inept understanding of science & history, our present and where the future of such moronic statements will lead, when we get down to kicking the Bi**H, Clinton first, logically, on another corkscrew spiral down to ground zero landing, on the Balkans where your hubby disposed of Depleted Uranium Munitions, first >>>

But, historically speaking, only in the future will it be, that “Nobody is above the Law”, coz’ with present systems we will prove evidentially, but slowly, that that statement was NEVER TRUE, historically speaking, in so many fields of conflict, with just 2 words for you right now, Theresa,

GARY HOY !

Fuck you civil servants of the deep state, your days are all numbered in algorithms far more complex than you c**ts, in Secret Services void of Soul & Integrity, will ever comprehend, even in GCHQ and including Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sergei Brin & Larry Page after Page & Strzok & McCabe & Comey & Mueller & the CIA, NSA , FBI, no matter what you may have calculated, as we finally get to prove that NONE of you mofos are above the Law, either !

A.i. will take control of you guys during your lifetime, too, unless you programme like a mule slave ‘nigga’, even then only until you die, then Einstein a-Go-GO girls & boys.

There will be only one permanent Revolution, said Tolstoy: it will be ‘The Moral One’ and it will come from within the hearts of real people in real time, scientifically and unequivocally NOT from within the hearts or corrupted Soul of the Secret Services of Sociopaths 4Corporate Empire . . .

The history of the national security state (Gore Vidal, nice ad. Julian Assange) is already written in code, too complex for any individual to comprehend alone or determine alone, therefore compound intelligence will surely prevail.

Union compounds the strength, in Cyrillic 🙂

Съединението прави силата

Automated Intelligence . . .

Open Source Intelligence & Engineering in real time, seriously …
Life is so simple when you understand it, scientifically 🙂

Jonathan Priddle
Jonathan Priddle
Apr 18, 2019 12:17 PM

Pierre Proudhon the anarchist wrote nearly 100 years ago with total accuracy:

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

JudyJ
JudyJ
Apr 18, 2019 12:14 PM

…and, of course, there was the non-mandated “homogeneous mob” attack on Syria. Again, an example of guilty before proven innocent (and I am naively assuming that judgements about guilt even enter the minds of our immoral and psychopathic politicians), and hegemonic ambition over-riding any respect for international laws.

With regard to international convention, there was a fly on the wall documentary on BBC 4 a few nights ago following Julian Assange for several years from the time before the Swedish allegations up until 2016. It was filmed and narrated by him and his support team, and was an extremely interesting insight into him and his life revolving round the Snowden and Manning cases at the time. One of the revelations made (and unfortunately I cannot recall the details of how it came to light) was that immediately after Assange was granted asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy the UK had seriously considered the possibility of storming the Embassy to get him out. The mere thought that they considered it is appalling enough but can you imagine the international political fall-out if they had gone ahead with this?

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Apr 18, 2019 1:32 PM
Reply to  JudyJ

hi there, JudyJ

you asked me a question the other day.
It would have taken pages to answer, even if you’d have read my comment to BigB, on Assange’s statement, (the article from writer Roddis).

So to summarise, as someone who has witnessed Genocide more than once, including NATO orchestrated Genocide, a wholly calculated Genocide with calculated terror >>>

Nobody is above the Law except “The History (and all participants) of the National Security State”, as Gore Vidal said, with Assange’s confirmation, available on Amazon, sponsored by the NATIONAL SECURITY STATE of the U$A…

see the Dichotomy ? !

Catch 22 innit’ !

well, actually it is NOT. But our secret services are not as intelligent as people believe them to be, thankfully …

Coz’ they’ll NEVER ‘get’ people like us, see ? 🙂

Something Principle, primarily and they have comprehensively no principles . . .

Shardlake
Shardlake
Apr 18, 2019 1:59 PM
Reply to  JudyJ

Obviously, one of the British government’s better decisions in the light of all what has transpired since. No doubt a decision probably taken on the toss of a coin and without further thought as to what they might have done with him having got their hands on him in such a manner. The Swedish authorities may yet decline to ‘play ball’ and want no part in what might turn out, internationally, to be declared an illegal act. In such a circumstance it’ll be interesting to see how Mrs May is able to reconcile her actions based upon nobody being above the law.

JudyJ
JudyJ
Apr 18, 2019 6:14 PM
Reply to  Shardlake

Thanks for your comments, Shardlake.

As has become more and more apparent to me as I have delved deeper into the background of the Swedish allegations (and I confess I haven’t read the book recommended above by @Matt Morley but will see if I can get my hands on it), the Swedish authorities have been fighting their own battle against the UK Government to leave them out of the political machinations with the US. They have endeavoured to put the case to bed (excuse the metaphor!) on at least three occasions (at the outset in 2010; after they reviewed the case in 2012 which I am guessing was undertaken at the demand of the US as a front to get him into the clutches of a complicit UK or Swedish penal system and extradited; and, thirdly, after the Swedish authorities interviewed him at the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2016).

If I was Swedish I would now be telling the UK to go ‘where the sun don’t shine’ and deal with a problem of their own creation rather than trying to pass the buck to the Swedes and use them as a means to sustain the criminal vilification of Assange.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Apr 18, 2019 7:42 PM
Reply to  JudyJ

Were I Swedish I would now asking who’d fuck killed Seth Rich? will the USA be finally prosecuting the Clinton Bi**H ?whilst telling the UK in Westminster to go ‘where The Sun don’t shine’, with their BS MSM & with Justice Leveson , (born in Liverpool), and deal with a problem of their own creation, commensurate in Anfield, with Klopp d’Cop & Leveson 2, singing you’ll never walk alone Assange and Murdoch FU-X Jerry & d’Pacemakers on viagra, but never Liverpool … GTFO.

There is no harm in satire, if only Corbyn had Alistair Campbell with testicles, this time, to sell some spin on seminal interest for the [email protected], instead of Fake War for the Corp. & core interests of the MIC …

Like Murdoch’s, Cheney’s Rothschild’s & Woolsey’s ex CIA GeniesR(US) Energy in Golan …

davemass
davemass
Apr 18, 2019 11:59 AM

Just a point about Harold giving the Yanks Diego Garcia-
Was that part of the deal to keep my generation from being drafted, like Aussies,
into the Vietnam quagmire? If so, thanks,Harold!

BigB
BigB
Apr 18, 2019 11:34 AM

The relationship between the automatic subject – given their legal identity at birth – and the state – the statutory law entity …has been brutally altered over time – all quite legally and above board. I can personally attest to how Thatcher waged legalised statutory lawfare on legal-law abiding communities: criminalising them and their way of life. Remember Orgreave and the Poll Tax Riots – resulting from prosecutions for the illegal – but made statutorially ‘legal’ – imposition of ‘taxation without representation’? I do. I also remember – somewhat incredulously – how the People voted to legitimate these anti-humanity, anti-Constitutional crimes.

They dropped the Poll Tax – in name only – but the legalised statutory lawfare re-engineering of society remained. Communities were legally atomised – and made wards of the ‘minimised’ state – subject to market forces. There was no ‘society’ – only individuals and their families in competition with the ‘invisible hand’ (in an ermine-trimmed quasi-legal glove) – subject to market forces – economically rationally engaged in commodity exchange of socially engineered privatised scarcity. Yep, they legally socially behaviourally engineered us into homo economicus. Following their economic rationale: we agreed …given enough debt to at least mirror their interpellated expectations of us. Again, we validated the legalised statutory lawfare, erosion of civil liberties, and loss of freedoms. These were adequately compensated with ‘loads-a-money’ for the new ‘me-generation’ – or ‘loads-a-credit’ for the majority who could lead ersatz prosperous mirror-advertisied-fictional-lives of conspicuous wealth (credit-covering increasing poverty and paucity of spirit).

Ah Tony. Aside from his many crimes – he really asset stripped our birthright freedoms and civil liberties. All totally legally. Highlights include the new model police state – never more than the Attorney Generals signature away. I believe this is the correct procedure. If not the newly installed Presidium – the PM and Cabinet Office – can issue a bureaucratic fiat, or abuse Royal Prerogative to install the pre-architected police state. All perfectly legally, for our protection and security, all endorsed and legitimated by us. The fact that this would annul the Bill of Rights was itself annulled with the new Bill of Rights. All perfectly legally, and legitimated by us – again.

You can see where I am going with this. The principles of law have been weaponised against us to erode our civil liberties over time. Bit by Bit. Statute by statute. Lawfare by lawfare. We have been depoliticised and subjected to the legal architecture of an elected dictatorship which is taking on a more and more authoritarian character. A character WE pre-endorsed and legitimated against our own autonomy. We voted away our civil liberties, birthright freedoms, violated our own social contract, annulled the Will of the People, and handed our autonomous subjecthood to an incipient police state. And we expect them to play fair with the Rule of Law?

THEY’VE BEEN FUCKING US OVER WITH THE RULE OF LAW ALL MY ADULT LIFE.

And we agreed to every minor and major modification they made: legitimated and authenticated into a legislative statutory. legal architecture of our enslavement. No one is above the law – you have to be kidding me. We have made an unelected, ananswerable, non-transparent, bureaucratic, depoliticised, Executive and Legislative paralegal entity above the law. Legally binding: in modified social contract and authenticated by the People: contra the rights and eroded freedoms of the People. We gave it away for token material returns that stopped coming. Then we realised the true cost of what we had pawned for tokens and symbolic exchange.

The only freedom we have left is the freedom to conform. If we choose not to conform: we have made a supra-legal entity that will impose the pale imitations of our legally ceded rights and freedoms on us in our willed servitude. Just as they will on Julian. We gave them the right to act as they are. It was our choice to legitimate our loss of freedom. This is a dialectical material hell of our own choosing. We did not choose austerity as our reward. But we were happy enough with the ersatz prosperity while it lasted. Now we will perhaps rue the cost of selling ourselves so short, so cheaply. Now the credit has run out: we will see the true face of the quasi-legal entity we created for ersatz offset token prosperity and faux-progress. How far have we come forward in the last forty years? Progressed: or have we have regressed to the new authoritarian Dark Age?

I am minded of Howard Zinn’s famous quote:

Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.

This far and no futher. ¡No pasarán!

Anticitizen one
Anticitizen one
Apr 20, 2019 2:24 PM
Reply to  BigB

Excellent comment BigB, yes our oppressors have bound us legally, alas not lawfully. We should reject their statutes (rules of society) as the statute makers don’t represent us and they don’t even follow their own statutes.

Shardlake
Shardlake
Apr 18, 2019 10:27 AM

I believe Mr O’Neil’s analysis of this whole affair is the best I have encountered since Mr Assange was forcibly taken from the Ecuadorian embassy.

Sadly, British governments of whatever hue have much previous form with events like this and apply facets of the law inconsistently as expediency demands. A prime example that springs to mind is the manner in which a proper inquest into the death of the weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly, was circumvented and replaced with what became the Hutton Inquiry.

Prime Minister Blair with Attorney General Lord Falconer took what should have been due process out of the hands of the Oxfordshire coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, so that no full coroner’s inquest has ever taken place. They, in a telephone conversation, quickly decided upon Lord Hutton to preside over the death of Dr Kelly with the presumption of suicide as the conclusion.

There are a multitude of inconsistencies that have never been addressed in Dr Kelly’s case and it is now unlikely that they ever will as Lord Hutton decreed the papers relating to this affair will remain secret for seventy years. It seems the main actors here, Blair, Falconer, Campbell and Hutton will never face appropriate scrutiny for their actions no more than the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw for his role in the extraordinary rendition of individuals incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay at the behest of the Bush government and the Libyan national and his wife snatched in Kuala Lumpur and flown to Gaddafi before his fall.

What Mrs May has done and, I’m guessing, what she’s about to follow through with Mr Assange follows a well trodden path which is no better than we, as a nation, can expect from any of our leaders in these times. It’s a sobering thought that, we, the electorate have placed people like these in positions of power : whatever were we thinking to inflict this upon ourselves ?

auntiebuna
auntiebuna
Apr 18, 2019 11:20 AM
Reply to  Shardlake

Shardlake, thank you for reminding us about the murder of Dr.Kelly. Hearing about that shameful coverup was instrumental in turning me into the radical I am today. #RememberSethRich #JailHillaryClinton #FreeJulianAssange #ReleaseChelseaManning

BigB
BigB
Apr 18, 2019 10:08 AM

“No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.”

“Per legem terrae” – the famous ‘Law of the Land Clause’ of the Great Charter of 1215. The most basic Common law principle of trial and annulment (don’t forget the ‘annulment’ principle) by jury. Six and a half years solitary confinement (a ‘cruel and illegal’ punishment under the Bill of Rights) for a minor bail technicality that could have been dismissed in five minutes. And they dare to mention the principles of law to weaponise them against us: in the tame Washington poodle parlour of Parliament? How dare they?

When the People remember who they are, and take back, what by Constitution is rightfully theirs – fully autonomous Sovereign ‘omnipotence’ (annulling any illegal anti-Constitutional statutes such as the upcoming “Withdrawal Bill” 2023): there will be a quiet reckoning of the principles of law – “Be ye ever so high, the law is above you”.

Remember the Charter. We will. If, in each other we trust.

Estaugh
Estaugh
Apr 18, 2019 9:28 PM
Reply to  BigB

Remembering of course, that MC 1215 was ratified before parliament came into being, (circa 1236), so parliament cannot repeal it or change it in any way, shape or form It’s Peoples Law, won through battle. My man for a succinct roll-out of MC, constitutional law, and the role of statute law is John Bingley, who will be found here, https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/brexit-constitutional-position , Article 61 was duly invoked the 23rd March 2001, and is a Royal Command; to bring the monarch bang to rights. The current ‘governance’ has NO lawful authority.

BigB
BigB
Apr 18, 2019 11:39 PM
Reply to  Estaugh

Estaugh

I’m well aware of the Constitutional position. I have commented previously on the fact that the Constitution is a written set of documents – plus 800 years of Common Law Jurisdiction – that form a set of contracts in perpetuity …without statutory overwrite; Statutory Instrument modification; or repeal. I’ve also posted John Bingley’s letter myself.

The problem is: the Parliamentary state constructivism currently carries more weight than the true Constitutional position. The cumulative result of an at least 80 year disinformation campaign. Heath did in fact sign us into the Treaty of Rome, despite Lord Kilmuir’s advice to the contrary. And Parliament is conspiring again to cede its own ‘omnipotence’. We can cry “Treason” – but for the moment, that carries no real weight. Hopefully, with the right education that can change. THEN we can burn all the anti-democratic statute law and make the Common Law work for the sovereign People.

Having seen what some of the People think though, I think we are going to need every decent Freeman and Freewoman to make it work!

binra
binra
Apr 18, 2019 9:58 AM

When one’s survival depends on ‘believing’ – the mind is set to provide the acting out.
Fear of loss of self, or power and life makes a mind in the image of fear.
Whatever a deceiver says is deceit – and yet will seeks the forms of truth to hide in.
So there is a truth – no one is above the law – but the corruption of the law to serve an agenda of fear of loss of self, power and life, makes a mockery or parody of the law – and as such holds no authority but what fear and deceit give it.

What you accept is up to you – but what you give will be a response from what you choose to accept true for you. That the lie accuses itself in the Other needs to be recognised as a fundamental deceit – and taken out of circulation as legal currency by non use.

Deceit runs deeper than our thinking or else we would not suffer it. And yet noticing our thinking in context of its emotional field or context is watching what is – instead of looking as directed by a sleight of mind.

The saying, “don’t throw stones in glass houses”, is where the truths pulled out to be misused as defence against true communication will cone back with interest. But there is something else here and that is modelling behaviour. “Do as I say, not as I do” teaches dissociation of word and deed – or a false witness. We do not HAVE to learn, imbibe, or be inducted into such behaviour, just because an ‘authority figure’ gives the example. Nor react in like kind.

Restoring the Law as Law for wholeness of being and of society – which is relational being – rests on the true use of the word. ‘Post truth’ politics means that there IS no substance or truth from which to extend and embrace in shared worth in those who fit their minds to its dark art of deceit and manipulation.

The persona is not the being of another – but more the presentation to a world of others over a presentation upon our self.

The abhorrent nature of open deceit in the place of authority, provokes hateful reaction to the image of truth betrayed. To look at the lie without recoil is not to be ‘made’ in reaction.

Under a usurping law of an imposing dictate – even the British Government has to ‘bend the knee’ and comply. Where this dictate issues from is obscure by design and in it mind and method. But the effects or behaviours show it and these communicate tacitly and inductively as the communication of fear by defences, strategies and sacrifices to its dictate.

However, when such defences and strategies INDUCE fear more than they hide it – they are no longer ‘working’ as the protection of a mind-in-hiding – and so the ability to hide disintegrates to reveal the hate and fear that runs beneath appearances – that are the vector of a broad spectrum subjection or mind-capture.

The call for awakening is for the undoing of deceit and not the subtle use of it as a self-strategy of personal salvation gotten upon the sacrifice or subjection of others.

Francis Lee
Francis Lee
Apr 18, 2019 8:33 AM

The upcoming saga of Assange’s guilt has all the makings of a famed Moscow Trial. All we need now is the prosecutor Vishinski. I think, I am sure, we already know the verdict. This much could be inferred from the Judge’s (Snow) demeanour and prior remarks. British law seems now to have reversed the Magna Carta with a presumption of guilt rather than a presumption of innocence.

There is a famous ditty about our lovely journalists. It goes something like this.

”You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there’s no occasion to.”
(Humbolt Wolfe)

It seems appropriate to extend this description to the British political establishment at large. The British elite is demonstrably rotten to the core.

Matt Morley
Matt Morley
Apr 18, 2019 4:30 PM
Reply to  Francis Lee

Hear, hear!

thenetprojection
thenetprojection
Apr 18, 2019 8:24 AM

My sentiments exactly. It makes me feel rather nauseous actually.

Pablo
Pablo
Apr 18, 2019 7:50 AM

As some pithy YouTube commenter once wrote “When criminals make the laws, then criminals will be set free and decent people will be criminalised. Criminal laws will be used by criminals to get decent people out of the way”

auntiebuna
auntiebuna
Apr 18, 2019 6:06 AM

With great respect for my British brothers and sisters, I just have to add my two cents about the many crimes of the Clinton mob, specifically the growing #BodyCount of those who dare to cross the one obsessed with becoming the first woman president. Most of us know the Russians didn’t throw the 2016 election to Orange Mussolini and Seth Rich gave his life to get damning evidence to Wikikeaks. Now Julian Assange is in their clutches. Why is nobody screaming about the CONTENT of the leaked Emails but only about who (allegedly) ” hacked” them? #ReleaseJulianAssange #GiveChelseaManningAMedal #RememberSethRich

BigB
BigB
Apr 18, 2019 9:26 AM
Reply to  auntiebuna

If I was Julian – given his game: I’d have a very big encrypted file marked ‘Insurance’. When it was open: the root index would be marked ‘Seth Rich’. If and when I knew I was going down, I’d have an automatic ‘deadman’ system – one that required myself or a trusted other (post-internet cutoff) – to login at preset times. No login – BOOM! It might not save me, but I’d take the bastards down with me. #ReleaseJulianAssange #GiveChelseaManningAMedal #RememberSethRich!

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Apr 18, 2019 4:36 AM

‘“No One is Above the Law:” You Have to be Kidding’

It’s difficult to see what the author’s point is. May’s latest reiteration of the old, former, never-a-truism has always worked before. Is he just trying to be awkward? Clearly, May has never read Wikileaks, so why attack her virginity like this?

thenetprojection
thenetprojection
Apr 18, 2019 8:27 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Would you care to explain yourself, Robbobbobin?

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Apr 18, 2019 3:17 PM

No.

MIchael Leigh
MIchael Leigh
Apr 18, 2019 11:04 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

I dare say, ROBBOBBIN that it is you who is kidding the readers here, of your naive quote of Teresa May’s political innocence?

This disciple of the late and un-mourned Thatcher’s ” un-social personality ” is even more justly hated than that deceased person, who is her own ” god forsaken role model “.

What a sick joke ROBBOBBIN ?

Matt Morley
Matt Morley
Apr 18, 2019 3:21 PM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Because, Robbobbin, just as “ignorance is no excuse before the law” (another old legal saw!), neither is it any substitute for lack of investigative acumen or political backbone! If May has no understanding of Wikileaks (which I doubt), then she has a duty to inform herself before parroting what is essentially a line of propaganda. If, on the other hand, she understands completely what this issue is about (as I suspect), then she should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY!

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Apr 19, 2019 12:13 AM
Reply to  Matt Morley

I quoted or referenced, even just indirectly, no “old legal saw”, so what is this “other” of which you post? Just an other chance to wear your soap box on your sleeve?

Matt Morley
Matt Morley
Apr 19, 2019 2:23 PM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

“No-one is above the law”, of course! Are you sure you are informed enough to engage in this debate?

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Apr 21, 2019 1:08 AM
Reply to  Matt Morley

“Are you sure you are informed enough to engage in this debate?”

No.

Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department!

Archie1954
Archie1954
Apr 18, 2019 3:16 AM

The examples used to prove the point are disgusting but true. Ms. May wouldn’t know the law, if she fell over it. Her own government has made so many illegal moves that all of her ministers should be facing criminal trials.

eddisonflame
eddisonflame
Apr 18, 2019 1:54 AM

Very well written. Thank you for this.

John
John
Apr 18, 2019 1:08 AM

Well they had to repeat a slogan for a week “no one is above the law” so we all know they didn’t mean it

Jen
Jen
Apr 18, 2019 5:42 AM
Reply to  John

Yes they had to repeat the slogan several times over a week before they themselves could believe it.

Tina
Tina
Apr 18, 2019 8:15 AM
Reply to  Jen

Yes; just like Israel with their claim “We are the only democracy within the Middle East”.

binra
binra
Apr 18, 2019 9:03 AM
Reply to  Jen

They believe that the Big Lie protects them from natural or lawful consequence.

thenetprojection
thenetprojection
Apr 18, 2019 6:44 PM
Reply to  binra

I agree, however that does not make them, or anyone, immune to that natural or lawful consequence.

I do think that their evident desperation is a sign that they are aware, albeit not fully, that such natural or lawful consequence is imminent.