61

Follow Up: Alleged Torture of Julian Assange

Just a brief follow-up on a story we ran a few days ago, ALLEGED Chemical Torture of Julian Assange. This article generated a lot of discussion below the line, mainly around its reliance on an anonymous source. Many raised concerns that the accusation of “chemical torture” is unsubstantiated.

We reached out to the author for her input, and below is her reply (which she gave us permission to publish).

Clearly scepticism, especially relating to anonymous sources, is very healthy, and is one of the foundational principals of this website. We don’t want our readers to take anything on faith and encourage our readers to find all the information they can, and make up their own minds.

We wish to make it clear that OffG can neither confirm nor deny these claims.

I cannot reveal my source, but I have full faith in the person and the access this individual has.

The people stating that this is untrue and fake news are not offering any substantiation, just mostly name-calling, while I have a source that I trust and who is well placed. I received a few emails from people, calling me a liar and demanding to know my source. I think that’s what these critics are after, in addition to downplaying the current state tactics being applied to Assange.

I do wonder why anyone would doubt that what I am sharing is factual, or at least very likely, given the historical record from the 1960s to the present day in terms of how the US government handles extrajudicial interrogations of people charged with security and intelligence/terrorism related crimes.

In almost every case drugs, government-hired medical and psychological experts to soften up the detained, and a variety of internationally recognized techniques of torture have been used. The question perhaps is, “Would the British government allow American interrogators access to Assange without his lawyer present?” and while I don’t know how unusual that is, the British government has been hand in glove with the US on renditions and treatment of “terrorism” suspects for many years.

Hope this helps, and you could indeed use this as a statement received from me in response to the raging commentators.

Karen

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
trackback

[…] character assassination, not journalism. However, the Off-Guardian, a new-wave publisher, investigates inside stories about Assange and presents their current. state of understanding in a transparent, professional discourse. […]

C'mon now
Reader
C'mon now

“Would the British government allow American interrogators access to Assange without his lawyer present?”

Is that a serious question?

Hmph
Reader
Hmph

Aren’t the very same people that swallow any unsubstantiated story emanating from Orwell’s blob and who never ask for substantiation, sources, proofs or never question why nothing other than ‘seems likely’ is ever given, now demanding that anything short of iron-clad proof must be fake news?

Hmmm? Well, aren’t they? Theater of the Absurd? You betch’ya….in spades. Now, where’s the exit? This playwrite stinks.

trackback

[…] of Julian Assange – Statement from Dept. of Defense Whistleblower Karen Kwiatkowski – https://off-guardian.org/2019/05/13/follow-up-alleged-torture-of-julian-assange/ – “Just a brief follow-up on a story we ran a few days ago, ALLEGED Chemical Torture of […]

ape
Reader

UN Rapporteur Nils Melzer said, the last I read, he would report his findings following his May 9th interview with Julian Assange…I’ve yet to find any such report. (?)

flaxgirl
Reader

If her source is Chelsea Manning we absolutely know 100% it’s fake.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/wikileaks-controlled-opposition.html

Hmph
Reader
Hmph

We also know for certain that for you to know that for certain suggests that you’re a bona fide flake.

flaxgirl
Reader

Hmph, if you’d like to move the argument to a higher plane I have a question for you. I believe that the Collateral Murder video is a fake but no matter whom I apply to I cannot get anyone to respond with an opinion that either rejects or supports the idea. I’d very much appreciate a response.

These are my observations of the shorter video:

Transcript: https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/en/transcript.html

— Callsigns
We are told that two Apache helicopters are involved but even taking into consideration ground control there are simply too many callsigns – 13:
Bushmaster Five, Bushmaster Forty, Bushmaster Four, Bushmaster Seven, Bushmaster Six, Bushmaster Six-Romeo, Bushmaster Three-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six, Crazy Horse One-Eight (one helicopter), Hotel Two-Seven, Hotel Two-Six (the other helicopter), Hotel Two-Two-Two, Victor Charlie Alpha
Note: These callsigns are from the long version, I’m not sure if they’re all in the version I analyse below.

Interestingly, in the Wikipedia entry, July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, we are told that there are two Apache helicopters one with callsign Crazy Horse One-Eight and the other Crazy Horse One-Nine but there is zero mention of One-Nine in the video.

— The audio track seems as if it’s bits of genuine audio from different sources stitched together.

As indicated by the numerous callsigns, it sounds as if we hear more voices than we should and there’s a feeling of “made-to-fit” to the footage which I think could easily be faked, especially as the audio does not match the footage very well (sloppiness being one of their little “signs”).

We are told that there are two Apaches so this might explain that when we hear a voice, it’s not from the Apache from which we see the footage. This, of course, is very convenient. My question is though where are these two Apaches in relation to each other?

Seeming anomalies in the first minute, notably where what is said does not match what we see on the ground

2:48 – There’s more that keep walking by and one of them has a weapon [cannot see people or weapon]

2:53 – Arab-sounding voice says “two-oh-eight” [not in transcript – where does this come from?]

2:55 – See all those people standing down there [can’t see anyone]

3:19 – That’s a weapon. [seemingly directed at “Namir” with camera. This is supposed to make us believe that in very unprofessional lack of recognition of camera, the soldier is looking for an excuse to kill, however, obviously if it’s stitched-together audio snippets the soldier saying “That’s a weapon” could easily be referring to a person genuinely carrying a weapon. I have to say that the soldier sounds to me as if he’s perfectly serious and is not misidentifying a camera as a weapon as an excuse to kill.]

3:30 – Fucking prick [from both an audio and semantic point of view this sounds very much inserted]

3:35 – Have individuals with weapons [I cannot see any weapons at this point]

3:39 – He’s got a weapon too [who is being referred to?]

3:42 – Have five to six individuals with AK-47s [5-6 with weapons? – looks like only 2 to me]

First strike – 80 shots: is the ordnance real?

4:50 – At 4:50 we hear 20 rounds and at 4:52 we see dust coming from the left side that looks as if it’s coming from devices but could these be devices made from a harmless explosive such as Tannerite made to look real but, effectively, only spraying the men with a lot of dust. To me, the dust is coming in very laterally which doesn’t seem in line with the angle you’d expect at such seeming close range.

4:52 – At 4:52 we hear 20 rounds again and at 4:55 we see a couple of explosions on the ground which could also be caused by a harmless explosive. The number of explosions does not seem to match the number of shots.

At 4:57 and 5:00 – We hear another 2 sets of 20 rounds.

8 of the 10 men were killed, one of whom died in hospital.

There is an analysis on a defunct blog, https://5thstate.wordpress.com/2010/04/, which describes in great detail many anomalies that, effectively, show that the video simply makes no sense, however, the author still believes the killing is real which is understandable as the idea of it being fake is so counterintuitive and so outside our paradigms of how the world works … until you know that the power elite have no problem with “looking bad” – as long as they’re the ones in control they’re all good about looking bad.]

Rebecca
Reader
Rebecca

Well since Manning is not in the United Kingdom anywhere near Belmarsh prison and also has been denied entry into Canada and no doubt would be denied entry into the United Kingdom because of the status of being a convicted felon, you can be sure that Manning is not the source. That statement is totally preposterous.

flaxgirl
Reader

One can communicate by means other than face-to-face (or did the article say it was face-to-face)? I have to confess I didn’t even read it because it sounded too implausible … and then what do you know? Not that living 7 years in the Ecuadorian Embassy without access to internet, etc, is not torture but the sort of torture we might expect from the title of the article seemed too implausible to me. Chelsea Manning is clearly an intelligence asset so we’d expect all kinds of disinformation from her – but then there are others too.

I have a webpage providing evidence that CM is an intelligence asset if you’re interested. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/wikileaks-controlled-opposition.html

fred
Reader
fred

Reading your nonsense is definitely torture, flakegirl.

flaxgirl
Reader

It is those whose “arguments” comprise only epithets and emotive opinion who deserve the epithet flake not those whose arguments comprise reason, logic and evidence. If you have any reason, logic and evidence to support Chelsea Manning being a genuine leaker and the Collateral Murder being genuine let’s hear it otherwise what value do your words have?

fred
Reader
fred

You are fabricating a self righteous response to a non existent reply to your nonsense. Who mentioned anything about supporting a genuine leader?????
So erudite(?) ….hahaha, but convoluted and pointless.
Regarding what constitutes torture: Apparently you are unable to comprehend what it means for a highly intelligent man who is deprived of his means to communicate, exercising his profession, in addition to being isolated from his children, his friends and any sunshine for many years.

You state “I believe that the Collateral Murder video is a fake.”
Believing is not knowing.
Obviously other people understand the video differently. Why do you think the US government is so desperate to put Assange away? If they have any proof, where is it? Your drivel remains but drivel.

Don’t bother to respond. I am not interested in your self aggrandizing and uneducated opinions.

flaxgirl
Reader

Fred, genuine “leaker” not “leader”. I’m afraid we’re talking at cross purposes. I find it very distressing that Julian is suffering so. I do not in any way implicate him. He, Wikileaks and the whole world have been duped by Chelsea et al and the film. And I feel frustrated that I didn’t work out earlier that she was an intelligence asset and that the film is fake because the Wikileaks “controlled opposition” fakery has the same hallmarks as so much other fakery I have recognised. Unfortunately, we can only wake up to things at the time we wake up to them.

DiggerUK
Reader
DiggerUK

Much was made of Pepe Escobars’ claim that his “great friend Joe Lauria at Consortium News” was claiming that former USAF Lt.Col. Karin (retired) Kwiatkowski was “backing away from her statements”. Given the above statement issued through OffGuardian, it is now clear she isn’t backing away.

My posts on Consortium News have been deleted, and now my posts don’t even appear after posting, It seems that censorship has replaced plausible deniability. My posts are (i.e., were) identical in tone to my published posts here at OffGuardian.

This is a closing of ranks to protect KK’s dodgey dossier…….Cui bono…_

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

Thank you for the Consortium News mention, which is where I saw the “backing away” comment while looking for it, not here (as I had misremembered and posted to that effect below).

nwwoods
Reader
nwwoods

UN Rappateur (sp) on torture made no mention in his statement on May 9.
No mention of this on Craig Murray’s twitter feed neither.
I am more skeptical than ever of this story.

nwwoods
Reader
nwwoods

Christine Assange : “crickets”
John Shipton: “crickets”
Pamela Anderson: “crickets”
Baltazar Garzon: “crickets”
Kristinn Hrafnsson: “crickets”
Sarah Harrison: “crickets”
Craig Murray: “crickets”
Kim Dot Com: “crickets”

This story needs to get verified by an independent source pretty soon…or get taken down.
tick…tock…

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

Whoa, people, let’s just look at this from a cool, normal, legal perspective:
Okay, so what do we have here today?
Perhaps two basic points, which actually amount to one basic point:
Point 1a:
“The people stating that this is untrue and fake news are not offering any substantiation, just mostly name-calling, while I have a source that I trust and who is well placed.”
Answer 1a:
People are not so much stating that this is untrue as asking where is YOUR substantiation for your “well-placed and trusted source”…? It is surely ludicrous to accuse sceptics of making unsubstantiated claims when you do exactly the same.
Point 1b:
“I do wonder why anyone would doubt that what I am sharing is factual.”
Answer 1b:
Can you seriously imagine ANY judge considering your mere word as substantiated, factual evidence?
Perhaps everything which Karen states is perfectly true, and, with evidence, I could well believe it, but since when did anyone expect readers of OffGuardian to believe something simply because someone said it?
I hope we are all clear on the principle involved here. “She’s a witch.” “No, she isn’t.”, just doesn’t cut it any more…
Assange himself would be absolutely unknown if he had merely said that in 2007 a U.S. Apache helicopter had killed at least nine men in Baghdad, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver.
We’ve all seen the footage, and that’s what tells the story and makes it unforgettably embarrassing for the U.S. government.
Karen’s story is so easy to dismiss in any formal legal setting that one can hardly help but wonder whether it was concocted as a trap to enable the future dismissal of any further leaks about torture.
I am not stating that.
I am merely wondering, and I would not dream of accusing anyone of such a thing without real evidence.

flaxgirl
Reader

And just to add … we really need to apply different rules to the power elite in terms of their desires compared to ours. Very, very different rules. While for us the idea of being hated for a crime we didn’t commit might be anathema, it doesn’t worry them at all. Not a single bit. Although they are responsible for 9/11 they did not kill the people in the buildings – killing and injury were staged. 9/11 was, in effect, a massive Full-Scale Exercise comprising multiple drills where the only major reality was the collapses of and damage to buildings … precisely what they wanted for real.

So all us truthers hate them more than we need to (so to speak) because they didn’t cold-bloodedly kill the people in the buildings (but did go on to kill far, far more). But do they care that we think them guilty of a cold-blooded crime they didn’t commit? No way. They just laugh themselves silly at the thought of how they’ve fooled all us serious-minded truthers into believing they’re even more evil than they really are – if, indeed, any difference in level of evil is worth consideration. And they laugh at how that mistaken belief has stymied us in getting the truth out – the US govt killing those people is simply too taboo and unbelievable and so we get nowhere. Likewise, they don’t give the slightest damn about what people think of US soldiers killing civilians in Iraq. If, as I suspect, the video is fake, they will just have a good old laugh about it.

We always have to look at the outcome. What has been the outcome of the promulgation of that video?

US government and military – zero impact (as far as I know)
Julian Assange – jail

They’re much more interested in the outcome than what people think of them. They don’t give a damn what people think – just as long as they have control and are in power, they’re all good.

flaxgirl
Reader

You’d think the killing from the Apache helicopter would, indeed, be extremely embarrassing, wardropper, which makes it rather puzzling that they were so candid with it on ABC’s Nightline. We got both the subtitles and the words of the helicopter pilots and they weren’t at all pretty. We also have to wonder why no repercussions have resulted for the pilots or indeed … anyone at all in the military … while severe repercussions have resulted for Julian.

How do you explain this candour? Do you think that, as said of Bill Clinton by a friend, “Some people are unembarrassable” may apply to the power elite and they are perfectly fine to suffer embarrassment just as long as they’re the ones in control. Apparently, embarrassment doesn’t really hurt all that much when you’re very rich and powerful, especially when it’s embarrassment that you have chosen to “suffer”.

Juju’s vo: Images like these. American soldiers opening fire from an Apache helicopter …
Subtitles: “Oh yeah, look at that … Right through the windshield.” “Ha! Ha!“
Juju’s vo: “… on what would turn out to be civilians including children …
Subtitles: “Well, It’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.” “That’s right.”
Juju’s vo: … among the dead, two journalists from Reuters.”

mark
Reader
mark

She’s perfectly entitled to flag up her concerns. It would be irresponsible not to do so. Otherwise we’re left with a situation like Yasser Arafat who dies of polonium poisoning, and this is just shrugged off. Nothing to see here, move along there please. No need for any Rafik Hariri style investigation. To anyone who seriously doubts that the criminal scum who rule over us are not capable of this, I would say just two words – David Kelly.

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

Don’t misunderstand me here. Of course I have no objection to anyone expressing their concerns about anything. I express my own concerns often enough too.
But for a person who is against others not offering substantiation for their views, it just struck me as odd that an article about something as dramatic as poisoning would expect to be taken extremely seriously when, by all normal standards, the author’s statements have nothing but supposition to back them up.
I always want something approaching evidence. In ALL circumstances, even when the scenario depicted appears entirely credible, as in this case.
As I said earlier, I can well believe in the POSSIBLE truth of Karen’s story, but it isn’t a story at all without something to back it up.
We can’t go around believing something – even if we want to – just because somebody says it.

flaxgirl
Reader

Absolutely. It sounds dodgy as hell to me.

tonyopmoc
Reader
tonyopmoc

I think it entirely possible that USAF Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (retired) story is partially true, and that Julian Assange is receiving medical treatment in the hospital wing of Belmarsh prison. The poor bloke has been holed up in a small room in the Ecudoarian Embassy, for an exceedingly long time, and before then in Wandsworth Jail, 9 years ago. That is enough to make anyone seriously ill – both mentally and physically.

However, I find Karen Kwiatkowski ‘s interpretaition of what her sources told her (that he is being chemically tortured) extremely unlikely, for the simple reason, that since she wrote her story, I have seen interviews from 3 different people, outside Belmarsh prison, immediately after visiting him. Whilst they were all visibly upset, and Pamela Anderson was quite emotional, none of these people, including the guy from The UN, even hinted that he was being chemically tortured.

If he was, I am pretty sure Craig Murray, would have been one of the first people to know about this, and he has been writing on his blog today, about Julian Assange, and never even suggested a hint, about him being tortured in this way, and he is a bit of an expert on these things, and has the contacts.

The UK is not The USA.

Tony

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

“The UK is not The USA”,
But it’s the next best thing…

DiggerUK
Reader
DiggerUK

The allegation of “chemical interrogation” is gaining more damaging traction than it should.

It’s absurd. Not a peep from Julian’s defence team. Yet the apologists for USAF Lt. Col. Karen (retired of course) Kwiatkowski, member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity are still at work.

In the original source for this episode, the KK authored article on the chemical interrogation of Julian, it is alleged that US state agents are waltzing in and out of the UK’s maximum security prison with these chemicals and questioning Julian……and nobody else apart from KK has the scoop! Not even his defence team. This story is a week old, wake up, it’s bollocks.

The original on Lew Rockwell’s site makes the claim that Chelsea Manning was also made to undergo “chemical interrogation”. That’s something I was unaware of, and can’t find any evidence to support. But what do I know, perhaps I should ask Karen… _
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/05/karen-kwiatkowski/pray-and-weep/

mark
Reader
mark

If KK received this information in good faith, I would argue, given the appalling human rights records of the US and UK regimes, that she has not only the right, but the DUTY to bring it to public attention. Then even people like you may not be able to shrug their shoulders and brush it aside when JA is found to have “committed suicide” or died of some “sudden mysterious illness”. Expect the worst of these two regimes and you can’t go far wrong.

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

‘The allegation of “chemical interrogation” is gaining more damaging traction than it should.’

Do you still need your dummy? So stop spitting it out. The only effective verification citation for the article is “Source(s)” That means “take your own council on this”. Are you incapable of doing that? If you don’t believe it, don’t believe it; if you do, do. It’s that easy. What should anyone else give a damn over what you thing compared to what they think? As for damaging, damaging to whom? If Assange hasn’t been the subject of an attempted mind-fuck he will shrug it off, take it up with the author, issue a denial directly or via someone else or deal with it legally or privately; if he has then, it will have been either successful or unsuccessful. If it has been successful then there’s a good chance no one will ever find out, possibly including himself and whether they’re in his defence team or not; if it hasn’t then maybe we will find out or maybe we won’t, depending on if, how and when they want/plan to respond.

“This story is a week old, wake up, it’s bollocks.”

Very dogmatic. What insight do you have there apart from info available to everyone else? She said, he said, she said, he said, … that’s the bollocks and you started it. A propos of which:

“DiggerUK”

I wouldn’t trust the Dirty Digger as far as I could throw him, and he–like Karen Kwiatkowski–is a public person who can be traced and contacted, even if only via a slew of secretaries. Who the fuck are you, apart from–maybe–Dirty’s #85 Man in the UK? As far as I can see, apart from hacking O-G’s logs or database–and perhaps not even then–you’re Mr Invisible Shitstirrer, Establishment Misdirector 1st Class and Bar. No? So stop wearing stripes you aren’t entitled to.

May 7, 2019

DiggerUK
Reader
DiggerUK

“May 7, 2019” I think you need to buy a new calendar,( just saying).

Anyway I’ve ticked you up, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Chemical interrogation never did you any harm did it…_

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

My calendar is too OK. I have an upcoming dental appointment and I keep hoping I will wake to find that day has been deleted, but no. May 7, 2019 was a stray date noted from Karen Kwiatkowski’s Twitter account that I was going to refer to in another Reply (as this editor was the most convenient jotter at the time) and forgot to delete here.

That date was the date of her last Twitter on this subject, an announcement of the publication of the original on lewrockwell.com. Somewhere else in these comments it was suggested she appeared to be backing off her claims in a recent Twitter. Checking her Twitters reveals no such (or any) later Twitter re Julian.

Tick me up? Better than ticking me off, for which small mercy many thanks.

UreKismet
Reader
UreKismet

If you put your mind to considering this yarn completely from all angles one is left with the uncomfortable but valid concern that the home office thugs can get just more value in terms of discrediting Mr Assange, from spreading an untrue story about Julian being chemically messed up as they could from ‘interrogating’ him.
Few busy humans fully absorb news of the media marginalised, so if the story grows legs, it won’t matter what the source was, most will assume Julian was who put it about, so if the thugs somehow ‘prove’ this tale was a crock, it will give the warmongering greedies enough of a wedge to extrapolate allegations Julian fibbed about this, into a tsunami of stories about the lack of veracity of all Wikileaks’ publications.

To me that would appear to be a much more useful outcome than trying to send the man round the twist or gleaning any cogent and accurate information.
It is important to steer clear of stuff like this unless/until it has been corroborated.
Slotting Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning up is horror enough, slotting them up and persuading the people everything they released was bulldust is infinitely worse.

Andrew F
Reader
Andrew F

They COULD and WOULD do such a thing, they even MAY have. But, like so many others, I want EVIDENCE beyond “my source”, before I’ll accept that they ARE.
IF they are, then his ‘lawyers’ (such as Jen Robinson), various visitors and insiders (such as Kristinn Hrafnsson) – who remain silent on this and other important questions – are “in” on it.
Or, they are deliberately keeping information from supporters about his current wellbeing and thoughts.
In 14 months Assange has had no direct message to convey out to us via all of these people? Really?
Why didn’t they appeal the Bail Act conviction? Now he’ll never be released on bail due to that conviction.

Tutisicecream
Reader

Clearly when the Skripals can be drugged and made to disappear in plain sight on a sleepy Sunday afternoon in Salisbury, anything is possible from the lying British establishment. When did facts let alone justice ever get in the way of dispensing punishment?

Why remand him and then sentence him back to Belmarsh? High profile he might be – but high security risk he is not. This is the justice of the Star Chamber – which was torture and punishment without proof.

So he is at great risk of being tortured, if not and the state wanted to be open about his welfare, why place him in such a high security institution?

Shardlake
Reader
Shardlake

The disappearance of the Skripals’ by British authorities is extremely disconcerting considering the many factors in that case which simply do not compute.

More discomforting is the fact that an innocent woman died and her friend is reported to have suffered considerably since the incident which took her life.

Keeping truthful facts from the nation have a shelf life and eventually come to light in the fullness of time. I just hope it doesn’t take as long for the truth to be established about Mr Assange’s innocence as it did before Cyril Smith was publicly confirmed as a serial molester of young boys; facts hidden just to keep the then Labour government in power by keeping the Liberal party ‘on side’.

It makes one think any British government is capable of anything no matter how odious or illegal.

Yarkob
Reader
Yarkob

he has regular visitors. that is being pretty open about his welfare. Belmarsh is just a high-security jail. I’ve been there three times over the years to visit somebody. Harsh it may be, but Guatanamo it ain’t.

Yarkob
Reader
Yarkob

that’s not to say I don’t think it’s impossible, nor that i don’t suspect there are aspects of his current detention that beg lots of questions (like why he’s there at all) but that it’s all a bit far fetched

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

I note that the Swedish authorities appear to have bowed to pressure and have today re-opened the Assange “rape” case, purportedly at the request of the alleged victim’s lawyer. Presumably this will now involve an extradition request from them.

Shardlake
Reader
Shardlake

Karen Kwiatkowski’s assertions regarding any torture of Mr Assange have to be taken seriously and I wait in anticipation of any Member of Parliament from whatever political persuasion to bring this matter before the House a.s.a.p.

Mrs May is on record in establishing that nobody is above the law and presumably she includes those who are allegedly abusing Mr Assange. There is a significant section of the population who believe wrongdoings have being committed against Mr Assange while in British detention and they deserve a qualified and clear answer without obfuscation. There is no time to lose as the Swedish authorities have decided to reopen their investigation into a rape allegation against Mr Assange.

As British authorities presently hold Mr Assange the British people need to be assured that any extradition to Sweden will not be a ruse to further extradite him to the USA where further as yet unspecified charges, once they have him, will be laid ultimately leading to an extensive prison term.

If this happens history will show Mrs May’s administration will be every bit as complicit as the Blair administration was in its participation of extraordinary rendition of individuals that led to their incarceration in the Guantanamo gulag. If Mrs May and Mr Javid don’t want their defining political tributes to resemble those of Mr Blair and Mr Straw they should think long and hard about handing over Mr Assange to anyone.

Mr Assange’s legal team need to have these assurances including the need to know if Karen Kwiatkowski’s assertions are independently verified without compromising her source(s).

Yarkob
Reader
Yarkob

“have to be taken seriously” – why? why any more seriously than any other un-corroborated story. There are actual real people in contact with JA on an almost daily basis. I just don’t think something of this import would be ignored and/or not totally milked by them..It just doesn’t add up.

Nothing can be said to be “have to be” until suitable evidence presents itself. Perhaps the sentence “should be” is a better one?

Shardlake
Reader
Shardlake

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting, I do not believe I suggested Mr Assange’s case deserved more or less investigation than any other uncorroborated account. I have no doubt that real or even imagined people whoever they may be are in contact with Mr Assange on a regular basis.

Let us assume the people to whom you refer among others would be his legal representatives and in that respect I’m sure they would, quite rightly, at the appropriate time present his case to the Courts providing favourable evidence that neither you nor I have any knowledge about at the moment. May I suggest to you this may contributory factor for the reason why you think the current circumstances make little sense.

My concern for Mr Assange, along with a substantial number of other contributors to this site, is that he receives, as you too seem to demand, no more or less genuine justice to which he rightly entitled. Regrettably, both Britain and the USA have an unenviable record in that regard by suppressing full information to the public at large.

I take your point entirely using the word ‘should’ rather than ‘have’ might have been more appropriate and thank you for pointing that out.

Philip Roddis
Reader

Tangential but germane. Letters of support can be sent to Julian. Here’s mine:

Julian Assange
D.O.B. 03/07/1971
HMP Belmarsh
Western Way
London SE28 OEB
England

Dear Julian

Thank you for your courage. It shames me as a socialist that so many whose leftist views should have had them backing you, in gratitude for the truths you brought us and to demand an end to the price you continue to pay for that, instead look the other way – or worse. Cowards or simply credulous, they ran for cover the moment those rape rumours, their timing, convenience and lack of substantiation enough to make a Stalin blush, were circulated.

Be of good heart. History will vindicate you. Meanwhile, many of us refuse to buy the lies and smears not just of right wing media (indeed, some voices on the right, like American Conservative, have challenged the narrative of demonisation) but by a ‘liberal’ press led by a Guardian which betrayed you and betrayed – it has form on this I’m afraid – the once sacrosanct journalistic principle of protecting sources.

As Wikileaks showed, these are dark times: rendered all the more so by those who, professing a fashionable cynicism they take for scepticism, are duped by the lies of the powerful, defending their interests at whatever cost to humanity. To those who grasp the nature, extent and causes of that darkness, you are a man of honour and principle.

Be of good heart.”

* * *

NB – if you do write to Julian, you do need to put your own address on back of envelope. Without it, your letter won’t be delivered. (Not sure if D.O.B is needed but it was in the template I saw on FB.)

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

As well as writing to your Local/National MSM, MP, MEP, Congressman, Senator, …?

Philip Roddis
Reader

That too.

Philip Roddis
Reader

“The people stating that this is untrue and fake news are not offering any substantiation, just mostly name-calling, while I have a source that I trust and who is well placed.”

Strawman, surely? I may have missed them, but don’t recall comments below the original piece decrying it as untrue. I do recall a good few echoing my view that though such treatment is indeed likely, without any evidential basis the story is of little value. I for one would have relayed Karen’s claims on my own site, had they contained something to back them up.

Raging commentators? I think not.

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

“Strawman, surely? I may have missed them, but don’t recall comments below the original piece decrying it as untrue.”

* This claim is fake.

* She’s lying.

* If she [KK] doesn’t now fall on her sword, she should be marched outside and put up against a bloody wall…_

* It is obvious that it is a hoax.

* This story is bollocks. False. Shameful journalism…_

* The story is shit.

* As the story is completely bogus it is, by your description, expert garbage…_

* Karen is a self declared Capitalist. See above. Thats all the suspect one needs.

Philip Roddis, Write-Only blogger?

DiggerUK
Reader
DiggerUK

As a “raging commentator” let me point out the absence of credibility in your account. I am not asking for your sources to be identified, I am demanding proof of the chemical interrogation you claim.

Julian has a defence team who visit regularly, he also has friends visit, none of them have reported anything untoward.

Another major point to take on board is the simple act of parole; he will be out of prison a long time before any extradition request from any country is decided.
Imagine the scenario, he walks out of jail on parole……and says nothing. What numpty accepts what is obviously complete crap, I’d get back to your source if I were you.

Did you ever, or are you now, going to check the facts with Julian’s defence team. I don’t think so.
You are either a fraud or a fool. Proof will force me to eat more humble pie than has ever been served to any human being in history…_

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

“I am not asking for your sources to be identified, I am demanding proof of the chemical interrogation you claim.”

Spot the Problem #31227

mark
Reader
mark

JA is about as likely to get parole as you are to be struck by lightning.

Yarkob
Reader
Yarkob

You made the best and most obvious comment on the original thread. It was exactly my point, but you made it far more succinctly, and I quote: “If true, I believe that Julian’s defence team would have blown this story all over the net”

Simply this.

mark
Reader
mark

There are literally scores of synthetic poisons, developed at a cost of billions, and hundreds of more traditional mundane substances, that can bring about death mimicking natural causes or causing untreatable terminal conditions. I would not be in the least surprised if JA was murdered in custody. After David Kelly, I think the chances of this are at least 50 – 50. That is the situation we are in. You can pontificate like Rumpole of The Bailey if you get a kick out of it, and give pedantry a bad name, like Digger, if that’s your thing. These people shot the US President like a dog in broad daylight with millions of people watching and got away with it.

Yarkob
Reader
Yarkob

i’m not sure i’m pontificating, mark. just voicing an opinion. like you. you clearly think your opinion is the right one. go you. i also don’t think i’m being pedantic for having a differing opinion to you (now i’m being pedantic) but whatever. you seem to be the one who gets the kicks around here. i’m just taking part in an online discussion on a website.

10/10 for the Rumpole reference, though.

have a nice day

Fair dinkum
Reader
Fair dinkum

Psychopaths have only one rule:
YOU LOSE.

Rhisiart Gwilym
Reader
Rhisiart Gwilym

So – still just the “one source, whom I cannot name. Trust me.” and nothing else. We still await corroboration – or not – from those friends of JA who are actually allowed to visit. Nothing yet. And there’s still that suggestion – from Pepe Escobar – that Karen was psyopped with this story, to discredit VIPS.

Still a wait-and-see impasse. No conclusive confirmation. Entirely plausible, though, that the crawling US-vassals of the ukstate would permit their master’s thugs to commit such crimes within the British outposts of the US gulag system, as a substantial portion of Britain’s spying (domestic as well as foreign), police and prison system has now become.