Via Disobedient Media
This article is my own intellectual property: I am reposting for the purpose of securing the article in blockchain.
Less than 48 hours after a UK judge ruled against Julian Assange's legal team in their efforts to free him from the Ecuadoran embassy, The Intercept published a disingenuous and sloppy character assassination against the Wikileaks Editor-In-Chief.
The timing of the article's publication acted to brutally counter growing support for Assange that arose in the wake of a clearly unjust UK ruling. Essentially, the publication of the smear attempted to deflect attention from the revelation of corruption in the ongoing detention of Assange, and to assassinate his character in the process.
The Intercept's decision to publish the article at such a time unfortunately serves to characterize the outlet as a servant of the same US deep state that The Intercept has gained a reputation for - at least in theory - opposing.
The serious errors contained in The Intercept's character assassination of the Wikileaks co-founder were quickly dismantled earlier today by independent journalists including Suzie Dawson, Caitlin Johnstone, HA Goodman and others. That Micah Lee, who has engaged in continual attacks against Assange on social media, would be allowed to contribute to an article of this kind represents a fundamental conflict of interest in the work, not to mention the factual inaccuracies and assumptions it makes without so much as pausing to take a breath.
The claims made in The Intercept's hit piece regarding messages sent privately by Wikileaks' Twitter account were disingenuous on multiple levels, beginning with the assumption that Assange was the sole author of the texts. The inference is clearly stated in the article, destroying any shred of journalistic integrity that might be expected from a well-respected news outlet.
Assange addressed the intentional inaccuracy of The Intercept's coverage of the messages:
Given the premise that The Intercept's smear aimed at Assange was integrally flawed, the most important aspect of the publication in the mind of this author is that it came just over 24 hours after a critical ruling was made by a UK magistrate that upheld an arrest warrant against Assange. In light of this context, the importance of the Intercept's smear piece is what it was meant to distract from.
As Disobedient Media previously reported, UK magistrate Baroness Emma Arbuthnot, ruled against Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange when she upheld an arrest warrant against him yesterday. Arbuthnot is intimately linked to the interests of the same military industrial complex whose wrongdoings have been so thoroughly exposed by Wikileaks.
In the wake of Arbuthnot's ruling, independent journalist HA Goodman discussed the situation with human rights activist, comedian, journalist and Wikileaks supporter Randy Credico. During the conversation, Credico detailed Emma Arbuthnot's connections to deep state interests. She is married to James Arbuthnot, whom The Guardian described as: "The veteran chairman of the defence select committee and a former defence minister."
Renowned Journalist Craig Murray also noted the magistrate's connection to UK intelligence agencies, writing:
“Security Intelligence Consultancy” SC Strategy Ltd has only three directors. One is the husband of the judge in yesterday’s Assange ruling. One is the former Head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett, who is synonymous with crooked security operations and personally wrote the notorious dossier of lies on Iraqi WMD, thus causing the subsequent deaths of millions of people. One is Lord Carlile, who was notably close to protected Establishment paedophiles Greville Janner and Cyril Smith. Is the British Establishment not endlessly fascinating?"The decision by Emma Arbuthnot to uphold the warrant that was created in response to a now-defunct Swedish investigation reveals the fundamental cause for Assange's ongoing arbitrary confinement. Namely, the US and UK military interests and corrupt power structures that have consistently been exposed by Wikileaks' publications.
Such entities have been chronically embarrassed by Wikileaks' publication over the years, stretching from the Iraq War Logs to US State Department Cables to the DNC emails and CIA malware in Vault 7, which earned Assange the ire of CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
It appears particularly calculated and outright malicious that The Intercept would publish a tabloid-esque hit piece aimed at Assange one the day after Arbuthnot's decision. The timing of The Intercept's publication revealed the outlet to be little more than a mouthpiece for the United States intelligence community, in the same class as the Washington Post and other legacy press outlets.
Before the first in the series of rulings was announced, Disobedient Media reported that documents provided by outstanding Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi showed the UK had pressured Sweden to continue its investigation into Assange after Sweden indicated it would drop the matter. Additionally, the Maurizi's witness statement in the case indicated that Assange had likely given up the possibility of freedom for the sake of aiding whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. Arbuthnot's dismissal of Assange's lack of access to health care was particularly chilling:
As this author noted, the comment indicating that Assange's health "could be much worse" was particularly disturbing in the context of an unknown white powdery substance sent to Assange last week, along with a death threat.
In addition to her sadistic comments in regards to Assange's health and the legitimacy of the health conditions suffered as a result of his ongoing arbitrary confinement, Arbuthnot belittled the findings of the United Nations Human Rights Committee Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Stefania Maurizi noted the findings of the group:
In response to the UN WGAD's findings, Arbuthnot wrote in her ruling that she gave "little weight to the views of the Working Group." That Arbuthnot's decision was overtly unjust is plainly visible to any casual observer. As Assange and his supporters have often noted, the Wikileaks co-founder has already served three times the maximum penalty for skipping bail.
Critically, the decision combined with the personal connections of the magistrate involved revealed in broad daylight once and for all that the real impetus for Assange's ongoing detention stems from military powers that have no interest in justice whatsoever, not from a Swedish investigation of sexual abuse. The obvious injustice of the ruling spurred an upswell of support for the Wikileaks Editor-Inc-Chief, which makes the timing of the Intercept's article particularly malicious.
The outlet's shameful attempt to kill support for Assange at such a critical moment goes beyond sloppy journalism and enters the territory of acting on behalf of the American deep state.
You'd think there would be more outrage back here in Oz about this blatant injustice against one of our citizens. Oh wait. That's right. We won't even give him a passport.
All I see in the mainstream media here is support for the ruling of Baroness Arbuthnot (wife of James, the conservative house of lords member, former disgraced MP and parliamentary chairmen of the conservative friends of Israel).
Meanwhile radio presenters and TV panel shows mock Assange and his detention, trying to convince the Australian public he is nothing more than a joke.
But they do care that Barnaby Joyce (deputy PM and former citizen of NZ) is shagging a staffer behind his wife's back, so it's nice to see they have their priorities straight.
Really liked the comments from Craig Murray. "Is the British Establishment not endlessly fascinating?". GOLD !!
It is a very sad reflection on the Australian government - that they betray a genuine Australian hero.
It also says a lot about the lack of diversity in the Australian media.
Very disappointing !!!!
Ugh. So awful. And yes, Murray is a brilliant writer. I am [slightly?] shocked to hear that Australian media is just as bought and paid for as its louder American cousins. I thought they liked to have at least a thin veneer of anti-establishment feeling. Sad times.
It was far more than just a thin veneer, there used to be genuine divergence of opinion prevalent in areas of the Australian mainstream media (ABC, SBS and Fairfax). Those dissenting voices have been made redundant (there has been a lot of redundancies, especially in the print media), moved on or had their shows cancelled.
Take “The Age” (Melbourne centric Fairfax newspaper) for example, former bastion of “The Left”. Gone are the proper journalists, replaced by rebranded articles from Bloomberg, Reuters, Washington Post and the like. Comments section have been locked down, as they were full of disgruntled readers calling the stories out as BS, and reiterating why they have already cancelled their subscriptions. You know things are bad when they now have former Liberal party hag Amanda Vanstone as a columnist. Mainstream news here is ugly. Really ugly.
I should try and find some time to research and write up a blog post about the AU media. Might take me a while though, as I have a busy full time day job.
It is yet another example, if one was needed, of how the British establishment acts as a handmaiden to its masters in Washington.
Ordinary British people should make it clear to their MPs, especially Labour and SNP, that Julian Assange's confinement in the embassy of Ecuador is a stain on our nations reputation of being a democracy.
We should all tell Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn that he must demand the release of Assange.
Agreed on all points. Craig Murray has been doing an especially outstanding job discussing that aspect of this story.
I have written to my local MP about this issue and emailed Corbyn and John McDonnell.
We should really press Labour on this issue as I believe it is now led by people who genuinely care about freedom of speech and are not tied to the coat tails of American imperialism like our current Tory government.
Thank you Elizabeth. This is an atrocity!
Thank you Fly! :)
The thing about The Intercept_, with it's lame-assed hanging underscore, is that it claims to be all edgy and whistle blower friendly, but it is still owned by a rich and douchey sell-out clown who will kowtow to protecting the state it so obviously has allegiance to.
EXACTLY.
Curated for #informationwar (by @stevescoins)
Relevance: Deep State exposure
Our Purpose
Thank you!
Highly rEsteemed!
Thank you so much! :)
Had such high hopes for the Intercept.
It was definitely a genuinely sad day for journalism. I don't expect to always agree with any person or any outlet but this article and the timing of its release was absolutely damning.
OMG, a court case presided by a judge with links to and acting as a protection racket for the military industrial complex....Who would have thought!
I quit trusting the intercept a long time ago, along with Glenn and Scahill. While atrocious, this is not surprising.
Hey, just thought I'd check in and ask what you thought about this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/u-s-charges-13-russians-3-companies-for-hacking-election
Which basically disproves your entire website and best I can tell your life work, and that of this 'adam carter'(if he exists, search of disobedient media doesn't return any hits on his articles and if you click the symbol that represents his picture nothing happens anymore....):
https://archive.fo/AD6sH
https://archive.fo/J13yW
https://archive.fo/1Y8R0
https://archive.fo/E6wJZ
Considering your work with suzie who has to seek asylum in russia for unspecified/unclear reasons, this is really really bad for your website.
I'll give you a chance to respond, because I want to post it on my blog for laughs. My last blog post by the way derived all of this without the extremely proven facts that russians interfered in the election, and ham-handedly, incompetently, obviously.
I wonder, how did your journalistic skills miss that? Are you going to double down and now try to demonstrate these indictments are all wrong and you have the real story?
Do tell, Im all ears.