The show trial of Assange in London

Proceedings in London are unfolding in the predictable way. The US side is claiming that:

He [Assange] is not charged with disclosure of embarrassing or awkward information that the government would rather not have have disclosed… The disclosures charges are solely where there was a risk of risk. [sic.]

The risk claim relates to the claim that Assange released information which “would” place informants in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk. The claim is that Assange released the names of “individuals who were passing on information on regimes such as Iran and organisations such as al-Qaida”. Of course; relying on Iran here in the same breath as Al-Qaida is a reflection of a uniquely US view of the world. The European view (without Johnson) is that Iran is a reasonable country with whom we can do business. The use of Iran in this manner is a kind of a trope. Is a ‘non-political’ and juridically independent British court going to let it pass? Continue reading “The show trial of Assange in London”

Lies about the Afghan war

The Washington Post has obtained and published documents from a unit which was set up to investigate waste and inefficiency in the US efforts in Afghanistan. (Sigar).

The documents show that the US – under  3 administrations – has been duping the American public about the Afghan war – attempting to present it as a success even when they knew it was a costly failure (in lives as well as money). Continue reading “Lies about the Afghan war”

Propaganda on the INF

It is essential to blame Russia for the collapse in the global framework of arms control.

It is disappointing but perhaps not surprising to see even ‘senior’ journalists engaged in the work of propagandaising this message on behalf of NATO and the US. This is a piece in the Guardian attributed to the Guardian’s world affairs editor, Julian Borger, and another writer.  Continue reading “Propaganda on the INF”