Originally published at WikiLeaks Central on 1st December 2012.
wide-ranging exclusive interview with WL
Central, former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm
Fraser has accused the current Gillard government of acting as
though Julian Assange "doesn't exist, that he's not an
Australian citizen." Mr Fraser slams the existing relationship
between Australia and the United States as "far, far too close"
and claims Australia is "a strategic colony of the United
States, under current circumstances."
Condemning both major parties for doing "everything they can
to help the United States and nothing that would offend the United
States", Mr Fraser claims that "in many ways our parliament
has abdicated Australian sovereignty".
"If we could ever again get a government that would stand up
for Australian independence, that government would of necessity have
to do a number of things that the United States would not like,"
said Mr Fraser, citing a range of issues, from US bases to
immigration policies, where the government was failing in its duties.
"And nobody is held accountable. Nobody pays the price.
Nobody loses their job. Nobody is demoted. Nobody is fined. Now, you
have to have accountability."
The former right wing Liberal Party leader says today's supposedly
left wing ALP government is "far more right than I was".
Defending his own record in government, which included conscription
for the Vietnam War, the establishment of "shared" military
facilities such as Pine Gap, and rumours of CIA involvement in the
dismissal of the Whitlam government, Mr Fraser insisted that even
former ALP PM Paul Keating, who recently condemned Australia's'
influence, "underestimates the danger of the current
relationship with the United States."
Full transcript below the fold. Audio link
* * * * * * * * *
TRANSCRIPT (starting after 1 min chat)
"I've really enjoyed following your tweets. I guess it's
interesting to see a person in your position using Twitter as a way
to make your voice heard because it's something that the rest of us
all struggle to do."
"Well I think it's important that people be heard. The way
political parties operate today, you get a great deal of
regimentation and not much individuality. There's certainly
individuality on Twitter."
"There certainly is - there's no shortage of it! Speaking of
individuals, Bradley Manning's finally had his day in court, Julian
Assange is still in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. How do feel
that the Australian government, in particular, has handled the issues
of WikiLeaks, and Assange in particular?"
"The government to me appears to have acted as though Assange
doesn't exist, that he's not an Australian citizen. Quite clearly the
United States has been very annoyed and put out at what has happened.
The government has demonstrated - and the Opposition would be no
different - on more than one occasion that they want to do everything
they can to help the United States and nothing that would offend the
United States. You know in many ways our parliament has abdicated
Australian sovereignty. That's something that I think is more than
"Assange... Bradley Manning, if he you know did as alleged,
took secrets or whatever, and then gave them to WikiLeaks, or for
that matter to anyone else, then he is guilty of all sorts of things
under American law. It would seem though from some of the reports
that he's been pretty harshly treated in the lead-up to the trial. At
least now he gets his day in court.
"For Assange, at one level what WikiLeaks has published is no
different from any newspaper publishing something that they get told
by a public servant. It might be more serious, it might be more wide
ranging - it certainly has been - but if you are going to say that if
any whistle-blower or any person in the public service who tells
something to a newspaper - and then that newspaper publishes it - is
guilty of a serious offence, well then that is going to stifle the
media in a very, very major way. The person who gives the information
might well be, and probably is, guilty of an offence, but so far we
have not tried to suggest that the person who publishes it is guilty
of an offence."
WLC: "I guess from Bradley Manning's point of view, if you
are a witness to war crimes then you have an obligation to speak up
for them. So as far as, I guess that's a legal argument in his case."
MF: "Well I guess it is. But the West in recent times - and
not only the United States - has been prepared to condone things from
their own administrations or from their allies which they would
certainly brand as war crimes or terrorist acts if undertaken by an
opponent. In other words, you know, double standards most certainly
apply. The torturing that went on in American jails in Iraq or
Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay, the way that 'enhanced interrogation'
was approved right at the very top by Rumsfeld and the President
himself, and his signatures on documents approving the techniques -
I've seen it - that, I think, is really guilty of War Crimes. The
other thing about it is -"
"I was just wondering, in your own time as Prime Minister of
Australia, how you would have dealt with something like WikiLeaks.
Obviously, the technology is totally different, but I was looking
Wikipedia entry, and you were Minister for the Army in 1966 and
actually handling Vietnam conscriptions, and became Minister for
Defence in 69, and resigned in 1971 because you thought the Prime
Minister was getting too involved in your portfolio, allegedly, which
lead to the downfall of Prime Minister Gorton. People would say,
especially with regards to the, with the possibile CIA involvement in
the overthrow of the Whitlam government, those issues of US
involvement with Australian politics go a long way back. So how do
you think that things have changed since then?"
"I don't really believe that the CIA has been involved in
domestic Australian politics. I didn't at the time, I don't now.
There are many faults that we have in the relationship that we have
with the United States, including during the Vietnam War. Because
while we made a very substantial contribution - about 8,000 troops
Tuy Province - we had no say in terms the overall strategy and
conduct of the war. And you know I think that's very difficult. And
even in those days I said I would never want to be involved in a war
with the United States unless I had somebody in the inner councils,
with strategy in relation to [the way] that war was undertaken. You
know, we've never achieved that.
"But at another level, Americans influence on our defence
machine, on the purchase of defence equipment, on the way that
equipment operates, joint exercises, joint planning, I think the
relationship between Australia and the United States is far, far too
close. I am told - I can't prove it but I am told - that when a new
White Paper comes out on Defence programs a few years ahead, as
happened two or three years ago, that America is almost involved
every step of the way. Now this should be an Australian matter. There
are many things where we might have interests in common with the
United States, but there are certainly Australian interests which we
do not share with the United States.
"You know, we live in this part of the world, the United
States doesn't. They can ultimately withdraw to the Western
Hemisphere. We are part of East South East Asia and this is where our
future lies. And what Paul Keating said about it all the other day is
totally right, but I think Paul underestimates the danger of the
current relationship with the United States."
"I think you have spoken out about, I think you had a letter
to the 'White Paper on Australia's Asian Century' where you spoke
about US drones coming to the Cocos Islands and troops in Darwin and
the possibility of a [US] Naval Base in Perth and again - without
trying to have a go at you, I'm just looking back at history - and
like, Pine Gap started in the 60s and got underway in the 70s, and
then we've got North West Cap and the Geraldton base, which are all
part of ECHELON, and that's a history of perhaps conceding
sovereignty to the US over time. And again I am just interested, how
you think it's come to the point, that the US influence has become so
sort of toxic now."
"Well, the relationship has gone far further and is far
deeper than it used to be. There'd be, um, Pine Gap, as originally
established, was an information gathering operation. It was not
something that was integral to American space warfare or nuclear
warfare. North West Cape, as I am advised, is now critical in
relation to cyber warfare, it's um, well it's again warfare in space.
Its purpose has changed very significantly from that which it was in
the earlier days.
"But look, a number of things have changed. The Cold War is
over. I believe the West needed to show a concerted, if possible,
unified, approach to the Soviet Union, which I regarded as an
aggressive, outward-thrusting power, looking for opportunities. You
know, we forget these days, and it's before most Australians were
born: they put down the Hungarian Revolution in 56, they put their
tanks into Czechoslovakia for the third time in 1968, there were
Communist insurgencies in Thailand, in Malaya, an attempted Communist
coup in Indonesia. So it was really a very, very different world.
"But when the Soviet Union blew apart, there was then an
opportunity to establish a different kind of world. Instead of having
two major Superpowers sort of balancing each other, as the Soviets
and the United States did, there was just then one Superpower,
absolutely supreme militarily and economically. Now there was a great
opportunity to try to make a partner of Russia, for example. But that
was blown totally by pushing NATO, whose job had been done - its job
was to hold the Soviet Union and not to allow them to take over all
of Europe, they only took over half of it, but that half had been
freed. Instead of saying NATO's job was done, that's fine, that's
great, they pushed NATO to the very boundaries of Russia, including
all the countries of Eastern Europe, and trying to include the
Ukraine and Georgia. Now, in other terms that would be like trying to
include Mexico in an offensive alliance against the United States. If
anyone tried to do that, they'd go bananas. So the chance to
establish a co-operative relationship with Russia was pushed aside.
"And in addition to those mistakes, I think the United States
has changed very significantly. It has become deeply divided
ideologically, we've seen the recent debate and the Tea Party's
philosophy is deep and strong. The idea of American supremacy, of
American Exceptionalism, of America's obligation to spread
Christianity and Democracy worldwide, is very deep in a lot of
America. And I don't think that existed through the 50s, 60s, 70s.
It's a different America, in my book."
"Would you agree with Eisenhower's characterisation of the
military-industrial complex, and do you think that those people have
perhaps acquired too much power in the US, and that same sort of
power is now corrupting Australian policy and politics?"
MF: "Well, it's not power from Australian terms. It's the
influence and power of the American Defence machine within Australia.
It's influence over our own Defence Department, over our Armed
Forces, over the equipment they buy, over their operational
procedures. We really, we are a strategic colony of the United
States, under current circumstances."
"I know in 2006 you warned against the continued involvement
in the Iraq War and the possibility of Islamophobia growing in
Australia, and the treatment of David Hicks, and in 2007 you
supported a Getup campaign along those lines, and the following year
you were being called out by a Liberal MP as a "frothing at the
mouth leftie". And after that you resigned from the Liberals. Do
you think that Australian politics has moved so far to the right
that, like, you were the leader of a right wing government in
Australia but looking at Gillard's government today do you feel that
they are in some ways more right than you ever were?
"Oh, they're far more right than I was. Because whatever my
reputation in terms of - and I suppose I was regarded as leading a
right wing government because of my attitude to the Soviet Union,
which I did regard as a dangerous force in the world. But if you look
at the record of my government in relation to human rights, human
rights legislation, the Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman, the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Freedom of Information legislation -
which was stronger then than it is now - the way Vietnamese refugees
were treated compared to the way refugees are treated today, the
values which I carried out in government are really the values which
I still fight for."
"Just going back to what you said about not believing that
the CIA was involved in Australian politics. I know that Gough
Whitlam in his book, he said, he claims that Warren Christopher, the
former US Secretary of State, said to him that "the USA would
never again interfere in Australian politics." So I guess his
interpretation is that that word "again" implies that they
did interfere. And Sir John Kerr was a member of a CIA-backed
"Association for Cultural Freedom" before he became
Attorney General. Do you have any comment on that?
"Well, you know, what you've said, I know that Association. I
think many of its members were good and honourable people and they
were determined to oppose Communism and it was their way of doing it.
I knew a little of what they were doing and I didn't know of anything
that was untoward or that would cause concern. They were certainly
very much opposed to Communism. But I was too. I still do not believe
that the United States was involved in any way.
"Look, if you look at the record, Gough had many grand ideas,
but he could not run a team. And look at his changes of ministers and
the arguments he had with his own ministers, look at the scandals
that went on for 18 months before the end of 75. The 1974 budget was
budgeted for increasing expenditure of 14% in real terms, and you
know if anyone tried to do that today they'd be told they had to get
out of power very quickly. The next budget was a 22% increase in real
terms. So you didn't have to look to any foreign influence, you just
had to look to things that Gough did himself.
"One of things I would agree with Gough... No if I could
just... Gough had a sense of Australian identity. Keating had a sense
of Australian identity. And I think I did. And I would agree with
both of them when they stood up for Australia and for Australia's
independence. Now, the United States may not like that. If we could
ever again get a government that would stand up for Australian
independence, that government would of necessity have to do a number
of things that the United States would not like. I mean one of them:
take troops out of Darwin!"
"One of the interesting things which Gough Whitlam set up
which your government overturned was a Ministry of Media. I'm just
looking now at what's happened with the media landscape in Australia
and round the world, particularly the Leveson inquiry in the UK, and
perhaps Rafael Correa's changes to the media in Ecuador, and
wondering if others?"
"Well, I think it's an absolute nonsense to say that the
media can self-regulate. This is like saying that banks can
self-regulate, that you don't need a Reserve Bank. Or it's like
saying that the corporate community does not need an ASIC to see that
corporations stay within the law and don't rob their shareholders
blatantly and openly. So there needs to be an appropriate supervisory
structure for banks, er, for the media. It will be interesting to see
how the debate unfolds. You know I don't, I wouldn't want a Ministry
for Media, I wouldn't want a Minister involved in doing this. It
needs to be independent. But I also think it needs to be established
by a statute, so that the media itself will have to pay attention to
what it does. But once it's established by statute, that's the end of
whatever the government does. If the government want to have any
influence on it, they are going to have to change the law. And you
really need a process which will enable you to put people in charge
of that media supervisory body who are totally independent. You know,
one way of helping to ensure this may be that the appointment has to
have the agreement of both the government and the opposition. But it
would not be all that easy to get the balance of such a body right.
But I am sure that if it is going to be effective, it would need to
be established by legislation."
"Yeah, personally I think if you have corruption in
government then it's hard to see how anything that is set up to
control the media or the banks is going to be effective. And I guess
that's why I'm a strong supporter of WikiLeaks because I think that
transparency that WikiLeaks provides is really the key to change in a
real sense. For example, the Visa-MasterCard blockade on WikiLeaks is
an example of corporate ability to try to silence media. Now we're in
a landscape where the media - the mainstream media as it's called -
is struggling to make profits, so perhaps that whole media landscape
is changing and the way ahead is more to be defending independent
voices such as Julian Assange's.
"Well, independent voices certainly need to be defended.
Those independent voices though, need to stay within the law as it
is. If the law is wrong, then there has to be a campaign or an
attempt to get that law changed. Look, I passed the first Freedom Of
Information legislation. The major opponents of that legislation were
not my own ministers but the Commonwealth Public Service. And a lot
of things are classified, at different levels of security, that do
not need to be classified. I agree with you that maximum transparency
is very important. And people sometimes classify documents for no
other reason than to protect themselves.
"Transparency, openness - but for that to work you need
something else. You need accountability. And if you take the Palmer
and Crowley reports into the Department of Immigration, they
reveal great grievances were exposed, wrongs against individuals, an
Australian deported and nothing done about it even though it was
known that the Australian had been illegally deported. And nobody is
held accountable. Nobody pays the price. Nobody loses their job.
Nobody is demoted. Nobody is fined. Now, you have to have
"We've had calls for inquiry into the Iraq War..."
"Well, I've supported that. Because I believe we just
followed Britain and America. And I have no doubt that they knew that
what they were saying about Weapons of Mass Destruction was false.
They just thought they could get everyone's agreement, that's a good
reason to have the war."
"I'd like to get back to something you said a while ago,
because I think it's not the most malign influence in the United
States. You referred to the Military-Industrial Complex. The changes
in American ideology which I think have done enormous damage were the
changes that were initiated really by the formation really of the
Neoconservatives, by their statement of principles which was
published in 1999. And by their consequent influence, especially in
the second Bush government, their influence in think-tanks like the
Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. And if you
look at that statement of principles clearly, and boiling it all
down, it's really saying America will only be safe if the whole world
is a Democracy. It's America's job to try and persuade the world to
be a Democracy. But if we can't persuade them, then we do it by force
of arms. I think that people who probably passed exams with First
Class Honours at Yale or Harvard were totally naive, even stupid.
They believed that if you get rid of Saddam Hussein, a benign
democracy would emerge and Democracy would flow from Iraq throughout
the Middle East. Now you might find that far-fetched but I really
believe that is what the Neo-".
(APOLOGIES: recording was cut short just before end of interview.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Posted by Jaraparilla at 8:48 PM
Originally published at WikiLeaks Central on 25th November 2011.
Ever since Britain's The Guardian newspaper co-operated with WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange to publish the greatest document leaks in history, they have pursued a relentless smear campaign against him. As Assange's likely extradition to Sweden looms, this campaign has now ramped up to a point where it has jumped the shark.
Since March 2010, The Guardian has published over a dozen articles criticising Assange (with only a small fraction of that number published in support). There is a singular lack of substance to these ad hominem attacks, which originate from a small circle of closely-connected journalists. And curiously, nearly every one of these critical stories includes the words “anti-Semite” and/or “Holocaust denier”.
So does The Guardian believe Assange is an anti-Semite? Surprise, surprise, the allegation is never made. Rather, Assange is smeared by a tenuous association with an obscure journalist named Israel Shamir, just one of several hundred journalists with whom WikiLeaks has worked in recent years.
Such a co-ordinated campaign of character assassination amounts to shamefully abusive behaviour for a major media outlet. It's time those involved were held to account...
THE MAIN CHARACTERS
As the Guardian's editor-in-chief, Rusbridger directs editorial policy and has the final say on publication. If the Guardian is pursuing an agenda, Rusbridger is behind it. From Wikipedia: "He is a member of the board of Guardian News and Media, of the main board of the Guardian Media Group and of the Scott Trust, which owns The Guardian and The Observer, of which he is executive editor. Rusbridger received £471,000 in pay and benefits in 2008/9."
Given the nature of these allegations, perhaps it's worth noting that Rusbridger's wife is Jewish and his daughter was involved in an anti-Semitic controversy while working as a Guardian comments moderator.
Rusbridger's wife's brother David Leigh is editor in charge of The Guardian’s Investigations Team. An attitude of hissing contempt for Assange runs throughout his book "Wikileaks - Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy", which Leigh published with Guardian colleague Luke Harding. In that book, Leigh published the password to the CableGate files (plus the "salt") although the Guardian has ever since blamed Assange for the unredacted cables' release.
Leigh has never properly explained what Assange did to deserve such visceral treatment. He frequently refers to a secretive meeting where Leigh claims the Australian wanted to release US cables unredacted because "informants deserve to die". Assange claims he never made such a comment, and WikiLeaks has always worked hard to redact leaked documents. But even if he had said it, would that single comment justify a never-ending campaign of hate from a supposedly respectable newspaper?
Now employed as a full-time journalist under David Leigh, the youthful James Ball is a former Wikileaks staffer who apparently took a few things with him when he left. He has made a career writing about his dissatisfaction with Assange, and his “insider” experiences have formed the basis for most of the Guardian's reporting. Ball claims to support the principles of WikiLeaks, "but not the principals". He previously worked as a researcher for Heather Brooke, the woman who passed the CableGate file to the New York Times and then wrote her own WikiLeaks book slamming Assange's character. Ball is now publishing a WikiLeaks book of his own. Ka-ching!?
The man whom the Guardian regularly labels a “notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier” was born to Jewish parents and served with the Israeli Defence Forces before moving abroad and converting to Orthodox Christianity. An independent journalist who claims to have worked with the BBC and Haaretz, Shamir has adopted a variety of aliases while reporting from various locations in post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Is he an anti-Semite? Even some informed anti-Zionist campaigners believe so. Perhaps you should make up your own mind. Here’s Shamir's own explanation of his controversial views.
But here's the thing. Even if you DO believe that Shamir is an anti-Semite, how does that justify The Guardian's vendetta against Julian Assange? Assange claims to have only met Shamir twice; Shamir was given the same level of access to a restricted set of WikiLeaks cables as dozens of other journalists around the world; and WikiLeaks has ridiculed The Guardian's claims that Shamir was paid for his services.
So what's the real agenda behind this Guardian campaign of smear by association?
17th Dec 2010
Andrew Brown's Guardian blog begins: "WikiLeaks's spokesperson and conduit in Russia has been exposed in the Swedish media as an anti-semite and Holocaust denier..." The Swedish media source he cites is Expressen, which is part of a right-wing media group owned by the Jewish Bonnier family.
31st Jan 2011
A Guardian extract from the Leigh/Harding book is titled: "Holocaust denier in charge of handling Moscow cables". The extract quotes “one staffer” and “one insider” - both of whom appear to be James Ball. It also describes “internal WikiLeaks documents, seen by the Guardian” without revealing Ball as the source.
5th Feb 2011
Writing in The Guardian, self-styled Web guru Evgeny Mozorov, pre-emptively declares Assange finished. He throws in an obligatory Shamir reference, albeit fairly recognising him as “a stranger” to WikiLeaks.
16th Feb 2011
Assange contacts Private Eye magazine to complain about an article linking him with Shamir, including leaked emails suggesting Assange does not find Shamir’s writing anti-Semitic. Liberal Conspiracy, "the UK's most popular left-of-centre politics blog", gives a Hat Tip to James Ball for the story. Hmn, I wonder where Private Eye got those leaked emails?
NB: Private Eye, which was "frequently anti-Semitic" until the 1980s, is not always so concerned about anti-Semitism.
24th Feb 2011
David Leigh tries to put the boot into Assange. In an article titled "It's Julian Assange's own 'tizzy' that bamboozles", he ridicules Assange's complaints, casts aspersions on his lawyers, and then (bizarrrely) lectures him about keeping his private life out of the media.
1st March 2011
A week after a judge rules that Assange should be extradited to Sweden, Private Eye's Ian Hislop opens fire in The Guardian. Assange responds: "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word."
3rd March 2011
John Kampfner, CEO of Index on Censorship, cites Israel Shamir as his central reason for not supporting WikiLeaks.
9th April 2011
Esther Addley writes in The Guardian: "Douglas Murray, director of the centre for social cohesion, challenged Assange over the website's sources of funding, its staffing and connections with the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir, who has worked with the site."
2nd Sept 2011
A Guardian editorial blames Assange for releasing the unredacted Cablegate files: "[WikiLeaks] has dwindled to being the vehicle of one flawed individual... occasionally brilliant, but increasingly volatile and erratic." There is no mention of David Leigh's password gaffe, nor of disgruntled ex-WikiLeaks staffer Daniel Domscheit-Berg, whose comments to German media triggered the public exposure of the files.
2nd Sept 2011
Former WikiLeaks insider James Ball writes: Why I Had To Leave WikiLeaks. In this article, Ball cites Shamir as his reason for leaving WikiLeaks, although he also says "the last straw" was Assange's decision to publish the full, unredacted CableGate file (never mind it was his new editors at The Guardian who published the password). Ball also claims that he was worried that after the most important cables had been redacted, "a large volume of cables would remain, of little interest to any media organisation." And yet, when the unredacted cables were released, Ball took no further interest in them. He nonchalantly Tweeted that the media had “had their turn” with the cables, and it was the public's turn now.
18th Sept 2011
Nick Cohen goes to town with a disgusting smear piece in The Guardian: "The treachery of Julian Assange". Cohen claims that the Shamir allegations render anything Assange ever says or does meaningless: "One can say with certainty, however, that Assange's involvement with Shamir is enough to discredit his claim that he published the documents in full because my colleagues on the Guardian inadvertently revealed a link to a site he was meant to have taken down."
26th Sept 2011
Ignoring basic media principles, David Leigh reviews the “unauthorised autobiography” of Assange: "It's a shame Assange couldn't get on with the Guardian... Assange shows, regrettably, that he is living in a fantasy world."
2nd Oct 2011
Karin Olsson, Culture Editor at Sweden's Expressen, is invited by a Guardian editor to write another substance-free smear piece: "Julian Assange: from hero to zero". She calls Assange “a paranoid chauvinist pig [who] cuts an increasingly pitiable figure”. As with the Nick Cohen article, this smear is widely reprinted in newspapers around the world, including Australia's Fairfax media. Once again, Assange's over-hyped association with Shamir is the central pillar of the attack. And as usual with these Guardian smear pieces, readers' comments are overwhelmingly disgusted at the author.
8th Nov 2011
James Ball wades back into the fray, ostensibly in protection of women's rights: Israel Shamir and Julian Assange's cult of machismo. While slammming both men as misogynists, Ball repeats tired claims that Shamir gave unredacted US cables to the President of Belarus. Readers comments – including mine – are again overwhelmingly hostile to the author.
The stories above are by no means a conclusive list of Guardian attacks on Assange. And of course WikiLeaks has been unfairly treated in many other media outlets – particularly in the USA – although curiously the Shamir controversy is generally ignored elsewhere.
So why is The Guardian, of all papers, pursuing such a petty, unprofessional, and unsubstantiated smear attack on Julian Assange? Is his barely noteworthy association with an obscure journalist really cause for so much fuss? Is this an embarrasingly unprofessional editorial grudge born from personality differences? Or can it all be about maintaining control of target audiences in the newly digitised media world?
Wikileaks has laid bare the naked corruption of our ruling elites and their media enablers. So what is The Guardian's agenda here? Who is driving this vendetta and why? Alan Rusbridger has some explaining to do.
PS: More discussion on this post: http://jaraparilla.blogspot.com/2011/11/guardians-vendetta-against-julian.html
An interesting timeline from the comments at my blog:
17/12/10, 4pm - Andrew Brown publishes blog with all source links still in Swedish language. Obviously a rush job as they didn't even bother to translate these sources. Brown even apologises for this at the end of the article. As well as smearing Israel Shamir it also seeks to smear his son, Johann Walstrom - Witness E in the Swedish case and a favourable witness for Assange - by association with his father.
17/12/10, 7pm - The Guardian writes 3 articles on the Belarus cables and 3 on the Cuba cables. It then uploads all its redacted Belarus and Cuba cables to Wikileaks. Some are very heavily - and apparently unnecessarily - redacted. Bear in mind that Israel Shamir was the first journalist to write about the Guardian "cable cooking".
17/12/10, 9pm - Nick Davies publishes the notorious "10 Days in Sweden" hit piece, which shamelessly distorted the leaked police protocol, kicking off the personal smear attacks against Assange in the English-speaking media.
Andrew Brown is the religious ("belief") editor at the Comment Is Free (CIF) section of Guardian. He lived in Sweden previously and still writes about it regularly. He invited Karin Olsson to write the Assange smear, as she admits here.
Following Channel 4's "WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies" smear-filled TV documentary, wikileaks.org has published full details of the Guardian's involvement and producer's correspondence: http://www.wikileaks.org/Guardian-s-WikiLeaks-Secrets-and.html
Posted by Jaraparilla at 8:38 PM