Patrick Eller, a longtime digital forensics investigator for the US army, demolishes US claims that Assange helped Chelsea Manning 'hack' military documents, in the latest report of the extradition hearings from ex-ambassador Craig Murray craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/…
Eller testifies that there is no forensic evidence that Manning's online interlocutor, ‘Nathaniel Frank’, was Assange; and anyway Manning had not needed help from ‘Frank’ either to download the classified documents or to cover her tracks
Further, Eller tells the Assange gearing, there was no way in 2010 to crack the ‘hash key’ Manning sought help cracking.
To top it all, these points were known long ago to US prosecutors because they had come to light earlier in Manning's own trial
Jakob Augstein, Der Freitag’s editor, smashed another pillar of the US claims. He confirmed that Assange was not the first to publish the leak of unredacted cables. Assange had urged Augstein not to publish expressly out of concern for the threat to US informants
Augstein, Freitag's editor, also indicated that the leak of unredacted material he published was linked to the defection from Wikileaks of Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who set up a rival to Wikileaks and is always portrayed in the media as the ‘good guy’ to Assange's 'bad guy'
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Another shameful day for the deeply compromised NUJ. It has deleted its statement of protest at counter-terrorism police interrogating and threatening investigative journalist Kit Klarenberg as he returned to the UK.
Why are we paying dues to this fraudulent union?
The same union sold out Craig Murray by rejecting his membership. In doing so, the NUJ as good as legitimised the Scottish courts' view that independent journalists can be denied the protections afforded state-corporate journalists. I wrote about it here: jonathan-cook.net/blog/2021-07-3…
And yet again we see despicable, self-sabotaging behaviour from privileged journalists like Peter Jukes. As they whine about social media etiquette, and police who should be allowed to do journalism, the most basic journalistic protections are being snatched from us
My latest: The 2020s looks set to be the decade when the BBC cuts out the middleman – 'counter-terrorism experts' – and subjects us to a parade of its own employees posturing as 'counter-disinformation experts' middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-bbc…
Their job will be to explain why some people must be denied a platform to protect the public from 'thoughtcrimes'. It will be essentially the same counterterrorism agenda, with similar goals, but dressed in new garb
We already know how this works. Show solidarity with Palestinians against the apartheid rule of Israel, the West’s key military ally in the Middle East, and you are dubbed an 'antisemite'
2. Monbiot's a perfect illustration of how this works. Rather than deal with the arguments of those breaking out of the corporate media’s binary view of foreign affairs (on Russia, China, Syria, Iran) he demonises them as Putin apologists, genocide deniers, war crimes enablers
3. But what he’s really done is lay the ground for the very slide into authoritarianism at home he so bewails.
That’s why he was such a sucker for the antisemitism smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, and why he’s such a lifeless supporter of Julian Assange
My latest: There was not a 'clash' at Al-Aqsa. It is not the latest episode in a 'conflict' between Israeli and Palestinians. Those supposedly 'neutral' terms conceal what's really happening: apartheid and ethnic cleansing middleeasteye.net/opinion/aqsa-m…
Just as there is a consistent, discernible pattern to Israel’s crimes against Palestinians, there is a parallel, discernible pattern in the western media’s misleading reporting on Israel and Palestine
Reporters describing Israeli state violence against Palestinians as 'clashes' are committing the cardinal journalistic sin Archbishop Tutu warned of.
They're not just siding with the oppressor, they're intensifying the oppression. They are providing the cover story for it
My latest: Into a headline of just six words, the BBC crammed three bogusly 'neutral' words, whose function was not to illuminate or even to report, but to trick the audience, as the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu warned, into siding with the oppressor middleeasteye.net/opinion/aqsa-m…
The 'clashes' at al-Aqsa, in the BBC’s telling, presume a violent encounter between two groups: Palestinians, described by Israel and echoed by the BBC as 'agitators', on one side; and Israeli forces of law and order on the other
That's the context, the BBC implies, for why unarmed Palestinians at worship need to be beaten. The message is reinforced by the description of the seizure of 100s of Palestinians as 'arrests' - as if an occupying, belligerent security force is equitably upholding the law