William Haig has uttered worlds which amount to the threat of committing an act of war against the nation of Ecuador. Not only was he wrong both in fact and law but it is staggering that the British government would wish to be so aggressively belligerent against a nation which not only peaceably and inoffensively goes about its lawful occasions but does so in pursuit of worthy and high principled aims.
At a time when the British government should be making friends in South America, in support of the freedoms of the Falkland islanders, it prefers to threaten war in a manner reminiscent of the worst of Fascist or Soviet tyrants.
In what cause does the British government threaten throwing away the rule of law?
It rather appears it is in pursuit of a ruse concocted between the governments of U.S.A. and Sweden whereby, as an abuse of extradition agreements, Sweden will extract Julian Assange from Britain so he can be sent to U.S.A.
Why would these governments undertake such wrongful actions? Why, because Assange has dared to tell the truth about the U.S. government.
What makes it appear that the Swedish action is an abuse of law? If there were any facts or case or even a genuine allegation against Assange the Swedish prosecutor would take the opportunity to question him. The fact that there seems no interest in doing this suggests there are, and rather transparently, no questions to ask. It would follow that extradition to answer criminal charges is the emptiest of shams, it would suggests the Swedish government’s only interest is in extracting Assange from Britain. It would further seem the British and Swedish governments, at the very highest level, are morally and constitutionally unfit to rule, being determined to suppress the rule of law in the interests of promoting tyranny and the suppression truth: in short their actions are the very opposite of what they were elected to do.
I hope I’m wrong:
I hope Haig will be dismissed for threatening war against Ecuador,
I hope the Swedish prosecutor will produce a factually strong and corroborated case against Assange.
Until these things are done, let me remind the over-mighty citizens in government of the aphorism,
“Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 22
The man portrays himself as some kind of Internet martyr. As a woman, I think whether guilty or not, he should voluntarily return to Sweden.
Whether or not Sweden agrees to extradite him to the USA should be dealt with AFTER the sexual assaults.
Whatever you think about Assange, all else should be secondary. After all, if governments can abuse Assange why should they not abuse you?
It's costing my country 50 thousand GBP per day to guard the Embassy and he had already exhausted all legal avenues here. We don't want him.
She has me on her side Jerry and if you did decided to ask the majority of the British people you would find that they to agree with her and myself. Do not presume to know the mind of the British people over this incident because you don't.
Mike, off topic, I mailed two books to you several weeks ago. Did you receive them?
'God, Us and the Universe', together with 'Amen and Jesus' Revelation' should be reviewed here and elsewhere - with your permision.
My little comment on the moral corruption of those in power is of small consequence in comparison.
In addition to "God, Us and the Universe" and Amen and Jesus' Revelation, I will be publishing my 4th book titled, "AMEN" and its subtitle is, 'The Beginning of the Creation of God.' It should be released possibly end of September or October.
It's always good to hear from you.
The point of the present article is to help people see government as so lost in its own lies that it sets itself above the Law. If the responsible government ministers were capable of seeing their lies they would not set themselves above the Law; but the enormity of their error is such they are unlikely to be great enough as people to admit it, even to themselves.
The beauty of your books is they show the Truth in a helpful, direct and unthreatening way. They make it harder to form lies or, having formed them to sustain them.
Reading your response on my 77th birthday gives me extra happiness.
Truth will always win out in the end. My books reveal a truth that has been kept silent because religious orgainizations are stuck with such dogma that they cannot progress to the next level of moral development.
Readers may view my website by just placing an Internet search on my name,
Nicholas Ginex
The Falkland people have all the freedom that they want and they are well protected against any belligerent South American country no matter who they are, be it Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela or any other tinpot Dictator in the World.
As for Assange I have a message for him and for any other law breaker who thinks he or she can come to my country and break the law, its an old British saying! If you cant do the time don't do the crime. And a personal note for this piece of scum who is costing my country millions of £s. You were a big man when you thought you would get away with revealing State secrets to our enemy's that in all honesty will have cost the lives of many a good man and woman MAN UP AND TAKE YOUR PUNISHMENT YOU COWARD.
Besides, who are you or I, or government ministers, to say who is a saint and who a sinner?
The duty of government is to uphold the Law whether they like it or not. Those who set themselves above Law are invariably abusive and wrong as to the whole of their government - whether they started by meaning well or not.
Years ago in my country a wanted felon could run to the church and demand protection the church now is any Embassy that will take you in.
Besides, who are you or I, or government ministers, to say who is a saint and who a sinner?
Exactly that's why we have a justice system that decides these things so if your not guilty as charged Assange face your accusers like a man.
It could be said it was King Henry II who really started the English Common Law. It was the habit of kings to refer problems the Law did not well answer to their lords Chancellor, Henry's Lord Chancellor was Saint Thomas à Becket. Successive Chancellors laid down the principles or Maxims of Equity by which the Law should be over-ruled, one of these is, "He who comes to Equity must come with clean hands" - i.e. innocent of wrongdoing.
As it seems the Swedish prosecutor has no questions to ask Assange and that therefore either the Swedish authority is in gross dereliction of duty or there is no substantive case, and also, as other things may emerge about the Home Secretary's dealings with U.S. or Swedish authorities, would there not be grounds for saying the Home Secretary did not come to the Assange case with clean hands?
Are there not grounds for asking the Law Lords to strike down the extradition order?