The Guardian restricted in publishing Wikileaks

The Guardian was afraid to publish and sought the protection of the New York Times.

The idea that the press in Britain is subject to state censorship and intimidation is hardly a revelation, but seldom has the point is been demonstrated so clearly.

When Julian Assange and Wikileaks handed over the US Embassy cables to The Guardian in London, the paper was afraid to publish them. In the first place, The Guardian feared publication would be prevented by court action.

In a lecture on 10 May 2011, the editor-in-chief of The Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, spelled out the point:

We suspected that, if we went it alone under the framework of laws governing newspapers in this country, we simply wouldn't be allowed to get away with it. We would be sued, or injuncted,"

Such legal threats of prior restraint were not all. Rusbridger was also given “some bloodcurdling learned opinions" about what might happen to him personally and to the newspaper if he published the material.

The solution was to publish in partnership with the New York Times - in other words, to hide behind the US constitutional protections of American media. The Guardian would be safe because there would be no point in attacking it as the New York Times was simultaneously publishing the same material.

Rusbridger made the point like this: "It seemed a good idea to harness the whole exercise to a country with extremely robust media laws rather than risk it all on the quicksands of the British legal system."

I am not saying that the decision was wrong, but it is interesting to ponder on what Rusbridger might have done, had the New York Times not agreed to assist in the publication.

Most of the discussion about the control and bias of the press centres on issues of ownership and finance. Yet it is still the case that the British state retains powers to gag and intimidate the press. The Left often seek to criticise liberal democracy, but it is often more to the point to criticise the limitation on liberal democracy in Britain.

What leaves me wondering is why a prominent Swedish lawyer and politician, Claes Borgstrom, and then a state persecutor, Marianne Ny, should go to so much trouble to re-open a case which, as far a sex crimes go, is a relatively minor one, even if true – and more than that is almost impossible to prove.

The facts of the case suggest little chance of a successful prosecution if only because the case can only revolve around his word against hers about events occurring during what started out as consensual sex in bed in a private place. Moreover, the subsequent behaviour of the two women point in the direction of malicious accusations.

Some might argue that Claes Borgstrom and his compliant prosecutor want to score points for gender politics by focussing on a prominent but vulnerable individual like Assange. But that hardly makes sense. Across the world the charges levelled against Assange make Sweden look ridiculous.

Added to that, it needs to be explained why Sweden issued a “most wanted” notice to Interpol for the arrest of Assange. Higher authority than Ny must have been involved.

In short, it seems as if the women are not honey-trap agents, but became somebody’s useful idiots after the event. What needs explanation is why the case is pursued by Sweden with such vigour, when Sweden’s best interest would seemly be served by being rid of the man

The nonsense in Sweden's case against Assange

The Swedes say they haven’t charged him, and they just want to question him. Assange says he is prepared to answer their questions; and Swedish prosecutors are in the court hearing today.

Why are Swedish prosecutors prepared to travel to Britain to attempt to get him extradited to Sweden but not to question him in Britain?

Why is it so important that these questions can only be answered in Sweden?

The Meaning of the Wikileaks leaks

The US embassy cables put into the public domain by Wikileaks do not contain any top secret intelligence and hardly tell us anything that we did not already suspect. Nevertheless, they are important in two ways: first, they are highly embarrassing to the US, so those who oppose US imperial power around the world can enjoy the Schadenfreude; and second – and more importantly – they provide evidence for much of what the left has previously believed to be true.

For me the most interesting is the confirmation of the utter subservience of the British government (both New Labour and the Coalition) to US interests. The constant and repeated mendacity of Blair-Brown government is well illustrated; for instance in deceiving the electorate and parliament on matters such as the outlawing of cluster bombs for PR purposes while clandestinely allowing the US to continue to hold them on British soil.

That Liam Fox gave full details of planned military procurement to the US Embassy hardly raises as eyebrow. Yet it is interesting to note that when the cables revealed that a FDP official had given details of the coalition negotiations in Germany to US diplomats, he lost his job within hours.

Will the publication of these cables do long term harm to the US? I don’t think so. If three million Americans with security clearance had access to this data base, we can be sure the information therein was already common knowledge in Paris, Moscow and Peking. Certainly, publication will force those wanting to cooperate with the US to think twice before opening their mouths to US diplomats, but overall the cables prove something very favourable to the US: for the most part US embassies function properly and orderly in promoting US interests around the world.