Admittedly, I am guilty of mixing a couple of apparently unrelated subjects here: but, as you’ll see, there’s probably good reason for doing so.

There’s a big debate currently going on in the UK.

The big debate is over two brutal jihadists – Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh – and their extradition to the United States: or, at least, their being allowed to be taken from Syria to the United States.

The two of them were part of the high-profile “Beatles” cell of British ISIS fighters who participated in the brutal execution of high-profile foreign victims at the height of the ISIS psy-op and ‘caliphate’ – which, bear in mind, was created in Iraq and Syria as a result of US-led geo-political activity in Iraq, Syria and Libya.

To non-UK-based people reading this, the issue is that the UK – until this announcement – was understood to hold a firm moral position against the death penalty: and against cooperating in the extradition of anyone who is liable to be facing execution.

Shami Chakribati framed the Home Office’s decision in these terms, saying that Sajid Javed had ‘secretly and unilaterally abandoned Britain’s opposition to the death penalty‘ – a position that had previously negated the extradition of anyone expected to face execution in another country.

This agreement seemed to have been arrived at in secret – with the Home Office acting on its own, without any discussion in parliament, to alter UK foreign policy.

What’s the big deal, you might ask? After all, who cares about two scum-bag barbarians?

Well, I don’t. But that’s not really the issue. In fact, I’m sure they’re very much relying on our general lack of sympathy for these two individuals in order for a new moral re-positioning to be embraced or even celebrated by the majority of people.

 


There’s two angles I want to go with here, one being very specific, the other being more general (though they’re both related): and I’ll start with the first. Because, I suspect, this whole business with the two ISIS barbarians might be a red herring.


 

Why?

Just prior to the announcement that the two ‘Beatles’ would be allowed to be sent off to the United States, it was also being reported elsewhere – though with MUCH LESS mainstream media attention – that Julian Assange might be days away from being arrested by British authorities and extradited to the United States.

According to sources I was reading on the 22nd July, the decisive move against Assange might’ve been mere “days away”.

Note that the breaking story about the two British ISIS jihadis was put out the day after; almost as if to (1) deflect any attention away from the Assange story, or (2) provide a new paradigm by which the British government could extradite someone to a state (the US) which could potentially execute them.

In an article from 21st July (one day before the story about the British jihadis broke), Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept reported the following, based on alleged sources close to the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry: “Lenin Moreno travelled to London on Friday for the ostensible purpose of speaking at the 2018 Global Disabilities Summit (Moreno has been using a wheelchair since being shot in a 1998 robbery attempt). The concealed, actual purpose of the President’s trip is to meet with British officials to finalize an agreement under which Ecuador will withdraw its asylum protection of Julian Assange, in place since 2012, eject him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and then hand over the WikiLeaks founder to British authorities…”

The implication was that the withdrawal of protection from Mr Assange could happen within less than a week.

Note that all the talk about the two ISIS scum-bags is about whether they will face execution in the United States – and whether the UK Home Office was right to break from established precedents by which the UK would never extradite someone in those circumstances.

And then note that the whole REASON Julian Assange has been in the Ecuadorian embassy all these years is PRECISELY because he fears EXECUTION in the United States.

And then note that these two stories seem to emerge at the precise same time: and that the Assange story got practically NO coverage in most mainstream media, while the jihadi story got tons of coverage.

My reading of things could be wrong (and it depends largely on whether the reports on Assange’s situation are accurate or not): but it looks to me like the ISIS story is being put out to PAVE THE WAY for the Assange extradition. Specifically, what the Home Office seems to be saying is that – now that Britain feels free of EU human rights regulations – it is no longer morally-bound to protect anyone from execution in a foreign country.

 


But what they’re really talking about is probably Assange – the two ISIS medievalists are simply to either test the waters or establish the new precedent.


 

It remains to be seen what happens, of course.

My suspicion is that this is really about Assange: I might be proven wrong, but then my broader suspicion also is that these two individuals are simply being used as a timely tool for altering the UK’s position on extradition criteria.

And the best way to do that is to – in the first instance – avoid having it be focused on someone like Assange and to instead have it be focused on the lowest of the low: two barbaric terrorists who’s blood the masses will be baying for anyway.

In an article here a few months ago called ‘The End of International Law’, I wrote about how this dynamic works. Granted, this current issue with the two jihadists isn’t necessarily about a violation of international law, but a perceived reversal of a national moral position or principle.

But part of what I wrote about then was how, when international law and norms need to be violated or devalued for various reasons, the way it is done is for certain states or powers to violate those laws or norms gradually, incrementally: both to test the waters (and the reaction) and to also establish the precedent by which those laws or norms can be violated again in future or even outright removed.

I used the example then of the US drone-strike policy – whereby suspected terrorists were, for years, being subject to extra-judicial assassination in places like Yemen and Pakistan: and, more recently, Syria and Iraq. Those assassinations (however justified they may or may not have been) were illegal under international law – but they became so commonplace that people stopped talking about them or even caring.

Which, I argued, paved the way for the criteria to be shifted suddenly from drone-strikes on suspected terrorists to a drone-strike (and assassination attempt) on a national leader – specifically, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

But, because the drone strikes were such a commonplace and accepted reality by that time, hardly anyone in the media even batted an eye-lid at NATO’s attempt to murder a foreign leader via extra-judicial assassination – an act that, prior to the years of drone-strikes on terrorist targets, would’ve been unthinkable.

I wrote then: ‘That’s how this shit works. You start with one set of criteria for the illegal thing you’re doing (in the case of drone warfare, it was ‘killing terrorists’) and you let people get used to it: and then you shift the criteria to whatever later suits your purpose (the extra-judicial assassination of the leader of a country)…’

So too when I look at this extradition of the two jihadists do I see the same sort of dynamic at work: you go back on the established moral norms by ‘making an exception’ for the case of two especially vile terrorists who no one has any sympathy for – and then, later, you use that precedent that you’ve now established to apply to someone else (say, Julian Assange – or some future Julian Assange).

That seems to be what this is probably about.

Proving again that the whole ISIS thing – and indeed the entire War on Terror before that – is a gift that just keeps on giving, as far as governments and Deep States are concerned.

On the Assange front, it is just very curious that these two stories emerged together: and that the Assange story has gotten nothing like the coverage that the ISIS story has.

 


Read more:ISIS, Europe & the Fear-Porn Psy-Op‘, ‘Did We Just See an Assassination Attempt on Julian Assange?‘, ‘From Orlando to Paris: The False-Flag Terror Psy-Opera‘…


 

 

Advertisements
Comments
  1. petergrafstrm says:

    I agree that this may be about Assange but in what manner remains to be seen. He has been a Usg asset at least. But who knows maybe also a British one. In addition WL may have received funding from other sources since they had such a business model from the beginning. But the present context probably concerns the angloamerican motives. Will this move by Britain make Equador change their minds about the potential extradition indicated in the article?
    And is this what the British intended?
    If the americans will punish their own agent it indicates a rift inside us ~intel.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m aware, from previous conversation, of your view on the Assange thing: I’m still entirely undecided about whether I share it yet, though I acknowledge there’s a case to be made for it.
      However, on this particular issue, you raise a possibility I hadn’t at all considered yet – that the ISIS/Jihadi business was brought up possibly to discourage the Ecuadorian government from what it was reportedly about to do. That’s a really interesting thought.

      Like

  2. Mark says:

    Involuntary news-TV-viewer — comes with carer role — did get; ‘almost as if to (1) deflect any attention’. Ongoing and ever perplexing is why they bother? As if, the sheep need… more, sedatives in their state? As for JA? Go with no one allowed –he and like the ‘out but in crowd’ — to spill all-beans out Loud. Aka, the 9/11 litmus test. Plus, the geezer around at the start of whole shebang shares concerns. If ever a cause de celebre be Julian. Left and ish, include Libertarians, should be going nuts on Trump and co and in for the long US lock-up. Julian: a litmus test. See him sit in The Hole, will and should, gall the say-independence minded. What else to fight for? Is pressure then… cometh the release — more ‘watch this hand’? Think Wikileaks does less than best and claimed but to think, have no care for justice and hope? Nah. “Free Assange, Free…” Bet there’ll be pop songs. Cry soon coming.

    Liked by 1 person

    • There must have been a pop song already by now, no? But, again, I don’t know where I stand exactly when it comes to Wikileaks. Petergrafstrm has planted sufficient doubt in my mind – but I’m not convinced there’s a clear-cut answer.

      Like

  3. petergrafstrm says:

    I think what is confusing people regarding wikileaks is some documents containing secret lists of identities of both Us and other nations military personnel. Most of the info WL got was sifted by intel since WL was a usg operation which was also confirmed by the obvious bias in the selections in most of it. But that namelist was an exception and the probable reason why they arranged the honeytrap.
    This was 8 years ago and I almost forgot. It is hard to guess whether this was a result of wikileaks being trusted by some independent leaker or the opposite thing. I mean if the idea was to damage internet freedom with reference to national security it could have been part of the plan to render him a martyre. I cant believe his masters wouldnt see the risk of something like that leak and its subsequent handling happening.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.